Shocker: Global Warming Scam Really About Exporting Our Wealth to 3rd World Slackers

• March 29, 2009

A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.
Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations “information note” on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an “effective framework” for dealing with global warming.

Well you had to figure that something like this was behind the scam. And it’s especially nice that President Obama is all ready to downgrade our kids futures for this garbage.
If you ask a person on the street what spending they really hate, you’ll usually come up with “foreign aid.” Well this global warming scam is foreign add on a grand scale. Rather than being in the tens of billions we’re going to get stuck spending trillions.
We finally know why the debate is over. It’s over because it was never about the truth. It was always about the politics of ramming this garbage down our throats.
The simple test to see if global warming is true or not is to look at these guys’ predictions. Did they predict the cooling, especially in 2007 and 2008? No way, they were saying that it was going to be warming rather than cooling.
As far as I’m concerned any politician that votes for this kind of garbage is a traitor to the United States.
The other thing is that the money being stolen from us in the name of preventing climate change won’t go to help those living in poverty in the third world. Like most UN programs the money will go to enrich the dictators and thugs in these hellholes. The reason why they are so bad is not a lack of capital. It’s a lack of freedom and good government.

Tags: Domestic Issues

http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

They were FORCED to admit it because not all scientists are in the bag for this scam.

Flamer probably doesn’t understand why it’s inappropriate to substitute September’s data for October’s data.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

The people in third world countries are not slackers

The ones that will benefit from the money are. The ones that are scratching out a living won’t be any better off.

Of course Dawneyr could have picked it up if she had read past the title of the post.
2Hotel9

Flamer, they already admitted they used data from periods other than the one reported. They have also admitted to doing it on a fairly regular basis. Get off it. Substituting data from one period of study and claiming it represents another, all to support a political agenda, is the height of self-serving dishonesty. And speaking of data,

awfully quiet up there.

The UN has no authority to tax, or to order anyone to give it anything. Want to know what is wrong in “3rd” world countries? read a detailed history of the UN’s actions in those regions. It will become abundantly clear that they are 80% of the problem. Political cannibals are the rest of it.
dawneyr

The people in third world countries are not slackers and they have to work harder in a day just to survive than many of us work in an entire week. The UN is a population control fraud of an entity that is hell bent on controlling the world’s economy, government and religion. The manmade climate change/global warming fraud is a vehicle for their agenda.

There are monetary coercions in place and that’s why some normally clear thinking decent businesses have jumped on the “green” bandwagon…sink or swim in this manmade cesspool is the only option they see on the horizon if this scam is pulled off. It used to be the lure of a big global business carrot, but now that the true business-strangling colors are showing, there is a mad dash to ring-kiss the anti-Semitic UNperor which desires to squash anything that it can’t control.

It hasn’t a thing to do with helping the poor. It is clear that the fraudulent plan will hurt the world’s poorest people. The UN’s Millennium Developmental Goals are full of references about controlling the population. It is about getting into these places, offering them free “healthcare” as any “respectable” Darwinian would do to reduce or eliminate the population of those whom they deem to be of lesser value, and bulldozing in with predetermined global businesses that need space, natural resources, and cheap or free labor.

The goal IS to decrease the US economy, but to redistribute it around the world, still within their control and to their financial benefit for those who will play by its anti-life, pro-population control, communist agenda. I don’t know one person who “hates foreign aid” but I know a lot of people who want to spend the money they earn, including in matters of aid.
Mickey

There is no empirical evidence to support Man Made Global Warming. The useful idiots fall in line because of emotion and mass hysteria. The societal “controllers” look at AGW as a convenient nebulous method of global taxation. Who better to tax than the world producers? This revenue will be spent on ulterior expenditures down the road.

Granted world resources are limited and no argument pollution in general is bad but ongoing developments in technology has been dealing with these issues quite well. These new solar and wind energy objectives are helpful they just are not the final answer nor are they completely without setbacks of their own.

The Green Movement isn’t about saving a planet, it is about a power shift in ideology.

In the political environment today, GREEN is the the new BROWN, as in Brown Shirts.
carrick

Mickey:

There is no empirical evidence to support Man Made Global Warming.

Yes, there is.

As direct evidence as one could ask for. We can prove that the classic greenhouse gas from CO2 exists, by comparing the spectrum of solar light incident on the Earth’s surface to that measured from the reflected Earth’s spectrum.

There is also evidence that increasing the surface temperature increases the absolute humidity, which in turn increases the GHG effect from water vapor. This is known as the water vapor feedback effect, which is the key element of claims for a heighten sensitivity to CO2. This exists both as an experimental fact and as a first-principles theoretical model. The effect is real.

