This week we report a provocative article in a science journalist, author of the bestseller Calor Glacial, who tells us that the UN is a mafia that we are cheating on climate change. I hope you like both previous com . Nailma Gomes.
Clik here other articles on fraud IPCC
40 REASONS WHY THE IPCC-2007 PAMPHLET
"Climate change will lead to a new Era"
CAMPOS LUIS CARLOS NIETO, science journalist, author of the provocative bestseller Calor Glacial, 2005, Arcopress, reissued this year www.arcopress.com
International Agency References IPS and
Newsbrief http://www.ipsnoticias.net/nota.asp?idnews=39974 http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/groupedition/es/JRC.html
r REFERENCES IN WIKIPEDIA click here
Interview The VINCENT WITH CRITICAL TELECINCO VALLEYS (2007) "The official theory is a scam. NOS 40-70 LIE IN THE CO2 increases and temperature dropped. THIS IS A BUSINESS THE UN AND KYOTO. Climate change is caused by an ice age. "
40 REASONS WHY THE IPCC-2007 PAMPHLET
ES UNA ESTAFA DE PSEUDOCIENCIA POLÍTICA
Puede descargarse aquí el último informe de la ONU sobre el calentamiento global.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
¿alguien es capaz de ver las pruebas del calentamiento antrópico en estas 22 páginas?.
Para el periodista Luis Carlos Campos la ONU y miles de científicos viven de la hipótesis inverosímil del salvarnos del peligro anthropogenic C02 as 6000 million tonnes human ever could cause climate change, as are 1,500 real, since half are absorbed and call the other half are agricultural / livestock and year issued 186,000 million tons and there 750,000 total in the atmosphere. Contaminate breathing only more: 2,500 million.
SUMMARY ** "No consensus: there are 18000 scientists who deny what is in the IPCC ( www.oism.org ). That are 2500 scientists that the authors is false, only appear 51.
** -presented a report to politicians with no bibliography or notes or any evidence of human influence to manipulate the media, the scientific text will say in November, when they have fooled everyone with a hypothesis unprovable.
** "say the same speculation as ever 100 years made with computer simulations, which are not scientific evidence according to the experimental method.
** -want me to pay for a new global office to save the change climático.Piden $ 200,000 million a year to prevent warming ..
** "The proof of human influence does not appear anywhere. The text is packed from the word "probably", which appears 19 times in the main table of predictions. (Page 2!). This is not science.
** They say that all text and graphics can be modified and tested in the future (p. 1). They are not sure or what they say.
** -IPCC scientists are all special models in computer simulations and deny the solar cycle and solar scientists proglaciación as Jawarowski or Landscheidt.
** -lying report incorrect data continuously as it is the maximum polar warming 125,000 years since 70,000 years ago in Dansgaard-Oegscher Event 19 there was an increase of 16 º in Greenland (and nothing happened) (Lang, 1999). This shows that the authors of the report are not relevant experts with paleoclimatic culture, but exhibitors from a political and media theory, never proven. Exxon Mobil did not need to pay anyone to refute his own ignorance paleoclimatic them away.
falsely accused
press jumped to the canard that Exxon-Mobil paid scientists to refute this pseudoinforme (El Mundo, 03/03/2007 ), I do it for free and you do not pay anyone because there are 18,000 scientists who reject the unsubstantiated hypothesis again IPCC ( www.oism.org )
Who leaked the hoax?. Greenpeace and three bureaucrats Roger Pielke, Rick Piltz and David Viner: In the fake news says the most important one: the three are members of the IPCC. If Exxon did not accuse him what was going to send letters to trace, that would be a jerk. Teach the test and one of those letters to prove it.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link/new_link/menus/dave_frame.htm
Http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/C25/
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org / index.php/csw/2006/04 /
mistake: THE anthropogenic warming is a belief
"These conclusions are not discussed," says carbonic fundamentalist Antonio Ruiz de Elvira (El Mundo, 03/03/2007), climate adviser of World and member of the radical environmentalist cult Friends of the Earth.
but if they do and much, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS:
1 .- The data have little validity as they themselves acknowledge: (p.1) "text, tables and Graphics are here but are subject to final verification, copying, editing and editorial adjustments to the graphics. " They are all speculations which they themselves are safe.
