+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 1 9 10 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 195

Thread: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

  1. Link to Post #161
    United States Avalon Member Intranuclear's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th August 2011
    Posts
    283
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,492 times in 267 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    What I don't understand is why is there hysteria over climate change?
    Lets for one moment assume that it is caused by human action regardless of merit.
    They are still talking about severe consequences in 50 to 100 or more years and they want to take action now.
    That's the part that drives me crazy.
    They are somehow assuming that no new technologies will be available in such a time-frame.
    Really!?

    Also, a couple of volcanoes going off will cool the earth. So what now, we now need to fight volcanoes so that the earth warms?
    I am so confused.

    My kids are being taught at school about global warming and when I ask if they are teaching the science, I get blank stares. Science? What is that thing?
    When someone does so much hand waving and insists on buying this item now because it will be too late, they are desperately trying to make their commission.

    When I see a model that can predict the future climate and vegetation growth year over year for say 20 years WITHOUT reprogramming, I will then take it more seriously.

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Intranuclear For This Post:

    BMJ (29th April 2019), Deux Corbeaux (30th April 2019), Didgevillage (29th April 2019), peterpam (29th April 2019), Philippe (29th April 2019), Tintin (17th May 2019), Valerie Villars (2nd May 2019), Wind (30th April 2019), wnlight (3rd May 2019)

  3. Link to Post #162
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,006
    Thanks
    56,311
    Thanked 88,693 times in 14,702 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Fake climate science and scientists

    by Robert April 28, 2019
    “We’re tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.”
    – Paul Driessen
    ______________
    “For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists,” says Paul Driessen.

    “They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies – for no climate benefit … with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels … and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.”
    Driessen’s article this week tackles this problem head-on.
    ____________

    Fake climate science and scientists

    By Paul Driessen

    Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

    The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” – and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

    I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

    But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief – or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.

    Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

    Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something. It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” – or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

    Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

    They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

    In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system – all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

    But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principal or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes – and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

    Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

    Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate – and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

    Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

    And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” – and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

    When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” – while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of, or interest in, “the guiding principles of actual science.”

    Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand…. The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal – and one political party ticket,” she explains.

    The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use … and upend modern economies.

    The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists – a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation … and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less than 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

    Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

    Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

    Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefiting nature and humanity – especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

    The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century – and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

    Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years – and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

    Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

    So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs – in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” – let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.
    Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  4. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (29th April 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (29th April 2019), Baby Steps (12th May 2019), Bill Ryan (29th April 2019), BMJ (30th April 2019), Deux Corbeaux (30th April 2019), Didgevillage (29th April 2019), meeradas (2nd May 2019), Melinda (7th May 2019), peterpam (29th April 2019), Sophocles (29th April 2019), Tintin (2nd May 2019), Valerie Villars (2nd May 2019), Wind (30th April 2019), wnlight (3rd May 2019)

  5. Link to Post #163
    United States Avalon Member Intranuclear's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th August 2011
    Posts
    283
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,492 times in 267 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Here is a question that is bothering me.
    If fossil fuels can run out as they say by 2060 (whatever), wouldn't this issue of blaming warming on the use of fossil fuels also go away?

    Another question.
    Is the future of human exploration of the cosmos to rely on fossil fuels?

    Are these two questions related? Meaning maybe there is motivation in immediately getting started on switching global economies to use more advanced energy sources. For example thorium (hot salt) reactors.

    Regardless the stupidity of climate change arguments, I can't imagine a world where we are burning gas in 100 years or that we are not mining asteroids or colonizing planets or asteroid or the moon(s).

    Having said that, I acknowledge that growing economies desperately need an immediate source of cheap energy, thus fossil fuels.

    What are the agendas of the controlling powers?
    - depopulation?
    - fighting ETs?
    - fighting asteroids?
    - global wars?
    - replacing humans with automation?
    - genetic re-engineering of humans and animals?
    - geoengineering?
    - a billion other agendas...
    - all of the above?

    If humans are being taken over through hybridization, isn't all this moot?
    Aren't all of these arguments ended by a single asteroid (naturally or intentionally directed) strike?

  6. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Intranuclear For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (29th April 2019), BMJ (30th April 2019), Deux Corbeaux (6th May 2019), Didgevillage (29th April 2019), meeradas (2nd May 2019), Tintin (17th May 2019), Valerie Villars (2nd May 2019), wnlight (3rd May 2019)

  7. Link to Post #164
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    73
    Posts
    8,873
    Thanks
    21,459
    Thanked 46,691 times in 7,684 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Its probably been posted before but it seems that the current change is cyclic and we are heading into an ice age--at least that's the view of some enlightened scientists.
    One thing for sure about experts, their opinions can be completely different.
    Chris
    A charity to help African Children become self sufficient. :attention:

    http://www.learningtoolsforselfdevelopment.co.uk/

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    avid (29th April 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (29th April 2019), BMJ (30th April 2019), Didgevillage (29th April 2019), peterpam (16th May 2019), Valerie Villars (2nd May 2019), Wind (30th April 2019), wnlight (3rd May 2019)

  9. Link to Post #165
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    317
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Solar minimum/maximum is ONLY one piece of the whole puzzle.
    There are other factors at work.

    The fact remains that we are sitting right in the middle of an Ice Age (which is not the first time in billions of years) since one million or so years ago where

    approx. 130,000 years of very cold glacial and
    approx. 13,000 years of relatively warm interglacial
    periods alternate.

    The period we are in is called Holocene, just one of the interglacial periods, but it has virtually ended.

    Milanković figured that out without the tools we now have.

  10. Link to Post #166
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,006
    Thanks
    56,311
    Thanked 88,693 times in 14,702 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Forget so-called ‘global warming’

    by Robert

    May 1, 2019
    Natural (not human-caused) ‘global warming’ has ended.
    _______________

    Forget so-called ‘global warming’

    By Jimmy Walter

    Natural (not human-caused) ‘global warming’ has ended. However, we do face two climate crises: The current Little Ice Age and the looming regular ice age, which may be worse than the previous one. A billion or maybe more people are likely to die during this little ice age since they are already living on the border of starvation.

    Look at this graph and see that the height of this warm period is less than the other peaks of the last 450-thousand years. The previous warm periods lasted about the same time as this current one already has. No previous period spiked after the onset which this current one is way past.



    We need to prepare, develop more fossil fuels like coal, albeit with high scrubbing, methane, and oil. We need to use and develop plants that will survive the coming lower temperatures, less rain, and be more productive.

    Sources:
    https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hu...nd-statistics/

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...emperature.png

    GGraph source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...emperature.png
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  11. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Baby Steps (7th May 2019), BMJ (3rd May 2019), meeradas (2nd May 2019), peterpam (16th May 2019), Sophocles (15th May 2019), Tintin (2nd May 2019), Valerie Villars (2nd May 2019), Wind (2nd May 2019), wnlight (3rd May 2019)

  12. Link to Post #167
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    317
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    "The current Little Ice Age and the looming regular ice age, which may be worse than the previous one. "

    It is not entirely correct. The last Little Ice Age occurred a few hundred years ago, when the Thames froze and there were wide-spread famines in East Asia as well.