The problem with this is we don’t know whether this is the only other effect, because global climate models don’t actually model the water vapor feedback effect, rather they rely on a global climate sensitivity to CO2 (almost certainly wrong, because there is very likely a latitudinal effect on the sensitivity, as well as a difference in the effect over land and water etc.).

This is especially apropos because some scientists are suggesting that there is a compensating negative feedback mechanism in the tropics that compensates for from the water vapor (positive) feedback mechanism.
carrick

Here’s one example:

Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere by Sanders et al, 2008. Recall that one of the predictions of the global models (via the water vapor enhancement mechanism) is upper tropospheric warming. (The trend in warming per decade should be roughly 50% larger at mid-tropospheric altitudes, what is seen is maybe a 20% decline.

Basically they are taking the average over models and treating the model output as if it were experimental data. The clear purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate consistency of the models with experimental data.

There are two issues that make comparing the variation of the model outputs to the measured data sets difficult to assess in any meaningful way.

First the distribution of the temperature output of the models (for a given elevation) is provably not a Gaussian: For any given climate model, you can’t get an arbitrary temperature trend at a given altitude by varying the model parameters, given the constraint that you must match the correct temperature trend on the surface. And the ensemble of models all making current physics assumptions will produce a finite range of temperature output regardless of how you tweak the individual models: In general there are physical constraints on the possible range of the output from any given model. Simply adding a bunch of different models doesn’t get around that fundamental fact.

If you had a range of temperature gradients at a given elevation (e.g., 0.0-0.4C/decade at 500 hPa), this distribution tells you nothing as to whether a model exists that could produce a value outside of that range (e.g., –0.15C/decade, the observed value) at that elevation. All you can conclude is that none of the models could reproduce that trend, and if all model variations have been tried, that either there is a problem with the models, or a problem with the data.

Thus, at its core, Sanders–or any other analysis that talks of means and standard deviations–that tries to assign uncertainties to excursions from the mean value of the ensemble of current models–is fundamentally flawed.

Secondly, the distributions of temperature outputs of the models are highly correlated: If a given model produces a temperature T1 at elevation z, it can not produce any arbitrary value T2 within the range of observed model variations at elevation z + delta z. Put another way, if you varying the parameters of a given climate model while constraining it with the surface measurements, once you pick a set of parameters so that your model gives the value T1 at z, the values that it can produce at z + delta z are highly constrained, and generally fall within a very narrow range relative to the total range of output of the models. Simply because you have one model that produces a near zero trend at e.g., 500 Pa, doesn’t mean that a model exists that reproduces the minimum of the envelope of models (the left-hand side of the gray envelope in Sanders et al Fig 6).

Fundamentally treating model output as if it were “data” and applying normal-distribution statistics to it is simply an inappropriate thing to do. The “correct” classical statistical approach is to look at the data (plus its uncertainty), then optimize the model parameters to minimize the difference-squared between the model and data, given the measurement uncertainties. You can then make a statement (e.g., using chi-square statistics) on how good a job a particular model can do in reproducing the observations.
Thus if you have a distribution of models, all failing to reproduce the data, the correct conclusion is not that a (not yet realized) realization of this distribution of models could actually be consistent with the observed data, but rather that all of the models fail to reproduce the data.

The straightforward implication of that is we probably need to add new physics to the climate models to explain the observed stratospheric temperature trends.
carrick

Whistler:

Also water vapor in many parts of the world (such as over oceans) already traps the great majority infrared radiation which means that the CO2 effect would only be maximized over dry areas such as deserts. While there are some big deserts, compared to the oceans they aren’t all that significant.

This is a good point, and the basis for my criticism of having the CO2 climate sensitivity be a global constant in most (all?) models. Whether one agrees with you about there being no effect over oceans, certainly the effect will be different over land.
raj58045

Also, despite solar minimum, winter 2008 was still 2-3 degrees above average in the Arctic which could have contributed to colder temperatures and heavier precipitation further south.

“Could have”? This what you greenies are willing to gamble present and future industry and economics on? It is becoming more and more clear as I read about the various theories about climate change, that the “green’ scientists are manipulating the numbers to make their case, rather than use real facts. The Earth has gone through warming to cooling back to warming cycles for at least 400K years, and more than likely has for it’s 4-5 billion year existence.
http://www.rabidamerican.net/ Rabid American

Face it kids, THE UN IS NOT AND NEVER WAS OUR FRIEND!!!

This is yet another attempt to take advantage of the “America Despising” DNC while they have the control over our government. This bunch seems more than willing to turn over control of our country and its vast natural, undeveloped, wealth/resources.

The current planned destruction of our financial system, and replacement of our Federal Democracy with socialist claptrap only weakens the USA.

When you couple that with the likes of “The Usurper in Chief“, “Pelosi the Vapid“, and “Harry the Putz“, the world no longer fears us, they only laugh…… which is a VERY dangerous position for our nation to be in.

The sheep that seem to make up the vocal majority of our population will once again allow themselves to be led by the imaginary burden of “Global Guilt” and be willing to “work with our fellow humans” and “reach across the aisle”.

Any politician that attempts to advance this is nothing short of a Traitor! Agreement to this farce is no less than TREASON!!!

The UN needs to be evicted from its current residence, and send them packing!
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

A couple points that Carrick may confirm.

We’re not looking at doubling CO2 levels. If you were to double CO2 levels the measurable effect from the CO2 effect would be about one degree Celsius.

Also water vapor in many parts of the world (such as over oceans) already traps the great majority infrared radiation which means that the CO2 effect would only be maximized over dry areas such as deserts. While there are some big deserts, compared to the oceans they aren’t all that significant.

The big thing is that the models used by the global warming activists show all of the positive effects without taking any negative effects into account.

The game is rigged. However it’s easy for a layman to evaluate because they’ve been making predictions for over 20 years. None of those older predictions were close to the reality that we have today.
carrick

correction:

… measured from the reflected Earth’s spectrum at the top of the atmosphere using satellite measurements.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

There’s this popular misconception that climate scientists are meteorologists and should be able to tell us what the weather is going to do next week/ month/ year. They are not. They deal in the minutiae of the climate system and collectively bring all their data to bear on this hugely complex issue.

The global warming scamsters only talk like that because they don’t want to be held to any standard of proof at all.

Face it, it’s easier to predict the weather in a shorter term than a longer term. And what is climate but an average of the weather?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Whether one agrees with you about there being no effect over oceans,

Carrick I was saying that the CO2 effect was only maximized over the oceans, not that there is NO CO2 effect over the oceans.
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

There’s this popular misconception that climate scientists are meteorologists and should be able to tell us what the weather is going to do next week/ month/ year. They are not. They deal in the minutiae of the climate system and collectively bring all their data to bear on this hugely complex issue. Other climate scientists then interpret this data to establish trends and probable outcomes.

This is always the lame excuse thrown up by the global warming crowd. “It’s not our fault we can’t get the short term…it’s the long term that matters!” But like Whistler pointed out, the environment is too complex for generalities. Thousands of minute factors can throw off tomorrow’s prediction…including random chance. Project the complexities of the weather on a long term basis…and you have calculations of millions upon millions of factors, which are too complex for even the smartest of computers to figure it out. This is why the computer models are so wildly inaccurate. It’s not even that we have to wait and see if the models are correct. They can’t predict the past, and previous attempts at predicting the future have fallen flat.

In short, you’re full of it.
carrick

Greg, I think there are serious problems with the global climate models.

The biggest issue is the absence of upper tropospheric warming (no “hot spot”).

Unfortunately that doesn’t make things easier, because what it means is we have little predictive power for the consequences of e.g., doubling the CO2 content of the Earth’s atmosphere.

But I’m almost completely convinced that the more extreme model predictions (let alone exaggerations of those models by alarmists) are simply wrong.

I’m also extremely annoyed as a scientist by some of the liberties with statistics that some AGW proponents in the climate community are taking.
http://manoffireandlight.blog.co.uk/ ManofFireandLight

STRAW MAN!!!!

Did they predict the cooling in 2007-08? Well, duh, yes! Approaching solar minimum. Not really worth a mention, because solar cycles are accepted scientific theory and have been known about for around 150 years.

Also, despite solar minimum, winter 2008 was still 2-3 degrees above average in the Arctic which could have contributed to colder temperatures and heavier precipitation further south.

Educate yourself
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

There are monetary coercions in place and that’s why some normally clear thinking decent businesses have jumped on the “green” bandwagon…sink or swim in this manmade cesspool is the only option they see on the horizon if this scam is pulled off. It used to be the lure of a big global business carrot, but now that the true business-strangling colors are showing, there is a mad dash to ring-kiss the anti-Semitic UNperor which desires to squash anything that it can’t control.

