Just how much fraud is involved with the “global boiling” claim and the trillions of bucks being spent on achieving “net zero”?

I posted this on 18 June 2024

How the “Net Zero” climate freaks - fake the evidence of “global boiling” – take temperature readings next to exhaust vents. (substack.com)

It described the outright fraud being perpetrated when measuring surface temperatures. For the US, the vast majority of temperature readings are derived by computer models, not actual readings and those readings are taken using devices that are not positioned in accordance with measurement standards and are instead taken from devices that have been subject to “urban sprawl” – that is, the devices have been built around with walls, roads, airports, etc that measure the reflected heat of the urban sprawl, not a useful r true temperature reading.

That is the “urban heat island” effect. Willie Soon of Cereus challenges the UN IPCC assumption that just 10% of temperature readings are affected and claims that it is more like 30%.

The article also had this table of land use by humans.

let’s check out some numbers – first the surface area of the planet on which the “global average is based – just one number for the entire planet – from Wiki.

Surface area – 510,072,000 km2 - (196,940,000 sq mi

Land: 148,940,000 km2 - (57,510,000 sq mi)

Water: 361,132,000 km2 - (139,434,000 sq mi)

Land area = 57.5 million square miles = around 14.9 billion hectares.

Of those 14.9 billion hectares here’s some land use data over the last 30 odd years, courtesy of OWD.

Land Use - Our World in Data

Hardly any change at all in overall land use of one third of Planet Earth by humans, but a 50% increase in the square miles of built-up areas (where the urban heat island effect takes place) to 59 million (not billion) hectares which equates to 120,000 square miles of “urbanisation” over the last 20 years. That’s an expansion from 0.34% of the total surface area of the Earth in 1998, to 0.53% - an increase of around 0.2%,”

So, it occurs to me that if the climate change narrative does not start with the correct measurement of temperatures and its heat sources, what lese doesn’t the narrative reflect as a starting point. (we can leave aside the impact of recent eruptions like Hunga Tonga, Etna and Stromboli and the impact on climate of millions of tons of explosives in Ukraine and the propensity for hockey stick and East Anglia University fraud).

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change (popularmechanics.com)

You should note that propagandists from the BBC are spinning this as a hack by “climate deniers” to discredit global warming narratives. Feel free to eye roll.

Here's a question. How do we know that the measurements of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” like methane and nitrous oxide are accurate?

We get lots of “stuff” about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere – these are levels and need to be reconciled with emissions by source and country.

From Brave in answer to this question “where are the co2 measurement stations located in different countries?”:

“Note that the search results do not provide an exhaustive list of CO2 measurement stations worldwide. However, they do highlight some prominent stations and locations, including Mauna Loa Observatory, Barrow, Alaska, and Cape Grim, Tasmania. Additionally, the “Which stations are monitoring CO2 around the world?” snippet mentions that there are many more stations, but the exact list is not provided.”

The snippet referred to in the last sentence says this “Many countries have CO2 measurement stations, with data reported to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and used in global CO2 estimates. These countries are not explicitly listed, but it’s implied that numerous nations have stations scattered across 66 countries, as mentioned in the “How reliable are CO2 measurements?”

Uh huh – 66 countries supply data according to standards set by the UN IPCC. Who are these people? Swamp critters in government departments obeying orders from their “climate narrative” masters, making tons of money from renewable energy contracts? Universities perhaps like the fraudsters in East Anglia? Do they wander around a sample of “CO2 production facilities” with sensitive equipment whilst maintaining copious records of daily changes and go talk to the owners of the facilities? Somehow, I doubt it. I would bet that they build a spreadsheet and extrapolate using a “goal seek” function.

Maybe these guys have answers: https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

Thes appear to have been revised in 2019 here:

https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/1_Volume1/19R_V1_Ch06_QA_QC.pdf

I can’t read these as they are fine black print on bright white background, but I assume they state how to measure an emission of, say a steel plant or grocery supermarket.

The point is – these measurements, I assume, are not actual emissions, they are theoretical numbers produced by computer models, then aggregated to first, country, then global levels – then used for the propaganda of climate change.

Here’s a few tests of global emissions that challenge the published in the UN “global boiling” propaganda narrative.

Firstly, CO2 emissions during the peak C19 scamdemic years of 2020 and 2021.

From here:

CO₂ emissions - Our World in Data

A reduction of 5.4% in emissions when the whole planet when into lockdown? Rally? Followed by an almost full recovery in 2021? That does not square with the “lived experience” of many.

You can fid all sorts of measurements of GDP activity. Some state that global GDP contracted 6.7% in 2020 – I guestimate that the actual impact was closer to 12% than 6%.

For the US, you can find numbers claiming a contraction of just a few per cent.

Note that just losing half a day of work across the economy would mean a reduction of 10% of GDP – how many days were lost per week in 2020 and 2021?

These numbers are about as likely to be as accurate as the CO2 emissions measurements.

A second point. How much CO2 is absorbed by plants?

Well, according to this answer to the question “hoe many trees are there in the world? From Brave:

“According to recent studies and reports, there are approximately 3.04 trillion trees worldwide as of 2022. This estimate is based on advances in satellite imagery and a study published in the journal Nature, which suggests that this number is 8 times more than previous estimates.”

And the Brave answer to this question: “how much co2 is absorbed by the world's plant life?”

“On average, a tree absorbs around 10-40 kilograms (22-88 pounds) of CO2 per year, depending on factors like planting density, species, and environmental conditions.”

Remember that 37 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions in the tables above?

3 trillion trees absorbing, say, the mid-point of 10-40 kg per year of 25 kg = 75 trillion kg a year or 75 billion tonnes per year.

That is twice as much as the calculated CO2 emissions.

So, what’s the problem? Are we in a CO2 shortage?

Of course, the “truth” lies somewhere in between and is probably startling. What we do know is that those pushing a net zero, climate change agenda are full of sh!t and should focus more on recycling human waste and whatever comes out of their mouths.

If only they would focus on the real threats – from micro-plastics, for example and on getting the food wasted into the mouths of the starving, the UN and its operating organs – created out of thin air to perpetuate their hoaxes – could do some good for humanity, instead of creating poverty, famine and disease.

Onwards!!!

Please take a paid subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested. You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here:    https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan