COP27: Understanding Climate Change and the UN’s Hidden Agenda Behind ‘Catastrophic Global Warming’ – DavidSkripac 12/22/22


Another United Nations climate conference has come and gone. The twenty-seventh, to be exact.  

Its forgettable full name is the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Or COP27, for short.  

COP27, like all of the UN’s previous annual climate summits (COP1 through COP26), addressed none of the actual existential issues facing humanity. Instead, its delegates, gathered in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, bombarded the rest of us with endless chatter about how human-induced climate change will spell the end of humanity if trillions of dollars aren’t thrown at this alleged catastrophe.  

There was the usual call to action made by the same old summit attendees, who implored nations to reduce carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions before it’s too late to save “Mother Earth.” To that familiar refrain they added a new note: a proclamation of “climate justice” that focused on the need for rich countries to scale up “investment for climate and development” to the lofty tune of $2 trillion a year.  

But could all that blather about climate catastrophe and climate justice be nothing more than a smoke screen covering up a nefarious scheme—a scheme designed to monopolise the world’s resources for the benefit of a select few?    

Before we answer that question, let’s first go over some true facts about climate change and cover the variables that contribute to it. (Note: Natural climate cycles shouldn’t be confused with deliberate weather modification—a separate topic we will discuss further down in this article.)  

Is Climate Change Real?  

First, the question that is probably on everyone’s mind: Is climate change real? Yes, it is. It has been a natural, normal, nonstop phenomenon ever since Earth was formed.  

Second, the corollary question: Is it occurring as a result of human activity? No, it is not.  

To date, not a single scientific study has positively attributed all or part of observed climate change to anthropogenic (man-made) causes.

Granted, there are numerous computer models spewing out doom-and-gloom predictions. But, like all computer models, their outcomes can be manipulated by the variables entered into the algorithms. That is, the programmer can input certain parameters that will enable a specific desired outcome. The sole purpose of these computer models is to present a polished veneer that appears to be credible science. In actuality, these models are hiding the truth and keeping the deception called the “climate crisis” alive.  

A case in point is the infamous “hockey stick” computer-generated temperature graph produced by the equally infamous Michael Mann, a Penn State University professor of atmospheric science. After its initial sensational release in 1998, Mann’s graph was incorporated into the UN’s highly influential Third Assessment Report on climate change in 2001. Since then, the persuasive illustration has been used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to deceive the public into believing the theory of man-made global warming.  

Professor Mann’s graph purports to show the average global temperature over the past 1,000 years. For the first 900 years the graph portrays very little variation in global temperatures. They trend in as straight a line as the shaft on an ice hockey stick lying horizontally on its back side (see below). Then suddenly, in the twentieth century, the graph displays a precipitous rise in global temperature, looking like the hockey stick’s curved blade.

Mann suggests that this sudden rise in temperature is all due to a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  

There is, however, a major problem with the hockey stick diagram: It’s utter fiction.  

In reality, there have been numerous quantifiable stages of cooling and warming of the earth’s climate spanning the millennia. Here are a few notable examples:  

  • Fourteenth-century Europe was in a mini-ice age, as revealed by this article in Climate in Arts & History. During the Little Ice Age (1300 CE–1850 CE) global temperatures were significantly cooler—by as much as 2°C (3.6°F), particularly in North America and Europe.  
  • Going back further, between 1000 CE and 1350 CE, identified as the Medieval Warming Period, temperatures were significantly warmer than current ones—and that was long before the industrial period. More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in forty countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was as hot or hotter than at present and was a global phenomenon, not just a European regional climate condition, as the IPCC wrongly speculates.  
  • Going back further still, there were more warm spells, including a prolonged period during the Bronze Age, known to geologists as the Holocene Maximum (5000 BCE–8000 BCE). During this period, temperatures were significantly warmer than they are today. In fact, a fascinating study conducted by Myers et al. and published inThe Cryosphere Discussions in 2020 concludes that average temperatures, especially in East Antarctica, were a full 5°C (9°F) warmer than at present.  

Yet, despite his having flattened nine centuries of climate variation with his flawed computer program, Michael Mann’s fraudulent temperature model is still being used by the UN’s IPCC.  

Why? Why won’t the IPCC acknowledge that the climate has always changed, as the above three examples demonstrate—and changed, mind you, without any help from us humans?  

We’ll touch on possible motives for the IPCC’s misinformation at the end.  

For now, let’s stick to how the powers-that-be have gone about blaming human activity for natural climate cycles andhow they have hyped a made-up climate catastrophe reminiscent of the fairy-tale emperor’s imaginary clothes.

Enter, in the decade of the 1960s, the theory of “anthropogenic global warming” or “man-made global warming.” The false notion was first adopted in 1968 by the Club of Rome in its efforts to promote the supposed need for population reduction. It has since been used to great effect by the UN and by other intergovernmental organizations as well as national governments around the world.  

The anthropogenic warming theorists claim that the CO2 produced by human activity at the start of the twentieth century should have caused the earth’s temperature to rise. They insist there is a direct correlation between CO2 and global temperature.As CO2 increases, global temperature, they allege, increases in lock step.    

But is that actually true? Well, if we accept the findings presented by George S. Benton in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (October 1970), a startlingly different picture emerges.  

This intrepid scientist found that, in the 60 years between 1880 and 1940, the earth’s temperature rose approximately 0.6°C (1.0°F). That warming trend took place long before cars and aircraft were invented. Moreover, in the same period, industrial development was relatively insignificant.  

Then, during the post-WW2 economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s, industries were expanding and human production of CO2 was soaring to new levels. Per the man-made warming theory, global temperature should have increased in those decades. But it didn’t. Instead, it fell significantly—some 0.3°C to 0.4°C—for three decades.  

These facts certainly do not correlate with the global warming theory.

In reality, the earth’s atmosphere didn’t start to warm in the twenty-first century until 1975. This warming trend continued until 2016, when global temperatures were at their peak; they have been declining ever since.  

The proof? All satellite datasets collected from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the UK Meteorological Office, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), and the University of Alabama (UAH) show global temperatures have been declining since 2016, despite increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2.  

If we look hard enough, we can find scientific articles laying out these hard facts. For instance, a report from Chris Morrison in The Daily Sceptic informs us that temperatures in the South Pole are now the coldest they have been since records began in 1957 and that Arctic sea ice is making a silent comeback.  

And yet, all of these data have, inexplicably, escaped the attention of mainstream media reporters.  

In the meantime, numerous climate change alarmists, notably former US Vice President Al Gore, desperately cling to the notion that there is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature.  

These climate cultists often refer to evidence collected from ice core samples to substantiate their claims.  

To wit: In the 1990s, the classic Vostok ice core sample taken in East Antarctica appeared to show temperature and carbon fluctuations moving in unison. Based on that sample, man-made climate change believers tried to make the case that as CO2 increased, so, too, did temperature, with no lag time between the two variables. They convinced the scientifically illiterate masses that CO2 influences temperature.  

But by the early 2000s, new scientific data—this 2001 report by Manfred Mudelsee in the Quaternary Science Reviews (QSR), for instance—made it clear that the exact inverse is true: CO2 lags temperature. Put another way, temperature changes always precede CO2 changes.  

Thus, the entire ice core theory was turned on its head by data proving that COincreases as a result of temperature rising, not the other way around. After the temperature rises, it takes, on average, 800 years before CO2 starts to inch up. This lag is sometimes as much as 2,300 years, other times as little as 300 years.    

The extraordinary thing is that the CO2 lag is well accepted by climatologists yet is virtually unknown outside these circles. And it is this very same lag that climate charlatans like Al Gore fail to mention when presenting evidence obtained from ice core data.  

Therefore, from the evidence presented above, we can conclude that CO2, like other greenhouse gases, does notdrive the earth’s climate.  

And that brings us to our next climate-related topic—greenhouse gases.  

Greenhouse Gases  

Gases that trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHG). These are naturally occurring gases that absorb and release infrared radiation within the thermal infrared spectrum. The absorption and release of radiation reduces heat loss from the earth, which in turn causes an increase in atmospheric temperature.  

This reaction is what is commonly referred to as the greenhouse effect. Without these important gases, the earth would be a very cold and uninhabitable place—up to 32°C (57°F) colder, on average.  

By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. It constitutes 95 percent of the greenhouse gases by volume and has a dominant effect on our climate.  

Other natural greenhouse gases, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide, (N2O) are present but make up only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases. Methane, for example, constitutes as little as 0.000175 percent of all atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of all greenhouse gases. And nitrous oxide’s concentration in the atmosphere is even lower, at 0.000034 percent.    

The second most abundant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Although CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is a natural gas,not a pollutant. It is a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle, without which all vegetation on earth would die. Natural levels of CO2 are approximately 0.04 percent of the total atmosphere.  

Of the 0.04 percent that is CO2, 95 percent comes from a combination of volcanic activity, decomposing vegetation, bacteria, and the earth’s oceans.  

Therefore, the human contribution to the overall COin the atmosphere is only 0.0016 percent. And yet it is this miniscule, insignificant percentage that we are supposed to believe is, in some miraculous way, driving humanity toward a climate catastrophe.  

What an illogical and unsupportable conclusion. Even if all human fossil fuel-burning activity were to cease tomorrow, the world’s oceans and volcanoes would continue to produce the vast majority of all COfound in the atmosphere.  

And even if humans could drastically reduce the level of CO2, there would be no significant effect on the climate, as we have already seen from the scientific data presented above. Thus, the belief that COor any other GHG gas (i.e., N2O) is the prime driver of all climate in the world is preposterous.

The notion that carbon dioxide is “bad” is equally preposterous. CO2 is the essential nutrient that generates all life on earth—and has only beneficial effects.  

For instance, plants are so improved by more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This should be no surprise, since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Granted, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields over the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.  

In addition, research provided by author, public speaker, and climatologist  Timothy F. Ball from the University of Winnipeg reveals “current levels of 392 parts per million (ppm) are approximately one third the optimum for most plants. Empirical evidence from CO2 levels injected into commercial greenhouses indicate optimum yields at levels between 1000 and 1200 ppm. Interestingly, this is the average level of the last 300 million years.”  

A Word on Nitrous Oxide  

Recently, nitrous oxide (N2O) has made headlines by joining carbon dioxide and methane in the climate cultists’ pantheon of dreaded anthropogenic gases. In their view, increasing concentrations of N2O, like CO2, will lead to unusual and unprecedented warming and thus result in disastrous consequences for humanity. …

Read More…