The secrets behind money:
The secrets behind the euro:
The secrets behind democracies:
The secrets behind the war in Iraq:
The secrets behind the war in Afghanistan:
The secrets behind the accusations against Iran:
Farewell to growth:
Facts and lies about the climate:
Do you want to know who publishes the fool's articles?
11 Septiembre 2001
Aftershock News (ru)
Alexander's Gas and Oil
Alex Constantine's 9/11 Truthmove
Altea te quiero verde
Alter du Lot
American Iranian Friendship Committee
Articles du jour
Artikel 7 Nu
At-Park / АТ-парк
Atlas Vista Maroc
Au bout de la route
Avant de voter
Averdade vos libertara
A voz do povo
Banque publique .be
Beez Libre Info
Before it is news
Blog économique et social
Bobo in Paraguay
Brood en spelen
Bullion Management Group
Carla Noirci's Log
CGT Santé 46
Cogito ergo sum
Collectif de Remises En Causes de Besançon
Come Don Chisciotte
Conscience Citoyenne Responsable
Corriera della Notte
Crash Debug fr
Crise Systémique Globale
Critical Trend (bg)
Dagboek van een belegger
Déborah 33 Epée
De Echte Denker
De Lange Mars
Démocratie réelle Nimes
De Waarheid Nu
Démocratie Réelle à Nimes maintenant
Democratische Partij v Solidariteit
De Vrije Chroniqueurs
Dialogue & Démocratie Française
Digitale Stad Eindhoven
Dit kan niet waar zijn.eu
Diário de Notícias - Cartaz
ДОТУ.org.ua / Dotu.org.ua
Dove sono le ragazze
Dutch Amazing Nieuws
Económico Fórum pt
Economics Kiev /
Мировая и рыночная
Статьи и книги
Égalité & Réconciliation
Eindtijd in beeld
EliteTrader.ru / Элитный Трейдер
El Libre Pensador
Eltimir / Елтимир
End the ECB
End US Militarism
(End of the world community)
Evolution de notre civilisation
Filosofia e Tecnologia
Focus στην Οικονομία
Fortune F. Desouche
Forum des Alternatives.org
Forum Mondiale della Alternative
François de Siebenthal
French News Online
Fronte di Liberazione dai banchieri
Fugada YouTube Forum
Future Fast Forward
Gabriele van Doorn
Geografia e Luta - Prof. Mazucheli
George Orwell Werkgroep
Global Economic Intersection
Global Systemic Crisis
(Grassroots Financial Service)
Guerre Libre Info.org
Het echte nieuws.be
Het uur van de waarheid
Ho visto cose che voi umani
Holland 4 MPE
Ho visto cose che voi umani
Il nodo gordiano
Imperiya / Империя
Infomare Per Resistere
Information Clearing House
Informazione in Rete
Institute of Evolutionary Economics
Instituto Reage Brasil
Intermarket & more
International Business Times
IRIB Iran French Radio
Isxys / ΙΣΧΥΣ
Jean Marie Lebraud
Jose Joa Net
Josè Maria Salvador
Journal la Mée
Journaux de Guerre
Komitet / Комитет
L'Observatoire de l'Immo
La banlieu s'exprime
Las razones de Aristófanes
Le Banquier Garou
Le Blog d'Eva
Le Blog de Nicole
Le Lot en Action
Le Metropole Cafe
Le Monde du Sud
Le Partisan de Gauche
Les moutons enragés
Lettre d'Informations Stratégiques Internationales
Macua Blogs Moçambique
Manifeste pour un débat sur le libre échange
Market Oracle cn
Market Oracle co.uk
Mens en Politiek
Mercato Libero News
Mga Diskurso ni Doy
Michel Collon Info
Middle East Online
Mouvement Politique d'Éducation Populaire
Nato nella tana
News Follow Up
Newzz in Ukrain
Nota.to-p.net / НОТАРИАТ
Nous les dieux
Occupy Network tv
Oko-planet.su / Око Планеты
Openbare Bank be
Osservatorio Sovranità Nazionale
Our World / НАШ МИР
Pakistan News Service
Palestine - Solidarité
Panier de Crabes
Paper Blog fr
Partage dialoguer avec jean loup
Parti de Gauche 34
Partido Comunista Brasileiro
PCF Cap Corse
Peace by Truth
Peak Oil .pl
Pensare Liberi News
Peter Pan's Paradijs
Planete Non Violence
Politics & Current Affairs
Portal Luis Nassif
Portland Independent Media Center
Pravda / Правда
Primavera do 11
