May 28, 2023
Klaus Schwabs’s master plan for a One World Government is in its final stages.
Former U.S. Congresswoman, lawyer, dean of a law school reporting from the W.H.O. meeting negotiating amendments to one existing W.H.O. treaty and a new W.H.O. treaty.
Take an hour or so and watch and listen to this video by Gregg Braden. He is a geoscientist with a very wholistic new age approach. This video is about 58 minutes.
Gregg Braden is a five-time New York Times best-selling author, scientist, educator and pioneer in the emerging paradigm bridging science, social policy and human potential.
From 1979 to 1991 Gregg worked as a problem solver during times of crisis for Fortune 500 companies. He continues problem-solving today as his work reveals deep insights into the new human story, and how the discoveries inform the policies of everyday life and the emerging world.
His research resulted in the 2003 discovery of intelligent information encoded into the human genome, and the 2010 application of fractal time to predict future occurrences of past events. Gregg’s work has led to 15 film credits, 12 award-winning books now published in over 40 languages, and numerous awards including Walden Award for New Thought, the Illuminate Award for Conscious Visionaries, and Gregg is listed on the United Kingdom’s Watkins Journal among the top 100 of “the world’s most spiritually influential living people” for the 7th consecutive year. He was a 2020 nominee for the prestigious Templeton Award, established to honor “outstanding living individuals who have devoted their talents to expanding our vision of human purpose and ultimate reality.” He has presented his discoveries in over 34 countries on six continents, and has been invited to speak to The United Nations, Fortune 500 companies and the U. S. military.
Gregg is a member of scientific and visionary organizations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Laszlo Institute of New Paradigm Research, the Institute of HeartMath’s Global Coherence Initiative, the Source of Synergy Evolutionary Leadership Circle and The Arlington Institute, as well as an original signatory of the 2017 Fuji Declaration, the international call to collectively catalyze a timely shift in the course of human history.
The following are my comments published online within a very elaborate and long draft proposed plan by a climate commission on the island of Hawai’i island to the County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department.
You may use my comments to respond when such Net Zero proposals occur in your community. The official Hawai’i island (county) website for this draft is linked down below. My comments appear at the end of the first sentence of the executive summary.
If this Integrated Climate Action Plan (ICAP) is enacted, it would destroy this island economy. We could be the next Easter Island.
Summary of my comment: There is no valid scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gas causes “unprecedented warming” or global climate change or global warming. Therefore, there is no need to reduce human-produced CO2. Even if we humans reduce our CO2 emissions, there will be no significant or measurable reduction in global CO2 concentration and no significant change in temperature. The consulting firm McKinsey & Co estimated the cost of the global “Net Zero” plan is $9 TRILLION per year. It would be an extremely wasteful exercise in futility.
Quoting Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (31 March 2021. Zoom call Clintel Foundation), quoted by his permission, “Stop treating it [i.e. AGW…human-caused global warming/climate change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side. It is not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.” Dr. Lindzen also said, “So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to reduce trust in and support for science.”
The scientific hypothesis that human-caused greenhouse gases such as CO2 causes global warming is “not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.”
In the words of John F Clauser, BS, MA, PhD (all in physics), the 2002 Nobel Laureate in Physics, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
What is the reason to waste my tax dollars and yours on an implausible and unproven hypothesis? Doing so would be malfeasance on the part of public officials. I hereby register my complaint. CO2 is food for plants in ocean and on land. There are proven and substantial benefits of increased global CO2 concentration. (I will be happy to supply these to ICAP upon request.) But there are no substantial negatives even if CO2 concentration were ten times higher. CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food. The ONLY way carbon gets into the plants is by plants absorbing CO2 gas from the air and water. Plants then form carbohydrates in their cells by photosynthesis with sunlight and water.
There are many objections to and errors by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC.) For example, thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in the latest IPCC report. This Clintel report is an analysis of the latest IPCC report AR6 and is signed by over 1500 scientists and qualified people, including me. link here: https://clintel.org/coming-soon-the-frozen-climate-views-of-the-ipcc/
To give you a feel for the extraordinary errors and omissions by the UN IPCC, here is an excerpt of the press release, so you get an idea of what was found:
“The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change. These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.”
“The 180-page [Clintel] report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.”
“The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled.” Link here: https://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-by-clintel-shows-serious-errors-in-latest-ipcc-report/
This Clintel report is only one of many over the last several decades documenting the many problems with the IPCC. Thousands of real scientists have signed many documents, letters, and petitions in protest of the scientific and political hoax being perpetrated by climate activists and politicians, and multiple letters and petitions from multiple countries to Secretaries General of the United Nations. I will be happy to supply the ICAP with many petitions and lists of scientists and other qualified signers from around the world.
