|
by Edmund Contoski
July 10,
2019
from
Pan-AmazonSynodWatch Website
Source
This is a non-US view and analysis of 'global
warming' as being a swindle to redistribute wealth
on a global scale.
Globalization and global warming are intricately
linked, driving the world into the new economic
system of 'Sustainable Development,' aka
Technocracy.
Source
As the "science" behind man-made global warming has been
increasingly discredited, the story has changed.
Now it's not about
saving the environment but about redistributing wealth,
says a leading member of
the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Ottmar Edenhofer,
a co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and a lead author
of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 (its latest),
recently said,
"One has to free
oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is
environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with
environmental policy anymore."
Ottmar Edenhofer
Edenhofer told a German
news outlet (NZZ AM Sonntag):
"Basically, it's a
big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major
themes of globalization.
The climate summit in
Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference but
one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World
War."
"First of all,
developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere
of the world community," said Edenhofer.
Thus the developers of
coal and oil should pay reparations in the form of global carbon
emission rights and taxes.
Investors Business
Daily commented,
"U.N. Warm-mongers
are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on
everything from airline flights and international shipping, to
fuel and financial transactions."
The Cancun agreement set
up a "Green Climate Fund" to administer assistance to poor nations
suffering from floods and drought due to 'global
warming.'
The European Union, Japan
and the United States have led pledges of $100 billion per year for
poor nations up to 2020, plus $30 billion in immediate assistance.
The agreement says it
"recognizes that deep
cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according
to science" and calls for "urgent action" to cap temperature
rises.
But this chart gives lie
to such claims.
You can clearly see that
on a multimillion-year scale global temperatures have been confined
to a steady band unrelated to even huge changes in atmospheric
carbon dioxide.
Does this graph reveal any need for "urgent action" "according to
science?"
Yet at the Cancun
conference, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned,
"Nature will not
wait... Science warns that the window of opportunity to prevent
uncontrolled climate change will soon close."
The window of
opportunity that is going to close is not a scientific one but a
political one - because more and more people are realizing
that global warming alarmism is based on phony science
and outright lies.
Dr. Fred Singer
Foremost in the struggle to bring essential scientific truths to
light on this issue is the Nongovernmental International Panel on
Climate Change (NIPCC)
founded and directed by the distinguished atmospheric physicist
S. Fred Singer.
With assistance from
climate experts in 16 countries - who donated their time and efforts
- the NIPCC produced a massive, extensively-illustrated 880-page
report,
"out of concern that
the IPCC was provoking irrational fear of anthropogenic global
warming," in the words of Dr. Singer.
The report references
4,000 (!) research papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals that
contradict IPCC conclusions but were not used by the IPCC though it
claims to be the definitive source of climate research.
The entire report
can be downloaded from the
Heartland Institute website.
I shall discuss only one item from the NIPCC report, but it is
fundamental to the whole carbon dioxide/greenhouse hypothesis of
global warming.
Worldwide, there are
20-some GCMs (General Circulation Models) for computer
modeling of global climate change. They all agree - for sound
theoretical reasons - that greenhouse gases cannot
warm the earth directly.
They must first warm the
atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface of the earth. So the
atmosphere must be warmer than the earth's surface.
The NIPCC Summary Report
explains:
"Climate models all
predict that, if GH gases are driving climate change, there will
be a unique fingerprint in the form of a warming trend
increasing with altitude in the tropical troposphere, the region
of the atmosphere up to about 15 kilometers.
Climate changes due
to solar variability or other known natural factors will not
yield this characteristic pattern; only sustained greenhouse
warming will do so."
The models show this "hot
spot" perfectly - but it is missing in actual observations, which
show instead this area to be cooler than the earth's surface.
The Summary Report
states - in boldface type:
"This mismatch of
observed and calculated fingerprints clearly falsifies the
hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming."
The Summary Report
also notes,
"The IPCC has been
disingenuous about solar influences on the climate...
The demonstration of
solar influence on climate is now overwhelming... There now is
little doubt that solar-wind variability is a primary cause of
climate change on a decadal time scale."
The disclosure of
thousands of emails from climate scientists in November 2009 became
known as the "climategate"
scandal.
It raised concerns about
the validity of global warming predictions and the integrity and
professional misconduct of some of the world's leading climate
scientists.
But even before "climategate,"
some important scientists tried to alert the public to the
unscientific nature of IPCC procedures and conclusions.
These scientists were
generally derided as "deniers" by the news media and opinion makers.
The IPCC regularly submits its reports to its Expert Reviewers
Panel. As you might expect, most of its appointments to this
panel have been supporters of global warming.
A few nonbelievers have
been included to give the appearance of balance, but their comments
and questions have been routinely ignored as the IPCC focuses on
what it claims to be the "consensus" view.
Only one person has been been on every IPCC Expert Reviewers
Panel. That man is Dr.
Vincent Gray.
He submitted a very large
number of comments to IPCC drafts, including 1,898 for the Final
Draft of the 2007 Report.
Here are some of his
comments from a letter he wrote on March 9, 2008:
Over the period I
have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by
IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range...
Right from the
beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure.
Penetrating questions
often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were
rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter
were frustrated indefinitely.
Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and
procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by
them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the
conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC,
the data collection and scientific methods employed are
unsound.
Resistance to all
efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has
convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only
rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was
part of the organization from the very beginning.
I therefore consider
that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform"
I could envisage, would be its abolition.
[The] flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures
showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide.
They have
manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us
(including most scientists) that this concentration is constant
throughout the atmosphere.
The models are so
full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is
comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few
climate sequences that might respond.
This sort of evidence
is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.
By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found
myself persona non grata with most of my local professional
associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these
award-winning scientific leaders of the local science
establishment.
When you get down to
it, that is what is involved...
Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle.
The IPCC from the
beginning was given the license to use whatever methods
would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide
increases are harming the climate, even if this involves
manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions
instead of science to "prove" their case.
The
disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only
desirable but inevitable... Sooner or later all of us will come
to realize that this organization, and the thinking behind it,
is phony.
Unfortunately severe
economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before
that happens.
Source
| 
