Yes: be sure to read the other post referenced at the end of your article. Doomburg.substack and alexepstein.substack are excellent also. Not only is the atmospheric CO2 the lowest in 175 million years, but global temperatures follow rather than lead atmospheric co2. The big point is that this story, like a dozen others we are being fed, is a gaslight lie. --Robertyoho.substack.com.
I recall when living in Oxford, being in a bar one night and I started talking to a Climate Scientist who was about to start his PhD.
I politely asked him if he thought that the "anthropogenic climate change" theory could be wrong. His reaction was that of a religious person who had just heard a blasphemy. He ran away. That told me all I needed to know.
Gerbil warming-a hoax, climate change-cyclical, season changes unless you mean the man-made one. https://blaisevanne.substack.com/ Here is where you can learn much more. It used to be the cia and fbi were modifying the weather. Feel free not to believe this, it sounds pretty far fetched they used micro wave cannons, letting thunderstorms lightning and thunder, but disperse the clouds before it rained. Recipe for wildfires? Now the Air Force and Navy is doing it instead.
Why not, I have for years for the same reason, but they never caught on to that. Not very bright. Well they like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, enough said?
It is the CBDC, digital passports (initially 'vaccine passports'), and CAGW - via the need to track and control everyone's carbon footprint (to 'save the planet') - that will combine to enslave humanity.
Or, we can all tell the Davos mob, and their sycophants to shove it.
Not only was there never any 97% consensus “on human-driven climate change”, but all such assertions were either purposely or ignorantly dishonest. And, any “scientist” who actually believes such nonsense that climate change is dependent upon or measurably impacted by the exceedingly micro-minimal and puny portion of man’s activities compared to the immense power of nature’s natural cycles, could possibly benefit from some psychoanalysis sessions or just a moment of common sense.
Regarding scientific 'consensus,' one could also apply the same charges against evolution. Within my traditional Catholic world I know a handful of PhDs who question the logic, methodology and conclusions of their contemporaries. Examples are: the conclusions are correct, but we just need to keep looking until we find the evidence. Or, logically such and such cannot occur, but given enough random chances over millions-billions of years, then it could've occurred, therefore it must've occurred. Here's a good documentary series that sheds light on differences between what the scientific literature can demonstrate based on the data collected versus the conclusions that are taught in B.S. biology books.
Ben Davidson has a YouTube channel devoted to how our climate is primarily influenced by the Sun. This video is a good starting point down the rabbit hole. https://youtu.be/9Fx11vmgcK0
The biggest question that never gets answered is how many of these actual scientists have evidence or even a plausible model showing that any human action (other than new technology) can meaningfully impact any of these trends? And without causing more harm than good?
All of the climate accords if followed perfectly (which we all know won’t happen) still result in increased human carbon emissions. Completely eliminating ALL carbon from North America and Europe would still leave more total carbon emissions than just 20 years ago.
Even when you give them every single benefit of the doubt, their proposals are still a bad deal.
I know that they're lying because here in the UK we've had 25 years of the highest immigration in our history , recently at record levels, with almost all of our immigrants coming from places with lower, normally much, much lower, per capita emission levels.
You just wouldn't have that immigration policy if there really was a climate crisis.
What I feel is the case ( I appreciate being convinced that my understanding is wrong) is pollution . The creeks and draws near where I grew up used to have potable water and now are obviously polluted. Ground water everywhere in the USA has traces of glyphosate and other ag chemicals. 80,000 + chemicals are dumped into the air water and soil every day. These are chemicals open public science has no idea how they behave.
Kinda like gene therapy injectables. No one knows what is in them and because they are proprietary they cannot be openly studied. So this big hoot called carbon is pure fraud. Done to distract us from what is really a serious problem.