The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change is another example. Among other statements, it declares “Now, therefore, we recommend …That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth…“That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.” Since its creation in March 2008 by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change has attracted more than 1,200 signatories from 40 countries, including over 200 climate experts. https://www.icsc-climate.com/manhatten-declaration
Despite the expense of billions of dollars, UN IPCC and other proponents of the hypothesis of human-CO2-caused global warming have produced no verifiable evidence to support their hypothesis. Computer models are not evidence. Computer models are only hypotheses, and so far the computer models “substantially” overstate warming, and this is admitted by modelers and as shown by analysis of the models against actual temperature trends.
“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the first line of the abstract of lead author, climate scientist Ben Santer’s 2017 paper in Nature Geoscience In other words, the actual temperature trends were less than their models.
Their models cost taxpayers billions of dollars and they want trillions more dollars.
Michael Mann (of the infamous and repudiated “hockey stick” warming graphic in Al Gore’s science fiction movie) as well as other climate alarmists were co-authors on the paper. The abstract continues: “Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, MODEL tropospheric warming is substantially larger than OBSERVED,” (Capital letters are mine for emphasis.) In other words, their computer models substantially overestimated the global warming which has been observed in the real world.
Contrary to non-stop reports in mainstream media and government agencies, most scientists do not support the narrative that there is a climate crisis. That narrative is propaganda. Instead, the real problems are the activist proponents of a non-existent climate crisis and their use of heavily-funded, fear-based propaganda to indoctrinate citizens and children, essentially yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Following this climate alarmist agenda is not a legitimate use of Hawai’i taxpayer resources.
There is no valid evidence of unprecedented global warming. Earth has been warmer in the past. Nor is there evidence that human-produced CO2 from burning fossil fuels causes statistically significant global warming. Furthermore, even if there were a significant global warming trend, though there is none, there is solid evidence that warmer temperatures are better for all living things. Historically, civilizations, life, plants etc. thrive in warm periods. Cold kills.
Jamal Munshi, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Business Statistics concludes, “A key relationship in the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that between annual fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2. The proposed causation sequence is that annual fossil fuel emissions cause annual changes in atmospheric CO2 which in turn intensifies the atmosphere’s heat trapping property. It is concluded that global warming is due to changes in atmospheric composition attributed to human activity and is therefore a human creation and that therefore we must reduce or eliminate fossil fuel emissions to avoid climate catastrophe (Parmesan, 2003) (Stern, 2007) (IPCC, 2014) (Flannery, 2006) (Allen, 2009) (Gillett, 2013) (Meinshausen, 2009) (Canadell, 2007) (Solomon, 2009) (Stocker, 2013) (Rogelj, 2016).”
“A testable implication of the proposed causation sequence is that annual changes in atmospheric CO2 must be related to annual fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale. This work is a test of this hypothesis. We find that detrended correlation analysis of annual emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 does not support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis because no evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale. These results are consistent with prior works that found no evidence to relate the rate of warming to the rate of emissions (Munshi, The Correlation between Emissions and Warming in the CET, 2017) (Munshi, Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: Australia, 2017) (Munshi, Generational Fossil Fuel Emissions and Generational Warming: A Note, 2016) (Munshi, Decadal Fossil Fuel Emissions and Decadal Warming: A Note, 2015) (Munshi, Effective Sample Size of the Cumulative Values of a Time Series, 2016) (Munshi, The Spuriousness of Correlations between Cumulative Values, 2016).” link here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420
Briefly summarized, Professor Munshi’s expert work in statistical analysis shows that the trend of estimated CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is not statistically correlated with the trend of net global atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at the NOAA-Scripps Global Monitoring Lab at Mauna Loa when the trends are correctly analyzed. Since no correlation is detectable between these two trends, then CO2 from fossil fuels cannot be the cause of the net global CO2 concentration trend. This is unequivocal evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels cannot be the cause of the trend in increasing CO2 concentration, nor the cause of any other climate effects which are co-variable with total atmospheric CO2 concentration. (A correlation does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship exists, however, there must be a correlation between the two trends if a cause-and-effect relationship exists. There are no exceptions to this logic.)
Since the rate of change of fossil fuel CO2 emission is not forcing a detectable change in the rate of change of global atmospheric CO2 concentration, then fossil fuel CO2 emissions cannot be forcing global warming, cooling, greening, ocean acidity, climate change or any other climate variable which is a co-dependent variable with global CO2 concentration.
