Agenda 21 commentary

 

I have copied this article from another blog. Big thank you to this person, as its exactly what is happening and there is no point re-writing everything when this is what I would like to say ! 

 

The UN’s communist secret agenda through “environmentalism” and “sustainable development” is very cunning and has deceived a lot of well-meaning people. Most people genuinely want to protect the environment and ensure that the earth’s resources are “sustainable” for future generations there is no doubt. But the communist goal of “sustainable development” and “environmentalism” has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment or sustainability – it is all about abolition of property rights, and ultimately, collectivization of housing and farms under corporate State control.

 

    Under this system, farmers’ and property owners’ rights would be effectively extinguished and overridden by strict Environmental and Sustainable Development resource consents and laws.  They would be told where they could farm, what “sustainable” land they could “develop,” (sustainable development) what trees they could plant or cut down, what fertilizer if any they could apply, and they would need “consents” and licenses for everything under the sun. City dwellers would be in the same dire predicament, and have their homes confiscated, or they’d be severely fined,  if they cut down a heritage tree, washed their car, boat or dishes using detergent, or used the privatized corporation’s water when they shouldn’t, especially if they were nabbed under their friendly “Neighborhood Watch Scheme,” which scheme, coincidentally, was first implemented in the Soviet Union. Socialism is very subtle.

 

    The penalty for cutting a tree down without the appropriate government consent would become worse than murder. Not only would you have to license your dog, to own a dog you would have to be licensed too. Farmers would need to be licensed to operate their collectivized farms, spray weeds, care for cattle and drive their tractors under new Soviet-styled “health and safety” laws. All tradesmen and professional workers would have to be accredited and licensed, as would all Christian pastors and churches, and any other persons or institutions that could be likely to criticize their Soviet bosses.  

 

    All potential young parents would need to have a license to have children, and if there was any family genetic weakness of some sort in their state-controlled doctor’s medical records, no license would be given. In the end you would need a license or permit to take your boat on a lake, take your kid fishing off a wharf, or travel between towns or cities – In other words – full-blown Marxism.

 

    The United Nations policy of “Sustainable Development” introduced in 1992 at the UNCED at Rio de Janeiro, and implemented   through Habitat II and the UN World Commission on Environment and Development – is taken directly from the USSR Constitution, chapter 2, article 18, which reads:

 

    “In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment.”

 

     National Party Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, attended the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and signed on behalf of New Zealand to commit the country to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.  Labour Party Prime Minister Helen Clark attended the follow-up summit in Johannesburg August 26 – September 4, 2002 aptly called the “World Summit for Sustainable Development,” where she attended the head of state sessions. The summit has since been nicknamed “Rio+10 because it marked the 10^th anniversary of the first Earth Summit at Rio. NZ Environment Minister Marion Hobbs led a 35-strong delegation to the giant summit, and was one of five vice-presidents nominated by the UN to lead the summit comprised of about 45,000 delegates. 

 

    Not only was N. M. Rothschild agent, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN 1992 Rio Earth Summit, he personally worked with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to appoint three of his own Earth Charter Commissioners to the 12-man  advisory panel of the Johannesburg Summit. 

 

Taken From ...

"Communist" Councils In New Zealand. Saturday 6th January, 2018 ...

  ___________________

 

Lord Christopher Monckton Exposes Agenda 21!

  A Very Important Video Linking Climate Change And Agenda 21

 A brief summary from Lord Christopher Monckton's speech in Australia, February 23, 2013:

"One of the proposals in Agenda 21 is to take away all rights of property to nationalize effectively all properties.

An example of where this is already happening is Ulladula (sp.) council, where they are putting it in by stealth, unless someone stops it there. And what they are doing is this: They are doing overlays on the entire map of that Shire.

What this Council has done is a test bed for what is going to be rolled out right across Australia at local levels by stealth, unless somebody stops it, which marks out for all various areas which are bio diversity protection areas, and if your house is in one of theses areas - bad luck!  If you want to build a house next door, or a shed, you can't!

