principiascientificinternational--2020-08-24--No Alarm: UK temperature analysis from 1659 to 2019

No Alarm : UK temperature analysis from 1659 to 2019 The politically-motivated UN IPCC offers no proof that man-made CO2 is allegedly causing dangerous global warming , just unproven , unconvincing assertions based on hopelessly-exaggerating “ Garbage In , Garbage Out ” ( GIGO ) computer climate models .
These UN IPCC assertions are debunked by analysis of the benchmark Central England Temperature ( CET ) series , plotted below .
The CET may not be global but it aligns well with the broad trends if not the precision of global temperature series such as HadCRUT4 .
The analysis shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regardless of a possible warming bias from the UHI effect .
This conclusion has been confirmed by a well-known independent scientist , for the global HadCRUT4 series as well as the CET .
The linear trendline shows the gradual recovery from the cold of the Little Ice Age ( from early 14thC to mid-19thC ) starting well before the build-up of global industrialisation , as discussed in the Long Slow Thaw by a well-known climate historian .
The UN IPCC has no explanation for this “ inconvenient ” long-term trend .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ hockey-stick graph “ which they gleefully plastered all over their publicity material until it was proved to be fraudulent .
Now they simply ignore it .
The smoothed series ( red ) is calculated from the CET public data annual mean values as a centred 11-year moving average .
With nice symmetry , it shows a temperature increase of 0.5ºC from 1850 ( around the UK industrial revolution take-off and coincidentally the end of the Little Ice Age ) to 1950 , followed by a further 0.5ºC increase from 1950 to 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The level of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere had not risen much above pre-industrial levels by 1950 , as shown graphically here , which means that the 0.5ºC of CET warming from 1850 to 1950 must have been mostly if not wholly due to natural causes rather than atmospheric CO2 , as explained mathematically here .
So why shouldn ’ t the 0.5ºC of warming since 1950 have been mostly if not wholly natural as well , as the following facts strongly suggest ?
Between 1950 and 1967 the CET moving average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels , coinciding with a preponderance of naturally cooling La Nina events .
This cold phase persisted for the next 15 years during which the moving average rose by just 0.1ºC .
This pronounced cold was experienced globally , causing widespread droughts and dwindling world grain reserves and even provoking alarm calls about a possible new Ice Age .
Then , in a reversal too sudden and short-lived to be attributable to rising atmospheric CO2 , the CET moving average rose steeply by 1.1ºC from 1982 to 2002 , coinciding with reduced global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming El Nino events .
Next , in contrast to steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 , the moving average fell abruptly by 0.3ºC from 2002 to the end of the series in 2014 .
Thanks probably to recent natural El Ninos , the annual mean series ended with 2019 being 0.1ºC warmer than the 2014 moving average , despite which 2019 was 0.3ºC colder than both 2002 and 1990 .
The UN IPCC unconvincingly asserted in AR5 that human influences are “ extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertion is extremely implausible given that ( i ) the only period of sustained CET warming to date since before 1950 has been the obviously-natural 0.6ºC per decade spurt from 1982 to 2002 and ( ii ) they themselves say that alleged CO2 warming is supposed occur at a slow but steady rate of about 0.2 ± 0.1ºC per decade .
The graph shows no discernible trace of any such warming .
These CET changes since around 1950 map neatly onto the cyclical changes of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation ( AMO ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has varied in lockstep with the more pronounced ups and downs of global land and sea temperatures over the past 170 years yet , disgracefully , has never been mentioned in any UN IPCC summary report for policymakers .
The 20-year continuation of the well-documented “ pause ” in global temperatures from around the turn of the century maps onto the AMO ’ s top-of-cycle warm phase .
If it follows its previous regular patterns it will soon enter its cooling phase , with global temperatures cooling in lockstep .
The next warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to an advisory council member of Lord Lawson ’ s climate thinktank , ironically the target date for the pointless net zero emissions policy .
Going back to pre-1950 when atmospheric CO2 was too low ( see above links ) to have much , if any , alleged influence on climate , the CET moving average nevertheless rose 0.5ºC from 1922 to 1948 , corresponding to the warming phase of the previous 60‑year AMO cycle ( and the USA dust bowl years of all time high temperature records ) .
It shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and centuries , all at very low levels of atmospheric CO2 .
( Incidentally , many high early temperatures such as those in the 1930s have in recent years been reduced by the custodians of some establishment temperatures series by flagrant retrospective adjustments to make modern warming look more severe , skulduggery which first came to light via leaked Climategate emails ) .
Well before any industrialisation , the CET moving average rose by a stonking 1.7ºC between 1694 and 1733 with the mean for 1733 warmer by 0.2ºC than the mean for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme cold spell known as the Seven ill years of the 1690s which caused severe famine and depopulation in Scotland .
The description of the Coronavirus recession as being “ the worst in over 300 years ” refers to that time .
Most people have no idea how lucky they are to be living in today ’ s benign climate .
Going back to pre-CET , pre-man-made CO2 ancient history , the UN IPCC has no explanation of what caused the well-documented Minoan , Roman and Medieval Warm Periods .
These events and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roughly millennial intervals , indicating a long-term natural cycle ( on an ominously cooling trend – the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer than today according to this study ) for which no climate science explanation has been offered .
The UN IPCC tried to hide the Medieval Warm Period with the aforementioned “ hockey-stick graph ” but since that was proved fraudulent , they simply ignore these “ inconvenient ” events .
Few people realise that the UN IPCC is only mandated to study the risks of human , not natural , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretend that greenhouse gases – emphasising man-made CO2 and not even mentioning water vapour , the most important greenhouse gas – and other “ anthropogenic forcings ” are the main drivers of climate , taking the general public ( and gullible politicians ) for fools .
The indisputable CET evidence going back centuries shows negligible correlation between changing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels .
In fact many studies have shown that atmospheric CO2 levels rise global temperatures have risen .
As for alleged “ extreme weather ” , history shows that weather conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than today .
That is exactly as would be expected scientifically due to the strengthened thermal gradients which then prevailed across the then colder UK latitudes .
In today ’ s benign climate , the Yorkshire floods of early 2020 were due to bad water management , not climate change .
Owen Paterson sorted the Somerset flooding of 2014 when he was Defra Secretary by overruling the useless EU regulations and reinstating ancient dredging practices .
Even the UN IPCC says there is no evidence of worsening extreme weather due to human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the World Meteorological Organisation brands the alarmist climate narrative “ religious extremism ” .
The above historical temperature and climate facts make a mockery of the “ climate emergency ” declared in mid-2019 without a shred of scientific or statistical justification by our shameless ( or very poorly informed ) politicians .
Disgracefully , these same facts are never mentioned by our conniving establishment scientists .
The linked article refers to a 2010 op-ed by a leading Met Office climate scientist wondering if scientists shouldn ’ t be doing more to counter unscientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of empirical evidence for man-made global warming , he appears to have dropped all such thoughts ( dissembling by omission ) and has now sunk to promoting the desperate new alarmist phrase “ global heating ” instead of “ global warming ” .
This Met Office propagandist has even been awarded an MBE for “ services to understanding climate change ” .
All the evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the alarmist theory of dangerous man-made global warming is a blatant political sham , a subterfuge power bid to “ dominate , transform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
It is the height of madness ( or devious deception ) to disregard such devastatingly contrarian climate evidence in order to “ justify ” a hopelessly unrealistic and self-harming £ multi-trillion Net Zero emissions decarbonisation scheme which : • would entail massive disruption to our energy infrastructure and entire way of life , affecting every business and household in the land , • has no chance of succeeding technically , also explained in simple layman ’ s terms in this sister paper , • would have indiscernible impact on the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a forlorn hope as very few non-Western countries will be so foolish as to follow suit .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

No Alarm: UK temperature analysis from 1659 to 2019
Written by Douglas S Brodie
The politically-motivated UN IPCC offers no proof that man-made CO2 is allegedly causing dangerous global warming, just unproven, unconvincing assertions based on hopelessly-exaggerating “Garbage In, Garbage Out” (GIGO) computer climate models.
