Thursday, June 15, 2017

Let's take a quick look at the climate change delimma 2


Given the admissions in the previous two paragraphs one has to carefully consider their comments.  They are not random people you finds on the streets. They are high level insiders in the climate change world.  They know of what they speak.  It helps make sense of the rampant illogical conclusions offered by global warming/climate change advocates whether they are scientists, government officials, mainstream media types or anyone else.  Their agenda is to scare people into believing the fraud they are perpetrating on average run of the mill human beings.  Their message:  If we do not believe in climate change we do not care for the planet and future generations.  We are part of the problem and must get on the save the planet team.  What follows are random points that are used and repeated over and over again until the gullible and uninformed buy into their propaganda.

Here is what the Paris agreement proposes to deliver.  You will notice that it does not exactly have fixed goals or binding agreements. Quote: "The central goal of the agreement is laid out in one phrase: "Holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels ..." Limiting the rise in temperature to 2 degrees (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) has been discussed as a global goal for several years now. That amount of warming will still have a substantial impact, scientists say, but will be less devastating than allowing temperatures to rise unchecked."   Also notable is this part of the agreement.  "To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year," NPR's Christopher Joyce reports.  But that amount is identified as a "floor," not a ceiling. "Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," he explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."   This funding transfer appears to be the most important part of the agreement and the most desirable to poor countries.  There appears to be limited controls over how the money is spent once in the hands of the leadership of beneficiary countries.  History of such arrangements is that little if any will be used as intended.  This is a huge flaw.

The logic of treating CO2 as a pollutant is a patently false proposition.  As this item points out, "... eliminating carbon dioxide is genocide against plants."  So to carry that logic further, since plant life is critical to support animal life, including humans, it can be considered participation in the committing of genocide against the human race.  It is a truly oxymoronic proposition.  Quote: Yet, "The primary goal of the Paris Climate Accord — the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide — is nothing less than genocide against all plant life across our planet. That’s because all plants depend on CO2 for their very survival. It’s the “oxygen” for plants, and right now trees, grasses and food crops are starving for CO2 because it sits at nearly the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth (barely above 400 ppm now, when it used to be over 7,000 ppm in the past).  Humans attempting to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere is equivalent to some evil, fictional “plant demon” attempting to eliminate oxygen from the atmosphere, causing the mass asphyxiation of the entire human race. Just as eliminating oxygen is genocide against humans, eliminating carbon dioxide is genocide against plants."   Targeting a substance vital to life on earth is not only unscientific it is irrational.

More insight into the climate change advocates illogical claim that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.  Quote: "Keep in mind that the grand total of all the carbon dioxide from every source, natural as well as man-made, that is floating around in the “air” is less than half of one percent of the total.  What percentage of that less-than-half-a-percent do you suppose is produced by motor vehicles?  You may perhaps have noticed a pattern.  VW was crucified over the fractionally higher amounts of an actual pollutant – oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which are reactive and potentially harmful to people – emitted by its diesel engines.  It was implied that the amounts at issue were huge and catastrophic – “up to 40 times the legal maximum!” it was endlessly screeched. But in fact, the amounts were minuscule – of relevance only insofar as they were higher than an arbitrary government standard. There was no burden of proof upon the government to establish that, in fact, these fractionally  higher/minuscule increases in N0x emissions caused any harm to anyone.  It is the same – but much worse – with this carbon dioxide/“climate change” business.

One of the climate change's favorite arguments for global warming is that the polar ice caps are melting.  According to NASA  not true.  Quote: "Nasa’s own data backs President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, despite the agency’s politicized leaders claiming otherwise. Additionally, recent Canadian Ice Service data shows Greenland ice nearing a  record high as Arctic sea ice extends over 300,000 square miles past its 2016 levels. “The useful idiots in the press who report on climate, continue to insist that the Arctic is melting down and nearing catastrophe,” wrote climate analyst Tony Heller. “In the actual Arctic, sea ice extent is normal and Greenland has gained a record amount of ice this winter.”  In 2015, a NASA study showed that Antarctic sheet ice was expanding, refuting claims by global warming advocates that polar ice would soon disappear."  And, "This further demonstrates that the global warming created by man is just a fraud to get more taxes,” reported Zero Hedge. “Scientists have looked over the logbooks of polar explorers Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton from their expeditions during 1901-1904 and 1907-1909.”  “The theory that sea ice has declined post-1950 because of man cannot be supported.”
Additionally, the sun is reaching a solar minimum, which indicate the Earth is entering a global cooling phase, and perhaps even a mini ice age. “The longest minimum on record, the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, lasted an incredible 70 years,” reported the Global Warming Policy Forum. “It caused London’s River Thames to freeze over, and ‘frost fairs’ became popular.”  “This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the ‘Little Ice Age’ when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes.”
The fact is that climate science advocates have a terrible record of failed predictions based on their clearly flawed models.  Here are some examples. Quote: "The 1975 Newsweek article entitled “The Cooling World,” which claimed Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities, opens as follows: There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteor­ologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.
The article quotes dire statistics from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, Columbia University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison to indicate how dire the global cooling was, and would be".  And, "Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.  The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature data­sets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work." And, "On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and none of those things actually happened. But that didn’t stop the warnings. In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be producing the most “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth."

The impacts of Trump's withdrawal impacts advocates in different ways, mostly it is a personal loss of one kind or another which is at play.  Quote: "The truth about the Paris Accord is that it was a scam from the outset, just like Kyoto.  I wrote on it at the time.  The fundamental scam is that it did not impose hard caps on the plurality of the population of the world — specifically, India and China.  Neither had hard caps nor requirements to spend.  India, for example, only had to make “reforms” if they were paid to do it by the Untied States and others.  Otherwise, no obligation.  China — same deal.  Of course India and China are the two most-populous nations.  Between them they’re over a third of the world’s count of people and India’s population continues to rapidly expand.  Both China and India will eventually start to see population declines, but not for a good long while, and in any event they’ll still be about a third of the planet by 2100.  Exempting either of these nations from any so-called “carbon limits” makes the entire exercise a joke."    This is another example.

No comments: