J. Kerry, Jew S A "energy czar," psycho pushing "climate-crisis" lies, denounced by Alaska Sen. Sullivan for destructive anti-American policies, etc.

[Apollonian]

Sheer idiocy of this dis-connected moron, Kerry, demonstrated w. simple facts--WORLD DEPENDS ON COAL-POWER AND -FUELED PLANTS, suckers

 

[Apollonian]

1500 Scientists Say “Climate Change Not Due to CO2” – The Real Environment Movement Was Hijacked​

By Mark Keenan
Global Research, December 09, 2023

Link: https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-...y-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791/

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First published by Global Research on February 24, 2023

Many people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.
Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.
However, many scientists dispute with the UN-promoted man-made climate change theory, and many people worldwide are confused by the subject, or are unaware of the full facts. Please allow me to provide some information you may not be aware of.

1. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that 1500 of the world’s leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no climate emergency and have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made climate change? See this

2. I have also signed this declaration. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at the United Nations Environment Division, where I was responsible for servicing the Pollution Release and Transfer Register Protocol, a Multinational Environmental Agreement, involving the monitoring of pollutants to land, air, and water worldwide. Real pollution exists, but the problem is not CO2. Industrial globalisation has produced many substances that are registered as pollutants, including thousands of new man-made chemical compounds, toxins, nano-particles and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle.
A book I published recently also provides ample evidence and testimony from renowned scientists that there is no Climate emergency. The book titled ‘Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability’ is available here on amazon.COM

3. Next, I will mention the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) website, a valuable resource founded by Jim O’Brien. I am grateful to the ICSF for their excellent work in highlighting the scientific flaws in the UN climate narrative. The ICSF provides a comprehensive lecture series from renowned international scientists providing much evidence, analysis, and data that contradicts the UN assertions. The lectures are available here.
The ICSF scientific view coincides with those of the Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Based on this common conviction, 20 Irish scientists and several ICSF members have co-signed the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration “There is No Climate Emergency” (see this).

4. The reality is that the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2. We can conclude that carbon emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the dominant factors in climate change. In essence, therefore, the incessant UN, government, and corporate-media-produced climate hysteria in relation to carbon emissions and methane from cows has no scientific basis.
Please note that I have no commercial interest in stating that climate change is not caused by CO2. In truth I am against ‘real’ pollution, and the reality is that the CO2 component is not a pollutant. Unfortunately, many misinformed environmentalists are driving around in electric cars, the battery production for which has caused vast amounts of ‘real’ pollution via the industrial mining and processing of rare earth metals, and the consequent pollution to land, air and water systems. Note that the UN does not focus on the thousands of real pollutants that corporate industrial globalisation creates.

5. The conclusions of the Climate Intelligence foundation include the following
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming: The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted: The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models: Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters: There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.

