The “Supremes” Kill the Climate Con 

Still gated up — Is the Supreme Court really in session?

JUNE 30, 2022

NY Times Headlines:

Supreme Court Decision Leaves Biden With Few Tools to Combat Climate Change
*

Supreme Court Strips Federal Government of Crucial Tool to Control Pollution
*

The Climate Math Just Got Harder
*
The Ruling’s Implications May Extend Beyond the Climate Fight

Oh the butt-hurt among the deranged denizens of Libtardia! Another day, and yet another delightful and revolutionary strike-down of a Marxist dictate previously thought to have been permanently engraved in stone. On guns, on abortion, on prayer — the fresh air of justice and liberty emanating from the military junta posing as “Clarence and the Supremes” is sending “the usual suspects” into a mental meltdown.

Now — and this is all just over the course of 8 days, mind you — comes a ruling on “West Virginia vs EPA” which is even more consequential than those recent shock 6-3 rulings. The Global Warming / Climate Change HOAX is dead. Perhaps not the religious belief itself, but for all practical purposes, the de-balling of the tyrannical EPA has put an end to the dangerous Globalist agenda which — in and of itself — had the potential to grind society down into mass poverty and force us into world government. Do “you guys” understand just how BIG this is – hence, the multiple scary stories in “the paper of record” today?

From one of the articles:

“The Supreme Court has issued one of the most important environmental rulings ever, which will make the battle against global warming even more difficult. It is a major setback to the U.S.’s ability to keep its promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The court was asked to consider whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to issue broad, aggressive regulations on climate-warming pollution from power plants that would force many of those plants to close. In a 6-to-3 decision, the justices ruled that the agency has no such authority.”

*
So goes the USA, so goes the rest of the “international community” — in due time. Hail Clarence! Hail Trump!

1. The “Climate Bogeyman” just had his balls ripped out. // 2. Thank you, Clarence, Clarence, Clarence, Clarence, Clarence & Clarence. 
That miserable little Swedish she-devil has been very quiet lately. Did the military White Hats ship this Marxist monster to Gitmo for trial and execution too?

Just imagine the demoralization of the New World Order bosses (if they are even still alive at this point). With tremendous wall-to-wall “flood-the-zone” fanfare, they had kicked-off the Green Scheme with the first “Earth Day” in 1970. It was an intense Covid-like event which was used to bully the Nixon administration into adding, on a small scale, a new department to the Executive Branch of government — the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and also signing “The Clean Air Act”(which was somewhat needed at the time) into law.  About a decade later, in 1979 to be precise, came the first whispers of a “Greenhouse Effect” caused by CO2. If left uncontrolled, the hoaxsters claimed, “emissions” would so heat the planet that Antarctica’s 1-mile deep ice cover would melt and wipe us out.

By the mid-1980’s, the hideous HOAX – by then rebranded as “Global Warming” — had been declared to be “settled science.” By the time the criminal Clinton-Gore gang left office in 2001, the again rebranded crisis — now “Climate Change” — was subject to unilateral “regulation” by the super-powered EPA. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could “regulate” CO2. And by the time Obongo and his cross-dressing fag-hag were done raping the country in 2017, the EPA was aggressively hobbling industry and even killing coal companies at will.

That’s how long the Globalists have been at this dangerous game; and how vast the Green Power had become. But now, just like the striking down of the 49-year old Roe vs Wade ruling — and the striking down of the 21-year old ban on prayer at High School football games — the enforcement mechanism of the Climate Con has been deactivated. Wow.

Let us close today’s piece with the same words as we closed the one from just three days ago, and the one just three days before that:

“Let’s see what the next pleasant surprise from Papa Clarence and the “Supremes” will be.”

*Editor’s Note: The ongoing January 6th circus is having the effect of diverting the big guns of the Jurisprudence Armada to such an extent that the juiced-up “outrage” over these recent SC decisions has been significantly blunted. I wonder if Trump planned it that way?

All that effort — all those years — all that scheming, manipulation and brainwashing — ALL FOR NAUGHT NOW!

Alarmist Fantasies Exposed: UN Get’s Hit For Fraudulent, Misleading Press Release On Natural Disasters

The UNDRR report’s Foreword and press release were opposite the report’s own findings, and spread panic when none was warranted.

German Die kalte Sonne site here presents its latest video on climate news. Today we look at the first part focusing on the UN’s assessment of “Human Costs of Disasters”.

It turns out the press release and the report’s Foreword were misleading and alarmist without warrant. Once again it appears it was all designed to spread panic.

UN claim: “rise in disasters”

The UNDRR report assessed climate disasters globally the last 20 years (2000 – 2019).

First we note the report’s Foreword, where the UNDRR states there’s been a “staggering rise in climate related disasters” and that industrial countries “are failing miserably on reducing greenhouse gas emissions”:

This dismal announcement was also passed on to the media via press release and instantly the media declared the end was nigh.

Reality: No rise in disasters

Yet, Die kalte Sonne then shows Figure 5 of the UNDRR report, and it shows a totally different picture: There’s been no rise in disasters from storms:

Figure 5 of UNDRR Report

Good news: Downward trend!

Next Die kalte Sonne shows a chart with the earthquakes removed, made by Roger Pielke Jr., professor at the University of Colorado. Earth quakes have nothing to do with climate and so a clearer picture of the climate and weather impacts emerges.

Image source: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. 

Without earthquakes, the trend for “climate-related disasters” has been clearly downward, dropping around 15%. This is good news and is not even remotely close to what was spread by the lazy and uncritical mainstream press.