These UN IPCC assertions are debunked by analysis of the benchmark Central England Temperature (CET) series, plotted below. The CET may not be global but it aligns well with the broad trends if not the precision of global temperature series such as HadCRUT4.
The analysis shows no credible evidence of any discernible man-made global warming ever , regardless of a possible warming bias from the UHI effect. This conclusion has been confirmed by a well-known independent scientist, for the global HadCRUT4 series as well as the CET.
The linear trendline shows the gradual recovery from the cold of the Little Ice Age (from early 14thC to mid-19thC) starting well before the build-up of global industrialisation, as discussed in the Long Slow Thaw by a well-known climate historian. The UN IPCC has no explanation for this “inconvenient” long-term trend. They tried to hide it with their infamous “hockey-stick graph“ which they gleefully plastered all over their publicity material until it was proved to be fraudulent. Now they simply ignore it.
The smoothed series (red) is calculated from the CET public data annual mean values as a centred 11-year moving average. With nice symmetry, it shows a temperature increase of 0.5ºC from 1850 (around the UK industrial revolution take-off and coincidentally the end of the Little Ice Age) to 1950, followed by a further 0.5ºC increase from 1950 to 2014 when the centred moving average series ends.
The level of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere had not risen much above pre-industrial levels by 1950, as shown graphically here, which means that the 0.5ºC of CET warming from 1850 to 1950 must have been mostly if not wholly due to natural causes rather than atmospheric CO2, as explained mathematically here. So why shouldn’t the 0.5ºC of warming since 1950 have been mostly if not wholly natural as well, as the following facts strongly suggest?
1950 to the present
Between 1950 and 1967 the CET moving average fell by 0.4ºC despite steeply rising atmospheric CO2 levels, coinciding with a preponderance of naturally cooling La Nina events. This cold phase persisted for the next 15 years during which the moving average rose by just 0.1ºC. This pronounced cold was experienced globally, causing widespread droughts and dwindling world grain reserves and even provoking alarm calls about a possible new Ice Age.
Then, in a reversal too sudden and short-lived to be attributable to rising atmospheric CO2, the CET moving average rose steeply by 1.1ºC from 1982 to 2002, coinciding with reduced global cloud cover and a preponderance of naturally warming El Nino events.
Next, in contrast to steadily increasing atmospheric CO2, the moving average fell abruptly by 0.3ºC from 2002 to the end of the series in 2014. Thanks probably to recent natural El Ninos, the annual mean series ended with 2019 being 0.1ºC warmer than the 2014 moving average, despite which 2019 was 0.3ºC colder than both 2002 and 1990.
The UN IPCC unconvincingly asserted in AR5 that human influences are “extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”. This assertion is extremely implausible given that (i) the only period of sustained CET warming to date since before 1950 has been the obviously-natural 0.6ºC per decade spurt from 1982 to 2002 and (ii) they themselves say that alleged CO2 warming is supposed occur at a slow but steady rate of about 0.2 ± 0.1ºC per decade. The graph shows no discernible trace of any such warming.
These CET changes since around 1950 map neatly onto the cyclical changes of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), shown below, the natural cycle which has varied in lockstep with the more pronounced ups and downs of global land and sea temperatures over the past 170 years yet, disgracefully, has never been mentioned in any UN IPCC summary report for policymakers. The 20-year continuation of the well-documented “pause” in global temperatures from around the turn of the century maps onto the AMO’s top-of-cycle warm phase. If it follows its previous regular patterns it will soon enter its cooling phase, with global temperatures cooling in lockstep. The next warming phase will not start until about 2050 according to an advisory council member of Lord Lawson’s climate thinktank, ironically the target date for the pointless net zero emissions policy.
Pre-1950
Going back to pre-1950 when atmospheric CO2 was too low (see above links) to have much, if any, alleged influence on climate, the CET moving average nevertheless rose 0.5ºC from 1922 to 1948, corresponding to the warming phase of the previous 60‑year AMO cycle (and the USA dust bowl years of all time high temperature records). It shows similar rises and falls over earlier decades and centuries, all at very low levels of atmospheric CO2.
(Incidentally, many high early temperatures such as those in the 1930s have in recent years been reduced by the custodians of some establishment temperatures series by flagrant retrospective adjustments to make modern warming look more severe, skulduggery which first came to light via leaked Climategate emails).
Well before any industrialisation, the CET moving average rose by a stonking 1.7ºC between 1694 and 1733 with the mean for 1733 warmer by 0.2ºC than the mean for 2019. That came just after the extreme cold spell known as the Seven ill years of the 1690s which caused severe famine and depopulation in Scotland. The description of the Coronavirus recession as being “the worst in over 300 years” refers to that time. Most people have no idea how lucky they are to be living in today’s benign climate.
Going back to pre-CET, pre-man-made CO2 ancient history, the UN IPCC has no explanation of what caused the well-documented Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. These events and our current global warming have occurred at roughly millennial intervals, indicating a long-term natural cycle (on an ominously cooling trend – the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer than today according to this study) for which no climate science explanation has been offered. The UN IPCC tried to hide the Medieval Warm Period with the aforementioned “hockey-stick graph” but since that was proved fraudulent, they simply ignore these “inconvenient” events.
Climate spin, misinformation, exaggerations and deceptions
Few people realise that the UN IPCC is only mandated to study the risks of human, not natural, influences on climate. They then shamelessly pretend that greenhouse gases – emphasising man-made CO2 and not even mentioning water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas – and other “anthropogenic forcings” are the main drivers of climate, taking the general public (and gullible politicians) for fools.
The indisputable CET evidence going back centuries shows negligible correlation between changing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact many studies have shown that atmospheric CO2 levels rise after global temperatures have risen.
As for alleged “extreme weather”, history shows that weather conditions during the Little Ice Age were far worse than today. That is exactly as would be expected scientifically due to the strengthened thermal gradients which then prevailed across the then colder UK latitudes. In today’s benign climate, the Yorkshire floods of early 2020 were due to bad water management, not climate change. Owen Paterson sorted the Somerset flooding of 2014 when he was Defra Secretary by overruling the useless EU regulations and reinstating ancient dredging practices.
Even the UN IPCC says there is no evidence of worsening extreme weather due to human influence. Even the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation brands the alarmist climate narrative “religious extremism”.
The above historical temperature and climate facts make a mockery of the “climate emergency” declared in mid-2019 without a shred of scientific or statistical justification by our shameless (or very poorly informed) politicians.
Disgracefully, these same facts are never mentioned by our conniving establishment scientists. The linked article refers to a 2010 op-ed by a leading Met Office climate scientist wondering if scientists shouldn’t be doing more to counter unscientific climate alarmism. Despite the continuing lack of empirical evidence for man-made global warming, he appears to have dropped all such thoughts (dissembling by omission) and has now sunk to promoting the desperate new alarmist phrase “global heating” instead of “global warming”. This Met Office propagandist has even been awarded an MBE for “services to understanding climate change”.
All the evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the alarmist theory of dangerous man-made global warming is a blatant political sham, a subterfuge power bid to “dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives”.
