Climate Change Alarmism – The Power To Tax & Cap Life.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
Five “Climate Change” Smoking Guns – Reasons Why “Manmade Climate Change” is a Lie
Original Here
Since the COVID-19 scam has been revealed as the prelude to the Great Reset, many people now realize the extent to which science has been corrupted to serve the interest of politicians. This includes climate “science”.
You’ve probably already guessed that the earth is not heating up. But you may not know these facts, any one of which would totally disprove the false global warming hypothesis (unproven theory). Here are five. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
1. CLIMATEGATE.
In 2009 1,079 emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom and others working with them, were leaked. This small group of scientists had been the most influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming. Their emails proved that they were engaged in unethical practices, such as tampering with data and keeping scientists who disagreed with them out of the peer review system.
These leaked email documents revealed discussions between these men about how they could manipulate data to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, which extended from about 950 AD to 1250 AD. They revealed that this group also considered tactics to prevent the release of the data on which the IPCC’s conclusions were based: data requested by other scientists under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws. In Britain, failure to release FOI-requested data is a criminal offense. Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit, claimed to have lost large chunks of this data.
Two years later, in 2011, 5000 more emails were leaked, in what is now called Climategate II. These were even more startling and incriminating than the 1,079 released in 2009. Myron Ebell commented, “If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate emails, the new batch of emails that appeared on the web today [November 22] make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response.”
This, in itself, should have been the end of the global warming fiasco. Unfortunately, it was all covered up.
2. CARBON DIOXIDE IS INCORRECTLY DEPICTED AS THE MAIN “GREENHOUSE GAS.”
This totally incorrect graph is shown to our children:
The graph should actually look like this:
This graph shows the correct percentage of water vapor, over 95% of all greenhouse gases, compared with carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The climate change alarmists chose carbon dioxide as the culprit, because it is produced when we burn gasoline and natural gas. Thus, they could blame
humanity for the “warming”.
3. FALSE PREDICTIONS
None of the many predictions by climate alarmists, starting in the 1970s have come true. In contrast, astronomy — a real science — is able to predict solar and lunar eclipses to the second.
In the decade of the 1970s the media hammered us with thousands of articles saying that we were heading for an ice age. Then, when the climate started to warm in the 1980s, they suddenly reversed this story, stating that the earth is warming. You can read about the many false predictions in the book, The Green
New Deal and Climate Change: What You Need to Know, available on Amazon.
4. CHANGING CLIMATE DATA
As unbelievable as it may seem, agencies in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and other nations have actually changed their own temperature records. Many climate scientists have been surprised and shocked to see later editions of graphs published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that were changed from their previous editions.
NOAA moved older temperature records downward and more recent temperatures upward, making it appear that temperatures have risen. In other words, just as in the novel 1984, they’ve actually changed history. This is not a conspiracy theory but an easily-provable fact, determined by comparing previously published graphs with the newer editions of the same graphs published later by these same agencies after they had changed the data.
You can learn more about how they did this at the website, RealClimateScience.com, by Tony Heller.
5. CLIMATE CHANGE IS A POLITICAL, NOT SCIENTIFIC, ISSUE.
A Canadian oilman who made a huge fortune in the US, Maurice Strong established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. A friend of the oil magnate David Rockefeller, Strong was appointed chairman of the 1972 Earth Day United Nations Conference, at which he advocated population reduction and the lowering of living standards in the interest of “saving the environment.” His radical viewpoints were revealed years later when he asked, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Strong helped found the Club of Rome in 1968. The members of this organization claimed that the earth’s resources were being used up too fast, especially by the industrialized nations. Many of their beliefs stemmed from the mistaken idea first advanced by Thomas Malthus in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population that the world’s population was increasing too fast.
The Club of Rome’s frightening goal and strategy based on these mistaken ideas was revealed in its book, The First Global Revolution (1991), which asserts, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit
the bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” Here they had hit on something for which to make people feel guilty.
History has shown in every instance that when a population’s living standards increase, the birth rate decreases. First, the death rate comes down; this is followed in a few years by a decrease in the birth rate. This principle is known as the Demographic Transition. Industrialized civilizations have lower birth and death rates than Third World countries.
A well-known strategy used by governments for grabbing power that has been known and used for a long time is – PROBLEM → REACTION → SOLUTION.
Those in power create a problem or crisis. They sell this “problem” to the people using thousands of reports and articles – cleverly contrived propaganda. The public reacts by begging for a solution, which is then provided handily by the people in power.
