Presentation and introduction 0:00
Below is a short audio excerpt of the young Greta Thunbergh on the occasion of the United Nations World Climate Assembly in 2019. Although the audio is in English, my intention is to perceive the drama that he printed on his words. At the end of this I will make a translation of part of what he said and comments on this.
Audio in English
This was part of what she said
"For more than 30 years, the science has been very clear. How dare you keep looking the other way and come here saying you're doing enough, when the politics and the necessary solutions are still nowhere in sight?
The popular idea of halving our emissions in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the risk of causing irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.
In her presentation she refers to the goals set by the Tokyo Protocol and Paris Agreement, which I have referred to as inaccurate and full of uncertainties, and which she considers have not been sufficiently met.
This was one more of his interventions that created terror and unrest in humanity, especially young people about climate change. One of his most controversial was when she cited in one of her tweets, in 2018, the supposed warning of university professor James Anderson that humanity would cease to exist if the use of fossil fuels did not stop within five years.
A few weeks ago, when we had supposedly all died because the deadline had passed, a wave of criticism was created when she deleted her tweet.
In the discussion that ensued, it was found that the professor had never said this.
For me, the situation was even worse for her because not only did her contribute to the terror, but, worse, it was a quote that she did not take the trouble to verify, but irresponsibly threw it on the air, which immediately calls into question her credibility.
One wonders then: how many terrifying claims about climate change made by her, made by Al Gore, etc., will not be false or wrong? As in fact, they have been…
Hello, welcome to episode No. 51 of our podcast GREATEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS, and No. 23 of our second season. I am your host Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.
After initiating this great campaign to terrorize humanity with calculations full of uncertainties and inaccuracies of future warming, CO2 emissions, the role of CO2 in global warming, and the impact on the climate produced by humans, the UN made equally inaccurate and uncertain calculations of the costs to humanity of this global warming predicted by them.
That's what I'm talking about in this episode.
Climate change according to UN 05:05
The climate changes, has changed and will continue to change throughout all of human history, and it does so basically naturally. In addition, these changes occur cyclically and we could say that spiral because ice ages and warm eras follow one another and alternate. The same goes for the occurrence of hurricanes and all other weather events. I have explained this in several episodes of my podcast.
But the concept of climate change is handled at the whim of the promoters of the false paradigm. So we have then that according to the UN institutions, this is directed primarily to anthropogenic action as the cause of this change.
According to the UN, climate change is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that adds to the natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
However, it has already been proven ad nauseam that the impact on the climate produced by natural phenomena is of much more importance.
The concept of climate change has been denatured and has deviated from its true connotation as a natural and cyclical process of our planet. They have then turned it into an instrument for the creation of terror and manipulation of society.
The cost of global warming 07:06
I will start with the economic assessment made by the UN to justify the strong measures to control carbon emissions established by the Agreements and Protocols.
For this, they measured the impact exerted by the damages attributed to climate change, through cost-benefit analysis. Here the costs correspond to the economic damages, measured in dollars, produced by climate change, and the other component, the benefits, correspond to the mitigation measures and policies measured in terms of dollars.
Mitigation is the measures taken to lessen the damage from climate change.
In calculating the impact of emissions, the UN defined several scenarios. These are defined as projections of anthropogenic emissions of gases that have the potential to affect climate, based on assumptions about future trends of key determinants such as population, economic growth, technological change, land use and emission control policies. The time span used for the projections was 1990-2100
In other words, they used a crystal ball or hired Walter Mercado to make the predictions.
This, as we see, was a calculation that was made based on factors that produce a lot of uncertainties. The first one that jumps out at you is the long period of time in which many changes can occur. The other thing, which we have analyzed in previous episodes, is that the climate is influenced by a large number of factors, such as cloudiness, water vapor, etc.
So the UN made the same mistake, intentional or not, in calculating and publishing the warming projections that started all this hysteria.
To these uncertainties are added many others that I will analyze below.
Conclusions and farewell 09:35
The most irritating thing about all this is that the UN itself recognizes that all these estimates are subject to a considerable amount of uncertainty, as is the case with economic projections based on the current economy. For example, the year 2060 was used to calculate "baseline warming", using economic indicators for the year in which the study was conducted. This was the basis for estimating damages (costs) in that future year. In addition to this, the economic indicator used (GDP), by nature presents many inaccuracies.
The same UN technicians also recognize that the effects related to ecological, socioeconomic and biological systems have a high content of uncertainties and inaccuracies. The estimated damages are based on very controversial assumptions, with a fairly high level of uncertainty, regarding both the physical damage recorded and the socio-economic consequences thereof.
In general terms, these scenarios deal with the future, with variables subject to many changes. Therefore, they cannot be compared with the observations dealing with the present.
Finally, taking all the number of factors and variables presented in this section, the total annual cost of global warming problems was estimated at around 1.5-2% of world GDP.
These were the results of the calculations full of uncertainty and inaccuracies that led the UN to set the goal presented by the Tokyo Protocol and then the Paris Agreement, which led the world to a giant and expensive effort to reduce CO2 emissions, costs to which I will refer in the following episodes.
Likewise, as I have already explained, these were commitments to which countries such as China and India did not have to submit, despite being considered the largest emitters of CO2.
What I presented today and what I will present in the future, is in more detail in my book: THE TWO GREATEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS OF THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES. This can be purchased as a physical book, or as an ebook through my website estebanmoralesvankwartel.com to which I invite you to subscribe. Here you can also access our podcast and find much other information of interest. IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU. I HOPE I HAVE MET THE EXPECTATIONS OF OUR RESPECTED LISTENERS FOR INFORMATION THAT IS HONEST AND USEFUL FOR THEIR OWN LIVES, FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND FOR THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE. See you soon and thank you for honoring us with your attention.