That’s sort of true. But if you look at cap ‘n trade (like almost any “anti”-business regulation), you see the fingerprints of big business all over it. BP dramatically lowered their CO2 emissions years ago through new technology while their counterparts were still producing much much more. So good ole BP goes to the gummint and proposes a cap and trade system, which not only hurts their competitors (thereby giving them an advantage), but puts them in a position where they can sell a non-product (a pollution credit) to their competitors, and thereby make money without actually doing anything. The scam is brilliant, and potentially a multi-trillion dollar industry. Cap and trade is a big oil scam to make money…and the global warming idiots actually have the gall to criticize anyone who doesn’t believe as a “shill for big oil”.
carrick

MFO:

Did they predict the cooling in 2007-08? Well, duh, yes! Approaching solar minimum.

OK. I’ll bite.

Where’s the reference?

And this is not exactly a “strawman” because if the Sun is playing a larger role than they think, it means their models are wrong and the climate sensitivity to CO2 is smaller than they predict. That’s a BIG issue, not a strawman.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

You have to understand that the Third World is the Third World for a good reason.

They are terminally fucked-up.

In almost every case they have totally corrupt political systems. Billions of dollars have been transferred from First World countries in the forms of grants, loans which eventually get forgiven, to be replaced by yet more massive loans, which in turn, will also be forgiven, while the US and European taxpayer slaves away, year after year.

Instead of improving the infrastructure and general welfare, the funds get diverted into private Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts (Kofi Annan’s son, Oil-for-Food scandal, for example)

They also suffer from debilitating cultures that are anti- education, anti-sanitation, anti-health, anti-production because of years of a mixture of Marxist claptrap and backwards cultural beliefs (fertilizing crops with human waste, refusal to use cattle as food, even as populations starve, worship of rats interfering with sanitation methods, using rape of virgins as a cure for AIDs, etc… )

Any money poured into these Third World countries is good money after bad.

It was American culture, the legal system, the protection of personal property and provision for a free market mechanism that raised the US from a colonial outpost to the powerhouse of the world.

Leftards cannot figure this out. Never have and never will.

It’s impossible for them.
sayanything-5371

Carrick, has anyone ever postulated that the contrails left by jets contribute to global warming? Not that I believe in global warming, I don’t.
sayanything-4625

I’m also extremely annoyed as a scientist by some of the liberties with statistics that some AGW proponents in the climate community are taking.

I would appreciate it if you would list some examples of the liberties they are taking.
carrick

Greg, I was looking for a reference from one of the global climate modelers.

That’s what is at issue here: Do we have a good enough understanding of the influence of solar variability on climate for our models to accurately predict the effects of e.g. doubling CO2?
2Hotel9

A veritable opus!
Eneils Bailey

Believing this basket full of crap, known as “global warming” is easy. It is, for the most part an emotional, ideological, and political belief driven by by groups and individuals who want to take up a cause, but are too damn lazy and stupid to support and oppose complex issues.

Chinese arithmetic, keeping your bowels cleansed, suffering fools, raising a good family, paying your bills on time, not falling for scams, and using the goodiest grammar and English be tough.

As soon as any of these purveyors of doom and destruction can describe and explain weather phenomenon of the last one hundred thousand years; I’ll listen, but not for long.
sayanything-4625

Here’s a list…

http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/researcherswhopredictsolarhibernationorclimatechangetocoldera9-22-08.doc

Here’re some highlights…

David Archibald. Summa Development Limited. (Australia).
From his paper: Archibald, D.C., (2006), Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response, Energy and Environment, Vol.17, No.1.
Comment from paper: “Based on a solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5C is predicted to 2020 equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.”

Dr. Ernest Njau: University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
From his paper: Njau, E., (2005), Expected halt in current global warming trend?, Renewable Energy, Vol.30, Issue 5, pp.743-752.
Comment from paper: “… the mean â€˜global temperature variations reaches the next peak about 2005 after which it will expectedly be on a decreasing trend. Finally it is shown that…Greenland is currently in an ongoing cooling trend which is expected to last up to at least the year 2035.”

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin. Merited Scientist of Russia and Fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and researcher at the Oceanology Institute.
From recent news articles, regarding the next climate change he has said: “Astrophysics know two solar cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of irradiating solar surface….Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041,and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.”

Dr’s. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite.
From their paper: Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 June 2008).
Dr. Wilson adds the following clarification:
“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20-30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1-2 C.”
sayanything-4625

That is excellent!
2Hotel9

Oops! Greg, you done set Carrick off on one of his favorite rants!! One of my favorites, too. He lists things in detail, and it ain’t a short list.

Carrick, perhaps you should do this as a readerblog post? That way you got lots of room.
sayanything-5371

Conservative: If you give a man a fish, you feed him for one night. If you teach a man to fish, he feeds himself every night.

That’s right. I don’t mind giving someone a hand up, but I’m totally opposed to giving handouts.

