PARIS Accord Based on Fraud
Posted: July 14, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Australia, Carbon Dioxide, Climatism, CO2, Green Agenda, IPCC, Propaganda, Socialism, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC | Tags: Carbon Dioxide, carbon dioxide emissions, Climate Change, Climate Change Scam, Climate science, Climatism, CO2, Communism, Fraud, Global Warming, Global Warming Scam, Global Warming Scare, IPCC, Paris Accord, Paris Accord Fraud, PARIS Agreement, Paris Climate Treaty, Socialism, Viv Forbes, wealth redistribution | 3 CommentsWarming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
•••
MUST READ information on the Paris Accord Fraud via Viv Forbes’ The Carbon Sense Coalition :
INTRO – Why Should Australia Pull Out Of The Paris Accord?
Quit Paris Treaty
Tony Abbott is right – Australia should quit the Paris Climate Treaty.China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia will ignore Paris. USA has already quit and Japan even withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty. Germany will fail to meet its obligations and Poland will not try very hard. France relies heavily on nuclear power and naturally supports imposing Paris handicaps on competitors.
And most of the rest of the world are just hanging in there hoping for a flood of cash from the climate compensation fund or from selling phony carbon credits.
Australia has huge coal, gas, oil and uranium resources. To export these, while we hobble our industries with windmill power, is insane.
Viv Forbes
*
PARIS Accord Based on Fraud
By Brendan Godwin
Weather Observer and General Meteorology
Bureau of Meteorology
Mawson Antarctic 1974
The Paris Accord is based on fraud. Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is essential for all life on earth. Without it we are all extinct.
There is nothing unusual happing with the globe’s temperatures. No unusual warming.
Our interglacial warm period peaked 8,000 years ago and we are cooling. We’ve come to the end of this interglacial and are about to enter the next ice age. Humans can do nothing to stop that.
The globe has no temperature control knob, it is impossible for humans to control the globe’s temperature.
CO2 does not produce warming. There’s not enough of it to do anything.
It is warming that produces CO2. It is impossible for the cause to be the effect.
CO2 has lagged temperature by 1,000 years for the past 1 mil years and it has never stopped the earth from entering an ice age, even when it was 4,000 ppm.
CO2 is the gas of life. We need more not less of it and we should be regulating for more not less emissions. It is needed to grow our food crops.
Paris is based on IPCC reports. The IPCC rely on their GCM models. None of the models rely on past climate history but rather a mathematical theory based on refuted, negated, fake and fraudulent science. They all incorporate:
- A “human fingerprint” or THS (Tropical Hot Spot) on the earth’s climate that doesn’t exist. IPCC’s AR2 report was fraudulently altered to remove scientific reports that were negative of their GHE definition;
- Lewis Fry Richardson’s flawed atmospheric model equation;
- Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph in AR3;
- Arrhenius’ flawed hypothesis of the greenhouse effect; Arrhenius invented heat from nothing.
- The multiplier effect of water vapor feedback. The flawed CO2 increases water vapor hypothesis based on Arrhenius and the Charney report; From observations, water vapor is decreasing.
- A corrupted peer review process.
Then back all this up by fraudulently altering the data to support the failed models that can’t even predict the last 30 years of hindsight. Read the rest of this entry »
Recent Comments