What's worse, is that even if your house isn't in one of these ares, and the builder tries to build somewhere else in an area that is covered by one of those overlays which cover three quarters of the entire area of the Shire, then he can nominate other areas which will never be built on again, and your house and the ground you were going to build your granny flat ... you won't be able to do that, and the developers  and local authority don't ever have to tell you!

They have taken away of our Property Rights! And if you look at the Property Register there is a restrictive covenant on your land.

There is a clear intention among the International Committee for Local Environmental Initiatives  ( ICLEI), to which nearly all local authorities belong to implement this Agenda 21 program right across Australia.

Local Administration in South Australia are a Natural Resources Management Law going round saying to farmers, 'if you move a rock, we can fine you.'   Agenda 21 is a real document ... The N.R.M.L. in South Australia are real documents.   The restrictions on building near the coastline in Victoria, on the grounds that the sea level might rise and wipe them out.  These are restrictions.  It is already actually happening in Australia in the move of Agenda 21.

They're going to bring back Communism ... this is from the  Vice-Chancello of ICLEI, to implement this supposedly voluntary U.N. program by compulsory laws.

 

Individual rights take a back seat to the collective, includes proerty rights - it's the old cry of Communism-it's back!

We can produce evidence of that- September 15, 2009 draft of the U.N. Copenhagen Climate Treaty.   It failed thanks to Lord Christopher Monckton, in their plan to bring about their  World Government, in which they would have control of everything!

 

The excuse or pretext used to bring in Agenda 21 is Climate Change!

____________________ 

 And 'About That Militant Bogus Science,' Or 'The Error In Climatology' - Lord Christopher Monckton, June 24, 2018

 

 ______________

Lord Christopher Monckton:

 "This is breaking news.  After 7 years of study, my team of eminent doctors and professors of science have concluded that there has been a very large error buried in the climate models.

They forgot to take into account the fact that the sun is shining at a vital point in their calculations.

This is my team:

 

Top left' Matt Briggs, (Prof. of Statistics); Alex Henley ( Electricity Industry expert); David Legates (Prof. of Climatology); Michael Limberg (Control Theorist); James Morrisson (Environmental Consultant); Willie Soon (Award Winning Astro Physicist); John Whitfield (Control Theorist who built an electronic circuit to test our results, and was able to confirm that in all respects it was correct).

In addition we had Dr Dietrich Jeschke, Prof. of Applied Control

Theory and also Dr. Thomas Sheehan from MIT.

Now the origin of the error that we are going to expose is Dr. James Hansen, who was until recently the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, though under him it was mainly climate change studies; arrested because he was really an activist, rather than a scientist, in a paper in 1984.

So how much warming are we going to get if we double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which we may do in about 150 years from now?

  So, James Hansen's paper is from 1984, so we are looking at a 34 year old error, which we are going to expose using only high school algebra, and I also want to make it very plain that we are going to be using mainstream science ...

The approach we are going to take is to look at three equilibrium temperatures.  These are moments at which the temperature of the planet was stable.

The first of these is 1850, and in 1850 the temperature wasn't going to change for about another 60 years, as it remained more or less level, and we know this because it was in 1850 that we began measuring global temperatures for the first time, the Hadley Centre Data Set.

 

The second of the three equilibrium was in 2011 when in fact, there wasn't an equilibrium that actually existed, but it is a presumed equilibrium, and we make adjustments for the fact that not all of the warming that we caused between 1850 and 2011 may have come through in the actual temperature record. 

We will be using mainstream science method for making that adjustment so that we bring the 2011 figure to a presumed equilibrium. 

The third equation we are looking at is twice the present concentration of CO2.   We are trying to work out how much warming there would be at that third equilibrium by studying the two previous equilibrium and the difference between them.

The notation we are using is standard  scientific notation: T stands for temperature, eq is a subscript saying this is the equilibrium temperature.   It tells you what kind of temperature we're talking about, and the 1, 2 or 3, tell you which of the equilibria we're looking at, and if there is no number in the subscript, that just means we're talking about equilibrium temperature in general.

