The climate scam is one small part of the push

It’s the headlines which give it away:

(1) President ‘has four years to save Earth’” says climate scientist James Hansen in The Guardian, 17 January 2009.

(2) Global warming has reached a ‘defining moment,’ Prince Charles warns” in The Telegraph, 12 March 2009. “The world has “less than 100 months” to save the planet.

(3) ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster” by Elizabeth May(Member of Parliament and leader of Canada’s Green Party) in The Star (Toronto), 24 March 2009. This was run as news, not an op-ed.

(4) Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles” in The Independent. 9 July 2009. “If the world failed to heed his warnings then we all faced the ‘nightmare that for so many of us now looms on the horizon’.”

(5) Five years to save world from climate change, says WWF“, Australian Broadcasting Company, 18 October 2009 — Excerpt…

“Karl Mallon, a scientist with Climate Risk and one of the key authors of the report, says 2014 has been calculated as the point at which there is no longer enough time to develop the industries that can deliver a low carbon economy. ‘The point of no return,’ he said.

“’If we wait until past 2014 or that’s what modelling shows, then simply put, it will be impossible for industries to grow to the scale that has to be achieved in the time that is available.’”

(6) Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse”.“, BBC, 19 October 2009. Brown was the UK PM.

“Has been calculated as the point”?  By whom?  Some of our readers see the climate scam as the thing in itself, I see it as just one more in the long list of subterfuge, outright lying and an agenda.

That last point is where we might differ but the evidence is there in so many of posts passim, for example, the hybrid crops.  Ivan points out every time that gardeners have been grafting and hybriding since the year dot and he’s not wrong.

But nor are the people pointing out that what you are doing in the hybriding counts too. There is heirloom, there is hybrid and then there is GM. In a nutshell, the two former come from naturally pollinated originals, the last is up to the scientist.

When something is up to the scientist, then it is up to his funders and his funders are allowed to operate by Them [don’t make me list who they are again].  There have been posts here on the reason it’s in the interests of the western Them to replace heirloom crops in Africa with GM which does not regenerate.

One spin-off, apart from reduced population in “dark areas”, including Arabs, is that it starts a migratory process, wherein Africans start to move into Europe and along with them comes Islam and other nasties.  This would be fantasy stuff except that it has been written on since the 30s at least and certainly from the post-war start onwards.

There has been much in the news of late about Peter Sutherland, an evil muvver if ever there was – exploring him is a topic in itself.  And who is in charge of migration for the UN?

Who funds the migrants to move from southern Africa?  There is no collusion?  No agenda? Have it your way.

Meanwhile, having accelerated the process, what does the UN man for migration say?

Most important, Europe needs to strengthen itself from the inside out. The continent is in desperate need of a dramatically different approach to diversity. The countries of the EU have two options: They can either make a vain attempt to revert to outdated, mono-ethnic models of statehood, or they can accept diversity with the realization that their national cultures will not only survive, but flourish.

Interesting mishmash of terms – typical Them. Europe must “strengthen itself”.  We normally see this as meaning defences but then he mocks “outdated, mono-ethnic models of statehood”, which is what this is all about.

And so, both at the UN and in the EU, the same policy, the same agenda is in operation.  It’s about statehood or rather who is sovereign and whoever runs whatever the sovereign area is designated as.

And who designates which area is which [1984]?  Why the people at the top of course, the unelected ones.

Coming back to the climate scam, it’s not that I’m not interested in it, it’s that it has been so thoroughly exploded that it’s time to look at all the other scams going on in order to achieve this new world they’re on about, with an unelected politburo at the top.

[H/T Chuckles for the Watt’s Up link]

3 comments for “The climate scam is one small part of the push

  1. Greg Tingey
    August 13, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    The headlines are written by ignorant & (from another thread dishonest journos, who probably couldn’t get the simplest of facts straight.

  2. Greg Tingey
    August 13, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    The headlines are written by ignorant & (from another thread dishonest) journos, who probably couldn’t get the simplest of facts straight.

    However, isn’t it time you lot grew up & stopped whingeing?
    The climate is warming & more than it should do, given solar input, our current position in time in the Milankovitch cycles, etc.
    The conclusion is over 95% ( i.e. 3-sigmas ) that humanities activities are the reason for this.

    Now, there is no reason whatsoever to go all hair-shirt & basic living & deliberately adapt to a “poorer” life-style, as the dommsayers (you) and some extremists at the other end insist.
    That’s bollocks.
    What is needed is greater emphasis on getting truly inventive & also looking after the basics.
    Nuclear power for base-load generation.
    All the renewables for extras, especially as their prices come down & a lot of real research & development into better electrical energy-storage & “PV” generation – which will be cheaper than coal well before 2020, anyway.

    [ Something went ‘orribly worng with the publish/edit windows, hence semi-double post, oops. ]

  3. August 14, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    Greg; maybe you should do a little research yourself. At present the ‘global climate’, if there is such a thing, is going through a rather benign patch. No observed warming trend, and no real scientific evidence, apart from some rather speculative papers, that man made CO2 emissions can affect the climate in any significant fashion.

    The main beef I have with all these wavy hand predictions of doom is that they are, in the main, statistical in nature and therefore suspect. As an aside; I’m old enough to remember the ‘Global cooling’ scare of the 70’s and how much nonsense that turned out to be.

    You can insist that the ‘global climate’ is warming, and this is true, for a given value of ‘true’. But the very slow warming trend out of the cold period of the 17-1800’s cannot be sensibly linked to man made CO2 emissions. You might as well try to warm an Olympic sized swimming pool with a toy hairdryer.

Comments are closed.