Green Murder – Omicidio Verde

Pubblicato daglasnost

 

Non ho opinioni.
Ho fatti dimostrabili.
Questi fatti sono convalidati e sono ripetibili.

Fatto numero uno:

Nessuno ha mai dimostrato che le emissioni umane di anidride carbonica siano alla base del riscaldamento globale.
Non è mai stato dimostrato.
E se fosse possibile dimostrarlo, allora si dovrebbe dimostrare che il 97% delle emissioni che sono naturali non guidano il riscaldamento globale.

Il gioco è finito.
Abbiamo a che fare con una frode, che è una frode scientifica fin dal primo giorno.
Sentiamo la propaganda, che l’aumento del gas della vita, un gas in traccia nell’atmosfera, porterà a un disastro e che avremo un riscaldamento globale incontrollato…

Spiacente gente, sappiamo da duecento anni, dalla chimica, che è esattamente l’inverso: ora, sono sicuro che alcuni di voi l’hanno provato ieri sera a cena, con uno champagne o una birra, e vi siete dimenticati di berlo, e quello si è riscaldato e ha continuato a gorgogliare, gorgogliare e gorgogliare e gorgogliare, e questo è solubilità inversa dell’anidride carbonica, lo sappiamo da duecento anni, lo vediamo dalle carote di ghiaccio, quando perforiamo il ghiaccio abbiamo impronte chimiche che ci dicono qual era la temperatura, abbiamo piccoli bolle di aria intrappolata e possiamo dimostrare che, quando c’è stato un riscaldamento naturale, circa seicentocinquanta-seimila anni dopo abbiamo avuto un aumento dell’anidride carbonica.
Non è “l’anidride carbonica a guidare la temperatura“, è l’esatto contrario.

Un’altra frode: non si sente mai parlare del principale gas serra, il vapore acqueo, che ha una proprietà notevole, questa strana acqua: quando evapora l’acqua ha bisogno di energia per farlo.
I verdi non lo sanno perché non sudano mai, e quando si suda si sente che la pelle è fresca perché si sta impiegando energia per far evaporare l’acqua, e quando l’acqua precipita, sotto forma di pioggia, neve o ghiaccio, cede esattamente la stessa quantità che ha assorbito. È vapore acqueo e le nubi d’acqua, in qualsiasi forma si presentino, sono il condizionatore d’aria dell’atmosfera del nostro pianeta, non è un gas in traccia, ed è per questo che i 115 modelli non funzionano: perché stanno cercando di creare un modello che dimostri che l’anidride carbonica è un male. Abbiamo avuto questo tipo di previsioni per molto tempo, e poi questo termine assolutamente meraviglioso – ho un capitolo dedicato alle previsioni e ho esaminato duemila anni di previsioni, persone che hanno predetto la fine del mondo… Se una sola di queste fosse stata corretta non saremmo qui,  …

E sentiamo parlare di scienziati del clima, qualunque cosa sia. Ora, in geologia abbiamo una storia di duecentocinquant’anni di discussioni sul clima. I libri di testo ne sono pieni, abbiamo discusso di clima per molto tempo, e poi questa improvvisa nuova invenzione della scienza del clima, e ne ho avuti alcuni quando ero capo dipartimento all’Università di Melbourne, e questi accademici amareggiati, oscuri e senza lavoro, finanziati dalle vostre tasse, finanziano gli hobby di queste persone e il risultato finale è che lasciano senza lavoro brave persone e costano trilioni alla nostra nazione.
Quindi c’è un gruppo di persone che usa i modelli, un altro gruppo di persone – questo è molto semplice – che usa le prove, e quando le due cose non sono in accordo bisogna buttare via i modelli, che abbiamo visto più e più volte essere sbagliati.

Quindi, se guardiamo al passato, possiamo vedere che ci sono state sei grandi ere glaciali. Durante l’era glaciale, i ghiacci si espandono, è la glaciazione, o si contraggono, è la fase interglaciale. Attualmente ci troviamo nella fase interglaciale di un’era glaciale iniziata un giovedì di trentaquattro milioni di anni fa.

Il ghiaccio è arrivato e se n’è andato. Nell’ultimo interglaciale il livello del mare era più alto di circa sette metri e la temperatura era più calda di circa cinque gradi.

