Posts Tagged ‘ipcc’

BBC Neo Fascists Suck Up To Rothschild New World Order

March 31, 2014

ipcc climate change
“Those are some effing potent diuretics the United Nations are handing out”

I don’t think anybody would have expected an honest, critical and objective report and analysis of the latest United Nations IPCC scaremongering exercise on the climate. The Beeb cherry picks paragraphs from the report that suggest the situation is a lot worse than it is. For example, of the fifty million refugees displaced from their homes by climate change we were promised by 2012, only a few hundred actually turned up, and it’s arguable that the events they were displaced by (tsunamis, freak weather, volcanic eruption, slum clearance projects etc.) were not actually climate change related.

There is no mention of the fact that in the last seventeen years, despite CO2 levels on the slopes of Mauna Loa, the Hawaiian active volcano which is the site of the sampling station that measures the global average CO2 concentration (yeah, great innit?)

Then they go on to say that even though we have seen no significant economic or humanitarian effects of climate change yet, things will be many times worse in future. Yeah well ……… a million times zero is zero. Big deal.

Read more Hysterical politically correct scaremongering at BBC news

Or why not just wait for the predictable response from mainstream politicians of all parties, “What we need to save the planet is more public spending, more immigration and more gay rights.”

Kerry stops Short Of Saying Climate Science Scepticism Is a Crime But …

Ignore Scarmongering IPCC, science confirms CO2 cools the earth

March 31, 2014

The big news today is the scaremongering report issued by scientists working for the Rothschild Fear and Panic To Justify Theft Of Punters Money foundation also known as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. Despite containing statements that the impacts of climate change are not likely to be as severe as predicted and the predictions of mathematical models used exclusively by the Rothschild climate scientists have so far differed wildly on the alarmist side from observed reality, the fearmongering must go on to persuade people around the world to accept global totalitarian government by Rothschild appointed technocrats.

Science was ever fascism’s whore.

Do not forget however that one of the designated joint authors of the report refused to be associated with it because of the fearmongering, exaggerations, deceptions and lies it contains.

UK professor refuses to put his name to ‘apocalyptic’ UN climate change survey .

Little Nicky Machiavelli @ 2014-03-26

A UK academic has refused to put his name to the ‘apocalyptic’ UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects of climate change.

A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report.

Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’.

His comments are a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on Monday will publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change.

Previous IPCC reports on climate impact have been plagued by errors that damaged the body’s credibility

Continue reading:

And now to add to the woes of the Rothschild scientists, the Rothschild influenced Supranational bureaucracies, the Rothschild owned central banks and the Rothschild lackeys in governments of the world’s great nations, there are still some independent researchers out there doing real research on things that relate to the real world, rather that using the system known as the Rothschild Scientific Method which involves starting from an answer and working backwards to build a case to support it. People like these guys:

Science Confirmed: Carbon Dioxide & Water Vapour Cool Earth’s Atmosphere

Mexican study affirms a 1951 finding by top American scientists that
carbon dioxide (CO2) cannot cause global warming. Applying known scientific values, more eminent scientists are coming forward to confirm
that atmospheric CO2 mixes with clouds and water vapour to cause only
cooling. As such, the credibility of “consensus science” claims about
man-made global warming being caused by rises in CO2 levels are left in
serious doubt.

Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) provides a peer-reviewed paper,
‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands,’
that uses known and well-established values from the results of experiments performed previously by H. C. Hottel, B. Leckner, M. Lapp,
C. B. Ludwig, A. F. Sarofim, et al, showing that the combined
effect of overlapping absorption bands of water vapour with CO2 causes a
reduction on the total absorptivity of the mixture of those gases in
earth’s atmosphere. As such, water vapour and CO2 are proven to combine
to cause global cooling, not warming.

Nahle’s paper affirms the long-forgotten findings of the eminent former head of Britain’s Met Office, CEP Brooks, and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that also revealed that CO2 in the atmosphere could not cause warming. Brooks, Britain’s top climatologist at the time, along with America’s best meteorologists agreed that the idea that CO2 could warm the climate:

“was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapour.”
[see:“Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association]

Scientists at Principia Scientific International(PSI), who peer-reviewed Nahle’s paper, are currently advising colleagues that the most reliable data available now confirms that CO2 is shown to act as a coolant in earth’s climate. As such, the notion of a so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ warming effect may be regarded as refuted, while environmental measures by governments and individuals to reduce “carbon emissions” to combat climate change are, in turn, rendered pointless.

For those interested in reading Professor Nahle’s full paper (revised April
2011), we publish it below:

According to anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
theory, carbon dioxide increases the potential of water vapour to absorb and emit IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping
absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases containing 5% of water vapour and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of my calculations is that carbon dioxide reduces the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapour, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface …

Continue reading at Principia Scientific International

So you see, what the IPCC are trying to scare you with is not Climate Science, it’s Rothschild magic money science(i.e. we need those carbon taxes so the monster can grow because it it does not grow it dies, so the science is settled, naa naa na naa naa.)

Don’t you think its suspicious that as the desperation to get those carbon taxes implemented so governments can pay the interest on the obscene sums they have to borrow every month to make ends meet, just as governments create the illusion of economic recovery by using rigged markets to inflate another housing bubble and using that to drive a consumption led boom just ahead of the next planned crash is all a bit suspicious.

