“Big Green” just seems to keep getting bigger with the new international Green Climate Fund. The Green Climate Fund, an offshoot of the United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC) on Climate Change, budgeted for some $100 Billion dollars a year, supposedly intended for programs to lower greenhouse gases.
Seeking Immunity from what…?
But before they start, the Green Climate Fund founders want to ensure the organization and its people will enjoy UN-like diplomatic immunity from prosecution or international investigation. This despite the fact that even the UNFCCC is not considered to be part of the UN and not allotted such immunity.
One has to wonder why the sudden caution.
James Hansen Terrorized the World with Global Warming
Since 1981, the world has been awash in terror of catastrophic global warming as predicted by James Hansen. As the head of NASA’s prestigious Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the time, his words had weight. Even though today they are in dispute by Arno Arrak, author of “What Warming?” Arrak claims Hansen apparently tinkered with the climate calculation framework.
Satellites could not Measure What Hansen Predicted
Arrak states in a rebuttal comment to Hansen’s recent diatribe in the New York Times that “His [Hansen’s] first task at GISS was to devise a new method for measuring global temperature change. There had been no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies but lo and behold, as soon as his method was implemented, global temperature began to rise. Trouble is, satellites could not see the rise. But in three years he [Hansen] was boss at GISS and in ten years he could announce to the Senate that global warming was here and we were the cause. Senator Wirth set up this hearing in a non-air conditioned room on the warmest day of the year and had ten TV cameras in the room.”
Big Green tries to use the Law to Override International Boundaries
Legal aspects of climate change have typically been considered from the point of view of how to force corporations or nations to comply with environmental regulations like those proposed in Kyoto, which cross international boundaries. Yet the comments in this New York Times 2009 blog are revealing about the level of distrust in climate modelling; this was before the revelations of “Climategate” wherein leaked emails from top climate scientists revealed they were struggling to hide or ‘fix’ the observed reality of a decline (not a rise) in global temperatures.
Can Climate Fraud be Legal? Can Perpetrators be Immune from Prosecution?
In comment 7 on the NY Times blog above, Arrak states: “Ground-based temperature records that the modelers depend upon are in contradiction with satellite data and show an imaginary warming that is due to severe systematic errors. But these imaginary warmings are then fed into computers to produce imaginary outputs known in the trade as GIGO which are then passed off as scientific predictions of climate disasters to come. To learn more check me out on ICECAP.”
This was also before the 2011 forensic work of Canadian journalist Donna Lafromboise in “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” dissecting the depth of corruption behind much of the IPCC’s ‘scientific’ formulations. These include citing one’s own unpublished, un-peer-reviewed scientific papers, “buddy” peer-review or citations from advocacy groups like Greenpeace and World Wildlife Federation.
That’s hardly science at its best.
In Arno Arrak’s view ” To put it simply: the science is not just bad but fraudulent and a policy change is absolutely mandatory.”
Big Green has Advocated for Scenario that is Physically Impossible
Canadian geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch commented recently in Canada’s Financial Post on a previous article about climate models, saying “The fraud started with the claim in the Hansen et al. 1981 paper claiming, “The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2C to 3.5C for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm [parts per million]” – something that the climate models are completely incapable of predicting.”
“In the three decades since this paper was published, CO2 emissions have increased by 57.1%, but the same satellites that provide the data for the climate models also show that there has been zero detectable enhancement of the greenhouse effect from this 30-year increase in CO2 emissions, proving conclusively that the climate models were fraudulently used by the IPCC to fabricate a global-warming crisis where none was even physically possible.”
So, now it is clear why the Green Climate Fund folks want to have diplomatic immunity from legal action. Their entire premise is built on shaky ground.
If there’s no CO2 Catastrophe Imminent, why have a Green Climate Fund at all?
But it is not clear to me, why we need a Green Climate Fund in the first place, when it appears the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming due to increased CO2 emissions, supposedly from fossil fuel use, appears to be built on fantasy, not science.