    What's upcoming is not a Little one, but full-blown Ice Age.

    The graph shows a cycle consisting of 130,000 years of Ice Age glacial and 13,000 years of relatively warm interglacial. An average of about 5 degrees Celsius makes this difference.


    "A billion or maybe more people are likely to die "
    This sounds too optimistic.

    It will be the responsibility of each individual government to protect its people by securing food supply, among other things, and globalists don't want that to happen.

  13. Link to Post #168
    Canada Avalon Member frankstien's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2019
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    158
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 567 times in 139 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    RE-POST--

    Cue to 26 mins. If you want to cut to the chase.

    BBC Documentary; The Great Global Warming Swindle




    (it's the sun, folks)
    "Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives."
    --John Lennon

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to frankstien For This Post:

    Baby Steps (7th May 2019), BMJ (3rd May 2019), peterpam (16th May 2019), Tintin (17th May 2019)

  15. Link to Post #169
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Posts
    1,210
    Thanks
    33,700
    Thanked 5,198 times in 1,054 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Dr. Patrick Michaels claims of the 32 United Nations climate change models only one works and that is the Russian one all the rest are fudged.

    The truth about global warming



    Fox News
    Published on Oct 21, 2018
    Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.

    Notes:
    1.20 What is currently going on with climate change?
    3.05 Many models but only the Russian one works.
    4.35 The other models are fudged.
    6.00 What caused warming.
    8.00 EPA politics and the Obama administration.
    9.35 Why the other models do not work.
    11.55 Is weather getting worse.
    14.45 The politics of science.
    22.45 The benefits of warming.
    26.55 When did the propaganda start.
    28.15 The deindustrialization movement.
    29.30 UN global unified view on climate change.
    31.25 The Paris accord.
    34.50 Why is the media not reporting the truth?
    37.45 The EPA.
    Last edited by BMJ; 21st May 2019 at 09:37.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    Baby Steps (7th May 2019), Tintin (17th May 2019)

  17. Link to Post #170
    Finland Avalon Member Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th September 2011
    Location
    A dream called life
    Posts
    6,930
    Thanks
    74,811
    Thanked 40,727 times in 6,712 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    "When you've seen beyond yourself, then you may find, peace of mind is waiting there." ~ George Harrison

  18. Link to Post #171
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,006
    Thanks
    56,311
    Thanked 88,693 times in 14,702 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Climate Disruption: It’s Not Due to CO2

    By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof and Silvia Terribili
    Global Research, May 09, 2019



    Professor Claudia von Werlhof wrote to Greta Thunberg. In this letter Von Werlhof tells that the disruption of the global climate is not due to CO2.

    Following questions arose from this letter for Silvia Terribili, who asked von Werlhof to give an interview for her radio show Onda Italiana on salto.nl, April 9th.

    Link below will redirect you to the radio interview.
    Climate Disruption Is Not Due to CO2

    By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof and Silvia Terribili, April 30, 2019

    ***
    Below is the transcript of the interview.

    Claudia Von Werlhof: The question is how we define climate change and its alleged reason, of which it is said it is CO2. We consider climate change, at least in the official discussion, as “global warming” and this global warming doesn’t exist. There are data from NASA, which is the North American Space Agency, and they show that in the last 18 years there was no general global warming. What exist indeed – because we are not deniers of the problem – are changes in different dimensions in the weather, in the climate and more so in the atmosphere, etc. We are going to explain this more in this interview. The second is the CO2-question which is now very prominent as all these young people are now on the street, because they believe in this story and this dogma of the CO2.

    And this is very strange because a lot of scientists, real scientists, are denying the influence of CO2 as a reason for climate change or as an influence at all. For example, there are about 30,000 scientists in the US now who say that there is no problem with CO2. On the contrary, CO2 this is a gas that stems from rotten natural materials which is needed by the plants to transform it into oxygen. They say that CO2 is not at all detrimental for the climate, and that it even is something we are to welcome and that we need for our trees and plants and as a positive effect.

    So, the funny thing is that CO2 is often shown as some dirt, as if it was a dirt in the air. Then you look at the factories that are shown in this opportunity, you see the dust coming out of them, etc. This is not CO2.

    CO2 is a gas that is invisible and doesn’t smell so you don’t see it. In general, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.038 % only. Most of that is vapour, water vapour, some 80 or 70%. So, this tiny amount of CO2 cannot change something huge like the climate of this planet. This is impossible.



    So, all these scientists who are serious scientists, are denying a negative influence of CO2 on the climate. There are even winners of the Nobel Prize etc., like Ivar Giaever, who are explaining it or people from the MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, like Richard Lindzen and others. The IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, founded at the end of the ’80s of the last century, however, is not so much a scientific but a political organization, and it is propagating and proposing the CO2 myth in public.

    So, this is a political question and from the point of view of a real scientist CO2 is not really something detrimental and is not changing any climate. It’s too tiny for that.

    If you look at the origins of this debate at the end of the ‘80s, you see that before this time all the world spoke about a possible ice age, a new ice age. Lowell Ponte, f.i., wrote a book on “The Cooling”. It was in 1976.

    They spoke about a cooling and a new ice age in contrast to the global warming-speech of today. There is no historical debate any more about how this myth about CO2 came about.

    The IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, the Rockefellers, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. And they found, I think it was an analysis by William Engdahl, who said they found or invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined which is humanity itself.

    Humanity is guilty of producing so much CO2 by civil industry and consumption. This ideology can be used for another, a new policy. So, this was the origin of the CO2 myth and this has been their propaganda worldwide. Then came Al Gore and everybody believes in him. This is contrasting with the fact that a real climate change is not occurring in the sense they are defining it. This history is generally not known. And people don’t really know anything about Nature and the Planet. There is a certain ignorance generally, and the public just believes in everything.

    There are a lot of changes in the world, in the climate, in many aspects, like those Dr. Rosalie Bertell found out, we are speaking about her later, who said we are wrecking our planet. But how? It’s not by global warming, but by something totally different. This is not mentioned by these people who speak about climate change. They don’t see that there are changes but there are different ones with very different origins.

    Silvia Terribili: Yes, it seems also that computer models predicting catastrophic global warming in the coming years are parameterized and there is a risk of framing the outcome of these methods and models. Can you say something about these models?

    CvW: These models the IPCC is using are computer models. Their results are just an outcome of computer simulation. It has nothing to do with reality and what they are measuring is what they want to measure. They just measure something like more CO2-output, but they do not consider the complexity of the climate on this planet.

    They have no parameters about them and so they are really trying to fool us with what they are saying about such a big amount of climate change and global warming. This is not happening, and it will not happen because of CO2.

    So, these are strange methods, and not scientific ones.

