Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid:

I have read the article on Klaus Schwab and his father, Eugen, that you posted in the other thread (All parts - somewhat long for me).

I, at this point, take no position on Klaus Schwab and his motivations.

Sid & I are talking about this issue being dealt with as well in the CT Human Self-governance thread.

Bob A

I, at this point, take no position on Klaus Schwab and his motivations.

My post does discuss this, but more importantly, the WEF and its motivations are also discussed in part 8.

Part 8

The Club of Rome and the WEF


The most influential group that spurred the creation of Klaus Schwab’s symposium was the Club of Rome, an influential think tank of the scientific and monied elite that mirrors the World Economic Forum in many ways, including in its promotion of a global governance model led by a technocratic elite. The Club had been founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King during a private meeting at a residence owned by the Rockefeller family in Bellagio, Italy.

Among its first accomplishments was a 1972 book entitled “The Limits to Growth” that largely focused on global overpopulation, warning that “if the world’s consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its limits within a century.” At the third meeting of the World Economic Forum in 1973, Peccei delivered a speech summarizing the book, which the World Economic Forum website remembers as having been the distinguishing event of this historical meeting. That same year, the Club of Rome would publish a report detailing an “adaptive” model for global governance that would divide the world into ten, inter-connected economic/political regions.

The Club of Rome was long controversial for its obsession with reducing the global population and many of its earlier policies, which critics described as influenced by eugenics and neo-Malthusian. However, in the Club’s infamous 1991 Book, The First Global Revolution, it was argued that such policies could gain popular support if the masses were able to link them with an existential fight against a common enemy.

To that effect, The First Global Revolution contains a passage entitled “The common enemy of humanity is Man”, which states the following:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
In the years since, the elite that populate the Club of Rome and the World Economic Forum have frequently argued that population control methods are essential to protecting the environment. It is thus unsurprising that the World Economic Forum would similarly use the issues of climate and environment as a way to market otherwise unpopular policies, such as those of the Great Reset, as necessary.
The Past is Prologue


Since the founding of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab has become one of the most powerful people in the world and his Great Reset has made it more important than ever to scrutinize the man sitting on the globalist throne.

Given his prominent role in the far-reaching effort to transform every aspect of the existing order, Klaus Schwab’s history was difficult to research. When you start to dig into the history of a man like Schwab, who sits aloft other shadowy elite movers and shakers, you soon find lots of information has been hidden or removed. Klaus is somebody who wants to stay hidden in the shadowy corners of society and who will only allow the average person to see a well-presented construct of their chosen persona.

Is the real Klaus Schwab a kindly old uncle figure wishing to do good for humanity, or is he really the son of a Nazi collaborator who used slave labour and helped the Nazi efforts to obtain the first atomic bomb? Is Klaus the honest business manager who we should trust to create a fairer society and workplace for the common man, or is he the person who helped push Sulzer Escher-Wyss into a technological revolution that led to its role in the illegal creation of nuclear weapons for South Africa’s racist apartheid regime? The evidence I have looked at does not suggest a kindly man, but rather a member of a wealthy, well-connected family that has a history of helping create weapons of mass destruction for aggressive, racist governments.

As Klaus Schwab said in 2006 “Knowledge will soon be available everywhere – I call it the ‘googlisation’ of globalisation. It’s not what you know any more, it’s how you use it. You have to be a pace setter.” Klaus Schwab considers himself to be a pace setter and a top table player, and it must be said that his qualifications and experience are impressive. Yet, when it comes to practising what you preach, Klaus has been found out. One of the three biggest challenges on the priority list for the World Economic Forum is the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, yet neither Klaus Schwab nor his father Eugen lived up to those same principles when they were in business. Quite the opposite.

In January, Klaus Schwab announced that 2021 is the year that the World Economic Forum and its allies must “rebuild trust” with the masses. However, if Schwab continues to hide his history and that of his father’s connections to the “National Socialist Model Company” that was Escher-Wyss during the 1930s and 1940s, then people will have good reason to distrust the underlying motivations of his overreaching, undemocratic Great Reset agenda.

In the case of the Schwabs, the evidence doesn’t point at simply poor business practices or some sort of misunderstanding. The story of the Schwab family instead reveals a habit of working with genocidal dictators for the base motives of profit and power. The Nazis and the South African apartheid regime are two of the worst examples of leadership in modern politics, yet the Schwabs obviously couldn’t or wouldn’t see that at the time.