6. In the above book I reference the relevant work and scientific presentations of some of the world’s leading climate scientists. Let us examine some of the work and testimonies of these scientists:
“deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that Co2 from human industry was a dangerous plant destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that Co2 the life of plants was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” – Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.
Dr Nils-Axel Mörner was a former Committee Chairman at the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was an expert involved in reviewing the first IPPC documents. He says the UN IPPC is misleading humanity about climate change. He tried to warn that the IPPC were publishing lies and false information that would inevitably be discredited. In an interview, he stated: “This is the most dangerous and frightening part of it. How a lobbyist group, such as the IPPC, has been able to fool the whole world. These organised and deceitful forces are dangerous” and expressed shock “that the UN and governments would parade children around the place at UN Climate summits as propaganda props”. The following is his testimony as detailed
“solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2… something is basically sick in the blame Co2 hypothesis… It was launched more than 100 years ago and almost immediately excellent physicists demonstrated that the hypothesis did not work.
I was the chairman of the only international committee on sea levels changes and as such a person I was elected to be the expert reviewer on the (UN IPPC) sea levels chapter. It was written by 38 persons and not a single one was a sea level specialist… I was shocked by the low quality it was like a student paper… I went through it and showed them that it was wrong and wrong and wrong…
The scientific truth is on the side of the sceptics… I have thousands of high ranked scientists all over the world who agree that NO, CO2 is not the driving mechanism and that everything is exaggerated. In the field of physics 80 to 90% of physicists know that the Co2 hypothesis is wrong… Of course, metrologists they believe in this because that is their own profession – they live on it.… I suspect that behind-the-scenes promoters… have an ulterior motive… It’s a wonderful way of controlling taxation controlling people” – Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a former Committee Chairman at the UN IPPC, and former head of the Paleo Geo-physics and Geo-dynamics department in Stockholm
Another climate scientist with impeccable credentials that has broken rank is Dr Mototaka Nakamura. He asserts: “Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world”. Dr Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from MIT, and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University. Dr Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on and that:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data”.
Professor John R. Christy, Director of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, University of Alabama, has provided detailed analysis of climate data, see Endnote . I summarise the main points from his analysis below:
“The established global warming theory significantly misrepresents the impact of extra greenhouse gases; the weather that affects people the most is not becoming more extreme or more dangerous; temperatures were higher in the 1930s than today; between 1895 and 2015, 14 of the top 15 years with the highest heat records occurred before 1960; the temperatures we are experiencing now in 2021 were the same as 120 years ago…
the number of major tornadoes between 1954 and 1986 averaged 56/year, but between 1987 and 2020 the average was only 34/year; between 1895 and 2015 on average there has been no change in the number of very wet days per month, and no change in the number of very dry days per month, and the 20 driest months were before 1988. Between 1950 and 2019 the percentage of land area experiencing droughts has not increased globally – the trend is flat; the incidence of wildfires in North America between 1600 and 2000 has decreased substantially. Sea levels rose 12.5 cm per decade for 8,000 years and then it levelled off, now it rising only 2.5 cm per decade… worrying about 30 cm rise in sea level in a decade is ridiculous, in a hurricane the east coast of the U.S. gets a 20 foot rise in 6 hours, so a 30 cm rise will be easily handled!”
In a lecture titled The imaginary climate crisis – how can we change the message? Available on the Irish Climate Science Forum website, see Endnote [ii]. Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT summarises the battle against the climate hysteria as follows:
“in the long history of the earth there has been almost no correlation between climate and co2… the paleoclimate record shows unambiguously that Co2 is not a control knob… the narrative is absurd… it gives governments the power to control the energy sector… for about 33 years, many of us have been battling against the climate hysteria… There were more important leading people who were objecting to it, they were unfortunately older and by now most of them dead…
Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert their authority. They believe they are entitled to view science as a source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement.”
“CO2… it’s not a pollutant… it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis… if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and President of Greenpeace in Canada for seven years, states:
“the whole climate crisis is not only fake news its fake science… of course climate change is real it’s been happening since the beginning of time, but it’s not dangerous and it’s not caused by people… climate change is a perfectly natural phenomenon and this modern warming period actually began about 300 years ago when the little ice age began to come to an end. There is nothing to be afraid of and all they are doing is instilling fear. Most of the scientists who are saying it’s a crisis are on perpetual government grants.
I was one of the (Greenpeace) founders… by the mid-80s… we were hijacked by the extreme left who basically took Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to an organisation based on sensationalism, misinformation and fear… you don’t have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossils fuels or get the food into the cities…” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace
Professor William Happer, Princeton University, Former Director of Science at the US Department of Energy, is also a strong voice against the myth of man-made global warming. He states: “More CO2 benefits the Earth”.

7. The UN IPCC cherry picks data, uses flawed modelling and scenarios not remotely related to the real world
The UN climate crisis predictions are not based on physical evidence, rather they are based on complex computer modelling. One has to decode and analyse the modelling process to ascertain whether or not the models are valid and accurate or whether they have obvious flaws. The vast majority of scientists, economists, politicians and the general public have simply assumed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models are accurate. Very few people have the time or skills to analyse these models, not to mention actually dispute them. Nonetheless, there were many senior and highly distinguished scientists that did exactly that – they claimed the UN narrative was incorrect and that there was no climate emergency. Their voices have been drowned out by a vast money-driven political and media establishment of the globalised ‘system’. The vitally important work of some of these renowned scientists is referenced in the above book.
“The computer models are making systematic dramatic errors… they are all parametrised… fudged… the models really don’t work” – Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science
Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, has conducted a detailed scientific review and analysis of the UN IPCC AR6 report, see Endnote [iii]. He describes that in relation to climate modelling, the IPCC detached the models from socio-economic plausibility. In creating the models, instead of first completing integrative assessment models (IAMs), the IPCC skipped this essential step and jumped straight to radiative forcing scenarios and thus these scenarios are not based on competed IAMs. This led much of climate modelling down the wrong track. I quote points from Dr Pielke’s analysis as follows:
“The four IPCC scenarios came from a large family of models so instead of splitting modelling from socio-economic assumptions the models already had the assumptions faked and baked in to them, because they had to have those assumptions to produce the required radiative forcing (to produce a desired climate ‘crisis scenario’ outcome).
In another fateful decision the 4 representative concentration pathways (RCPs) came from 4 different IAMs, which was a huge mistake. These models are completely unrelated to each other, but the impression has been given that they are of a common set, only differing in their radiative forcing, this was a huge mistake. Furthermore, no-one has responsibility for determining whether these scenarios are plausible. The climate community decided which scenario to prioritise and they chose the two most implausible scenarios! There are thousands of climate assumptions, but only 8 to 12 of them are available currently for climate research. The IPCC report even states that “no likelihood is attached to the scenarios in this report”. The likelihood is considered low they admit – This is an incredible admission by the IPCC.
These extreme unlikely scenarios dominate the literature and the IPCC report; therefore, the IPCC report is biased. Bottom line is that there is massive confusion. The IPCCs’ Richard Moss warned that RCP 8.5 was not to be used as a reference for the other RCPs, but 5,800 scientific papers worldwide misuse it like that… The whole process is seriously flawed… Nothing close to the real world is represented by the IPCC scenarios. Climate science has a huge problem! The IPCC currently uses RCP 8.5 as the ‘business as usual’ scenario, but RCP 8.5 is wild fantasy land and not remotely related to current reality at all… climate science has a scientific integrity crisis.” – Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado,

