Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore gives a keynote address to the Economic Education Association of Alberta’s 6th annual “Freedom School” conference, on “Things that Matter: An Agenda for Alberta”, about changing the world by speaking the truth – in this case about the science, policy and politics of man-made global warming
To me, all this propaganda that humans are responsible for climate change implies that somehow the climate is static and would not be changing but for human activity. This may make great headlines and inspire youth to create strikes and march upon the institutions of capitalism demanding their closure. However, any unbiased review of history reveals a shocking fact – the climate has ALWAYS changed and it too has been a force incorporated in the Economic Confidence Model.
Civilization has always expanded during warming periods and collapsed during global cooling. Simply correlating historical weather and disease reveals a very solid relationship. When there are global cooling periods, this is when disease rises and the worst plagues take place. When it turns cold, crops fail and malnutrition takes place weakening people’s immune systems leaving them more susceptible to plagues.
This global warming seems to have risen to a religion and it is being used by the Communists/Socialists to kill the Industrial Revolution and redistribute the wealth. Raising all the taxes in the world is ONLY pure PUNISHMENT – there is no program to reverse climate change – no fantastic machine. Anyone who was really a scientist just has to look at the historic data on temperature and you will discover that civilization thrives when it gets warm, and it contracts when it gets cold. But above all else, it has ALWAYS changed.
In 61AD, Seneca the Younger (c. 4BC– 65AD) the philosopher, statesman, and adviser to Emperor Nero who ordered him to commit suicide, wrote about the pollution in Rome.
“No sooner had I left behind the oppressive atmosphere of the city [Rome] and that reek of smoking cookers which pour out, along with clouds of ashes, all the poisonous fumes they’ve accumulated in their interiors whenever they’re started up, than I noticed the change in my condition.”
Pollution has had its cycles as well and this entire Global Warming nonsense implies that it has ONLY been post-Industrial Revolution that threatens the planet and we will all die in 12 years according to AOC, our latest entertainer in Congress. Low and behold, pollution became so bad that the capital city of the Roman Empire, Constantinople, that the Emperor Justinian I (527-565AD) even enacted the first known Clean Air Act.
In 535AD, then Emperor Justinian I proclaimed the importance of clean air as a birthright. “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind—the air, running water, the sea.”
There has always been pollution. When there are forest fires started by lightening, they put off CO2. Volcanoes put out CO2. Plants and trees need CO2 to survive. This is simply a divine mechanism of how the earth functions.
The entire climate change issue has become a covert means in this final confrontation between the left and the right. This is the very issue that will destroy the Western Society for it has been elevated to such heights and governments love it for all they see is more power and money. The activists behind the curtain are simply Marxists who are determined to make communism work one more time.
From the attached report on climate change for August 2019Data we have the two charts showing how much the global temperature has actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere? To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up a bit over 30.0% from 1958 to August of 2019. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree. Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) are almost un-measurable. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 40 % on the left and 4% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .30%; while CO2 has increased by 30.0% which is 100 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem? The numbers tell us no there isn’t.
The next chart is Chart 8a which is the same as Chart 8 except for the scales which are the same for both CO2 and Temperature. As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for the previous chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2. Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius. This is what the data shows no matter what the reasons are, so I have no idea how the IPCC gets to predict that the world will end in ten or even twenty years.
The full 39 page report explains how these charts were developed and why using NASA and NOAA data that are used without change to prove that The New Green Deal is not required and any attempt to complete that plan will be a worldwide disaster.
Click on the link below for the full report that you can download.
COMMENT: Well, I told my wife that your models warned that it was volatility which would rise in the climate so we would see colder winters and hotter summers as part of the climate change. She thought I was crazy because that’s not what they say on TV. Then it snowed here on September 3. This was the earliest snowfall on record. She is starting to listen to me for once.
Thank you
BM
REPLY: Glad to hear that. Sorry for the snowfall. The weather is indeed becoming very volatile. Even in Thailand, the weather has swung wildly from extremely hot to pleasantly mild. Welcome to the age of climate change which has constantly changed even before neanderthals discovered fire.