Conclusion
It is the height of madness (or devious deception) to disregard such devastatingly contrarian climate evidence in order to “justify” a hopelessly unrealistic and self-harming £ multi-trillion Net Zero emissions decarbonisation scheme which:
would entail massive disruption to our energy infrastructure and entire way of life, affecting every business and household in the land,
has no chance of succeeding technically, also explained in simple layman’s terms in this sister paper,
would have indiscernible impact on the global climate even if attempted multilaterally, itself a forlorn hope as very few non-Western countries will be so foolish as to follow suit.
Read more at edmhdotme.wordpress.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-24--Top UK Govt Scientist: ‘Lockdown A Monumental Mistake’

LOCKDOWN will come to be seen as a “ monumental mistake on a global scale ” and must never happen again , a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases says .
Mark Woolhouse said lockdown was a “ panic measure ” but admitted it was the only option at the time because “ we couldn ’ t think of anything better to do ” .
But it is a crude measure that takes no accounts of the risk levels to different individuals , the University of Edinburgh professor said , meaning that back in March the nation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been concentrating on care homes ” .
The professor of infectious disease epidemiology said that the Government must now focus on increasing testing and striving to unlock society safely rather than restricting it further .
Prof Woolhouse OBE , a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours that advises the Government , said : “ Lockdown was a panic measure and I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale , the cure was worse than the disease .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
It was always a temporary measure that simply delayed the stage of the epidemic we see now .
It was never going to change anything fundamentally , however low we drove down the number of cases , and now we know more about the virus and how to track it we should not be in this position again .
“ We absolutely should never return to a position where children can not play or go to school .
“ I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education , health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19.
” He said that Sage , the government ’ s advisory board on dealing with Covid , needed to have members from a wider range of fields .
This would allow it a better understanding of how lockdown has had effects across the whole of society .
“ I suspect right now more people are being harmed by the collateral effects of lockdown than by Covid-19 .
“ This is why we need a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisory board Sage with equal input from economists to assess the damage to incomes , jobs and livelihoods , educationalists to assess the damage to children and mental health specialists to assess levels of depression and anxiety especially among younger adults , as well as psychologists to assess the effects of not being able to go to the theatre or a football match.
” Prof Woolhouse said he had hoped the combined efforts of the world ’ s scientists would work out how to handle the virus during lockdown .
But this hadn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time I agreed with lockdown as a short term emergency response because we couldn ’ t think of anything better to do , but it was always clear that the moment we started to relax enough measures we were likely to see infection rates rise again either nationally or locally .
“ My hope was that we would have learnt how to handle the virus better so lockdown would no longer be necessary.
” PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Top UK Govt Scientist: ‘Lockdown A Monumental Mistake’
Written by Lucy Johnston
LOCKDOWN will come to be seen as a “monumental mistake on a global scale” and must never happen again, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases says.
Mark Woolhouse said lockdown was a “panic measure” but admitted it was the only option at the time because “we couldn’t think of anything better to do”.
But it is a crude measure that takes no accounts of the risk levels to different individuals, the University of Edinburgh professor said, meaning that back in March the nation was “concentrating on schools when we should have been concentrating on care homes”.
The professor of infectious disease epidemiology said that the Government must now focus on increasing testing and striving to unlock society safely rather than restricting it further.
Prof Woolhouse OBE, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours that advises the Government, said: “Lockdown was a panic measure and I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease.
“I never want to see national lockdown again. It was always a temporary measure that simply delayed the stage of the epidemic we see now. It was never going to change anything fundamentally, however low we drove down the number of cases, and now we know more about the virus and how to track it we should not be in this position again. “We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school. “I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19.”
He said that Sage, the government’s advisory board on dealing with Covid, needed to have members from a wider range of fields.
This would allow it a better understanding of how lockdown has had effects across the whole of society.
He said:
“I suspect right now more people are being harmed by the collateral effects of lockdown than by Covid-19. “This is why we need a broader range of people on the government advisory board Sage with equal input from economists to assess the damage to incomes, jobs and livelihoods, educationalists to assess the damage to children and mental health specialists to assess levels of depression and anxiety especially among younger adults, as well as psychologists to assess the effects of not being able to go to the theatre or a football match.”
Prof Woolhouse said he had hoped the combined efforts of the world’s scientists would work out how to handle the virus during lockdown. But this hadn’t happened.
He said:
“At the time I agreed with lockdown as a short term emergency response because we couldn’t think of anything better to do, but it was always clear that the moment we started to relax enough measures we were likely to see infection rates rise again either nationally or locally. “My hope was that we would have learnt how to handle the virus better so lockdown would no longer be necessary.”
Read more at www.express.co.uk
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-24--The Great Reset: WHO declares ‘We cannot go back to the way things were’

The Great Reset : WHO declares ‘ We can not go back to the way things were ’ On Friday , WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus during a news conference from the agency ’ s Geneva headquarters pronounced : Climate was always going to be linked to COVID , as we reported yesterday with ‘ From COVID To Climate Change : Scientific Fraud To Serve Globalism.
’ Slowly but surely , more citizens are waking up about the scamdemic – a precision operation , a pre-planned move to ratchet up the globalist control over our lives and implement worldwide eugenics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climatologist , warned us in his important book ‘ The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science ’ these elitist actors use the Hegelian dialectic of create a crisis , stir an alarmed reaction then offer the solution .
Dr Ball scored a monumental courtroom victory over the ‘ world ’ s leading climate s fraudster , Michael E Mann exactly a year ago in the ‘ climate science trial of the century.
’ That timely legal decision helped demonstrate that there was no scientific validity to the claims that humans were dangerously warming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no basis to cut emissions of carbon dioxide to solve a non-existent crisis .
We have been lied to over and over again .
Likewise , in this COVID19 calamity there is no scientific basis to shut down the world economy and implement a ‘ global reset ’ which simply serves the interests of the richest one percent .
For anyone new to the machinations of the globalist playbook you need to bone up on Hegelian Dialectic – Problem , Reaction , Solution .
Morano points astute readers towards the groundwork that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Fantastic ’ for the climate : Activists See Coronavirus Lockdowns As Dress Rehearsal for ‘ Climate Emergency ’ – Special Report Flashback 2018 : World Health Organization : ‘ Climate change is the greatest health challenge of the 21st century , and threatens all aspects of the society in which we live ’ To better understand why a fake pandemic has been foisted on the world you need to decipher the strategy behind both these crises .
To attain clarity we must first understand “ Problem-Reaction-Solution ” or the “ Hegelian Dialectic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man-made global warming swindle failed to capture the collective unconscious as planned , despite the best efforts over 30 years of corrupt climate researchers and Holy Greta of Sweden , darling of the UN bureaucrats .
In October 2019 Bill Gates took over where Greta left off .
These Malthusians share the same goals : they want you and me off their planet permanently .
We either fight them or we surrender to oblivion .
About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Great Reset: WHO declares ‘We cannot go back to the way things were’
Written by John O'Sullivan
On Friday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus during a news conference from the agency’s Geneva headquarters pronounced:
“In particular, the Covid-19 pandemic has given new impetus to the need to accelerate efforts to respond to climate change. The Covid-19 pandemic has given us a glimpse of our world as it could be: cleaner skies and rivers.”
Climate was always going to be linked to COVID, as we reported yesterday with ‘From COVID To Climate Change: Scientific Fraud To Serve Globalism.’
Slowly but surely, more citizens are waking up about the scamdemic – a precision operation, a pre-planned move to ratchet up the globalist control over our lives and implement worldwide eugenics policies.
As Dr Tim Ball, climatologist, warned us in his important book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ these elitist actors use the Hegelian dialectic of create a crisis, stir an alarmed reaction then offer the solution.
Dr Ball scored a monumental courtroom victory over the ‘world’s leading climate s cientist fraudster, Michael E Mann exactly a year ago in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’
That timely legal decision helped demonstrate that there was no scientific validity to the claims that humans were dangerously warming the climate. In short, there is no basis to cut emissions of carbon dioxide to solve a non-existent crisis. We have been lied to over and over again.
