What have we learned from climate change twenty years after Kyoto?

Before a new climate conference in which leaders from around the world will expose their alleged achievements to the fight against global warming, you have to remember where it comes from all of this. It sells us that there is a consensus important, almost unanimous, among the scientists who study the climate on the existence of a warming caused by man. But rarely is detailed in what they agree, because then the myth of consensus would fall like a castle of cards, because it includes almost all the skeptics in the percentages are extremely high, as 97% or 90%. For decades, other consensus-promoting diets low in fat without a scientific basis firm should lead us to doubt a little of those theories whose basis appears to be in the number of scientists that support them.

In fact, in the theory official warming there are many holes. For a start, the documents that are supposed to reflect the consensus, the IPCC reports, they are rewritten to conform to what politicians say they they should say. Different studies give opposite results to if in the future there will be more rains or more droughts. We have presented numerous graphs of temperature in the form of a hockey stick –that is to say, that showed a stable climate until the last few decades in which went up spectacularly– and have been proved false. Even the records of temperatures offer doubts.

In the last IPCC refused to even quantify what is the figure more likely to rise in temperatures if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, a figure that is at the base of all their future predictions. Its forecasts are based on climate models that have failed miserably with the temperatures that have actually taken place, which have been lower than the lowest proposed in the most optimistic scenarios, to be overcome by a simple model of calculator. The scientists alarmists acknowledge in private that the models do not work. We have lived through a long period without increase in temperature, so they have used data of a worse quality to deny it after recognizing that they would need a break of 70 years to admit their error after make up 40 excuses –many contradictory– to justify its existence, without changing the theory.

There are so many failures that the alarmists have come to argue against transparency, because if the scientists offer to the public the data on which they base their conclusions, others may I find the faults!

Al Gore said in 2006 that we were ten years to take action or the world would come to a point of no return; in the promotion this year of their new documentary saying that, well, that could still do something. Has not been the best spokesman possible for the cause: you have not renounced the CO2 emissions from his private plane, exceeds in one month the electric bill annual a home for american and has been profit from a zinc mine that issued toxic spills and selling his failed tv tycoons of the oil. Nor any of his successors makes it much better: there is more to remember the excesses of DiCaprio with the private planes and yachts. How to believe that we are facing such a serious crisis if those who tell us not behave as if we were faced with a crisis so severe?

The skeptics are demonized. They are called “deniers” as if they were anti-semitic in the style of David Irving, the trafficking of criminals, they are equated to the mafia, you are fired, they are called hateful, racist, homophobic and alcoholic and have been used fake documents to accuse them of being in the pay of the oil companies. Meanwhile, the scientists of the consensus they have been caught manipulating data, destroying evidence, conspiring so that the skeptics don’t publish in scientific journals, rejoicing for the death of scientists skeptical…

It sounds like a joke, but if we heed to the alarmists among the consequences could have global warming is that the English are without fish’n chips, the rest of the world without chocolate, that will leave us without redheads, but instead increase the pollen and prostitution. It has also been argued that refugees from Syria are fleeing by the climate change and that this phenomenon is responsible for the Arab Spring. We always put as a poster to aware the poor polar bears that are going to be extinguished, when its population has grown the past few years, due to a reduction of the ice in the Arctic, but in Antarctica, record-breaking extension. Until the waves of cold are also to blame for the climate change.

But while expeditions to Antarctica and the Arctic have been ruined by too much ice, the predictions of the more serious have failed miserably. The IPCC has predicted that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, which would increase the costs of natural disasters , or would the 40% of the Amazon rainforest. All of it is bad.

As a way to fight the warming have been proposed a tax on red meat and milk, and one has not had problems in proposing a socialist economy as a solution to the problem, or a world Government. They came first to an agreement called the Kyoto protocol, whose approval –not of its entry into force– met 20 years ago, and that did not work at all. Two years ago an agreement was reached to Paris, which has left the united States, and that it is a covenant without guarantees that each country makes its plans and there are no penalties if not met.

Is there something to celebrate twenty years after the adoption of the Kyoto protocol? Surely the celebration of a new summit of Paris, is the most appropriate. The politicians who created the problem by giving pats on the back for measures that harm us and that does not solve anything, even if we believe what they say alarmists.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of