Chapter 11
Conclusions

11.1 Concluding Remarks

We promised in the introduction, this book will have conclusions that are unlike any of the ones made before. Before, we show major conclusions under each of the chapters, it is important to recall the state of the art of climate change research. It will help the readership to understand the hopelessness of the current thrust both from the 97% left and 3% right. Table 11.1 shows major conclusions, compiled from Parry et al. (2007) and other IPCC publications. Comments are added in order to familiarize the readership with the conclusions of this book. The conclusions of Table 11 have been supported by the 97% consensus group through numerous research projects and voluminous annals of publications.

Table 11.1 Major conclusions from the ‘97% consensus’ camp.

Major conclusions of IPCC Comment
89% of 29,000 environment data series support global warming Most data are terrestrial, concentrated on Europe and North America.
Global warming led to greatest reduction in ice extent that occurred in the Arctic, but some of the most obvious has been in tropical mountain environments such as on Mt Kilimanjaro. Conclusion invalid unless global warming is the first premise.
The oceans have become increasingly acidic with an average pH reduction of 0.1. Has no scientific validity whatsoever

The most vulnerable systems and sectors are:

  • Some ecosystems, especially tundra, boreal forest, mountain, Mediterranean-type ecosystems, mangroves and salt marshes, coral reefs and the sea ice biomes;
  • Low-lying coasts, due to the threat of sea-level rise;
  • Water resources in low-latitude regions, due to decreases in rainfall and higher rates of evapotranspiration;
  • Agriculture in low-latitude regions, due to reduced water availability; and
  • Human health, especially in areas with low adaptive capacity.
  • These are also the regions with least recorded data
  • Predictions, based on models that are inherently flawed.
  • Extension to human health and adaptive capacity has no scientific basis

The most vulnerable regions are:

  • The Arctic, because of high rates of projected warming on sensitive natural systems;
  • Africa, especially the sub-Saharan region, because of low adaptive capacity and projected changes in rainfall;
  • Small islands, due to high exposure of population and infrastructure to risk of sea-level rise and increased storm surge; and
  • Asian megadeltas, such as the Ganges-Brahmaputra and the Zhujiang, due to large populations and high exposure to sea-level rise, storm surge and river flooding.
  • Conclusions based on mathematical modeling, based on flawed premises.
There are very likely to be impacts due to altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, climate and sea-level events This is not a scientific conclusion, it is a speculation that would fit the premise every major natural event emerges from manmade activities
Some large-scale climate events have the potential to cause very large impacts, especially after the 21st century Absolutely useless and jejune statement of the obvious
The overall effect of climate change will be negative This is not a conclusion, it is merely setting the false paradigm for a climate change agenda
Adaptation will be necessary to address impacts resulting from the warming which is already unavoidable, due to past emissions This is preparing the public to spend on Adaptation projects and has no scientific backing
Even if emissions were stabilized now, global temperatures would increase on average by a further 0.6 °C by 2100. Furthermore, some current targets to reduce emissions assume a global average temperature increase of about 1.5 °C above present (i.e., 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures). This is retrofitting DICE results that are decades old, long before the Climate data were collected.
Some adaptation is occurring now, but on a limited basis, and more is needed to reduce vulnerability to climate change Totally unscientific and illogical conclusion. Adaptation is a phenomenon that needs generations of studies – generations of humans as well as trees.
Vulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated by the presence of other stresses, including water extraction, commercial deforestation First time a connection to overall industrial practices being made, albeit obliquely
Future vulnerability depends not only on climate change but also on development pathway This is nothing for pandering for more funds for development agencies so they can ‘civilize’ the third world.
Sustainable development may reduce vulnerability to climate change and climate change may impede nations’ abilities to achieve sustainable development pathways Has no meaning in absence of scientific definition of sustainability. This one is laying the groundwork for Universal carbon tax.
Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation This ‘conclusion’ actually is to counter the recent evidence that climate has stabilized and give credit to whatever has been done to ‘mitigate’
We will need a mix of adaptation and mitigation measures to meet the challenge of climate change, but this is hampered by a lack of information on the costs and benefits of adaptation This ‘conclusion’ sets stage for more funding to gather information and research adaptation and justify eventual universal carbon tax.
Human-induced climate change has contributed to changing patterns of extreme weather across the globe, from longer and hotter heat waves to heavier rains. From a broad perspective, all weather events are now connected to climate change. While natural variability continues to play a key role in extreme weather, climate change has shifted the odds and changed the natural limits, making certain types of extreme weather more frequent and more intense. This ‘conclusion’ is entirely a premise, which is quickly becoming a cult-like ‘belief’.
Current level of global warming of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels. This conclusion is the same as predicted decades ago and is as meaningless as it was then.
Universal carbon tax will bring in the best result in mitigating global warming This conclusion is actually a justification for implementing Paris Agreement and channeling funds for the new EU 2030 renewable energy target of 32%, and the new energy efficiency target of 32.5%, all focusing on creating a shift away from carbon and toward toxic alternatives.