    One should say they are political methods which want to prove something which is not the case. So, there is no reason why there should be such an amount of global warming of above 4 degrees, which is impossible. At least it is impossible with simply putting CO2 as a measure of this tiny amount of CO2 in the air. You would never have any effect and it is very funny that everybody is believing this nonsense. It’s a theory but it has nothing to do with reality and we should look at why this theory exists. So, this is the more important question.

    ST: Some 30 years ago we already warned that the protective ozone layer has been reduced. Nowadays we don’t seem to care anymore for ozone depletion in the stratosphere. How could this be explained because we have to be concerned about the depletion of the ozone layer and where does it come from?

    CvW: The ozone-question, yes. This is a very funny thing again and it is not funny at all in the end, because the ozone layer is really something that we need.

    Without the ozone layer there would be no life on earth, because it protects us from cosmic radiation from the sun, especially UV-B and -C radiation, which is very toxic.

    And it has been found out that this radiation today is coming down to earth which normally is prevented by the ozone layer.

    But now it comes through, and this is a long story because there was the Montreal Protocol in the ‘80s which prohibited the use of CFCs, all these chemicals you have in the refrigerators, etc., because they thought it was the reason for the ozone hole.

    But this was wrong already then because we know that what is really damaging ozone is especially radioactivity. Of radioactivity there is a lot in the air since the military was experimenting with nuclear explosions since the ‘40s and ‘50s until the end of the ‘90s, and we had about 2,200 nuclear explosions on earth and in the atmosphere and they have produced a lot of radioactive radiation that is destroying the ozone layer.

    This is the main reason for the weakness of this layer because radioactivity is somehow eating up the ozone so that it is suffocating in a way, because ozone is a sort of atmospheric oxygen and radioactivity is finishing with the oxygen.

    The problem is something like suffocation and a toxic effect of radiation coming down to earth when this layer is destroyed or inhibited.

    Last year, the people who were measuring the ozone layer found that it was weaker than ever, it did not recover as was proposed after the Montreal Protocol. And they found out that, on the contrary, it is not only existing in the form of holes over the Antarctic and the Arctic – the latter one existing only since Fukushima, as there was never a hole over the Arctic before.

    And now we have ozone depletion even over the whole northern part of the earth.

    So, the toxic radiation is not only occurring at the poles but generally it comes down and it is destroying a lot of plants and low animal life, like insects. With the insects dying, the birds and the whole food chain is affected by the weakness of the ozone layer, and in the oceans the plankton is dying and the krill that the big fish are eating.

    You have now many fish who are dying from hunger and you have dying coral reefs like, for example, the Great Barrier Reef east of New Zealand, the biggest one in the world, which is now dying, and it is nearly not reproducing itself anymore. People say it is because the oceans are warming up, but this cannot be the real reason. The main problem is that the toxic radiation from the sun comes down into the water as well and it is killing life in the oceans.

    And then you have all this radioactivity from Fukushima which has been led into the Pacific so that life in the Pacific is dying out, and soon you will have no fish anymore. This is somehow very tragic because Rosalie Bertell wrote her book “Planet Earth, the Latest Weapon of War” already in 2000. She has studied all these problems, and where they come from, and she always warned about the ozone layer, because it had been thinned out already by 10% at the end of the ‘90s and now it is becoming thinner and thinner.

    And she said that with a 20% thinning of the ozone layer there will be no agriculture anymore, because the plants will be destroyed by the toxicity of UV radiation. You can see it even on your balcony when you have your plants out there. It can already be seen that the leaves are getting brown and your plants are not growing much in the sun. So, this is maybe the biggest problem we are facing and the result of many, many effects which are destroying the ozone layer not only with the radioactivity, but also other instruments and technologies worse than any CO2 or global warming.

    ST: What can we say about geoengineering and especially Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is one of the technologies that the IPCC is in a way not suggesting but they say it can be a solution for the global warming. What do you think?

    CvW: Well, because of this world-theory of global warming and CO2, we now have civil geoengineers appearing, something that didn’t exist in previous times. Now they have their research institutes everywhere, and plan to have a solution to this problem which is supposed to be “solar radiation management” SRM or SAI with which they are planning to inject aerosols into the air to block the sun from shining and from heating up the earth.

    So, instead of removing CO2, because it seems impossible politically, they promote this other solution to fight against the effects of so-called global warming and this would mean blocking the sun from shining too much on earth.

    So, the plan is to inject aerosols into the atmosphere and especially David Keith from Harvard University has a project called SCOPEX for this very process. In this project he wants to inject even sulphuric acid into the atmosphere imitating something like a volcanic eruption and they call it the Pinatubo effect because the Pinatubo is a volcano that exploded in 1991 and the ashes and what came out had the effect of cooling down the temperatures.

    And now they are trying to imitate this effect by adding sulphuric acid into the air. Recently David Keith, this professor from Harvard University even said that tens of thousands of people would die from that at least, because it would mean to have acids down on earth which are eventually destroying all life.

    I mean these are crazy experiments they are preparing, and they go for civil geoengineers and the funniest thing about this movement of civil geoengineers is that they do not speak of the military background of all these technologies they are now propagating.

    And all these movements about climate change, etc., don’t know anything about it as well. It is simply denied that these are military experiments which we know already, because since 30 years there are regular aerosol-sprayings of the atmosphere, so all this is occurring already. I mean something like SRM is nothing new. We have it already in the form of the spraying of barium and aluminium and other substances that are very bad for all life and agriculture.

    Monsanto for example invented a seed that is resistant to aluminium, imagine. So, things like that are occurring and the people are against it, but they don’t see that these experiments are a reality already, being a part of geoengineering, military geoengineering, that exists now for about 70 or more years. This has been a project of the second world war in which the military invented the nuclear as a weapon of war and after the nuclear they invented other weapons like those of weather control.

    As Rosalie Bertell said, they invented weather wars, they invented geoengineering and they invented plasma weapons which are electromagnetic weapons used by and emitted by ionospheric heaters. This is a very special technology mostly not known which is based on the inventions of Nicola Tesla who was a physicist inventor in the 19th and 20th century.

    So, this is a special technology which is not very well known, like HAARP in Alaska (now closed down) which is one of these ionospheric heaters that are working with electromagnetic waves. These waves are artificially produced and reach something like a billion watts, and they are shot high up into the ionosphere to produce certain effects leading them back to the earth.

    This is a very, very dangerous technology which can also be used for producing all kinds of so-called natural catastrophes like, for example, tsunamis or earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or the change of the weather in whole regions, or producing hurricanes, droughts, fires and floods, and even changing the ocean currents.

    These are technologies that are not discussed in public but exist already since the Vietnam War. They have been invented during this time and the UN Convention on Environmental Modification, the famous ENMOD convention from 1977, explains these weapons, it explains the effects they may have when they are used. So, it is not even a secret and it is decades ago that they have been invented and are in experimentation, and it is like a war that is fought against the earth and the planet as a cosmic macro-being on which we depend. This is very, very dangerous and it is exactly Rosalie Bertell who has explained to us how these technologies are functioning, namely as the post-nuclear weapons of electromagnetic mass destruction. We have these ionospheric heaters now everywhere.

    ST: What is the ionospheric heater? What is, why do they use it? What is the idea? We don’t understand because there is global warming, they said that there is a global warming. So, you are heating the ionosphere, but that ’s crazy.

    CvW: They are heating up the ionosphere, the sphere in the atmosphere that starts at about 80 kilometres up to about 800-1000 kilometres. It is an electrified part of the atmosphere and when they send the electromagnetic waves up there they are heating it up because when they heat the ionosphere, this part of the atmosphere, they can manage these electromagnetic rays to come down on earth again, by making a curve. They can work with an angle and, like Rosalie said, it is like a gun from the ionosphere which is directed against the earth and when this ray comes down again to the earth it is terribly destructive. These rays can even pass through the core of the earth.

    ST: But it is also warming, so it is completely crazy because we have too much warming and we are sending some…

    CvW: Because the warming is up there. It’s not down here. If there is any warming, it is up there. The NASA didn’t find a real warming of the earth in general, but you have different parts of the world that are warming up or have been warmed up like the poles, the polar regions and the mountains where the melting glaciers are, but it has nothing to do with a general global warming through CO2. Some of them are surely effects of the military use of ionospheric heaters. For example, in 1974 there was a treaty between the US and the Soviet Union, the secret Vladivostok Agreement in which they planned together to heat up the Arctic because they wanted the ice to go away to get to the oil on the ground of the northern sea and they couldn’t get there because of the ice. Today, half of the Arctic ice has melted down already, because they used electromagnetic waves for that. ELF waves, that are extremely low frequency waves and they have thawed the Arctic with that. It has nothing to do with global warming but with this military technology.

    ST: Going back to geoengineering, the solar radiation management, do we have evidence that the program is on? I mean we see all kinds of trails in the sky and the sky is completely sometimes covered by these trails. They are persistent, staying the whole time. What do you think about that phenomenon?

    CvW: It is an older military technology which has recently been implemented since about 30 years. This started in the ‘90s and, for example, you have effects in regions like Shasta in California. They have been heavily sprayed with aerosols. It’s like Agent Orange that was sprayed on Vietnam, a toxic product from Monsanto and it’s like that. It’s toxic and for example in this community of Shasta in Northern California the land is not producing anymore, everybody is sick, and the animals and plants are dying.

    They had such a load of toxic materials, aerosols coming down from the sky that they got these problems, and after having analysed them they made a big event some years ago to protest publicly against the sprayings. Nevertheless, the alternative and social movements do not accept – even ETC Group, which is very important in that respect – that this has been done which is a reality for the people affected, and they are denying that SRM is used already and discussing only the bad effects which this method would have on us. So, they are against it, but they are denying that these methods are in use already everywhere. Of course, you see it in the sky, and I have done some research about why they are doing it, as the military is not interested in any global warming myth. They are even denying global warming because they know better.

    ST: So, they are doing that?

    CvW: Yes, they are doing that, so they know better, like Trump, who knows it from the military. But I found out that they are not interested in the global warming question or so. They are doing it because of the ozone depletion, f.i. If there is an ozone hole or weakness, they cannot pass their electromagnetic waves. They need what I call a replacement atmosphere.

    They need to spray aerosols as a conductor, they need an atmosphere that is conductive, and at the holes it is not. This is the reason why they are using so many metals in the spraying, heavy metals like barium and strontium and aluminium, which is not a heavy metal, but they are all conductive for electromagnetic waves. Recently I came about a research of a woman called Schmitt who lives in Venezuela. She made an analysis of these sprayings of being protective against the cosmos, something like a Faraday cage, producing a sort of grid around the earth to protect it from radiation coming in and this also has to do with the ozone depletion. The ozone layer is really the central question that has to be an alarm for us, because this is now the moment of truth. When we are not able to prevent these things happening, this destruction happening, we will die out within 20 or 30 years.

    ST: But the official story, nobody is telling, talking about the ozone depletion.

    CvW: No. There was an alarm last year and there was a colleague in the US, Marvin Herndon, who was doing research about that question, together with his colleagues and he published it. He proved that ozone depletion leads to the arrival of toxic radiation down on earth. And he found out that NASA, the North American Space Agency, had come to the same result already in 2007. And they didn’t do anything. They knew it already then, but they didn’t do anything because the military thinks it can do everything it wants. If they need it, they would invent a new ozone layer. This is what they think. They think they have …

    ST: A technical solution?

    CvW: Yes, and they think that they can do whatever they want to do and prevent things from happening. But after all these nuclear explosions in the atmosphere and in the ionosphere and in the Van Allen belts which destroyed parts of the magnetic field of the earth, they could never replace or cure the magnetic field nor the atmosphere. They couldn’t do anything about it. They destroyed it and it is destroyed. This is one of the reasons of weather changes as well. So, there are a lot of very complex reasons of why things are happening. For example, you can even use electromagnetic waves from the ionospheric heaters in order to move the jet stream which consists of fast winds surrounding the earth, building a frontier between hot and cold. So, if you are moving them north you have the heat from the south in the north and when you are moving them down south, you have the cold from the Arctic in the middle of Europe …

    ST: They influence strongly the climate and the weather

    CvW: With these technologies you can do nearly everything, and you can change the vapour streams that are the humid streams around the earth. You can transport humidity to Arabia for example. This is one of the biggest businesses today, because the people there need water and you can just transport the water from here to there. So, even snow is coming down in the South Arabian desert. This is all manipulation, weather manipulation, climate manipulation. Nobody speaks about it, but it is occurring constantly. And another effect of the atmosphere being full of metal is that it is drying out, so we have much less rain in Europe for example which has nothing to do with a warming or CO2.

    ST: In Italy there is drought.

    CVW: Italy is drying out, and then you have fires which are also induced, not only because it is dry, but you have direct energy weapons and laser weapons. So, you can produce these fires what was happening in Portugal and Australia and in California. They have nothing to do with wildfires and they are not destroying the plants, but they are destroying the buildings. It is like a war that has passed through. All these things are discussed as being a result of global warming and CO2. It has nothing to do with that. This whole CO2 question and global warming is used to distract people from what is really happening, so that they don’t see what has been done to the planet and to the atmosphere and to the weather, etc., so they wouldn’t look at it because they think it is all global warming.

    ST: Unfortunately, we have almost to close the program, but I would like to ask you something again. On May 23 – 26, we will have European elections coming. What can we do as concerned Europeans to put climate engineering and all related risks on the electoral agenda because we expect European institutions to protect the 300 million citizens from the risks of these extremely dangerous technologies. What can we do?