8. Financialization of the entire world economy is now based on a life-killing ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gas emissions strategy.
The UN Agenda 2030 plan and the Paris Agreement goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 7% per annum until 2030 is in effect a plan that would disable the current resource mechanisms of the industrial economy for the food, energy and goods that enable human life and survival. This is being implemented before humanity has transitioned away from the flawed polluting trans-national industrial economy toward self-sufficient local/regional economies.
Zero carbon emissions, in essence, means pulling the plug on current systems of industrial agriculture, transport, goods production, electricity production, etc., and many millions of people reliant on these systems worldwide could be faced with a lack of electricity, food, goods, etc. This could have terrible consequences, particularly in locations and countries, that are currently unable to produce much food.
It should be noted that for decades, these same political, government, and corporate powers have rampantly promoted corporate economic globalization and fossil fuel dependency. Whilst, at the same time actively hindering the funding, creation, or government support of, more self-sufficient local communities/regions, and local co-operatives. Most of the world population thus became reliant on the globalized fossil-fuel dependent system.

9. Central bankers are entirely funding / controlling the advancement of the worldwide climate change ‘project’
The decision to drastically reduce CO2, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, is no co-incidence. It should be noted that it is the world’s central bankers that are behind this decision and are entirely funding and controlling the advancement of the worldwide project of combatting man-made climate-change.
This project involves an attempt to de-carbonise the activities of the entire world population. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), which represents $118 trillion of assets globally, see Endnote [iv]. In essence this means that the financialization of the entire world economy is based on meeting nonsensical aims such as “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions”. The TCFD includes key people from the world’s mega-banks and asset management companies, including JP Morgan Chase; BlackRock; Barclays Bank; HSBC; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, and more.
The fact that the world’s largest banks and asset management corporations, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks of the BIS, have all linked to push a vague, mathematically nonsensical ‘green’ economy, is no coincidence. There is another agenda at play that has nothing to do with environmentalism. The green economy along with UN Agenda 2030 is an agenda of world control, and will also develop trillions of dollars for the behind-the-scenes mega-banks. When the world largest banks, corporations, and institutions, all align to push a climate change agenda that has zero evidence, one can see there is another major agenda going on behind the scenes. This agenda tries to convince the common people of the world to make huge sacrifices under the emotive guise of “saving our planet.”. While all the time the corporations and banks make vast profits, and political institutions implement worldwide technocratic control systems under the banner of combatting, and adapting to, so-called man-made climate change.
“The links between the world’s largest financial groups, central banks and global corporations to the current push for a radical climate strategy to abandon the fossil fuel economy in favor of a vague, unexplained Green economy, it seems, is less about genuine concern to make our planet a clean and healthy environment to live. Rather it is an agenda, intimately tied to the UN Agenda 2030 for “sustainable” economy, and to developing literally trillions of dollars in new wealth for the global banks and financial giants who constitute the real powers that be… “ – F.

William Engdahl, strategic risk consultant and lecturer
Back in 2010, the head of Working Group 3 of the UN IPCC, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer,
“…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
To better perceive what is ‘behind the curtain’ of the Climate hoax and the UN/WEF agenda it also helps to examine what has happened in the decades beforehand. It is important to perceive the implications of the worldwide fractional-reserve debt-money banking scam and the subtle system of debt-slavery that has existed for decades. If you look at the World Bank website you will see that virtually every nation on Earth is in vast debt. In debt to who you may ask? The answer is to privately owned mega-banks. For many decades the so-called banking and corporate elites have had full control of the source of money creation and its allocation, via the debt-money system, and have therefore, by default, been able to fund, and increasingly control and manipulate the entire world spectrum of industry, media, government, education, ideological supremacy and war to their own design, agenda and benefit. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (banker) is widely reported to have said:
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”

