In Memory of Rosa Koire who worked tirelessly to expose UN Agenda 21 and protect the rights of ordinary citizens until her recent death.
In Memory of Rosa Koire who worked tirelessly to expose UN Agenda 21 and protect the “A particularly notable example of data fixing is the effort to suppress the data about the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1,000 years ago, when temperatures were much higher than they are today. Global-warming advocates don’t want people to know about this because, with no significant industrialization at the time, how can they explain those higher temperatures?”
We have been told repeatedly by governments, institutions and the media that we are facing a looming environmental disaster of epic proportions due to man-made climate change. We are told that unless society makes radical changes to our lives, we will face an increasing number of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other environmental calamities. [1] This article shows that no such threat exists.
The Club of Rome was established in 1968 as part of the Round Table Network that includes the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Club of Rome instigated the hoax known as global warming/climate change to provide the excuse for deindustrialization and international control of nations. [2]
A 1974 Club of Rome report titled Mankind at the Turning Point says:
It would seem that humans need a common motivation…either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself. [3]
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 to provide the governments of the world with scientific guidance on the issue of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. An IPCC report issued in 2007 confidently stated that global warming is now known to be mostly manmade. The primary goal of most climate research ever since has been the protection of this IPCC conclusion rather than the advancement of scientific knowledge. [4]
The global-warming/climate-change agenda is part of a United Nations initiative called the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21, or as it is commonly known around the world, simply Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was unveiled in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro at the Earth Summit conducted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The United States and 178 other countries adopted Agenda 21 as official policy at this conference. U.S. President George H.W. Bush was the signatory for the United States. [5]
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1992 Earth Summit, said:
“…Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable…A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.” [6]
The following year U.S. President Bill Clinton began to implement Agenda 21 by creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The PCSD was made up of cabinet-level government officials, industry leaders (including Ken Lay of Enron), and non-profit groups such as the Sierra Club. The International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was also created as a non-governmental organization to implement Agenda 21 locally around the world. The tactic of these organizations is to keep the public panicked, nervous, anxious and confused about the nonexistent looming disaster of global warming/climate change. [7]
Anti-Western civilization and industrialization advocate, “Maurice Strong says China is doing a lot better job on the environmental front than Canada. No, seriously, stop laughing. They [China] have to close airports because the pilots can’t see through the filthy air. The rivers are cesspools. In many high rises you can’t see the building across the street. Don’t believe me? Check out the shot [below] of beautiful downtown Shanghai. Looks exactly like Vancouver, right? Strong lives part-time in Beijing, he should know this. Maybe he’s having trouble seeing for the smog.” (National Post / 03 May 2012)
China 2012: Where globalist oligarch Maurice Strong, with deep ties to the Rockefeller’s and Communist Maoist China, evaded the UN Oil-For-Food profiteering charges.
Nearly 99% of our atmosphere consists of nitrogen and oxygen. The remaining 1% consists of several trace gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), which currently constitutes just over 0.04% of the atmosphere. Although CO2 is portrayed as the chief villain in the alleged catastrophic global warming, true science demonstrates that the slight warming cause by increases in CO2 is overwhelmed by natural climate drivers that have been active for millions of years. The warming effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically as its concentration increases. [8]
Every single dire warning about the end-of-the-world consequences of global warming has turned out to be wrong, which is not surprising since global temperatures measured from satellite have not risen since 1997/1998. [9] Hans Schreuder wrote:
“Despite much rhetoric and research over the past decades, there is still not a single piece of actual evidence that the now-maligned carbon dioxide molecule causes global warming (or ‘climate change’ for that matter).” [10]
By the turn of this century, the polar bear had become an icon for promoting the idea of catastrophic manmade global warming. Scientists, conservationists and the media worked together to get everyone riled up, resulting in the polar bear being classified as “threatened” with extinction. Despite these dire predictions, the global population of polar bears has continued to increase. Dr. Susan Crockford writes: “In the 21st century, the biggest conservation challenge may be helping Arctic communities cope with increasing numbers of potentially deadly and destructive polar bears without having to kill too many bears.” [11]
Climate scientists have often fixed data to make human-caused global warming appear to be real. A particularly notable example of data fixing is the effort to suppress the data about the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1,000 years ago, when temperatures were much higher than they are today. Global-warming advocates don’t want people to know about this because, with no significant industrialization at the time, how can they explain those higher temperatures? Only by deleting the Medieval Warming Period could global-warming advocates produce their fraudulent “hockey stick” graph, which shows temperatures suddenly skyrocketing immediately after industrialization. [12]