Recapping: Equilibrium temperature is final temperature after we have the climate settled down, allowing for not only the direct forced warming from adding CO2 or whatever to the atmosphere, but also after all temperature feedbacks have acted.

The temperature feedback is a knock-on warming caused by the fact that through CO2 or something else, we've caused the planet to warm, and the warming itself triggers further warming, and that is known as a temperature feedback.

The big uncertainty in the climate is to do with these temperature feedbacks.

At the moment official climatology predicts, but they're wrong on this, that the change in temperature (delta T) per doubling of CO2, a number between 2.1 and 4.7 Kelvin, per doubling of CO2 as the equilibrium warming after feedbacks have acted.

 

In order to determine the equilibrium warming, we first have to find what's called a reference warming, which is the amount ot warming that will happen before we take into account any feedbacks.

 

  So, if you double the CO2 concentration and you don't take account of feedback happening, then the reference warming, as it's called, is between 0.95 and 1.15K, and that's an official climatological figure, and it's one which we are going to accept for the sake of argument.

Now the feedback factor, until now, has been the big unknown in  climate study.   When they say 'the science is settled,' the one thing that hasn't been settled is, 'how big this feedback factor is'.

 

 So what is a feedback factor?

 

The feedback factor is simply the percentage of the equilibrium or final warming that is represented by the fact that feedbacks have acted, so you get the direct warming from, let us say, CO2, then you get the knock-on feedback warming, and f, the feedback factor is the percentage of the final warming, represented by the fact that feedbacks have acted.

Until now, the feedback factor, the uncertainty.  In trying to work out how much that is, accounted for, 85% of the total uncertainty in working out how much global warming there will be, it is very important that we should, as climate scientists call it, constrain the value of the feedback factor so we can find out what global warming will really be.

 

Now, for this, we are going to use an equation, and you will see there are various terms in the equation, and this particular equation is the mainstream equation in control theory.

 

That applies to any dynamic system, and a dynamic system is a system which changes its state over time. 

So. for instance, an electronic circuit if you switch it on and the current flows through it and comes out the other end has changed its state over the time it takes the current to get through.   And so, that's a dynamic system, and likewise the climate, because you see the weather changing from day to day and the climate in the longer term.

That is a dynamic system, which changes over time, and if feedbacks act on a system that changes over time, this is the standard equation that control theory uses, but remarkably it is not used in climate science.

The climate is the only dynamical system moderated by feedbacks that does not use this equation, and we say that it should have used this equation, and because it didn't it made a huge mistake!

Now we are going to look at what are the terms in this equation.

 

T E is emission temperature, that's the input signal to the equation, and that's the Sunshine term, and you'll see it's actually put on the sun there.

That's the one that climate scientists left out, and then to the right of that, in white, you see the perturbation, which is delta T ref, that's the change in in reference temperature caused by, it might be naturally occurring greenhouse gases.  It might be then a bit more, because we add greenhouse gases, and then you divide that by 1 - f (the feedback factor) at the bottom.  

That gives you the output of the equation, the output signal in an electrical circuit if you like, or in climate, and that is T eq.

So that equation can also be simplified.   We add together the two terms at the top (T E + deltaT ref), and call them T ref.

 

So T eq, the equilibrium temperature after all the feedbacks have been added, is the reference temperature divided by 1 - f.

So that is actually a very simple equation.  It only has three terms in it.

You've got T eq on the left, which is what you are trying to calculate.  You've got T ref, which includes within it the sunshine term, and then you've got f on the bottom.

1 - f  is how you account for the feedback factor.

Now, this is a very complicated looking block diagram.    This is what's used in electronics typically.   You'll see on the left and on the right, the sunshine term is there and they balance out of course, and between that you've got, on the left, the various components in what's called reference sensitivity.

 

 

This is the sum of all the changes in reference temperature that might occur.    They feed into the input node, which has a sigma on it, then they go along to the output node, labelled P2.  Then some of of it goes back via what is called the feedback block at the bottom, and feeds back in through the loop to the input node and then that's added to the signal that's already come in, the input signal, and then that goes out and becomes the output signal at node P2.