10. Central bankers hijacked the real environmental movement in 1992 creating the fake climate change agenda
Psychopaths can utilise any ideology and, change it from within to something that may eventually be entirely different to its original purpose. Meanwhile, the original followers and advocates continue to pursue what they believe is the original ideology, but gradually become mere pawns in the agenda of a self-serving elite. Unfortunately, over the past decades, this is exactly what has happened in the environmental movement.
Whistleblower George Hunt served as an official host at a key environmental meeting in Denver, Colorado in 1987, and states that David Rockefeller; Baron Edmund De Rothschild; US Secretary of State Baker; Maurice Strong, a UN official and an employee of the Rockefeller and Rothschild trusts; EPA administrator William Ruccleshaus; UN Secretary General in Geneva MacNeill, along with World Bank and IMF officials were at this meeting. Hunt was surprised to see all these rich elite bankers at the meeting and questioned what they were doing there at an environmental congress.
In a video recording, Hunt later provided important evidence from the documents of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992. This conference was the well-known UN ’92 Earth Summit and was run by UNCED. According to Hunt, via the Earth summit, the UN was setting a net, an agenda, to place the power over the Earth and its peoples into their own hands. The world private banking cartel are the same ultra-rich banking families that had been instrumental in the setting up of the World Bank, the UN, and other international institutions, after WW2. Their political cohorts included Stalin (the leader of a brutal communist regime in the USSR that committed genocide of millions of people), UK Prime minister Churchill, and US President Roosevelt. Hunt refers to these banking families and their financial and international institutional networks as:
“The same world order that tricked third world countries to borrow funds and rack up enormous debts… and purposely creating war and debt to bring societies into their control. The world order crowd are not a nice group of people…”– George Hunt, Whistleblower speaking about the UN Earth summit of 1992
As a consequence of the UN Earth Summit, the honest, genuine environment movement that actually cared about real pollution to land, air and water, was politically hi-jacked by powerful political and financial interests with a different agenda.
Maurice Strong, a UN official and an employee of the Rockefeller and Rothschild trusts, had convened the first UNCED congress in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. Then, 20 years later he was the convenor and secretary general of UNCED. Hunt also provided video evidence from the Fourth UNCED World Congress meeting in 1987 of an international investment banker, stating that:
“I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process that would take too long and require far too much funds to educate the cannon-fodder, unfortunately, which populates the Earth. We have to take almost an elitist program…”
Thus, the decrees leading to the 1992 UN Earth summit were dictated without debate or opportunity for dissent and would supersede national laws. The decrees were dictated into existence by the banker Edmund de Rothschild, who got these major decrees into the ’92 UN resolutions without debate or challenge. Hunt asserts that he was denied the opportunity to openly challenge Rothschild’s remarks by the meeting Chairman.
Is it any surprise that the Rothschild bank of Geneva is the nucleus of the World Conservation bank and the wealthy elite are integrated into the bank via the Rothschilds private offering of shares. The banks assumes control of world conservation and decides and controls how these resources are allocated or utilized.

11. Despite the deceptive and fake environmental facade, it has adopted, the vast institutional entity of the UN has fully endorsed environmentally destructive industrial globalisation for the past 70 years. The UN climate change, sustainable development and green economy policies over the past 30 years are little more than worldwide marketing tricks that have tragically brainwashed two generations of young people who do not understand what the UN actually is, and who is it is really designed to serve.
This current globalised system involves the promotion of beliefs and fake science that claim to be unchallengeable truths, but are, in fact, ideologies in which evidence is manipulated, twisted, and distorted to prove the ‘governing idea’, and thus promote its worldwide dissemination. They start with the conclusion they want and then wrench and manipulate what scant evidence they can to fit that conclusion. Man-made climate change due to anthropogenic carbon emission is a major example of this.
Institutions, including the UN, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the World Health Organisation (WHO), are privately-motivated unelected unaccountable organisations controlled by the source of debt-money creation, i.e., the world private-banking cartel; and are just clever marketing tools and political mechanisms for implementing and maintaining a corrupt worldwide system, under the clever guise of ‘fixing the problems of the world’.
These powerful special interests have been promoting certain ‘ideologies’ for decades to advance their corporate and political aims. The word “sustainable” was hijacked decades ago, and it is now deceptively used to advance the agendas of globalist mega-corporate interests who couldn’t care less about the environment. The aim is to catapult humanity into the arms of UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF ‘reset’ plan, which are clever marketing plans entirely designed by the so-called elite mega-corporate interests of the WEF Davos group.
12. Furthermore, the current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, are not a viable solution for the world’s energy supply. Although these technologies have some limited viability in certain locations and scenarios, the fact remains that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested is much too low – in essence the entire process is mathematically flawed. This is evidenced by the work of scientists, including Professor David MacKay, former Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University and former Chief Scientific Advisor at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Summary​

