June 12, 2017

Global Warming aka Climate Change Is about Money and Power

The so-called "Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie.  The warming we've experienced over the past few decades is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.

“Global warming” is a myth say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.

By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that....Rather, they mean ...“Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artifact.  That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.

Growing petition of 31,487 U.S. scientists reject global warming hypothesis

Several of the U.S.’s top climatologists and at least two Nobel Prize winning physicists are among some 30,000 U.S. scientists to have signed a petition saying that “the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity.”  The “Global Warming Petition Project” has 31,487 signers and is growing. The petition “strongly rejects as unproven the hypothesis of man-made global warming or climate change.”    It reads:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The petition also urges the U.S. government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

Can 31,487 scientists be wrong?

In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

So, was President Trump right to withdraw from the Paris Accord?  What does it say? And what has been its effect? 

The effect first.

U.S. Paid $1 Billion To Paris Agreement Green Fund – All Other Nations Combined $0…

Why are multinational banks, and multinational corporations, and multinational investment groups and pension funds so desperate to retain the Paris agreement? Simple, those funds have been used by the multinational interests to create the entire system. 

What does it say?

If you believe - wrongly in my opinion - that reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will stop 'catastrophic global warming', you may support the Paris Accord  If you actually read it, you would realize that it does NOTHING substantive to limit CO2 on the planet.

The Paris Accord is  All About Money & Power

"Developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.”

That paragraph above is the heart and soul of the Paris Accord. It isn’t about science. It isn’t about saving the planet. It is about a small group of very powerful globalists generating TRILLIONS of dollars in a worldwide climate change machine that would shift money from the American taxpayers to “developing country Parties.”

The Cost
Bjørn “Skeptical Environmentalist” Lomborg did the math on global warming

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only  difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

Worst Deal In History: $1.5 Trillion A Year To Reduce Global Warming By 0.048°C writes James Delingpole

Even if you’d spent $1 million a day every day since the birth of Jesus, you’d still be less than half the way to reaching $1.5 trillion.

He continues in his unimitable way

We’ve talked about the financial cost of these policies. What we haven’t yet mentioned are the social costs: the hundreds of thousands prematurely killed by the fuel poverty brought about by the drive for “clean energy”; the wildlife sliced and diced or fried by bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes and solar arrays; the remote landscapes ravaged by pylons connecting turbines to the grid; the billions of man-hours wasted on recycling; the increased pollution due to the misguided Europe-wide adoption of “low carbon” diesel cars; the rainforest chopped down and the agricultural land wasted to grow biofuels; the debasement of science for political ends; the needless panic induced in a generation or more of children; the assault on economic progress; the destruction of American forests to create wood-chips to burn as biomass; the harassment, vilification and defunding of skeptical scientists; the diversion of scarce public resources into intellectually bankrupt fields like “climate science”; the corruption of once-proud institutions like NASA, the Royal Society, and the Met Office; and so on.
Posted by Jill Fallon at June 12, 2017 11:51 AM | Permalink