Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterWH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IN PRAISE OF CO2: EARTH ‘IS THE GREENEST IT’S BEEN IN DECADES, PERHAPS IN CENTURIES’
Rising CO2 a Boon for Biosphere – Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ – Cutting CO2 'a profoundly evil act’

by Marc Morano | August 10, 2009
Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ - Feb. 25, 2009
Excerpt: ‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ : Washington, DC — Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken” and noted that the Earth was currently in a “CO2 famine now.” Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, made his remarks during today’s Environment and Public Works Full Committee Hearing. “Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million - ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. To read Happer’s complete opening statement click here: “Earth was just fine in those times,” Happer added. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained. Happer also noted that “the number of [skeptical scientists] with the courage to speak out is growing” and he warned “children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.” [In December, Happer requested to be added to the groundbreaking U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims ] Happer was pressed by the Committee on whether rising CO2 fears are valid. “I don’t think the laws of nature or physics and chemistry has changed in 80 million years. 80 million years ago the Earth was a very prosperous palace and there is no reason to suddenly think it will become bad now,” Happer added. Happer is a professor in the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. “I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind,” Happer told the Committee. “What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, …” he explained.
2008: In praise of CO2: Earth ‘is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries’
Excerpt: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause - Financial Post, June 07, 2008
Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began. GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere –the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries. …] The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year. Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.”

Excerpt: The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major (name removed by moderator)ut/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources.
Climatologist Dissents: ‘Greenhouse effect phenomenon is not a result of human emissions’ - ‘I am ashamed of what climate science has become today’ – April 2009
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D Climatology, Stockholm University, M.Sc, Royal Institute of Technology
In Praise of Co2
 
The self-appointed chief inquisitor of the atom in question is Al Gore. Armed with a towering disregard of reason, truth or evidence, he preaches the coming Armageddon with all the fervour of an Old Testament prophet. He is a reincarnation of that favourite grotesque of the mediaeval satirists, the opulent prince of the church on a magnificent progress through the land; gathering further wealth on his way and forever declaiming the eternal message of the ostentatiously and hypocritically devout to the common herd “Do as I say and not as I do!” His familiar, James Hansen, shares his shameless addiction to self-promotion, gross exaggeration and contempt for reasoned debate. He manufactures the ammunition from behind a screen of secrecy and obfuscation. Behind them is a vast army of true believers, who propagate the scriptures and, just as importantly, suppress dissent. They actively penetrate and take control of the media, scientific institutions and educational establishments, turning our schools into eco-theological madrassas, in which the traditional religious service is replaced by five minutes hate against the innocent butt, carbon.
Taken from [In Defense of Carbon (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/carbon_praise.pdf)
 
In 1995 everyone agreed the world was warmer in medieval times, but CO2 was low then and that didn’t fit with climate models. In 1998, suddenly Michael Mann ignored the other studies and produced a graph that scared the world — tree rings show the “1990s was the hottest decade for a thousand years”. Now temperatures exactly “fit” the rise in carbon! The IPCC used the graph all over their 2001 report. Government departments copied it. The media told everyone.
But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, like stock prices, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.
 
A British Peer and an Australian Senator take the head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, to task over inaccuracies and errors in IPCC data and over undeclared vested interests he has in carbon trading strategies, saying…
Our conclusion is that you have numerous substantial direct or indirect vested financial and commercial interests profiting from the emissions reduction processes that the documents produced by the IPCC under your chairmanship have triggered.
They go further and threaten him with legal action…
We should be grateful for your response within 48 hours, failing which we shall be entitled to presume that you, the IPCC and the EPA – to whose administrator we are copying this letter – intend to conspire, and are conspiring, to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deceiving the public as to the nature, degree, and significance of the global surface temperature trend. In that event, conspiracy to defraud taxpayers would be evident, and we should be compelled to place this letter in the hands of the relevant investigating and prosecuting authorities.
In any event, errors and exaggerations such as that which is evidenced in the IPCC’s defective graph do not inspire confidence in the reliability of the IPCC’s scientific case. Given this and other mistakes that an international body of this nature ought not to have made, and given your numerous and direct conflicts of interest that have, in our opinion, been insufficiently disclosed, we are also copying this letter to the delegations of the states parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with a request that you be stripped of office forthwith.
I smell a lot of smoke…
 
Hiyas:)

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is the voice at IPCC. A partner with UN and World Bank

Their associations from their pages.