In summary, CO2 reduction is the main focus of the UN-promoted climate-change-hysteria that has been rampant among the world’s population. However, the proclaimed climate crisis exists in computer models only. The cult of ‘manmade climate change’ is a media and UN politically-promoted ‘ideology’, that is used for a wider political and corporate agenda. Manmade climate change is not based in fact, and has hijacked real environmental concerns.
The world’s central bankers are fully funding the worldwide climate change ‘project’. The truism ‘follow the money’ springs to mind – and by doing so, one quickly discovers who runs the corporate, political, and media world.
Due to incessant UN, government, and corporate-promoted climate change propaganda, many people are, thus, in a media-induced state of confusion, and, thus, blindly assume their pre-determined role in society under this ‘dictatorship of words’ without even being aware of it. For example, we now have millions of so-called climate change warriors blind to the fact that climate change is not actually caused by carbon emissions. This is all to scare people into accepting totalitarian authority and limitations to their freedom and personal wellbeing.
The unpalatable reality is that people’s access to energy and resources is being intentionally reduced via bogus climate change policies, high inflation, ongoing geo-political theatre and intentionally instigated war.
We cannot understand how to create a truly resilient society unless we correctly perceive the current society we live in and how it came to exist. So, who are the architects of the current paradigm. The above book is designed to help in that regard. Unless we recognize the untruths of the current paradigm, even if it is not ‘politically correct’ to do so, then we will not be able to make the correct adjustments to our current communities and local/regional networks, or create a truly resilient thriving society in Ireland. In this spirit of truth, new networks are emerging worldwide.

 

[Apollonian]

The '1%' Are Responsible For 15% Of Global Emissions​

BY TYLER DURDEN
WEDNESDAY, DEC 20, 2023 - 09:00 PM

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/1-are-responsible-15-global-emissions/

From a historical perspective, the current demand for natural resources has surged to unprecedented levels and continues to escalate—for both essential needs like food, clothing, water, housing, infrastructure, and non-essential consumption in everyday life.
This surge has been accompanied by annual increases in CO₂ emissions. Consumption, however, differs radically depending on income.
In this graphic, Visual Capitalist's Marcu Lu and Bruno Venditti show global CO₂ emissions, broken down by income group. This data comes from the Emissions Inequality Calculator, created by the Stockholm Environment Institute.

Wealthier Families Contribute More to CO₂ Emissions​

In 2019, the world’s richest 1% (with an average income of $310K) were responsible for 15% of global CO₂ emissions.
The annual emissions of the 1% in 2019 canceled out the carbon savings of 1 million onshore wind turbines. In contrast, the bottom 50% (with an average income of $2,000) were responsible for only 8% of CO₂ emissions.
Here is the breakdown of emissions by income group in 2019, with average income in 2011 purchasing power parity USD:

The reason for such disparity lies in consumption. For example, fashion is one of the most demanded industries in the world’s high-income countries. According to the UN, the fashion industry produces between 2% to 8% of global carbon emissions.
Another major contributor is the transport sector, which is more prevalent in developed countries. Greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector alone have more than doubled since 1970, with around 80% of this increase coming from road vehicles.
Higher-income families also spend more on food, contributing to CO₂ emissions. The production, transportation, and handling of food generates significant CO₂ emissions. In addition, when food ends up in landfills, it also generates methane.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, each year, U.S. food loss and waste embodies 170 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent GHG emissions (excluding landfill emissions)—equal to the annual CO₂ emissions of 42 coal-fired power plants.

MORE WEATHER STORIES ON ZEROHEDGE​

"Worst-Case Scenario" Volcano Erupts In Iceland Near Power Plant​

Watch: Powerful Windstorm Sends Parked Boeing 737 'Crashing Into Ground Equipment'​

"Big Cold Weather Pattern Change" Forecasted For Eastern US​

​

 

[Apollonian]

Former Prof. (geology) explains how he was "skeptic" of "climate-change" lies and prop., so he was bullied, intimidated, and eventually subjected to so much harassment he became "cancelled"--tells u what Jew S A is coming to, morons

 

[Apollonian]

Green cult destroying farmland to reduce population – that’s what going “carbon zero” actually means​

STATION GOSSIP 10:04

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2023/12/green-cult-destroying-farmland-to.html

The climate cult has set its sights on arable farmland and the food supply at large, which they claim is overheating the planet because ...​

Colorado To Include Trump On Primary Ballot — For Now

Melanie Sloan Doubled As Media’s Go-To Hunter Biden Defender

The climate cult has set its sights on arable farmland and the food supply at large, which they claim is overheating the planet because there are simply too many people eating.

We know they hate earth-based "fossil" fuels like oil and natural gas, which is why they want to remove these fuels from the global economy. In their place, the "greenies" want so-called "renewable" energy technologies like wind and solar to fulfill the world's energy needs.

However, in order to generate a comparable amount of energy, there has to be a lot of windmills and solar panels installed pretty much everywhere. Wind and solar require a lot of land, in other words, which means a whole lot less land available for agriculture.

