Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
End of the World ! [again]
A nice article [here] from yet another scientist, you will never read or hear about in the MSM, who debunks the really, silly, nay stupid idea, that a natural trace chemical 400 parts per million, 95 % emitted by Gaia causes anything. My excerpt.
“The AGW community would have you believe that the science in favor of AGW is settled. As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics, I can tell you that, indeed, the science is settled, but not the way the AGW extremists would have you believe. Atmospheric transmission measurements taken in the 1950s demonstrate conclusively that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere cannot be the cause of global warming if global warming even exists.”
There is no warming. But imagine if there was. Could the equation .000004 x .05 [human emissions of Co2 as % of total] possibly cause weather ? Not if you are an erect biped who can think.
“A basic principle of science is that correlation does not prove causation.”
Indeed. But science is not the strong point of the cult of warm. Propaganda and lies are their strengths.
The professional scientist makes 3 points as to why Co2 does not cause warming. In sum the dogma that Co2 causes warming offends basic science:
1) “First, molecules in the atmosphere absorb lightwaves over what are called spectral bands. ...Spectral band absorption in the atmo sphere can be quantified based on measurements over a certain distance through the atmosphere such as “90 per cent absorption in this spectral band over a distance of 300 meters at sea level through the atmosphere”.
2) “The second point ..Objects like the earth emit a spectrum, or wavelength continuum, of radiation that is completely described by “Planck’s Law” ..Planck’s curve has been validated by experimental data for over a hundred years”
3) “The third point is that there are two spectral bands in which the CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation. The first band is in what is called the Medium Wave InfraRed (MWIR) spectrum, and the second spectral band is in the LWIR spectrum...the LWIR band is the most important in the absorption of infrared radiation..In the LWIR absorption band of CO2 (center wavelength of 15 microns) the transmission measured is 0.0 due to CO2 absorption. That is, total 100% absorption over 300 meters at sea level in the spectral absorption band of CO2 that would capture the most energy, or “heat”, being radiated by the earth’s surface.”
What does the above mean? Co2 absorption of 'heat' is both a myth and unimportant in climatic variation.
“Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric mixture of gasses present in the 1950s by burning fossil fuels or by bovine flatulence will not increase the measured absorption in the CO2 LWIR band above the 100% level that was measured and reported in The Infrared Handbook. You cannot get more than 100% absorption. It is not physically possible. And yet that appears to be the basis of the theory of “man made” global warming.”
See as well, the US Infrared Handbook [link] which contains real science around Co2.
Co2 is both a positive and negative feedback variable. In grade 9 science you might recall that Co2 was named as a cooling agent, and so indeed it is [link]. In any event, I would offer the following:
We don't know much if anything about 'climate'
The climate is a million-variable convection system, and there cannot be a 'greenhouse' effect akin to Venus or Mars' climate, otherwise no life would exist on Earth
Climate always changes and is always in flux for reasons that have nothing to do with mankind
Co2 is a trace chemical necessary for life and any fool would want more of it, not less
The cult of warm is in the main: anti-human, totalitarian, intent on money and power; being used to expand government and erect a world-wide governance system
Useless UN still fear-mongering about globaloney-warming or man-made climate hooey. Stupid is now science I suppose. The breathtaking mendacity of the UN is Goebbelesque:
“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).” source
Utter nonsense. 1979 was one of the coldest years on record so that is the usual starting point for the climate-fascists. Isn't that convenient. The 70s were the decade of globaloneyiceages. The past 15 years has seen no upward movement in temperatures whatsoever. Volcanic eruptions, 1998's El Nino effect and other natural variations atone for the very mild, to negligible increase in temperatures from 1980 to 2000.
One example of the many lies which suffuse the whole report:
IPCC: “Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence).”
Both polar caps are growing and the Arctic's temperature has declined by 5 C in the past 5 years. So where does the UN get their information from ? Eco-fantasists like the WWF?
Since the 1880s the 'world climate' itself a pretty meaningless term [natural thermodynamics, climate varies by region]; has not changed.
In the past 15 years there has been zero warming.
In the past generation the occurrences of 'weird weather' has also markedly declined. The 1930s and 40s were much wilder than recent times for example. The 1970s were a cold decade; mirroring the past 10 years, where in various locales across the world; ice, snow, and cold records in their thousands are established each year. There is more of a chance of an ice age, than the non-existent 'greenhouse' overheating due to a trace chemical 4/100 of 1% of atmospheric gas by weight; 95 % emitted by the earth mother, turning all to fire.
Math test. Multiply .04 x .01 x .05 and you get ? Next to nothing.
Sorry Useless Nations and Marxist-Humanists-Gaia Fascists. Forming a Marxist World Gov will not ‘arrest climate change’. There is no globaloneyclimate to start with [varies by region see thermodynamics]; nor is there a greenhouse [no life would exist on earth if there was].