The sunshine term is T E, the emission temperature. (We'll discuss this a little bit more later).

This is the Mainstream feedback loop.  No mainstream question here because this is Climatology's variant of the system-gain equation, and here, what has happened, is the absolute quantities of T eq and T ref have disappeared and have been replaced by delta T eq and delta T ref.   They are looking only at the changes.

 

Now, as we've seen, they say that the changes in temperature before feedback on doubling of CO2 is 1.05 Kelvin.  So then we divide this by 1 - f, and that then gives you the equilibrium warming at the bottom, and from that here is the variant block diagram.

 

 

You'll see what's happening here.   The term for sunshine has been left off.   Now, funnily enough, this equation is still a true equation, and we'll show you why later, but it doesn't give you enough information to enable you to find out what the feedback factor actually is.

T E the sunshine term is absent.

Now, here is the feedback factor that they calculated and you'll see it's 1 - 1.05 divided by the equilibrium temperature change, 3.35, and that gives you 0.693, a very big feedback factor.

 

 

Remember that figure 0.693.    That's what climatology says it is, but that's not mainstream science, and we are going to show you why.

 Let's discuss a bit more on the sunshine term, the emission temperature.    T E is calculated using the equation at the bottom of the screen, which is known as the fundamental equation of radiative transfer.

 

  The amount of net radiation coming in per square meter of the earth's emitting surface, which is actually at the real surface before you put any greenhouse gases in there, is known as Q E.   That's divided by a constant, called the Stefan Boltzmann constant, and then you take the fourth power and that gives you 243.3 K.

If you use today's sunshine, which is 1663 watts per sq. meter, and the albeido if there were no greenhouse gases, (the albeido is how much of that light is reflected harmlessly straight back into space) there would be a bit more ice around if there weren't any greenhouse gases, so the albeido is a bit higher there, than the 0.29 that we'd expect today, but this is an official value of albeido.  So this is a mainstream calculation and now we look at the sum of the sunshine term and the warming from the natural non-condensing greenhouse gases.

 

Add those two together and you get the reference temperature before accounting of the feedback, and you see it's simply 243 plus 11, gives you about 254 K before we account for feedback.

Now, we account for feedback by dividing by 1 - f  as you've seen before (the mainstream equation), and then we put numbers on it, and so we now get that the equilibrium temperature in 1850 was simply the surface temperature that that obtained that year, and we know that from the Data Set that was around at that time.

  And it's 287.5 K, and you can see that equals the sunshine term 243.3K + 11.05 for the naturally occurring greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere at that time divided by 1 - f, and allows us to calculate what it is.

Climatology doesn't use this equation, so it can't calculate f, but we can, and here's how we do it:

We put f at the left hand side of the equation.  We follow the usual rules for re-arranging terms in an equation and then put the numbers on, and you will see f  is not 0.693 as they think, it's 0.116.

It's about 1/6 of what they are trying to tell us!  

That makes a big difference to show warming we are going to get, so now we can complete the mainstream system-gain for the first equilibrium.

We are now looking at the second equilibrium time, not 1850, but 2011.    We keep all the terms from the previous equation, but obviously, we add the man-made reference warming, (that's the warming before feedback-in yellow) and we also imagine that it's possible that the feedback factor might change over the last 150 years, so we allow a delta f added in.

 

We don't know what it is yet.  We are going to calculate it.   So once again we put in numbers to this, and the important thing to see here is we've now got 288.5 rather than 287.5K, on the left.

 

There's actually been only 3/4 of a K warming since 1850, but we can add another of 1/4 of a K  to allow for that radiative imbalance.

I told you earlier where not all of the warming has yet come through into the atmosphere.  So that goes up by, not 0.75K, but by 1.0K.

The sunshine term remains the same and so does the term for the greenhouse gases that were already there in 1850, 11.05K .(in white)

Now you will see that the sunshine term is very big.

The term for the greenhouse gases that were there before we were, is biggish, but look how small the directly forced warming caused by is to 2011, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is only 0.7K!