In the case of Klaus Schwab himself, it appears that he has helped to launder relics of the Nazi era, i.e. its nuclear ambitions and its population control ambitions, so as to ensure the continuity of a deeper agenda. While serving in a leadership capacity at Sulzer Escher Wyss, the company sought to aid the nuclear ambitions of the South African regime, then the most Nazi adjacent government in the world, preserving Escher Wyss’ own Nazi era legacy. Then, through the World Economic Forum, Schwab has helped to rehabilitate eugenics-influenced population control policies during the post-World War II era, a time when the revelations of Nazi atrocities quickly brought the pseudo-science into great disrepute. Is there any reason to believe that Klaus Schwab, as he exists today, has changed in anyway? Or is he still the public face of a decades-long effort to ensure the survival of a very old agenda?

The last question that should be asked about the real motivations behind the actions of Herr Schwab, may be the most important for the future of humanity: Is Klaus Schwab trying to create the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or is he trying to create the Fourth Reich?

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)

Overview & Update



[Part I of 3 – see Parts II & III/3 below]

1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 33 (23/8/14 – 20: 7 days)

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(32 wks.)___________

........42...................62.........................37....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (32wks.)__________________

.............4......................5.......................3...........................5.


Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats continue to be ahead of the 2023 average so far. There has been a bit less “response” activity than the prior week.

There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

2. The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?


3. The Naturalists' Position

Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

[See Part II below]

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change (Continued)

[Part II of 3 – see Part I above]

4. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

A. Introduction

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance....we are using the "Conversation Format" protocol.

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger. The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the defence to the first Challenge.

The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted”.

B. Generally Accepted Statements

We have reached now 10 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

All are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are no outstanding proposed revisions, and so they currently stand unchallenged, or challenges have previously been defeated. So, for this forum, a number of the statements are now “generally accepted” as “fact”.

"Generally-Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]

“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time".

Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”

Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27

“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods

Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.

Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-re...=pocket-newtab “

Support 3 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1526 23/7/27

“This [July] Looks Like Earth’s Warmest Month. Hotter Ones Appear to Be in Store.

July is on track to break all records for any month, scientists say, as the planet enters an extended period of exceptional warmth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/c...d396a4debfd6ce “

Statement # 3

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Statement # 4:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)

"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."

Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)

"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."

Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)

"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”

Statement # 6

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)

“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”

Support # 2 - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 1417 – 23/7/2)

“It is essential to have alternate sources of energy, as fossil fuels, including coal, won't last for very long.”

Support # 3 – Sid Belzberg (Post # 1419 – 23/7/2)

“In theory, this is a finite resource, but it is not scarce and likely would take several hundred years to deplete entirely.”

Support # 4 – Bob Armstrong (Post # 1423 – 23/7/2)

“Please note that I have introduced ....... including in renewables, "tidal" & "water turbines".”

[See Part III Below; Parts I & II are above]

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change (Continued)

[Part III of 3; Parts I & II above]

Statement # 8

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Support - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7

The definition of sustainable agriculture used does not explicitly say that this involves necessarily only organic farming. The definition leaves open the possibility that Non-Organic farming could be "sustainable". It is argued that used correctly, certain fertilizers have no effect on health or the environment. But this is still an open question.

Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate.

Statement 9 (Proposed by Sid Belzberg – See Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Processing: Still in process; Support to be added, depending on outcome of Protocol change submission by Group Secretary

Statement # 10 (Proposed by Sid Belzberg – See Post # 1650 – 23/8/15)

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Processing : Still in process; Support to be added, depending on outcome of Protocol change submission by Group Secretary.

C. Group Secretary Ruling

a. Substantial

Ruling # S1

There shall be put forward no Statement on the cause of current Canadian wildfires.

Reason

There is great controversy outside this group, and inside, as to the cause of current Canadian wildfires.A generally accepted Statement is not possible.

Processing: still in process

b. Procedural

Ruling # P1

Proposed Statement # 10 raises a question about our/my current protocol.

Statement # 10 is quite scientific, and re an issue that likely few of us CT'ers in this group have any current knowledge.

