Man-caused climate change being caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a world-wide hoax. Global warming is a major part of the United Nation’s Agenda 21(Sustainable Development) program and plan to redistribute our wealth and control all human activity on the planet. Nearly $360 billion is being spent each year to promote global warming.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but is necessary for life on the planet. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plus water (H2O) during the process of photosynthesis in plants produces the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat.
Increasing levels of CO2 have not contributed to global warming. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas with water vapor being the major greenhouse gas.
The atmosphere, biosphere and oceans contain an estimated 40,000 gigatons of carbon as CO2 and CO2 hydrations products. Only 800 gigatons of CO2 is in the atmosphere, or 2 percent.
Temperature controls the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 does not control temperature. The atmosphere-to-ocean equilibrium CO2 ratio is a temperature dependent thermodynamic constant of nature. The half-time equilibration is about seven years. This ratio alone proves the global warming hoax!
Global warming and cooling correlates very well with solar activity.
In 1966, the Hudson Institute released a study called The Report from Iron Mountain which revealed that global elitists planned to use perpetual war and environmental concerns to control the people on the planet. The EPA was created in 1970 to implement environmental controls.
In 1992, the United Nation’s Earth Summit resulted in Agenda 21.
The 1,100 page Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development) document was summarized and published under the title, “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet” (Earth Press, 1993).
In 1995, the US Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto Climate Treaty because it would destroy the US economy.
A U.S. Senate minority report contained the testimony of 650 international climate scientists that refuted man-caused global warming.
All 73 of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been proven wrong.
In 2009, IPCC researchers admit global warming is a fraud. Hundreds of incriminating emails between British and American researchers showed fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own global warming agenda.
The earth has been going through periods of warming and cooling for millions of years. 1996, researchers discovered the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Cycle which may explain why we had global warming from 1916 to 1940 and then a cooling period ending in 1976.
It is a lie that 97 percent of scientists favor anthropogenic global warming.
Over 32,000 U.S. scientists including over 9,000 Ph.D.’s are on record against man-caused global warming. See www.petitionproject.org.
Every year we hear that it was the hottest year on record. This is a lie! Surface readings are greatly influenced by the location of the recording devices.
Satellite measurements are much more accurate, and for the past 18 years there has been slight cooling.
Volcanoes are a very important source of greenhouse gases and pollutants. One major volcanic eruption puts out more pollutants into the atmosphere than all man’s activities for an entire year.
Bottom line, mankind is responsible for only about 1 percent of the greenhouse effect and contributes nothing to warming!
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace, revealed that saving the environment was only a cover for the real goal of UN Agenda 21. The real goal is power and control by elitist totalitarians who run the United Nations.
Sustainable development is not sustainable!
Hydropower generation of electricity is the least expensive. Nuclear power accounts for about 20% of US electricity. Coal is vital to electricity generation.
Ethanol: It takes more energy to produce ethanol that the energy derived. The inputs of seed, fertilizer, water, planting, equipment, harvesting and producing the ethanol requires huge amounts of energy.
Wind and solar: Without taxpayer subsidies neither is sustainable! They will never contribute more than 15 percent of our electrical power needs. Both require a 24/7 backup.
So what is the real goal of global warming alarmists?
United Nations co-chairman Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008-2015 said, “We redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Summary: Carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Temperature causes CO2 to rise. CO2 does not cause temperature to rise. All 73 IPCC climate models have been proven wrong. UN’s Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is a plan to redistribute our wealth to third world countries and by controlling every human activity on the planet. World government is the goal!
Solutions: Expose the global warming hoax! Stop funding the EPA. Get out of the United Nations by passing H.R.193.
References: www.heartlandinstitute.org and www.thenewamerican.com.
The day after President Trump signed an executive order to undo his predecessor’s efforts to fight climate change, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing that encapsulated everything that’s wrong with the way U.S. lawmakers handle science.
Global warming is a time-sensitive threat; greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere, threatening a sharp increase in heat waves, droughts, and floods by mid-century (and eventually, the melting and collapse of the ice sheets at the Earth’s poles). But the March 29 hearing, titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method” and chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texsas, meandered from one tangent after another. A good chunk of time was spent questioning whether Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann called a colleague who disagreed with him “a carnival barker” and “a denier pundit.” Some evidence was presented that he had. But does this diminish the evidence that carbon dioxide emissions pose a threat?
The Republicans dwelled on distractions that have bogged down policy for years, like a mangled historical factoid about scientists previously predicting an ice age, and an unrealistically optimistic interpretation of a temporary flattening in the global temperature curve. The latter, sometimes called “the pause,” was hailed as a sign that global warming was over. It isn’t.
But few lawmakers seemed interested in exploring the subtleties of the scientific method as it applies to climate research. The Democrats directed nearly all their questions toward Mann, who, of the four scientists called as expert witnesses, was the only one to clearly express mainstream views about the connection between human-generated greenhouse gases and climate change. The Republicans gave most of their attention to the other three, and expressed mostly innuendo, suggesting that Mann and his fellow climatologists were untrustworthy.
It wasn’t until the tail end of the nearly three-hour hearing that the one physicist in Congress, Bill Foster, D-Illinois, spoke up: “Does everyone on this panel agree,” he began, “that the temperature of the Earth is set in general terms by radiative balance, and that the infrared absorption spectra of carbon dioxide is a very relevant driving term, and that the uncertainty really is in the other positive and negative feedback terms that may or may not be present, changes in the convection…?”
Foster rambled on about albedo and Siberian swamps, and most people in the room appeared to have no idea what he was asking about. But his was the only pointed question any Democrat had aimed at the three contrarians. In essence, Foster was asking if they agreed that well-established physics underlies the mechanism by which carbon dioxide causes global warming, and that the only remaining uncertainties are due to feedbacks that can damp down or amplify warming.
Even the contrarians agreed he was right. They also agreed that cutting climate research was a mistake. This rendered most of the previous squabbling irrelevant.
Anyone following the mainstream science journals would see that while politicians debate whether carbon dioxide really causes climate change, most scientists have moved on to the details — charting Arctic sea ice, examining the repercussions of warming oceans, and investigating the influence of climate change on human health.
I noticed a similar divide a few years ago when I wrote a series of columns about evolution. While certain members of the public and politicians were arguing that Darwin’s theory wasn’t well-established enough to teach in school, the mainstream science community had moved on to figuring out how fish evolved proto-limbs and crawled onto the land, how and why some dinosaurs sprouted feathers, and where in Africa non-human primates first evolved into us. Those trying to keep evolution out of school would often misrepresent these detail debates as threats to the whole scientific paradigm.
Some of the congressmen at the hearing similarly misrepresented a disagreement over whether surface temperatures had flattened out for a few years in the early 21st century. In 2015, a group led by Tom Karl, director of the National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, published a paper in the journal Science saying temperatures during the so-called “pause” weren’t as flat as people thought. The next year, a team led by Canadian climate scientist John Fyfe offered new evidence that the pause was real. But in a phone conversation, Fyfe said the pause is easily explained as a temporary effect of El Niño and La Niña. With three years of record-setting warmth behind us, the pause is over — but some lawmakers won’t let it go.
Republicans also harped on the notion that scientists in the 1970s forecast a coming ice age. A few did worry about global cooling because they’d discovered that some of the constituents of smog block sunlight. And a few did use the term “ice age.” As Mann explained at the hearing, scientists also knew about greenhouse warming, but weren’t yet sure what would have the biggest impact — smog or carbon dioxide.
What we know now is that smog eventually dissipates and gets rained out. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Some scientists compare the situation to a bathtub with a badly clogged drain. You might turn down the spigot, but the tub will keep getting fuller.
Current models say doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause global temperatures to rise between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. But even if we reduce emissions, the total will keep rising. No one at the hearing suggested a better, more scientific way to make this kind of forecast.
The hearing went on for more than two and a half hours, and despite the promise of a discussion of the scientific method, the representatives never got around to asking about it. That’s too bad. In an interview after it was all over, climate researcher Richard Alley of Penn State University said that in the broadest sense, the scientific method is this: “the human attempt to learn, done by people who have agreed to follow a rule set that makes it hard for those people to fool themselves.” There’s something in that even Congress could use.