• Home
  • Current News
  • Two Fake Narratives: Man-made Global Warming & Carbon Dioxide Driven Climate

Two Fake Narratives: Man-made Global Warming & Carbon Dioxide Driven Climate

Written by Leon Puissegur

We hear all sorts of ideas about this false idea that man is causing an increase in carbon dioxide. Let us take a quick look at a research paper from a scientist named Nasif Nahle, Scientific Research Director-Biology Cabinet. The paragraph below is taken directly from his abstract:

ABSTRACT

Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.

The earth is going through a cooling phase and warming alarmists lay claim to their ideology based upon false data that has been twisted to fit the Climate Change, Global Warming Narrative. We will demonstrate this below.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that, since 1940, the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen, later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming, not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones were:

  • Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
    • Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
    • Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
    • Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
    • Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
    • With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities, both with the way they were cited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.

Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here, he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil, which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.

Now this pure evidence showing that the opposite is really happening and our earth is not warming means that these data sets are being manipulated for reasons that are not related to any sort of Climate Change and can be directly related to an attempt by the United Nations to “Redistribute” the wealth of nations to the poor ones.  Why else would scientists align with a flawed and fraudulent narrative? We have to show this, and the best way to do so is with an article published December 12, 2015, which shows the United Nations working towards a “Climate Deal” that will “REDISTRIBUTE” money from the rich nations, such as the United States, to poor nations.

Read more at freedomoutpost.com

 

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    nickreality65

    |

    To be 33C or not to be 33C

    There is a popular fantasy that the earth is 33C warmer with an atmosphere than without due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE.

    Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start – or so I hear.

    The 33C difference is between an alleged average surface temperature of 288K/15C and 255K/-18C, the alleged surface temperature without an atmosphere. Let’s take a closer look.

    Per IPCC AR5 glossary the average land surface temperature is measured 1.5 meters above the ground, but 80% of the land doesn’t even have reliable weather instrumentation or data. The average sea surface temperature is a combination of buckets and thermometers, engine cooling intakes, buoys, satellites, etc. This “global” surface average temperature, one number to rule them all, must represent: both lit and dark sides, both poles, oceans, deserts, jungles and a wide range of both land and sea surfaces. The uncertainty band must be YUGE!

    The 255K is a theoretical calculation using the S-B ideal BB temperature associated with the 240 W/m^2 radiative balance at the top of the – wait for it – atmosphere, i.e. 100 km.

    So, the 33C difference is between a) an average surface temperature composed of thousands of WAGs that must be +/- entire degrees and b) a theoretical temperature calculation 100 km away that cannot even be measured and c) all with an intact and fully functioning atmosphere.
    The surface of the earth is warm because the atmosphere provides an insulating blanket, a thermal resistance, no different from the insulation in the ceiling and walls of a house with the temperature differential determined per the equation Q = U * A * dT, simple to verify and demonstrate. (Explains why 250 km atmosphere of Venus and twice irradiance heats surface bigly.)

    A voltage difference is needed for current to flow through an electrical resistance.

    A pressure difference is needed for fluid to flow through a physical resistance.

    A temperature difference is needed for energy to flow, i.e. heat, through a thermal resistance.

    RGHE upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation is a fictional anti-thermodynamic non-explanation for the “33C without an atmosphere” phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

    • Avatar

      Jeff Greenwell

      |

      Nick,

      As I understand it, that 33C value is NOT the temperature of the surface, as many proclaim. It is in fact the temperature of the atmosphere approximately 4k altitude. This is a little inconvenient fact that the global warming Nazi don’t want you to know.

      • Avatar

        Jeff Greenwell

        |

        Sorry, I meant to say, the -18C value is that of the atmosphere 4k altitude. Then they proclaim there is a 33C difference between that and the surface, which there is. But they want you to believe that a “greenhouse effect” created a surface temperature 33C higher than what it would be otherwise.

        This is simply a CON … it is nothing more than a card trick. There is actually nothing to calculate here. It is all right in front of your face. It is a CON !!!

Comments are closed