Chris Morrison — The Daily Sceptic March 3, 2023
Billions of people around the world face starvation if Net Zero policies ban the production of nitrogen fertiliser derived from fossil fuels. This is the stark warning from two top American scientists who say that eliminating fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides “will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat”. They add that eliminating Net Zero fertiliser will create “worldwide starvation”.
In a wide-ranging paper titled ‘Challenging ‘Net Zero’ with Science‘, Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively, along with geologist Gregory Wrightstone, state that Net Zero – the global movement to eliminate fossil fuels and its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – to be “scientifically invalid and a threat to the lives of billions of people”.
The battle over nitrogen fertiliser is being hard fought by green activists who argue for massive reductions in its use and more organic methods to be mandated. This can extend to fanaticism, as marked by the Guardian’s George Monbiot who argues for an end to dependence on farming. The ground for less choice and food is also being prepared in academia. Recently, three barking academics operating through the University of Leeds suggested World War II rationing could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Also harking back to the days of spam and when spivs controlled parts of the supply chain was the actress Joanna Lumley, who has suggested a return to a points distribution system and a form of wartime rationing.
Back on Planet Reality, the authors publish the graph below showing a “remarkable” increase in crop yields after the widespread use of nitrogen fertiliser began around 1950.
Increase in crop yields since the introduction of nitrogen based feritilizers. Click to enlarge
The authors make a general point that any present or future Government actions that omit analysis of the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 to Net Zero for low income people, people worldwide, future generations and the United States, “is fatally flawed science and appalling government policy”.
Happer and Lindzen state that they are career physicists who have specialised in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades. These are said to be integral to atmospheric climate science. In their opinion, all Net Zero regulations are scientifically invalid. In summary they state the science is based on fabricated data that omit figures that contradict their conclusions, for example, on extreme weather. In addition, climate models “do not work”, while IPCC findings are “government opinions, not science”. Furthermore the “extraordinary” social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels are omitted, and any science that demonstrates there is no catastrophic risk of global warming is ignored.
Numerous examples are supplied. The authors quote Professor Steven Koonin, a former Under-Secretary of Science for President Obama, as noting in his recent book Unsettled, that, “observations extending back over a century indicate that most types of extreme weather events don’t show any significant change”. Koonin is said to show “multiple egregious examples” of both fabricating data and omitting contradictory data on extreme weather in the U.S. Government Fourth Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) of 2017. The report claims that there were marked changes in temperature extremes across the U.S. The number of high temperature records set in the past two decades “far exceeds” the number of low temperature records, it claims.
The CSSR presented the chart above with the alarmist heading. The chart is said to be a textbook example of fabricating data. It does not provide data, but an unusual ratio of record highs to lows. Click to enlarge
John Christy is a professor of atmospheric science and the Alabama State Climatologist. He complied the graph below showing the percentage of US weather stations that exceeded 100°F at nearly 1,000 stations across the country.
Koonin summaries the evidence on extreme temperatures by noting: “The annual number of high temperature records set shows no significant trend over the past century, nor over the past 40 years”. Happer and Lindzen observe a downward trend in high temperatures over nearly 100 years, while CO2 emissions have risen, and “respectfully suggest” that every agency analysing heat waves and high temperatures “has the scientific obligation to apply the scientific method to contradictory facts and avoid fabricating facts”.
Koonin notes that the CSSR graph with its alarming heading is a “textbook example of fabricating data”. The CSSR chart does not provide temperature data but the “unusual ratio” of record highs to lows. It is “shockingly misleading”, he says. These things matter, concludes Koonin. The false notion of more frequent U.S. high temperatures is likely to “pollute” subsequent reports. It should also matter to those who proclaim the “unimpeachable authority of assessment reports”, including the media, which give voice to such misleading conclusions.
The authors are distinctly unimpressed with the work of the United Nations IPCC. They note the process of compiling reports is governed by two rules – all Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) are approved line by line by member governments, and these SPMs override any inconsistent conclusions scientists write for IPCC reports.
Late last year, Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the United Nations, told a World Economic Forum ‘disinformation’ seminar that “we own the science” around climate change. We think the world should know it, she continued, so we partnered with Google to ensure only UN results appear at the top. Happer and Lindzen quote the late Nobel physics laureate Richard Feynman who said: “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.” They add: “The legitimacy of scientific content is determined by the scientific method. None of the IPCC SPMs, models, scenarios and other findings asserting that dangerous climate warming is caused by CO2, greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel is valid science; they are merely the opinions of IPCC governments.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic‘s Environment Editor.
I was watching Bald & Bankrupt yesterday. He was in Boggata (Columbia) and much of the city looks as bad, if not worse than a typical African city. He spoke to two ladies/girls from Venezuela. Back home, the had to manage on $3 dollars per month. If they are making more money in Columbia, it won’t be much more.
Why has Venezuela been turned into a shit hole, because the US decided it to be so. I can hear the cries, they are commies, they are socialists, and we have our own contributors on this site who could and would justify any tyrannical actions by the Nazi NWO sect as completely justified, becauae some think tank tw@t said so.
Bald says Venezuela is worse than Columbia, and yet, while Bald copes, puts a smile on his face and blags his way through. This is the first time I think he was actually scared, so he fled with worse parts of Boggata.
The NWO states rant about sex trafficking, but there are far worse things going on in countries that they deliberately trashed. Girls literally flooding the streets with everything hanging out. I saw similar in Spain after 2008 where you’d be driving and every 500m you’d see a woman, or a girl standing on the side of the road looking for you know what.
The shortage of fertilisers will take years to sink in, but in Russia, China, and India, there won’t be any change, well, not for a long time, and far worse things will kick in before then.
Within 2/3 years, the US will be spending more on servicing the interest on its debts, than it does on the US military.
The head of the BofE, crook Andrew Bailey says inflation may have peaked. Inflation by the best official indicator is over 17%, and if scumbag Bailey was serious about inflation, interest rates should be over 17%, but heck, that would destroy the property market, which is the UK economy.
So we’ll have high inflation for years to come, higher pay packets and a £ which will fall in value. This is why the UK will soon be poorer than Portugal. The other day, Nazi Party leader in waiting said ‘we will soon be poorer than Poland’, Poland has better healthcare than bankrupt Britain, and better roads.
BTW, no FOI reply so far from the Home Office about ‘Secret NHS wards treating UKrainian Nazis.’ So I will be chasing this one up.
“When scientific knowledge and applied technology reach a critical level of advancement without being informed by spiritual truths and guided by moral authority, this planetary civilization will cease to exist as it is. Once certain thresholds are crossed into forbidden areas of dangerous scientific pursuit and technological development the destiny of the human race will be abruptly and forever altered.” ~ Cosmic Convergence Research Group
Of course some people somewhere benefit when humanity is left to rot in the morass of backwardness and undue poverty on this wondrous planet of plenty and endless abundance but the miserly advocates of thrift would have none of it even if they benefit financially from the same system they deceptively appear to oppose. Take the so called ‘fossil fuel’ forms of energy which has been made for the entire world to be addicted to which it relies on as if there are no other alternatives, We have all heard of exotic devices that work on different physical principles and have even seen some in demonstration operation but never heard about them again. Did you know that the patents office will never patent any device that contradicts or that does not conform to prevailing physics even if it rally works? Conversely it can patent a device that does not work also. Our world had been made to rely on only one form of energy and that is the ‘fossil fuel’ and anyone who comes with alternate means of generating energy gets hammered down like the nail that stands out. Many inventors have been killed and many more others have learned to shut their mouths. The forces that decry ‘fossil fuel’ are the same forces that suppress alternate energies and the reason for this is for selfish financial gain and the preservation of unearned power.
Most inventors whose devices we are using today did so not for financial ends but for their love for humanity and others to create novel objects as their gifts to The Creator but the middle-men would have none of that and control they did impose.
We had people who divined how to generate forms of power from the kinetic speed of the planet as it revolves around its star and others who could generate power from the acceleration of gravity. There were others who could generate power even from the empty firmaments of space, the null-point forms of energy but so long as mankind forgets that love being highest form of power and that without which no means of power ever given to mankind would benefit it but will become toys that mankind will use to destroy itself.
The advocates against CO2 and all its essential and beneficial manifestations do not come with any solution to the problem given that the least they can do would be to re-appraise the existing electrical grid and its apparatus and look at it from the modern point of view. Did you know that it has not undergone any meaningful modifications since its early inventions? For instance they could take the existing AC power and make it as a pulsating unidirectional (DC with AC components) form of energy being run at some resonant frequency and maybe they could figure out a few things from there like the reduction of reactance. Or as proposed by others that we can generate more electrical energy from the kinetic energy of running rivers than we can from water-head from a dam. Producing more by using less.
Many almost magical technologies that would profoundly change the world we live in already exist the only problem is we are not ready for any of it due to our collective insatiable selfishness and greed and the prime absence of love in our lives.
The clever White Man has fed billions of people, but some Whites or Jews don’t like this; the Blacks wish they could kill each other faster too, while some parts of the Scum want only Africans in Europe, like a bull in a china shop. I am not concerned about any need to feed more Tropical cretins
me no kai kai kranka man !
I dont eat sick longpig !
papua pitgin
Net Zero policies are utter insanity by the political class. Forcing farms to close in some vain attempt to slightly reduce the atmospheric concentration of a trace gas, because you have a faulty religious like belief that CO2 or NO2 are causing global warming is utter insanity.
CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere, ice core data shows. But because of media propaganda spread by the electronic television device, the vast majority of people believe something wrongly. This, of course, also happens in religion, so a comparison is a good way to see how it works.
Caveman Shaman says Trog was killed by the lightning bolt because God was angry with him, God judged him. Thousands of years later, the sky god religion has evolved with the addendum that to beat God’s judgment after death, you must believe in God’s son. So men build huge churches and worship the sky God family every Sunday so as not to be judged and sent to hell.
Obviously, as a modern human with scientific understanding of weather, Trog was not killed by God, Trog just happened to be unlucky and was on top of the hill during a thunderstorm. Being at the highest point, the electrical discharge went through his body and killed him.
And as a reasonable person, you can deduce that the religion of worshipping the sky god was formed by an erroneous interpretation of the data. In fact a person not under the spell of the holy book which recorded the superstitions of cave man, would deduce that worshipping the sky god does nothing, has no effect of afterlife, nor is there any afterlife since the whole shebang was superstition and nonsense from Genesis to Revelations. But no matter, people want to believe so the sky god worship continues.
Likewise, modern man is under the mass superstition of CO2 causing earth warming. This erroneous mass belief was formed from the mass viewing of the Al Gore’s movie, the Earth Unbalanced like Al Gore’s brain, in this movie, Al Gore gets on a fork lift and points to rising CO2 which he says will cause rising temperature. But Al Gore was wrong, Al Gore was not trained in science and has no degree in climatology. In fact Al Gore never took a single collegiate science course, so when it comes to this topic, Al Gore is a dunce.
But no matter, the people want to believe, and thus in our culture the belief in runaway warming is as concrete, Satan’s spell can not be broken, and thus the entire culture is engaged in mass insanity and trying to reduce warming gases to net zero. The temperature on earth will follow it’s normal natural cycle regardless of human belief. So if we are in an ice age, and at the tail end of the interglacial, temperatures will continue to fall regardless of what we believe.
Fact #1 – Any climate scientist who is honest knows that CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels to cause climate change or global warming is nothing but hooey, and therefore an establishment pretext for something else, be it the UN-WEF-NWO stuff or simply for the elites to glom on to more control over such natural resources.
Fact #2 – The pretense that the Western establishment and their oil giant corporations are cooperating to ban fossil fuels is intended to cajole the public and nations such as Iran and Venezuela with vast oil reserves that in the NWO matrix to come oil will be replaced. The last thing they want are such resources held and controlled by nations not in their control.