Project for the Old American Century
Quo Fata Ferunt
Raise the Hammer
Real Wealth Society
Revolta Total Global
Sahar TV Iran
Silver and Gold Shop
Silver Bear Cafe
Sociale Databank Nederland
Studien von Zeitfragen
Stop de bankiers
Storyo.ru / Страницы истории
Svobodnoslovo / Свободно слово
Textos A Voz do Povo.pt
The People's Forum
The Pragmatic Economist
The Voice of Wakker Holland
The Wild, Wild Left
Time For Change
Toine van Bergen
TomskNet.ru / Город.Томск
Tora Yeshua / תורה־ ישוע
Transition Town Breda
Truth Move 9/11
Um Novo Despertar
Veterans for America
Video data bg
Vilag Helyzete Blogspot
V-Kontakte.ru / Вконтакте
Voprosik / Вопросик
Vues du monde
Wake Up From Your Slumber
Wall Street Pit
Want to know .nl
War and Peace / война и мир
We Are Change Holland
We Are Change Rennes
Welcome Back UZ
Werkgroep George Orwell
What really happened
Wij worden wakker
Worldissue Blog bg
World Prout Assembly
Yursodeistivie / Юрсодействие
Zé Povinho no século XXI
Since 2006 the sites here above have published one or more of the court fool's articles. Some seem to be out of reach today, either because these websites or pages do not exist anymore, or because of other causes. To compliment them, I have chosen to keep them in the list.
Rudo de Ruijter
Special thanks to:
Christine, Corinne, Francisco, Evelyne, Françoise, Gaël, Peter, Ingrid, Ivan, Krister, Jorge, Marie Carmen, Ruurd, Sabine, Lisa, Sarah, Valérie & Anonymous...
Acknowledgements for translations:
Come Don Chisciotte
Ermanno di Miceli
Manuel Valente Lopes
Traducteur sans frontière
Do you want to translate too?
Information stops at the linguistic borders. All translations on this site have been made by volunteers. If you speak more than one language, please consider translating an article too. Thank you in advance in the name of the thousands of people who will be able to read your translation.
Rudo de Ruijter
Facts and lies about the climate (3)
by Rudo de Ruijter,
With special thanks to climatologist Professor Patrick Tyson
part 3: CO2: scare, claims and fraud...
The climate is changing, no doubt about it. The climate is always changing, often nearly imperceptibly, sometimes quickly. Today we experience a relatively quick change. We are told it is due to human activity. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution we have burnt always more coal, gas and oil from the underground, liberating their CO2 (carbondioxide) in the atmosphere. So, at first sight, it sounds logical to accuse the CO2 emissions of causing global warming.
These past years the United Nations have done a lot to create a world wide panic for CO2. However, more and more often we hear that CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming. What is false and what is true?
As shown in "Facts and lies about the climate Part I" the clockwork of the Earth' changing orbit around the Sun and the tilt of its axis determine a part of the global warming. The variations in the Sun's activity and their effects on the processes in the Earth' atmosphere would be responsible for the rest of it. Among these processes the vaporization and condensation of H2O, in its forms of water vapour, liquid droplets and ice cristals play a very big role. The changes in water vapour levels have 25 times more impact on global warming than changes in CO2 levels.
The present article focuses on the CO2 aspects. My conclusion is that we have been deliberately deceived by the United Nations and that very probably, in the future, the fear for climate change will be used more often for political purposes as well as for profit making.
Help! The Sea level is rising!