Quindi, se qualcuno dice che questo è il giorno più caldo mai registrato, bisogna chiedergli: da quando?
Se è il giorno più caldo degli ultimi centoventimila anni, allora è un record. Ma… da quando? Se andiamo al picco di quell’interglaciale, circa quattromila anni fa, c’erano circa cinque gradi in più, quindi [ora] è più fresco della temperatura più calda registrata. Se andiamo all’epoca di Gesù, quando faceva caldo, siamo circa quattro gradi più freddi di allora, e se andiamo ai secoli bui, all’epoca dei Vichinghi, ci siamo effettivamente riscaldati da allora. Se andiamo al riscaldamento medievale, da allora ci siamo raffreddati. E se andiamo alla Piccola Era Glaciale ci siamo riscaldati da allora. Quindi, da quando?

E, cosa che vi sorprenderà, siamo appena usciti da una piccola era glaciale: cosa pensate che farà la temperatura? Scenderà o salirà? È in aumento dal minimo di più di trecento anni fa.
Non c’è quindi da stupirsi che se si danno finestre temporali per la temperatura, per il livello del mare, per gli uragani o altro, si possa tessere qualsiasi narrativa si voglia raccontare.

Queste sei grandi ere glaciali sono iniziate quando nell’atmosfera c’era più anidride carbonica di adesso. Abbiamo lo zero-virgola-zero-quattro per cento [0,04%] di questo gas nell’atmosfera, che dovrebbe essere un inquinante incolore e inodore… ma questo inquinante sarebbe destinato a uccidervi…

…

Abbiamo un problema di crisi, non è una crisi di clima, è una crisi di buon senso, è una crisi di politica governativa, è una crisi di educazione.
E sentiamo parole come emissioni, che per me non significano nulla perché l’atmosfera ha cambiato il suo contenuto di anidride carbonica da oltre il venti per cento ad oggi, che è davvero basso nel tempo geologico, se lo dimezzassimo tutta la vita vegetale morirebbe e gli animali morirebbero, quindi abbiamo un problema con un linguaggio come crisi climatica o estinzione o emergenza o transizione.

Ma che dire di Net Zero? Abbiamo la fortuna di avere una popolazione piccola in un continente [Australia], ma emettiamo pro capite un bel po’ di anidride carbonica, e questo perché siamo una nazione mineraria e fonditrice, e ci facciamo carico di altre nazioni fondendo alluminio, zinco, piombo e rame. E se consideriamo le emissioni totali degli australiani, cioè la quantità totale di anidride carbonica che assorbiamo attraverso i pascoli, i terreni, le colture, le foreste e la piattaforma continentale, assorbiamo solo dieci volte l’anidride carbonica che emettiamo.
Dobbiamo rivedere l’Accordo di Parigi, andare da loro e dire: “Vogliamo che questi Paesi incredibilmente ricchi che emettono anidride carbonica, come il Ciad e la Mauritania, paghino e ci diano i soldi, noi stiamo facendo la loro parte“.

Quindi tutta questa faccenda è ridicola, è folle. Ora ci viene detto cosa possiamo mangiare, e si possono fare le somme per la carne di manzo: producendo la carne di manzo e sequestrando il carbonio siamo già a processo zero. Nessuno lo dice ai verdi.

… [TBC]

I don’t have opinions.
I have demonstrable facts.
These facts are validated and these facts are repeatable.

Fact number one:

No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Never been shown.
And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions which are natural do not drive global warming.

Game over.
We’re dealing with a fraud, that’s a scientific fraud from day one.
We hear the propaganda, that the increases of the gas of life, a trace gas in the atmosphere, will bring a disaster and that we will have runaway global warming …

Sorry folks we’ve known for two hundred years, from chemistry, that it’s the exact inverse: now, I’m sure some of you tried this last night at that dinner, with a champagne or a beer, and you forgot to drink that, and that warmed up and kept bubbling bubbling and bubbling and bubbling, and that is the inverse solubility of carbon dioxide, we’ve known that for two hundred years, we see it from the ice cores, when we drill into ice we have chemical fingerprints that tell us what the temperature was, we have little bits of trapped air and we can show that, when we had natural warming, some six hundred and fifty to six thousand years later we had an increase in carbon dioxide.
It’s not “carbon dioxide drives temperature“, it’s the exact inverse.