In his past work, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) warned that one day the world's population would exceed humanity's ability to grow enough food to sustain everyone. What Malthus did not know is that the green energy revolution would make it happen a whole lot sooner than it otherwise would have.

"Wind generators or solar panels consume one-third of the farmland worldwide," writes Martin Armstrong for Armstrong Economic. "This is what has inspired this thinking that we MUST reduce the population. War is a great tool for that, which is one reason they are pushing World War."

"They insist that industrial agriculture, which is employed by the majority of the developed world, is creating climate change. The U.S. food system contributes nearly 20 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that agricultural land use contributes 12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Then, they add the embodied energy required for industrial agriculture, and they claim this gets worse."

Billionaire John Kerry flies around on a private jet lecturing peasants about his climate dogmas​

Another problem the greenies want to "fix" is to eliminate all production of industrial agriculture inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers, as well as fuel and oil for tractors, equipment, trucking and shipping.

Then, there is all the lighting that requires energy, as well as cooling and heating products for other agriculture equipment. All of this releases that dreaded carbon dioxide (CO2) that the greenies are always complaining about, as well as methane, nitrous oxide and all sorts of other "greenhouses gases."

According to climate lunatic John Kerry, agricultural systems as we currently know them to exist generate up to 30 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. He and the rest of the climate cult thus want to eliminate it to save the world from global warming.

"In other words, they want to reduce agriculture, shipping, refrigeration, air conditions, and turn off heat in the winter, and reduce the population by 30-40 percent, and maybe they would be satisfied," Armstrong says.

Despite the fact that there is zero evidence to support any of these bizarre climate claims – and plenty of evidence to show that climate cycles have been occurring since the beginning of time – the climate cult is hellbent on imposing its will on the world.

"Climate has always changed," Armstrong notes. "The temperatures have NOT exceeded historical norms. The data from NYC shows that we have NOT exceeded the highs of 1932 and the days of the Dust Bowl. The mainstream media only repeats what they are told and NEVER does any mainstream media dare to investigate anything."

At the recent COP28 climate meeting in Dubai, Kerry spoke about how he feels as though major oil-exporting countries need to believe as he does that the era of fossil fuels must "urgently" come to an end.

 

[Apollonian]

Freeman Dyson: The whole Earth is greener as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere​

BY RHODA WILSON ON DECEMBER 28, 2023

Link: https://expose-news.com/2023/12/28/...f-increased-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere/

[see vid at site link, above]

---

According to the late Freeman Dyson, computer models do a good job of helping us understand climate but they do a very poor job of predicting it.
“As measured from space, the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, it’s increasing the forests and it’s increasing growth in the biological world, and that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate,” Dyson said during an interview with Conversations that Matter in 2015.

---

Freeman Dyson (1923-2020) was a British-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum field theory, astrophysics, random matrices, mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, condensed matter physics, nuclear physics, and engineering. He was one of the most celebrated figures in 20th-century physics.
In 2006 Dyson published ‘The Scientist as Rebel’, in which he questioned the role of human activity in global warming. In a 2008 interview with Physics World, he said that the money being spent on addressing climate change should instead be targeted at “other problems that are more urgent and more important such as poverty, infectious diseases, public education and health.” He also said that thinking about the potential benefits of climate change “will not do us any harm.”
In 2015 he joined Stuart McNish host of Conversations that Matter. “There is man-made climate change,” he said. “It’s a question of how much and is it good or bad.”
“First of all, we don’t understand the details. It’s probably much less than it’s generally claimed and the most important thing is that there are huge non-climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favourable [and] which are not taken into account,” he said. As measured by satellites, “the whole Earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Dyson began studying the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere on vegetation “37 years ago” i.e., in around 1978.
He explained that increased CO2 is increasing agricultural yields, forests and all kinds of growth in the biological world. “And that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate,” he said.
When he first started studying the effects of CO2 on plants, he thought the effect may be about 10%. But 35 years later he found it was about 25%. CO2 has increased by about 40% and “about half of that has gone into raising vegetation,” he said. “It’s enormously beneficial to both food production and also to the biodiversity, preservation of species and everything else that’s good.” This is from observable evidence, he added.
Regarding the idea that the models are good predictors, he recalled what Japanese climate expert Suki Manabe, who developed the first climate model in the 1960s linking the warming of Earth’s climate with increasing carbon dioxide, always said, and still says: “These climate models are excellent tools for understanding climate but they’re very bad tools for predicting climate.”
The reason why they are bad at predicting climate is simple, Dyson explained. “They are models which only have a few factors in them that may be important … But there’s a whole lot of things that they leave out … The real world is far more complicated than the models.”
“I don’t think any of these models can ever really be predictive,” he added because climate change is too complex and there are too many factors involved. “You just cannot model everything, it’s way, way out of sight,” he said.
Some climate scientists claim that the Sun doesn’t have an effect because the Sun’s temperature doesn’t change. “It’s true [that] the Sun’s temperature doesn’t change,” Dyson said. “But its activity does change.”
By activity, Dyson is referring to sunspots and magnetic storms. “They change with the 11-year cycle very strongly and we see an effect on climate,” he said.
Nir Shaviv has studied the effects of the Sun’s activity, “He finds a very direct effect of this solar cycle, this sunspot cycle, on the climate,” Dyson said. “The evidence is clear that this activity of the Sun is having an effect.”
“There was a big additional piece of evidence which was the Little Ice Age, which happened in the 17th century, which also coincided with the time when the Sun went to sleep for about 70 years,” Dyson said. “There was a thing called the maunder minimum when the sunspots just didn’t happen and at the same time, there was a very cold climate in Europe. So that’s fairly strong evidence of correlation. But there’s much more direct evidence now from modern observations.”
The other trick climate alarmists do is take water vapour “out of the equation.” Water vapour makes up about 90% of the atmosphere. So, you can’t take water vapour out of the equation, Dyson said. “It’s alright [to discount water vapour] if you want to talk about Mars,” Dyson said laughing because there is no water vapour on Mars.
“CO2 is so beneficial in other ways, it would be crazy to try to reduce it,” Dyson said. “The fact is that carbon dioxide will increase, we will continue to burn oil and coal and probably it does us good – the Earth will get greener as a result.”
Dyson referred to a book titled ‘Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming’ by Bjorn Lomborg. “It’s the best general summary I’ve seen,” Dyson said. “[Lomborg] is an economist, not a scientist but I think he’s very sound. And it certainly makes a pretty good case on the economic grounds.”
“Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s real and it’s just a question is how much and whether it’s good or bad. Those are quite separate questions,” he said. “I would say it’s on the whole good and also it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine.”