All water exposed to air both emits and absorbs CO2 (and other atmospheric gases) continuously. The rates of CO2 absorption and emission change with temperature and with water surface area at a given temperature. Colder water absorbs CO2 faster than warmer water. Over 70% of the earth’s surface is ocean. But even raindrops absorb and emit CO2. The source of the CO2 does not affect the continuous and simultaneous absorption and emission of CO2 from the surface. CO2 (and other atmospheric gas molecules) are continuously colliding with the surface of ocean and all exposed water surfaces and being absorbed. The rates of both absorption and emission are controlled by natural, chemical and physical processes, not by human CO2 emissions. The rate (or partition ratio or co-efficient) of CO2 gas dissolved in water surface versus CO2 gas above the surface of the water is an intensive property of matter, that is a physical property like the boiling point of water. The boiling point of water is not changed by adding more water. Analogously, human addition of CO2 to air does not change the ratio of CO2 gas in ocean surface versus CO2 gas above that surface. Human additions or subtractions of CO2 to and from air only cause temporary and local perturbations to CO2 concentration. The ratio of CO2 gas in water surface versus CO2 gas in air above that surface is rapidly restored for a given temperature. Additional CO2 is absorbed by the water surface. Also any CO2 removed from air will be restored from the naturally ~50 times higher CO2 concentration in ocean and water surfaces. It is futile, wasteful and harmful to remove CO2 from air. More is needed. These ratios, known as Henry’s Law constants or coefficients, are easily found online or in reference books, used by chemists daily, and they have been reproduced thousands of times by experiments. Global atmospheric CO2 concentration today is the same as it would be if humans never existed.
This ICAP draft proposes a use of taxpayer money and public resources to solve a non-existing problem. Doing so would be malfeasant. Be warned. If this proposal is enacted, eventually citizens of Hawai’i will seek legal action for damages against local government officials, commission and committee members, contractors, politicians, etc. for this malfeasant use of taxpayer funds.
Why does this ICAP proposal rely on an un-elected, politically purposed, non-U.S. bureaucratic agency (UN IPCC) that does not do its own science?
Have our Hawai’i island officials examined the real agenda of the UN IPCC? UN IPCC officials admit their agenda is not about the environment. Dr. Ottmar Endenhoffer, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, November 13, 2010, said, “We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…” “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”
No one on our island voted to support the UN IPCC’s alarmist agenda nor to elect any member of the UN IPCC. What is the justification to support these climate activists?
Do our Hawai’i island officials know how dangerous the UN IPCC, Net Zero, and this ICAP proposed plan are? These plans, actions, agreement and proposals dangerous in many different ways to the health, survival and financial stability of Hawai’i individuals, families, businesses and farms. We would become dependent upon unreliable energy sources such as wind and solar which could be destroyed by weather events. These unreliable energy sources require backup energy sources for grid scale power, which means that Hawai’i electricity rates will increase. Already Hawai’i electricity rates are the highest in the U.S., 300% of U.S. average. This is not a sustainable plan, part of Hawai’i’s high cost of living and a reason people are moving away from the islands.
If implemented, this plan will eventually destroy life as we know it here. Living without fossil fuels would not be easy or even feasible. Subsidizing and encouraging large installations of solar panels is indirect payment of money to the Chinese communist party. Most panels are made in communist China, and mostly made there by slave labor or near slave labor. And most of the minerals in solar panels come dominantly from China. Meanwhile communist China is building coal-fired energy plants at a fast pace. It is irresponsible and malfeasant to make this island’s electric energy dependent upon a nation which is sworn to destroy the United States.
A less complicated example: already Hawai’i encourages electric vehicles (EV). But studies show that an electric vehicle must be driven for 100,000 kilometers before it recovers the CO2 produced to make the EV. Production of an EV produces an amount of CO2 in excess of the CO2 produced by a gasoline vehicle. The EV must be driven for 100,000 kilometers before its emissions are less than a gasoline vehicle. Furthermore, driving 100,000 kilometers may take 10 years on Hawai’i for most families and in that time the very expensive lithium batteries will need to be replaced one or more times. CO2 is emitted in production of the batteries. Thus the 100,000 kilometer crossover point where an EV emissions match a gasoline vehicle’s emission is too low.
According to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank stated, “Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla’s battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles,” Hausfather said. “If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years.”
According to Bloomberg, communist China “dominates the lithium-ion battery supply chain.”
And then there is the problem of disposing of the expired solar panels and exhausted lithium car batteries on our island. We already have a problem disposing of batteries and electronics. On the other hand, since CO2 from burning fossil fuels has no measurable effect on warming or on climate, then there is no good reason to allow EV’s or solar panels to pollute our island and planet, and no reason to risk our safety, national security, freedom and financial stability by handing our hard-earned money to communist China. The above examples are only a few of many examples. I will be happy to provide more examples to ICAP.
This draft ICAP plan proposes irresponsible, risky, expensive, and needless programs for Hawai’i island. It should be rejected. But it is not surprising because all of us have endured non-stop indoctrination in every media and in schools for more than 30 years. In the scientific method it is not the obligation or responsibility of skeptics or “deniers” to falsify or disprove hypotheses and theories proposed by climate scientists and political activists. It is the obligation and responsibility of people proposing such hypotheses and theories to present valid evidence and then to defend their hypotheses and theories. Proponents of human-cause global warming and climate change have failed to present the evidence despite the expense of billions of dollars of taxpayer money over many decades. Usually these proponents refuse to debate or answer their critics. It would be foolish for Hawai’i to support their non-scientific, political activities.