2 .- First presented a report at a press conference just 21 pages. as: "Summary for Policymakers", or summary for "politicians" or "political strategists" to loosen "the web" before showing the alleged scientific report in November, where they say the same thing siempre.Las evidence presented in scientific journals, not in press conferences, as did with the hypothesis of AIDS. In this way they avoid the real scientific debate, fooling the media, not contrast or prove anything.
3 .- want to mount another IPCC, because the money they receive them not enough, this new institution would be called UNEO, another global environmental office bureaucrats to save 0.6 ° in a century. Only the NERC, which he left the Stern boasted by Blair received 20 million pounds and its leaders are asking us $ 9 trillion to prevent climate change ( http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/ ) . The IPCC in turn asks us $ 200,000 million a year to prevent the catastrophe that speculate will happen in 100 years. (Bethell, 2006).
4 - . They say there is consensus of 2,500 scientists, but skeptics 18,000, including renowned authors such as Sir Fred Hoyle (the coiner of the term "Big Bang") and Kary Mullis Nobel reject the hypothesis ( www.oism.org , Leipzig Declaration 1995; Dancing Naked in the Mind Field , 1998). Nowhere is the list of those 2500 scientists. Appear only 33 authors and 18 contributors, almost all unknown or bureaucrats (except Alley, Stocker, Stoot, Meelh or Stouffer .., who are often working together modelers always saying the same thing men are carrying the world ") or heads IPCC (Qin and Solomon and his mentor Mario Molina, inventors of the ozone hole that lost 40% in 2002 (why, this year there contaminábamos?), Another invention of the IPCC and the BAC (British Antarctic Survey, the nth Institute for funding for environmental studies useless) .
5 - . All are special models in computer simulations. The creator of the IPCC was Bert R. Bolin, a fan of mathematical simulations is surfeit of receiving awards for his friends in the establishment or the same as the Blue Planet Prize (2006), the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in Meteorology. Computer models do not pass the scientific method Popper, Galileo, Newton and Roger Bacon.Nadie can check today that they say will happen in 100 years is real. The word says very clearly: they are only simulations, but now everyone, especially our INCOMPETENT JOURNALISTS, apodictic Dogrmas taken as they are only political and mathematical simulations.
6 -. All are members of the IPCC scientists establishment of the UN, the stagnant fees are not renewed since its inception. So nobody is willing to change the current prevailing corruption and inefficiency. Rajendra K. Pachauri the chairman is not a bureaucrat with no publications climatologist recognized as glaciologist Dan Qin, one of the directors. Pachauri is an industrial engineer and economist, have given their friends the prestigious award Padma Bhushan and has been chairman or director of dozens of organisms normally created to live completely useless government grants "Look at their names as the International Centre ...- of India (1985) or the Municipal Government of the Habitat Centre in India (1987). Susan Solomon, the other charge, is the most fanatical promoter of the nonsense of the ozone hole, when the CFC gases can not even climb into the stratosphere because they are heavier than air. With a president like this and similar charge means that the IPCC has become together with UNAIDS DR. Peter Piot, the biggest machine of political and economic corruption in the world: in a factory dogmas relentless media with 2,500 scientists who live without a stick into the water from two decades hade to receive grants of all dollars and governments to protect us from Revelation half a degree in a century and 18 cm. of rising sea level.The business IPCC would have no future if it is true what they say thousands of scientists that climate change is due to solar cycles or ice and / or the human C02 can not be the cause of the situation current.
7 - The report lies with that Polar warming is the highest in 125,000 years, since 70,000 years ago in Event Oegscher Dansgaard-19 was up 16 º in Greenland (and nothing happened) (Lang, 1999). Soon and Baliunas (2003) found 69 studies that reflected greater than the current warming. 14,000 years ago there was a 1000-year warming known as the Bolling-Allerod, followed by the glaciation of the Younger Dryas ( Climate History, 2003). This shows that the report's authors are not experts with paleoclimatic culture (despite having a supposed expert, Richard Alley), but displays a political and media theory, never proven. Exxon Mobil does not need pay anyone to refute his own ignorance paleoclimatic them away.
8 .- The report recognizes that small-scale changes are difficult to predict (p. 9) but tries to make us believe that 100 if you can predict, which is a contradiction. In fact, you can not make reliable weather predictions to 3 days and want to make 50 or 100 years.
9 .- never has been a disaster for sea level rise of 18-59 cm, as predicted by the models. The actual rise in the twentieth century was 6 cms. (Wadhams & Munk, 2003), 18 cms. to the IPCC.
10 .- The report acknowledges that the last interglacial, the emiense, rising sea level was higher than the present (p. 8). Therefore there is no danger of the twentieth century no one has died so far from the sea level. In fact, in yet another web against warming hysteria www.john-daly.com shows pictures of lowering sea level by as much as Tasmania, South Australia, near the South Pole.
11 .- never has been a disaster by 0.6 degrees in a century, even for hard or 1.8 with 5 ° as they speculate. Or should not cite specific examples. They are natural oscillations. The only adverse effect with 5-second would be to cut a cooling of the Gulf Stream due to freshwater input l and says Wally Broecker (Campos, Calor Glacial, 2005). The high heat and bring prosperity C02 as the discoverer said Svante Arrehnius greenhouse.
12 .- never has been a disaster and climate change caused by man, but the Big Five and global natural causes or by ice, which is a reasonable explanation to current climate change. The IPCC acknowledges error in its definition of climate change from the previous report ("change of climate attributed directly or indirectly to human activity." (page 2, footnote 1), which shows their ignorance climate and blame dogmatism and fanaticism always changes climate to human beings. It has taken 6 years to recognize his error principiante.Pero still interested in blaming it all on humans.
13. - Do not include volcanic aerosols in Figure SPM 2 (p. . 16) for the anthropogenic effect seems more or to distort the actual data line.
14 - slyly hide in the graphic SPM-3 (p. 17) data for snow cover in Antarctica, which represents 90% of the cryosphere or ice in the world and increasing alarmingly, to the extent that the 2005, reached record of -85 degrees below zero near the absolute record of -89.2 °. In the Ross Ice Shelf has increased after 6000 years of holocene melting (Joughin & Tulaczyk, 2002). The IPCC pseudoexpertos only put on the graph the loss of Arctic ice, which is partial, since in general Greenland cools (Johanessen et al, 2005), and that the Arctic ice represents only 6% of the cryosphere (global ice).
15 - say the snow is less abundant, while historical snowfall occurring in inappropriate places such as Tasmania or Somalia in the summer (2006 and 2005), Melilla, Cordoba, Japan, Casablanca, New Dehli Texas, Malibu or exaggerated in others such as Colorado, Canada, Russia, Poland, Germany (2005-2006) etc ..., where in 2005 a pavilion collapsed under snow. In India, thousands were killed in 2006, the Indian Daily came to run an editorial saying that we are approaching an ice age.
16 .- There has never been a catastrophe of 370 ppm or 540 ppm C02, quantity existing in cities and heavily industrialized and had in the Carboniferous with temperatures equal to the current without any cataclysm occurred, except cooling (Scotese, 2001-Berner, 2001) . ( http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-14/escala-geologica-2.jpg )
17 .- recognize that Antarctica, the barometer of the land, not cools (Doran et al, 2002 )....( page. 9 and 12), which contradicts the whole theory, why the C02 warming heats the Arctic but not the South Pole? . They also recognize that there was a warming in the 20-30 in the Arctic, a fact which implies that capital can be as natural and innocuous as that ..
18 .- The report lies because Greenland ice increases by 54 cm, according to studies by satellites (Johanessen et al, 2005), although some parts are thawed, something that happened in the last two glaciations, cutting Gulf Stream, so the only danger is cooling not warming.
19 .- The report lies with this warming is unusual, the largest of the last 1300 years, when the Medieval Optimum 1,100 years ago Greenland was an orchard and cultivated the vine in England (HH Lamb, Climate History and the modern world , 1982 HH Lamb, The Changing climate , 1966). The hot-cold oscillations half a degree and much more is happening in the history of climate, is so natural it seems insane to try to blame the man for it.
20 .- The report lies with the world's ice is melting everywhere. Fowland (2006), a member of the IPCC, found that glaciers in the Himalayas wins, and blamed the "botched" warming. As the IPCC paid the Survey refers to the conclusion. The largest glaciers are increasing, as Lambert of Antarctica, or the Perito Moreno in Patagonia ( climate history, 2003, pg. 1991 et seq.). Braithwaite (2002) has said it can not establish any trend either upward or downward. The Aletsch Alpine melt in the nineteenth and thaws Kilimanjaro natural causes for deforestation (Khas et al, 2004).
21 .- incredibly The report acknowledges that the daytime temperatures decrease from 1950-1993 and until 2004 (p.6). The maximum daytime only increased 0.2 ° (Esterling et al, 1997), which shows that global warming fears are a media spin. They also state that sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon soot and cool the atmosphere (p. 3). A study of Meinrat Andreae (2005), the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry, said that reducing pollution in the atmosphere may result in a greater warming. Bailis et al (Science , 2005) concluded that the use of fossil fuels in Africa instead of wood reducing C02 ....¡!. Boucot et al (2004) studied the greenhouse effect of C02 in the history of the land and came to doubt that it was a gas emissions. This shows that almost everything the IPCC says is dogma without scientific foundation.
22 .- Simulations are speculations that can not be verified. Are invalid because they do not include the important solar cycles, vertical flows (342 W/m2 (watts per square meter) that enter the atmosphere and 390 W/m2 withdrawn) and ocean dynamics and clouds, cosmic rays and night temperatures . The IPCC only based on simulations, not empirical evidence. Michael Crichton says in State of Fear (2005) that in the models, such as snuff packages would have to put this stamp: "SIMULATION BY ERROR May be erroneous and unverified. " Crichton says that global warming hysteria by C02 is a media myth and dogma, as was the theory of eugenics (sterilization racist) or twentieth-century theories of Lysenko farm in Stalinist Russia, which were accepted unanimously by all world and were an absolute fraud.
23 .- All skeptics (Singer, Seitz, Mackitrick, Macyntire, Lindzen, Michaels, Robinson, Chylek, Erren, Morgan, Green, Wojick, Ballin, Michaels, Lindzen, Balling, Idso, Sharp, Gray , Taylor, Plimer, Clark, Michel, Essex, Mutya, Kininmonth, Khadenkar, O'Brien, Sauers, Hetch, Ball, Cooper, Patterson, Mullis, Brekke, Nowell, Pocklingtong, P. Stoot, Veizer, Essenghign, Gerhard, Moene, Ellsaesser, Dietze, etc. .. (See full list in Campos, Calor Glacial , pg. 123 et seq) and the main solar specialists (Bokova Abdusamatov, Kondratyev, Mashnich, Solanky, Bashkirtesev, Soon, Baliunas, ...), are besides Landscheidt betados and censored at the IPCC. Even officers waste their time on making pages for them on the Internet accusing them of "mass murder" (Soon, Baliunas, Seitz ... http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html )
"a climatologist Dennis Bray Germany, analyzed the results of an international study showed that only 10% of scientists believed that climate changes were caused by human activity. Again, refused Science publish it. "They say it does not fit with what they intend to publish," said Bray.Los parents. Noami Oreskes and Roy Spencer reported the same, including Science censorship in articles against warming ( Tom Bethell, The Politically Incorrect Guide to science, Citadel, Madrid, 2006, pp. 1554-155)
24 .- Nowhere in this report demonstrates that man has caused climate change. It is said that man is "very likely" the cause (p.8). But science can not be based on probabilities, beliefs, or computer models pseudoecologista sentimentality but proven facts. Nobody can say that E is = "probably" amx c2. This is not science.
25. - The report is peppered all over the pages of word "probably ." In the main table of predictions from pg. 7 the word "likely" out 19 times. This has no scientific validity. These are all speculations and speculations of a political organization that asks for money and a new office of the Governments BUREAUCRATIC ...?) by unsubstantiated hypothesis (why Bolin modeler created the IPCC in 1990?).
26 .- There is no reference to any scientific or work, except the UN's own report (called TAR , 2001) or refutarlos.Todo skeptical about what we read we must accept by faith , as do all journalists and television networks vulnerable in the world, are as valid the report without reading it or prove that "the test of a million does not appear anywhere."
27. - There are no references in the graphs of methodology, parameters, or authors, we believe them by faith, apart from being simulated. Everything is Science Fiction and Canned scan in a political and media report.
28 .- In any simulation, text or study demonstrates or shows the number of human C02.
29 .- In any simulation, text or study shows that the estimate of 6000 million tons of human C02 is the cause of climate change, other than that this can not be because very little 6 billion annually and 750,000 of 186,000 total in the atmosphere. (Essex & Mackitrick, 2003).
30 .- Breathing emit 2500 million tonnes a year and half of those 6000 is absorbed or agriculture / livestock thereby leaving only 1500 million.
31. - The report denied, hidden or unknown Gleissberg solar minimum of 2030 to cool the world, as happened with the Maunder Minimum in the seventeenth century. It also denies the Suess solar cycle, or cycle Mayewski of marine currents, according to which now we should chill.