    CvW: What we did, inform the people. We are just now publishing a book. It is called “Global Warning!”, not warming, but warning. It is going to appear soon. Ten women are explaining their research of what we are talking about now and this will be published by Talma Studies International in Dublin. So, I can recommend it. The problem is that people don’t know anything of what is happening around them, and they don’t get informed even if this is possible. The book of Rosalie Bertell exists in the 4th edition in German, it exists in Italian, French and Spanish. Everybody can read it and many people have ordered the 4th edition now, it has been printed 15,000 times. Somebody should have read it, but people don’t speak about it. The parties that are running for election have nothing to do with all this. The Greens should be the most interested in this question, but they are not.

    We have to look behind the climate change-agenda. There must be somebody who wants people to be distracted, to be organized around other issues.

    You have the whole Smart City and 5G movement, the technification of the society and a sort of policies of controlled reduction of production and consumption. It is like the depopulation agenda of certain people which seems to be related to that.

    I think that there are other political plans, the New World Order and interests behind it.

    CO2 is only the scapegoat to prevent people from looking at them.

    The Greens for example are totally involved into these plans for a so called “green” economy, but this is not the case. It is not a green economy. It is a weaponized economy which we see is approaching us.

    I don’t see the Left, it has no interest in the whole question because it is concerned about progress and development, to say it like that. You need a critique of these technologies. I call it military alchemy what we have now. But the Left is not interested in that and the other parties in any case not at all as well. So, I don’t know who is going to be interested from the point of view of the parties. People are not informed and they don’t get informed and people who speak about it are called conspiracy theorists, etc. How to get to that to change, the change from believing in these ideologies from above in order to see what is happening in reality? How can people like this Greta and the young people get informed about the reality? They should know what is really going on and not what is supposed to go on. This is the problem. It is why I wrote the letter to Greta Thunberg, to get her informed and as I know she even recognized ultimately that there is a military problem but not the one we are discussing, that of military geoengineering.

    ST: Did she answer you?

    CvW: No, of course not. Because there is a big movement behind her, the CO2 movement is behind her, of course. There have been plans: 7 years ago, it has already been discussed how to mobilize the youth. This is not just a venture of the people but an organized campaign of the other side.

    ST: Claudia we have to stop unfortunately, but we will present your book when it is going to come out and maybe we can present the book of Rosalie Bertell one more time because our task is to inform people. We do what we can to inform people.

    CvW: Maybe you can translate it for Italy and the Netherlands.

    ST: Yes, unfortunately, I have to stop but I thank you very much for being with us this evening and I hope to speak to you again.

    CvW: Thank you. Bye bye.

    *
    Transcription by Linda Leblanc, with formal corrections of the Interview from April 9, 2019


    Sources
    Rosalie Bertell: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, 4th ed., Gelnhausen 2019, J.K. Fischer

    ——: Pianeta Terra. L´ultima arma di Guerra, Trieste 2018, Asterios

    ____: Planeta tierrra: La nueva guerra, Guadalajara 2018, La casa del mago

    ____: La Planète Terre, ultime arme de guerre, Tome 1, Paris 2018, Talma Studios

    Claudia von Werlhof (Ed.): Global Warning! Geoengineering is Wrecking our Planet, Dublin 2019, Talma Studios International (forthcoming)

    www.pbme-online.org, Info-Letters

    The original source of this article is Global Research
    Copyright © Prof. Claudia von Werlhof and Silvia Terribili, Global Research, 2019


    Related:
    Top British Climate Scientist Acknowledges Ongoing Geoengineering Interventions
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  19. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (12th May 2019), Bill Ryan (13th May 2019), BMJ (13th May 2019), onawah (19th May 2019), Sophocles (15th May 2019), Star Mariner (17th May 2019), Tintin (17th May 2019)

  20. Link to Post #172
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    317
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    A rise in CO2 occurs after a warming. In the words of late Prof. Bob Carter, "Saying CO2 causes global warming is like saying lung cancer causes smoking."

    CO2 is nothing but a byproduct of a warming.
    Besides, CO2 is life-giving.

    Some people say "global warming" is a code for Nibiru, the destroyer. Its orbit is perpendicular to those of other planets and Nibiru will be visible from the Southern Hemisphere. Thus the recent obsession of the elite with Antarctica.

  21. Link to Post #173
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,006
    Thanks
    56,311
    Thanked 88,693 times in 14,702 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Dr. Tim Ball: A new approach to explaining the big lie of 'climate crises' is needed

    Dr. Tim Ball Drtimball.ca
    Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00 UTC


    © Unknown

    I thought about making this my last article on climate for this or any other website except my own. I planned the action some time ago, but it was the recent headline in the Telegraph that triggered this penultimate move. It said, "Climate change is a risk investors can't ignore: Black Rock latest to sound the alarm on environment." Climate change is not a risk factor. Current climate and climate changes are normal and well within the pattern of change over history, certainly the last 10,000 years. The world believes otherwise, despite efforts by me and others to make the correct information available.

    This means that after 50 years (1968-2019) of trying to educate the public about the weather, global warming, and climate change I achieved little or no change in understanding, attitude, or most importantly, policy on the world stage. My attempts to counter the massive deception that began as human-caused global warming (AGW) and later shifted to human-caused climate change, fell short. The deception is now what people accept, although they don't necessarily believe. Because of that it is now the underlying reason for all policy on energy and environment that are the mainstay of these business-world views, indeed all views.

    The only risk is not climate, but the one that governments created by the pseudoscience of climate science. All elements of society from energy to the environment and from industry to business and daily living are based on completely unnecessary and expensive limitations. The sad irony is that the climate change risk the investors face is a shift to colder weather when all governments are warning them to prepare for warmer conditions. This false basis for society thinking and planning is so pervasive that it is unlikely to change.

    I am frustrated by the success of the deception, but I am angry about the waste of time, money, and opportunities lost. I think about the trillions wasted on a non-existent problem while real problems go wanting. For example, it is likely that enough money was wasted, [enough] to provide clean water and adequate sewage for the entire world.

    Apart from my overall failure, there was one failure restricted to the skeptics that might create different results. Skeptics are people who recognized the false science used to create the threat of human-caused global warming. It's a group that slowly grew in numbers over the years but achieved little impact in the wider community. A major reason is the division of that community into approximately 15% who are competent and comfortable in science and 85% who are not. While I achieved some recognition in this group of skeptics, I failed to convince them that the wider public would never understand climatology. Worse, I failed to convince them that even if they could identify all the bad science, manipulation of data, creation of false and misleading reports, and deliberate exaggeration of stories to amplify fear that they wanted, it would do little to spread the truth and correct the story. I failed to convince the skeptics that without explanation of the MOTIVE, people would not listen to their critiques and warnings.

    Recently, I received the charge through my web site that I was just "another conspiracy theorist." Other attempts to marginalize included the term global warming skeptic or climate change denier. These were effectively what I call collective ad hominems, but the fall back dismissal was usually that you are a 'conspiracy theorist.'