That it is serious with the climate, is clear from the fear for the rising sea level that is put into us. The ice would melt. These last decades a lot of ice has melt near the North Pole. However, this is floating sea ice. It floats, because water expands when freezing. When it melts, it doesn’t take more room than the ice which is below the water. The melting of this ice won’t make the sea level rise, not even a single millimeter. It would be different, when ice caps on land, like on Greenland and Antarctica, would melt. Greenland is covered for 81% with an ice cap (1,755,637 km2) with an estimate volume of 2,620,000 km3.  If this melts, the sea level could rise by 6.5 meters. However, at some points this ice cap is over 3,000 m thick. If you know, that is has taken 18,000 years before all the ice of the last Ice Age had disappeared, you probably understand, that such a tick ice cap won’t melt in a few years time.  We surely do not need to start heightening our dikes. If that ice would start melting we still have generations of time for heightening them. It won’t cause a sudden tsunami. And if the land ice on Antarctica also starts melting, we don’t even need to higher the dikes and should better move, because at the South Pole there is enough ice to raise the water level by 65 meters.
CO2, what is claimed
The climate is changing. At least, we see a clear increasing tendency in temperatures near the surface, that started around 1885 and, after a few peaks and lows, was about one degree Celsius higher in 2000. On the other hand we know that the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution from 0,027% to 0,036%. You read it well. We speak about thousandths of percents. The increase, however, is 40%.
CO2 is created by the combustion of organic materials, especially fossil fuel. This is what we have used a lot during the last century. So, when CO2 is accused to be the malefactor of global warming, that will sound acceptable to an outsider, the more as prominent politicians and, apparently, hordes of scientists shout the same thing.
Their argument is, that, by the increase of CO2, the blanket of greenhouse gases becomes thicker, causing the emission of heat into space to take place at a higher altitude, where it is colder, and where, thus, heat emission is less effective. Oof!
Heat budget and hypothesis
So it would be about a difference in incoming and outgoing radiation. That leads us directly to the preferred subject of many contemporary climatologists: the heat balance, also called energy budget. This is a kind of bookkeeping of the average incoming and outgoing heat in the atmosphere. The first was made by Dines in 1917. Until the satellite measures in 1977 it was unknown how much solar energy reached the top of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, generations of climatologists produced scientific reports with detailed numbers for different categories of incoming and outgoing radiation. From one scientist to another, the numbers could sometimes differ as much as 80 percent!  Since 1977 most of the climatologists work with approximately the same totals, which make their numbers look more in agreement with each other. However, it is important to stay aware, that all these detailed numbers on nice looking heat balance sheets are nothing more than estimates, based on suppositions, extrapolations and hypotheses at a particular point in time. This doesn’t mean they are worthless. It means, this is the best we dispose of for the moment. We can be sure for 99.9 percent, that by developments in science, these book keepings will look different in ten or twenty years. Here below, is a heat budget from Professor Patrick Tyson.
Some climatologists find these balances so appealing that at the same time they proclaim the theorem, that incoming and outgoing radiation are in equilibrium. Well, if that would be true, even for a split second, that would be pure coincidence. The processes that are responsible for warming are not the same as those for cooling. You need to be a very believing climatologist to assume that these processes form an equilibrium or that these processes would have a natural tendency to strive for equilibrium.
To render the accusations against CO2 more plausible, nice pictures and graphics are displayed. The following comes from a publication from the Australian Bureau Of Meteorology. It can also be found in several other publications.
Figure 4. The radiation absorption characteristics of water vapour and carbon dioxide as a function of wavelength. The upper portion of the chart shows the wavelength distribution of radiation emitted from black bodies radiating at 6000K (approximately the solar photoshere) and 255K (approximately the earth's panetary temperature), with the solar irradiance measured at the mean distance of the earth from the sun. The percentage absorption of a vertical beam by representative atmospheric concentrations of water vapour (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are shown in the lower panels.
In the upper part of this picture we see a graphic of a so called blackbody radiation. Imagine you have a black object that absorbs all radiation. You put it in a black box, where no radiation can enter, nor leave. Now, in that box you have a blackbody that turns out to emit a temperature dependent radiation spectrum, the so called blackbody radiation. Of course, you cannot make such a box in reality, because in that box you would need at least a hole to measure that radiation. It is a theoretical concept. At room temperature it emits infrared waves. At 700 degrees Celsius it emits red light and at 5727 degrees (6000 degrees Kelvin) it emits in the wavelengths of visible light. Then, when you apply the law of Max Planck (the founder of the Quantum theory) on that temperature, you get a nice graphic of blackbody radiation of the Sun, a symmetric curve, with a peak in the wavelengths of the visible light.
Subsequently, the idea is, that when you consider the Earth as a blackbody too, and adapt the formula a bit to take into account the albedo (the reflected radiation), then you can, with the lean measurements we dispose of, make a similar graphic of it.
