Globalists Switching Gears: Royal Society Lecturer Says CO2 Not Effecting Earth’s Temperature 4

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 20, 2012

Fritz Vahrenholt, a German green energy investor, says he has reassessed his position on man-made climate change.

Vahrenholt has been a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg since 2009. He served as a senator for the environment in Hamburg, Germany between 1991 and 1997, and was a member of the “sustainability advisory board” to chancellor Schröder and Merkel in 2001 to 2007.

Speaking at the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society in London, Vahrenholt was representing RWE Innogy , one of Europe’s largest renewable energy corporations.

Vahrenholt, who reviewed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most recent report on renewable energy, noticed that there was an obvious lack of scientific data to support their assertions. A prominent member of Greenpeace, a UN propaganda arm disguised as a proponent of environmental concern, edited the final version of the IPCC’s report.

The IPCC’s report, according to Vahrenholt, is littered with falsities and a complete disregard for natural factors that would be considered in fluctuating climate such as Earth’s.

Vahrenholt states that: “Real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonized and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2.”

The late Gerard Bond, marine geologist and professor from Columbia University, analyzed climate reconstructions of the North American deep-sea sediment cores, found that “the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long.”

Bond surmised through decades of research that variations in solar activity – the appearance of sunspots and changes in the emission of solar radiation – were directly causing palatable effects on the Earth’s global temperature. The heating and cooling of the Earth coincided with the activity of the sun.

The sun determines the Earth’s temperature, as proven from real-world observations over the past 10,000 years.

With the introduction of man-made carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beginning in the 1850’s, the CO2 level has only risen 11 percent; which is nearly negligible.

Empirical data has shown that pre-industrial carbon emissions were dependent on solar activity. This global warming was estimated by scientists as 1 degree Celsius. As far as the IPCC is concerned, this statistic could, and has, been manipulated to justify their agenda. However the account of the solar magnetic fields doubling over the last 100 years was completely ignored because it disavowed their scheme to blame carbon dioxide levels on human influences.

Solar activity, CO2 levels and Earth’s surface temperature are interlaced factors defining climate parameters. As modern man has been using fossil fuels which disburse carbon dioxide, it made perfect sense for the IPCC to turn this obvious fact into an attack on man through fear-mongering and propaganda while suppressing natural processes.

The infamous computer models used by the IPCC to justify their claims that CO2 levels are a direct causation of anthropogenic impact and regard solar influence as negligible. The IPCC inserts an “unknown amplifying mechanism” to explain away observed solar activity and its effect on the Earth’s overall temperature.

Henrik Svensmark , a Danish physicist, has devised a computer model that takes into account the sun’s direct influence on the Earth. While his research is still in its infancy, the projections promise to clarify how much of an influence the sun truly has.

Vanrenholt asks: “The IPCC’s current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?”

Considering how weak an influence CO2 is on the climate, as observational data concludes that it would only generate “a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2”, the IPCC’s assumptions are over-blown. They fail to include water vapor and cloud effects which intensify solar amplification. CO2 needs an amplifier to become the aggressive agitator that the IPCC would have everyone believe.

The alarmist assertions that temperatures will rise to 4.5 degrees Celsius by a magically doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is scientifically unfounded.
The solar magnetic field patterns have lowered significantly in the past 150 years, resulting in an obvious de-intensification to be observed in the decades ahead. In reality this would mean that global warming would stop and gradually reverse by 2030 to 2040.

This fact proves the IPCC’s assertions to be completely false.

A global climatic catastrophe that the IPCC claims is coming is not. And the scientific community’s efforts are being wasted in the propaganda of an overheated planet, when they should be working toward understanding how Earth is affected by its solar environment with an impartial and open mind.
To fully understand these implications:

  1. Comprehensive research must be attributed to natural climate drivers
  2. The warming “trend”, if viewed as a pause in the temperature of the Earth, could give us “time to convert our energy supply in a planned and sustainable way”

In the UK and Germany, major efforts by the government have been taken to utilize sustainable energy with the advent of wind turbines and solar panels that not only cut economic costs in the long run, but fully utilize the potentials of our natural resources while facilitating the continuance of our modern lifestyle.

In Germany, solar energy is replacing nuclear as the nation plans to shut down all nuclear reactors by 2022.

The solar power delivered to the German national grid is 50% of the nation’s total energy quota, said the director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry .

The German government has invested quite a bit of money in restructuring their nation’s energy infrastructure in an attempt to move away from nuclear energy. They can currently generate over 4% of their energy needs from solar power.

The German government will also invest in wind and bio-mass as alternative forms of renewable energy.

While exposures like Climategate and the advent of skeptics to man’s direct causation to the ups and downs in the Earth’s temperature, the global Elite and their front for one world government, the UN, have hit a road block. Scientific proof of their assertions.

Perhaps Vahrenholt’s appearance at the globalist think-tank, the Royal Society, is a proof that they are beginning to alter their tactics. If fearing the public by decrying global catastrophes due to man-made global warming is no longer effective, then it might be that the global Elites are shifting their public agenda, inventing more subversive propaganda that appears to support renewable energy.

4 comments

  1. Here is some more input on Fritz Varenholt:

    http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2012/02/08/fritz-varenholt-german-electric-utility-executivei-feel-duped-on-climate-change/

    Some quotes:

    1. “It hasn’t gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that.”

    Question from WH:

    Perhaps established climate science hasn’t come up with an answer to that. Have the ETC group and chemtrails activists come up with an answer to that through their references to “solar radiation management”???? (i.e. the spraying of aerosols from aircraft)

    2. “The last sunspot cycle was weaker than the one before it. This is why the sun’s magnetic field has continued to weaken since 2000. As a result, this magnetic field doesn’t shield us against cosmic radiation quite as well, which in turn leads to stronger cloud formation and, therefore, cooling.”

    Question from WH:

    “Is the stronger cloud formation, and therefore cooling, entirely to the lower levels of shielding from cosmic radiation, or is it due ( or also due) to spraying from aerosols from aircraft?”

    3. “You will find many correlations between cloud cover and cosmic radiation in the book.”

    Question from WH:
    How much is the discussion on correlations between cloud cover and cosmic radiation a scientific discussion and how much is it a politically motivated distractor/red herring??

    4. “My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared to pay higher electricity costs for wind and solar.”

    Question from WH:

    What will happen if/when citizens also discover that “rebels” like Mr. Varenholt are only telling half the truth, or less than half the truth, also? Is it too much to hope that all these participants on ALL SIDES of the climate change debate will at some point cease hiding behind their own index fingers and start engaging with what is being said by the “conspiracy theorists”? Or even by the geoengineering advocates and opponents?

    • Excellent…All the players are still hedging for position instead of the truth. The Church of Global Warming is a dogma with more persistence than the religious radical right.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s