    It is encouraging that a recent article appeared on the WUWT website that proposes a motive for the misuse of climate.
    But the Left seeks far more. In fact, its goal is nothing less than total control of every aspect of human life, which we call "totalitarianism", justified by fear of climate change.
    The types of commentary that article will engender are predictable. They will indicate why people have not considered motive in the discussion to date. It is a classic Catch 22 you must provide a motive and [be] marginalized or don't provide one and get no traction with the wider public. It is critical to remember that you are asking people to believe that a small group of people managed to deceive the world into believing that a trace gas (0.04% of the total atmosphere) was changing the entire climate because of humans. In addition, that group convinced many others to participate in the deception. The public view is that deceiving so many is just not possible. The trouble is it was possible. To paraphrase Lincoln, they effectively fooled most of the people and marginalized the few not fooled.

    After 50 years of combating hysteria over climate change, it is time to take a new direction. I say a new direction because the last 50 years attempted to educate the people to the lie that is human-caused global warming and effectively changed nothing. It especially did not change the unnecessary, ineffective, and massively expensive energy and environment policies that control everything in the world. When I see a car advertisement identifying its low CO2 output as a major selling feature, I know how badly I lost. Millions of more people now believe in AGW than when I began. Now, most governments believe and act on the AGW belief compared to the few when I started.

    The first 10 years of the 50 involved dealing with the threats about the end of the world due to global cooling. The last 40 years dealt with the same threats about warming. In recent years, I used the quote from Lowell Ponte's 1976 book The Cooling to illustrate how similar they were.
    It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.
    Change the seventh-word "cooling" to warming, and it applies to the entire 50 years. What happens going forward? What are governments preparing for? Is it appropriate? Are we victims of the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Will governments prove once again that they always make a situation worse?

    In the 1970s I knew that the cooling trend would end because it fit the overall pattern. This included the longer-term emergence from the nadir of the Little Ice Age circa 1680 and shorter cycles since. The world warmed from 1900 to 1940, cooled from 1940 to 1980, warmed from 1980 to 1998 and has cooled slightly from 1998 to the present.

    Fortunately, the idiots we call leaders did nothing about the climate when cooling was the trend in the 1970s. Unfortunately, after the 1980s they began to succumb to the lies, misrepresentations, and pressure of the eco-bullies; those who used the environment and later climate for a political agenda. We needed the paradigm shift to environmentalism because it doesn't make sense to soil our own nest. However, as with all such shifts, a few seized it for the power and financial rewards it provided. They were able to obtain power up to the UN General Assembly. They introduced the full environment and climate change plans at the Earth Summit conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 as Agenda 21.

    The movement appeared to falter at the international level when even Greenpeace announced that Rio +20 was a failure. This was not a falter but exactly as Maurice Strong and the proponents of Agenda 21 planned. The entire objective of Agenda 21 is firmly ensconced in all societies through the municipal level of government.

    The climate plan that isolated and demonized CO2 through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was designed and implemented at the national level through every weather office in nations throughout the world. This puts the idea and control of those countries almost completely in the hands of the deep state and beyond the control of international and national politicians. They then promote the concepts of the environmental and climate plans through the Climate Action Plan imposed at the Municipal level. This puts the original plan of thinking globally and acting locally into practice at the lowest political level. A conference in San Francisco in July 2018 explains the objective.
    California Governor Jerry Brown has announced that a Global Climate Action summit will be held in San Francisco in September 2018, in a challenge to President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.

    Nearly 200 nations have signed the 2015 agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely thought to be responsible for rising temperatures, and Brown is one of a number of local and regional leaders working to build coalitions without Trump.
    Here is what one mayor wrote about what occurred in San Francisco.
    The Global Climate Action summit in San Francisco began on Wednesday. This year's goal: "Take Ambition to the Next Level."

    What is that next level? As part of the We Are Still In, Mayors Climate Alliance, and other city climate-action efforts, many U.S cities are creating their first ever climate-action plans; others are rewriting theirs to meet more ambitious goals. The next level is ensuring that these multi-year plans integrate equity considerations or risk perpetuating an unjust life for millions of already marginalized Americans.
    The original intention of the CO2 pseudoscience deception was purely political as this quote confirms. Note the word "equity." It confirms quotes that were around before the deception reached the world stage. Former US Senator Timothy Wirth who went on to head the UN Climate Foundation said,
    "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
    Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart said,
    "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
    What those quotes really mean is that we must use the climate for total political and economic control. If people continue to buy the false science story so much the better. For example, on April 13, 2019, US Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren promised,
    Besides an executive order barring new fossil fuel leases on public lands on shore and offshore, Warren said Monday that she would work toward boosting U.S. electricity generation from renewable sources offshore or on public lands.
    This is planned despite the failure of such actions everywhere they are applied.

    The climate deception and the climate debate are complete and, though they will continue, they are irrelevant. The Paris Climate Agreement is almost dead. At the 2018 meeting of the Green Climate Fund, the Director resigned.
    Howard Bamsey, an Australian diplomat who served as the GCF's executive director since January 2017, resigned after a "difficult" meeting in which no new projects were approved, according to a statement released after the gathering in Songdo, South Korea.
    There are many charges and warnings of corruption and misuse of funds against GCF. The institutions associated with climate change at the international and national level are collapsing. It creates an illusion that the skeptics are winning. It distracts from the fact that the entire focus quietly shifted to the municipal level and is infiltrating through the world. Much of the funding for the San Francisco meeting came from the World Bank.

    I agree with the author who claims the misuse of climate was originally a left-wing agenda for control. However, I think the idea is so attractive because it is under the cloak of 'saving the planet' that it fits the platform of all politicians. They all want control. The only difference is in the degree and method. Of course, the ultimate irony is that the massive cost of this anti-CO2 system is only possible because of the one thing it demonizes, fossil fuels.

    As a result of this train of events, I decided to stop trying to educate people about the global deception that is AGW. It is a firmly established false fact. Most skeptics know this because many are stunned by the strong hostile reaction they get when they state their position publicly. In many cases, they become ostracized in their family. The challenge now is to help people understand the differences between deceptively derived policies, and what is the best, most adaptive, most profitable, and most rewarding strategy for survival of the individual, business, or industry. In this age of the big lie, survival and success strategy is more important and challenging than ever. I want to help people bridge the gap between the false world of government and the real world. I will not achieve that through explaining the corrupted science but providing a credible motive.

    SOTT Comment: Dr. Ball underscores the starkness of the situation when he acknowledges that - even amongst the 15% who "are competent and comfortable in science" and see the climate deception - he was still unable to convince them that their critiques of bad science will go unnoticed without people first understanding the climate alarmists' motives - which is total economic/political control. In other words, it's not really about 'saving the planet' or 'our children's future' at all.

    To better understand the motives behind our governments' misguided goals and policies on climate change, see Andrew M. Lobaczewski's, Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes).