Challenging will be "challenging" to say the least.......I likely would not even know where to start (Though I would scroll back to see Sid's prior posts on CO2 - I assume the word "carbon" in proposed Statement # 10 is referring to CO2 - if not, Sid Belzberg can correct me - technically I don't know if you refer to carbon particles in the air/atmosphere).

This raises the issue of whether, from now on, we should make it mandatory that when a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. To date, we have not demanded this.

The reason I support this change in protocol is that if there are supportive reasons given for the new Statement, someone with little knowledge of the issue will learn something about what the issue is about, and, maybe, some hints about how and where they can do their own research to confirm for themselves the Statement or to challenge the proposed Statement.

Processing

One week for the group to "oppose" this proposed protocol change (Deadline: Tuesday, Aug. 22 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

This will affect the processing of proposed Statements 9 & 10:

a. The deadline will now run for those Statements from the date a decision is made on changing the processing protocol (Whether adopted or not);
b. If my proposed protocol change is adopted, then for Proposed Statement # 9, I will post Sid's already posted "Support" (Post # 1642 - 23/8/14);
c. If my proposed protocol change is adopted, then for Proposed Statement # 10, I will ask that Sid posted his "Support" reasons for Statement # 10.

5. CT'ers Immediate Task

CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements"!

6. CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change

You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!

a. When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

b. You can also re-post the STATEMENTS above. They are generally accepted by this CT'er group (Note when reproducing the list, the Statements that are under “Challenge” so newbies know which ones are, for the moment, accepted as “Fact”.

~ Bob A. (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Greening of the Earth and its drivers


Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.


https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

Proposed General Statement 11



Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it,we would be a dead planet.

[Bob Armstrong]

Greenhouse Gases Surrounding the Earth and its Drivers

I'm working on it..........hope it isn't going to be like Kevin's expose on the CFC !

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Greenhouse Gases Surrounding the Earth and its Drivers

I'm working on it..........hope it isn't going to be like Kevin's expose on the CFC !

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Good luck, Bob; you are trying to refute a peer-reviewed paper in a high-impact science journal like Nature Magazine?? Data is data, and you should welcome this news as, so far, I have shown via the Schwartzchild equation that additional CO2 does not significantly impact the climate, and the data that supports this coincides with the UK meteorological dataset showing a modest average rise of .5 degrees per century with or without CO2 emissions.
This shows that CO2 is necessary and, over millions of years, CO2 has trended downward from 2500PPM to 400-450 PPM. The minimum PPM for plants to
live is 150PPM.
Maybe if you paid more attention to science and less to politics, you would stop having climate anxiety and be more concerned that net zero goals will kill off life as we know it on this planet.
Sri Lanka, which I posted about earlier, is a good roadmap for how to induce famine. So put up the Statement. I would like to see the objections!

[Bob Armstrong]

Greenhouse Gases Surrounding the Earth and its Drivers




Excerpt

Pt. 1 - Introduction

And there came a time on the planet Earth, relatively recently discovered by intelligent extra-terrestrial living beings, that the planet had become lush and green. Earth plants were thriving in the Carbon Era.

But, unfortunately,the human species, an interesting life form when the Extra-terrestrials arrived, was no longer here to enjoy it (Sad).

They had gone extinct!

And their "intelligence" was now being questioned by the Extra-terrestrials who had integrated covertly into human society. Humans had acted in such a way as to make Nature, which was doing so well (Read: Greening the Earth and Its Drivers), totally hostile to their survival needs (And those of the Extra-terrestrials who had settled on Earth, and had to retreat back to their home planets).

Humans needed oxygen, and CO2 removed from the air/atmosphere, and so from this perspective, the Greening of the Earth was a positive factor.
But other factors were at work as well, negative and fatally hostile ones.

In the past, for Earth, the sun was life; it shone down on Earth and gave life to all. This entry of light waves caused heat; but this was not a problem - the heat was just reflected back into space through the thin air/atmosphere.

But "intelligent" humans found a way to trap the heat at the surface of the Earth, and in slowly rising degrees, in the air/atmosphere. They deliberately developed industrial methods to create, about 1/2 way up in the atmosphere, a special canopy (Known then as the Greenhouse Gas Canopy). They worked hard to intensify the density of this canopy (Composed of a number of more dense "Greenhouse" gases), and so managed, successfully, to create higher and higher temperatures in the surface soil, underground, in the oceans and seas, and in the air/atmosphere.