Because “global warming” is a worldwide “problem”, the “solution” is too difficult for nation-states by themselves to handle. Thus, the solution to this particular “problem” is nothing short of totalitarianism on a global scale.
It’s no accident that the UNFCCC and the Agenda 21 plan were given birth at the same time. The UNFCCC and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would provide the excuse for the establishment of Agenda 21 (now Agenda 30). Strong set up the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to create the “science” he needed to advance the Club of Rome’s political agenda. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would provide policy recommendations for politicians. Climate scientists were appointed to this agency to research the subject and write reports which would lend the scientific authority for the policy reports to be handed to individual governments.
The UNFCCC literally controlled the outcome of this research by narrowing its focus. In their research the IPCC scientists were permitted to consider only the IPCC’s definition of the term “climate change”, which is defined as:“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is, in addition to natural climate variability, observed over considerable time periods.” These scientists were not allowed to consider any other possibilities. The IPCC would write its summary report before the scientific report had even been submitted. They would take that
report to the scientists and tell them, “Make sure your report agrees with this.”
___________________
These are just a few of the many lies about “climate change” that have been told by those who are profiting enormously from this horrific scam that has already wasted trillions of dollars and will waste trillions more.
Many good scientists, some of whom have earned Nobel prizes, have spoken out against this travesty. Scientists know that the climate has always been changing without the help of mankind.
You can learn more about this subject by reading The Green New Deal and Climate Change: What You Need to Know, by Lynne Balzer, and by going to RealClimateScience.com, and RealClimateTools.com, created by Tony Heller
Konstantine Kisin Gives a Reality Check to Indoctrinated Woke Students at the Oxford Union
Scientism – Climate Change Hoax
Climate Change Science – Klaus Scwhab
Your Local Climate Is The Worst In The World! (Wherever You Are!) – Scientism Takedown
Climate Change Debunked by Weather Channel Founder
Biden Admin Report Accidentally Reveals Climate Change Has Little Impact On Economy
More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, declare climate ’emergency’ a myth
Scientists Try Risky Air And Water Experiments Hoping To Stop Climate Change
Related:
SCIENTISM – The Cult of False Sciences
The Dimming, Full Length Climate Engineering Documentary
CLIMATE FORCING | Our Future is Cold
Climate Change: Greatest Scientific Scandal of a Generation
‘Pure Junk Science’: Researchers Challenge Narrative On CO2 And Warming Correlation
Each year from 2023 to 2030, climate change sustainable development goals will cost every person in economies such as the United States $2,026, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development estimates. In lower-income economies, the per-person annual cost ranges from $332 to $1,864.
In total, the global price tag comes to about $5.5 trillion per year.
Separately, a report from the left-aligned nonprofit Climate Policy Initiative found that in 2021 and 2022, the world’s taxpayers spent $1.3 trillion each year on climate-related projects.
It also found that the “annual climate finance needed” from 2031 to 2050 is more than $10 trillion each year.
“Anyone who willfully denies the impact of climate change is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future,” President Joe Biden said on Nov. 14, 2023, while announcing $6 billion in new investments through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
“The impacts we’re seeing are only going to get worse, more frequent, more ferocious, and more costly.”
At its signing in August 2022, President Biden said the IRA “invests $369 billion to take the most aggressive action ever—ever, ever, ever—in confronting the climate crisis and strengthening our economic—our energy security.”
A report from Goldman Sachs put the dollar amount much higher, stating, “Critical funding for this next energy revolution is expected to come from the IRA, which will provide an estimated $1.2 trillion of incentives by 2032.”
The trillions of dollars being poured into new initiatives stem from the goals set by the United Nations’ Paris Agreement’s legally binding international treaty to “substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions” in the hope of maintaining a temperature of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
But any decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions won’t have an effect for hundreds to thousands of years—even under the most restrictive circumstances, according to some experts.
“If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels,” the Royal Society states in a report on its website. The organization describes itself as a “fellowship of many of the world’s most eminent scientists.”
“Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions,” the report states. “The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.”
A frequently asked questions page on NASA’s website holds the same position.
“If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries,” NASA states.
And, other scientists say, that’s because CO2 isn’t the culprit in the first place.
“CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes more CO2,” said Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist. He called Royal Society’s position on CO2 “pure junk science.”
Ian Clark, emeritus professor for the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Ottawa, agreed that if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the Earth would continue warming—but not because of CO2.
