Wednesday, September 27, 2017

"Climate Change" Claims Take Direct Causal Hit, Unraveling


In a recent science journal publication by the accepted panel of experts, including Richard Millar, Jan Fuglestvedt, Myles Allen, et al., the group is wavering on previously suggested carbon dioxide emission effects on the global temperature “warming”.

Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5oC; in nature geoscience,September 18, 2017.

And the mainstream media is reportedly choking out misinterpretation of the published announcement that suggests the previously accepted model blaming CO2 as the likely culprit of “climate change” is erroneous.

This greenhouse gas, specifically CO2, does actually feed the earth-rooted plants quite well. The greener organisms tend to feed on carbon dioxide as their primary source of carbon.

Millar and Allen went on to further publish a clarification in the University of Oxford paper:
“A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent.
Both assertions are false.”

They further state, “What we have done is to update the implications for the amount of carbon dioxide we can still emit while expecting global temperatures to remain below the Paris Climate Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees. We find that, to likely meet the Paris goal, emission reductions would need to begin immediately and reach zero in less than 40 years’ time.”

Once you get around the ambiguous language use, it does look like the actual cause of the climate changing might simply be the flaming ball of hydrogen at the center of the solar system, compounded by the molten “core” of our planet, and the magnetic coupling of the two entities.

I find the Sun, and Volcanism tentatively guilty, as suspected, pending further, less masturbatory scientific findings, and language that doesn’t play ball with the so-called “Paris Agreement”, and furthering an economic (taxation) paradigm.

So while Millar and Allen try to figure a way to slowly starve out the plants, in a type of codex plantae alimentarious, how about if the rest of us simply try to mitigate the storm damages?

And perhaps the geo-engineering community might curtail with the whole weather-modification programming.

How about that?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

This post should be condensed into one paragraph.

Anonymous said...

IT doesn't have time to exit articles. He's too busy eating.

Anonymous said...

If you don't like it don't read it......go back to A$$BURROW'S cover Culver's ass rag and read it!!!!! BYE BYE BYE

Anonymous said...

Stfu snowflake your days are coming.

Anonymous said...

This is going to sound crazy, but I worked on a project with the USGS as part of a videography crew back in 2007. I have been to and beyond the Arctic Circle; we were sent there by the Bush White House no less, not to study man made climate change as it is real, but to document how quickly new land is being revealed and the rate of land and sea ice cavitation and evaporation. We were there to also seek out new resources (mostly oil, coal, and uranium) and I even got to meet with Dr. Box, a leader in the field of climate science. I watched him chart the Greenland ice sheet as disappearing at a rate about about 4.5 feet per month.

You are welcome to say that CO2 emissions are not to blame, but they are. It's also methane and other greenhouse gasses that are the real issue and as the planet warms, all of that methane trapped in the tundra and polar regions is being released. Just a heads up, this will get worse before it gets better.

-John

Anonymous said...

When they caught them lying about the data years ago it should have been dead.

Anonymous said...

This group of scientists writing these reports should focus more on the science, and less on what economic strategies have been endorsed by the various governments.

Anonymous said...

Who pays these "Scientists" oh yea the University's.

Anonymous said...

you should right a book " true science of camera man". Thanks

Anonymous said...

I was up there with the USGS and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a collection of 195 countries), no university funding; not sure why that is a bad thing though. If you are curious, there are plenty of books on it, check out your local library they'll help you.
-John

Anonymous said...

Even in the face of a report that indicates climate change is NATURAL, and likely has nothing at all to do with carbon dioxide, this disinformation joker, John, now trolls the LESN page...

How bizarre

Anonymous said...

Well, just because thousands and thousands of people who study something they really know and care about is perfect justification to do nothing. You live in a tide water basin, correct? I assume you want to have your kids inherit you homes and property?