As planned, they managed to slowly melt the polar ice caps (Referred to as the Earth's Air Conditioners by those becoming concerned about humanity's goal). The seas rose from the ice melting, and the term "migrant refugees" became an unfortunate, dislocating and real phenomenon, as the Coastal Humans "flooded" in-land in a futile attempt to survive. Conflict in human society was the only outcome. The wealthy did well in this new societal situation.......they strengthened their gated communities, and lived well (For a while, anyways), while the rest of society disintegrated into chaos, with the rise of charlatan Fascist Governments across the globe, promising THE Answer to the future of humanity.

The waters of the planet started drying up; underwater aquifers, long depended on, deep in the Earth, started drying up; conversion of salt water to fresh water needed by humans was cost-efficiently developed to offset this "Water Problem". But difficulties were plentiful!

Humans could not handle "heat prostration" (Definition: A condition marked by weakness, nausea, dizziness, and profuse sweating that results from physical exertion in a hot environment. Heat exhaustion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). Only now, the "heat prostration" was now not due to "physical exercise".....it was due to the simple inability to escape the heat. Technology for inside air quality and temperature control had broken down (Humans had gone underground) under the stress on the energy system (Though the wealthy were the last to lose it).

The plants now smile. But there is no one to bask in it...........humans are gone; the Extra-terrestrials have emigrated home.

Author: Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

Group Secretary Rulings - Procedural

Ruling # P1

Background

Proposed Statement # 10 of Sid Belzberg raises a question about our/my current protocol.

Statement # 10 is quite scientific, and re an issue that likely few of us CT'ers in this group have any current knowledge.

Challenging will be "challenging" to say the least.......I likely would not even know where to start (Though I would scroll back to see Sid's prior posts on CO2 - I assume the word "carbon" in proposed Statement # 10 is referring to CO2 - if not, Sid Belzberg can correct me - technically I don't know if you refer to carbon particles in the air/atmosphere).

This raises the issue of whether, from now on, we should make it mandatory that when a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. To date, we have not demanded this.

The reason I support this change in protocol is that if there are supportive reasons given for the new Statement, someone with little knowledge of the issue will learn something about what the issue is about, and, maybe, some hints about how and where they can do their own research to confirm for themselves the Statement or to challenge the proposed Statement.

Processing

After one week no member of the group has come forward to "oppose" this proposed protocol change.

Conclusions

I New Proposed Statements must be accompanied by a short, executive summary, set of reasons (If the Support Texts are extensive, they will have to be shortened by the proposer; these Statements are often repeated and updated in future postings, and extensive support texts, with graphs/charts/ long book or report quotes, etc., will simply become too unwieldy; but the Post # & date of the Extensive support texts will be noted for those viewers wanting more information than the executive summary.

II Re Statements # 9 (Sid Belzberg) & # 10 (Sid Belzberg):

a. The deadline will now start running for one week for "Challenges" (Deadline: Wed., 23/8/30 @ 11:59 PM EDT.
b. For Proposed Statement # 9, I will post Sid's already posted "Support" (Post # 1642 - 23/8/14) in future updates; but Sid will have to provide Executive Summary "Support" texts.
c. For Proposed Statement # 10, I will post Sid's already posted "Support" (Post # 1642 - 23/8/14 - he posted them in advance, at that time, of being required too) in future updates; but Sid will have to provide Executive Summary "Support" texts.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Greenhouse Gases Surrounding the Earth and its Drivers




Excerpt

Pt. 1 - Introduction

And there came a time on the planet Earth, relatively recently discovered by intelligent extra-terrestrial living beings, that the planet had become lush and green. Earth plants were thriving in the Carbon Era.

But, unfortunately,the human species, an interesting life form when the Extra-terrestrials arrived, was no longer here to enjoy it (Sad).

They had gone extinct!

And their "intelligence" was now being questioned by the Extra-terrestrials who had integrated covertly into human society. Humans had acted in such a way as to make Nature, which was doing so well (Read: Greening the Earth and Its Drivers), totally hostile to their survival needs (And those of the Extra-terrestrials who had settled on Earth, and had to retreat back to their home planets).

Humans needed oxygen, and CO2 removed from the air/atmosphere, and so from this perspective, the Greening of the Earth was a positive factor.
But other factors were at work as well, negative and fatally hostile ones.