He said that contrary to popular opinion, temperature doesn’t follow CO2—instead, CO2 follows temperature, which, itself, is due to solar activity.
Temperature and CO2
One of Mr. Clark’s primary areas of research is paleoclimatology (the study of climate conditions using indirect records such as tree ring data, ice cores, and other proxy records), and in particular, Arctic paleohydrogeology, which is the study of the Earth’s water throughout history.
“During the ice ages, we had great temperature variations, and this has to do with, not straight-up solar activity, but the amount of solar activity that is hitting the Earth at certain important latitudes, all caused by celestial events,” Mr. Clark said.
“The Earth, in our solar system, is moving around and being jostled. And we have different orbiting patterns that affect solar input, and that creates ice ages and interglacial periods—which we’re in now. And CO2 tracks that. So we’ll see enormous temperature changes, going from ice ages to interglacials, and CO2 gets very low during ice ages and very high during interglacials.
“And that gives the appearance that CO2 is driving the climate, but it’s actually following. It lags by about 800 years.”
Mr. Clark said that during ice ages, and particularly the past 10,000 years, scientists have a fairly good idea of the temperature, thanks to proxy records. He said those records show that the Medieval Warm Period was likely much warmer than today, and agriculture and civilization flourished.
But the Little Ice Age followed that from the 1400s to 1800s. “And that’s when we had difficulty with agriculture,” Mr. Clark said.
“The Thames froze over. We have all sorts of recollections about how cold, and some would say miserable, it was back then. But then it started warming up again. So, about every 1,000 years or so, we seem to have these fluctuations. This is due to solar activity, and that’s where we see the importance of the sun, which is the ultimate source of energy beyond geothermal and nuclear energy. Solar drives climate.”
Another peer-reviewed study, by scientist William Jackson, examined the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature over the past 425 million years.
Mr. Jackson is a distinguished research and emeritus professor for the department of chemistry at UC–Davis who specializes in understanding the role that molecules such as CO2, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide play in planetary atmospheres.
His paper, published in 2017, found that “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.”
Similarly, a group of researchers whose report was published in Nature found that when looking at carbon isotope compositions at the million-year scale, long-term atmospheric carbon dioxide was unrelated to temperature, and even showed an inverse trend, especially after major events such as volcanic eruptions.
They further found that when temperature and atmospheric CO2 reached a certain level, organic carbon burial drastically increased, eventually resulting in a significant decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels.
That activity, Mr. Berry said, is nature balancing the levels of CO2—which is an ongoing process.
Inflow and Outflow
CO2 flows from the atmosphere into plants through photosynthesis and soil through decomposition, is absorbed by the oceans, and is then released through respiration, evaporation, and fossil fuel combustion. The entire process is called the carbon cycle.
Moreover, Mr. Berry said that once CO2 in the atmosphere increases to a certain level, nature automatically increases the outflow.
“It’s almost like a bathtub, which may have a spout open so that water can flow out of it if it reaches a certain level,” he said. “A certain setting of the inflow will raise the level to a certain point. And as the [water] level goes up, the faster it’ll flow out. There’s a balance level for any inflow setting—a balance level where it all stays the same. In other words, the outflow equals the inflow. And when the outflow reaches the inflow, it’s at its balance level, and it no longer accumulates.”
Mr. Berry said the premise that humans are solely responsible for increasing CO2 is problematic.
According to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), since 1750, CO2 concentration has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) to more than 420 ppm, and the IPCC claims that this increase is anthropogenic, or caused by humans.
“Multiple lines of evidence confirm that the post-industrial rise in these gases does not stem from natural mechanisms. … Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change on plant and soil carbon are the primary sources of increased atmospheric CO2.”
Mr. Berry called the IPCC’s statement “totally garbage.”
“I used the IPCC’s own carbon cycle data, which IPCC says is accurate to about 20 percent,” he said. “The model doesn’t give humans producing 140 ppm. It comes out closer to 30 ppm. Which essentially means the IPCC is wrong.”
Mr. Berry said there’s no scientific basis for the claim that a “certain amount of carbon dioxide in the air causes a certain amount of temperature increase.”
“They say we have to reduce (CO2) to 350 ppm to cool it down to where temperature was a while ago? There’s no physics to that,” he said.
“That whole claim is totally garbage. CO2 doesn’t cause a change in temperature; temperature causes a change in CO2.”
Climate Dictated by Sun
“If we completely cut out emissions, CO2 would stop rising at its current rate,” Mr. Clark said. “But it would probably continue to rise to a certain point, and then it could come down. But that would be driven by temperature.”
Mr. Clark said that in different parts of the world and at different times of the year, CO2 fluctuates “between 15 and 20 percent,” and that’s driven by the temperature of the seasons.
“If we start having cooler summers and colder winters, those fluctuations would start driving CO2 further down. But overall, climate is going to do whatever the sun dictates,” he said.
“We had the Roman Warm Period, then the Medieval Warm Period, and now we have the Modern Warm Period; one, two, three. And history and the records tell us they only last a couple hundred years, and we’re already a hundred-some-odd years into this one.”
In addition to not affecting temperature, Mr. Clark said the attempts to reduce CO2 are dangerous because of the anticipated effect on plants.
“C4 plants, like corn, evolved just 20–30 million years ago. And they evolved in response to the declining CO2 in the atmosphere. So, they’re a relative latecomer to our biosphere and reflect the danger of decreasing CO2,” he said.
A majority of plants, such as trees, wheat, and rice, are what’s known as C3 plants, which thrive at higher CO2 levels of 800 to 1500 ppm.
Mr. Clark said one of the benefits of increasing CO2 is improved global grain yields and the general greening of the planet.
In response to The Epoch Times’ request for comment about the Royal Society’s findings that temperature will continue to increase for hundreds to thousands of years even if CO2 emissions were to cease today, Alex Matthews-King, the group’s senior press officer, said via email, “This is a peer-reviewed report authored jointly by Fellows from the Royal Society and U.S. National Academy of Science.”
“The impacts of climate change on people and nature are increasingly apparent. Unprecedented flooding, heat waves, and wildfires have cost billions in damages. Habitats are undergoing rapid shifts in response to changing temperatures and precipitation patterns. Calls for action are getting louder.”
Mr. Clark agreed that humans “do have a footprint on this planet, there’s no question about that.”
But he suggested that the underreported larger effect is being felt in the oceans, where humans have “killed off 90 percent of the large fish population, and whales, and all the rest.”
He said he believes that the money and resources spent on climate conferences could go to “actually improve environmental problems.”
“Anybody who’s a climate realist recognizes that the money we’re spending on mitigation—where we think that we are turning back the CO2 thermostat or trying to turn back to the thermostat and save the world 1.5 degrees of warming—knows that it’s a fantasy. There’s no way we will affect climate with what we’re doing.”
Climate Science:
No “Greenhouse Effect”
No “Extra Warming” to Explain
No “Greenhouse Effect” on Venus Either
Ice CO2 Record “Probably Wrong” Too
IPCC Forcing Estimates Wrong
https://youtu.be/wbQ-KviHT5I
Neil deGrasse Tyson Bombs Out on Climate Science
On the Apparent Relationship Between Total Solar Irradiance & Atmospheric Temperature at 1 Bar on Three Terrestrial-type Bodies
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338393205_On_the_Apparent_Relationship_Between_Total_Solar_Irradiance_and_the_Atmospheric_Temperature_at_1_Bar_on_Three_Terrestrial-type_Bodies
Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324599511_Thermal_Enhancement_on_Planetary_Bodies_and_the_Relevance_of_the_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_to_the_Null_Hypothesis_of_Climate_Change
Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323106609_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_Points_to_a_Very_Low_Climate_Sensitivity
On the Incompatibility of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law and the IPCC’s Greenhouse Effect
https://www.researchgate.net/project/On-the-Incompatibility-of-the-Molar-Mass-Version-of-the-Ideal-Gas-Law-and-the-IPCCs-Greenhouse-Effect
No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
The Probable Cause of Climate Fluctuations by Svante Arrhenius
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
In case you missed it:
Primordial Truth: Mapping the Rabbit Holes – Know Everything!
TheSerapeum.com is 100% listener funded. Thank you for your support in our mission to Break the Cycle of Fake News.
If you value our work please consider supporting us with our vetted patriot sponsors!
Sponsors:
RedPillLiving.com - Health & Beauty - Value Holistics & Quality CarbonShield60 - Doubled Lifespan in Mammal Studies! TimeStop - The Worlds Premier Beauty Cream! With CarbonShield60!
TheGreatAwakeningCoffee.com - Gourmet Coffee for Patriots!
TheGreatAwakeningBooks.com - Censored Books for Patriots.
Other Links:
Join our Telegram chat: TheSerapeum.com/chat!