George Soros gave Ivanka's husband's business a $250 million credit line in 2015 per WSJ. Soros is also an investor in Jared's business.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Lead author of 6 yr. study doubts current CO2 measurements are accurate for small-scale regions, 'probably' accurate globally

"Coal and oil contain far less carbon-14 than is contained in the CO2 produced by life today."

4/20/12, "CO2 from fossil fuels discerned from natural sources," BBC

"Researchers have demonstrated a way of distinguishing between carbon dioxide in the air coming from fossil fuel burning and that from natural sources.

It measures one type, or isotope, of carbon that decays over time - long since gone from fossil fuels.

As explained in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the method may prove useful in CO2 monitoring efforts.

However, experts say that the approach must be calibrated against existing carbon-measuring techniques.

The research was led by scientists from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in the US, who studied six years' worth of atmospheric sampling data gathered by aircraft over two sites in the northeastern US.

The team focused on the rare isotope carbon-14, which is constantly produced in tiny amounts in the atmosphere when cosmic rays hit nitrogen atoms, and which decays away over thousands of years.

Buried away for millions of years underground, fossil fuels contain virtually no carbon-14; and neither does the CO2 emitted when the fuels burn.

But CO2 coming from plants does contain carbon-14.

That difference that showed up in the team's atmospheric samples as a ratio of natural, "biogenic" CO2 to fossil fuel CO2.

The trick could complement existing carbon accounting methods used to monitor how much CO2 countries and regions are producing, principal among them the self-reporting of fossil fuel usage.

"While the accounting-based approach is probably accurate at global scales, the uncertainties rise for smaller-scale regions," said the Earth System Research Laboratory's John Miller, lead author of the study.

"And as CO2 emissions targets become more widespread, there may be a greater temptation to under-report. But we'll be able to see through that."

However, the method may not stretch down to a level of geographic detail that is increasingly important for single CO2 sources such as power plants.

"Other types of physical measurement (of CO2 levels) are being driven by emissions trading,"...

  • [Ed. note: Trillions of dollars in 'emissions trading' profits certainly provide "temptation" for governments to skew reports, no? Who's going to challenge them?]

(continuing, BBC): "and I'm not sure how far this would be able to extend to application at the individual site and installation level," said Jane Burston, head of the Centre for Carbon Measurement at the UK's National Physical Laboratory.

The centre's head of emissions Rod Robinson explained that much work needs to be done to validate the assumptions of the method and ensure it gives similar quality results as existing physical and accounting measurements.

Nevertheless, Ms Burston said the method would be a valuable tool in the quest to understand fully how carbon is released and distributed.

"For things like CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the best way of going about it is just getting as many measurements as you can from the ground, from the atmosphere, and from satellites," she told BBC News.

"The more measurements we have from different sources, the more accurate we can make them all.""

=================

Ed. note: Conclusion: Aside from whether CO2 is about to end humanity, this report says current measurement methods aren't reliable, that there are different kinds of CO2, distinctions between or among which haven't accurately been made so far in CO2 numbers being put out (by those who stand to gain financially , ie. governments, banks, hedge funds), that current measures "probably" are accurate globally but not so on smaller geographic areas. The lead author of the study says current methods "probably" aren't accurate. He's risking his job, saying it's likely a multi-trillion dollar mistake has taken place around criminalizing of CO2 or at least in the degree to which it has been used to hijack civilization. If the NY Times made this a front page headline and stuck to it the entire 'climate' industry would crash. So it won't do that.

The article mentions the 'emissions trading' industry's interest in the 'number.' Ultimately it doesn't matter what 'the science' says since 'the science' and distribution of certain results are paid for by governments and/or activists with enormous political and financial interest in a particular outcome that's 'too big to fail.'

===================

Governments count on global warming receivables to pay day to day expenses.

5/30/11, "Exclusive: EU energy plan threatens carbon billions," Reuters, Pete Harrison

"The Europe Union's carbon market could be flooded with excess pollution permits over the next decade, cutting prices in half and depriving governments of billions in budgeted revenues, EU sources say....

It is not clear, however, whether European governments will support measures that would erode carbon prices, which would put a severe dent in budgeted government revenues in 2013-2020."...

===================

The more parties invest in the climate industry, "the less willing they are to tolerate dissent on the issue."

11/25/2009, "Global warming industry becomes too big to fail," Timothy Carney, Washington Examiner

"I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK -- looking promising," wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, "so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases."

Manning's e-mail, written in October to a colleague at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit, was one of the thousands of private communiques exposed to public view by a whistleblower or a hacker. The note and others like it reveal the intriguing relationship between industry giants like Siemens and the scientists driving climate change fears. More importantly, though, Manning's e-mail shows the incentives of climate scientists: Convince people there is a climate disaster coming,

Manning and the warming crowd benefit from a beautiful feedback loop: The more governments, businesses, and media outlets you can convince that man-made global warming is a serious threat, the more these institutions will invest in climate change studies, solutions, and policies. And the more they invest in combating global warming -- whether it's a newspaper hiring a climate reporter, a company buying emissions credits and alternative energy sources, or a government building a climate lab -- the less willing they are to tolerate dissent on the issue.

So the warming crowd, these e-mails show us, suffers from the same conflicts of interest and profit motives that are frequently attributed to skeptics. When Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, Gore charged that global warming deniers were trying to protect profits. Gore quoted fabled muckraker Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it."

Climate scientists derive both their sense of purpose and their paychecks from a perceived climate crisis. We shouldn't be surprised, then, to see them putting their pet cause ahead of scientific standards. For instance, climate scientist Giorgio Filippo in a 2000 e-mail wrote about the drafting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment of climate research: "Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent, which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."

These are the scientists who drive climate policy.

Some critics writing about the leaked e-mails say they expose a "fraud," a "hoax," and a conspiracy. The warming crowd claim that everything is being taken out of context.

But Manning's e-mail cannot be ignored, because it is self-evidently true. If the catastrophic-man-made-climate-change hypothesis melted down, these scientists would lose their funding....

And scientists aren't the only ones with skin in the game. Take manufacturing and transportation giant Siemens, for instance, whom Manning was wooing. In 2006, the company joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has been a key lobbyist for the sort of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme at the heart of the climate bill currently before Congress. Siemens and other members of USCAP have invested billions in buying up greenhouse gas credits, alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, and carbon capture and sequestration (the attempt to trap CO2 underground). E-mails show CRU scientists pushing corporate donors to fund their climate science as a way of advancing carbon capture.

Governments have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into climate research. News organizations have staked their credibility on the claim that climate science is "settled." With all this on the line for scientists, media, business, and government, are we really going to let some contrary data get in the way?

The leaked e-mails don't necessarily show a conspiracy, but they do show that the industry built upon belief in man-made global warming




.

No comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of a World War II Air Force pilot and outdoorsman who settled in New Jersey.