See how small that is in relation to the sum of the previous two terms there - it's a tiny, tiny fraction and that's why the feedback factor is actually so much smaller than they had thought it was.

So now, once again we re-arrange the equation to get f on the left hand side plus delta f, of course, because we don't know what it is yet, and lo and behold, we find that f + delta f  is also equal to 0.116 and that tells us that delta f  is actually equal to zero; there's been no change in the feedback factor in all those years.   

 

 

Why?  Because the sun and the previous existing greenhouse gases dominate the equations.

This is something which because climatology has left these terms out of the equations, they didn't know this, so now that we've got that feedback factor of 0.116, we can take delta f out of the equation.

Now we can go on to compare the mainstream feedback factor that we have just found using the sunshine term (and it's only 0.116 compared with the 0.693 that we saw from official climatology.

 

So climatology's value of the feedback factor is 6X too big! 

Now, if we convert that back to temperature, and this is the first time anyone has ever seen just how much warming we can expect from a doubling of CO2.

The correct figure is only 1.15K compared with the 3.35K central estimate that the official models have been telling us for the last 30 or 40 years.   

 

This is a very big change indeed, because what it means is that there's not going to be enough global warming to do any harm at all. 

The planet will get just a little bit warmer, but it will be well within the range of temperature we've been, over the last 800,000 years ( this figure is not in conformity with a young earth of approximately 6500 years. c.f Dr. Walt Brown's book, "In The Beginning."- but regardless , Lord Monckton's conclusion as far as the range of temperature goes, still stands), and there will be no climate crisis, because this warming will take merely 100-150 years to occur.

So basically, we have no longer any climate problem. 

Now, what did climatology do wrong?

It used a different equation.

Here is the equation we used which has the term for the sunshine in it, T E.

There is the sun with the sunshine term on it in the equation.  It has the term for the reference warming, which includes all the reference warming both natural and anthropogenic now.

 

It includes the feedback factor and that gives you the equilibrium temperature.   That's the correct equation they should have used, and the equation we used.

Here is their variant, which as you see, uses the deltas rather than the absolute values and therefore they don't have the sunshine term in it, and that's why they think you get a much bigger feedback factor

 

Here you can see where they got their equation from, why their equation is a correct equation, but an insufficient one to give us the answer we need.

Here we set out in full the two equilibrium equations.  The one on the top is for 2011, the next one is down, T eq1 is for 1850, and we subtract those two correct equations from each other, and what we are left with is an equation in the form of the equation that climatology has always used.

 

What this tells us, is that they have subtracted out the sun, because the term for the sunshine and the term for the naturally occurring greenhouse gases, that's T E for sunshine and delta T ref 1 for the naturally occurring greenhouse gases up to 1850, are terms common to both those equations.

 

If you subtract one equation from the other, those two terms disappear, so all the affect of the naturally occurring greenhouse gases disappear, and even, more importantly, the terms for the sunshine disappears, because it is subtracted out, and you can see all that, in your face!

 

And you look at the results of that subtraction, which is below the line and you see no sunshine term there, because they've left out the sunshine term and that's where they get their equation from.

 

 

It's quite important to establish that their equation is a correct equation, and this is the proof it is a correct equation, because they will try to say to us, indeed, some of the reviewers have already said to us, 'Oh, but you know our equation is correct!'

Yes, it is a correct equation, because otherwise it wouldn't come out from the subtraction that we show here if the two previous equations are correct, and you subtract one equation from the other, you will always end up with a correct equation, but it is not a useful equation because you've lost the term for the sunshine, and here you see that when we convert that to looking for what the feedback factor might be, you can see what is crossed out in the official equation down the bottom, and that is why their feedback factor cannot be calculated correctly.

In fact, if you use their equation, they get a feedback factor using the actual data between 1850 and and today of 0.3, which is less than half their published value of 0.693, roughly 0.7, and that suggests that they were simply guessing when they got their value of the feedback factor, because their own equation suggests  that its going to be a lot lower than they think.

But because they've got no sunshine term they don't get the answer of 0.116 which is the correct answer.