If you look up how much money (mostly from the USA) the UN has handed out to countries that hate us for decades it incredible. They are corrupt and greedy and they will keep doing it until they suck us dry. And then they will still be poor because virtually every penny of foreign aid is embezzled. Just look at the third world. Are they better off than when we started giving them billions upon billions of dollars? No, they are not.
http://www.mortgage-lender-reviews.com/ Mortgage Reviews

Nice one.
Fatalerror94

So before, Global Warming theorists use to say the sun was of little importance in an attempt to dismiss it from the discussion, now they say that it has already been factored in, but despite that, they say that human emissions are still the primary driver of climate.

The sun’s output drives climate, and has a far greater impact than anything we’re pumping out into the atmosphere.

Also, I remember reading a response from a global warming booster, a guy who prided himself on promoting science, on why methane wasn’t as much a concern as carbon dioxide, considering that methane is a far more potent green house gas than carbon dioxide, he scoffed, and said that methane made up only at tiny portion of are atmosphere. Now, however it is a major concern and a call for more controls over human activity.

Rather it’s carbon dioxide or methane, the environment (you know that thing we are trying to protect from are selves) is pumping huge volumes of both that not only dwarf are output, but make it almost fall off the chart.

But, you see, you can just say that it has been factored in… and apparently indexed to a level that makes human output the primary concern, because if humans aren’t the problem you have a hard time trying to regulate their lives.
http://manoffireandlight.blog.co.uk/ ManofFireandLight

There’s this popular misconception that climate scientists are meteorologists and should be able to tell us what the weather is going to do next week/ month/ year. They are not. They deal in the minutiae of the climate system and collectively bring all their data to bear on this hugely complex issue. Other climate scientists then interpret this data to establish trends and probable outcomes.

According to the best data available, global warming is a reality and will most likely be hardest felt in the third world nations that are least able to deal with it. Considering that most greenhouse gas emissions (at least up until recently) have been contributed by first world nations, it is not unfair to suggest aid packages to assist these poorest people to adapt to their new surroundings.
sayanything-4625

AH, sorry. I stand corrected.

Do you think the current models are accurate?

Personally, I think the models are troubling.
carrick

2Hotel9, thanks for the kind words. I would like to do something like that, but to do it real justice would require more like a manuscript.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Jeez flamer, are you referring to the figures where they cheated and used September numbers for the month of October to show a much warmer month.

Because aside from that we’re talking GLOBAL warming. Not Siberian warming.

CO2 levels should have a world wide effect. A localized effect would mean a different explanation.

There’s this popular misconception that climate scientists are meteorologists and should be able to tell us what the weather is going to do next week/ month/ year. They are not. They deal in the minutiae of the climate system and collectively bring all their data to bear on this hugely complex issue.

Wrong again. Because of the complexities of the weather systems generalities don’t cut it. If they can’t tell us what’s going to happen to the immediate precipitation cycle then they can’t tell us what’s going to happen in the long run.

Heat is actually expelled from Earth when it rains. (The heat energy used to vaporize the water is released in the upper atmosphere where it can easily radiate to space).

Finally these birds can’t explain why the Earth was warmer during medieval warm period or Roman times. What we do know is that things were BETTER then for the majority of people.

All this is a scam for the welfare types to keep the welfare coming to them worldwide.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

Predictions about the future are one thing. Deriving policy from hard science is another. You fellas seem to run these together, might a distinction be useful?
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

They aren’t that way inherently and to think so is naive at best, racist like Buzz at worst.

Every human society that arrives on Earth contributes something to the ongoing whole in terms of what is learned of and interpreted by successors and neighbors. It is the function of every human society to grow, explore, expand, prosper as best they may, return to any others they encounter what they learn.

All of those third world nations may be first world, but there is always a leading edge of advancement. There’s always a top, a most, a greatest. So far, that is us. The USA. We can bring about an end to the deprivation by forging ahead, sharing what we know, awakening the human drive for improvement and prosperity in them. We need only go out, do it, and show them it.

The only way we can help them is to become so wealthy, wealth loses all meaning to us. Only by being so prosperous that you have to struggle like Hercules to be poor, can we have a better world.

Remember that scene in Poltergeist II where that crazy old preacher encouraged his little cult to shut themselves up in a cave, and as they lay starving and dehydrating and dying he only laughed with that big toothy grin, and they all died?

That’s the plan the environmentalist yahoos have for humanity. The third world, the first world, the whole world.

No fucking way.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Shocker: Global Warming Scam Really About Exporting Our Wealth to 3rd World Slackers

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments