Iintroduction 0:00
In the previous 5 episodes, I focused the discussion primarily towards the comparison with what is established in the Tokyo Protocol because its implementation has had more travel in time, and, therefore, has been better evaluated; but the Paris Agreement, which replaced it in 2020, has a series of edges that are even more alarming.
Hello, welcome to episode No. 54 of our podcast GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS, and No. 26 of our second season.
I am your host Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.
Regulations with 0 impact 00:50
Dr. John Christy, in his testimony before the United States Congress on February 2, 2016, stated that in the pursuit of the well-being of their population, countries, especially underdeveloped ones, will continue to use the means currently at their disposal (technology based on carbon combustion) to obtain it, making it impossible to calculate the climate impact of the carbon reductions proposed in the Paris Agreement. It should also be remembered that, as I mentioned, China and India are not obliged to control emissions.
Dr. Christy goes on to say in his statement that, furthermore, even if the proposed were to be met, the control of the proposed emissions would have a minimal impact, at best, on the control of global temperature (a view also expressed by Dr. Lomborg that I presented earlier). To prove his point, he simulated a scenario where total U.S. emissions were brought to ZERO (i.e. made it disappear), and, using the same tool used by the IPCC, calculated the impact of this simulated scenario.
The model he used spanned a period of 50 years and this gave an impact of only 0.05 to 0.08 degrees Celsius. Dr. Chrisry concluded and quoted:
Therefore, regulations will not have significant or useful consequences on the physical climate system, even if one believes that climate models are useful tools for prediction.
Demagogy of the Paris Agreement 02:56
In the end, the Paris Agreement is transformed into a demagogic event full of uncertainties that revolve around approaches and proposals based on inaccurate prediction models that, in the end, translate into the spending of an immense amount of money invested in unproductive activities such as, for example, attendance at large and massive international meetings where people go to save the political appearances of which ideas are shared. Progressive. All this in order, on the part of those attending the event, not to run the risk of being considered part of the group that is qualified as having little mental capacity, and to comply with the ritual of political correctness.
In this series of episodes on climate change agreements and their effects on the world economy, based on fundamental economic principles, I made an analysis of the potential and actual damage to the well-being of the population caused by climate policies. But I also presented and described analyses by experts in the field, such as Dr. Bjorn Lomborg and others who came to similar conclusions.
In addition, based on the precautionary principle and giving the benefit of the doubt regarding the validity of the data on warming presented by the UN and its institutions that led to the adoption of these policies, I presented and described some cheaper and more effective alternatives in terms of results.
The analysis of these agreements and their effects have allowed me to make a series of reflections that will help me to share with my listeners some conclusions, not only on this specific topic, but in general on the issue of the paradigm of dangerous climate change produced by the UN and its institutions.
Conclusions and farewell 05:20
As I expressed in the previous episode, before the presentation of such a large scientific evidence I am surprised to see such an absence of willingness to an honest discussion and with an open mind on the part of the proponents of the climate change paradigm, who continue to concentrate on the description of an apocalyptic scenario that would bring not doing what is advocated.
This has led me to suspect the existence of political, ideological, sociological, educational, psychological and petty interests. Even the IPCC itself, which is the UN institution responsible for the technical monitoring of the paradigm, has also adopted a very suspicious policy by totally eliminating from its reports, and from serious discussion, the economic issue as I have perceived from reading the reports produced after 2001, when precisely the alternatives I have described began to be presented.
According to Dr. Lomborg, the discussion has turned to aspects of cultural change, such as the change of values and identity, in lifestyles, in the conception of our intrinsic values, etc. But also, and equally dangerous, change of the economic system; changes in the perception of well-being; changes in our political system, etc. Of course there are many other problems, but as Dr. Lomborg says and I quote: To think clearly, we should try our best to separate the problems, especially since trying to solve all the problems at once can result in bad solutions for all areas.
Something that, however, if it is well established is the existence of a great controversy not yet resolved, in that the data presented corresponding to the analysis of temperature, in this last millennium, cannot lead us to conclude, categorically, that in recent years have shown a dramatic increase in global warming of our atmosphere.
In the next episode we will talk about this.
What I presented today and what I will present in the future, is in more detail in my book: THE TWO GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS OF THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES. This can be purchased in all branches of the prestigious Panamanian bookstore, EL HOMBRE DE LA MANCHA
This can also be purchased 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.