Why is the World Bank in the business of Population Control?

unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/united-nations-population-fund-uses-climate-change-to-promote-abortion/

Their report is here.
unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/pdf/EN_SOWP09.pdf

ALL sounds good until you add in forced sterilizations as in China.

Linked already to USA funds
christiannewswire.com/news/9357212491.html
Why are we in the USA funding “International family planning - abortion”?

Could it be…Because China and others now are fighting any COP15 deal that has population control…and mandates by United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)??

IMHO The reverence of life that United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has… can not be understood as anything - than promoting “abortion now, for future generations to enjoy life”.
kimmilittle - I went to the links and a read what is posted and while of course Catholics should NEVER support anything that supports abortion - I am not convinced that this is what is ‘implied’ — when reported the focus takes what is reported and then takes an implication that I do not agree is automatically there and is being implied… and I am not convinced that it ‘naturally follows’… i.e.
It naturally follows, the report forcefully implies but adroitly manages to never state, that reducing the number of people that exist and take advantage of such modern conveniences would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted.
There are HUGE issues of maternal health internationally, i.e. young women being forced into marriages and motherhood at 14 - unattended deliveries, leading to fistulas, maternal and infant death - so when I read these links I don’t automatically take the same information to mean contraception and abortion - but the support of women’s health is a much larger issue and not a ‘code’…

An example - in Guatemala nearly 50% of the children suffer from chronic malnutrition - so I believe supporting education of women - postponing childbirth till families can provide for children - I think this is in keeping with the teaching of our Church - now the way one recommends that women do this obviously does NOT include abortion - there are organization that provides training in NFP internationally - that is working to do just that. (of course this only works where women have rights)

So - while many may understand all this to suggest that abortion is being recommended as the solution - and as Catholics we should speak and fight against this - we should also support efforts to help women and children around the world.

And just one more note - there are family planning methods that are being taught and implemented that do work - and this is what we should be standing for and supporting - it is irresponsible to suggest that all family planning is wrong - NFP - does work and can be and is being taught internationally -

But at the end of the day - again - there are links that do read implication, connections, etc that may or may not exist — but I also believe that there are those that use these implications to gain support for not doing anything about AGW - not because they believe in the sanctity of life but because you believe in the sanctity of life - they hold this issue up to keep people from making changes. 😦

Blessings…
 
Personally, like Christ the Apostles, I enjoy meat, though I’m waiting for some consistency from the AGW, animal rights, and no meat crowd.

When I see them dare to demand that all pets (billions or trillions?of cats and dogs included) that cause much of the greenhouse gasses, and serve little food function, be euthanised, they’ll have more credibility. They won’t, because they’d lose their support instantly.
I think you will find that vegans do not support the breeding of any animals - including pets, many will also not own one - For our family we have a black lab from the pound that would have been euthanised that we adopted several years ago - (Did you know that black dogs are euthanized at a much higher rate? startribune.com/lifestyle/pets/17435719.html?location_refer=Pet%20news - so anyone considering a pet adoption – just a thought to share - again - sorry, off topic 😊 )

I can only speak for myself, so don’t know if I have any credibility with you or not, but it is impossible to be 100% vegan - I just try to do the best I can;) - and the impact on the creation and resource issues are certainly highest on my reason list.
 
Thank you:)

I think this makes sense
And this is my point - this post supports the position you already hold so it makes sense to you. I believe that we are now producing too much CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and that it is having an adverse reaction on climate so, no, this link doesn’t make sense to me. By believing this there is no need to make any changes, no need to consider that our actions make a difference - we believe what we believe, we agree with people we agree with, and these threads do nothing to move people to consider another position - only to galvanize and entrench positions - oh well… 🤷
 
And this is my point - this post supports the position you already hold so it makes sense to you. I believe that we are now producing too much CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and that it is having an adverse reaction on climate so, no, this link doesn’t make sense to me. By believing this there is no need to make any changes, no need to consider that our actions make a difference - we believe what we believe, we agree with people we agree with, and these threads do nothing to move people to consider another position - only to galvanize and entrench positions - oh well… 🤷
4elise, please read the article under the link to which kimmielittle responded “I think this makes sense”. Rather than try and criticise kimmielittle for having read something with which he/she already agrees, can you not accept that the article itself makes sense? After all, it makes reference to scientific data. It is not good enough to say you think too much CO2 is going into the air so therefore we should produce less. You need to refute the argument in the linked paper.
 
