The EU’s New Green Deal is being hailed by the World Economic Forum as a model of success! Yeah! Pete Buttegieg has announced that the $3+ trillion infrastructure project proposed in the US will completely eradicate climate change! Yeah! China has announced it will continue to invest in coal through 2030… currently they emit a whopping 12 billion metric tons per year. The US is below 6billion metric tons – and the EU is roughly 7 billion metric tons. While the media prefers to show emissions based on per capita… this is rather nonsensical. The POINT, is a total because the point is a global issue – those who produce can reduce – those who don’t produce, have nothing to worry about…. Right?
Apparently not. Because money reduces emissions therefore throwing more money at various financial quackeries will benefit climate. Not sure money will cause the formation of new icebergs and alter the temperature of the ocean, but that would appear to be the mind-fakery these politicians invoke.
Of course the other bizarre declaration-proclamation is that 1990 should be the base year of compliance measurement. Why not use 1850 or 1900? Wouldn’t that be more logical given a return to what activists perceive as the advent of industry?
In fact, CO2 began rising the same time as temperatures did about 1550 – well before any industrial revolution as studied by David Middleton a climate geologist/geophysicist.
With much Grandeur, the World Economic Forum announced the EU’s pinky promises: “Ranging across eight policy areas – biodiversity, sustainable food systems, sustainable agriculture, clean energy, sustainable industry, building and renovating, sustainable mobility, eliminating pollution and climate action – the deal represents an unprecedented effort to review more than 50 European laws and redesign public policies.”
The EU states that funding for their financial guarantees is achieved thru the InvestEU Fund and it’s partner the European Investment Bank (EIB). The Board of Governors is depicted as career politicians with absolutely no science, climate, or economic background career. Yet they are the frontrunners for everything ‘sustainable’.
Given China has the largest carbon footprint and has maintained they will increase output through 2030, how is it even possible to obtain a global net zero?
By changing the methodology of measurement.
According to NOAA, prior to 1990 the means of measurement of carbon data was inaccurate: “The data collected prior to 1989 are typically not well documented and their metadata is incomplete; therefore, such data are of unknown and probably variable quality.”
But even ‘after’ 1990, countries measured their own output using their own methodology which was NOT a global control means.
If the quality and means of collecting data was error-rated high, then how can we possibly have a viable measurement for anything greater than 30 years? How can we use 1990 as a base year if it is 100 years after the Industrial Revolution began? Clean Answer: We can’t. Because Science has changed, and therefore is of little use other than evaluating within a small bubble of time.
That being said, we have no true factual data that can provide a core 100 years ago or 1 billion years ago – it is all ‘speculation’ ‘projections’ and ‘guesstimates’. The same classification of Science that is used for determining how many people died of what cause, how many cases of flu per year, and the efficacy of vaccinations. The current means of measurement is an algorithm based on the input of the people controlling the output!
IF climate has changed, ebbed, flowed a constant cycle for hundreds of thousands of years, how is it possible to make the assumption that ‘this time’ it is human caused in the span of 100 years out of 800,000 years of guesses?
Recently, science provides the individual with a carbon test sensor. If a person is in a crowded room, the carbon dioxide levels spike… meaning we all breathe out carbon dioxide – meaning get rid of people and keep ‘de plane, de plane’!
Leave that one to Bill Gates.
Footnote: Climate gurus with the education of Greta speculate that lightening is caused by climate change. In fact, scientists STILL are unsure what causes the negative and positive parts of a cloud become separated resulting in a match effect and lightening. So if SCIENCE does not even know what causes this phenomena, how can they state that it is climate change caused? Clean Answer: They can’t – so they speculate in order to get published. Because being published purportedly gives them power.