In the past, for Earth, the sun was life; it shone down on Earth and gave life to all. This entry of light waves caused heat; but this was not a problem - the heat was just reflected back into space through the thin air/atmosphere.

But "intelligent" humans found a way to trap the heat at the surface of the Earth, and in slowly rising degrees, in the air/atmosphere. They deliberately developed industrial methods to create, about 1/2 way up in the atmosphere, a special canopy (Known then as the Greenhouse Gas Canopy). They worked hard to intensify the density of this canopy (Composed of a number of more dense "Greenhouse" gases), and so managed, successfully, to create higher and higher temperatures in the surface soil, underground, in the oceans and seas, and in the air/atmosphere.

As planned, they managed to slowly melt the polar ice caps (Referred to as the Earth's Air Conditioners by those becoming concerned about humanity's goal). The seas rose from the ice melting, and the term "migrant refugees" became an unfortunate, dislocating and real phenomenon, as the Coastal Humans "flooded" in-land in a futile attempt to survive. Conflict in human society was the only outcome. The wealthy did well in this new societal situation.......they strengthened their gated communities, and lived well (For a while, anyways), while the rest of society disintegrated into chaos, with the rise of charlatan Fascist Governments across the globe, promising THE Answer to the future of humanity.

The waters of the planet started drying up; underwater aquifers, long depended on, deep in the Earth, started drying up; conversion of salt water to fresh water needed by humans was cost-efficiently developed to offset this "Water Problem". But difficulties were plentiful!

Humans could not handle "heat prostration" (Definition: A condition marked by weakness, nausea, dizziness, and profuse sweating that results from physical exertion in a hot environment. Heat exhaustion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). Only now, the "heat prostration" was now not due to "physical exercise".....it was due to the simple inability to escape the heat. Technology for inside air quality and temperature control had broken down (Humans had gone underground) under the stress on the energy system (Though the wealthy were the last to lose it).

The plants now smile. But there is no one to bask in it...........humans are gone; the Extra-terrestrials have emigrated home.

Author: Bob A






.

Yes, Bob, nice science fiction. So lets all starve and freeze to death (as the per the globalists depopulation plan) just in case these baseless theories are correct? For the record, I oppose your denying us putting up a statement about the cause of Canadain Wildfires. Just yesterday
in Yellowknife, strong evidence of arson (aerosol cans, etc) showed up where one of the fires spread from in an area that is difficult fir fire crews to access; this pattern of arson is repeating in many other areas of Canada.
What is this about Bob? When you don't like the narrative you don't put up the statement?

https://www.westernstandard.news/new...409452f0b.html

[Bob Armstrong]

Group Secretary Ruling - Substantial

Post #1659 - 23/8/13

Ruling # S1 (Proposed)

There shall be put forward no Statement on the cause of current Canadian wildfires.

Reason

There is great controversy outside this group, and inside, as to the cause of current Canadian wildfires (Natural, Accidental Human, Deliberate Human [arson]). A generally accepted Statement is not possible.

Processing

There will be one week to Challenge this Ruling (Deadline: Wed., Sept. 23 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

In order to Challenge this Ruling, the Challenger must propose his/her alternate procedural, generally accepted Statement. This way, CT'ers can consider it when dealing with whether or not to accept this Secretary Ruling on procedure.

Conclusion: Deadline not yet reached......Deadline is 11:59 PM EDT tonight.

[Note: An objection to the proposed ruling has been indicated by Sid Belzberg (Post # 1675 - 23/8/23) but it is not in proper form (See above). By midnight tonight, he must post a "Challenge" in the proper form (With an alternate, procedural, generally accepted Statement (Proposed by him)) for it to be properly processed.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics)
[In Layman's Terms"]

Statement 9 (Proposed by Sid Belzberg – See Post # 1646 – 23/8/15)

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Support: Sid Belzberg – Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Methane and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...nd-Climate.pdf

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts


Nitrous Oxide and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...rous-Oxide.pdf

C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4

1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

November 10, 2022

Abstract

Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O.

Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.

---

[Secretary Note: Where Challenge, Defence, Support and Supplement texts are extensive, in future only the reference to the extensive Post Number will be posted (Otherwise updates become unwieldy). But it is open to the author to post an Executive Summary of the text to replace the extensive text. The Executive Summary text will be added in.]