Carbon dioxide has been demonized by global-warming/climate-change advocates even though its contribution to greenhouse gasses is extremely small. Dr. Leslie Woodcock states:
“Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere, around 1% of the atmosphere, whereas CO2 is only 0.04%. Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas, but the truth is that it’s the gas of life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.” [13]
Our current geological period, the Quaternary, has seen the lowest average levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s history. The average CO2 concentration in the Earth’s preceding 600 million years is more than 2,600 ppm, almost seven times our current amount and 2.5 times the worst-case scenario predicted by the IPCC for 2100. Rather than experiencing excessively high levels of carbon dioxide, we are in fact in a period of CO2 starvation. [14] Elana Freeland writes:
“Carbon taxes and emissions trading are quite the con, given that CO2 is not far above the minimum to sustain plant life and nations should be increasing CO2 instead of being penalized for the CO2 they do have.” [15]
Carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis and is essential for life on Earth. The only reason for believing that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant,” as claimed by global-warming advocates, is the alleged strong warming effect that extra CO2 produces. [16]
In reality, the increasing CO2 level is providing positive benefits to our planet. More CO2 means more plant growth and helps to feed more people worldwide. Some of the benefits of higher CO2 levels to the world’s food production include:
A summary of 270 laboratory studies of 83 food crops shows that increasing CO2 concentrations by 300 ppm will increase plant growth by an average of 46% across all crops studied. Conversely, many studies show the adverse effects of a low-CO2 environment. [18]
Global-warming/climate-change has also not caused damage to our forests. The NASA Earth Observatory in August 2019 stated:
“Since NASA satellites program MODIS began collecting measurements there has been a decrease in the total number of square kilometers burned each year. Between 2003 and 2019, that number has dropped by roughly 25%.”
On August 26, 2019, Vincent Geloso of the American Institute for Economic Research said:
“News reports about the [Amazon] fire strike a fear that one of the last great forests is disappearing. That’s completely untrue. Forests are making a comeback! More precisely, the tree cover of the planet is increasing.” [19]
The world-renowned physicist Freeman Dyson, who questioned most scientific models predicting a climate-change disaster, said carbon dioxide is making the world greener. Dyson said it would be crazy to attempt to reduce carbon dioxide levels. Dyson was optimistic about our future, and said he could safely make statements questioning climate change because he was retired and didn’t have to worry about losing his job. [20]
Climate-change supporters repeatedly state that 97% of scientists agree that human-caused climate change is a threat to humanity. In 1992, U.S. Vice President Al Gore assured the public that “only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In 2014, former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that “97% of the world’s scientists” agree and “tell us this is urgent.” U.S. President Barrack Obama, during and after his time as U.S. president, has also touted the 97% figure. [21]
The primary paper used to support the 97% consensus was published by John Cook in 2013. This paper falsely claims that 97% of the 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate change explicitly endorse the opinion that humans are causing the majority of global warming. However, a closer look at Cook’s data reveals that only a small percentage of the papers explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of global warming. [22]
David Legates and his co-authors in 2015 reviewed the actual papers used by Cook. They found that only 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts and 1.6% of a smaller sample that excluded papers expressing no opinion endorsed the opinion that humans are causing the majority of global warming. Remarkably, Legates found that Cook and his assistants had themselves marked only 64 papers (0.6%) as explicitly stating that global warming was mostly manmade. It appears that Cook manipulated the data to present an untrue narrative of overwhelming scientific support for catastrophic human-caused global warming. [23]
Global-warming/climate-change advocates note that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. However, this claim is pure politics. Member scientists are not allowed to vote on these consensus statements, and are often completely unaware that the governing board has released a consensus climate statement to the public. Instead, a few members of the governing board of these institutions produce the “consensus” statements. [24]
Scientists who dispute the global-warming/climate-change narrative run the risk of losing their jobs. For example, physicist Peter Ridd was fired by the Australian James Cook University for speaking out against the global-warming/climate-change hoax. Fortunately, an Australian federal court recently ruled that Dr. Ridd’s sacking was unlawful, and he was allowed to retain his position with the university. Ridd states that he knows other scientists who dispute the global- warming/climate-change narrative, but they do not speak out publicly for fear of losing their jobs. [25]
Proponents of the global warming/climate change narrative often emotionally evoke our children and grandchildren to support their agenda. For example, Dr. James Hansen writes: “Our grandchildren are in for a rough ride.” Hansen predicts that West Antarctica will begin to shed ice at a substantial rate as climate change continues, and this will contribute to a dangerously rising sea level in the future. [26] Sea-level-rise rates, however, have been essentially steady for over a century, with no recent acceleration. [27]
Journalist Mark Hertsgaard has investigated and written about global warming/climate change for numerous publications. Hertsgaard says he learned that climate change had arrived a century earlier than forecast, with adverse effects bound to worsen in the future. Hertsgaard wrote to his young daughter in 2011: “According to the scientists I interviewed, many, many things have to happen by 2020 if this planet is to remain a livable place.” [28] Despite Hertsgaard’s dire warning, our planet is still livable in the year 2020.
