Este es el episodio No 57 y el No. 29 de la segunda temporada de nuestro podcast GRANDES FRAUDES CIENTIFICOS.
El material presentado aquí es el producto de una investigación del tema que realicé durante 5 años y que tengo consignado en mi libro: Los dos grandes fraudes científicos de los siglos XX y XXI.
En este episodio continpuo con las conclusiones sobre el tema del cambio climático.
El contenido central de lo presentado en este episodio se encuentra debidamente referenciado en mi libro. A continuación presento algunas citas adicionales.
Medición del número de días con temperaturas de 100°F o más (método 1)
https://lincolnweather.unl.edu/data/Lincoln-100s-totals-yearly.asp
Medición del número de días con temperaturas de 100°F o más (método 2)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/national/202208/supplemental/page-6
Atlas de la mortalidad y otros aspectos relacionados al clima, de la Organizción Meteorológica Mundial
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
Sitio web de la Organizción Meteorológica Mundial
https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate
Lo presentado actualmente y lo que presentaré en el futuro, pueden encontrarlo de manera más detallada en mi libro: LOS DOS GRANDES FRAUDES CIENTIFICOS DE LOS SIGLOS XX y XXI. Este lo pueden adquirir como libro físico en todas las sucursales de la librería panameña EL HOMBRE DE LA MANCHA. Igualmente, puede ser adquirido como ebook haciendo clic en el enlaces anterior.
Los invito a suscribirse a mi sitio web donde podrán acceder a nuestro podcast y a mucha otra información de interés. Este lo pueden encontrar también en los directorios de Apple podcast; de spotify y todos los mayores directorios de podcasts.
Pueden enviar sus comentarios y observaciones a través de mi sitio web, así como a mi correo electrónico estebanmoralesvk@gmail.com
Presehtation and Iintroduction 0:00
One more summer day in Florida and the only problem I have really detected is the difficulty to park near the beach due to the large influx of people. Meanwhile, climate change spokespeople continue to try to frighten people.
The analysis of climate indicators that I have been doing in these last episodes has served to illustrate what I call the fraud of climate change, which like other scientific frauds are being embedded in people's minds through fear.
Hello, welcome to episode No. 57 of our podcast GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS, and No. 29 of our second season.
I am your host Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.
In the previous episode I continued to analyze some temperature indicators and presented evidence that questions the validity and accuracy of climate models. This, as part of the conclusions I have been making on the subject of the climate change paradigm. Today I analyze other indicators related to climate and continue with the conclusions of the subject.
Temperature indicators. 01:26
There is another temperature indicator called the number of days with temperatures of 100°F or higher. The prophets of climate change insist that it has increased. But this is nothing more than a form of interpretation created by the way of measuring the indicator.
One way to measure it is to record every day that one or more observatories in the studied territory detects this climatic anomaly. The other is to note the total number of anomalies of this type detected each day by all observatories in the territory studied.
This makes a big difference because in the second case there are a large number of observations of this anomaly that overlap considering the large number of observatories that exist, since most large cities have observatories.
So we have that when this was calculated for the entire North American territory, in the year 2022, using the first method, the number of days was 6. while with the second method it was more than 180.
Because climate change is a global concept, the logic of measuring it is precisely global. The detection and sum of this anomaly in each city means once again the use of a series of local phenomena to define a global phenomenon.
It happens that local warming does not represent global behavior, since the first is influenced by countless changes and local circumstances, such as, for example, the appearance of new structures that produce warming due to the growth of cities; and many other factors that I have already explained extensively in my book.
There is another aspect that, although not strictly an indicator, but has great importance in the study of climate. This is defined by climate-related deaths
The World Meteorological Organization, which is part of the United Nations, published an "Atlas describing mortality and other climate-related aspects. According to it, climate-related deaths increased slightly from the 1970s to the 1980s. But these have fallen 75 percent since then, even though the population has nearly doubled. Over the past decade, fewer than 50 people a day have died from extreme weather, on a planet that now has 8 billion people.
This has a basically very simple economic explanation. There has been progress in the socio-economic conditions of most countries. This allows them to better prevent and respond to climate cataclysms and the effects of extreme weather. For example, the consequences of a climate anomaly in Haiti, which is one of those still lagging behind in its development, are different from those of a country like Chile or Panama.
The advancement of society 05:20
In the same report, it is also established that the number of deaths due to extreme weather is much higher due to cold waves than to heat waves.
But none of the things I've mentioned regarding temperature indicators in this episode or previous ones are mentioned by the media. Only what they tell them to mention.
Let me now continue with the conclusions of the subject.
In recent episodes I have been addressing the economic problems that climate change agreements entail and the policies and strategies that these entail. I have made this analysis with the support of eminent scientists such as Dr. Bjorn Lomborg. Also supported by the findings of Dr. John Christy I have analyzed the validity of these agreements.
Finally, the results of these analyses lead us to confront the decision between having a world properly focused socially and economically, which will generate an enormous income, which, properly used, will ensure present and future development versus a world focused on policies to reduce emissions that, according to calculations by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg would cost, by 2100, 18 trillion dollars that added to the cost of global warming (5 trillion) will produce enormous losses in economic income that goes much more to the detriment of third world countries.
Everything analyzed above makes me think of the enormous gravity and historical responsibility in terms of taking or not taking dramatic measures that would greatly affect the growth and economic development of our common home, based on controversies that have not yet been resolved and on information presented that has been seriously questioned.
We have discussed two economic analyses by two renowned scientists: Dr. Bjorn Lomborg and Dr. John Christy. These, along with other eminent scientists (which we have not mentioned in this short summary, for lack of space) emphasize that it makes much more common sense to protect this growth and development that per se leads us to such an advance of society that will not only attenuate emissions with the appearance of new technologies, rather, it would produce societies that are better organized, resourced, and prepared to face potential climate disturbances in the future.
Conclusions and farewell 08:47
Therefore, the emphasis should be on the advancement of the least developed countries, which provides not only future results, but current ones, through the prevention of death, disease and suffering that occurs today. These evils can definitely be ameliorated by current actions supported by a more equitable use of the wealth generated by the instruments currently available for its generation.
More resources should be used in this mission, instead of their use in fatuous, demagogic, bureaucratic meetings that generate a large number of new emissions, where there is talk of strategies that a significant portion of the countries do not fulfill.
But after these mass meetings, a large number of follow-up meetings continue to be held to support and reaffirm the agreements, or for the elaboration of new agreements, whether formal or informing them; In the end, what is generated are large costs for global society as a result of these meetings. But they all revolve around the same paradigm: global warming or climate change. There is never talk of new evidence that appears outside the established paradigm.
One of these meetings, in 2019, brought together great personalities from the world of show business, fashion, politics, the financial world and royalty: Barak Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kathy Perry, Prince Harris (the now former prince), Mark Zuckerberg, Diane von Furstenberg, etc.
This meeting, which was convened by the founders of Google (Sergey Brin and Larry Page), held in Italy (at Camp Google), and where various political and social issues were discussed, including the environment, meant the influx from Los Angeles of 114 private jets; these represent a release into the environment of 100,000 kilograms of CO2, not counting the emissions produced by mega yachts from Europe.
In the next episode I finish the conclusions.
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.