Note: On May 16 and 17, 2023 there was a second paragraph in the Executive summary which the authors or editors have now removed. On May 16 and 17, I commented as follows, “These statements in this paragraph are false:” However, human activities have created an enhanced greenhouse effect that causes unprecedented warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. This warming triggers complex, cascading effects that jeopardize natural systems on Earth. To restore balance to our natural system, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions at the local level.” The authors or editors removed the entire paragraph and moved my comments presented above to where they now appear at the end of the first sentence of the Executive Summary. That first sentence reads, “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded in its most recent report that human activities have unequivocally caused global warming.”
I am pleased to see the that the island of Hawai’i (Hawai’i county) is reacting in near real time to comments to their proposed plan.
The long draft plan for Hawai’i island is presented here: : https://cohplanning.konveio.com/draft-integrated-climate-action-plan-icap-island-hawaii?document=1
Regards,
Bud Bromley
Holualoa, Big Island Hawaii
Here is a pdf of the Hawai’i island draft plan as of May 25, 2023.
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, such as the recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6) and the six previous AR’s, as well as the 16 or 17 annual Friedlingstein et al (CDIAC and ESSD) reports, and reports by NOAA, NASA, and Hadley Climate Research Unit, etc., are comparing apples and oranges and then drawing conclusions which are overconfident and unjustified by scientific data from the real world. You are being conned.
The uncertainty of each data set must be propagated across all data sets in the study to the final result in order to properly compare, correlate, blend, different data sets. But this propagation is rarely done in climatology. The result is incorrect conclusions and overconfidence in those conclusions. Examples are provided in this paper.
There are standard statistical methods for propagating uncertainty (also known as error propagation, or random error propagation) when a mathematical operation is used to combine or compare data sets. The error or variability for each data set must be distributed to the final result. In other words, propagation of uncertainty enables estimation of the uncertainty in the result based on the uncertainties in the estimates and/or measurements which were used to calculate that result. “The Gaussian error propagation method is used to estimate the uncertainty of any mathematical expression that contains physical quantities with uncertainties.” http://www.julianibus.de/
Uncertainty is calculated by taking the partial derivatives of the function with respect to each variable, multiplying by the uncertainty in that variable, and then adding these separate terms. The error propagation formulae depend on the mathematical operation used for the calculation. So, for example, the formulae are different for addition than for division. The formulae are explained very well here: https://www.statisticshowto.com/statistics-basics/error-propagation/
For example, if the proxy data for historical temperature from ice cores is to be coupled to the proxy data of estimated temperature based on tree rings, then there is a standard method to calculate the uncertainty in the result of combining these two data sets. However, the famous hockey stick (seen in Al Gore’s science fiction movie “An Inconvenient Truth”) is an unlikely outcome from such a coupling of data sets because ice core data is notoriously variable for time periods less than 1000 years. But tree rings are more or less one year growth events. The variation in annual temperature estimated at the yearly basis from ice cores is very, very large compared to the variation in annual temperature based on tree ring growth. When the large uncertainty at annual level in the ice cores is propagated to the result, that high uncertainty overwhelms the uncertainty in the annual tree ring data. The tree ring data cannot be reproducibly detected within the noisy variation in the annual ice core data. How can these two data sets be coupled together to produce the infamous hockey stick? They cannot be compared with scientific validity.
A better example: if (1) the net global CO2 concentration measured at NOAA-Scripps Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa is to be correlated with (2) the estimates of the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels (FFCO2), then the respective uncertainties of these two very different data sets (apples and oranges) must be propagated to the result. The final correlation statistic and thus the confidence in the conclusion is a function of the combined uncertainties of (1) and (2).
Unfortunately, propagation of uncertainty seems to be seldom practiced in climatology, the result of this failure is expressed in typically hyperbolic semantics such as “unprecedented” or “dangerous” increase in CO2 or temperature, “climate crisis” and the like.
Propagation of uncertainty is an objective and standard method to validate and justify the elimination and exclusion of outlier data points and outlier data sets. Propagation of uncertainty reveals where one set of data will be lost (statistically insignificant and possibly unmeasurable) due to the variability of the other data set.
Here’s another example that appears throughout orthodox literature of human-caused global warming.
NOAA-Scripps describes its CO2 data as follows (the apple):
| # The uncertainty in the global annual mean is estimated using a monte carlo |
| # technique that computes 100 global annual averages each time using a |
| # slightly different set of measurement records from the NOAA ESRL cooperative |
| # air sampling network. The reported uncertainty is the mean of the standard |
| # deviations for each annual average using this technique. Please see |
| # Conway et al. # See www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for additional details. |
Therein from 1980 average CO2 of 338.91 ppm to 2020 average of CO2 of 412.48 ppm, in each year NOAA calculate the uncertainty of their CO2 data as 0.1. (This is only from the ‘gold standard’ lab at GML Mauna Loa. If the other GML labs in Alaska, Samoa, etc. are included the uncertainty differences among the labs should be propagated to the resulting total uncertainty for CO2 measurements for all GML lab data used.)