Likewise, in this COVID19 calamity there is no scientific basis to shut down the world economy and implement a ‘global reset’ which simply serves the interests of the richest one percent.
For anyone new to the machinations of the globalist playbook you need to bone up on Hegelian Dialectic – Problem, Reaction, Solution.
Over on Climate Depot Marc Morano comments:
“You were warned, COVID & Climate – A marriage made in authoritarianism. The morphing of the public health bureaucracy and the climate establishment is at hand. Nothing good can come from this arranged marriage.”
Morano points astute readers towards the groundwork that the NWO laid out here:
Flashback: ‘Fantastic’ for the climate: Activists See Coronavirus Lockdowns As Dress Rehearsal for ‘Climate Emergency’ – Special Report
Flashback 2018: World Health Organization: ‘Climate change is the greatest health challenge of the 21st century, and threatens all aspects of the society in which we live’
To better understand why a fake pandemic has been foisted on the world you need to decipher the strategy behind both these crises. To attain clarity we must first understand “Problem-Reaction-Solution” or the “Hegelian Dialectic” from the German philosopher.
The man-made global warming swindle failed to capture the collective unconscious as planned, despite the best efforts over 30 years of corrupt climate researchers and Holy Greta of Sweden, darling of the UN bureaucrats. In October 2019 Bill Gates took over where Greta left off. These Malthusians share the same goals: they want you and me off their planet permanently. We either fight them or we surrender to oblivion.
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-25--Atmospheric CO2 Levels Shift with Solar, Lunar, El Niño Variation

Analysis of the accepted global benchmark of carbon dioxide atmospheric data from the Mauna Loa Observatory reveals that El Niño events and solar and lunar variation have a marked effect on CO2 concentration .
Figure 1 shows the atmospheric CO concentration measured weekly at the Mauna Loa Observatory ( see Ref.1 ) for the period 29 March 1958 to 08 August 2020 .
The Observatory is at Latitude 19.54° North , Longitude 155.57° West , Elevation 3397 metres .
It is on the northern slope of Mauna Loa , an active volcano on the island of Hawai ’ i in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were missing values in the time sequence , interpolation was applied using a third order polynomial fit to adjoining data strings and a ‘ weekly ’ time interval of 7.02416 days , that is , one fifty second part of a year , for the following analysis of the CO concentration time series .
The original time series consisted of 3183 values while the interpolated time series consisted of 3243 values at a uniform ‘ weekly ’ interval .
The series shows a regular seasonal variation superimposed on an upward trend .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 62 years was 1.58 ppm per annum .
For the 3 year period 29 March , 1958 to 1961 , the rate was 0.55 ppm pa. For the 3 year period June 2017 to 2020 , the rate had steadily increased to 3.08 ppm pa. For the 3 year period July 2017 to 2020 , the rate was 3.31 ppm pa and for the 3 year period August 2017to 2020 , the rate was 3.34 ppm pa , more than six times greater than 60 years earlier .
The acceleration in the rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the measurements is attributed to an increase in biogenic CO in response to the gradual increase in temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age .
Justification for this claim can be seen in a comparison between the dearth of life at the cold Poles and the profusion of life , in a myriad of forms , in the warm Equatorial zone .
Life forms flourish with greater temperature .
There are two inflections in the graph corresponding to the time of the volcanic eruptions at Mount Agung , Bali , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 1963 , and Mount Pinatubo , Philippines , 12 June 1991 .
The increase in the CO concentration appears to have ceased , presumably due to the ash cloud diminishing the Sun ’ s radiation and the consequent photosynthesis and temperature at the Earth ’ s surface .
The Mauna Loa Observatory is 9598 km on a bearing of 71̊East from Mount Agung and 8859 km on a bearing of 72̊East from Mount Pinatubo .
These events contrast with the lack of any change in the accelerating rate of increase of CO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 pandemic bringing into question the claim that CO has been increasing due to the activities of mankind .
The amplitude of the seasonal variation ranged from 5.9 ppm early in the series to 9.3 ppm in the later part of the series , changing from year to year in an irregular fashion but clearly increasing in amplitude over time .
The maximum in the seasonal variation occurred on average in mid-May at the start of Summer while the minimum occurred at the end of September , just prior to Winter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ causing an increase in photosynthesis which absorbs CO resulting in the fall in CO concentration .
The decay of vegetation in the cold of Winter releases CO resulting in a rise in the CO concentration .
That is , the concentration is decreasing during the heat of Summer and increasing during the cool of Winter putting it at odds with the UN IPCC claim that an increase in CO concentration causes a temperature increase .
The annual rate of change of the CO concentration was determined from the interpolated ‘ weekly ’ time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 52 weeks apart and is shown in Figure 2 .
It displays the estimated annual rate of change of the CO concentration with high frequency noise superimposed on a cyclic pattern with a linear trend of 0.0286 ppm pa per annum .
The sequence of maxima and minima match that for the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index ( Ref.2 ) .
Figure 2 .
Mauna Loa annual rate of change of CO concentration .
In order to illustrate the correlation between the two series , Figure 3 shows the detrended Mauna Loa annual rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smoothing with a low pass filter , overlain on the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index , both covering the same 61 year period .
In considering the relationship between the two series it is necessary to be aware that the Mauna Loa rate of change was derived from a weekly series of measurements taken at a single point on the globe .
The Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index is the anomaly in the sea surface temperature relative to a 30 year average over the Equatorial zone between latitudes 5° South to 5° North and longitudes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area of the central Pacific Ocean of 6,568,670 square kilometres .
The Mauna Loa Observatory is 2,450 km from the centre of the Ninõ 3.4 area , on a bearing of 27.5° East of North .
Figure 3 .
Overlay of the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index and the Mauna Loa smoothed , detrended CO annual rate of change .
As has been demonstrated in earlier studies of CO data on the accompanying web pages , their seasonal variation has been attributed to biological sources in response to the associated temperature change .
Likewise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO rate of change and the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index , as shown by the coincidence of the major maxima in Figure 3 , is attributed to a biological response to the major , world-wide climate event depicted by the Niño 3.4 Index .
There is a marked negative correlation in the centre of the graph annotated by ‘ ⇑ ’ corresponding to the major volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines on 12 June 1991 which significantly altered the relationship between the rate of change of CO and the Oceanic Niño @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of change of CO to drop to a minimum as the sea surface temperatures reached a local maximum .
The eruption may not have been reflected in the ONI 3.4 sea surface temperatures as Mount Pinatubo is 1675 km North of the Equator .
More detail of the source of variation in the CO annual rate of change is shown by its autocorrelation function illustrated in Figure 5 .
It reveals a clear cyclic pattern based on the El Niño event as shown in the accompanying table listing the correlation maxima , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for CO annual rate of change .
The average from Table 1 , column 4 , adjusted for the multiple expressions of the El Niño event was 1313 days .
The event clearly dominates the CO annual rate of change indicating that this major climate event together with the seasonal weather pattern determines the rate of generation of CO in the Equatorial region .
This confirms the earlier proposition that the temperature level determines the rate of change of CO concentration seen in the monthly data for Cape Grim and Macquarie Island stations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis of data from each site as reported in the pages of : https : //www.climateauditor.com .
Figure 6 shows the amplitude spectrum from the Discrete Fourier Transform of the interpolated time series for the annual rate of change of the CO2 concentration padded with zeros at each end to give of length of 4096 values .
The amplitude scale was clipped to better display the higher frequency , shorter wavelength events so it excludes the maximum of 9.4 at x-coordinate 22 , equivalent to a period of 1308 days , which dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maximum predicted to represent the response to the El Niño event already seen in the autocorrelation function .
