Following up on: F-f-f-f-f Freezing! Yup, the heats on in the house!
F. William Engdahl
Just part of his very informative article:
The new IPCC report, SR15, declares that
global warming of 1.5°C will “probably“ bring species extinction,
weather extremes and risks to food supply, health and economic growth.
To avoid this the IPCC estimates required energy investment alone
will be $2.4 trillion per year. Could this explain the interest of
major global banks, especially in the City of London in pushing the
Global Warming card?
This scenario assumes an even more
incredible dimension as it is generated by fake science and doctored
data by a tight-knit group of climate scientists internationally that
have so polarized scientific discourse that they label fellow scientists
who try to argue as not mere global warming skeptics, but rather as
“Climate Change deniers.” What does that bit of neuro-linguistic
programming suggest? Holocaust deniers? Talk about how to kill
legitimate scientific debate, the essence of true science. Recently the
head of the UN IPCC proclaimed, “The debate over the science of climate
change is well and truly over.”
What the UN panel chose to ignore was
the fact the debate was anything but “over.” The Global Warming Petition
Project, signed by over 31,000 American scientists states, “There is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gasses 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.”
‘Chicken Little’
The most interesting about the dire
warnings of global catastrophe if dramatic changes to our living
standards are not undertaken urgently, is that the dire warnings are
always attempts to frighten based on future prediction. When the
“tipping point” of so-called irreversibility is passed with no evident
catastrophe, they invent a new future point.
In 1982 Mostafa Tolba, executive
director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned the “world faces
an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of
decades unless governments act now.” He predicted lack of action would
bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which
will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear
holocaust.”
We're still here!
In 1989 Noel Brown, of the UN Environmental Program (UNEP),
said entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising
sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
James Hansen, a key figure in the doomsday scenarios declared at that
time that 350 ppm of CO2 was the upper limit, “to preserve a planet
similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on
Earth is adapted.” Rajendra Pachauri, then the chief of the UN IPPC,
declared that 2012 was the climate deadline by which it was imperative
to act: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s
too late.” Today the measured level is 414.
Haven't head of entire nations being wiped off the face of the earth... And it's 2018
As UK scientist Philip Stott notes, “In
essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly
for the last fifty or so years. …Our post-modern period of climate
change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s…By 1973, and
the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of
the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty
years…Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the
population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million. In 1987, the
scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was
established (1988)…”
Flawed Data
A central flaw to the computer models
cited by the IPCC is the fact that they are purely theoretical models
and not real. The hypothesis depends entirely on computer models
generating scenarios of the future, with no empirical records that can
verify either these models or their flawed prediction. As one scientific
study concluded, “The computer climate models upon which “human-caused
globalwarming” is based have substantial uncertainties and are
markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a
coupled,non-linear dynamical system. It is very
complex.”
Coupled refers to the phenomenon that the oceans cause changes in the
atmosphere and the atmosphere in turn affects the oceans. Both are
complexly related to solar cycles. No single model predicting global
warming or 2030 “tipping points” is able or even tries to integrate the
most profound influence on Earth climate and weather, the activity of
the sun and solar eruption cycles which determine ocean currents, jet
stream activity, El ninos and our daily weather.
An Australian IT expert and independent
researcher, John McLean, recently did a detailed analysis of the IPCC
climate report. He notes that HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its
dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands
for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change.” But
McLean points to egregious errors in the HadCRUT4 used by IPCC. He
notes, “It’s very careless and amateur. About the standard of a
first-year university student.” Among the errors, he cites places where
temperature “averages were calculated from next to no information. For
two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were
estimated from just one site in Indonesia.” In another place he found
that for the Caribbean island, St Kitts temperature was recorded at 0
degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions. TheHadCRUT4 dataset is a
joint production of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the
Climatic Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia. This was the group at East Anglia
that was exposed several years ago for the notorious Climategate
scandals of faking data and deleting embarrassing emails to hide it.
Mainstream media promptly buried the story, turning attention instead on
“who illegally hacked East Anglia
emails.”
Astonishing enough when we do a little
basic research, we find that the IPCC never carried out a true
scientific inquiry into the possible cases of change in Earth climate.
Manmade sources of change were arbitrarily asserted, and the game was
on.
Malthusian Maurice Strong
Few are aware however of the political and even geopolitical origins of Global Warming theories. How did this come about? So-called Climate Change, aka Global Warming, is a neo-malthusian deindustrialization agenda originally developed by circles around the Rockefeller family in the early 1970’s to prevent rise of independent industrial rivals, much as Trump’s trade wars today. In my book, Myths, Lies and Oil Wars, I detail howthehighly influential Rockefeller group also backed creation of the Club of Rome, Aspen Institute,Worldwatch Institute and MIT Limits to Growth report. A key early organizer of Rockefeller’s ‘zero growth’ agenda in the early 1970s was David Rockefeller’s longtime friend, a Canadian oilman named Maurice Strong. Strong was one of the early propagators of the scientifically unfounded theory that man-made emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise which threatens civilization, so-called Global Warming.
An oil man pushing man made global warming- Oh my, say it isn't so!
Please read the rest at the link embedded in the author's name- at the top
