06 December 2010

"Scam for the Ages" Makes Madoff Look Like Small Change


Is it possible that you are the victim of a massive scam that makes the Bernie Madoff scam -- and all the other famous scams of history -- pale in comparison? It is not only possible -- it is true. In this incomprehensibly vast scam, there are many $billions to be made, and many $trillions to change hands over the next few decades. Clever chaps, these highly placed con-men.

A small number of humans shape and control the information flow that is accessible to most of the human race. Not coincidentally, this small number of persons is also tightly connected to even fewer persons who control most of the world's commercial, industrial, and governmental assets. If you do not take the trouble to step out of the mainstream of information flow, you are not likely to be aware of how your future prospects are being stolen from you without your consent.
Reducing man made carbon dioxide emissions is completely and utterly pointless if your goal is to change the future climate. On the other hand if you’re looking to make money from the trading of carbon allowances (carbon credits) than it makes a great deal of sense. If you’re looking to control the way the modern world makes energy then it makes perfect sense as well. If you’re trying to save the world from capitalists it makes it highly desirable to reduce “dirty” carbon emissions. If your mission is to extract money from developed nations and give it to those countries that have been robbed of their right to burn fossil fuels to grow their economies then it [may appear to be] the moral thing to do. If you are in the renewable energy business it makes perfect sense to support the reduction of carbon dioxide “pollution”. If you’re one of hundreds of environmental corporations whos mission is to save the planet at any cost, [and reduce the human population of Earth by at least 90%] then shutting down all sources of man made carbon dioxide is a war you must win. What cause could be nobler than to save the planet? _EnergyTribune
Bracketed comments in the quote above are editorial insertions by Al Fin

The frantic global rush to control human energy production -- and thus all human industry and commerce -- is based upon catastrophic climate models which project a "runaway greenhouse effect" from human CO2 emissions. But are the models believable? Are these pliable constructs of an infant science -- climatology -- trustworthy enough to base the entire human future upon their computations? There are reasons to strongly doubt the reliability of the models. From the paper: Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N. (2010) A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(7), 1094-1110 (via WUWT) we can see a few detailed comparisons between climate model outputs and actual observations.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global circulation models (GCM) are able to “reproduce features of the past climates and climate changes” (Randall et al., 2007, p. 601). Here we test whether this is indeed the case. We examine how well several model outputs fit measured temperature and rainfall in many stations around the globe. We also integrate measurements and model outputs over a large part of a continent, the contiguous USA (the USA excluding islands and Alaska), and examine the extent to which models can reproduce the past climate there. We will be referring to this as “comparison at a large scale”. _WUWT

When predicting the future it is best if your predictions range far beyond the lifetimes of anyone currently alive. That way, when you are proven wrong, no one then alive will particularly care one way or another -- certainly not you or your primary antagonists, who are long since dead. Climate modelers would like to have such luxury, but if they are to be taken at all seriously -- even by their fellows who are accepting generous and targeted research grants like themselves -- they must leave a way for the models to be tested, some tenuous connection between the models and real world observations. So far, the models appear to be highly biased and unreliable.

Is it possible that the models' outputs -- and the sensationalist headlines about climate change that face us on every front on every day of the year -- may be just a bit exaggerated?
The primary greenhouse gases listed in order of their contribution to the effect are: Water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. There are others but their concentrations in the atmosphere are so small they don’t contribute much effect. Water vapor and clouds are about 93% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide about 5%, nitrous oxide about 0.95% and methane contributes about 0.36%. It’s the combined greenhouse warming from these gases that gives the earth its current average temperature.

Studies by Raval & Ramanathan (1989) estimated that the greenhouse effect of a cloudless atmosphere is 146 W/m2 (watts per square meter) for the average earth. They further pointed out that water vapor is accounting for most of this greenhouse effect, leaving about 8 W/m2 for the total amount of atmospheric CO2, i.e. some 5%. In addition the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate changes (IPCC) 4th assessment showed that 3% of the atmospheric CO2 comes from man made sources. Global gross primary production and respiration, land use changes plus CO2 from the oceans totals 213 gigatons of carbon exchanged each year between the earth/oceans and the atmosphere. The IPCC figure also shows man made carbon emissions to be about 7 gigatons bringing the total to 220 gigatons per year. So from this we can see that making energy from fossil fuels is adding about 3% of the carbon dioxide added to the air each year. From that the total human component of the greenhouse effect is therefore about 3% of the total carbon dioxide component of the greenhouse effect which is 5%. That gives us a value of 0.1% from man made carbon dioxide. If you think that’s a small number you’re right. _EnergyTribune
In reality, humans could reduce their CO2 contribution to virtually nothing, and the climate would not change its trajectory. But the human population would rapidly die off to a relatively low level -- which is precisely what legions of faux environmentalists would like to see occur. And a few well-placed individuals would reap many $billions (or more) of diverted resources, which would place them in a most elevated position with respect to the mere hundreds of millions of subsistence-level humans who might survive the energy starvation and dieoff.orgy.

US President Obama's staff is well-stocked with such faux environmentalist dieoff.orgiasts, and his presidential campaign was well-financed by individuals, corporations, and investment banks who are likely to do very well from carbon markets, trades, and regulations.