Figure 5 .
DFT Amplitude spectrum of the annual rate of change of CO concentration .
There is a multitude of local maxima in the Amplitude spectrum some of which have been assigned possible sources from the known synodic periods of the Moon and planets within the Solar System , being the time interval between instances of the Sun , Earth and a planet being in alignment .
Average values for these periods have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may change with time .
The periods drift due to the ever changing configuration of the Solar System and this may contribute to a broadening of the spectral responses .
There are other periodic events , such as changes in the ellipticity of the orbits which have not been taken into account in this study .
A list of possible sources is shown in Table 2 for a selection of the peaks in the DFT amplitude spectrum .
They are listed by the coordinate on the x axis , in cycles per 4096 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with period in years and days for ease of reference to orbital periods of the Moon and planets , e.g .
x-coord 2 is 2 cycles in 4096 weeks which is one cycle in 2048 weeks which is a period of 39.38 years or 14,385 days .
Some of these may also relate to the periodicities resulting from the Short-term orbital forcing described in Cionco , R. G. , and Soon , W .
W.-H. [ Ref .
3 ] .
The major influence on the rate of generation of atmospheric CO in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Niño event , that is , climate change causing a change in the rate of generation of CO , the complete opposite to the UN IPCC claim that CO causes climate change .
As far as is known , no physical process has been proposed whereby the CO change could cause an El Niño event .
Furthermore it is notable that both the synodic and draconic periods of the Moon are apparent throughout the 62 year weekly series .
An explanation for the synodic period is that each New Moon reduces the incoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its atmosphere as it passes between the Sun and the Earth .
Similar temperature minima must occur when Mercury and/or Venus pass between the Sun and the Earth .
The draconic period is due to the Moon ’ s elliptical plane being at an angle of 5.14° to the Earth ’ s elliptic relative to the Sun .
As a result , when the Moon passes through one of the two nodal points , where the Moon ’ s ellipse intersects the Earth ’ s elliptic , it has the greatest influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which , in turn , reduces the Earth ’ s surface temperature thereby causing a response in the rate of generation of CO .
Except during a Solar eclipse when the drop in temperature is marked , the passing of the Moon through its nodal points may only causes a minor drop in temperature .
In spite of this , there is a measurable effect on the rate of change of CO concentration apparent in the amplitude spectrum implying a significant sensitivity between temperature and CO rate of change .
This action appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UN IPCC in their assessment of the forces generating the Earth ’ s climate .
As a number of the spectral maxima approximately correspond with the synodic periods of the Moon and the planets , the results are interpreted as showing that the Sun ’ s irradiance of the Earth is modulated by the movement of the Moon and planets .
This must cause corresponding changes in the Earth ’ s atmospheric temperature which , in turn , has caused changes in the CO concentration .
This is contrary to the never-proven claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concentration causes an increase in the Earth ’ s atmospheric temperature .
The IPCC First Assessment Report , 1990 , consists of this IPCC Overview , quote : Both of the above claims appear to have no scientific basis .
The first claim is shown to be untenable in the opening page of this web site , entitled “ Greenhouse Effect ” .
The second claim is also untenable as no could know , to this day , all of the possible sources and sinks for the Earth ’ s atmospheric CO .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations … ” is at odds with the most recent measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory .
For the first 12 days of August 2020 , the concentration was on average 2.56 ppm greater than for August 2019 .
File : weekly_in_situ_co2_mlo.csv for the period 29 March 1958 to 30 May 2020 plus weekly averages of daily data from Twitter at https : //scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ for June , July , August 2020 .
• Cionco and Soon , Short-term orbital forcing : A quasi-review and a reappraisal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Earth-Science Reviews 166 ( 2017 ) 206-222 , Elsevier B.V. About the author : Bevan Dockery , B.Sc .
( Hons ) , Grad .
Dip .
Computing , retired geophysicist , formerly : Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists , Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists , Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists , Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists , Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Atmospheric CO2 Levels Shift with Solar, Lunar, El Niño Variation
Written by Bevan Dockery
Analysis of the accepted global benchmark of carbon dioxide atmospheric data from the Mauna Loa Observatory reveals that El Niño events and solar and lunar variation have a marked effect on CO2 concentration.
Data Analysis:
Figure 1 shows the atmospheric CO 2 concentration measured weekly at the Mauna Loa Observatory (see Ref.1) for the period 29 March 1958 to 08 August 2020. The Observatory is at Latitude 19.54° North, Longitude 155.57° West, Elevation 3397 metres. It is on the northern slope of Mauna Loa, an active volcano on the island of Hawai’i in the mid-North Pacific Ocean.
Figure 1. Mauna Loa weekly CO 2 concentration
As there were missing values in the time sequence, interpolation was applied using a third order polynomial fit to adjoining data strings and a ‘weekly’ time interval of 7.02416 days, that is, one fifty second part of a year, for the following analysis of the CO 2 concentration time series. The original time series consisted of 3183 values while the interpolated time series consisted of 3243 values at a uniform ‘weekly’ interval.
The series shows a regular seasonal variation superimposed on an upward trend. The linear trend for the whole period of 62 years was 1.58 ppm per annum. For the 3 year period 29 March, 1958 to 1961, the rate was 0.55 ppm pa. For the 3 year period June 2017 to 2020, the rate had steadily increased to 3.08 ppm pa. For the 3 year period July 2017 to 2020, the rate was 3.31 ppm pa and for the 3 year period August 2017to 2020, the rate was 3.34 ppm pa, more than six times greater than 60 years earlier. The acceleration in the rate of generation of CO 2 over the time of the measurements is attributed to an increase in biogenic CO 2 in response to the gradual increase in temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age. Justification for this claim can be seen in a comparison between the dearth of life at the cold Poles and the profusion of life, in a myriad of forms, in the warm Equatorial zone. Life forms flourish with greater temperature.
There are two inflections in the graph corresponding to the time of the volcanic eruptions at Mount Agung, Bali, Indonesia, 17 March and 16 May, 1963, and Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, 12 June 1991. The increase in the CO 2 concentration appears to have ceased, presumably due to the ash cloud diminishing the Sun’s radiation and the consequent photosynthesis and temperature at the Earth’s surface. The Mauna Loa Observatory is 9598 km on a bearing of 71̊East from
Mount Agung and 8859 km on a bearing of 72̊East from Mount Pinatubo. These events contrast with the lack of any change in the accelerating rate of increase of CO 2 during the reduction of economic activity from the 2020 pandemic bringing into question the claim that CO 2 has been increasing due to the activities of mankind.
The amplitude of the seasonal variation ranged from 5.9 ppm early in the series to 9.3 ppm in the later part of the series, changing from year to year in an irregular fashion but clearly increasing in amplitude over time. The maximum in the seasonal variation occurred on average in mid-May at the start of Summer while the minimum occurred at the end of September, just prior to Winter. This is attributed to the Summer sunshine causing an increase in photosynthesis which absorbs CO 2 resulting in the fall in CO 2 concentration. The decay of vegetation in the cold of Winter releases CO 2 resulting in a rise in the CO 2 concentration. That is, the concentration is decreasing during the heat of Summer and increasing during the cool of Winter putting it at odds with the UN IPCC claim that an increase in CO 2 concentration causes a temperature increase.
The annual rate of change of the CO 2 concentration was determined from the interpolated ‘weekly’ time series by taking the difference between values 52 weeks apart and is shown in Figure 2. It displays the estimated annual rate of change of the CO 2 concentration with high frequency noise superimposed on a cyclic pattern with a linear trend of 0.0286 ppm pa per annum. The sequence of maxima and minima match that for the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index (Ref.2).