Another fraud: we never hear about the major greenhouse gas which is water vapor, and water vapor has a remarkable property, this weird water: when we evaporate water we need energy to do that.
Now the greens don’t know this because they never get up a sweat,  and when you get up a sweat you feel that the skin is cool because you’re taking energy to evaporate water, and when you precipitate that water, as rain snow or ice, it gives out in exactly the same amount that it took up. It is water vapor, and water clouds, whatever form it’s in, are the air conditioner of our planet’s atmosphere, it isn’t a trace gas, which is why the hundred and fifteen models don’t work: this is because they are trying to create a model that proves that carbon dioxide is doom and gloom. And we had these sort of predictions for a long time, and then this absolutely wonderful term – I have a chapter devoted to predictions and I’ve looked at two thousand years of predictions, people predicting the end of the world … and we had thousands of highly qualified eminent people predicting the end of the world … If just one of these was correct we wouldn’t be here, so there’s only one type of prediction you can make which is correct, and that is, if one predicting the end of the world knocks on your door sic the dog onto them, because they’ve got history on your side!

And we hear about climate scientists, whatever that is. Now, in geology we have a two hundred and fifty year track record of arguing about climate. Text books are full of it, we’ve been laboring about climate for a long while, and then this sudden new invention of climate science, and I had some of these when I was head of department at the University of Melbourne and these embittered obscure unemployable academics, funded by your taxes, those taxes fund these people’s hobbies and the end result of that, they put good people out of work and cost our nation trillions.
So there’s one group of people that use models, another group of people – this is really simple – we use evidence, and when the two are not in accord you’ve got to throw out the models, which we’ve seen time and time again incorrect.

So, we can look back in the past and we can see that we’ve had six great ice ages. During that ice age we’ll have the ice expands, that’s the glaciation, or contracts, that’s an interglacial. We are currently in an interglacial on an ice age that started on a Thursday thirty four million years ago.

And the ice has come and gone. In our last interglacial, sea level was about seven meters higher, temperature was about five degrees warmer.

So if someone says this is the hottest day on record you have to ask: since when?
If it’s the hottest day in the last hundred and twenty thousand years then that is a record. But … since when? So if we go to the peak of that interglacial, which was about four thousand years ago, it was about five degrees warmer, so it’s cooler than the hottest temperature on record. If we go to the time of Jesus when it was warm it’s about four degrees cooler than then, and if we go to the Dark Ages, go to the Vikings Age we actually warmed up since then. If we go to the Mediaeval warming we cooled down since then. And if we go the Little Ice Age we warmed up since then. So, since when?

And, this is going to surprise you, but we just come out of a little ice age: what do you think temperature’s going to do? fall or rise? it’s been rising since the minimum more than three hundred years ago.
So it is no surprise that if you have cut off times for temperature, for sea level, for hurricanes or whatever, you can spin whatever yarn you want to spin.

These six great ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. We have zero-point-zero-four percent [0.04%] of that gas in the atmosphere, which is meant to be a pollutant which is colorless odorless … but this pollutant is meant to kill you …

…

We have a problem with a crisis, it’s not a crisis of climate, it’s a crisis of common sense, it’s a crisis of government policy, it’s a crisis of education.
And we hear words like emissions, well that means nothing to me because the atmosphere has changed it’s carbon dioxide content from over twenty percent to now, which is really low in geological time, if we halve it all plant life would die and animals would die, so we have a problem with language like climate crisis or extinction or emergency or transition .

But what about Net Zero? We are blessed with a small population having a continent, we emit per capita quite a bit of carbon dioxide, and this is because we are a mining and smelting nation, we are taking a hit for other nations by smelting aluminium zinc lead and copper. And if we look at the total emissions of Australians, I mean look at the total amount of carbon dioxide that we absorb through grasslands range lands our crops forests and continental shelf
we only absorb ten times as much carbon dioxide as we emit.
We have to revise at Paris Agreement, go to them and say look, we want these incredibly wealthy countries that put out carbon dioxide like Chad and Mauritania to pay up give us the money, we’re doing their bits!

So this whole business is ridiculous, this is gone berserk. We are now told what we can eat, and you can do the sums for beef, by the growing beef and sequestering carbon we actually are net-zero process already. No one is telling the greens.

…

And we had one of our former prime ministers, or prime monster, tell us that this was the greatest moral crisis: it is a moral crisis certainly, it is a moral crisis because the fundamentals of science are: you do not tamper with the original evidence. That has happened with their temperature record, where the past is cooled and it makes it look as if we’re warming. That is fraud, and the whole process is based on fraud.
We are terrorizing young children, we’re scaring them witless about the end of the world, and with a thirty second search on your mobile phone you would know that, the world’s not gonna away, that the hurricanes and sea levels etc, nothing to worry here, nothing to see here.

