Global Warming Caused by Man “Reality or Global Political Strategy”

This article proposes a personal opinion on the publication of the magazine polytika 1 (2008), on an extensive analysis that Jaworowski carried out with the article “The Sun, Not Man, Still Rules Our Climate”. The article points out that the global environmental movement, which raises an Ecologist philosophy, with its almost irrefutable motto “Sustainable development” is nothing more than the application of a political strategy on a global scale. He bases his analysis on scientific advances, they clearly explain that climatic variations can be produced naturally by internal phenomena of the earth-atmosphere system and not by human action. However, the theory of warming caused by ourselves and initiate an entire ecology stream, psychologically is possible, the human being is able to accept a collective guilt and at the same time shows willingness to participate in mitigation. Apparently, the strategy points to interests at scale where a global tax on carbon, imposed on humanity for its supposed role in anthropogenic global warming (AGM), would be a cornerstone. Finally, the supposed global warming brings its own interests on a global scale, which for the moment keeps us polarized with two discordant philosophical approaches and distracts us from the real problems that affect the human being at present “air, water and soil pollution”, which put the health and food security of future generations at risk.


Introduction
The position of Jaworowski [1], on this global political strategy, is argued and designed considering several aspects among them: The use of research groups and theories of important scientists as main argument such as: a.
The Malthusian current, Thomas Malthus. The theory held that the population growth in the world was in geometric shape, food production in arithmetic progression [2]. b.
The Iron Mountain report (proposes the creation of a new quasi-religious myth about planetary risks and exaggerated environmental protection). c.
One of the 119 famous quotes of the biologist Thomas Henrry Huxley "the surplus population must be eliminated in some way" [3]. The oceanographer Jacques Cousteau "to stabilize the world population, we must eliminate 350 thousand people daily". c.
Prince Felipe "his intention to return to another life as a virus". d.
The Club of Rome.
e. Political figures such as Al Gore, etc.
The creation of institutions, such as the Environmental Protection Agency of the USA (EPA) and the United Nations Development Program, among others, drivers of the new proposal.
The implementation of the IPCC as an organization to scientifically validate the political strategy.
Jaworowski [1] states that the joint and synchronized action of these, without considering the veracity or falsity of the information used as a basis for their claims, has promoted the appearance and positioning of ecologists. Therefore, there is scientific evidence to elucidate, based on objective research, whether global warming is real and whether it is caused by man or is a political strategy that encompasses other interests on a large scale ( Figure 1).

Critical Analysis
First, we will try to understand in a general way the causes of the global climate. Staines [4] Explains very clearly that climatic variations can be produced naturally by internal phenomena of the Earth-atmosphere system or can be caused by external forcing.

Natural factors
a.
Changes in solar radiation (The amount of energy that the Sun emits is not constant, due to sunspots on its surface).

b.
Changes in Earth's orbit (Variations in the geometry of the orbit that the earth describes around the sun determine where and when the earth receives more solar energy, affecting the net energy balance).

c.
The greenhouse effect (part of the longwave energy emitted by the earth's surface is retained by greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, without affecting the entry of UV rays from the Sun).

d.
Aerosols (particles and droplets are so small from 10mm to 100μm in diameter that they remain suspended in a gas, in this case the atmosphere, for considerable periods.

External factors (man)
Changes in land use, in cultivation areas or replacing vegetation cover with asphalt or concrete have altered the way in which the earth reflects sunlight and radiates heat. These changes affect the regional patterns of evaporation, rainfall and infiltration of water into the subsoil, affecting the distribution of energy on the planet.
Staines [4] concludes that the increase in temperature is attributed to different causes that can be summarized in: a.
The climate system is reacting after a negative anomaly caused by a diminished solar contribution, which was followed by a constant increase in solar energy. b.
The system is reacting after a negative anomaly caused by an increase in global volcanic activity c.
The system is not reacting but is being forced into warmer temperatures by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a product of human activity. Of course, there is a fourth and more plausible explanation; d.
The increase in temperature is the product of a combination of the three causes mentioned above.