The comments made in Table 11.1 are paramount. These conclusions set the stage for universal carbon tax and the erection of a UN-like body (the new version of IPCC) that would shape the future of the energy industry and global finances. The delivery of Nobel prize to IPCC and Al Gore in 2007 and to climate change economist and a world bank mentor this year are the events that exposes the motive of these conclusions that are touted to be scientific and objective.

In conclusion, we can safely say that the above table shows how hollow the conclusions of the “97% scientific consensus” group has been. Their ‘evidence-based’ science has little real evidence and logic used to draw conclusions has little logic in it. The fact that the 3% who opposed this narration do not have any scientific explanation to support their opposition makes it clear that the debate has long moved from the scientific arena to political one. It is only in media there remains a dispute over the scientific facts that implies ‘carbon is the enemy and non-carbon fuel is the panacea’ to global warming.

In this book, we answer two key questions, which have eluded all climate scientists purporting to conduct evidence-based research. These questions are:

  1. What is the impact of artificial chemicals on the fate of CO2 and other emissions?
  2. What is the long-term consequences of the ‘renewable’ energy?
  3. What is the real cause of global warming?
  4. What measures must be taken to reverse the current trend?

11.2 Conclusions of Chapter 2: State-of-the Art of the Climate Change Debate

  1. For decades the climate change debate has moved on from scientific to political.
  2. The scientific consensus has been in stating global warming and its cause are facts and the principal cause of global warming is anthropogenic CO2 as a result of burning of fossil fuels.
  3. No analysis as to the nature of CO2 that is emitted or the role of artificial chemicals, such as the ones used in refining or gas or coal processing have been investigated, let alone following the pathway to global warming or rejection by the ecosystem.
  4. Although the nature of greenhouse gas emitted from volcanic activities have not been identified and their role in global warming incorporated to conduct a sensitivity analysis, they have been ignored as a contributing factor to global warming.
  5. The fraction of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, compared to naturally occurring gases has been reported to miniscule, but no scientific explanation has been provided as to determine why anthropogenic gases have been the main player.
  6. Anyone that opposes the mainstream line of global warming has been denigrated as ‘climate denier’ and stigmatized as scientifically naïve – similar to the creationists in the context of evolution theory.
  7. Skeptics of ‘scientific consensus’ have positioned themselves as deniers by stating that climate change is part of natural cycle and in fact, we may be very well be in a cooling cycle within the geologic timescale.

11.3 Conclusions of Chapter 3: Forest Fires and Anthropogenic CO2

  1. Forest fires are entirely natural and hence beneficial to the environment
  2. Any correlation between forest fire occurrence and global temperature is ill perceived and scientifically inconsistent
  3. The misconception about forest fires arises from improper assessment of the role of water and carbon in maintaining harmony of the ecosystem
  4. Modern science understanding of open fire and its nature is based on false premises that do not distinguish between real fire and artificial fire.
  5. Correct assessment of global warming must include inclusion of intangible components of heat sources. These components behave differently in artificial energy sources from natural ones.
  6. Every component of the sunlight spectrum is necessary for sustainability whereas each component of the artificial light spectrum is necessarily unsustainable and harmful to the environment.
  7. Carbon cycle and water cycle are complimentary and necessary combination for true sustainability.
  8. Carbon sources are the next best energy sources to direct sunlight, which is a pre-requisite for photosynthesis.
  9. Correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and forest fire occurrences is spurious and ill conceived.

11.4 Conclusions of Chapter 4: Role of Agricultureal practices on Climate Change

  1. Water, energy and food form a nexus that can be either organic/sustainable or nonorganic/unsustainable, depending on the level of contamination.
  2. Energy from sunlight is the purest form, whereas CO2 from organic sources is the purest.
  3. Biofuel is not the best form of energy sources nor is it renewable.
  4. The quality of CO2 emission from biofuel as well as crops is affected by chemical fertilizer as well as pesticides.
  5. Minerals accumulated from chemical fertilizers and pesticides render the oxidation products unabsorbable by the environment, eventually contributing to global warming.
  6. Chemicals from chemical fertilizers and pesticides create irreversible damage to plant metabolism, thus magnifying the level of pollution, resulting in a very large volume of CO2 becoming unacceptable to the ecosystem.
  7. Any agricultural produce further affects the entire food chain the same it affects biofuels.
  8. Heavy metals from pesticides are the most disruptive to the metabolic system for plants, which magnify the effect when consumed by animals and further contaminate through the food chain.
  9. These contaminants act like cancer cells, thus threatening the entire organism. Similarly, the entire ecosystem is affected through chain reactions.