Contrast the above “apple” of 0.1 uncertainty for Mauna Loa data with the following “orange” based on the paper: (Robert J. Andres, Thomas A. Boden & David Higdon (2014). A new evaluation of the uncertainty associated with CDIAC estimates of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emission.)
From the conclusion: “Despite its importance, the characterisation of uncertainty on estimates of the global total FFCO2 [fossil fuel CO2] emission made from the CDIAC database is still cumbersome. The lack of independent measurements at the spatial and temporal scales of interest complicates the characterisation. The mix of dependent and independent data used in the CDIAC calculations further complicates the determination. The three cases presented above collectively give a range of uncertainty that spans 1.013%. However, the end members of this range are not calculated on the same basis and each case measures different aspects…” “…As the contribution from different countries changes annually, so does the annual global uncertainty change. Global uncertainty has been increasing recently (Fig. 4) because more emissions are coming from countries with less certain data collection and management practices (Fig. 5).” …”As data are revised, missing data are reported and methodology refined, global uncertainty for a given emission year settles to typically less than 2% growth after initial data publication.”…”Finally, this analysis gives updated uncertainty assessments for the CDIAC FFCO2 global estimates. It is anticipated that these uncertainty assessments will have three primary impacts. First, these assessments remind the community that FFCO2 emissions have a non-zero uncertainty associated with them. Second, that this uncertainty is significant, either in isolation or in relation to other components of the global carbon cycle (Fig. 10). Third, that these uncertainty assessments will be used in the next-generation inverse (and other) models to better understand and constrain the global carbon cycle.”
In the body of the same paper:
“CDIAC has never published quantitative values for the uncertainty in national emissions, although many data users are aware that the uncertainty varies widely among countries.”…(page 1)
“Adding to the cumbersomeness of the uncertainty quantification presented, FFCO2 emission estimates do not fit neatly into the categories of dependent or independent data (at nearly all levels of the calculations) for which classical uncertainty quantification approaches are well established.”…(page 2)
Below is a table from this paper to illustrate thee wide differences in FFCO2 by country. Click to enlarge.
In the example in the table above, the uncertainty of FFCO2 data from Mexico is about 50 times higher than that for the USA. The uncertainty of the fossil fuel production data reported to Oakridge National Laboratories from Mexico is 50 times less than the uncertainty of the fossil fuel production data from the U.S. FFCO2 is calculated from the production data. The authors arrive at an uncertainty for the total FFCO2 data set from all countries of 8.4% at 2 sigma (i.e., 2 standard deviations.)
“The three assessments collectively give a range that spans from 1.0 to 13% (2 sigma). Greatly simplifying the assessments give a global fossil fuel carbon dioxide uncertainty value of 8.4% (2 sigma).”
Thus the total uncertainty in this estimate of FFCO2 is 84 times larger than (i.e., less precise, less reproducible, less likely to be found in the Gaussian, normally distributed data) than the 0.1% uncertainty in the measured NOAA-Scripps Mauna Loa CO2 data.
Nevertheless, in orthodox climatology, FFCO2 is unequivocally held to be driving (dangerously and catastrophically! or so they claim) the trend in net global CO2 concentration, and thus causing global warming (or so they claim.) This is an “apples and oranges” comparison and they have drawn an invalid conclusion.
Uncertainty and statistical significance are functions of variability in the source data. The difference between the uncertainty (or precision or reproducibility) of the measured Mauna Loa data compared to the uncertainty of the estimated fossil fuel CO2 (FFCO2) is so large that any supposed correlation will most likely rendered worthless. And that is exactly what is found by statistical analysis.
Our two apples and oranges examples above are very different. In the first example, attempting to compare estimated average annual temperature from tree rings with estimated 1000 year average temperature based on ice cores, if these two proxies are combined, the tree ring signal will be lost in the high variability of ice cores at the annual level. Ice core data of less than 1000 becomes too uncertain to be with 2 sigma significance. Relative to annual ice core data, the error bars for the temperature proxy from trees rings are very much smaller. Coupling these two data sets together is invalid.
In the second example, the uncertainty of estimated fossil fuels CO2 emissions is about 80 times larger than the uncertainty of net CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa, but the 2020 Mauna Loa net CO2 concentration at 412 ppm is about 160 times larger than the net increase in CO2 due to all sources and sinks, natural and human. The net increase in CO2 due to fossil fuels is necessarily an amount less than the 2.58 ppm net increase for 2020; the net increase for 2020 is about 0.6% of the net total CO2 for 2020. This allows a useful conclusion in the second example.