Figure 2. Mauna Loa annual rate of change of CO 2 concentration.
In order to illustrate the correlation between the two series, Figure 3 shows the detrended Mauna Loa annual rate of change of CO 2 concentration, after smoothing with a low pass filter, overlain on the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index, both covering the same 61 year period.
In considering the relationship between the two series it is necessary to be aware that the Mauna Loa rate of change was derived from a weekly series of measurements taken at a single point on the globe. The Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index is the anomaly in the sea surface temperature relative to a 30 year average over the Equatorial zone between latitudes 5° South to 5° North and longitudes 120° West to 170° West, an area of the central Pacific Ocean of 6,568,670 square kilometres.
The Mauna Loa Observatory is 2,450 km from the centre of the Ninõ 3.4 area, on a bearing of 27.5° East of North.
Figure 3. Overlay of the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index and the Mauna Loa smoothed, detrended CO 2 annual rate of change.
As has been demonstrated in earlier studies of CO 2 data on the accompanying web pages, their seasonal variation has been attributed to biological sources in response to the associated temperature change. Likewise the close correlation between the Mauna Loa CO 2 rate of change and the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index, as shown by the coincidence of the major maxima in Figure 3, is attributed to a biological response to the major, world-wide climate event depicted by the Niño 3.4 Index.
There is a marked negative correlation in the centre of the graph annotated by ‘⇑’ corresponding to the major volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines on 12 June 1991 which significantly altered the relationship between the rate of change of CO 2 and the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index. The eruption caused the rate of change of CO 2 to drop to a minimum as the sea surface temperatures reached a local maximum. The eruption may not have been reflected in the ONI 3.4 sea surface temperatures as Mount Pinatubo is 1675 km North of the Equator.
Autocorrelation Function:
More detail of the source of variation in the CO 2 annual rate of change is shown by its autocorrelation function illustrated in Figure 5. It reveals a clear cyclic pattern based on the El Niño event as shown in the accompanying table listing the correlation maxima, Table 1.
Figure 4. Autocorrelation for CO 2 annual rate of change.
The average from Table 1, column 4, adjusted for the multiple expressions of the El Niño event was 1313 days. The event clearly dominates the CO 2 annual rate of change indicating that this major climate event together with the seasonal weather pattern determines the rate of generation of CO 2 in the Equatorial region. This confirms the earlier proposition that the temperature level determines the rate of change of CO 2 concentration seen in the monthly data for Cape Grim and Macquarie Island stations and Mt Waliguan Observatory described in the analysis of data from each site as reported in the pages of: https://www.climateauditor.com .
Discrete Fourier Transform:
Figure 6 shows the amplitude spectrum from the Discrete Fourier Transform of the interpolated time series for the annual rate of change of the CO2 concentration padded with zeros at each end to give of length of 4096 values. The amplitude scale was clipped to better display the higher frequency, shorter wavelength events so it excludes the maximum of 9.4 at x-coordinate 22, equivalent to a period of 1308 days, which dominated the autocorrelation function. That is the maximum predicted to represent the response to the El Niño event already seen in the autocorrelation function.
Figure 5. DFT Amplitude spectrum of the annual rate of change of CO 2 concentration.
There is a multitude of local maxima in the Amplitude spectrum some of which have been assigned possible sources from the known synodic periods of the Moon and planets within the Solar System, being the time interval between instances of the Sun, Earth and a planet being in alignment.
Average values for these periods have been taken from the publicly available literature but may change with time. The periods drift due to the ever changing configuration of the Solar System and this may contribute to a broadening of the spectral responses. There are other periodic events, such as changes in the ellipticity of the orbits which have not been taken into account in this study.
A list of possible sources is shown in Table 2 for a selection of the peaks in the DFT amplitude spectrum. They are listed by the coordinate on the x axis, in cycles per 4096 weeks, and the amplitude of response with period in years and days for ease of reference to orbital periods of the Moon and planets, e.g. x-coord 2 is 2 cycles in 4096 weeks which is one cycle in 2048 weeks which is a period of 39.38 years or 14,385 days.
Some of these may also relate to the periodicities resulting from the Short-term orbital forcing described in Cionco, R. G., and Soon,W. W.-H.[ Ref. 3 ].
Conclusion:
The major influence on the rate of generation of atmospheric CO 2 in the Equatorial zone has been the El Niño event, that is, climate change causing a change in the rate of generation of CO 2 , the complete opposite to the UN IPCC claim that CO 2 causes climate change. As far as is known, no physical process has been proposed whereby the CO 2 change could cause an El Niño event.
Furthermore it is notable that both the synodic and draconic periods of the Moon are apparent throughout the 62 year weekly series. An explanation for the synodic period is that each New Moon reduces the incoming Sun’s radiation to the Earth and its atmosphere as it passes between the Sun and the Earth. Similar temperature minima must occur when Mercury and/or Venus pass between the Sun and the Earth.
The draconic period is due to the Moon’s elliptical plane being at an angle of 5.14° to the Earth’s elliptic relative to the Sun. As a result, when the Moon passes through one of the two nodal points, where the Moon’s ellipse intersects the Earth’s elliptic, it has the greatest influence in diminishing the irradiation of the Earth which, in turn, reduces the Earth’s surface temperature thereby causing a response in the rate of generation of CO 2 .
Except during a Solar eclipse when the drop in temperature is marked, the passing of the Moon through its nodal points may only causes a minor drop in temperature. In spite of this, there is a measurable effect on the rate of change of CO 2 concentration apparent in the amplitude spectrum implying a significant sensitivity between temperature and CO 2 rate of change. This action appears to have been completely overlooked by the UN IPCC in their assessment of the forces generating the Earth’s climate.
As a number of the spectral maxima approximately correspond with the synodic periods of the Moon and the planets, the results are interpreted as showing that the Sun’s irradiance of the Earth is modulated by the movement of the Moon and planets. This must cause corresponding changes in the Earth’s atmospheric temperature which, in turn, has caused changes in the CO 2 concentration. This is contrary to the never-proven claim by the UN IPCC that increased CO 2 concentration causes an increase in the Earth’s atmospheric temperature.
The IPCC First Assessment Report, 1990, consists of this IPCC Overview, quote:
This Overview reflects the conclusions of the reports of (i) the three IPCC Working Groups on science, impacts, and response strategies, and (ii) the Policymaker Summaries of the IPCC Working Groups and the IPCC Special Committee on the Participation of Developing Countries. Science This section is structured similarly to the Policymaker Summary of Working Group I. 1.0.1 We are certain of the following: There is a natural greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.
Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it. End quote.
Both of the above claims appear to have no scientific basis. The first claim is shown to be untenable in the opening page of this web site, entitled “Greenhouse Effect”. The second claim is also untenable as no could know, to this day, all of the possible sources and sinks for the Earth’s atmospheric CO 2 . To claim that “Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations …” is at odds with the most recent measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory. For the first 12 days of August 2020, the concentration was on average 2.56 ppm greater than for August 2019.
References:
File: weekly_in_situ_co2_mlo.csv for the period 29 March 1958 to 30 May 2020 plus weekly averages of daily data from Twitter at https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ for June, July, August 2020.
Oceanic Nino Index, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
Cionco and Soon, Short-term orbital forcing: A quasi-review and a reappraisal of realistic boundary conditions for climate modeling, Earth-Science Reviews 166 (2017) 206-222, Elsevier B.V.
About the author: Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist, formerly: Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-25--Not Just Vaccines, Bill Gates Secretly Dictates Global Food Policy

Bill Gates has built a global empire around his technologies and “ philanthropic ” endeavors , the magnitude of which is now becoming increasingly clear .
His sheer wealth has allowed him to become a veritable superpower in his own right .