11.5 Conclusions of Chapter 5: Role of Biofuel Processing in Creating Gobal Warming

  1. With currently used technologies, biofuels produce more toxic combustion gases than petroleum fuels. The contaminants of biofuels come from chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and chemicals that are added during processing. For petroleum products, only chemicals added during refining/processing affect adversely.
  2. The quality of biofuel can be improved by using natural chemicals as a catalyst.
  3. The economics of biofuel can be improved by using waste vegetable oil. However, that would not improve the quality of CO2 produced at the end of combustion reactions.
  4. The use of microwave, ultrasound, or other energy catalysts can affect the biofuel production rate but create pollution that cannot be quantified.
  5. For any system to be renewable it must meet the long-term sustainability criterion. Such criterion can be met with fossil fuel more easily than biofuel.

11.6 Conclusions of Chapetr 6: Role of Refining on Climate Change

  1. The current refining practices render crude oil unsustainable and resulting CO2 is no longer accepted by the ecosystem.
  2. Scientifically, even energy from artificial sources can affect CO2, but conventional analysis is not equipped with to quantify the effect.
  3. The theory that artificial nanomaterials behave opposite to natural materials can explain long-term impact of artificial chemicals on CO2 path.
  4. If natural materials replace artificial or synthetic catalysts, the resulting refined products can be free from adding to the global warming as they will produce CO2 that will be absorbed by the plants, leaving behind no residue.

11.7 Conclusions of Chapter 7: Scientific Characterization of Petroleum Fluids

  1. The current material characterization tools are inherently biased toward artificial chemicals and show natural chemicals to be inherently superior and necessary for long-term sustainability.
  2. When petroleum fluids are properly characterized, petroleum fluids in their natural form are shown to be inherently sustainable, until artificial chemicals and/or energy sources are used to process/refine them.
  3. The proper characterization tool must consider mass as the source of any energy and evaluate them as a whole, meaning artificial matter will create artificial energy and when that artificial energy is used in processing matter, it will be rendered artificial, incapable of returning to the natural system.
  4. Petroleum fluids, both abiogenic and biogenic are inherently sustainable and offer no threat to the environment in its native form.
  5. The transition between different forms of carbon-based fuel is continuous and cyclic. Therefore their development and usage are amenable to long-term sustainability, creating no stress on the ecosystem.
  6. The ranking of petroleum fluids and biofuel are (in descending order of utility):
    1. Basement oil
    2. Unconventional gas/oil
    3. Conventional gas/oil
    4. Biofuel (including vegetable oil)
  7. The natural order of usage of carbon materials are:
    1. food
    2. fuel
    3. medicine
  8. Biofuels are neither healthy nor economic
  9. Biomass (including wood) is inherently sustainable

11.8 Conclusions of Chapter 8: Delineraized History of Climate Change Hysteria

  1. The current climate change hysteria is not based on facts or science. All evidence is fictitious, exaggerated, or tweaked to fit the desired conclusions, befitting ‘climate change hysteria’.
  2. The current climate change policies are similar to those made in UN. As such, the hidden intention behind climate change hysteria is not to bring about clean environment or healthy population, but bring about global control and economic dominance of the most powerful nations.
  3. Every action item of the climate change 97% consensus group is based on false premises, akin to those based on Malthusianism regarding population and the Keynesian vision regarding economy.
  4. The renewable/non-renewable boundary is fictitious. The ones purported as renewable are more toxic to the environment than fossil fuel.
  5. Petroleum resources can be scientifically characterized and allocated for different applications, rather than focusing on running engines
  6. Petroleum products should be considered for diverse applications rather than all refined the same way to produce gasoline first.

11.9 Conclusions of Chapter 9: The Monetization the Climate Science

  1. Most popular predictive tools of climate change are devoid of scientific basis.
  2. All economic tools for predicting impact of climate change policies are inherently biased toward non-carbon energy sources, which are inherently uneconomic, unsustainable, and toxic to the environmental health.
  3. Conclusions made in various IPCC panels and international agreements, such as Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, and others are preposterous and geared to justify universal carbon tax and other means of global dominance.

11.10 Conclusions of Chapter 10: The Science of Global Warming

  1. In the matter of global warming, the scientific protocol has followed the Honey → Sugar → Saccharine → Aspartame → Nothing (HSSAN) model, which symbolizes systematic decline while accumulating great amount of profit at the expense of global economic and environmental welfare. In this process, we have moved progressively from natural to artificial. Policies have been drafted first and science and engineering have been used to feel the justification of the policies.
  2. Petroleum resources are 100% natural and as such are 100% sustainable.
  3. Refining must be done with a sustainable process and with targeted applications, including medicinal applications.
  4. A re-assessment of reserve based on scientific characterization of petroleum reservoirs can increase the current estimate of the global reserve.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.149.233.72