Fact #3- Food shortages from restrictions on fossil fuel fertilizers based on the false pretext in #1, and based on the greed of Western moguls as in #2, become powerful joint pretexts to centralize controls over such resources by the globalists according to their UN-WEF-NWO plans, while also feeding the elites more of the Malthusian horsepucky of the apocalypse with the threat of a world famine on account of there allegedly being too many people for the food supply, which is another of their pretexts to centralizes controls over every aspect of our lives.
Conclusion – Instead of us eating all of their toxic substances and having to die according to their modeling, it is clearly they who must die according to our modelling that they are liars and murderers.
CO2 ideology is a Rothschild business construkt .
Julia Neubauer (neurothschild) + greta thunfish
are his public relation + advertising agents . dont
know why he selected CO2 while Methane is
much more damaging for klimate . billions of
cowfarts per hour from Nordstream + Siberian
Methne craters !
Clearly this crapola is to force us “little people” to eat bugs or fake meat or starve or whatever…but these folks are beyond psychopath–they do know (well, maybe they do) that PLANTS rely heavily on CO2….to, you know, give off O2? But I guess all these beyond psychopathics will become transhumans who won’t need oxygen to breathe…nor will “the Borg” that serves them I suppose. So, you psychos who are really idiots, kill off plants most animals and humans rely on as you kill off most animals and real humans, the kill off oxygen to kill off the rest of us, but that’s okay, because don’t machines also rely on fossil fuels? You know, machines that become “the Borg” and allow you to become transhuman? I’d like to pull a “bwahahahahahahahahahahh” here but you psychos aren’t worth the laugh….
In case you have no sensory apparatus, no memory of what the climate was like say, 40 yrs ago (youngsters have an excuse)…and never question anything so therefore never researched the solar minimum mini ice age we are entering right now…………………….
At least half the world will starve by 2030 when it hits in force,,,due to this anyways.
If you want a read on how utterly stupid it is to build carbon sequestration devices because we have to save the planet from our sins of burning fossil fuels, let us examine a previous age in which man engaged in equally insane behavior for centuries.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=carbon+sequestration+devices&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
In the age of faith, European tribes built huge cathedrals dedicated to their belief in god. I like them, and have sat in a few meditating, and on a hot summer day they are place of refugee, especially in a noisy city teaming with violent simians. But do cathedrals save us from sin and god’s wrath?
Were cathedrals necessary to get into heaven? Did building any church ever help man get one step further to heaven? I say they did nothing at all. Why would I say such a blasphemous thing? Because I know for a fact that religion is based on superstitious cave man reasoning, which was based on faulty data processing. For instance lightning bolts are not from Zeus. God is not angry with us. God does not judge us. And the big one that will floor you, “sin” does not exist. There is no such thing as sin in physics, sin only exists as a metaphysical concept in religion.
SIN DOES NOT EXIST, IF YOU THINK SO, PROVE IT
CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE RUNAWAY WARMING, IF YOU THINK SO, PROVE IT
Likewise, CO2 does not warm the planet. That is a belief, not founded on evidence, just like sin, which is not based on evidence, but base on guilt tripping for control. CO2, like sin, is being used to control you. Since you exhale CO2, you are a polluter (sinner). Since CO2 is bad, you must stop making CO2 (stop sinning).
Like sin, CO2 is invisible. You can not detect it with your senses. You can not see sin and you can not see CO2 molecules. Thus it is easy for the controller to make things up about sin and CO2 to control you. Since you can not detect it or tell what it is doing, it becomes a manipulation in a world of make believe. No scientist can prove that CO2 is warming the earth, and most climate scientists will tell that it doesn’t.
But what does Al Gore say? He said just a month ago that CO2 was boiling the oceans. Do you believe him? What about the priest who says sin on your soul will make you burn in hell forever and ever? Do you believe him?
——————–
“I listen to all these complaints about rudeness and intemperateness, and the opinion that I come to is that there is no polite way of asking somebody: have you considered the possibility that your entire life has been devoted to a delusion? But that’s a good question to ask. Of course we should ask that question and of course it’s going to offend people. Tough.” ― Daniel C. Dennett
——————
These buildings were built to a great folly of mankind, based on belief not evidence:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=cathedrals+of+the+world&iax=images&ia=images