Processing: Statement # 9 is now open to "Opposition Challenge"; deadline: Wed., Aug. 30 @ 11:59 PM EDT (one week). If there is no Challenge, then the Statement is "generally accepted", and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics)
[In Layman's Terms"]

Statement # 10 (Proposed)

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM

Support: Sid Belzberg – Post # 1648/49/50 – 23/8/15

Part 1 (Of 3 Parts)


Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America



Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”



“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
Modeled climate predictions (average shown by red line) versus actual observations (source: J.R. Christy, Univ. of Alabama; KNMI Climate Explorer)
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
Why Climate Change Policies Could Be Even Worse Than the COVID Lockdowns: Andrew Montford
Play Video
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.

Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress. Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack, arguing that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated. The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued that “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or whim.”

According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.

This chart shows CO2 levels (blue) and temperatures (red) over time, indicating little correlation and current levels of both at historic lows. (Source: Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese; Earth's Climate: Past and Future by Mark Peganini; Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene, Science magazine vol. 309.)
“The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they stated.

In addition, the scientists' testimony to the EPA stated that the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider the fact that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.

“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they stated. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”
Synthetic fertilizers (dotted line) have increased crop yields dramatically since their introduction. (Source: crop yields from USDA; fertilizer usage from Food Agriculture Organization).
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they argued. In addition, synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the world’s food production today. “Net zero” goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year, reducing the food supply proportionally, they said.

The world's population is increasingly dependent on synthetic fertilizers, a derivative of fossil fuels. (Source: ourworldindata.org)
In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated, the EPA’s emission rules and the global warming narrative that has been used to justify them are based on flawed data.

In addition to teaching physics at Princeton, Mr. Happer’s decades of work in physics has focused on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric turbulence, and his inventions have been used by astronomers and in national defense.

“Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty,” Mr. Happer said, “and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists.”

His expertise, he said, “involves much of the same physics that’s involved in climate, and none of it is very alarming.”

The global warming narrative argues that as people burn fossil fuels, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, which absorbs sunlight and creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the sun’s radiation and warming the earth.

But one aspect of CO2 emissions that global warming models fail to take into account, Mr. Happer said, is a phenomenon called “saturation,” or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.

“At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away,” Mr. Happer said. “So that’s enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.”

“But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only one percent,” Mr. Happer said. “Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well known for a century.”century.”
The "greenhouse effect" of additional CO2 does not increase in proportion to the amount of CO2 added (source: William Happer).
In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

See Parts 2 & 3 below

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Part 2 (Of 3 Parts)

In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Mr. Happer said. “If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.

“If you look at the data today, that is no longer true,” he said. “People in charge of that data, or what the public sees, have gradually reduced the temperatures of the ‘30s, then increased the temperature of more recent measurements.”

An example of misleading data used by the EPA as proof of global warming is shown in the chart below, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen claimed.
EPA data shows an increasing ratio of daily record high-to-low temperatures in order to indicate rising global temperatures (Source: NOAA/NCEI).
“This chart does not actually show ‘daily temperatures,’” they state. “Instead it shows a ‘ratio’ of daily record highs to lows - a number that appears designed to create the impression that temperatures are steadily rising.”

By contrast, the scientists presented the following table, which indicates significantly higher temperatures in the 1930s versus today.
This data indicates that heat waves were more severe in the 1930s than today. (Source: EPA).The Scientific ‘Consensus’ for Climate Change


Proponents of the global warming narrative often state that it is “settled science” and that nearly all scientists agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.

According to an official NASA statement, “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists—97 percent—agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.”

A report by Cornell University states that “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.

“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said. “And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”

The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said, “consensus is the business of politics.”

“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world,” Dr. Crichton said. “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”

“The initial predictions of climate disasters had New York flooded by now, no ice left at the North Pole, England would be like Siberia by now,” Mr. Happer said. “Nothing that they predicted actually came true. You have to do something to keep the money coming in, so they changed ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’”
The Price of Dissent


Regarding the consensus in published literature cited by Cornell University, some experts counter that academic publications routinely reject any submissions that question the global warming narrative.

“I’m lucky because I didn’t really start pushing back on this until I was close to retirement,” Mr. Happer said. He had already established himself at that point as a tenured professor at Princeton, a member of the Academy of Sciences, and director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.

