UNEP & its scientists then blame transportation & industries as the primary source of pollution. And the world’s defense mechanisms are emission reduction, sustainable development, clean air act, ecological solid waste management act, mitigation & adaptation, etc. But these are subjective beliefs of wishful thinking, not realistic perception & objective reality of how nature works. This is because UNEP & its scientists undermined nature, failing to render better study before & after the treaty was conceived in 1997. Following are scientific grounds which would invalidate the treaty, among others, to wit:
1.Their study did not identify the stages as to how CO2 gas originated. The process of reverse transformation of gas from solid state (biology & physics) is necessary in order to determine the solid matter. Since the world claims that CO2 gas came from fossil fuels, then the origin is plants. To capture pure carbon, the appropriate method is to make natural gases work effectively (via organic matter cycling than carbon reduction).
2.Their study did not consider two classes of organisms. One that takes up CO2 & releases O2 (plants & forests) and the other that takes O2 & releases CO2 (man, animals, birds & sea creatures). If we devoid earth with plants & forests, the other organisms suffer.
3.Their study did not evaluate plants (biology) &/or reactants (chemistry) as possible means to reduce GHG. Concentrating on nature’s secondary process via photosynthesis and chemosynthesis, these will ultimately balance excessive GHG energy as waste gas from all emissions & respirations, conducive for mankind’s primary living.
4.Their study did not identify an abiotic environment which would best suit or gain control to store solid matter (instead of storing in gaseous state) with pure carbon & other carbon compounds (biology, chemistry & physics).
5.Their study did not consider the might of decay microorganisms to send off large volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Microbes can pollute in billions of CO2 a DAY per gram in solid wastes (like molds growing in spoiled foods), far more than billions (or even trillions) of CO2 a YEAR in tons of burnt coal & oil from transportation & industries since decomposing (or CO2-emitting) microbes are dominant during extreme hot environment (at temperatures between 25-40 degrees Celsius) than beneficial photosynthetic microorganisms (at temperatures between 20-25 degrees Celsius).
6.Their study did not consider that warming has intensified not only due to emissions from transportation & industries but rather due to organic decay from massive desertification of land (losing its capability to photosynthesize).
7.Their study did not consider that if CO2 is higher (claimed at 350 ppm or more), then its leverage with O2 has been impaired, meaning O2 is lower or weaker. In other words, O2 has reached a point of shortage or loss (temporarily) below the standard science record of 20-21%.
8.Their study did not consider O2 as a neutralizer of elements & compounds, taking action with another, being the common denominator of solids, liquids & gases.
9.And finally, their study did not invest on the biological service of CO2 as food and biological necessity of O2 as ingredients to sustain growth & preserve life respectively.
This is a grave & serious fault of UNEP & its scientists, causing faulty analysis & reasoning. The worse of it, IPCC acted as accomplice by introducing its false science too to favor carbon emission reduction and cover up the fraud in science.
1.Their study did not identify the stages as to how CO2 gas originated. The process of reverse transformation of gas from solid state (biology & physics) is necessary in order to determine the solid matter. Since the world claims that CO2 gas came from fossil fuels, then the origin is plants. To capture pure carbon, the appropriate method is to make natural gases work effectively (via organic matter cycling than carbon reduction).
2.Their study did not consider two classes of organisms. One that takes up CO2 & releases O2 (plants & forests) and the other that takes O2 & releases CO2 (man, animals, birds & sea creatures). If we devoid earth with plants & forests, the other organisms suffer.
3.Their study did not evaluate plants (biology) &/or reactants (chemistry) as possible means to reduce GHG. Concentrating on nature’s secondary process via photosynthesis and chemosynthesis, these will ultimately balance excessive GHG energy as waste gas from all emissions & respirations, conducive for mankind’s primary living.
4.Their study did not identify an abiotic environment which would best suit or gain control to store solid matter (instead of storing in gaseous state) with pure carbon & other carbon compounds (biology, chemistry & physics).
5.Their study did not consider the might of decay microorganisms to send off large volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Microbes can pollute in billions of CO2 a DAY per gram in solid wastes (like molds growing in spoiled foods), far more than billions (or even trillions) of CO2 a YEAR in tons of burnt coal & oil from transportation & industries since decomposing (or CO2-emitting) microbes are dominant during extreme hot environment (at temperatures between 25-40 degrees Celsius) than beneficial photosynthetic microorganisms (at temperatures between 20-25 degrees Celsius).
6.Their study did not consider that warming has intensified not only due to emissions from transportation & industries but rather due to organic decay from massive desertification of land (losing its capability to photosynthesize).
7.Their study did not consider that if CO2 is higher (claimed at 350 ppm or more), then its leverage with O2 has been impaired, meaning O2 is lower or weaker. In other words, O2 has reached a point of shortage or loss (temporarily) below the standard science record of 20-21%.
8.Their study did not consider O2 as a neutralizer of elements & compounds, taking action with another, being the common denominator of solids, liquids & gases.
9.And finally, their study did not invest on the biological service of CO2 as food and biological necessity of O2 as ingredients to sustain growth & preserve life respectively.
This is a grave & serious fault of UNEP & its scientists, causing faulty analysis & reasoning. The worse of it, IPCC acted as accomplice by introducing its false science too to favor carbon emission reduction and cover up the fraud in science.