About carbon. If there is an increase in CO2 it is because of the denuding of the Earth. Forest are being destroyed (Certainly here in Calif compared to my childhood). Amazon and Congo river basin forests are being clear cut as well as South East Asia and the Pacific Northwest. And big ag keeps vast tracks of land tilled not to mention the destruction of soil bacteria the the pollution of ground water. So if there is a carbon increase this is the cause. Why? Nature is green because green trees, grass, brush, tundra all (when healthy) use and freely sequester enormous amounts of carbon.
So if I got this wrong I look forward to clearing up my cloudy mind and eyes that have seen the changes to the water ways of my childhood.
My personal observations as well in my natural surroundings. If one is a nature oriented person the effects of industrial pollution and deforestation have created an imbalance. Industry always spins the news to blame the consumer. Wanting the public to assume sole responsibility and also pay while industry does little to change their egregious pollution.
I agree and add a point. Industry want and will see to it that the public i.e. the consumer is blamed for it. Industry will then create a new company to clean up said environmental problem profiting from it as always.
I hope this time we have learned and therefore we Jail the CEO of the companies and we collect from the stock holders (preferable directly from Vanguard and Black Rock). I am not a lawyer. We need a good team of lawyers to nail this down tight such that those who profited are also those who make it right for all of nature.
PsyOp Change
The one constant in their Dystopia.
When one ignores all those that don't agree, not to hard to get to 97% it would seem.
And ... they are likely lying in more ways than that.
Yes: be sure to read the other post referenced at the end of your article. Doomburg.substack and alexepstein.substack are excellent also. Not only is the atmospheric CO2 the lowest in 175 million years, but global temperatures follow rather than lead atmospheric co2. The big point is that this story, like a dozen others we are being fed, is a gaslight lie. --Robertyoho.substack.com.
“but global temperatures follow rather than lead atmospheric co2”
Yes, high school chemistry.
I recall when living in Oxford, being in a bar one night and I started talking to a Climate Scientist who was about to start his PhD.
I politely asked him if he thought that the "anthropogenic climate change" theory could be wrong. His reaction was that of a religious person who had just heard a blasphemy. He ran away. That told me all I needed to know.
Gerbil warming-a hoax, climate change-cyclical, season changes unless you mean the man-made one. https://blaisevanne.substack.com/ Here is where you can learn much more. It used to be the cia and fbi were modifying the weather. Feel free not to believe this, it sounds pretty far fetched they used micro wave cannons, letting thunderstorms lightning and thunder, but disperse the clouds before it rained. Recipe for wildfires? Now the Air Force and Navy is doing it instead.
Gerbil :)
Global warming, invented by gerbil jammers.
I'm going to call it gerbil warming from now on. It makes more sense than the BS Al Gore is trying to feed us.
Al Gore is 100% pure BS. Maybe that why W. was president. Not quite as insane about things he got a D in.
I think also that folks didn't realize how much of a globalist he and his father were. And what the significance of that was. I know I didn't.
Why not, I have for years for the same reason, but they never caught on to that. Not very bright. Well they like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, enough said?
I was thinking the same thing :).
So sad, but it’s true!😡
This video is as timely as ever, well worth a watch.
https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU
Thanks, great info.!
Actually, the "climate-change" psy-op is NOT the most dangerous part. The one that will turn EVERYONE into slaves is the CBDC.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/want-to-go-fishing
It is the CBDC, digital passports (initially 'vaccine passports'), and CAGW - via the need to track and control everyone's carbon footprint (to 'save the planet') - that will combine to enslave humanity.
Or, we can all tell the Davos mob, and their sycophants to shove it.
Yes, it's a four-tier system, but everything will revolve around the CBDC:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/who-is-the-creditor-for-your-antisocial
Once it's introduced, it's game over for humanity.
What can be done to prevent it? Not a whole lot, it seems:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/how-could-you-save-america-in-2022
Not only was there never any 97% consensus “on human-driven climate change”, but all such assertions were either purposely or ignorantly dishonest. And, any “scientist” who actually believes such nonsense that climate change is dependent upon or measurably impacted by the exceedingly micro-minimal and puny portion of man’s activities compared to the immense power of nature’s natural cycles, could possibly benefit from some psychoanalysis sessions or just a moment of common sense.
Regarding scientific 'consensus,' one could also apply the same charges against evolution. Within my traditional Catholic world I know a handful of PhDs who question the logic, methodology and conclusions of their contemporaries. Examples are: the conclusions are correct, but we just need to keep looking until we find the evidence. Or, logically such and such cannot occur, but given enough random chances over millions-billions of years, then it could've occurred, therefore it must've occurred. Here's a good documentary series that sheds light on differences between what the scientific literature can demonstrate based on the data collected versus the conclusions that are taught in B.S. biology books.
https://foundationsrestored.com
The "95% safe & effective" trope is nothing new.
Ben Davidson has a YouTube channel devoted to how our climate is primarily influenced by the Sun. This video is a good starting point down the rabbit hole. https://youtu.be/9Fx11vmgcK0
The biggest question that never gets answered is how many of these actual scientists have evidence or even a plausible model showing that any human action (other than new technology) can meaningfully impact any of these trends? And without causing more harm than good?
All of the climate accords if followed perfectly (which we all know won’t happen) still result in increased human carbon emissions. Completely eliminating ALL carbon from North America and Europe would still leave more total carbon emissions than just 20 years ago.
Even when you give them every single benefit of the doubt, their proposals are still a bad deal.
And BTW, our star creates a cyclical disaster every 12,000 years, and the last one was the “Gothenburg Event”, 12K years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihwoIlxHI3Q&list=PLHSoxioQtwZf1-8QeggXIVdZ-abyJXaO1
Good! At this point, I can't wait.
I know that they're lying because here in the UK we've had 25 years of the highest immigration in our history , recently at record levels, with almost all of our immigrants coming from places with lower, normally much, much lower, per capita emission levels.
You just wouldn't have that immigration policy if there really was a climate crisis.
What I feel is the case ( I appreciate being convinced that my understanding is wrong) is pollution . The creeks and draws near where I grew up used to have potable water and now are obviously polluted. Ground water everywhere in the USA has traces of glyphosate and other ag chemicals. 80,000 + chemicals are dumped into the air water and soil every day. These are chemicals open public science has no idea how they behave.
Kinda like gene therapy injectables. No one knows what is in them and because they are proprietary they cannot be openly studied. So this big hoot called carbon is pure fraud. Done to distract us from what is really a serious problem.
About carbon. If there is an increase in CO2 it is because of the denuding of the Earth. Forest are being destroyed (Certainly here in Calif compared to my childhood). Amazon and Congo river basin forests are being clear cut as well as South East Asia and the Pacific Northwest. And big ag keeps vast tracks of land tilled not to mention the destruction of soil bacteria the the pollution of ground water. So if there is a carbon increase this is the cause. Why? Nature is green because green trees, grass, brush, tundra all (when healthy) use and freely sequester enormous amounts of carbon.
So if I got this wrong I look forward to clearing up my cloudy mind and eyes that have seen the changes to the water ways of my childhood.
My personal observations as well in my natural surroundings. If one is a nature oriented person the effects of industrial pollution and deforestation have created an imbalance. Industry always spins the news to blame the consumer. Wanting the public to assume sole responsibility and also pay while industry does little to change their egregious pollution.
I agree and add a point. Industry want and will see to it that the public i.e. the consumer is blamed for it. Industry will then create a new company to clean up said environmental problem profiting from it as always.
I hope this time we have learned and therefore we Jail the CEO of the companies and we collect from the stock holders (preferable directly from Vanguard and Black Rock). I am not a lawyer. We need a good team of lawyers to nail this down tight such that those who profited are also those who make it right for all of nature.
gotta have a crisis at all times
Consensus! https://frederickrsmith.substack.com/p/demented-delphi-and-creepy-consensus-21-03-18