From measurements it has been established, that the long wave radiation, that leaves the top of the atmosphere, totals 235 Watt per square meter. With a formula of Stephan Bolzmann, you can then calculate, that this is the radiation belonging to a blackbody of 251o Kelvin (-22o Celsius.) From another measurement it appears that the peak radiation of the Earth is very close to the 10 micrometer wavelength. According to the displacement formula of Wien, this belongs to a blackbody of 290o Kelvin (17o Celsius.)
These two results conflict. If we make a graphic of it, we get an asymmetrical curve, with on the left side a steep side, and on the right a less steep side. Next, the assumption is, that the difference between these two results must be imputed to the effect of the greenhouse gases.
The problem with this interesting application is that, in the first place, you must assume that the Earth functions as a blackbody and that incoming and outgoing radiation is equal. Of course, you could adapt the formulas to differences, but since we haven’t got the slightest idea how much these differences would be and because this uncertainty would make a mess of all the calculations, it is easier to pretend, that incoming and outgoing radiation are equal. However, this remains just a supposition, and cannot be proved yet. (Personally I don't believe it, already just by the observation that the Earth absorbs more radiation when it approaches the Sun. The océans form vast accumulators of heat.)
Further more, the albedo, the percentage of incoming radiation that is reflected, plays a big role in these calculations. This percentage is based on assumptions and extrapolations. Most scientists seem to consider albedos, close to 30 percent, as an acceptable percentage.
Finally, you have to accept the theorem, that the difference between 251 and 290o Kelvin must be entirely imputed to greenhouse gases, and that, for instance, cosmic radiation and the Earth’ own hot core plays a neglectible role.
Let’s go back to the picture of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The peak radiation of the Earth is displaced to 255o Kelvin, where most publications I found place the peak at 251o K. The peak is straight above a peak of the CO2 absorption in the lower part of the picture, what, undoubtedly, is meant to suggest a relation.
The lower two graphics show which wavelengths are absorbed by water vapour and CO2. What is not mentioned is that of both only the most common isotope is shown. The absorption spectra of water droplets and ice crystals are not shown. They have an absorption spectrum that is many times larger than that of water vapour. What can be seen is that water vapour absorbs many more wavelengths than does CO2 and overlaps it for the bigger part. What is not mentioned either is that there is more than 25 times more water vapour than CO2 in the atmosphere. A minor increase of just 4% in the quantity of water vapour has more effect, than a 100% increase in CO2!
Scientists do no agree with each other about the role of CO2. What is generally admitted is that the shape of the CO2 -molecule is not very suited for the absorption of sun beams. In the wavelengths up to 3 micron CO2 only has a tiny absorption around 1.9 micron and one around 2.7 micron. The most important absorption lines of CO2 are around 15 micron, so, in the infrared. Now some scientists argue that CO2 has already reached its saturation level by far. Experiences in laboratories would prove that CO2 reaches its maximal absorption within 10 meters. Then, a doubling of the percentage of CO2 would just mean that CO2 is saturated within 5 meters.  Others argue that CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be compared with it, and that it hasn’t reached its saturation yet. According to them, an increase in CO2 would still contribute to global warming, although it is minimal and certainly not proportional to the percentage of CO2 increase.
The statement, that more CO2 would make the blanket of greenhouse gases so much thicker, that by the increased altitude the emission of heat into space is hindered by colder temperatures, is, in my opinion, pure nonsense. CO2 represents only 0.038% of the atmosphere. That means that a 40% CO2-increase would make the total blanket 3.30 m thicker. Compare this with H2O, that, with its phase changes between water droplets and water vapour, can make the blanket 400 m thicker when water vaporizes and makes it shrink again when vapour condensates. When there are cumulo-nimbus clouds, water vapour can even raise many kilometers. If there is something like a blanket of greenhouse gases, than it is a blanket with a turbulent upper side, where H2O, with its expansions from vaporizations and contractions from condensations, creates peaks and pits, with extended possibilities for heat emission to space at many different altitudes and at many different temperatures.