Grade 9 science used to teach that climate was a convection system of about 1 million interactions [therefore impossible to model the many:many relationships which would exist in a data model]. Co2 is also a trace chemical. Grade 9 chemistry used to teach that trace chemicals were derivatives. Not anymore I suppose. I guess modern Phds are as smart as say grade 8 children in times past.
Grade 9 science eg on climate convection systems – link
Grade 9 science eg on derivative chemical elements – link
Apparently grade 9 science and chemistry used to be more advanced than modern junk Phd's posing as Climate Theologians.
The IMF is a relic of the Bretton Woods post-war era. It needs to be shut down. The IMF was intended to help with the world's post war economy, especially that of Europe. The main theme to help stabilize capital flows, aid with capital formation, and ensure that debilitating crises did not impair re-development post 1945 had some sense. But the purpose of the IMF has long been overtaken by events and by European-Globalist politics. For some time the IMF has been a politicized tool, part of the UN group which pushes various strands of Marxist-Globalism. The IMF is no longer a manager of capital or reserves, but merely a lender of tax-payer money to various states which are bankrupted. This was never the IMF's role.
“The main purpose of the IMF during the post World War II period was to administer the international monetary system based on fixed but adjustable exchange rates. This system had to provide monetary reserves in sufficient amounts to enable member governments to maintain the exchange rates for their currencies at assessed values. Monetary policies of the member countries....were tied to the US dollar, which in turn until the early 1970s was tied to gold.”[Read, America vs. Europe, p. 269]
None of the above has been relevant for 20 years. Exchange rates are no longer fixed. The Euro came into existence in 2000 as a competitor to the US dollar greatly enhancing the European ability to manage their own reserves. The US does buy gold, but the level is paltry when compared to the amount of printed US dollars in circulation or the public debt owed by the US [the Americans have 10.000 tonnes of gold, a fraction of what they should have]. The international economic order today has little resemblance to that of 1945, 1975, or even 1995. Times have changed.
The IMF has also changed but for the worse. As part of the UN system, the IMF along with the World Bank is a political forum, not an economic one. When the IMF bails out Greece in 2011 or 2012, it will simply be transferring tax-money, or some form of debt instrument to be paid by member states, to Greece. It will admonish the heirs of Pericles to cut their budget spend, rationalize their tax system, stabilize the banking sector, stop corruption etc. All great ideas. But there is no reason why an international institution needs to be involved in a Greek bankruptcy. These reforms are as obvious as Greek bankruptcy is inevitable. Let the Greeks and Europeans sort it out. The only cure is to go bankrupt and be forced into the many fiscal, monetary and political reforms. Creating an IMF-led welfare state will do little except prolong the agony, and destroy more wealth.
The IMF is famous for misdiagnosing problems as well. The East Asian crisis of 1997, and Timothy Geithner who led the IMF in bailing out Indonesia a few years later are examples. The Argentinian and Russian loans also were failures doing little to either help the countries, or just prolonging the fiscal and monetary madness. Interestingly less-developed countries view the IMF as part of the 'Washington Consensus' of institutions which express American and Western imperialism and through the control of capital try to control less-developed states. This is due in part to the IMF's funding procedure which forces countries to withdraw money at below-market rates but based on 'concessions' [called the concessional rate]. If the concessions or demands by the IMF are not met, than the stand-by lending facility cannot be accessed. This view is also premised on the pro-market policies that the IMF will sometimes espouse. In any event there is no role in creating moral hazard and funding bankrupted states, either in the developed or less-developed world.
The fact of IMF lending is this: some $500 billion has been lent out in the past 20 years to various states. Taxpayers in Europe and North America are essentially 'saving' two main groups within failed nation states. The first are big banks and investment houses and investors, who are either illiquid or made bad investments. These rich financiers want a socialized guarantee on their investments including bond-holders of bad government debt. The second are politicians and their union friends in government, who will receive enough welfare to keep their high paying jobs and their perquisites and who will delay as long as possible any obviously needed reforms. That in essence is what is happening with the IMF. Why should a tax payer in Iowa bail out Greece, or why does someone in Amsterdam have to keep an Athenian union worker in his well-pensioned job? I have no idea, though clever people chatter about 'contagion', 'market corrections' and the like. So what. If a country is bankrupted the government, the bond-holders, and even the citizens have to pay the price. There is a price to having bad policies and worse politicians isn't there?
The IMF did have a purpose for about 20 years after 1945. but now it is simply another UN-centric social engineering tool, keen to keep the 'system stable', which in essence means rewarding failure and prolonging the failed policies and the careers of welfare-state politicians and union workers, which lead inevitably to bankruptcy. It needs to be shut down.