In the second example, net global CO2 measured at Mauna Loa is highly variable at the daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis, but the measurement is highly reproducible. Uncertainty is low. The annual data, although still variable has a very low uncertainty calculated by NOAA-Scripps at 0.1. The NOAA data are very reproducible, very likely the measured data is found within the normal distributed Gaussian bell curve. The annual variation is about +/- 5 ppm, this is an easily visible sharks tooth pattern reproduced each year in the net global CO2 measurements.
Daily Mauna Loa data is variable, as seen in the graph below, but this variability is hidden somewhat in the graph above by the effect of averaging to calculate weekly, monthly and annual data. But the cyclical sharks tooth pattern is still clearly observed in the daily data.
Source: Bromley & Tamarkin (2022). Figure 9. https://budbromley.blog/2022/05/20/correcting-misinformation-on-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
The net CO2 increase due to fossil fuels for 2020, which must be less than 2.58 ppm, is in the same order of magnitude as the annual variability of the measured net global CO2. But the erratic trend in estimated CO2 due to fossil fuels cannot be detected in the measured trend of net global CO2 which is 160 times larger and about 80 times more reproducible; this important. The estimated CO2 due to fossil fuels is highly uncertain, outside of the normally distributed data in the Gaussian bell curve and cannot be distinguished from random noise in the data. If these estimated fossil fuel data were more certain, more reproducible, then we might be able to calculate the net CO2 due to fossil fuels. The estimated CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels, despite how many gigatons the estimate, is a useless and invalid amount with regard to calculations and models of global carbon balance because we cannot measure the net CO2 from fossil fuels. We do not know the amount of CO2 from fossil fuels which is absorbed. Therefore, it is incorrect to for proponents of human-cause climate change, UN IPCC et al, to claim that CO2 from fossil fuels is causing the rising trend in net global CO2.
By analogy, this is like attempting to find a 1:600 scale model of the International Space Station floating on the ocean while flying overhead in the International Space Station. Even with high zoom magnification we cannot find the small scale model on the ocean surface. One might think that the highly variable, near random movements of the model floating in the ocean would be like a red flag visible from the stable platform and highly predictable motion of the actual space station. But frequently the ocean waves or some other event completely obscures the visibility of floating model space station.
“The essence of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that fossil fuel emissions cause warming by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and that therefore the amount of warming can be attenuated by reducing fossil fuel emissions (Hansen, 1981) (Meinshausen, 2009) (Stocker, 2013) (Callendar, 1938) (Revelle, 1957) (Lacis, 2010) (Hansen, 2016) (IPCC, 2000) (IPCC, 2014). At the root of the proposed AGW causation chain is the ability of fossil fuel emissions to cause measurable changes in atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of natural variability.” Munshi, Jamal. Revised 2017. RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS: UPDATED. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420
However, as Dr. Munshi, professor of business statistics, reveals in his several papers, the AGW argument is spurious and without merit because there is no correlation between the trend in estimated FFCO2 compared to the trend in measured Mauna Loa CO2 concentration. The apparent correlation results from visible inspection and intuition but not statistical analysis. When these two data sets are detrended to remove the cumulative effects of the shared timeline, then the intuitive correlation disappears. This is shown in the graphic below from Professor Munshi.
Spurious correlations between cumulative values of random numbers are illustrated in this 55 second video. https://youtu.be/8YVHJRyY3_I
IPCC, NASA, NOAA, CDIAC, etc continue with this false assumption of human causation, claiming in widely, expensively, and pervasively publicized literature that this an unequivocal conclusion. But, in fact, that conclusion is easily disproven on the basis of CO2 alone. There is no need to analyze for a possible temperature correlation with CO2; such a correlation would require solving simultaneous partial differential equations with many co-dependent variables. Although these equations can be solved, the result is even higher uncertainty, too high to be of any value. Similar to the CO2 data, the uncertainties in temperature data sets also must be propagated along with the CO2 uncertainties in the differential equations. The temperature variable only adds more uncertainty to the CO2 uncertainty.
Elaborate and hugely expensive carbon budgets done by 50 and more scientists each year as well as many different computer models are wrong. Analysis of uncertainty proves them wrong.
Figure 3 source: Munshi, Jamal. RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS: PART 2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438
AGW proponents are most likely aware of these problems with their causation hypothesis (i.e., that CO2 from humans use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increasing global CO2 concentration, and thereby increased global warming). The fundamental and most simple AGW causation hypothesis is that fossil fuel emissions cause atmospheric CO2 concentration to rise. But, the evidence above disproves that hypothesis. So, they created a circular argument in their many climate budget models which they call the “Airborne Fraction.” The portion of annual CO2 emissions used to explain the annual change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is what they call the “Airborne Fraction“. The evidence offered is a list of estimated carbon sinks and sources, e.g., land use, cement production, inorganic CO2 to and from ocean, CO2 to and from forests, etc. Each of these estimated fluxes has an uncertainty and each of these uncertainties should be propagated to the final modelled result. Some of the uncertainties in these fluxes vary by an order of magnitude. Probably their estimated “Airborne Fraction” will disappear when the uncertainties are propagated. Also, it is a logically invalid argument because they start with an assumed conclusion and then back fill with hypothetical estimates for these various fluxes. (We used to call that fudge factors.)