Now, here you see a comparison between our correct answer for the feedback factor, 0.116, which means less than 12% of the final warming is caused by feedbacks, and you'll see that here.

 

 

If you use their equation you get a 0.3, which is quite a lot higher. 

If you use the result from the computer model, their central estimate is actually 0.7, which is a very much too big and there are some silly papers around which make it 0.75 which is even bigger!

So you can see where it is they get their very big numbers for how much global warming we're going to get.

What we are going to do is to use the 0.116 and then put that in the correct equation and bingo!

 

The amount of warming we get out is 1.15K, and you'll see that's compared with a range of about 1.6K to 4.4K with a central estimate 3.35K that you get if you use their values of the feedback factor.

So, this is a major discovery!  What this shows, simple though the analysis is, is that 40 years of climatology have been going off in completely the wrong direction! 

They have imagined it was going to be a large amount of global warming, and in fact, there's only going to be a small, slow harmless and benficial amount of global warming.

What this means really, is that the scare is over!

Now, this is another complicated slide.   This is the kind of thing that we mathematicians love to play with , and you'll see there are three lines that go up in a kind of curve, shooting off into infinity.

This is known as part of a rectangular hyperbola, and it is a curve of the equation they use to determine how much warming we will get, and, of course, once we know that the correct value of the feedback factor is 0.116, we can use their equation, and it will be a correct answer.

You'll see that is way down there at the left hand end of the screen.

You don't get very much change in temperature even if you quite a wide varying range of inputs.   The temperature we get out is going to be very close to 1.15K per doubling of CO2 concentration.

Going further to the right and further upwards, you'll see that the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), is around 1.5K to 4.5K.   Then you get some very silly results, where at the top with solid red arrows, and the three dotted arrows that simply tell you the values of the reference warming per doubling of CO2 that were used to generate these three curves.   So that's all it shows.

It shows if you do the calculations correctly, the response of the climate to our warming is little, is what's called linear.

It's not going to change in the shape of a curve, as they think, because at the left hand of that curve, its very nearly a perfect straight line.

Now, here are the key equations:

This was discovered by Prof. Vashkerk (sp.), who is our Professor of Control Theory, and control theory is the area of mathematics that specializes in studying feedbacks.  

 

 This is the mathematics that Dr. Hansen had borrowed from control theory without quite understanding it, and you'll see the term in red at the bottom is dropped out of climatology's equation, and that is why their equation, though perfectly correct, doesn't allow for the sunshine.

We did some testing.   Our theory works out when you actually build a circuit to test it.

What they got wrong!

They don't actually use that equation at all.   They don't use any version of it.

We are only using that equation because it's a way of getting the answers the models are trying to get, by much, much simpler and much, much more reliable method than these huge models.

 

Now, what the models got wrong is that they imagined, and all the models show this, that if, and only if, man is the cause of global warming, then the rate of warming in the tropical mid troposphere, that's about 8-12 km up in the tropics, will be 2 to 3 times what it is of the tropical surface, and this gives you feature which  I had the honor to name, and that is 'The Tropical Mid Troposphere Hotspot,' which ought to be caused by global warming caused by us ( mankind).

 

This comes from the IPCC and this is the picture.  I could show you dozens I got from climate models all showing exactly this picture.

They all predict this because they think that water vapour feedback is a really big deal!   We know that it isn't, because we've calculations where we don't have to look at what the values of the individual feedbacks are.   We can just tell the overall feedback factor can't be anything like as big as theyb think it is.

Let us now, go to the year before this picture was published and here is the measurements done by drop-sondes and radiosondes at various parts in the atmosphere.   This is the actual pattern of temperature covering much the same area, and not only is there not the hotspot that there was in the graph, but there's even a slightly cool spot just below that vital area in the tropical mid troposphere!

 

 

So there, if you like, is empirical confirmation (that means confirmation of our theory by actually going out and measuring stuff).    And if you measure this, you'll see that the hotspot that has to be there, if you are going to predict anything like the amount of global warming they predict, it actually isn't there!

This is a very, very powerful confirmation from the real world, that the theoretical calculations, I have just shown, are in fact correct.