Greenteeth climate change menu

Now Even The IPCC Admits CO2 Driven Global Warming Was A Scam

December 14, 2012

Now Even The IPCC Admits CO2 Driven Global Warming Was A Scam

Breaking news from the US – via Watts Up With That?: a leaked draft of the IPCC’s latest report AR5 admits what the brighter lights amongst us have ben saying for a very long time: that the case for CO2 driven, man-made global warming is looking more shaky all the time and that the sun plays a much more significant role in “climate change” than the “scientific consensus” of a billionaire, two baldie men and a bunch of rent – seekers has previously been prepared to accept.

Here’s the killer admission:
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

Why is this a game-changer? As the person who leaked the document explains, :
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

Over to you, members of the Global Totalitarianism Cult.

We can all look forward a session of ROTFLOAO as we read their convoluted lies and ridiculous attempts to suggest that “one report does not disprove the case” (although if you remember it was one report from the IPCC on which the whole case was built).

We can be certain the responses will not include any apologies for the lies, misrepresentations, accusations that climate science sceptics are child murderers, mea culpa confessions of willful idiocy or admissions that those of us they said “can’t understand the science” were right all along because we did understand the science and saw right through the holes in it. No, I think it will be fear and panic spreading, scaremongering, rent – seeking, Nobel Prize grubbing business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme. Because as Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals tells us, “The end always justifies the means,” and the end is advancing the Marxist global tyranny agenda.

Landmark climate change report leaked online

December 14, 2012

Landmark climate change report leaked online

Draft of IPCC’s fifth assessment, due to be published in September 2013, leaked online by climate sceptic Alex Rawls. It’s a safe bet that the content differs widely from what will eventually be published by mainstream media.

Th draft of a major global warming report by the UN’s climate science panel has been leaked online.

The fifth assessment report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is not due to be published in full until September 2013, was uploaded onto a website called Stop Green Suicide on Thursday and has since been mirrored elsewhere on the internet.

The IPCC, which confirmed the draft is genuine, said in a statement: “The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review. We will continue not to comment on the contents of draft reports, as they are works in progress.”

A little-known US-based climate sceptic called Alex Rawls, who had been accepted by the IPCC to be one of the report’s 800 expert reviewers, admitted to leaking the document. In a statement posted online, he sought to justify the leak: “The addition of one single sentence [discussing the influence of cosmic rays on the earth’s climate] demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.”

Climate sceptics have heralded the sentence – which they interpret as meaning that cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind’s emissions – as “game-changing”.

The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as “completely ridiculous” by one of the report’s lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: “You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It’s a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn’t say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we’re really saying the opposite.”

The leaked draft “summary for policymakers” contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics’ interpretation.

It says: “There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

By “virtually certain”, the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man’s emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC’s last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a “very high confidence” – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm.

Richard Betts, a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and an AR5 lead author, tweeted that the report is still a draft and could well change: “Worth pointing out that the wording in the leaked IPCC WG1 [working group 1, which examines the “physical science basis” of climate change] draft chapters may still change in the final versions, following review comments.”

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, said that Rawls appeared to have broken the confidentiality agreement signed by reviewers: “As a registered reviewer of the IPCC report, I condemn the decision by a climate change sceptic to violate the confidentiality of the review process. The review of the IPCC report is being carried out in line with the principles of peer review which operate throughout academic science, including an expectation of high standards of ethical behaviour by reviewers. It is disappointing, if not surprising, that climate change sceptics have been unable to meet these high standards of ethical behaviour.”

The IPCC, which publishes a detailed synthesis of the latest climate science every seven years to help guide policy makers, has experienced leaks before. In 2000, the third assessment report was leaked to the New York Times, while the fourth assessment report was published in 2006 by the US government a year ahead of its official publication.

Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London and contributing author on the recent IPCC report on climate change and extreme events, said that sceptics’ reading of the draft was incorrect: “Alex Rawls’ interpretation of what IPCC5 says is quite simply wrong. In fact, while temperatures have been ramping up in recent decades, solar activity has been pretty subdued, so any interaction with cosmic rays is clearly having minimal – if any – effects. IPCC AR5 reiterates what we can be absolutely certain of: that contemporary climate change is not a natural process, but the consequence of human activities.”

Prof Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds, said: “Although this may seem like a ‘leak’, the draft IPCC reports are not kept secret and the review process is open. The rationale in not disseminating the findings until the final version is complete, is to try and iron out all the errors and inconsistencies which might be inadvertently included. Personally, I would be happy if the whole IPCC process were even more open and public, and I think we as scientists need to explore how we can best match the development of measured critical arguments with those of the Twitter generation.”

What we may note from the above is how dishonest those who ride the climate change gravy train are prepared to be in defence of the fake science that gives them luxurious lifestyles. Firstly the accusation that Rawls has misinterpreted the report. This really is just the old argument from authority trick, saying in effect, “He’s not a scientists so he cant understand the science. Really however the language is fairly straightforward, it says what it says and there is only so much room for interpretation.

Then there is the claim that ‘temperatures have been ramping up l.ately’. This is a blatant lie, while the ‘adjusted data’ shows eash succeeding year is the ‘hottest on record’ (although even that depends on whose records you look at) raw data shows 1998 was the hottest in the modern era and surface temperatures have not warmed significantly since.

It is possible to go on and on providing hundreds of items of evidence that show climate change (which is a constant and natural process) is not being caused by human activity, but there’s no point. The believers will go on praying to their science God for some Sodom and Gomorrah style even to punish the faithless, the sane will go on living their lives safe in the knowledge that no global catastrophes are imminent and the ruling elites will go on exploiting scaremongering propaganada to justify punitive taxes on energy and other essentials.