Dr. Munshi explains, “Circular reasoning creates a bias in favor of resumed findings and against alternate explanations of the data. This form of argumentation is not considered valid because it subsumes the conclusion, makes assumptions that facilitate the desired result, or otherwise validates a hypothesis with assumptions implicit in the hypothesis (Walton, 1991) (Rips, 2002) (Hahn, 2007) (Tavallaee, 2009). Yet, circular reasoning is surprisingly common in published research (Finkelstein, 2007) (Finkelstein, 2010) (Wiggins, 1989) (McCarroll, 2002) (Sackett, 1979).“ Excerpt from the abstract: “Circular reasoning is used in the IPCC carbon budget to relate atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions as a way of dealing with insurmountable measurement problems. No evidence exists to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 or the rate of warming to fossil fuel emissions because correlations presented for these relationships are spurious. The UNFCCC holds annual COP meetings and calls for reductions in fossil fuel emissions to attenuate global warming without evidence that warming is related to emissions.” Munshi, Jamal. SOME METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2873672
The argument by proponents of human-caused global warming (AGW) claims in definitive and unequivocal terms that human-produced FFCO2 has increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. Proponents claim that this human-increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased the greenhouse effect; and that the human-produced increase in greenhouse effect in turn increases the earth’s surface temperature which, if not stopped or reversed by human actions, will cause Catastrophic Climate Change (CCC) (IPCC, 2014) (Hansen, 1981) (Lacis, 2010), and all manner of crises. There is no evidence for these claims. Their computer models, which are only hypotheses, are too uncertain to be used for climate predictions, policies, laws and regulations.
In calling for the U.S. to end its membership in and financing of the WHO, the Sovereignty Coalition has issued a Declaration of their concerns and a call for action.
Read story here
The World Health Organization, widely considered the most powerful health authority in the world, is pursuing a Pandemic Preparedness Treaty that critics say could make the organization even more powerful and jeopardize U.S. sovereignty.
The United Nations-affiliated WHO says the draft treaty – or “zero draft” – is designed to protect the world from future pandemics and last December announced that member states “agreed to develop the first draft of such as a legally binding agreement.”
However, the group says the agreement also “respects sovereignty.”
Among the critics’ concerns is the treaty, if agreed upon by member nations, would give the WHO more international influence, amid arguments the agency allowed China to conceal information about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, though the WHO, in turn, has accused China of withholding the information.
They also say a ratified treaty would give the WHO authority over pandemic-related vaccines, lockdowns, school closures and more and could lead the agency to pursue the full adaptation of a so-called Digital Health Certificates, which could put medical records for people around the world into a central database.
Such concerns took center stage last week in Washington.
Sixteen members of Congress including GOP Reps. Andy Biggs, of Arizona; Ralph Norman, of South Carolina; and Chip Roy, of Texas, joined with the Sovereignty Coalition on Capitol Hill to urge the U.S. to withdraw from the World Health Organization.
The non-partisan group’s top stated mission is to “ensure that the United States no longer underwrites, participates in or is subject to the World Health Organization” and to create an alternative group to better deal with another pandemic.
In September 2020, the Trump administration formally notified the United Nations the United States would withdraw from the WHO, arguing the agency failed to quickly alert the world when the virus emerged and that it helped China cover up the global threat the virus posed.
President Joe Biden upon taking the White House rescinded that notification and announced plans to stay in the organization.
The Sovereignty Coalition includes 55 organizations including the Center for Security Policy, Liberty Counsel Action, Act for America, Eagle Forum, Global Covid Summit and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers.
The coalition also argues the WHO, now led by Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, is a “supranational agency that is effectively controlled by the Chinese Communist Party,” and that the United States must end its membership in the agency and cease funding it.
It also warns, in a declaration on the matter, the WHO ultimately plans to take “authority over every aspect of life, under the guise of a potential public health emergency.”
Member nations met again in February to further work on the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty draft, but no date has been set to vote on the matter.
Supporters of the plan say many of the assumptions are incorrect.
The Associated Press in a February 24 fact-check report states the treaty is voluntary and does not overrule any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies.
The report, which cites multiple experts, including one involved in the draft process, also states the treaty lays out broad recommendations related to international cooperation on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response but that the 30-page document does not mention lockdowns, closures or specific citizen surveillance systems.