He ’ s not only risen to become the largest funder of the World Health Organization and the unelected global COVID-19 health czar but he ’ s also a secret powerbroker of the global food system .
As revealed in the AGRA Watch report,1 “ The Man Behind the Curtain : The Gates Foundation ’ s Influence on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published August 2020 , Gates wields powerful influence over global food and agriculture policy through his funding of a large number of organizations involved in agricultural development and policy making .
While Gates is just one man , his clout is significantly leveraged and magnified by the fact that he funds such a large number of companies and organizations that can then do his bidding on the sly .
When you see long lists of groups , you automatically think there are many players in the game when , in fact , Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or all of them .
The AGRA Watch report2 makes a perfect case in point with the story of Agnes Kalibata .
Kalibata is the president of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ( AGRA ) , an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation .
In December 2019 , Kalibata was appointed special envoy to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit by the secretary general of the UN , Antonio Guterres .
In response , 176 civil society organizations and farmer groups from 83 countries urged Guterres to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her clear conflicts of interest with corporate actors .
A second statement , signed by more than 500 academics and organizations , also opposed Kalibata ’ s appointment to , and her organization of , the Summit .
That ’ s significant pushback , illustrating there ’ s widespread concern about Kalibata ’ s appointment .
Coming forward in her defense were a dozen individuals representing development banks , academic institutions and the private sector .
They urged Guterres to retain Kalabata , citing her leadership qualities and work ethic , among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defenders , “ 11 had past or current connections to the Gates Foundation , ” AGRA Watch says , adding:3 In other words , while it may look like Kalabata had support from a dozen separate and independent individuals or groups , in reality , there are really only two voices speaking in her defense .
It ’ s just that Gates ’ voice is magnified times 11 .
What ’ s more , his name is never actually mentioned , so to the uninitiated , it would appear he has nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following graphic , included in the AGRA Watch report , illustrates the direct and indirect funding ties between the Gates Foundation and the UN Food Systems Summit ’ s special envoy , Kalibata .
AGRA Watch has raised concerns about the Gates Foundation ’ s influence on the agribusiness for many years .
Gates Foundation Isn ’ t in It to Solve Real-World Problems In its 2014 report,8 “ Three Examples of Problems with Gates Foundation Grants , ” AGRA Watch highlights why Gates ’ massive investments in global food production have failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems we face .
First and foremost , many of the solutions that he backs are “ Band-Aid solutions ” that in fact worsen the root problems .
Examples include the funding of the development of genetically engineered ( GE ) foods designed to be higher in certain nutrients .
The problem is that these crops then end up replacing local diversity with just a few GE varieties that don ’ t even take local conditions into account .
So , by pushing for “ fortified ” crop varieties , malnutrition actually deepens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third problem highlighted in the report is Gates ’ funding of European and American research organizations and scientists rather than African ones , even though the programs are being implemented in Africa .
Additional observations can be found in the AGRA Watch article9 “ Philanthrocapitalism : The Gates Foundation ’ s African Programs Are Not Charity , ” published December 2017 , in which philanthrocapitalism is described as “ an attempt to use market processes to do good , ” but which is inherently problematic “ as markets are ill-suited to producing socially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gates ’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves .
As noted in the article , advocates of philanthrocapitalism : One of the reasons many are now becoming aware of just how powerful Gates has become is because of his frequent appearances as the COVID-19 expert du jour .
It ’ s an odd choice , considering his complete and total lack of formal medical training .
It ’ s particularly perplexing in light of how the opinions of actual medical doctors , award-winning scientists and researchers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the internet .
Gates has repeatedly stated that life can not go back to normal until and unless we vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19 .
This , despite the fact that scientists and medical researchers have discovered a variety of safe , simple and inexpensive strategies to prevent and treat COVID-19 .
The fact that Gates ’ irrational and scientifically unsound opinions are shaping pandemic responses around the globe while real medical professionals are being censored by mainstream media and social media platforms is proof positive that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science and medical truth .
Instead , the whole world is expected to fall into line with the self-serving agenda created by Gates and his many allies in technology and medicine .
In an April 30 , 2020 , GatesNotes post,11,12 Gates even states he “ suspect [ s ] the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule ” — a nice little piece of predictive programming , if you ask me .
Mind you , the mRNA vaccines being developed against COVID-19 will alter your genetic expression , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factory .
Is it really wise to consider using such a novel vaccine on newborns ?
In a sane and rational world , the answer would be a resounding no .
Unfortunately , we now live in a world run by Gates ’ goons , and thus reason and logic have largely vanished from the equation .
In predictable Hegelian dialectic problem-reaction-solution fashion , the problem of COVID-19 led to illogical and ill-conceived pandemic responses such as mask mandates and house arrest of healthy people , followed by the “ ultimate solution ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel mRNA technology .
Radical as all of that may seem , Gates ’ plans for the world do not stop here .
He ’ s also pushing for the implementation of a vast , global surveillance system to track and trace everyone ’ s infection and vaccination status .
He ’ s even funding the contact tracing group Partners in Health , along with George Soros .
( The William J. Clinton Foundation has also funded Partners in Health in the past.13 ) Not surprisingly , Gates ’ recommendations end up benefiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in “ Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History ?
” the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates billions to the very same companies and industries that the Foundation owns stocks and bonds in .
Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you ’ re invested in is illegal , yet he ’ s been getting away with this for many years .
At the same time , his Foundation gets tax breaks for the charitable donations it makes money from .
Remember , he has “ donated ” tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yet his net worth hasn ’ t dropped — it has doubled , and this is largely because his donations are treated as tax deductible investments .
It ’ s philanthrocapitalism at its finest .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Not Just Vaccines, Bill Gates Secretly Dictates Global Food Policy
Written by Dr Mercola
Bill Gates has built a global empire around his technologies and “philanthropic” endeavors, the magnitude of which is now becoming increasingly clear. His sheer wealth has allowed him to become a veritable superpower in his own right.
He’s not only risen to become the largest funder of the World Health Organization and the unelected global COVID-19 health czar but he’s also a secret powerbroker of the global food system.
As revealed in the AGRA Watch report,1 “The Man Behind the Curtain: The Gates Foundation’s Influence on the UN Food Systems Summit,” published August 2020, Gates wields powerful influence over global food and agriculture policy through his funding of a large number of organizations involved in agricultural development and policy making.
Gates-Funded Organizations Defend Gates-Funded UN Envoy
While Gates is just one man, his clout is significantly leveraged and magnified by the fact that he funds such a large number of companies and organizations that can then do his bidding on the sly.
When you see long lists of groups, you automatically think there are many players in the game when, in fact, Gates is the singular thread running through most or all of them. The AGRA Watch report2 makes a perfect case in point with the story of Agnes Kalibata.
Kalibata is the president of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In December 2019, Kalibata was appointed special envoy to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit by the secretary general of the UN, Antonio Guterres.
In response, 176 civil society organizations and farmer groups from 83 countries urged Guterres to withdraw the appointment of Kalibata due to her clear conflicts of interest with corporate actors. A second statement, signed by more than 500 academics and organizations, also opposed Kalibata’s appointment to, and her organization of, the Summit.
The Gates Foundation seeks to exercise influence not only through its funding of projects and shaping of expertise, but also in funding the governance platforms that determine food and agricultural policy. ~ AGRA Watch
That’s significant pushback, illustrating there’s widespread concern about Kalibata’s appointment. Coming forward in her defense were a dozen individuals representing development banks, academic institutions and the private sector.