Conversations that Matter: Is Carbon Dioxide Making the World Greener? Interview with Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Studies, 9 June 2015 (23 mins)
If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch it on Brighteon HERE.

 

[Apollonian]

More discussion/commentary by FOX News and US Senator on the climate-change scam/fraud/hoax

 

[Apollonian]

EXCLUSIVE: A Third of U.K. Met Office Temperature Stations May Be Wrong by Up to 5°C, FOI Reveals​

BY CHRIS MORRISON
1 MARCH 2024 7:00 AM

Link: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/01...tations-may-be-wrong-by-up-to-5c-foi-reveals/




Nearly one in three (29.2%) U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations have an internationally-defined margin of error of up to 5°C. Another 48.7% of the total 380 stations could produce errors up to 2°C, meaning nearly eight out of ten stations (77.9%) are producing ‘junk’ or ‘near junk’ readings of surface air temperatures. Arguably, on no scientific basis should these figures be used for the Met Office’s constant promotion of the collectivist Net Zero project. Nevertheless, the state-funded operation frequently uses them to report and often catastrophise rises in temperature of as little as 0.01°C.
Under a freedom of information request, the Daily Sceptic has obtained a full list of the Met Office’s U.K. weather stations, along with an individual class rating defined by the World Meteorological Office. These CIMO ratings range from pristine class 1 and near pristine class 2, to an ‘anything goes’ or ‘junk’ class 5. The CIMO ratings penalise sites that are near any artificial heat sources such as buildings and concrete surfaces. According to the WMO, a class 5 site is one where nearby obstacles “create an inappropriate environment for a meteorological measurement that is intended to be representative of a wide area”. Even the Met Office refers to sites next to buildings and vegetation as “undesirable”. It seems class 5 sites can be placed anywhere, and they come with a WMO warning of “additional estimated uncertainties added by siting up to 5°C”; class 4 notes “uncertainties” up to 2°C, while class 3 states 1°C. Only 13.7%, or 52 of the Met Office’s temperature and humidity stations come with no such ‘uncertainty’ warnings attached.

The above graph shows the percentage totals of each class. Class 1 and 2, identified in green, account for just 6.3% and 7.4% of the total respectively. Class 3 identified as orange comes in at 8.4%. The graph shows the huge majorities enjoyed by the darkening shades of red showing classes 4 and 5. It is possible that the margins of error identified for classes 3, 4 and 5 could be a minus amount – if for instance the measuring device was sited in a frost hollow – but the vast majority are certain to be pushed upwards by heat corruptions.
Last year, the investigative journalist Paul Homewood sought FOI information from the Met Office about the Welsh weather station Porthmadog, which often appears in ‘hottest of the day’ listings. He was informed that the site was listed as class 4 and “this is an acceptable rating for a temperature sensor”. Hence, continued the Met Office, “we will continue to quote from this site”. In short, observes Homewood, the Met Office is happy to use a class 4 site for climatological purposes, “even though that class is next to junk status”. It is bad enough that the Met Office is using this site, but it is even worse that they know about the issues but still plan to carry on doing so, Homewood continued. “How many other weather stations are of such poor quality?” he asked.
Now we know.
Using these figures with a precision to one hundredth of a degree centigrade, the Met Office declared that 2023 was the second hottest in the U.K., coming in just 0.06°C lower than the all-time record. Cue, of course, all the Thermogeddon headlines in mainstream media. In 2022, the Met Office said that five sites in the U.K. on July 19th went past 40°C, with a record of 40.3°C at RAF Coningsby. Kew Gardens is termed a class 2 site, although it is very close to one of the largest tropical glasshouses in the world. St James’s Park and Northolt airport are class 5 sites, Heathrow is class 4, while RAF Coningsby is class 3. At the time, the Met Office declared that the records set a “milestone in U.K. climate history”. A national record was also set on July 18th at Hawarden Airport in Wales (class 4) and on July 19th at Charterhall in Scotland (class 4).
Always alive to a popular headline catastrophising the weather, the Met Office declared a warmest St. Valentine’s night English record this year of 11.5°C at class 4-rated St. Mary’s airport on the Isles of Scilly. Earlier in the year, the Met Office declared the highest January temperature in Scotland at 19.6°C at Kinlochewe, a class 4 site. Interestingly the previous, much promoted, U.K. record was set on July 31th 2019 at the Cambridge Botanic Gardens, a class 5 site. Even more interesting is that in the Homewood FOI disclosures, the Met Office stated that class 5 data “will be flagged and not quoted in national records”.
The Met Office is between a rock and a hard place with these surface temperature measurements. Many of its long-standing stations have been encroached by urbanisation and corruptions seem to have become endemic across the entire system. In the past, this didn’t matter as much since margin of error allowances could be accepted along with less accurate local and national weather forecasting. Measuring surface temperatures across countries and then the planet is always going to be difficult, but a more accurate reading would be obtained by only using data from WMO classes 1 and 2. However, national and global temperatures have become politicised by the global warming scare and the proposed Net Zero solution. Alarmists often state that climate ‘tipping’ points will be reached with very small increases in temperature measured in tenths of a degree.
Using data from just classes 1 and 2 would likely crash the claimed rises in national and global temperatures. Something similar would likely occur if the Met Office moved the majority of its stations to more suitable spots. A number of scientists have tried to measure the urban heat bias in temperature records with estimates suggesting a general problem of warming corruption around the 20-30% mark. Last October, two scientists working out of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), produced a paper noting: “The bottom line is that an estimated 22% of the U.S. warming trend, 1895 to 2023, is due to localised UHI [urban heat island] effects.”
Under our FOI request, it can now be seen that the problems with corrupted U.K. weather stations are similar to those discovered in the United States by meteorologist Anthony Watts. In work compiled over a decade, Watts found that 96% of temperature stations used by the U.S. weather service NOAA were “corrupted” by the localised effects of urbanisation. Sites in close proximity to asphalt, machinery and other heat-producing or heat-accentuating objects, “violates NOAA’s own published standards, and strongly undermines the legitimacy and magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States”, he observed.
Both the U.K. and U.S. temperature datasets are important constituents of global totals compiled by a number of weather operations including the Met Office and NASA. The Met Office runs HadCRUT, where over the last 10 years two retrospective revisions have added about 30% extra warming to recent global temperatures. This had the effect of removing all traces of a pause around 2000-2014. Meanwhile, Professor Ole Humlum has noted that the GISS database run by NASA increased its surface air temperature between 1910 to 2000 from 0.47°C to 0.67°C, a boost of 49% over this period. “Frequent and large corrections in a database unavoidably signal a fundamental uncertainty about the correct values,” commented Humlum.
Pristine temperature data is available. In 2005, NOAA set up a 114 nationwide network of stations called the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). It was designed to remove all urban heat distortions, aiming for “superior accuracy and continuity in places that land use will not likely impact during the next five decades”.

The graph above shows nothing more than very minor, gentle warming since 2005, slight warming that might be expected in the small and continuing natural rebound from the depths of the pre-industrial Little Ice Age. A reliable source of global data is to be found in the UAH satellite record, which shows less overall warming since 1979 than the surface datasets. Both these datasets are rarely mentioned. In fact one of the compilers of the satellite data, along with the UAH paper on urban heat, is Dr. Roy Spencer. In 2022 he was kicked off Google AdSense for publishing “unreliable and harmful claims”. The move demonetised Dr. Spencer’s widely consulted monthly satellite temperature update page by removing all Google-supplied advertising. Google is on record as stating that it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well established scientific consensus”.