“These claims are utterly false,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University law professor and director of the university’s WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law who has also been involved in the treaty’s draft process.
“The United States retains sovereignty to set its own domestic public health policies,” he also said.
Christine Anderson, MEP, of Germany
100% agree with her. God speed.
Dear Dr . Hoesung Lee,
With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC has completed its sixth assessment cycle, comprising a total of seven reports. An international team of scientists from the 1,500-strong Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel) has reviewed several claims from the Working Group 1 ( The Physical Science Basis ) and Working Group 2 ( Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability ) reports. The results are summarized in Clintel’s report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC . Clintel’s in-depth analysis reveals serious flaws in latest IPCC report.
As background, I would like to remind you of the InterAcademies Council (IAC) review of IPCC procedures in 2010, which was commissioned after catastrophic publicity about errors in previous IPCC reports and revelations about attempts by IPCC lead authors to suppress debate. The IAC concluded in part:
Since the IAC report was partly produced after the discovery of errors in the most recent assessment, the committee also examined the IPCC’s review process. It concluded that the process is thorough, but that stronger enforcement of existing IPCC assessment procedures could minimize errors. To this end, the IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors must also ensure that real controversies are reflected in the report and be sure that due consideration has been given to well-documented alternative viewpoints. Lead authors must explicitly document that the full range of considered scientific views has been considered. Seehere.
We regret to conclude that the IPCC has not followed this advice and that the AR6 has the same shortcomings as before, namely a biased selection of evidence, a failure to reflect real controversies and a failure to adequately take into account well-documented alternative views.
For example, the IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalized disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human deaths from extreme weather have decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC authors made the opposite conclusions based on cherry-picked evidence, claiming that damage and death rates from anthropogenic climate change had increased, and the review process failed to correct this inaccuracy.
Clintel’s 180-page report, The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC , is the first large-scale international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters, the Clintel report shows that the IPCC makes numerous serious scientific mistakes that generally reflect a bias towards ‘bad news’ versus ‘good news’.
This was the case throughout the report and especially in the preparation of the Executive Summary for Policymakers. For example, the good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths was omitted from the Executive Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, where the IPCC AR6 has taken into account evidence pointing to bleak, worst-case prospects, such as the recognition that the RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 emissions scenarios are low probability and that models systematically predict warming overestimates in the tropical troposphere, these findings are buried deep in the chapters and are not highlighted to the media or policy makers.
Even worse, despite the fact that the discussion of emission scenarios concludes that the extremes are unlikely, they nevertheless receive maximum attention in other parts of the report to project the climate effects.
Finally, we note that the IPCC has remained silent while the UN Secretary-General and other senior officials have repeatedly misrepresented the IPCC’s findings. For example, Secretary General Guterres said of the Working Group 1 report:
“Today’s IPCC Working Group 1 report is a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are ringing and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are suffocating our planet and putting billions of people in immediate danger.” Source here .
The AR6 Working Group 1 report did not say these things, but the IPCC never corrected it, nor did it dispute the similarly inaccurate media coverage that distorts the content of your report.
With all due respect, dr. Lee, seriously misleading the world on such an important subject and on such a large scale is unacceptable for a UN organization that claims to be scientific. The errors and biases Clintel found in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the 2010 IAC Review, suggesting that the IPCC is still failing to deliver on its mission.
The Clintel network therefore requests the following:
• That the IPCC commission a team of representatives from Clintel and other independent individuals not involved in the IPCC leadership to assess whether the IPCC has fully implemented and followed the 2010 reforms recommended by the IAC Review, and whether there are more reforms are needed.
• That the IPCC review prominent statements by major world leaders and media outlets that paraphrase the contents of the AR6 and correct the report where those statements are misleading or inaccurate.
• That the IPCC meet with Clintel representatives to get input on the key deficiencies identified in our report that require formal correction.
Looking forward to your response,
Sincerely,
dr. AJ (Guus) Berkhout, chair of Clintel
Emeritus Professor of Geophysics
Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Gus Berkhout.
***
Gus Berkhout.
PS
The main objective of the Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel) is to generate knowledge and insight into the causes and consequences of climate change, as well as into the effects of climate policy. Clintel published the World Climate Declaration , which has now been signed by more than 1,500 scientists and experts around the world, rivaling the IPCC Working Group’s author lists in scope and credentials. See here .
“We engineered SARS.” “A biological warfare enabling technology.” “Since 2005.”
Much more.
A new Rasmussen Reports survey reveals that a majority of Americans believe the media favors Democrats and is “truly the enemy of the people.” The survey was conducted May 16-18, 2023 from 1,002 U.S. likely voters.
The survey also reveals that 59% of American voters view the media as truly the enemy of the people.
Excellent. Well done. Professional. 1.5 hours. Free for now.
Be informed. This is important. More “vaccines” are coming.
Latest. The link to this documentary was removed or re-directed.
Sorry for the trouble.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.