I think it is questionable, that CO2 would be a significant factor in global warming. During the past millions of years the level of CO2 was generally much higher.  For the past 420,000 years we dispose of an ice core from a super deep drilling in Vostok, in Antarctica, completed in 1996. With theoretical models, that are still discussed, graphics have been made, that would show a correlation between temperature and CO2. It is a bit difficult to extract details from this graphics, as the thickness of one little line represents already 1,000 years. From this graphics, you cannot deduct, that a raise in CO2 causes a raise in temperature, like Al Gore pretends. (I have not been able to find a single report of collaborators of the Vostok-project that mentions this causal relation.)  On the contrary, studies by Veizer (University of Ottawa) and others show that there is no correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the entire geologic record (long term). Intermediate term results from ice cores show that in every case carbon dioxide concentrations followed temperature changes, and therefore could not cause them.
Finally we may ask ourselves, to which degree ice cores from Antarctica are representative for the whole world. On Antarctica, there are no trees, and exactly trees absorb CO2. More CO2 could also simply lead to faster growth of plants and trees, if, at least, we offer them enough space. Today we are still busy to cut the remaining tropical forests at the speed of an express train and about everywhere in the world we cut back forests to make room for cities and agricultural land.
The hockey stick fraud
According to a graphic in the 2001-report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), today’s temperatures would be the highest of the last 1000 years, due to a sharp increase with 1o C. in the last 150 years. The graph appeared six times in the report and was reiterated in the 2007 report. It is the dramatic ilustration of today’s global warming.
This graphic has become known as the hockey stick. It is fraudulent for two reasons. First, because tree rings have been used as the principal proxy for temperature. At the time it was already well known, that tree rings do not only vary with temperature, but also with CO2 and thus cannot be used as proxy for temperature. IPCC knew this very well too. They had published a warning against the use of tree rings in their report of 1990. The fabricators of the hockey stick gave the tree rings 400 times more weight than the other proxies they used.
But to get their dramatic effect of the highest temperatures in 1000 years, they had to get rid of the mediaeval warm period, that was much warmer than today, as shown in the IPCC report of 1990.
The second fraud consisted in replacing the real data of the warm period with fabricated colder estimates. It is thanks to the tenacity of the Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre and his colleague professor Ross McKitrick that the corruption was finally exposed. On the computer of the fabricators of the hockey stick, they found the real temperatures in a file labeled “censored data”. 
Al Gore too, used the hockey stick graphics in the slide shows he presented all over the world to promote the CO2 scare. In an “Inconvenient truth”, again, he presents today’s warming as exceptional.  In 2007, he received a Nobel Price for his CO2 campaign, together with the U.N.’ IPCC. 
In fact, warm periods, like today’s and that of the Middle Ages, have nothing exceptional. Even if you rather believe Al Gore, but take a look at the last 5,000 years period, you will find more of such warm periods. 
Maybe the most remarkable aspect would be the rather quick rise of one degree in 150 years. The study of Earth’ orbits does not deliver anything that could explain this quick rise. (See part 1.) This quick rise wasn’t even continual. According to the ice core studies by Veizer (University of Ottawa) and others, global temperatures dropped between 1940 and 1980. By the way, this was a period of the most intense increase in global CO2 concentrations.
Could increased solar activity be the explanation then? Scaffeta and West (Duke University) think so and estimate that as much as 35% of the recent (post 1980) warming and as much as 50% of the earlier (1900 to 1980) warming can be attributed to it. According to Solanki, et al (in the October 2004 issue of Nature), since 1930 the solar emissivity has been at the highest levels in more than 8,000 years. However, if there were a direct correlation between solar activity and temperature, the latter would not have dropped between 1940 and 1980, wouldn’t it?
I think it is safe to conclude, that the raise in global temperatures of the last 150 years cannot be attributed to CO2, nor just to increased solar activity. On the other hand, an increase of H2O in the atmosphere would have 25 times more effect then CO2, but it seems this has not been investigated on a global scale. Other, not yet investigated factors, may well shed more light on the question in the future.
What surprises me, is that none of the studies I have seen, pays much attention to the changes in the use of the Earth’ surface. Forests have made way for fields and meadows, often extensively drained, irrigated and sprinkled. Men do not always do so with sufficient knowledge and insight, testified by the disappearance of Lake Aral (not so long ago a landlocked sea) , and the drying up of dozens of rivers, among which the Murray river in Australia. 