    Related:
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  22. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (15th May 2019), BMJ (20th May 2019), Constance (15th May 2019), Didgevillage (14th May 2019), onawah (14th May 2019), Paul (15th May 2019), Sophocles (15th May 2019), Tintin (17th May 2019)

  23. Link to Post #174
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    317
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Quote Posted by Ba-ba-Ra (here)
    This from DABOO77

    Heads Up! Stealth Bombers Dropping Chemtrails In New Mexico (So how much of Climate Change is manufactured?)
    That's why birds and bees are dying. Not because of "climate change"

  24. Link to Post #175
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,006
    Thanks
    56,311
    Thanked 88,693 times in 14,702 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    From the above article:

    Quote What those quotes really mean is that we must use the climate for total political and economic control.
    here is how it's implemented:


    Fear, loathing, intolerance – and worse

    by Robert
    May 16, 2019
    “Today’s Green New Dealers and their allies have mapped out their own totalitarian strategies.”

    “They want to control what we say and think, even what ideas and information we can find online and in print, television, radio and social media.”

    – Paul Driessen
    ______________
    ‘Battles over “dangerous manmade climate change,” Green New Deals and Green New Deals Lite are intensifying,’ writes Paul Driessen.

    ‘To help drive the climate chaos narrative – and many other liberal campaigns – Google, Facebook and other social media and online information platforms have stepped up their efforts to “shadow ban” climate realist and conservative speakers and thinking, censor and alter online information, and marginalize ideas that run afoul of liberal views and agendas.’

    ‘My article summarizes what is at stake on the climate and energy front, presents examples of electronic book burning and social media bias, and offers suggestions for what America can (and should) do to rein in attempts to censor and silence conservative, religious and other voices in the news media, social media and online search engines.’
    ______________

    Fear, loathing, intolerance – and worse

    The climate-fearing, capitalism-loathing Left cannot abide questions or differing opinions

    By Paul Driessen

    Throughout history despots had effective ways of reducing dissension in the ranks. Inquisitors burned heretics. Nazi’s burned books – before taking far more extreme measures. Soviets employed famines, gulags, salt mines and executions. ChiComs and other tyrants starved, jailed and murdered millions.

    Today’s Green New Dealers and their allies have mapped out their own totalitarian strategies.

    They proclaim themselves socialists, but their economic policies and tolerance for other viewpoints reflect a different form of government – fascism:
    A political system in which authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries, but strictly regulates and controls their actions, output and rights – while constraining and suppressing citizens and their thought, speech and access to information.
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has “no problem” with the fact that implementing her Green New Deal would require “massive government intervention,” wealth redistribution on an unprecedented scale, and many trillions of dollars in new debt. GNDealers want to totally eliminate fossil fuel production and use, and control how much we can drive and fly, heat and cool our homes, eat meat, and live our lives.

    If retrofitting 29 million British homes to make them climate-friendly would cost $5.6 trillion – remaking America’s 125 million generally larger private homes would easily cost $25 trillion! Putting just five million electric cars on California roads would require 5 billion pounds of lithium-ion batteries.

    Replacing fossil fuels that provide 82% of our energy and 100% of countless plastic and other products would require biofuels grown on tens of millions of acres. Replacing coal and gas-generated electricity with wind and solar would require millions of turbines and panels, on tens of millions more acres, billions of tons of rare earth and other metals, and hundreds of billions of pounds of lithium-ion batteries.

    China controls all those rare earth metals and most of the lithium, cadmium and cobalt needed for all that pseudo-renewable, pretend-sustainable energy. They are produced in China and Africa, often with child labor and near-slave labor, and with virtually no health, safety or environmental safeguards.

    Meanwhile, Asian, African and EU nations are building or planning over 2,000 coal and gas-fired power plants. So even US elimination of fossil fuels would do absolutely nothing to reduce global CO2 levels. Moreover, citizens are likely to rise up in loud opposition to having millions of wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and biofuel plantations in their backyards and across scenic vistas and wildlife habitats.

    GNDealers don’t want to talk about any of those ethical, social justice or environmental issues – or about the GIGO computer models and bald assertions of Climate Armageddon that have no basis in real-world evidence. They don’t want anyone else talking about it, either. They want to control what we say and think, even what ideas and information we can find online and in print, television, radio and social media.

    They loath and fear ideas, facts and questions that challenge their views and political power. Free speech and access to other people’s free speech is a clear and present danger to their perceived and asserted wisdom on fossil fuels, capitalism, manmade climate chaos, Western culture, and who should make policy decisions on energy, economics, jobs, living standards, religion, civil rights and other matters.

    Their version of “free speech” thus includes – and demands – that their critics have no free speech. On college campuses, in “mainstream” and social media, on search engines, in online information libraries, even in the arts, bakeries and K-12 education, thought control and electronic book burning are essential. Despite having a 12 to 1 ratio of liberal to conservative professors, leftist college faculty, administrators and students still ban, disinvite, disrupt and physically attack conservative speakers and their hosts.


    They harass Trump administration officials in restaurants – and “dox” political opponents, revealing their names and home addresses, so that other radicals can harass, intimidate and attack them … thereby “persuading” others to stay silent. They assaulted North Korean escapees for wearing MAGA hats.

    The Big Tech monopoly routinely implements electronic book-burning tactics. Google and other internet search engines systematically employ liberal biases and secret algorithms to send climate realism articles to intellectual Siberia and censor conservative thinking and discussion. Google YouTube blocks access to Prager University (PragerU.com) videos that its censors decree offer “objectionable content” on current events, history, constitutional principles, environmental policies and other topics.

    Google helps the Chinese government deny its citizens access to “dangerous ideas” – and says nothing when China sends a million Uighur Muslims to “reeducation camps.” Its hard-left employees ostracize any conservatives they still find in their ranks … and claim helping the US Defense Department with Cloud computing or artificial intelligence surveillance would “violate their principles.”

    Facebook “shadow banned” an ad promoting a Heartland Institute video that called on millennials to reject socialism and embrace capitalism. Facebook censors told Heartland they “don’t support ads for your business model” (capitalism) and would not reveal “red flags” and trade-secret algorithms they use to “identify violations” of their policies and “help preserve the integrity of our internal processes.” Google suppressed Claremont Institute ads for a talk on multiculturalism and political speech restrictions.

    Twitter routinely engages in similar cold, calculated censorship of views it opposes.

    Wikipedia posts distorted or false bios for climate realist experts and organizations – labeling me an anti-environment lobbyist – and then pops up ads soliciting money for its biased “educational” material. Securing corrections is a long, often fruitless process. Even more totalitarian, the Southern Poverty Law Center uses phony “hate speech” claims to defund and “deplatform” conservative groups like David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, by pressuring credit card companies to close off donations to them.

    State attorneys general and members of Congress want to prosecute and jail people for “denying the reality” of “manmade climate cataclysms.” Worst of all, the callous organizations and policies that Big Tech supports cause millions of deaths every year, by denying impoverished nations and families access to the modern energy, insect control and agricultural technologies that its vocal, racist elements loathe.

    Creating conservative competitors or finding ways around these social media and fake info behemoths is vital, but would be stymied by their sheer size, wealth and dominance. Trust busting by the FTC, other federal agencies, Congress and the courts, à la Standard Oil Company, should certainly be considered.

