Global Warming Concept is a multi-billion dollar scam of world bureaucrats

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

US President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. And I will try to explain why this is absolutely the right thing to do and why the doctrine of Global Warming is the biggest scam of our day.

Proponents of this Doctrine argue: man is the cause of warming, and there is a "scientific consensus" about this, and anyone who doubts this is bought by ExxonMobil, and that denying this fact is like denying the Holocaust. So this is a lie.

First, there is no such consensus. Second, real science has nothing to do with consensus. Formula E = mc²not developed by consensus. It is developed as a result of discovery.

Consensus is used when it is argued that "everyone should believe in the Triune God", or that "everyone should build communism." The appeal to consensus is ball skimming. As Michael Crichton remarked in this regard, “Consensus is the first refuge of the rascals. This is a way to avoid discussion by stating that the issue has already been resolved."

Supporters of the Teaching say that the Earth's climate began to deviate from the "norm". It's a lie. There is no “norm” for the climate. The only norm for the climate is change.

Life on Earth has existed for 3, 8 billion years, and all these 3, 8 billion years on Earth the climate has changed. There was (probably) a period in the history of the earth when it was one ball of ice. There have been periods in the history of the Earth when cucumbers could be grown at the Pole. Even throughout the history of human existence as a species, the climate has changed over a wider range than it is now.

In the Eemic period (130-115 thousand years BC), the sea level was 4-6 meters higher, and hippos were found on the Thames. In the climatic optimum of the Holocene (9-5 thousand years BC), summer temperatures in Siberia were 2-9 degrees higher. A thousand years ago, the temperature was the same as it is now. "It's probably as warm now as it was a thousand years ago." The last phrase is a quote. Moreover, this is a quote from one of the pillars of the Teaching of Global Warming - paleoclimatologist Keith Briefley. It's just that this is a quote not from his public speeches, but from his correspondence opened by hackers - Briefley and colleagues discussed how best to falsify scientific data.

Any conversation about the causes of climate change must begin by listing the factors that affect the climate. There are a lot of such factors. For example, the climate on Earth depends on the availability of land at the poles. If there is no land at both poles, then the Earth is much warmer. If the land is at both poles, the whole Earth will freeze.

The radical cooling that began on the Earth 40 million years ago is precisely due to the fact that Antarctica rose to the South Pole. Throughout most of the Earth's history, there was no land at the poles, and in general the continents clustered at the equator (Pangea, Gondwana), and the Earth was much warmer.

The climate is influenced by the dustiness of the atmosphere. 250 million years ago, trap eruptions began on Earth in Eastern Siberia, temperatures dropped, and the result was the Permian-Triassic extinction of species: they became extinct in the sea by 95%. 60 million years ago, the Gulf of Mexico was blasted by a meteorite, and the dinosaurs became extinct.

You will say - these are the deeds of bygone days.

Indeed, temperature fluctuations like the medieval climatic optimum 1000 years ago and the Little Ice Age from the 14th to 16th centuries. are not explained either by continents or by meteorites.

Their cause, as well as the general reason for the fact that there is life on Earth, can be seen by anyone who wishes, raising their eyes. This reason is called the Sun. Solar activity fluctuates, with long periods of 1,500 years and small ones of 30 years. A calm sun leads to a cooling, and an active one - to a warming.

Amazingly, no IPCC (International Commission on Climate Change) report lists the reasons for climate change.

Why? The answer is very simple. The fact is that from the moment when humanity began to register temperature and observe the sun (approximately for the last 400 years), 30-year fluctuations in the Earth's temperature coincided with 30-year solar cycles.

In particular, in the XX century. the temperature rose from 1900 to 1940, fell from the 1940s to the 1970s (at that time we were even frightened by the Global Cooling), and began to rise from the 1970s. You are told that the temperature rose throughout the 20th century. and by the end of it grew by almost a degree? It's a lie. Temperature in the XX century. fluctuated along with the activity of the sun. The graph of solar activity and average temperature on Earth began to diverge only in the early 1990s.

Here! You will happily say - it was then that the Global warming, which happened because of man, began.

“No,” I argue, “that's when the IPCC was created. "Doesn't it seem strange to you that first an international bureaucratic body was created, whose power depended on the recognition of Global Warming as a threat to humanity, and only then the temperature graphs began to diverge from the activity of the sun?"

Read also: Climatology is a global deception of the World Government. The role of humanity in warming is negligible

The share of anthropogenic CO2 in the total greenhouse effect accounted for only 1%, and a 5% decrease in its role under the Kyoto Protocol meant a decrease in the total greenhouse effect by 0.05%

Do you know how many weather stations the American NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) used in its calculations in the 1960s-1980s? Answer: 6 thousand. Do you know how many weather stations NOAA uses now? 20 thousand - due to the danger of Global Warming, you suppose - and you will be mistaken.

NOAA now uses only 1,500 stations for its calculations. Over the past 40 years, stations have been excluded from the calculations mainly at high latitudes, at high altitudes and in rural areas - that is, all that show lower temperatures. In Canada, for example, there are one hundred stations located above the Arctic Circle. NOAA takes into account data from only one abnormally warm Yureka station, better known as the "Garden of the Arctic".

These new observations do not agree with the data from the satellites, and therefore a correction is introduced for the satellites, the so-called. "Cold bias" - bias in favor of cold. That is, the imperfect meteorological satellites in the 1980s showed everything correctly, and everything was agreed. But the current, perfect, constantly make mistakes by 0, 3o, - you have to correct!

Do you know who developed the theory of Global Warming? All scientific theories in the world, you see, were created by scientists: Newton, Max Planck, Einstein. Who is that Newton who first guessed that the Earth is warming up, and this comes from man? Who is that giant of thought who said that climate change is not a norm, but a reason for administrative regulation?

Answer: This giant of thought is called the IPCC - the International Commission on Climate Change at the United Nations. Thus, the Human Dependent Global Warming theory is the world's first scientific theory, created not by a scientist, not by a group of scientists, but by a bureaucratic institution.

The IPCC was created in 1988 in order to decide: Is the current warming dangerous or not? Can it be attributed to a person or not? Is it possible to fight it or is it impossible? If the commission answered “no” to even one question, the bureaucrats who made it up lost their jobs. If she answered “yes” to all three questions, then the scientists and bureaucrats of this commission would receive honor, respect, status, money for research and, in the long term, the ability to regulate the world economy.

You will laugh, they answered "yes" to all three questions.

But not without complications. In a draft of the first IPCC report, scientists who were part of the panel wrote that they had no reason to believe that humans influence the climate. Bureaucrats crossed out this text and wrote exactly the opposite: we have every reason to believe that the current climate change is related to humans.

Since then, we have been frightened by the transformation of the Earth into Venus, catastrophes, hurricanes, etc., and - oh, horror! - an increase in the CO2 content in the atmosphere.

The CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere is indeed increasing. What's next? Can you ask the simplest, most trivial question? We burn coal and oil and emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Where did this CO2 in coal and oil come from? The answer is from the atmosphere. Coal and oil is a giant dump of natural waste, the remnant of a global catastrophe. The biosphere was unable to process everything that grew, and a huge part of the building material, which formed the basis of the early luxurious flora of the Earth, was mortified.

The content of CO2 in the Cambrian air was 12 times higher than in the Ordovician - 7 times. How then did we not turn into Venus?

The IPCC reports assert themselves to be the ultimate scientific truth and the result of a synthesis of the most flawless scientific papers. In fact, they are propaganda horror stories.

Want an example? I will only give you one.

The IPCC constantly frightens us with the fact that as the warming increases, the number of natural disasters will increase. So this is a lie. Moreover, the IPCC itself admits the groundlessness of this claim. Thus, the main text of the fourth IPCC report states that the number of natural disasters in the world has not increased. In particular, flood studies did not reveal "any clear trends" and "the total number of tropical cyclones has changed little over the past four years."

However, in addition to the main text, the IPCC also has a “summary for policymakers”. And that's where the IPCC talks about the "very likely increase" of natural disasters in the future. Do you feel the difference? In the main text, we see the statement that there is nothing like that. And in the "summary for politicians" that politicians only read: "probably, possibly." At the same time, IPCC leaders, such as its ex-head, former railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri, are constantly ringing all the bells and giving interviews like this: “This is happening now - floods, droughts, growing water shortages in different parts of the world … as a person as a person, I simply cannot remain silent in the face of irrefutable evidence."

The doctrine of Global Warming is actually not a science, but an ideology. This is the ideal ideology for a global bureaucracy that wants to regulate everything and everything. In this ideology, two things stand out. First, it is based on exactly the same principle of nightmare in the street as the idea of the Apocalypse, the Second Coming and the Last Judgment. Global warming theologians frighten mankind in the same way as John the Theologian: droughts, floods, waters turned to blood and locusts with crowns of gold.

Second, it is based on exactly the same principle of distrust in business as communism. The doctrine of Global Warming was not by chance born immediately after the collapse of Global Communism. The leftists around the world could no longer talk about the Damned Capitalists Taking Surplus Value away, and they began to talk about the Damned Capitalists Destroying the Environment.

And finally, a few more points. So, for a general educational program.

First. When a layman is told that "the Earth is warming," he is inclined to believe that the whole Earth is warming. From the North Pole to the Sahara. So: the Sahara is not getting warmer. Warming affects only temperate climatic zones. Sahara remains Sahara, but if we are lucky, then in winter in high latitudes, it really can become warmer. The only thing that warming in high latitudes can lead to is a decrease in the number of hurricanes, because hurricanes in the most general case arise from the temperature difference between air masses at the equator and in temperate latitudes.

Second. Cooling leads to drought, while warming leads to rains. The mechanism here is very simple: during a cold snap, moisture is removed from the atmosphere and deposited in the form of ice caps at the poles. All vegetation is known to love moisture. The warmer it is, the more it rains.

Third. In the history of mankind, there have been both cold snaps and warming, and a cold snap has invariably turned out to be a catastrophe for mankind. The climatic catastrophe of 536 drove a stake into the coffin of the Roman Empire. Famine 1315-1317 and the ensuing plague of 1348 turned Europe into a cemetery. The fact that a catastrophe is exactly the cold, a person perfectly intuitively feels. At George Martin, humanity, for example, is threatened by the Long Winter. Not a Long Summer. To be able to sell the increase in precipitation and lengthening of the growing season as a Terrible Danger - you have to be able to!

There is a contribution of the "greenhouse effect" to fluctuations in the Earth's temperature, but it is very small in comparison with the influence of the activity of the sun. It makes no sense to regulate the amount of CO2 that humans release into the air, given that we cannot regulate all other CO2 sources, including volcanoes, flora and fauna. And most importantly, the more CO2 there is in the air, the greener and juicier our planet will be. No harm from it, no CO2, but no good.

Well, one last thing.

Does all that has been said mean that humanity is not threatened by an ecological catastrophe?

Answer: of course it does. Man, as a species, changes nature, and as a result, these changes often lead to environmental disasters.

For example, right before our eyes, a man killed the Aral Sea. Much of one of the planet's largest lakes has become a salt desert, and where fishing villages flourished, it is now an ecological disaster zone. But the drying up of the Aral Sea is not associated with warming. It is associated with the withdrawal of the waters of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya.

The same is the famous Mount Kilimanjaro. As you know, the glaciers at its top are melting. Alarmists love to cite this example as a confirmation of the theory of Global Warming. However, in fact, the temperature at the top of Kilimanjaro has remained unchanged for several decades. Why does it melt? Because the poor African population is cutting down the forest on it.

These two small examples - the Aral and Kilimanjaro - best illustrate what is the biggest global warming lie.

Environmental disasters are possible. Environmental disasters are real. Moreover, entire civilizations in the history of mankind have become victims of environmental disasters. Mesopotamia - the cradle of human civilization - has turned into a barren desert in no small measure as a result of such disasters caused by soil salinization, which came as a result of overpopulation and primitive irrigation.

But the fact of the matter is that all environmental disasters are local, and their main cause is ignorance, overpopulation and poverty. In North Korea, where the population has nothing to eat, it plows up the mountain slopes, and they fall down, having lost their forests. In Haiti, where there is no electricity, the people burned all the bushes to cook their food, and so every tropical rainstorm causes landslides there, killing people.

And the adherents of Global Warming, instead of fighting the main cause of environmental disasters - ignorance and poverty - are fighting against their only medicine - Progress.