If you still believe in climate catastrophe from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then you are not likely to change your point of view by looking at observations, data, or evidence which contradicts your point of view. You are one of the happy pawns to be sacrificed at will. But for the rest -- those who seek out information for yourselves, and do your own weighing of the evidence -- for you there is just a bit of fore-knowledge.

You can get involved in politics to attempt to slow the energy starvation reich's agenda a bit, or you can make personal preparations for what is coming, or both. Alternatively, you can try to get in on the big scam. Your move.

Extra Bonus: 120 Years of Media Coverage of Climate Catastrophe -- Hot and Cold. Climate is cyclic -- first hot, then cold, then hot again. Whichever direction the cycle is heading, it is always a catastrophe to the media and to credulous consumers of media crap.

The current Religious Orthodoxy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming -- CAGW -- is easily converted to an orthodoxy of CAGC, if conditions warrent. The direction of climate temperature is irrelevant. It is the doom that counts.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger Tom Craver said...

Do you really want to base anything on an article that doesn't even distinguish between "3% of yearly global CO2 releases are man-made" (true enough), and "3% of extant atmospheric CO2 is due to humans" (a huge underestimate)?

Monday, 06 December, 2010  
Blogger al fin said...

The quoted article from "Energy Tribune" does not affect my view of climate or greenhouse gas one way or the other.

But you seem to be suggesting that you can prove the article wrong in some respect. If so, please provide more details and supporting information, if possible.

Monday, 06 December, 2010  
Blogger Tom Craver said...

The author states that humans only contribute 3% of CO2 released per year and proceeds to claim that means we only contribute 3% of the 5% greenhouse effect of CO2.

But fraction of CO2 added per year isn't relevant - it's accumulated CO2 change that's relevant - and the evidence appears to be that over the past century and a half, CO2 has more than doubled.

Was that somehow natural rather than due to accumulation of human contributed CO2 above the Earth's current rate absorbing it? Sure go ahead and argue that if you want.

But an article whose author can't even recognize the difference between per-year human CO2 contribution and fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity doesn't prove much of anything about AGW, let alone that AGW must be a scam.

Monday, 06 December, 2010  
Blogger al fin said...

If you are suggesting that human produced CO2 is somehow magical and stays in the atmosphere longer than "natural CO2", perhaps you might supply a credible source.

If a scientist is unwilling to admit that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere fluctuate with global temperature -- regardless of the causes of the global temperature fluctuations (ocean temperatures specifically) -- that person is not much of a scientist.

Tuesday, 07 December, 2010  
Blogger Tom Craver said...

Hmm, based on your misrepresentation of my position, I think you fully understood what I was saying. But just in case:

Suppose politicians precisely representing your wishes took over the government, wiped out the national debt got the budget balanced, and kept it that way for decades.

Then the voters went mad and elected politicians you don't like, who create 3% deficit spending. Lo and behold, the national debt starts to pile up. Who do you blame?

Why obviously, it's your own favorite politicians who contributed 97% of the problem - these new politicians only added 3% to it! After all, the new 3% doesn't magically hang around longer than other 97%, does it?

Wednesday, 08 December, 2010  
Blogger Tom Craver said...

Suppose politicians precisely representing your wishes took over the government, wiped out the national debt, got the budget balanced at a level you like, and kept it that way for decades.

Then the voters went mad and elected politicians you don't like, who create 3% deficit spending. Lo and behold, the national debt starts to pile up. Who do you blame?

Why obviously, it's your own favorite politicians who contributed 97% of the problem - these new politicians only added 3% to it! After all, the new 3% doesn't magically hang around longer than other 97%, does it?

Wednesday, 08 December, 2010  
Blogger al fin said...

Thanks for the analogy. It helps me to understand your point of view much more clearly.

The climate itself is far more complex than the example analogy you offer. In a government budget, it is fairly simple to deduct who has exercised due fiscal discipline and who has not. But even in a situation of government spending, if a rare situation of government spending occurs which -- even accidentally -- causes the economy to grow and generate more wealth and tax revenue, the overspending might in that rare case lead away from a budget deficit in the long run.

Not likely, of course, but a hint that the situation can be more complex than simple tax revenues vs. government expenditures.

In the case of climate, the situation is far more complex. The number of feedbacks -- both positive and negative -- which are only just being discovered, should make even pompous asses such as Michael Mann or James Hansen at least a bit more humble.

But no. Crusaders on crusade, full of fame, a recent Nobel Prize, and rich grants and funding, are not in the mood for humility. They are not in the mood for doing their job, which is putting their hypothesis in a falsifiable form and trying their damnedest to falsify it. Very risky to be an actual scientist in a hotbed of political dominance games, particularly when a lot of money is at stake for some very powerful persons.

My aim is not to change anyone's mind. My aim is to provoke, cajole, rile, and hold in contempt those persons in public life whom I believe to be endangering the human future.

Thanks for the attempt. If the next one is more complex and on target, it may prove quite interesting.

Wednesday, 08 December, 2010  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts