Another domino in the global warming hoax has fallen. "It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero." Knorr, W. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 2009; 36 (21): L21710 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL040613.
This study, the climategate scandal, the contradictions of global cooling claims in the 1980's and the obvious political motivations of global warmers show any reasonable person that there is no global warming or that there are serious doubts about it. And if there is global warming, there should be questions if it is anthropogenic (manmade) and if it is something that is bad for us. This new study shows that it is not caused by anthropogenic CO2 as the global warmers claimed. This manmade CO2 theory was the basis of the entire hoax of manmade global warming.
This will not stop the global warming hoax. There are too many politicians and "climatologists" making billions of dollars off this scam. They belong in jail. They will ignore this study, explain it away, or twist it around. It is irrelevant how much proof you can show, they will insist that their way is right. And they will continue to lie.
The mountain of evidence will continue to grow. Just as "global cooling" was disproved 20 years ago, so shall this be disproving. It is just a question of how much money will be lost in the process. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent will be gone and it could have gone to help feed starving people instead of lining the pockets of greedy and dishonest politicians and climatologists. But then they will find some new scare tactic. They will even try to take credit for preventing global cooling despite the fact they have done nothing in reality. They have already taken credit for stopping global cooling in some articles I read. The contradiction does not even appear to faze them.
Despite their arrogance and audacity, we must fight back with the truth and reveal their true motivations and goals. By exposing their lies, we expose their agenda.
Comments
On www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
The CRUs own web site you'll find a partial list of CRU funders.
Including
British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, 'Food to Ethanol'
The United States Department of Energy, 'Nuclear'
Irish Electricity Supply Board. 'LNG, Nuclear'
UK Nirex Ltd. 'Nuclear'
Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
Tate and Lyle. 'Food to Ethanol'
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 'Nuclear'
KFA Germany, 'Nuclear'
This is all about making Nuclear Power, Liquefied Natural Gas and Food to Ethanol more cost competitive.
They have been paying for the research and getting the results that they have paid for.
The raw data, computer models and methods used by the CRU have not been released, only the results. The CRU does not do science; they are in the anti-CO2 business.
Same as Merck, their 'researchers' and Vioxx, the government and 'thousands and thousands' of doctors believed them, as did a lot of people.
Science Fiction from the Climate Research Unit.
The CRU is has not been practicing the scientific method for almost two decades. The scientific method requires that the researcher publish the original data, models and procedures needed for a skeptical analysis of any of their work. Since they are not using the scientific method then they simply are not doing science, they are writing fiction.
Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong about cold fusion, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work. The outputs from the CRU are in comparison junk, so I ask, why are these fictional 'research' papers allowed to remain in the realm of scientific publications? Why do people continue to quote the CRU as if they were the work of Albert Einstein rather than the work of Mark Twain?
In general much of the anthropogenic CO2 reports I have read have a tendency to trim off historical climate events that do not support AGW. Historical climate data information must be included in any climate discussion because ‘climate’ by definition is so long term. Once climate history is put in perspective, our current situation with rising CO2 levels is found not be very exceptional.
The petition project appears to me to be a very relevant start to an objective dialog on this subject.
Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Also the MIT study on green house solar radiant energy, which is based on current actual earth measurements, is quite telling. The big point is that the climate models which support AGW could very much be using the wrong radiant energy values.
The Truth is Become more available and people are speaking out against the liars and con artists that are profiting due to their lies.
They are not claiming CO2 PPM are not increasing, they are claiming that when humans emit Rtons CO2 that (.7 * Rtons CO2)+/-1.4% is absorbed by the biosphere and the rest remains in the atmosphere. It does not matter if R is a low number or a large number. So CO2 content is increasing, but it is not saturating the biosphere. I still do not think CO2 is a problem, the earth is set-up to keep a nearly 100% 'greenhouse' effect in place at all times. Additional CO2 simply displaces additional water vapor.
The article cited concludes "From what we understand about the underlying processes,uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
the available data and its accuracy."
That conclusion makes sense.
There is simply no empirical evidence to back up the theory that Co2 is a driver of climate. Only the undisclosed computer simulations that are required to multiply an extra trace of Co2 into a disaster scenario. The only real correlation is that Co2 lags temp by 8-900 years.
Also that life on Earth thrives during warmer temps. That plants thrive in higher Co2 (1200-1500ppm for most). And the more Co2 a country produces per capita the wealthier it is.
Albania, Afghanistan, Chad are not 'energy efficient' economies to be emulated.
What the theory has going for it is a powerful intuitive sense that our adding Co2 into the atmos. MUST be bad. The fact that the 'solutions' have great appeal to a certain political ideology regardless of any actual problem. And of course the Trillions of $ don't hurt.
Like any religion, this has more than enough going for it without any need hard science.
Stevel: you speak the truth. Of course most people don't realize the Causative Part of the correlation MUST exist in order to prove the theory and that is where it fails completely.
Here is an example of a correlation:
As the output of CO2 rose in the US, the value of the dollar declined. (not causative, but a correlation)
Since the dept of 'education' took over, mentality/intelligence has decreased (causative correlation).
The amount of vaccines (and the profits for pharma) increase and the increase in autoimmune disease (causative correlation, imo)
AGW and Profits/Loss of freedom/Loss of enterprise/Loss of jobs and industry (causative correlation)
Al Gore tried to prove CO2 caused global warming. However, it was later shown that the global temps increased ahead of the rise in CO2. Now, since the industrial revolution, the CO2 is rising again. Could it too be the result of a warming that occurred 800 or so years ago? Tree rings do show there was a warming 800 to a 1000 years ago. This rise in CO2, from a historical standpoint, fits in with the data that defeated the original Al Gore claims. Then there is the illogical twist that half of the anthropogenic CO2 disappears into a carbon sink, in order to make the numbers fit, and does this only once, letting the rest accumulates. Folks, this type of AGW logic is pure nonsense and is tantamount to cheating. It does not invalidate CO2 accumulation. It's just that the AGW hypothesis noted above is wrong. The other piece of nonsense out there is that IR is heat. IR can warm things, but it is not a vibrating molecule and is not heat. Also, all gases can vibrate and give off IR. However, the point being made by the AGW folks is that of thermal IR causing a problem which CO3 is the chief culprit. 99% of the atmospheric heat is in the form of conduction and convection. It seems to me that the 1% that is radiative in the troposphere is not the cause of serious global warming.
Please accept my errata: CO2, line 10, not CO3.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!