Earlier today President Trump arrived at the U.N. General Assembly for discussions and bilateral meetings with various world leaders. As the president arrived he briefly stopped to talk to a massive assembly of international journalists.
.
The global leftists brought the child-prop for their current cause célèbre to the U.N. President Trump ignored the child and the climate nuts went bananas.
“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” climate activist Greta Thunberg tells the UN. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you.” https://cnn.it/2mAXVQb
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and other Democrat leaders nationwide announce that students can skip classes Friday (9/20/201) to join the global climate strike aimed at protesting man-made climate breakdown. Is this just a craven political move, at the expense of taxpayers and of student learning, or a great way to give young people an active role in the crucial work to save the planet? Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott comes to you five times each week thanks to the Members who fund it and who operate their own private website. Join them now at https://BillWhittle.com/register/
COMMENT: This morning blog question. I concur with ROM. Here’s a perfect example.
BP has just sold all its oil and gas assets in Alaska to cut its carbon footprint in order to be consistent with the Paris Accord. This is a needless sale of assets caused by an ‘Act of Extortion-The Paris Accord’ against the shareholders [owners] of BP under the force of false premise concerning climate change-their inability to substantiate their presumptions and bias about climate change and what’s causing it including their attempts to overrule anything to the contrary to their stated presumptions. The company that purchased the assets said it is going to invest more heavily in the fields than what BP had planned to invest resulting in increased emissions. So did the sale result in fewer emissions? No. What it did was rob the shareholders of BP what was rightly theirs to own, manage, create employment, benefit the local economy and receive a return on their investments.
BP’s current management has blindly or calculatingly did what’s politically expedient for the Brand and in doing so fell prey to the hysterical hyperbole of climate change rhetoric that is presumptuous, prejudice and grossly misleading. They mismanaged these assets and should be held accountable.
I own a small number of shares in BP.
RB
REPLY: It is truly amazing how this group has turned global warming into a complete crisis that is causing total chaos everywhere. They are intent on ending the industrial revolution and have faked the evidence. As long as governments see a profit in their manipulations, they are enticed by the money dangling before them. BP sold assets in an industry that constitutes their core business because of the people behind the Paris Accord. The implementation of those demands is going to fundamentally undermine car production in Europe as well. But politicians will not listen until the damage becomes self-evident, by which time it will be too late. This is part of the shift from the West to the East and why China will become the financial capital of the world post-2032.
COMMENT: You have no proof that the extreme weather from hot to cold is normal. It is humans who have created this with pollution.
OJ
REPLY: You seem to WANT to believe whatever the people say and demand proof from me but not from them. Our models are based on raw data. They are not adjusted to produce a predetermined conclusion in order to get grants from the government to support more taxes.
You are showing that you already have made up your mind. They count on people like you for their climate change agenda, which is just a front for a socialist takeover of society. You clearly ignore all the articles that show there is MORE ice — not less.
If I had to choose between death or living in a world of oppression, a world you seem to want to impose on everyone, I would prefer death. I have been behind the Berlin Wall before it fell. You have no idea what these people will do. I fear for our children and their children for they will NEVER know the freedoms that once existed.
There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of human-induced climate change. The climate has ALWAYS moved cyclically and changed. It has NEVER remained the same even from one decade to the next. If you hate humanity so much, then set an example for your group and voluntarily commit suicide to reduce the plague of human existence you seem to maintain. I suspect it is not your death you would offer, but anyone who disagrees with your view.
That is what always unfolds and ends up with blood in the streets. Indeed, history repeats. They are just using climate change instead of outright demanding the confiscation of assets from anyone who has more than you.
I have friends who were born behind the Berlin Wall. They fled to the West when they could. They all tell the same story. What they fled from is taking hold right here and now. It has followed them.
This, I believe, is part of the cycle that warns of the fall of Western society by 2032. It gives me no pleasure in writing that.