    These cyber-giant social media and information platforms may be private companies, but they wield massive power, especially with younger generations that get almost all their information online. They are entirely dependent on the internet – which was created by US government agencies and taxpayers. (“You didn’t build that,” President Obama might tell Google.) They have become essential, dominant public forums for discussing and evaluating public policies that increasingly affect our lives.

    A federal judge has ruled that President Trump may not block hate-filled criticism from his Twitter account. Because it is a public forum, akin to a park or town square, for discussing important policy and personnel matters, it is protected by the First Amendment. Blocking unwanted tweets is therefore viewpoint discrimination, and Twitter is not beyond the reach of First Amendment public forum rules, she held. Her reasoning should not apply only to the President and his most obnoxious critics.

    The right of free speech and free assembly – to participate fully in debates over important political and public policy matters – is the foundation for the other rights and freedoms that enable our vibrant nation to function. Banning, censoring and deliberately falsifying certain viewpoints deprive major segments of our population and electorate of the right to speak, be heard, become informed, examine all sides of an issue, and live in harmony, peace and prosperity.

    Viewpoint censorship, bullying and silencing violates the basic rights of speakers, students, professors, voters and all people whose views an elite, intolerant, power-hungry few have deemed “inappropriate” or “hurtful” to the sensitivities of climate alarmist, pro-abortion, atheist and other liberal factions.

    It’s time to take action, demand investigations, and rein in the monopolistic cyber censors.
    Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  25. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th May 2019), BMJ (20th May 2019), Delight (19th May 2019), Didgevillage (19th May 2019), Hym (17th May 2019), onawah (19th May 2019), Tintin (17th May 2019), Valerie Villars (20th May 2019)

  26. Link to Post #176
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,006
    Thanks
    56,311
    Thanked 88,693 times in 14,702 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    ...



    The Guardian Officially Goes Full Climate Alarmist Language

    Wuwt.com
    Sun, 19 May 2019 15:01 UTC

    The Guardian's editor has just issued this new guidance to all staff on language to use when writing about climate change and the environment...and it is full-on alarmism. No holding back punches now, because it's a crisis, so let's start writing like one! Josh helps us understand the real message.


    HT/Willie Soon via Leo Hickman

    Josh has interpreted this new policy:


    © CartoonsbyJosh

    James Delingpole notes:

    "There is, in essence, no such thing is a 'climate science denier' because not even the most ardent sceptic denies the existence of 'climate science'.

    Even more problematic is that use of the word 'denier', which implicitly invokes the Holocaust - and in doing so, weirdly and irresponsibly puts 'being sceptical about anthropogenic global warming' in the same category as 'denying that Hitler murdered six million Jews.'

    In recent years, climate alarmists have tried to backtrack on the origins of the 'denier' slur by pretending that they never intended to invoke Holocaust denial.

    But here is Guardian environment journalist George Monbiot writing in 2006:
    Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.
    Maybe Ms Viner should pay more attention to Thomas Sowell on this subject:
    "The next time someone talks about "climate change deniers," ask them to name one - and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

    Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called "climate change deniers"? Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of "global warming."

    There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one."
    Sowell's point is well made - and goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Guardian's new lexicon for its climate change reportage.

    The Guardian is tacitly admitting that this is not an argument it is capable of winning on the science or indeed the facts. Therefore, it has decided to ramp up the rhetoric instead."
    Last edited by Hervé; 19th May 2019 at 19:32.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  27. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (19th May 2019), BMJ (20th May 2019), Delight (19th May 2019), Didgevillage (19th May 2019), onawah (19th May 2019), Wind (19th May 2019)

  28. Link to Post #177
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    317
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Your questions have been covered by @Hervé but here is my take.

    Quote Posted by Intranuclear (here)
    What I don't understand is why is there hysteria over climate change?
    Lets for one moment assume that it is caused by human action regardless of merit.
    They are still talking about severe consequences in 50 to 100 or more years and they want to take action now.
    The hysteria is created artificially to cloud the issue, so to speak, so that people remain ignorant about the fast approaching Ice Age glacial.
    It has nothing to do with human action, and "carbon footprint or fingerprint" is laughable.
    Yes, there will be severe consequences in less than 50 years if actions are not taken immediately at the government level, i.e. protect its population from heavy snow which will not melt and form ice sheets. Technologies are available but only for a small number of elites.

    Quote Posted by Intranuclear (here)
    Also, a couple of volcanoes going off will cool the earth. So what now, we now need to fight volcanoes so that the earth warms?
    Volcanic activities are a sign of Ice Age glacial. Geologists are not sure as to why.

    Quote Posted by Intranuclear (here)
    My kids are being taught at school about global warming and when I ask if they are teaching the science, I get blank stares. Science? What is that thing?
    It reminds me of Rupert Sheldrake's "Science Delusion"
    Just like liberal education in English-speaking countries, it has done a lot of damage to the young for the entire life. It is called programming

  29. Link to Post #178
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,755
    Thanks
    26,222
    Thanked 45,564 times in 9,337 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    This makes so much sense. To summarize: the depletion of the ozone layer caused by radioactivity is the first ongoing catastrophe that has led to so-called idiotic "corrective measures" being taken which are actually only making things worse. Too much CO2 of course has nothing to do with it.
    My question is: Is this really all due to a secret off-world agenda designed to bring about massive extinction events, to create an entirely different biosphere, one in which humanity probably cannot survive?

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    BMJ (21st May 2019), Delight (19th May 2019), Didgevillage (20th May 2019), Hervé (19th May 2019), Wind (19th May 2019)

  31. Link to Post #179
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,006
    Thanks
    56,311
    Thanked 88,693 times in 14,702 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    This makes so much sense. To summarize: the depletion of the ozone layer caused by radioactivity is the first ongoing catastrophe that has led to so-called idiotic "corrective measures" being taken which are actually only making things worse.

    [...]
    Listen to Dr. Tim Ball debunking the Freon/fluorocarbon threat to the ozone layer... another industry scam: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post430969
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    BMJ (20th May 2019), onawah (20th May 2019)

  33. Link to Post #180
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2012
    Posts
    1,924
    Thanks
    3,369
    Thanked 7,434 times in 1,690 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    There is an entire lobbying industry out there happy to debunk anthropogenic global warming. It would be wise to carefully vet those who are pointing their fingers at climate scientists with claims they are liars, naive, etc...to determine whether they are compromised or delusional themselves.

    I'm going to continue to do what I can to reduce my carbon footprint regardless of competing theories, none of which have the complete picture.

    Edited to include:

    Tim Ball

    He has been Chairman to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “Consultant” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), and has connections to numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations. [3], [4], [1]

    https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball
    Last edited by AutumnW; 20th May 2019 at 19:00.

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AutumnW For This Post:

    BMJ (21st May 2019), onawah (21st May 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 1 9 10 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts