Last month, the Daily Sceptic highlighted the practice at the U.K. Met Office of inventing temperature averages from over 100 non-existent measuring stations. Helpfully, the Met Office went so far as to supply coordinates, elevations and purposes of the imaginary sites. Following massive interest across social media and frequent reposting of the Daily Sceptic article, the Met Office has amended its ludicrous claims. The move has not been announced in public, needless to say, since drawing attention to this would open a pandora’s box and run the risk of subjecting all the Met Office temperature claims to wider scrutiny. Instead, the Met Office has discreetly renamed its “U.K. climate averages” page as “Location-specific long-term averages”. .....As a result, Sanders discovered from a freedom of information request that 103 of the 302 sites marked on the climate averages listing – over a third of the total – no longer existed. Subsequently, Sanders sought further information about the methodology used to supply data for both Folkestone and Dover. In reply, the Met Office said it was unable to supply details of the observing sites requested “as this is not recorded information”. It did however disclose that for non-existent stations “we use regression analysis to create a model of the relationship between each station and others in the network”. This generates an estimate for each month when the station is not operating. Each “estimate” is said to be based on data from six other stations, chosen because they are “well correlated” with the target station."
Wednesday, 11 December 2024
International Climate Litigation: A Trojan Horse for Global Climate Policy?
Who Benefits?
Follow the money, and the picture becomes clearer. International climate litigation serves the interests of:
- Global Bureaucracies
Organizations like the United Nations thrive on expanding their influence. Turning climate issues into legal obligations strengthens their role as global arbiters of policy. - Developing Nations with Leverage
By framing themselves as victims, some developing nations hope to secure massive payouts from wealthier countries, effectively subsidizing their own development agendas under the guise of climate justice. - Climate Activists
Litigation gives activists a high-profile platform to push their agenda, bypassing political opposition and public skepticism.
The Real Agenda Behind the Lawsuit
The ICJ case might be dressed up as a fight for justice, but scratch the surface, and it looks more like a power grab. This isn’t about protecting vulnerable nations—it’s about imposing a global climate regime that overrides national sovereignty, empties taxpayers’ wallets, and enriches a global elite."
Climate ‘scientists’ discover they’ve been underestimating a major factor, and all their climate models are in fact wrong
"Climate scientists recently discovered that they’ve been underestimating the impact of a particular organic compound in the atmosphere, and the oversight’s significance is so profound that it’s left existing climate models completely obsolete. As Jo Nova writes, “This is so big, it may change the sacred ‘climate sensitivity’ of the whole Earth”.
Isoprene is what’s known as a volatile organic compound, or a VOC, and “has a recognized role in protecting plants against many abiotic stresses” like “heat stress…drought…[and] oxidative stress” with trees being the greatest emitters. (When the chemical isoprene interacts with other compounds in the atmosphere, the products are a number of secondary organic aerosols.)"
Net Zero Is Asinine
"In truth, the world is not on the verge of an environmental collapse. Weather events like tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, etc. are not becoming more frequent nor deadlier. Sea rise is not a dangerous threat and all the glaciers have not melted. Wildfires are not increasing in intensity and neither are heatwaves.
The UN does not want you to be aware of these facts because they directly undercut the core of their alarmist message and therefore undermine the supposed urgency for net zero.
Moreover, the UN is adamantly opposed to developing nations utilizing fossil fuels so that they can become economically competitive while drastically reducing the abject poverty that still exists in far too many countries.
If the continued use of fossil fuels poses no imminent threat to humanity, why is the UN so gung-ho about net zero?
Perhaps the answer is money. The sheer cost of transitioning the world from fossil fuels to renewable energy and achieving net zero is estimated to cost about $75 trillion, according to Goldman Sachs. ..........Net zero is arguably the most ambitious power grab in world history, considering it would completely transform entire economies, societies, and cultures."