A British Peer and an Australian Senator take the head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, to task over inaccuracies and errors in IPCC data and** over undeclared vested interests he has in carbon trading strategies**, saying…
This violates the basic principle of keeping an arm’s length distance from the subject.

As an accountant, my ethical responsibility is to present unbiased information to the shareholders of the company I am auditing. This is what Arthur Andersen failed to do when auditing Enron. The consequences were disastrous for many, many people. The parallels are horrifying.

If we don’t learn from our mistakes, we are dooming millions of people in the world to a life of miserable poverty, while those who push this agenda will live comfortably on the profits they made in the “greening” of the world, satisfied they have neutralized their astronomic energy usages by planting trees.

Open your eyes people and stop making excuses for unconscionable behavior.

We all want a world in which everyone shares in the natural resources and beauty of God’s creation. Drastically limiting unlimited resources with unproven science is a disaster.
 
An example - in Guatemala nearly 50% of the children suffer from chronic malnutrition - so I believe supporting education of women - postponing childbirth till families can provide for children - I think this is in keeping with the teaching of our Church - now the way one recommends that women do this obviously does NOT include abortion - there are organization that provides training in NFP internationally - that is working to do just that. (of course this only works where women have rights)

Blessings…
Hi 4elise-
I appreciate your concern for the poor of this world and the Catholic Church’s teaching on social justice. As a Catholic, I agree with all what the Pope has to say on reaching out to the poor and acting responsibly.

The topic of the thread is the scandal of the manipulated science. There is a thread, The Real Inconvenient Truth where this has been addressed.
 
Hi 4elise-
I appreciate your concern for the poor of this world and the Catholic Church’s teaching on social justice. As a Catholic, I agree with all what the Pope has to say on reaching out to the poor and acting responsibly.

The topic of the thread is the scandal of the manipulated science. There is a thread, The Real Inconvenient Truth where this has been addressed.
Sorry if I was taking the thread off the topic - thought that on a Catholic forum this would be relevant - yes there is a a scandal that I think is sad - but I disagree with the premise that it now proves that the ‘entire global warming’ issue is to be doubted - earlier I’ve posted links that support my belief - but I’ll excuse myself from further posts 😊
 
4elise, please read the article under the link to which kimmielittle responded “I think this makes sense”. Rather than try and criticise kimmielittle for having read something with which he/she already agrees, can you not accept that the article itself makes sense? After all, it makes reference to scientific data. It is not good enough to say you think too much CO2 is going into the air so therefore we should produce less. You need to refute the argument in the linked paper.
  1. not sure why you assume I did not read the link in question
  2. I was certainly not criticising kimmielittle
  3. I have provided links - but I’m done
blessings
 
It amazes me after all the death and oppression anyone would want it back. This is 20 years after the collapse. Amazing.
OK… just one more.😊
Proud Flag-Waving Communists and Socialists March in Copenhagen to Stop Global Warming
Gee - and the Saudis are landing on this ‘major scandal’ - to say no change needed - no self interest there right? 🤷

csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/1207/p06s01-woeu.html/(page)/2
Internationally, the Saudi Arabian’s are using the hacked letters from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit to argue that there’s no need for any new climate treaty. The BBC quoted the country’s chief negotiator as saying it will have a huge impact on the talks.
The UN negotiating process requires unanimous consent to reach decisions. So the Saudis alone could hold things up. But the Saudis often threaten to block movement as a negotiating position. The oil rich Kingdom’s long-time pitch is this: Any new agreement should contain payments to Saudi Arabia to make up for oil revenues it would lose as the world weans itself from oil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top