“If I’d been much younger, they could have made sure I never got tenure, that my papers would never get published,” he said. “They can keep me from publishing papers now, but it doesn’t matter because I already have status. But it would matter a lot if I were younger and I had a career that I was trying to make.”

In an interview with John Stossel, climate scientist Judith Curry said she paid the price for contradicting the narrative and called the global warming consensus “a manufactured consensus.”

Ms. Curry, the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said that when she published a study that claimed hurricanes were increasing in intensity, “I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star; I was flown all over the place to meet with politicians and to give these talks, and lots of media attention.”

When several researchers questioned her findings, she investigated their claims and concluded that her critics were correct.

“Part of it was bad data; part of it was natural climate variability,” she said. But when she went public with that fact, she was shunned, she said and pushed out of academia.

Mr. Lindzen tells a similar tale, once he began to question the climate narrative.

“Funding and publication became almost impossible,” he said, “and I was holding the most distinguished chair in meteorology,” which was MIT’s Sloan Professorship of Meteorology.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser told The Epoch Times that he, too, was abruptly canceled from giving a speech on climate at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on July 25.

Mr. Clauser had stated during a previous speech at Quantum Korea 2023 that “climate change is not a crisis.”

He said that climate is a self-regulating process and that more clouds form when temperatures rise, resulting in a compensatory cooling effect. Although he agrees that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, he argued that the gas's effect on global warming is swamped by the natural cloud cycle.

However, only days before his IMF discussion was to take place, Mr. Clauser received an email indicating that the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) director, Pablo Moreno, didn't want the event to happen. An assistant who was coordinating the event wrote to Mr. Clauser: “When I arranged this the Director was very happy about it but things have evidently changed.”

The IMF’s current policy on climate change is that “large emitting countries need to introduce a carbon tax that rises quickly to $75 a ton in 2030, consistent with limiting global warming to 2° [Celcius] or less.”

[See Part 3 below; Part 1 above)

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Part 3 (Of 3 Parts; See Parts 1 & 2 above)

The Climate Money Machine



Asked why there would be a need to censor, alter, and cherry-pick data to support the global warming narrative,

Mr. Lindzen said “because it’s a hoax.”
Mr. Clauser said of the climate consensus, “We are totally awash in pseudoscience.”

“There is this huge fraction of the population that has been brainwashed into thinking this is an existential threat to the planet,” Mr. Happer said. “I don’t blame the people; they don’t have the background to know they are being deceived, but they are being deceived.”

The World Bank announced in September 2022 that it paid out a record $31.7 billion that fiscal year to help countries address climate change, a 19 percent increase from the $26.6 billion it paid out over the previous fiscal year. And according to Reuters, the United States is projected to spend about $500 billion to fight climate change over the next decade, including $362 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, $98 billion from the Infrastructure Act, and $54 billion from the CHIPS law.

“What would happen to sustainable energy, the worthless windmills and solar panels if suddenly there were no climate change emergency,” Mr. Happer said. “They’re really not very good technology and they’re doing a lot more harm than good, but nevertheless people are making lots of money.”

Many investors, most notably BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have cited government regulations and subsidies as a key reason why investments in “green” energies would be profitable.

Research grants to study climate change are offered by many government agencies, including the EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as by non-profits including Bloomberg Philanthropies and the MacArthur Foundation, which paid out $458 million since 2014.

“Going back to [19]88 to ’90, funding went up by a factor of 15,” Mr. Lindzen said. “You created a whole new community.

“This was a small field in 1990; not a single member of the faculty at MIT called themselves a climate scientist,” he said. “By 1996, everyone was a climate scientist, and that included impacts. If you’re studying cockroaches and you put in your grant, ‘cockroaches and climate,’ you are a climate scientist.”

Asked to respond to the professors’ comments, an EPA spokesperson stated: “The Agency will review all comments we received as we work to finalize the proposed standards.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/articl...a-hoax-5460699

[Secretary Note: Where Challenge, Defence, Support and Supplement texts are extensive, in future only the reference to the extensive Post Number will be posted (Otherwise updates become unwieldy). But it is open to the author to post an Executive Summary of the text to replace the extensive text. The Executive Summary text will be added in.]

Processing: Statement # 10 is now open to "Opposition Challenge"; deadline: Wed., Aug. 30 @ 11:59 PM EDT (one week). If there is no Challenge, then the Statement is "generally accepted", and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)