Wednesday, June 15, 2011

NWO - climate change swindle

Forest density study blows hole in excess CO2 myth and the supposed need for carbon taxes

NaturalNews) We have all heard it before. Humans are supposedly producing too much carbon dioxide (CO2), which is contributing to "global warming" -- and the only solution, of course, is to have the United Nations (UN) distribute carbon use credits and implement carbon taxes to offset an impending global disaster. However, a new study published in the online journalPLoS Onehelps debunk this myth by showing that the natural world is basically taking care of this excess CO2 naturally, without the need for increased government control over individuals.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of the way trees and other plants function knows that they requireCO2in order to survive. And upon absorbing CO2, plants naturally release oxygen for humans and animals to breathe. This cycle has been going on since the beginning of time, and it continues to occur today, despite the plethora of human environmental abuses that appear to have damaged and obstructed theearthin many other ways.

According to the report, much of the damage caused by increases in CO2 anddeforestationhas been made up for by naturally increasing forest densities, at least as far as CO2 is concerned. Based on a survey of 68 different nations, the report explains that between 2000 and 2010, the amount ofcarbonstored by forests in both NorthAmericaand Europe has actually increased dramatically, even though the overall land area of theseforestshas remained largely unchanged.


Ex-Australian Greenhouse Office scientist confirms CO2 scam
Dr. Evans was the leading terrestrial carbon modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office.
“They lie and cheat … they measure temperatures at airports … outside air conditioners … in hot areas of cities …

“Two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moisture in the air, not CO2 – the alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere …

“In science, empirical evidence always trumps the theory … official climate science clung to their official theory.”

“Their models exaggerate ten-fold...”

Go to


Tim Flannery trying to cover his nuclear sponsored idiot drivel with some global governance.

Just look at his face, the money´s nice but you pay in other ways Timmy....


A blunder of staggering proportions by the IPCC

New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace
Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined.


Industry lobbyists behind ‘scientific’ claims in IPCC press release

The entire world will soon depend on renewable energy so governments ought to start subsidizing these industries immediately. So said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a report released Tuesday. The study’s conclusion was such a blockbuster that the panel issued a press release last month previewing the finding. “Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows,” it proclaimed.

Since this statement was supposedly based on actual scientific research, Steve McIntyre, editor of the Climate Audit blog, did what the IPCC must have assumed nobody would bother doing. He checked the sources cited in the report. He discovered the IPCC’s banner claim was not the work of prestigious and disinterested scientists toiling away in a laboratory, but of hacks with a political agenda and direct financial stake in the issue.

Read on...


No comments:

Post a Comment