Presentation and introduction 0:00
Before starting with the topic of climate change, I need to update a few things about the covid since more and more studies presented by prestigious virologists continue to come out and the censorship machinery can no longer suppress them. I will refer to the last 2 studies.
He had already mentioned that scientific evidence indicated that the first production of the so-called boosters was ineffective against the Omicron. This was denied at first and they forced people to put these shots until the evidence became so strong that they decided to produce a new product.
Using data obtained from testing a few mice, the FDA recently granted emergency use authorizations for new bivalent formulations of these boosters that they found in mice to target both the parent strain and the Omicron more recent variant . This began to be used in a massive and widespread way, but obviously, although much is known about the antibody responses induced by this substance in mice, very little or nothing is known about its effect in humans.
This led prestigious virologists to investigate this.
First, remember that it had already been proven that the previous reinforcements, that is, third and fourth doses of the original substance, were very ineffective against Omicron. Well, the first study revealed that the new substance, which has the exuberant name of ambivalent, which means specific, does not generate more antibodies against the new Omicron strain or against the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, than previous boosters .
The second study confirmed this finding, but even worse, it also revealed that not only humoral immunity fails, but also cellular immunity, which is mediated by T lymphocytes, which prevent the existence of serious disease.
Finally, let's remember 2 things. One, that the data in all countries with high vaccination rates suggest that the so-called original booster increases the risk of infection over time. It is not known about this with the new bivalent product. Second, that studies after studies have shown ad nauseam, a greater durability and effectiveness of natural immunity.
Let's continue now with climate change.
Hello, welcome to episode No. 42 of our GREATEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS podcast, and the fourteenth of our second season.
I am your host, Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.
In the previous episode I explained why CO2 is a gas of paramount importance to guarantee the vital processes of our life, which is little known by the general public, so it has been easy to create a false perception of this gas as being of an enormous danger. The idea has been advocated that human activity that produces CO2 generates a greenhouse effect leading to dangerous global warming. But is this so? I talk about this in this episode.
average CO2 budget 4:18
As the IPCC itself explains, there is what is known as the “annual average budget for CO2 disturbances”. This refers to the main anthropogenic sources of CO2 and its distribution to different places. According to this, it is composed as follows:
Anthropogenic sources of CO2
Emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production.
Net emissions from changes in tropical land use.
Its Distribution is directed to what is called reservoirs.
One is its Storage in the atmosphere. This is what contributes to the greenhouse effect.
But others are uptake by the oceans, absorption by forest regeneration in the northern hemisphere, and other terrestrial phenomena, such as CO2 fertilization, nitrogen fertilization, etc.
These reservoirs prevent CO2 from participating in the greenhouse effect.
In other words, although it is produced in part by humans, only a part of it goes to the atmosphere. The other part is stored in the aforementioned reservoirs, where it participates in other vital functions.
However, climate variability is not only due to what happens due to the greenhouse effect, which, as we have seen, is affected to a certain degree by human activity. This variability is also affected by factors related to what is known as the climate system; I will talk about the latter in the next episode.
The factors related to human activity and that affect CO2 concentrations are known as socioeconomic factors, and are characterized by being much more difficult to predict than climatic factors and which are the ones that cause the greatest problems for computer prediction models, giving lead to numerous biases that affect the temperature calculations.
One of these factors is the industrialization processes which produce local changes in the temperature of the terrestrial surfaces, and which are erroneously attributed by the IPCC to global increases in temperature. These increases do not have an impact at the global level, but at the local level; these are due to local industrialization activities.
This has been verified by studies carried out. In one of these, which I describe extensively in my book, the world was divided into two large strata: industrialized strata and non-industrialized strata; the former showed higher CO2 emissions and significantly greater warming trends than the latter. But most interesting of all is that in the industrialized stratum the warming trend was greater than at the global level. Based on this local warming the IPCC had calculated the global temperature, which of course gave a huge bias. This, in other words, represented an overestimate of global warming. This overestimation was calculated by Michaels and Balling, at 33%.
Socioeconomic factors 10:43
The change in the type of existing vegetation is another factor. This change is due to migration, urbanization, changes in the type of economic activity, and afforestation/deforestation. Thus, for example, we have that, if the lands used for the production of coffee of the type produced in bushes are abandoned, over time the vegetation begins to take over the area, transforming it back into forests. In the first case, more energy is absorbed from the sun's rays, which, ultimately, will further heat the atmosphere near the Earth's surface. The opposite occurs in the second case, producing more cooling.
From this it can be seen that warming does not depend solely on the greenhouse effect.
In a study carried out by two highly prestigious climatologists, it was shown that, contrary to what the IPCC claims, these mentioned socioeconomic factors and some others, produce local temperature changes that generate large biases in the calculation of global temperatures.
For this, the authors studied IPCC data strata and assigned to each stratum information on: gross domestic product, literacy, months with missing data, human population growth, economic growth, and growth in coal consumption.
Conclusions and farewell 13:56
The results of the study can be summarized as follows:
There is a fraction of variability in the land surface temperature data that is not explained by the IPCC models, for which socioeconomic indicators provide, depending on the statistical tests used, significant explanatory power.
Signs of warming due to economic factors are present in both rich and poor countries; but they are strongest in countries experiencing real income growth.
The results suggest that up to half of terrestrial global warming measured after 1980 can be attributed to contamination of the basic data.
The final conclusion would then be that:
Human activity obviously does generate CO2, but it generates local warming that does not extend globally. The global warming calculations were made using local data that produced a net warming bias in the climate data, suggesting an exaggeration of the estimated rate of global warming of the land surface.
IN OTHER WORDS, GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT AS WE HAVE BEEN TOLD
The results of this study, and of many others, raise serious questions about this intransigent policy that presents dangerous warming produced by humans as a paradigm, and that demands immediate actions that, as I describe in my book, represent great losses in well-being and technological development for all humanity. This should lead us to a more honest discussion on this topic and allow scientific findings, such as the one above, to flow widely as a contribution to the discussion.
What I present today and what I will present in the future is in more detail in my book: THE TWO GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS OF THE XX AND XXI CENTURIES. This can be purchased as a physical book, or as an ebook through my website estebanmoralesvankwartel.com, where you can also find a lot of information of interest, and to which I invite you to subscribe.
Here you can also access our podcast.
IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE BEING WITH YOU. I HOPE TO HAVE MEETED THE EXPECTATIONS THAT OUR RESPECTED LISTENERS HAVE FOR HONEST AND USEFUL INFORMATION FOR THEIR OWN LIFE, FOR THEIR FAMILY AND FOR THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE
See you soon and thank you for honoring us with your attention.