My Climate Denial
Kerry McCarthy
5.20.19

Producers: Wall Street International Investment Bankers, and old world Aristocracy.
Directors: POTUS (except Trump), and NWO leadership of Legislatures & Departments.
Actors: Producers' minions occupying seats of power (political, media, entertainment.)
Writers: Intel community members fomenting the change of nations into globalist counties.
Audience: People of sovereign nations across the globe, but especially Americans.

"Climate change/global warming" is a McGuffin, a plot device or political issue in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator the protagonists pursue. It has many levels of application for changing the way that the audience reacts to their play. The protagonists are the actors who push the directors vision, or political agenda, other-wise known as Globalism (G), the New World Order (NWO) and the World Communist Revolution (WCR). Producers use their controlled public education (PE) and mainstream media (MSM) as advertising and stage sets to help prep the audience so the actors may more easily move the audience via climate change to suspend our disbelief and accept their agenda. Their agenda is the unchecked control over how we the peoples of the world can use our God-given energy resources. The more extreme form of their control is the depopulation of the earth. Our fear of climate change/global warming is supposed to be the motivator which forces us all into accepting their socialist global authoritarianism (anti-competition.) 

Climate change was first floated by intelligence communities (writers) as a potential substitute societal organizing principle (reason for the audience to continually follow the producers' reruns of this particular play.) The idea was that once the producers made their climate change play a global hit, their need for the very expensive war propaganda plays could be eliminated. The globalist authoritarian Off Broadway actors (democrats) quickly latched onto the catastrophic climate McGuffin. The democratic protagonists have taken it as their own political issue in hopes of using it for all its worth against their GOP political rivals. Since the producer-controlled PE and MSM already promote it, the democrats only have to repeat the McGuffin, whether they actually believe in it or not. 

The idea of catastrophic climate change is that we all live within a livable atmospheric temperature range, a homeostatic ledge to which we have habituated. The cumulative effect of human-caused (anthropogenic) increases to atmospheric "greenhouse gases" acts as a positive feed-back mechanism to move the atmospheric temperature to above the ledge that we can live within. Greenhouse gases (CO2 & CH4) are said to increase the atmospheric temperature (global warming) to above the livable range. Or, conversely, when the atmosphere appears to be cooling too much it is because of anthropogenic negative feedback activities cause too many clouds and reflect too much sunlight back into space (climate change.) The objective is to get the audience, when the weather is hot, to mindlessly say: "It's warm today. It's global warming." Then next week, when it's really cold, the audience says: "It's climate change." 

Greenhouse Gas Scenario: 50 million years ago CO2 was ~ 1700 ppm. No glaciers and no hard freezes (winters) in the temperate zones. Sea level was at it's maximum, about 250 meters above our "normal" today. The Tibetan Plateau got tectonic-ed up and the weathering of the rock exposed to the atmosphere subtracted 80% of the atmosphere's CO2, down to about 340 ppm. The atmosphere and surface temperatures cooled as CO2 density decreased. About 2.7 million years ago the earth started glaciation. Warm summers melt all the accumulated winter snow and cool summers don't. Milankovitch cycles (variable earth-sun orbit distances and earth axis tilt) predict cyclical glaciation (ice ages) within ~ 260-340 ppm atmospheric CO2 range.

Over the last million years, ice ages have been cyclical and increasing in intensity. Not 'little' ice ages, but regular ones, where NYC is covered with a mile thick glacier (18-20 thousand years ago). CO2 8,000 years ago was at 260 ppm. Humans began farming & clearing forests. Before the industrial age CO2 was at 280. With the coming of the industrial age people burned wood, coal, oil, natural gas - whatever could be harnessed and used to perform work. CO2 was 310 ppm in 1960 and now is ~ 390. Once it got above ~ 340 level it stopped the Milankovitch cycle. Too much CO2 and the accumulated winter snow all melts. So glaciers retreat, and by 2100 the sea level rises 2 meters. 

Dan Britt's - Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of Climate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM


Scenario Questions: Maybe there are other things at work here?  Britt discusses sun spot variability, volcanic dust, el nino oscillations, pacific decadal oscillations, forrest fires, etc. and finds them to be more like 'background noise' rather than the 'message' when it comes to climate change. Their impact in changing the temperature of the atmosphere has to be minor compared to the anthropogenic effect of the increase of "greenhouse gases." Other scientists say that the primary source of CO2 is out-gassing from the Earth's interior at mid-ocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs, but Britt disagrees...

But how do we know that carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) actually do act like the glass of a greenhouse, trapping infrared radiation and causing the atmosphere and surface of the earth to heat up?  Britt takes that as a given. Britt's approach to the difference between where in the Milankovitch cycle we should be temperature-wise (in the glaciation period,) and where we actually are seems to demand that "greenhouse gasses" be accepted as the causative factor of global warming. Many see that there is a direct relationship and come to the conclusion that it is the causative one.  But is it?

Greenhouse Gas:  Earth and earth's moon are roughly the same distance from the sun. The sun's radiation hits matter in the earth's atmosphere and on the surfaces of the earth and moon. Solar visible wavelength radiation (photons) striking electrons of the earth and moon raises the impacted electrons into more energetic orbits. Faster moving, more energetic atoms cause more collisions between molecules and results in higher temperatures of the solids, liquids and gases of the two bodies. As electron orbits decay and revert back to their lower energy level orbits within the atoms they re-radiate infrared wavelength photons which eventually find their way back out into space at night. Electron orbit changes due to photon packet-electron energy transfers do not require molecular valence nor asymmetry in molecules to absorb energy. 

Hottest lunar daytime surface temperature ~ 100c; coldest lunar night surface temperature ~ -170c, and average temperature ~ -18c. Hottest earth temperature = ~ 71c; coldest ~ -89c, average ~ 15c. The primary cause of the difference in temperatures between earth and it's moon is the earth's atmosphere and the moon's lack of one.  Earth's atmosphere is 300 miles thick with 80% of its matter existing within the lower 10 miles. Ozone in the earth's upper atmosphere absorbs the most energetic of the sun's rays which directly strike the moon, and about 1/3 of the visible light from the sun is blocked by earth's atmosphere re-radiating it back into space, while the moon's surface receives the full amount of visible light radiation too.  

Light-as-wave-only global warming theorists require that, in order for the atmosphere to absorb radiation, it has to have electrically charged molecules for the force of the electromagnetic waves (light) to act against. They disregard energy transfer directly from photon to electron collisions. Since most of the atmosphere is made up of gas molecules that don't have a negative electric charge, having a balanced number of positive protons and negative electrons so the electromagnetic waves can't push them around.

To the global warming theorists, some of the molecules have their negatively charged electrons pushed closer to one side of the molecule, seemingly fixed (eg: O3, N2O, H2O), making them lopsided and able to 'jiggle' - to absorb energy from incoming infrared 'rays' - even though the molecules are electrically neutral.  CO2 and CH4 are not lopsided but symmetrical, so they look like they should not be able to absorb electromagnetic wave energy. But these gas molecules are constantly josteling into each other knocking each other into different modes of rotation and vibration. CO2 and CH4 constantly 'jiggle', allowing them to absorb infrared rays and slow the escape of radiation back into space. They go on...

Still, to the light-as-wave global warming theorists, the vast majority of our atmosphere can't absorb infrared radiation because they're made of nitrogen and oxygen, which don't get lopsided even when they are vibrating - because they are just too danged symmetrical.  Nevertheless, they say, the 1% of the atmosphere which can absorb infrared wave energy are so good at it that they manage to intercept about 90% of earth's outgoing heat radiation. Each captured ray gets 'pinged' around the atmosphere, and ends up returning to the earth's surface at least once before escaping back into space... 

This part of the greenhouse gas theory of global warming stretches belief.  Think about it.  Less than 1% of the molecules composing our gaseous atmosphere are required to transfer ALL of the solar radiation energy to the rest of the atmosphere? If CO2 or CH4 were such miraculous molecules, some bright engineer at PPG, Ford glass, or one of the other global sealed insulating glass unit manufacturers would have long since swapped out these very easily produced gases for the natural air or argon gasses they currently use to fill the air-spaces within their sealed glazing units for use in cold-climate windows.  Such miraculous gasses would slow the transmission of heat through the window glass just as they are said to accomplish in the atmosphere. Problem is, CO2 and CH4 are not significantly better at absorbing solar radiation than any of the other gas molecules within our atmosphere.

By volume, earth's dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, Hydrogen, and Xenon. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere. Standard sea-level air pressure, by definition, equals 760 mm (29.92 inches) of mercury, 14.70 pounds per square inch, 1,013.25 × 103 dynes per square centimetre, 1,013.25 millibars, one standard atmosphere, or 101.325 kilopascals.

Looking at my barometer over my lifetime, I can see that the pressure of the earth's atmosphere changes with the weather, but it has not noticably increased overall.  The density of the atmosphere has remained constant.

Does the increase in the volumetric proportion of CO2 and CH4 in the composition of the atmosphere change the amount of radiant solar energy that 'escapes' back into space? Not according to the findings of Karl Zeller and Ned Nikolov.  They discovered that it isn't the proportions nor types of gases in the atmosphere but just the overall quantity.  That the surface temperature of planetary bodies is based on only two things: their distance from the sun, and the quantity of their atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure experienced on the surface of the planet or moon. They used: Radiative Flux = Photon Pressure X Speed of Light (R = Pph C).

The atmosphere of mars is about 100 times thinner than earth's; CO2: 95.32%, Nitrogen: 2.7%, and Argon: 1.6%.

Venus' atmosphere is about 100 times thicker than earth's; CO2 96.5%, Nitrogen 3.5%, Sulfur dioxide 150 ppm, Argon 70 ppm, water vapor 20 ppm, CO 17 ppm, Helium 12 ppm, Neon 7 ppm, Hydrogen chloride 0.1–0.6 ppm, Hydrogen fluoride 0.001–0.005 ppm. 

Even though the atmospheric compositions of these investigated planets and several moons varied widely, they all fit tightly to the graph and in accordance with their measured reality. The relationship they discovered describes a macro-level thermodynamic feature of the planetary atmospheres heretofore unbeknownst to science. The implication of the relationship is that the physical nature of the so-called greenhouse effect is actually pressure-induced thermal enhancement, which is independent of its atmospheric composition. 

The use of the specific atmospheric compositions did not produce any meaningful relationship.  Their discovery was across a much broader range of conditions - much broader than those who only study the earth's atmosphere, involving long-term equilibrium temperature. Earth's climate is a thermal system whose temperature is determined by gas compression.

For 190 years there has been confusion about the physical nature of the greenhouse effect being a radiative phenomenon. It is not a radiative phenomenon, it is a phenomenon called a pressure-induced enhancement. Instead of the atmosphere acting like a blanket to keep the atmosphere from cooling too fast, in fact, it does not slow down or stop the cooling, the atmosphere is just an enhancement of the energy that is coming from the sun, because the energy coming from the sun is a result of photon pressure.

The energy being absorbed by the earth has been enhanced by the pressure of the atmosphere on earth. It doesn't matter if it is a photon pressure or a gas pressure - pressure always changes the temperature. That is their fundamental new discovery.

Karl Zeller and Ned Nikolov - New Solar System Climate Discovery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63QBeDdk4ww