They urged Guterres to retain Kalabata, citing her leadership qualities and work ethic, among other things. However, of those 12 defenders, “11 had past or current connections to the Gates Foundation,” AGRA Watch says, adding:3
“In some instances, the organizations were directly funded by the Gates Foundation, and in others, the Gates Foundation funded specific programs in which the signers had played roles. One organization was funded by AGRA, which is funded by the Gates Foundation.”
Gates’ Undue Influence Over UN Food Systems Summit
In other words, while it may look like Kalabata had support from a dozen separate and independent individuals or groups, in reality, there are really only two voices speaking in her defense. It’s just that Gates’ voice is magnified times 11. What’s more, his name is never actually mentioned, so to the uninitiated, it would appear he has nothing to do with it at all.
“These findings illustrate the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) on global food and agricultural policy. AGRA Watch has continually documented the role of the BMGF in influencing agricultural development, which has grown immensely in recent years,” AGRA Watch writes.
“The Gates Foundation seeks to exercise influence not only through its funding of projects and shaping of expertise, but also in funding the governance platforms that determine food and agricultural policy. This role of the BMGF in driving policy decisions based on its proprietary and technological model of agricultural development is often overlooked …
In this report, we have demonstrated just some of the connections between the Gates Foundation and those who have supported Kalibata’s appointment as head of the UN Food Systems Summit.
While hundreds of civil society organizations called for her removal, only twelve signatories were willing to support her appointment, almost all of whom were direct beneficiaries of the Gates Foundation. This raises critical questions about the role of Bill Gates in shaping the agenda of the UN Food Systems Summit as well as its outcomes.”
The following graphic, included in the AGRA Watch report, illustrates the direct and indirect funding ties between the Gates Foundation and the UN Food Systems Summit’s special envoy, Kalibata.
Gates Foundation’s Revolving Door to Monsanto
AGRA Watch has raised concerns about the Gates Foundation’s influence on the agribusiness for many years.
For example, among its many research reports4 is the 2010 report “The Revolving Door: Monsanto-Gates Links,”5 which details the direct links between the Gates Foundation and Monsanto representatives Rob Horsch, Florence Wambugu, Don Doering,6 the late Sam Dryden and Lawrence Kent. Another 2010 report, “Gates Foundation Links to Monsanto and GE Crops Development in Kenya,” points out:7 “AGRA Watch formed in 2008 to challenge the Gates Foundation’s participation in the problematic Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and to support sustainable agro-ecological alternatives already practiced in Africa.
We have witnessed acceleration in the push for genetic engineering (GE) as a ‘solution’ to hunger in Africa, a criminalization of GE’s opponents as eco-imperialists unwilling to accept scientific advancements, and a misplaced reverence for philanthropic support for corporate solutions to global food issues. Corporate interests are clearly exhibited in the AGRA agenda, as seen below.”
Gates Foundation Isn’t in It to Solve Real-World Problems
In its 2014 report,8 “Three Examples of Problems with Gates Foundation Grants,” AGRA Watch highlights why Gates’ massive investments in global food production have failed to solve any of the very real problems we face. First and foremost, many of the solutions that he backs are “Band-Aid solutions” that in fact worsen the root problems.
Examples include the funding of the development of genetically engineered (GE) foods designed to be higher in certain nutrients. The problem is that these crops then end up replacing local diversity with just a few GE varieties that don’t even take local conditions into account. So, by pushing for “fortified” crop varieties, malnutrition actually deepens, as biodiversity is reduced.
Secondly, “a stubborn focus on yield” is at odds with research showing that low yield or insufficient production is not causing world hunger. “There is ample evidence today that the problem instead is poverty and lack of access, which is deepened by destruction of local food systems and commercialization of food,” AGRA Watch notes, adding: “Grants by the Gates’ Foundation and AGRA continue to focus on yield, priming Africa for a system suited to the needs of the profit-seeking, yield-oriented commercial farmer rather than the peasant or small farmer producing diverse crops for a local community.”
A third problem highlighted in the report is Gates’ funding of European and American research organizations and scientists rather than African ones, even though the programs are being implemented in Africa.
According to AGRA Watch, “This may not be a result of conscious intentions but of a deeply embedded structural bias that casts African scientists and scientific institutions as not qualified or legitimate enough to receive grant funding.”
Gates’ Specialty: Philanthrocapitalism
Additional observations can be found in the AGRA Watch article9 “Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity,” published December 2017, in which philanthrocapitalism is described as “an attempt to use market processes to do good,” but which is inherently problematic “as markets are ill-suited to producing socially constructive ends.”
Put another way, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves. As noted in the article, advocates of philanthrocapitalism:
“… often expect financial returns or secondary benefits over the long term from their investments in social programs. Philanthropy becomes another part of the engine of profit and corporate control. The Gates Foundation’s strategy for ‘development’ actually promotes neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalization:
‘It is … likely that Bill Gates, who has regular access to world leaders and is in effect personally bankrolling hundreds of universities, international organizations, NGOs and media outlets, has become the single most influential voice in international development.
Closer examination of the BMGF is critical given that its influence is vast, indeed greater than most donor governments. The BMGF provides more aid to global health than any country donor and is the fifth largest donor to agriculture in developing countries.
In 2013, only 11 countries spent more on aid than the BMGF, making it the world’s 12th largest donor. The Gates Foundation has become a bigger donor than countries such as Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ireland and Italy.’10“
Gates’ Medical Plan: Global Immunization and Surveillance
One of the reasons many are now becoming aware of just how powerful Gates has become is because of his frequent appearances as the COVID-19 expert du jour. It’s an odd choice, considering his complete and total lack of formal medical training. It’s particularly perplexing in light of how the opinions of actual medical doctors, award-winning scientists and researchers who conflict with his views are being scrubbed off the internet.
Gates has repeatedly stated that life cannot go back to normal until and unless we vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19. This, despite the fact that scientists and medical researchers have discovered a variety of safe, simple and inexpensive strategies to prevent and treat COVID-19.
The fact that Gates’ irrational and scientifically unsound opinions are shaping pandemic responses around the globe while real medical professionals are being censored by mainstream media and social media platforms is proof positive that we’re no longer operating from a base of science and medical truth.
Instead, the whole world is expected to fall into line with the self-serving agenda created by Gates and his many allies in technology and medicine. In an April 30, 2020, GatesNotes post,11,12 Gates even states he “suspect[s] the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule” — a nice little piece of predictive programming, if you ask me.
Mind you, the mRNA vaccines being developed against COVID-19 will alter your genetic expression, turning your body into a viral protein factory. Is it really wise to consider using such a novel vaccine on newborns? In a sane and rational world, the answer would be a resounding no. Unfortunately, we now live in a world run by Gates’ goons, and thus reason and logic have largely vanished from the equation.
In predictable Hegelian dialectic problem-reaction-solution fashion, the problem of COVID-19 led to illogical and ill-conceived pandemic responses such as mask mandates and house arrest of healthy people, followed by the “ultimate solution” of a hastily thrown together vaccine using novel mRNA technology.
Radical as all of that may seem, Gates’ plans for the world do not stop here. He’s also pushing for the implementation of a vast, global surveillance system to track and trace everyone’s infection and vaccination status. He’s even funding the contact tracing group Partners in Health, along with George Soros. (The William J. Clinton Foundation has also funded Partners in Health in the past.13)
Not surprisingly, Gates’ recommendations end up benefiting himself most of all. As discussed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates billions to the very same companies and industries that the Foundation owns stocks and bonds in.
Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you’re invested in is illegal, yet he’s been getting away with this for many years. At the same time, his Foundation gets tax breaks for the charitable donations it makes money from.
Remember, he has “donated” tens of billions of dollars over the years, yet his net worth hasn’t dropped — it has doubled, and this is largely because his donations are treated as tax deductible investments. It’s philanthrocapitalism at its finest.
Read more at www.wakingtimes.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related