Dr. William Calvin wrote in 2008 that climate scientists say we need to stop the growth in worldwide carbon emissions before 2020, even for a compromise goal that will flood major coastal cities and make a third of all species extinct. Calvin wrote: “Time has become so short that we must turn around the annual emissions growth before 2020 to avoid saddling today’s students with the world of refugees and genocides that results if we’re too slow.” [29] Despite our lack of political action, the horrific consequences predicted by Calvin for the year 2020 have not occurred.
Journalist Gary Braasch in 2007 used numerous pictures in his book to supplement essays stating that climate change is a dire threat to our planet. Braasch, who dedicated his book to his son, Cedar, and his generation, and the generation to follow, wrote: “Let me state the goal clearly: No policy should be promulgated, no program initiated, no alliance sealed, no purchase made, no machine designed or built, no land use permitted, no product introduced, no law passed, no politician elected unless the action is a step forward to reduction and reversal of the effect of greenhouse gasses.” [30] The dire predictions made by Braasch requiring such draconian measures have yet to materialize.
Greta Thunberg, a 18-year-old Swedish girl, has also been recruited by the media/UN/NGO establishment to promote the climate change narrative. Thunberg says in regard to the threat of climate change, “I want you to feel the fear that I feel.” Thunberg is falsely promoted as a brave young girl who is standing up and speaking the truth to our elected officials and business leaders. [31] In reality, however, she is being cleverly manipulated.
The climate-change agenda has been promulgated to bring about central planning, global government, planned recessions and redistributed wealth. It is the most recent in a long series of eco-scares—overpopulation, deforestation, the ozone hole, resource scarcity, etc.—for which the solution is always global regulation by central planners. Al Gore even stated in July 2009 that a climate bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would help bring about “global governance.” [32]
Watermelon Environmentalism: ‘Green on the outside, Red on the inside’.
The U.S. government, the United Nations and numerous foundations have given hundreds of billions of dollars to fund activist climate-change research. Former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower presciently warned of the role of money and the elite in facilitating agenda-driven issues:
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. [33]
A scientific-technological elite is driving public policy in regard to climate change. The climate-change movement is better financed, organized and media-hyped than all of the previous environmental scares combined. The movement has key institutional support from the United Nations, academia, many prominent U.S. political figures, and billionaire activists such as Bill Gates, George Soros and others of their ilk.
Although fears that rising levels of carbon dioxide are a major threat do not hold up to scientific scrutiny, climate-change supporters do not intend to back down anytime soon. Their goal is to centralize power in a controlled, highly regulated society. [34]
Editor’s Comment: The following speech by a former Australian MP in February 2013 is possibly the most succinct and comprehensive explanation of the Global Warming theory, its origins, its political purposes and real life consequences (many of which we have already suffered).
The following short clip was amusing in 2012, it demonstrated the absurdity of the cultist vilification of our own exhalation. However, after the COVID “pandemic” launched in 2020, it illustrates the power of engineered fear and the Tell-a-Vision.
CFACT’s Sequestration of exhalation masks a hit with UN in Qatar, 2012
Back to Climate Change & Geoengineering Articles
NOTES