We hear all sorts of ideas about this false idea that man is causing an increase in carbon dioxide. Let us take a quick look at a research paper from a scientist named Nasif Nahle, Scientific Research Director-Biology Cabinet. The paragraph below is taken directly from his abstract:
ABSTRACT
Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.
The earth is going through a cooling phase and warming alarmists lay claim to their ideology based upon false data that has been twisted to fit the Climate Change, Global Warming Narrative. We will demonstrate this below.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that, since 1940, the planet has been cooling, not warming.
According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.
Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:
Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.
But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen, later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming, not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.
The most commonly used ones were:
- Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities, both with the way they were cited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.
Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here, he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil, which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.
Now this pure evidence showing that the opposite is really happening and our earth is not warming means that these data sets are being manipulated for reasons that are not related to any sort of Climate Change and can be directly related to an attempt by the United Nations to “Redistribute” the wealth of nations to the poor ones. Why else would scientists align with a flawed and fraudulent narrative? We have to show this, and the best way to do so is with an article published December 12, 2015, which shows the United Nations working towards a “Climate Deal” that will “REDISTRIBUTE” money from the rich nations, such as the United States, to poor nations. Read this:
Paris Climate Deal Calls for America to Transfer Wealth to ‘Developing’ Countries
By CNSNews.com Staff | December 12, 2015 | 12:20 PM EST
(CNSNews.com) – The draft of the international agreement to deal with climate change, which is being considered today in Paris by representatives from 195 countries, calls for the developed nations of the world (which include the United States) to transfer wealth to developing nations, including through “public funds.”
“Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention,” says Article 9 of the draft agreement.
“As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds,” says the draft.
The draft agreement sets a goal for developed countries to dole out at least $100 billion per year by 2020.
The agreement at one point says: “Resolves to enhance the provision of urgent and adequate finance, technology and capacity-building support by developed country Parties in order to enhance the level of ambition of pre-2020 action by Parties, and in this regard strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation while significantly increasing adaptation finance from current levels and to further provide appropriate technology and capacity-building support.”
Go to the article link to see just what is going on. This is one of the reasons Donald Trump won the Presidential election: because people are tired of bowing down to the United Nations and their One World Order they wish to impose upon the free nations of the world. Climate Change is a natural occurrence and cannot be controlled. It will slow plant growth if we reduce the Carbon Dioxide of the air. Just trapping Carbon Dioxide will be a huge problem, since it will have costs, and those costs will be passed on to everyone.
Ever wonder just how this “Global Warming” developed?
The “Father” of Global Warming, one Oceanographer named Roger Revelle, was the man who began the “Global Warming” ideology, and it was just to obtain Grant money for the study of this fraud. This is shown below in some excerpts of the article by John Coleman, January 28, 2009 (revised and edited February 11, 2009).
“The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.
Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.
Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.
Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.
At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming.” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.
So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.”
Since that time we saw the fake data being manipulated in the “Climate Gate” where the so-called scientists had removed data that did not prove the Global Warming and made sure the data they used did in fact show that warming trend, even though it was false. In the recent year, Australia a nation that used the Carbon tax and entrapment, decided it was too costly and did away with the program.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who made a pre-election “pledge in blood” to voters and business to prioritize growth above climate shift, delivered on his promise after independent senators with deciding votes in the upper house sided with his conservatives, following a power shift this month that ended years of domination by the pro-environment Greens party.
“Today the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone, a useless destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families’ cost of living and which didn’t actually help the environment is finally gone,” a jubilant Mr. Abbott told voters in a news conference after the Senate’s decision.
He said the carbon price was acting as a A$9 billion a year handbrake on the economy, which was adjusting to the end of a record mining investment boom that helped shield Australia through much of the recent global economic downturn.
Without matching emissions policies in other industrialized countries, Mr. Abbott had said earlier the tax was an unfair shackle on local companies and individuals, unequaled except in Europe, where an emissions market has operated since 2005.
All these ideas sound very good until they are placed into practice and cause prices for electricity to rise beyond what they were prior to the “Tax” on Carbon, which is little more than movement of money around the nation, with little or no affect at all on the reduction of CO2.
In his lecture at Southeastern University of Louisiana, Lord Christopher showed how little all this nonsense would do to help the environment. Lord Monckton stated, “Global warming abated by the tax over the ten year term would be 0.39 (0.00016)=0.00016 Watts per Square Meter. This is so very low that it actually has no affect at all upon the reduction of CO2 or other gases.” Lord Monckton used the formula that the IPCC used to make their case, but Lord Monckton did not skew the data to make it larger.
All this information supports the ideology that the Global Warming/Climate Change debate is over: nothing more than the redistribution of money from the rich nations to the poor ones, without any real actual reduction of CO2 gas.
Courtesy of Freedom Outpost
Leon Puissegur is a Disabled Vietnam Veteran with 3 children and 9 grandchildren. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for 43 years. He is an award winning author and has been writing opinion pieces over the years and in just the last few years has written 4 books and a large amount of articles on many sites. You can purchase his books at Amazon. Pick up his latest The Oil Man.