This is an incredible story of how we’ve got to this point of actually watching Bill Gates showing that, albeit indirectly, there are way too many people in the world which than implies de-population. At TED2010, Bill Gates unveiled his vision for the world’s energy future, describing the need for “miracles” to avoid planetary catastrophe from CO2 and the necessary goal of Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050. Nine years after TED2010 Petsche and his squad are proposing the first steps to making Brecksville a sustainable community with no need need for cars and we will all be using bicycles to go to work and do our shopping. Make no bones about this as this is the progressive plan!
Watch the first 12 minutes of this clip and listen to Gates talk about CO2 reductions and then read the rest of this review.
This perceived problem of CO2 had its beginnings in the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, which met at Stockholm from June 5th to June 16th 1972. What happens over the next thirty years can be directly traced to this conference! The previous Video and the following discussion highlight only a few of the major events that have led many to believe that all life on earth is threatened by there being too many people a principle first proposed by Thomas Malthus, an early English economist. Malthus published and essay in 1798 titled An Essay on the Principle of Population where he proposed that sooner or later population growth will be checked by famine and disease, leading to what is known as a Malthusian catastrophe; which later technology prevented from happening.
The 1972 Stockholm conference led to European studies on the role of Carbon Dioxide and the environment such as the SCOPE 13 The Global Carbon Cycle paper published in 1979 by the Scientific Committee On Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) in Paris. This paper showed very dire results for increased levels of Carbon Dioxide, and reignited the old Malthusian catastrophe concept.
In conjunction with the Europeans climate work a request was made to the National Academy of Science (NAS) to study the issue. In 1979 the completed study, now called the Charney Report, agreed that there was a problem and justified their conclusions by defining a key number need in the science. They looked at the work of a young scientist working at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) James E. Hansen’s high estimate of 4.0 C and added .5 degrees C to it for uncertainty. Then they took another scientist working a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Syukuro Manabe’s low estimate of 2.0 C and subtracted .5 from it for uncertainty. Lastly they average the two which then gives us a 1.5 C Low value, an 3.0 C expected value and a 4.5 C high value as the CO2 sensitivity values which are what are still used today thirty five years later. Hansen and Manabe were the only two that had climate models that were reviewed in the Charney Report and Hansen’s paper was not officially published at the time.
James Edward Hansen while at NASA, was the driver for the US government’s push for control of energy. Hansen gave a presentation to the US congress in 1988 where he showed them what he thought would happen to Global Climate if we did not stop putting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the earth’s atmosphere. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used; A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. Essentially, a high and low estimate that bracketed the expected value (B) which Hansen specifically stated that he thought as the “most plausible”. Hansen used the 1979 NAS report as justification for the logic used to build these three scenarios.
Shortly thereafter we had the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was set up in 1988 by the United Nations (UN) at the request of two of its other organizations; the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) formed in 1950, and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) set up after the Stockholm Declaration in 1972. The IPCC’s mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change, specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change. A key point here is the IPCC was never charged with proving whether the Anthropogenic assertion true or not it was only charged with determining how bad it would be; in essence assuming it was true.
The next major event was the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth-Summit), held in Rio-de-Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called UN Agenda 21. This was a comprehensive blueprint for creating a “sustainable” world which went from world governance to local school boards and zoning boards which meant that “every” aspect of a person’s life was to be controlled by UN Agenda 21. This program based on Carbon Dioxide rising world temperatures beyond the point where humans could maintain a civilization completed all that was needed for implementation and we were off on a Quest to save the planet.
Enter Al Gore who while in Congress became interested in Climate Change and he was instrumental in getting Hansen funding from Congress to study the problem of Climate Change which was known as Global Warming back then. Gore was very active in the environmental movement while he was Bill Clinton’s VP. Gore continued to promote the movement, after leaving office, and his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” was released in 2006; this documentary was a story about how the burning of fossil fuels were destroying the planet. It seemed to be targeted at young adults without the education to discern truth from fiction and it was very successful in achieving negative awareness on the subject. Unfortunately, the message in that documentary was not factually correct and appeared to be only an emotional appeal to support the regulation of Carbon Emissions’ (CO2) in some form of Carbon Tax.
An interesting fact, Al Gore was one of the investors that had helped set up a Carbon Trading exchange in Chicago along with a then young Barack Obama (on the board of the major investor The Joyce Foundation located in Chicago) that they named the Chicago Carbon Exchange CCX in 2003. When the American Clean Energy and Security Act was not passed by the US Senate in 2009 the CCX exchange folded the following year, 2010. Gore had been very vocal on this subject and if HR 2454 had been passed by the US Congress Gore would have become very wealthy; so the question is was his involvement in the movement because he believed what he was promoting or because what he was promoting would have made him very wealthy?
This brings us to Bill Gates with his Gates Foundation that has along with Al Gore taken up the cause of stopping Anthropogenic Climate Change which they believe will cause the planet to overheat and create a mass extinction and possibly even ending human life. This movement has now taken the look of a religion and therefore no debate allowed. A few years ago Bill Gates gave a presentation to a select group of supporters where as part of that presentation he showed described a simple equation to show what was needed to reduce Carbon Dioxide to save the planet.
The Gate’s equation is CO2 = P x S x E x C which is the amount of CO2 emitted is equal to the number of people (P), times the service they use (S), times the energy per service (E), times the CO2 per unit of energy. Gates after explaining this equation goes on to explain that we have to get the CO2 value to near “zero” which means that some of these numbers need to get close to zero. Gates doesn’t use any numbers and then he goes on to other subjects in the presentation.
The following numbers represent the estimated 2014 values for the US for the logic Gates presents and which we can then plug into Gate’s equation. GDP is around $18.0 trillion, there are probably 320 million people in the country, the energy we use is almost 100 quad and we produce 0.0000000663 metric tons of CO2 per BTU used. Multiplying all the values as shown in the following table gives 6.525 million metric tons of CO2 which is about what the US emits at present. Now looking at these numbers how are we going to going to get 6.525 million metric tons of CO2 even close to zero?
To properly look at Gates’ equation we must look at how all the variables, that he identifies, interact with each other to create Carbon Dioxide. Since this is a very simple equation it was easy to make four tables, one for each variable, and then vary the values to see how they changed the result. Each of the following tables is for one of Gates’ equation, for example the first one is Population (P). We see in the first line that population is 320,090,073 (the second column) and it’s identified as 100% (the first column) which is today’s number, and that using the Gates equation as shown in the table above equals 6,526.0 million metric tons of CO2. The next line down is 98% and each line down is reduced by 2% until we get to 80% in the last line. That represents a 20% reduction in the population to 256,072,058 people and 5,221.8 million metric tons of CO2.
The next three table for S, E and C follow the same logic although the reducing percentage is different for each. What we have then are 20% fewer people, 30% less GDP, 40% less energy and 50% less Carbon Dioxide if those levels can be obtained. The fifth table at the bottom of the page is the summary of the other four showing that if all those objectives were achieved Carbon Dioxide would be reduced by 83.2% to 1,096,368,000 million metric tons of CO2. I think that the reader can see that this draconian reduction would not be supported by the citizens.
The average person burns enough food in their body to release about 328.7 Kg of CO2 per year; so if there are 320 million people that’s 105.1 million metric tons per year. Unfortunately to get to zero emissions means there can be no people by definition. Further it’s obvious that the number of people is the driving force in the equation. But even that level (with no economy and no energy) is way more than Gates would like as we are still emitting 105.1 million metric tons of CO2 per year. So how does he propose to get to Zero without getting rid of almost all the people?
The Globalists like Gore, Gates, Soros, and others know that it’s not possible to get to zero human emissions as we showed in these tables. However they do want to reduce the world population to something close to 500,000,000 which is a 92.9% reduction which is not going to happen without a fight; not with 9 out of 10 people being eliminated!
The purpose of this paper and tables is to show that it isn’t possible to do what Gates and his friends say needs to be done — so what is their real motive if not to get rid of lots of people? Or maybe just like Jonathon Gruber they just think we are not smart enough to know they are trying to do something really really bad?
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
There has always been pollution. When there are forest fires started by lightening, they put off CO2. Volcanoes put out CO2. Plants and trees need CO2 to survive. This is simply a divine mechanism of how the earth functions.
Centinel2012 