32. - The report, denied, hidden and unknown graphic CLIMAT future prediction based on the evolution of oxygen isotopes in ice, made for years by leading experts from the University of Columbia-LDOE (Hay et al, 1976) whereby we will chill.
33 .- The report, denied, hidden or unknown Milankovicht cycles according to which (the 100,000 years and the interglacial 10,000) now or in this century could play a glaciation. (115.0000 ago was the last interglacial and 11,600 years ago). The long-overdue glaciation and the C02 would be good, because it delays the ice as other renowned expert said Walter Ruddiman (2005).
34 .- The report denied, hidden, unknown and censorship all the scientific studies that predict cooling or glaciation, such as Landscheidt, Jawarowski, Abdusamatov, Solanky, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, Bokova, Zhen-Shan, L ., Xian, Essenhigh etc ... (Campos, Calor Glacial , 2005)
35 .- The report omits the statement Wally Broecker, leading expert on ocean currents and discoverer of the "current conveyor belts" world, who declared that the Gulf Stream will stop at 100 years (world exclusive Fields , Heat Glacia l, 2005, p. 131. "If things continue as they are now, perhaps the conveyor belt can be stopped"), implying a local cooling, which confirms to Richard Alley in the same work, one IPCC barons, who once spoke of the break of the Gulf Stream, but has now been bewitched by the spell cost of heating. It should be added that if we are to the minimum Gleissberg "things will continue as usual", as experts predict as Bryden and Wadhams and quote the film who The tomorrow to discuss the future of the Gulf Stream.
36. - The report does not explain the cold waves rages worldwide and cause thousands of deaths since 2003.- 40th in 2006 in Moscow
37 .- The report begins with an error that the C02 temperature increases when in the 40-70 temperature cooled 0.3 ° and the C02 was still rising. In the Cambrian we had 7000 ppm (parts per million) and 379 ppm now. No polluted then and not think of any disaster. (Scotesse 2001, Berner 2001). At the time of the dinosaurs come to 3000 or 6000 ppm had no industry and it ended in an ice age.
38 .- The IPCC defends economic interests: the Kyoto market $ 200,000 million only until 2012 lobbying by environmentalists and multinational oil companies like BP, Acciona, Shell, Sharp, Siemens, Gas Natural, Enron, which compete in the energy market against their enemy the cheap coal and electricity. Besides having a greedy thirst and endless subsidies to demand millions for dubious studies and weather offices of living since 1990.
Because 39 .- Professor Fred Singer, former director Weather Satellite Service, the U.S., rejects all dogmas of the IPCC on Hot Talk, Cold Science, 1998, as well as countless websites on the Internet as www.friendsofscience.org , www.co2scienceorg.com , www.mitosyfraudes.8k.com , www.john-daly.com . What he does Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist, (2007), former member of Greenpeace who denounced the unscientific fanaticism of this radical organization that is being lining the warming since 1988 and has more benefits than Real Madrid (50 million per year in 2004). Greenpeace has nearly 3 million members who pay a fee of about 18 euros per month: have the calculation, adding it collects in a separate foundation that raises and ignorant unsuspecting donors around the world. You can earn up to 480 million euros a year
40 .- For Frederick Seitz, former president of the Academy of Sciences of the USA and president and head www.oism.org more visible statement Petition Project of 1997, against the world's thesis discussed IPCC and Kyoto, was a member of the IPCC and dropped out of there because he said: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption in the peer review (review scientific data) that the events that led to this IPCC report "(Calor Glacial, 2005, pg. 116). That sums up the reality of this corrupt (cf. the book by Eric Frattini, UN , a story of corruption , 2005) and pseudo-UN body, which we all pay our taxes that also boasts a scientist when all dissent censorship, falsifies graphics (the famous hockey stick embarrassing Mann, hiding in the medieval warmth to our parazca higher) and bases all its predictions made by computer numerical musings .., of which the former editor of Science , Philip B. Abelson said, "is found unanimously that the computer models are deficient" (Glacial Heat , pg. 119).
to members of the IPCC as Bragaza, Karoly and Arblaster (2004) recognize that the top 5 models that the UN does not take into account nighttime temperatures and influence of clouds, apart of solar cycles, cosmic rays and ocean dynamics. Meyer has said in Nature ". The construction of the consensus (IPCC) will be permanently compromised" (Calor Glacial . P. 119)
© Luis Carlos Campos / ips.