 

So the conclusions are very simple.

Our statistician, Prof. Briggs, has done a 'Monte Carlo' simulation, which involves running our equations 30,000 times, with slightly different random values in it within the ranges of plausibility for each of the values that contribute to that equation and you'll see what answers you get 30,000 times.

 

You get this characteristic bell-shaped curve, as mathematicians call a Gaussian distribution.

The two sigma lines, the vertical lines, are known as the 2 sigma confidence interval.

This means we are 95% sure that the temperature you should expect from doubling of CO2 after allowing for feedback sets, the equilibrium temperature will be central estimate 1.15 and a variance from from 1.1 to 1.25K when 95% certain that it's going to come in there, because 95% of all these monte Carlo runs, fell within that interval.

He also did for comparison, a distribution in blue there, using their equation and they got a much higher spread of possible temperatures, and it's much higher reading left to right than ours.

 

Ours will be below 1.5K and theirs is between 2.5 and 4.5K.

It's much more global warming than we are predicting, and is a much less certainty as to what that warming is.  That's why it is so spread out, and we have a much taller spike because all our values are all piled up in that very narrow range, because using the sun and the pre-existing greenhouse gases in the equation, allows us to constrain the feedback factor to 0.116 and thereby to constrain the 2 sigma interval.  In other words, the 95% confidence interval, which is roughly between 1.1 and 1.25K with the best estimate of 1.15K.

Now, already this release is causing panic!

We submitted this to a climate journal that ultimately rejected it because there were one or two things they said weren't quite right.   They didn't argue us on the main conclusion, which is very important to notice, but in their panic in trying to find a way of stopping publishing this, they sent a copy, quite improperly (they said they didn't), but it nevertheless reached, by some means, perhaps by one of their reviewers acting without their knowledge. I don't know, but it reached the University of East Anglia, which has been a cheerleader for the more extreme view of global warming.    

What these people did, was they called a meeting of the entire environmental sciences faculty at the University of East Anglia, and Professor David Richardson, Vice-Chancellor, had been shown a copy of this paper. ( He shouldn't have been. It was a gross breach of scientific protocol that the journal or the reviewers allowed it to go out like this), and he shouted at them,

 "THIS IS A CATASTROPHE! If the general public ever get to hear of Monckton's paper, there will be HELL to pay!!"

They get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to do with making global warming go away, every year.   That funding is now at risk and they know it!

And this is going to be the reaction we get from most of the academic institutions, which are usually very far to the left.

They believe in this climate stuff, not because it's true, but because they want it to be true.

Professor Richardson denies this meeting took place, but we had an account of it from somebody who was actually there and heard him say what he said.

 

Now, their bottom line is that the predicted global warming that the climate models use, those huge computer models, is between 2.1 and 4.7 deg C.

The IPCC, is 1.5 to 4.5 Deg C, and look at little old us 1.05 deg C to 1.35 deg C, because that's the absolute maximum!

This is way beyond the 95% confidence.    This is as far as we think we could possibly push the global temperature per doubling of CO2 and still remain credible, and even that is below the very lowest of the IPCC estimates, which is 1.5 deg C.

So this is really No problemo! 

The conclusion we have come to has been reached entirely by methods in mainstream science, and that's not the same thing as mainstream climate science.

Mainstream climate science, you see in the upper two lots of forecasts, and is not consistent with mainstream science.

 

 We are doing our best to get our paper published so that climatology can realize that it must adjust to using the correct equation which includes, what's called the input signal, that's the term for sunshine and for the naturally occurring greenhouse gases that were there in 1850, before we did anything to it.

They must do it properly, because at the moment  the way they are doing it, we might use the same phrase Pope Innocent X used in the Treaty of Westphalia, which he kindly didn't like.

 

He said,  'It was Null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane and empty of meaning for all time!'

And so is mainstream climatology!

They got it wrong big time.  So our conclusion is then, the planet doesn't need to be saved...the scare is really over, and there is no way that we can think of, and we've asked also people on the other side, 'Can you find a way of finding holes in the argument', and so far they have not been able to do so.