THAT KYOTO IS A FRAUD

[charrison]

linkage

Introduction

I acknowledge that the city of Kyoto exists. Any claims to the contrary are fraudulent.

However, the protocol developed out of the IPCC conference in Kyoto is a fraud, because it is based on fraudulent assumptions, fraudulent models and fraudulent manipulations of data.

First, a few key points:

- Climate Change is real. Claims that the climate is static and unchanging are fraudulent.

- Claims that the burning of fossil fuels has released large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere are not fraudulent.

- Claims that this carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" are fraudulent because carbon dioxide is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and necessary for the growth of plants.

- The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims a consensus exists that global average temperatures may increase by 1 or 2 degrees by the end of the century. This claim is probably not fraudulent in itself.

- However, most of the other IPCC assumptions, which have led to the Kyoto Protocol, are fraudulent.

- This necessarily means that the Kyoto protocol itself is a fraud and that our government is the victim of a major scam.

I shall now deal with the fourteen key fraudulent items which have been used to construct the fraudulent Kyoto Protocol.

Interesting read about the problems with kyoto.

 

[Fencer128]

I haven't read the article (it's late) - but I do take issue with this staement:

Claims that this carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" are fraudulent because carbon dioxide is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and necessary for the growth of plants.

Is this guy a scientist? Did he really say that? Using that logic oxygen is "benign" because we need it to breath - even though too much would make our fires incinerate us. Elevated levels of CO2 are not necessarily benign. I do not know where he has got this impression? Sounds like mis-information to me.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I haven't read the article (it's late) - but I do take issue with this staement:

Claims that this carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" are fraudulent because carbon dioxide is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and necessary for the growth of plants.

Is this guy a scientist? Did he really say that? Using that logic oxygen is "benign" because we need it to breath - even though too much would make our fires incinerate us. Elevated levels of CO2 are not necessarily benign. I do not know where he has got this impression? Sounds like mis-information to me.

Cheers,

Andy

He is not questioning it as a green house gas, just a pollutant.

 

[Fencer128]

He is not questioning it as a green house gas, just a pollutant.

Ok. I know I'm being cheeky making assumptions without reading the text but unless he elaborates on the possible meaning behind limiting CO2 emissions in the protocol (ie maybe pollutant = greenhouse gas in this case = something that should be limited) then argueing the difference between a "pollutant" and a "greenhouse gas" or basically an undesirable is nothing more than semantics?

Cheers,

Andy

ps Off to bed so will pick this up when I get back next week (if it's still going).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

He is not questioning it as a green house gas, just a pollutant.

Ok. I know I'm being cheeky making assumptions without reading the text but unless he elaborates on the possible meaning behind limiting CO2 emissions in the protocol (ie maybe pollutant = greenhouse gas in this case = something that should be limited) then argueing the difference between a "pollutant" and a "greenhouse gas" or basically an undesirable is nothing more than semantics?

Cheers,

Andy

ps Off to bed so will pick this up when I get back next week (if it's still going).

It is a gas released that is a greenhouse gas, and in this case the context is by human means. This is playing at semantics at an absurd level. Another scenario fitting this argument..



Blind person trying to cross the street---"Are there any cars coming?"

Owen M--"No, there are no cars coming"

<Blind person crossing the street>--- !!!!!!!!SPLAT!!!!!!!!!

Bystander "Hey! Didn't you tell him there was nothing coming!?!?"

Owen M--"No. He asked if there were any cars were coming. The fact that it was a truck is not my fault"

Certain OT members watching this... "Yep, he's right. It wasn't a car"

 

[onelove]

that's a lot of "frauds" - I guess that was the title of the debate, but maybe some other words would be useful in this context, since fraud implies an intentional misrepresentation made with the intent to deceive another (or sort of along those lines)

 

[onelove]

or maybe I miss the point - is there a conspiracy of some sort? maybe I'm in left field.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Fencer128

He is not questioning it as a green house gas, just a pollutant.

Ok. I know I'm being cheeky making assumptions without reading the text but unless he elaborates on the possible meaning behind limiting CO2 emissions in the protocol (ie maybe pollutant = greenhouse gas in this case = something that should be limited) then argueing the difference between a "pollutant" and a "greenhouse gas" or basically an undesirable is nothing more than semantics?

Cheers,

Andy

ps Off to bed so will pick this up when I get back next week (if it's still going).

It is a gas released that is a greenhouse gas, and in this case the context is by human means. This is playing at semantics at an absurd level. Another scenario fitting this argument..



Blind person trying to cross the street---"Are there any cars coming?"

Owen M--"No, there are no cars coming"

<Blind person crossing the street>--- !!!!!!!!SPLAT!!!!!!!!!

Bystander "Hey! Didn't you tell him there was nothing coming!?!?"

Owen M--"No. He asked if there were any cars were coming. The fact that it was a truck is not my fault"

Certain OT members watching this... "Yep, he's right. It wasn't a car"

You might want to read the entire thing. I know it is long, but it is worth it.

 

[IGBT]

The global cooling/warming morons are simply using the enviro.movement as a social control tool. More and more people are wise to their grift...

 

[sandorski]

Waste of time. The author jumps from finding an error to throwing the whole thing out without batting an eye. He goes from arguing that Global Warming is even occuring to arguing that Global Warming is actually a good thing. He certainly likes to call things "Fraud". The author started on the premise that Kyoto is bad, then wrote a paper on it. At best this is an opinion, not a proof of anything.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

- Claims that this carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" are fraudulent because carbon dioxide is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and necessary for the growth of plants.

The claim that carbon dioxide is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and necessary for the growth of plants is not fraudulant. Claiming it can't be a pollutant because of this is fraudulant. Any excess of substance that is not in equilibrium with the system it is in is a pollutant.

 

[DealMonkey]

One could also argue that ozone is simply a "benign gas" since it exists in our upper atmosphere, is naturally occurring, and protects us from nasty UV radiation. However, ozone is also prevalent in smog and at near-ground levels where people can breathe it, is quite harmful. To be honest, it's hard to take this guy seriously.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

- Claims that this carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" are fraudulent because carbon dioxide is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and necessary for the growth of plants.

The claim that carbon dioxide is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and necessary for the growth of plants is not fraudulant. Claiming it can't be a pollutant because of this is fraudulant. Any excess of substance that is not in equilibrium with the system it is in is a pollutant.

Yeah, put the guy in a close room full of carbon dioxide and see if he still thinks it is a benign gas.