Big surfaces of agricultural land often let winds dry out the surface and pick up dust. Excessive water extractions for consumption, agriculture, industries and around mining sites dry out the surface too. Such dry areas easily become much hotter in summer. Hot spots tend to create their own local climate, with thermiques and turbulences in the air above.
Cities and their industries not only produce heat, but also emissions of vapour, steam and particles, adding to the greenhouse effect.
Compare this with what has disappeared most: forests. Forests are important for withholding water, for keeping drying winds away from the surface, for the prevention of erosion and desert forming, for reducing daily differences in temperatures, for taking up energy in photosynthesis while producing oxygen, which, by the way, is not a greenhouse gas.
With this conclusion I could end my study about the climate. But then, probably, I would leave unanswered the most important question: Why information is spread all over the world, that must make us believe, that it is all about CO2?
What goes behind the CO2 scam?
This question was not the subject of my climate research. But maybe we find that answer, when we ask ourselves, why, of all plausible causes and of all greenhouse gases, CO2 has been chosen. Why isn’t there a world wide propaganda against dust and other tiny particles that contribute to global warming? Why isn’t it the greenhouse gases, expelled by the industries, like hydrofluorocarbon, perfluorocarbon and sulfur-hexafluoride,  that are accused? These are, indeed, the greenhouse gases, that did not exist before the industrial era.
The scam has been organized on a world wide level, with the United Nations as instigator and Al Gore as messenger. The clear intention was to fool governments, policymakers, industrials as well as eco-activists. So there must be very high interests involved. For all deceptions goes that there must be a motive behind it. Most often it is profit. So a logical question would then be "who profits of the CO2-scare?"
Although it seems questionable to me that the car industries have enough influence in the United Nations to make them organize such a swindle, they clearly profit a lot from the CO2 scare. They have developed cars that are more efficient, use less petrol and emit less CO2. They have organized a successful marketing campaign to present these cars as "eco-cars", "green cars" and "environmentally friendly" cars. Governments are (or have been) subsidising the purchase of these cars with tax reductions. There are city centres in Germany, where you are not allowed to drive without an official sticker that your car has low CO2-emissions. Germany is the country of the big Mercedes and Audi, so, of course, they have taken care to choose their calculation methods in a way that these big cars can still circulate in these city centres, while some older smaller cars don't get a green sticker even if they emit less CO2 .
The scam is not that much in the unfair calculation method, as in the fact, that these modern cars are not environmentally friendly at all. They pollute heavily! In Europe we have emission levels of particles that diesel engines are not allowed to exceed. However, these levels only apply to diesel engines. In the past they were considered to be the dirty polluters. If we compare the emission of particles of today's green cars with the limit set for diesel engines, our modern subventioned green cars exceed these limits by many times! 
Next to these so called "eco-cars", the car industries have developed hybride petrol/electric cars and they are also developing the all-electric cars with zero CO2-emission. Of course, the global warming scare has made these cars highly popular, at least in the press. For at this moment there are nearly no all-electrics on the roads yet. Mass production is about ready to start, but tests are still running to find the most practical way to fill the batteries or to exchange them underway.
Well, here too big scams are going on. In the first place, when they say CO2-emissions are nil, they don't count the emissions at the production of electricity. Neither do they count the emissions for the construction and maintenance of a distribution network. You could plug some cars in the existing network, but if a majority of cars would become electric, we need many more power plants and an enormous extension of the capacity of the distribution network. And how environmentally friendly is the production and the disposal of batteries and solar panels today?
The other scam, much bigger, is making people believe that there are enough environmentally friendly sources to produce all the electricity for our cars. At this moment, of all energy we use in the world, about 1% comes from sustainable sources, like solar, wind and hydro-energy. The latter can hardly expand, because most interesting spots to build dams are already in use. Wind and Sun energy are fluctuating much too much to guarantee a continual supply. If we still want to use them, we will need enormous stocks of exchangeable batteries to let us drive during the dark winter days. I haven't calculated how much surface of solar panels we would need to fill enough batteries for the year round, but I am afraid these giant surfaces will be impossible to find. Some people suggest in the deserts, but for Europe the closest desert is the Sahara and we haven't found a way to transport the electricity. Classical powerlines have much too much resistance. Besides, if somewhere you create really giant parks of solar panels and draw the energy away from that region in the form of electricity, you create a local climate change. Heavy sand storms are likely to occur.