Social psychology
Staines [4], does not blame man and rather attributes to the sum of other factors that sound more conservative and scientifically correct. Then, we are able to accept the theory of warming caused by ourselves and start a whole current (Ecologist) to control it. Psychologically is it possible? The human being would be able to accept a lie of such magnitude and what would be his attitude towards it, in this respect Ferguson and Branscombe [5] investigated the notion that collective guilt mediates the effects of beliefs about the cause and effect of global warming on the willingness to participate in mitigation. It concludes that when people believe that their group is responsible for damaging the natural world and that the damage can be repaired, it is likely that their feelings of collective guilt provoke behavior to repair the damage caused. That is, it can encourage environmental behavior.
As such a scenario is psychologically possible, is global warming real? The article by Dai et al. [6] can give us a more objective explanation, they used the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) considering historical data on precipitation and soil temperature (up to 1m of soil depth) from 1870 to 2002. Concludes that 1950 to 2002, precipitation increases in Argentina, the southern United States and most of western Australia, resulting in more humid conditions (i.e. higher PDSI) in these regions. However, most of Europe, Africa, Canada, Alaska and eastern Australia became drier from 1950 to 2002, in part due to the large warming of the soil surface since 1950 in these regions. It is clear that this article shows that the changes produced are the product of a variation in precipitation and changes in temperature on the surface, tacitly understood to be generated by agricultural production. It is clear that Dai et al. [6], although it accepts the theory of warming, it does not indicate that CO 2 is responsible and coincides slightly with Staines [4].

Role of the IPCC
But what arguments are found to deny the claim sponsored by the IPCC, is cooling perhaps a mere invention of counterattack. Wayne Hall [7] published in Global Research (January 3, 2017), demystifying the debate on climate change. I point out that forty years ago, it was the new ice age and not global warming that was at the center of official and media concern. Quote some of them: a.
The "New York Times" of July 18, 1970 reported that "The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting largescale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is getting colder, why parts of the Arctic sea ice are they have become ominously thicker and if the reach of that ice sheet contributes to the beginning of the glaciations. "All major climate organizations of the time supported the theory of global cooling.