And this whole concept now has given us, renewables. Now these renewables made a complete rewiring of the grid, these renewables – wind and solar – if you want to build them you expend more energy on building them than you do but that projection. If you wanted build wind and solar the amount of carbon dioxide to build them is more than that size.
So why spend trillions, it’s just not right.

We also have that been flying on to hydrogen, not enough time for that, electric vehicles or pumped hydro that what we’re doing is we’re making ourselves very vulnerable in this country our solar and wind solar panels and wind turbines come from China wind turbines and solar panels have a very short life if we kill off our coal and gas generation and have no nuclear, China completely controls the amount of energy we can produce in this country, that is really strategically stupid, and there’s only one country in the world that’s really survived by using solar: it’s Spain. Spaniards are incredibly clever and they have learnt to be able to generate solar power at night.

You heard that correctly so I had an idyllic simple the subsidies are so generous that you can afford to run a diesel jin said and flood lot the solar panels and still make a quick and that is telling us that this is a scam, the whole lot is a con and a scam and, yeah, forget the birds and the bench and the scenery and farmland getting destroyed by solar and wind, we all know that, but do we know that if we pull ups solar panels built by slave labor in China – so if you’re supporter salah you obviously must be a supporter of slavery if you wandering around in your electric vehicle prancing around morally superior – then you need to be able to answer the question: why is it that you’re driving an electric vehicle when that cobalt, most of it comes from the Congo, is mined by black slave children and the cobalt goes to China?
Justify that, and that’s where we conservatives have gone wrong way been on the back foot we never attacked and we have to attack the morality of the other side very easy today because there’s nothing I won’t go into what drives this gb guy you twenty points absolutely magnificent
and didn’t really go into the mainstream media they was once a time when it was a calling to be a journalist when got one or two of them he had breakfast this morning with tears ackerman he’s one of those scar to me but most most journalists now activists the highest and for as for the greens
and that’s what you’re up against so what does this attack led to it’s got nothing to do with environment nothing to do with climate it’s all about power by unelected people and all about money and liar attacking your freedoms they are attacking our environment they are attacking your wallet they are taking the money from the poor and giving to the rich so this is what we’re up against we’re up against those who lie we’re up against those who are fraudulent and cook the books so why do I write books like green murder well that’s exactly what are these green policy lead to people dying imagine this winter in england if you’re a pensioner you can afford perhaps to heat one room perhaps to have a hot meal and perhaps the have a war share but you can’t have all three now this is a great country that’s been destroyed by green policies we are killing people with green policies so I write books like this thats it you can end up like me I mean what a what a horrible sort of to this thought for you to end up like me but you you can be canceled you too can be stopped from talking at universities yeah teague can not be invited to dinner parties to can not have any mainstream bookseller sell this it great motor dot coms applies to go for it or outside that at lunchtime but we have to fight and you have to fight with facts and we have to fight much harder than we ever saw a fought it’s it’s not the climate that’s being threatened it’s a future of our children and what we are facing is a fifty dumbing down of our education system where our children cannot realize that they’re being taught cods wallop there haven’t been given the skills of argument of critical analysis and thinking and I are having their futures slaughtered it is time to fight, it is not time to be like a normal conservative polite and nod, you have to have your facts, and you have to fight fire with fire and if you can’t then ask a really simple question if someone sees this is the worst floods we’ve ever had and all you’ve got say is: “well that’s interesting please show me the evidence“, this is all based on evidence not propaganda and not feeling, feelings can lead you astray, especially hormonally driven feelings would give you huge problems in later in life, so it is time to fight and it’s time not to let one word or sentence proceed in a discussion without you standing up and fighting.

That’s why I write books to give you the tools for fighting because we’re all in this together.
Thank you

— Ian Plimer @CPAC-2022

News Corp columnist Ian Plimer’s climate denialism called out … ↔ “Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears”

♦ Professor Ian Plimer, espone la natura genocida e antiumana di Net Zero. “Se avessimo Net Zero, allora non mangeresti. Perché quando mangi, converti i composti del carbonio, che entrano nel tuo corpo e il resto lo … ” —@BorN ;

♦ Professor Ian Plimer, autore di “Green Murder“: I governi sono stati così stupidi da accettare acriticamente la propaganda climatica perpetuata da pseudoscienziati del clima comprati e pagati, basati su … —@CDCo ;