The obvious conclusion is that once we are addicted to electricity for our mobility, our politicians and our electricity producers will simply say we have to accept nuclear energy. Of course, they will ensure us that it is safe, like they have always done.
Nuclear energy lobby?
The nuclear energy lobby brings us, indeed, to the United Nations Plaza in New York. Here we find:
the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), source of the falsified climate reports, with head quarters in Geneva, the town of nuclear research (CERN), and an office at the United Nations Plaza in New York;
the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the regulating body for nuclear energy, with head quarters in Vienna and offices among others in Geneva and at the United Nations Plaza in New York; (They are also very interested in the environment and attend meetings where the head of the IPCC can be found too.  )
the permanent members of the Security Council: United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. These are also the nuclear weapon states of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). All have offices at the United Nations Plaza in New York. Let us recall that the veto-right of the permenent members is based on the fact that they were the victors of World War II (except China) and that their supremacy in the UN is based on the possession of nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War the nuclear weapons have lost their influence, which means the basis for their supremacy is fading away.
Why do I think the IAEA and the SC's permanent members may have something to do with the campaign to create a world wide Global Warming panic? The reason is simple. If they can make the world believe that CO2 is the problem, they have the solution. They have what they call "clean nuclear electricity", guaranteed without CO2 emission.
The nuclear weapon states have developed a smart project and they are executing it step by step. Maybe you have never heard about it yet, because not many journalists pay attention. Their plan is called the Multilateral Nuclear Approach (MNA). In this plan the nuclear weapon states become the exclusive suppliers of enriched uranium for all the nuclear power plants in the other 183 NPT-countries. These other countries would not have the right anymore to enrich uranium themselves. They would depend entirely on deliveries by the nuclear weapon states from stocks held outside the customers' countries. The first of these stocks is already in place in Russia. The nuclear fuel suppliers act under the umbrella of the IAEA, which drew the plan.
This plan will make all countries totally dependent upon the nuclear weapon states, which can simply stop delivering nuclear fuel to force the countries into immediate submission. It is a new world order that is taking shape.
The only thing that is still lacking for the success of their project is a pretext to repeal article 4 of the Non Proliferation Treaty, which says that each member has the right to enrich uranium for its civil needs. They have tried very hard to use Iran's nuclear energy program to show how dangerous enrichment would be. In spite of years of false accusations by the US, UK and France, that attempt has failed. The CO2 scam has been fabricated rather in the same period. If it was intended to help the MNA-project into the saddle, it has failed too. Too many people know about the fraud now.
Nevertheless the participants have been honoured. In 2005 IAEA's director El Baradei received a Nobel Prize for his contribution and in 2007 Al Gore together with the fraudulent IPCC have received one for theirs.
For more details on the Multilateral Nuclear Approach, you can read "Raid on the nuclear fuel market" 
My climate conclusions
We are 20,000 years underway in a 50,000 year warming period of a Milankovitch cycle. Within these cycles the Sun's emissivity varies a lot, with eras of high and low activity. Much of what circulates as climate science today is based on hypotheses, that may or may not be confirmed by further research in the future. The CO2-story is fraudulent. The different isotopes of H2O have a much larger absorption spectrum and besides there is 25 times as much of it in the atmosphere.
We should be aware, that political and commercial interests hinder objective science. Scientists who don't conform to UN's corrupt campaign don't get the attention they should receive, like for instance Henrik Svensmark, who has found correlations between the Sun's magnetism and temperatures. 
The political and commercial interests at stake are that high that we may expect more climate deceptions in the future. If you don't like to be fooled, have a look at:
part 2: The activity of the Sun
Sources & references:
[*] With special thanks to climatologist Professor Patrick Tyson, who has taken the time to explain all the key issues to me.
This study contains 3 parts:
part 2: The activity of the Sun
part 3: CO2 scare, claims and fraud...
For reactions you can contact the author via firstname.lastname@example.org
If you wish, you may copy and forward this article or publish it in newspapers and on websites.
If you don't want to miss the next publication, then click here:
I would like to receive an email as soon as another article appears in English.
If the link doesn't work, please send an email.
subject: Subscribe articles EN