Most climatology experts and environmental worshipers claim that the planet's temperature has risen at least one degree in the past century.
Some time ago, a well-known British television channel aired the documentary "The Great Deception of Global Warming", which unravels the foundations of the environmental movement. There, interviews are conducted with important scientists from MIT and other prestigious universities that expose various scientific evidences that collide with green propaganda.
An important element, which is included in the aforementioned documentary, is that Co2 emissions caused by humans represent 5% compared to the rest, the rest being understood as volcanoes, the decomposition of animal carcasses and plants. This means that volcanoes produce more Co2 than all human activities combined.
Another important fact is that most greenhouse gases originate from the oceans.
The foundation lies, therefore, in the great lie assumed by environmentalists.
It is a reality that hundreds of periods of global warming and cooling have occurred over billions of years. In the 10th century, for example, the climate was considerably more temperate than today, and it is clear that there were no planes or automobiles that could alter this data.
The peak of warming of the last century occurred before 1940, while, throughout the decades after World War II (period in which the massive industrialization of the world occurs), the Earth's climate suffered a cooling.
Within this great lie, such as the threat of climate change, there are very varied interests and, if it were a great movie of conspiracy plots, it was very diverse entities involved.
I want to give special importance to the invention of the IPCC, which is the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Climate Change, which was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Program (UNEP).
On February 3, 2010, the newspaper La Vanguardia published the following headline: "A group of scientists concealed flaws in another study on climate change." Research uncovers weak data on stations in China.
Below I extract the essence of the questioned studies that served as the basis for the IPCC.
Regarding the Himalayan Glaciers, the IPCC was wrong in its projections about its melting. He predicted that they would disappear in 2035; but she had to rectify on January 20. The error was enacted in 1999, from an interview with Indian glacier expert Syed Hasnain, published in NEW SCIENTIST. The information was assumed in a WWF report, later cited by the IPCC. Scientist Georg Kaser warned him in time, but the chapter's reviewers did not filter out that error.
More regarding DEFROSTS. The IPCC provided very poor studies to explain thawing in the mountains. It was based, as a ridiculous source and of very little credibility, in an article published in a specialized climbing magazine, where it was the climbers who gave this opinion. It was also based on the university work of a geography student from the University of Bern, who interviewed 80 mountain guides from the Alps.
Regarding the Amazon: The IPCC pointed out that more than 40% of the Amazon forest could disappear and become a tropical savanna with only a small change in rainfall. This conclusion is ridiculous since, investigating the fundamentals, we discovered that such statement was a bad summary of a WWF report, in which it was said that 40% of the Brazilian forest was sensitive to a small reduction in precipitation, but leaving Of course, drier forests were more likely to catch fire.
In view of these data, verified, investigated and considered as true, we can affirm that the IPCC is absolutely ridiculous, objectively. It is not processing the true data and it is falling into continuous errors. The damage is done by researchers who take it as support in their studies or careers and governments that adopt environmental and climatic measures based on an official error. A consequence that, obviously, we pay all citizens, in the form of taxes, in many countries even with a special tax for it: the green tax, ecotax, etc.
I want to highlight an interview that was conducted with Andrés Serrano Paradinas, a civil engineer, with a master's degree in environmental management and a technical specialist in energy management.
In the aforementioned interview, the engineer questioned whether climate change was such an important issue to spend 150,000 million a year.
Andrés Serrano tells us that climate change, throughout history, is constant.
The engineer highlights that for a million years there have been four ice ages, ending the last one 22,000 years ago, at which time the temperature begins to rise. Then there were ten degrees less than average on earth and there were glaciers three thousand meters thick at points where London or New York are now, as the rocks of Central Park show. The sea level could vary twelve millimeters a year (today it is between 2 and 3 millimeters). Obviously, these changes were not influenced by the man, who was in the Stone Age, painting the Altamira caves.
The historical fact of the year 750 is curious. In that year the Vikings arrived in Greenland, and decided to call it "green land". Why that name? Because it wasn't freezing! In Iceland the Vikings themselves planted cereals, which is impossible today.
Between the year 750 to 1150 a good climate occurs, which causes great economic development throughout Europe. From then on, temperatures begin to drop and what we call the small ice age (between 1350 and 1700) returns. The last bishop of Iceland died in 1376. It is the last date that bishops date; there is no more because it was impossible to live there, in the "land of ice".
Diving in the newspaper archive, and now more recently, in the 70s, we realize that there are publications in all the newspapers in the world that say that we are going towards the ice age. Since 1980 the trend changes and the temperature begins to rise. Mysterious change, right?
The idea is clear; We do not control the climatology or the meteorology because we do not know the chaotic phenomenon of the clouds and their water vapor. This is what produces global warming and 95% of the greenhouse effect. Precisely, if not for that reason, we would be at 15 negative degrees of global temperature, when we are more than 15.
The long-term increase in global temperature is caused by astronomical phenomena, by orbital movements and other factors, the Milanchovitch cycles.
The matter is much more complex than a simple inconsistency and in this document I will try to highlight.
I can not explain the reason why, the media, insist on announcing that man is the cause of climate change. It is obvious that the human being produces CO2 and the concentration of the gas is increasing a lot, from 280 to 380 parts per million in one hundred years, taking the pre-industrial era as a starting point. But I want to state emphatically that the concentration of CO2 has nothing to do with climate change, because the important thing in the greenhouse effect is water vapor and especially clouds. Man can do little about global warming or cooling, and in fact the latter would be more worrisome.
In these rare media is the month in which we do not see a news item referring to extreme weather events (major droughts, floods and tornadoes). With this it seems that nowadays they occur more frequently than years ago. Nothing is further from reality. What we must bear in mind is that today what happens in Japan is known in New York in a matter of seconds, thanks to the advancement of new technologies and communication, making it more difficult than these phenomena (which have always occurred) go unnoticed. If in addition to this, in the news it is indicated that this is due to the influence of man and climate change, panic is sown.
There is something I don't quite understand, without pretending to be frivolous. How is it possible that we don't know how long the weekend will be and we do know what will happen in 2038?
I have a theory about why catastrophic thoughts on climate change have triumphed.
The main reason is that this panic comes from power; power is the one in charge of maintaining this relationship in society.
It all started in the years when the British Minister Margaret Tatcher wanted to eliminate the coal mines, because she had economic and national interests in developing nuclear energy, in addition both its maintenance and the miners were causing her many political problems, about the year 1980. It is then when he creates the IPCC, which I have already commented previously, to develop reports on the supposed global warming. It is clear, nuclear power plants did not produce CO2, nor global warming.
We go to money, which is what moves the world, we will thus discover many more causes. From the first reports of the IPCC, Mrs. Tatcher invests millions in nuclear energy and its potential, winning the favor of both the right and the left of the country.
In a report published on March 11 by the London Sunday Telegraph newspaper, it is reported that Timothy Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg (Canada), has received up to five death threats since he questions that it is humans who produce Climate changes.
Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, maintains that "scientists who disagree with the scaremonger lose financial support, their work is despised, and they are constantly accused of being henchmen of big industries."
Nigel Calder, former director of New Scientist, says: “Governments try to achieve unanimity of opinion, repressing scientists who disagree. Einstein would not have obtained any financial support under the current system. "
Repression of different opinions does not turn out to be something new. For maintaining that the Earth was not the center of the universe, Galileo was brought before a court in 1633. Threatened with torture, he retracted and was prohibited from leaving his home for the rest of his life.
As a complement we leave you with the counterpart, "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore, perhaps the most widespread documentary about the dangers that climate change brings for the planet and humanity.
