40 years of unending hype and exaggerations: The "Global Warming" saga!
After a brief period of global cooling, It started apocalyptic in the late 1980s with cataclysmic outcomes predicted for the year 2000. These predictions followed Y2K to oblivion as the year 2000 came and went and conversely ice at the pole went... and came back the year after as usual.
We had a rather cold and very rainy season in 1993 following the Pinatubo eruption the year before. Then the terrible heat wave of 2003 in Europe which unlike this year lasted for over a month killing tens of thousands of elderly. At that time, we had just 12 years left to "save the planet", but for some unknown reason, there was a clear 10 year hiatus in warming and lo, "Global Warming" became "Climate Change". Gone was the risk of getting wrong footed with a year of heavy snow.
The article below explains the agenda behind "Climate Change" and the fact that our society's balance may be more at risk from this agenda than from the climate itself.
They also argue that most of the climate fluctuations we have seen over the last few decades may be correlated to the sun. There is indeed a fair possibility that this may be the case although such a link will remain unresearched as it would be career destroying in the current climate of exclusion of unorthodox ideas.
For many years we have been anticipating the implementation of far reaching and transformative restrictions on industry and agriculture in the name of “climate change” initiatives, and now it would seem the time has come for the fight to commence. The first major battleground is clearly Europe, as individual nations follow the emissions dictates if the centralized EU government, crushing their own economies while in the midst of a self induced energy crisis. It seems like madness, but there's a bigger agenda at play here.
Today, a farmer's rebellion is rising across Europe as the actual producers of the food that keeps the public alive are being demonized for refusing to work under conditions that would essentially bankrupt them. European emissions rules are not just about carbon, though that is a big focus. Rather, the rules include other natural gases including methane and nitrogen which are a byproduct of large farming operations. The nitrogen restrictions alone are set to destroy most farming operations in the Netherlands, which is one of the largest agricultural nations in the EU. Germany is set to follow the Netherlands with its own emissions rules in the near term.
First, it's important to ask “why now?” There are a host of reasons. First and foremost, the EU climate agenda closely aligns with the UN climate protocols for the year 2030 and requires a 55% reduction of emissions in less than a decade (and net zero by 2050). If you think these decisions are being made by individual governments then you are mistaken; the 2030 plan was formulated by globalist institutions like the UN and the Club of Rome - Member states are simply following orders. The time-frame for drastic environmental rules was likely set back in 1992 during the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro (also known as Agenda 21).
Why the year 2030? It's hard to say. There is no scientific basis for the timeline. There is no evidence to support the notion that climate change will make any noticeable environmental impact by 2030. They just really want carbon controls and other measures in place by 2030, and they won't give a concrete reason for it.
Climate doomsday predictions have been presented by establishment paid scientists and activist hysterics for decades, and not a single one of these predictions has ever come true. For example, in the 1970's climate scientists predicted a “new ice age” by the year 2000 and this nonsense scenario was spread widely by the media. Then they claimed that “acid rain” would kill off life in freshwater lakes in the 1980s; but that never happened. After that, the climate cult switched over to the global warming narrative, predicting that the ice caps would melt and rising seas would “obliterate nations” by the year 2000. Obviously, this never happened.
In the year 2000, scientists at the Climate Research Unit in Britain stated that snowfall was a “thing of the past” and that the next generation would not know what snow was. In 2008 NASA scientists argued that the Arctic would be “ice free” by the year 2018. The list goes on and on, and it would be hilarious if the people that made all these faulty predictions were not still influencing government policies, but they are.
The following quote from the Club of Rome, a group directly connected to the UN, should illustrate why the public has been constantly bombarded with climate doom mongering for the past few decades. The quote comes from a book titled ‘The First Global Revolution’ published in 1992. In that document they specifically recommend using global warming as a vehicle:
'In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.'
The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator.
Except, there is no environmental catastrophe, at least not within the narrative the establishment presents. It simply doesn't exist. There is no evidence to support the theory of man-made climate change. None. Global temperatures have risen only 1 degree Celsius in the past century, and there is no concrete proof that this single degree of temperature was caused by human activity.
The primary argument of climate scientists is one of exclusion: They say that all other potential causes (including the sun) have been proven not to be the cause, therefore, the cause “must” be human industry and emissions. But this is a lie.
Interestingly, the increase in temperatures cited by the NOAA and NASA coincide directly with an increase in solar activity over the course of the past 100 years according to a study released in 2006. Furthermore, scientists have discovered that solar activity in 2022 is OUTPACING previous predictions. Overall solar activity has been increasing at the same time as the earth has been warming – Imagine that.
Climate scientists continue to discount the sun as a cause because they say there's not enough data to support the idea. Of course, there's not enough data because all the money goes to scientists that support the man-made theory; there's no funding to be had for scientists that present alternative theories.
Since the official temperature record used by climate scientists only goes back to the 1880s, there is no way of knowing for sure how often these warming patterns actually occur and how many times the earth has warmed by 1 degree Celsius over the millennia. But it doesn't matter, because climate science is not about saving the Earth, it's about creating an excuse to micromanage every aspect of human production and thus human society.
For emissions targets to be met by 2030, drastic society-changing events will have to take place within the next eight years. The very fabric of our current trade system and the global supply chain will have to be torn to shreds and replaced with an exceedingly limited production model. Not only that, but the human population would have to be reduced by billions. This model will be artificially contained within arbitrary climate guidelines set by unelected governing bodies in the name of stopping environmental changes that have not been proven to be caused by human beings at all. What it accomplishes is the formation of an authoritarian framework, one that the globalists will say is “environmentally justified.”
No comments:
Post a Comment