b.
A 1974 report by oceanographer and paleontologist James D. Hays revealed that "The suspicion that winters are getting colder and colder is no more than a mere suspicion among climatologists." In the last 30 years, permanent snow in the Baffin Island has expanded the ice accumulated in Iceland during the winter is increasing and is becoming a serious danger to navigation. c.
"The Canberra Times" of November 1974 reported: "A new ice age could conquer the world within the life of present generations. d.
An important television documentary (BBC) shows that international scientists have changed their minds about the speed with which the "weather machine" of the world can change gears.
Then we ask ourselves when the CO 2 monster and global warming is created, Wayne Hall [7], affirms that the doctrine that the increase of carbon dioxide emissions is heating up the planet became "official" for consumption of media in 1966 when Gordon Mac Donald -President of the new Select Panel on Climate and Climate Change of the ICAS (Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science) stated: "Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit ".
For Wayne, it is clear that the issue lies in the ignorance of a global strategy, carried out by the climate mafia (as proposed in the Iron Mountain report in 1967). Where, a global tax on carbon, imposed on humanity for its supposed role in anthropogenic global warming (AGM), would be a cornerstone. Whoever has the monopoly of truth has a monopoly of deception. What has finally been achieved is the last trick of confidence, managing to corral people from all over the world in two camps and turn them against each other.
The paradox is that global warming transcended and hypnotized the scientific world, as shown by the article by the researcher Oreskes [8]; who made the review of 928 scientific publications on the subject, from peer-reviewed journals from 1993 to 2003, to see if there was a consensus among the scientific community regarding the influence of human activity on climate, more particularly on global warming. What she found was that each and every one of the authors of these articles agrees with the fact that there is evidence that shows a human impact in the changes observed during the last decades, although the opinions vary with regard to the magnitude of said impact.
It is clear that in order to disseminate the idea, they needed an authoritative voice and that is where the IPCC fits, which for Arcos [9] indicates that the main objective for the IPCC is to reduce the Climate Change of anthropogenic origin. Although, there is a social and political debate on the question of whether there is enough scientific consensus to justify concerted international action to lessen its effects (true intention of the supposed warming as Wayne maintains). Arcos [9] mentions that on March 21, 2004, the IPCC reported that the concentration reached 376ppm. This concentration is considerably higher than at any time in the last 420 thousand years, during which period reliable data could be obtained from ice cores. It is believed that the CO 2 values were at this height for the last time 40 million years ago. So, I wonder, should not the planet be on fire? If the IPCC attributes the heating to the CO 2 increase.
The IPCC then lies, because no author has refuted that the planet has presented warming and cooling rates for the causes pointed out by Staines [4] and there are more numerous authors who scientifically demonstrate that the slight warming shown by the earth is reaching its final stage and it gives way to a cooling stage, as Jaworowski [1] maintains. Then its foundations (global cooling trend, influenced by sunspots), are testable or are simply a counter-attack to the IPCC position. In this regard, Wang Shaowu et al. [10] explains that the last cycle of 11 years of solar activity, called cycle 23, was very different from any previous cycle. It lasted 12.4 years, while most of the previous cycles lasted only 10 years, until March 2010. This represents an exceptional solar minimum, beginning in 1913, from cycle 15 to cycle 22. In addition, the weakening of the Magnetic fields and sunspots, evidence weakening of current solar activity. It concludes that the current great solar maximum, which began in 1920, will soon end. It is very possible that a new large solar minimum will begin in the next 100-200 years and we need to closely monitor the number of sunspots in the next solar cycle 24, to confirm whether solar activity tends to continuous weakening.
In this context, the proposal of man-made global warming, well supported by the IPCC, is not an impromptu invention, it is finely designed, and to understand the solids of its philosophy, Staines [4] explains the factors that cause variations. climatic and man is a factor and the magnitude of their participation is unknown. Then, as the vast majority I accept such a theory. Ferguson and Branscombe [5] explain that psychologically collective guilt is created, about the cause and effect of global warming, in response the will to participate in mitigation is generated. In addition, Wayne Hall [7] denies the IPCC, showing evidence that forty years ago, it was the new ice age and not global warming that was at the center of official and media concern and that the real purpose is to create imposed on humanity for its supposed role in anthropogenic global warming (AGM). The worrying thing is that global warming transcended and hypnotized the scientific world, as shown by the article by the researcher Naomi Oreskes [8] and we are blinded by what the IPCC says and apparently do not want to accept that the weakening of the fields is taking place. magnetic fields and decrease in sunspots, weakening current solar activity, which governs the global climate as affirmed by Wang Shaowu et al. [10].
Finally, Arcos [9] mentions that on March 21, 2004, the IPCC reported that the concentration of CO 2 reached 376ppm and that the CO 2 values were at this height for the last time 40 million years ago. I ask myself again, should not the planet be on fire? and if the warming is so true why then we do not give tribune and diffusion to alternatives and technologies that allow the transformation of CO 2 from industrial emission. As Faruque [11] proposal, a chemical reactor is installed in the tower of industrial CO 2 emissions, to capture it and allow a heat release reaction in the bioreactor in the presence of Li3N to convert it into lithium cyanamide (Li 2 CN 2 ) and use as fertilizers.

Conclusion
The supposed global warming generates its own interests on a global scale, which at this moment keep us occupied and polarized with two discordant philosophical approaches (Ecological-Industrial) and distract us from the real environmental problems that affect the human being in the present "air pollution", water and soil. "that put at risk the health and food security of future generations.