The downward trend completely contradicts the claims made in the report’s Foreword and the UNDRR press release. Die kalte Sonne comments:

It’s still unclear how this reporting failure by the UN came about. The error does not reflect well on the quality assurance of UN reports.”

Geoengineering Watch: Our First Ever High Altitude Atmospheric Testing

After substantial difficulty and expense, Geoengineering Watch has utilized two types of aircraft to complete multiple atmospheric particulate sampling flights up to and exceeding 40,000 feet.

One of the aircraft we conducted our testing missions in is also used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for their atmospheric testing operations.

Geoengineering Chemtrails

The Geoengineering Watch team carried out multiple sample gathering flights in the high altitude haze layer being emitted by large jet carriers.

The lingering, spreading and sun blocking jet aircraft trails are not just condensation as we have been told by government sources.

The dimming of direct sunlight by aircraft dispersed particles, a form of global warming mitigation known as “Solar Radiation Management”, is ongoing.

These global climate engineering operations are causing unquantifiable damage to the planet’s life support systems and human health.

This twelve minute video is an insight segment from the under production ground breaking climate engineering exposé documentary titled “The Dimming”.

All are needed in the critical battle to wake populations to what is coming, we must make every day count. Share credible data from a credible source, make your voice heard.

Very Detailed Explanation Of The Great Reset And What’s Next…

What is this “Great Reset” we’re now hearing about? In a nutshell, the Great Reset refers to a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance.

As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report above,1 the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.

New World Order

It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, anti-humanity intents.

As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:2

“… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”

The Grand Plan

In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:3

“The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust — but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’

Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air — literally — while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties (see awful ‘privilege’).

The psychological reason for the Great Reset is the fear of losing control of property, the planet.

I suppose, if you own billions and move trillions, your perception of reality gets funky, and everything down below looks like an ant hill that exists for you.

Just ants and numbers, your assets.

Thus, the practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:

One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).

And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’

The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital … precision — all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”

Global Asset Reallocations Will Not Benefit ‘The People’

These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand new financial instruments that can then be traded. An example of this was given by Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., in my interview with her.

In it, she explained how India is headed toward Zero-Budget Natural Farming — a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.

There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan.

The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.

Privacy protections, of course, are a major hurdle in this plan, which is why every effort is made to get people to loosen their views on the right for privacy.

In the U.S., we also have the Constitution that stands in the way, which is why efforts to undermine, circumvent, ignore or nullify it are increasing.

“To sum it up, the desired end result is a giant, joyless, highly controlled global conveyor of everything and everybody where privacy is tremendously expensive, dissent is unthinkable, and spiritual submission is mandatory.

“It’s like a 24/7 medicated reality, except the medications are both chemical and digital, and they are reporting you back to the mothership, which can then punish you for bad behavior by, say, blocking your access to certain places or by putting a hold on your digital bank account — perhaps without any human intervention at all,” Lena writes.4

Stakeholder Capitalism

An October 5, 2020, Winter Oak article5 addressed the “technocratic fascist vision” of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets.

In addition to being a staunch technocrat, Schwab also has a strong transhumanist bend, and he has spoken of a near future in which humans merge with machines and in which law enforcement will be able to read our mind.6

Winter Oak — a British nonprofit social justice organization — points out that Schwab and his globalist accomplices are using the COVID-19 pandemic “to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will.”

This is no conspiracy theory. The plan is out in the open. As noted by Time magazine,7 “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want.”

Ultimate Proof: Covid-19 Was Planned To Usher In The New World Order

The same statement has been delivered by a number of politicians and organizations around the world in recent months.

Schwab’s book,8,9 “COVID-19: The Great Reset” also urges industry leaders and decision makers to “make good use of the pandemic” and “not letting the crisis go to waste.”

Incidentally, the owner of Time magazine and founder of Salesforce, Mark Benioff, is also a board member of the World Economic Forum,10 so he’s clearly familiar with the reset plan.

The problem is that while the plan is being sold as a way to, finally, make life fair and equitable for all people, the required sacrifices do not apply to the technocrats running the system.

Ultimately, the Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: the technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no say-so in anything.

While technocracy is not a political system but an economic one, in practical terms it does resemble fascism. None of it is being sold under the banner of fascism, of course.

Instead, they use financial terms like “stakeholder capitalism,” described by Forbes magazine11 as “the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community and society as a whole.”

In that same article, Forbes points out that this strategy has already been tried and failed.

It failed because balancing conflicting stakeholder claims was near-impossible and only led to mass confusion and poor returns.

The failure of this strategy is what led big businesses to focus on maximizing shareholder value instead.

Now, at a time when big business finds itself under attack for “single-mindedly shoveling money to its shareholders and its executives at the expense of customers, employees, the environment and society as a whole,” the answer, they say, is to return to stakeholder capitalism.

But if it didn’t work before, what makes us think it will work now?

Great Reset Plan For Big Food

A November 9, 2020, article12 in The Defender, a new media platform by the Children’s Health Defense, also points out the problems with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset plan for the food industry:

“The architects of the plan claim it will reduce food scarcity, hunger and disease, and even mitigate climate change. But a closer look at the corporations and think tanks the WEF is partnering with to usher in this global transformation suggests that the real motive is tighter corporate control over the food system by means of technological solutions.”

Aside from the food industry, partners13 include data mining giants, telecommunications, weapons manufacturers, finance, drug companies and the biotechnology industry.

Looking at that list, it should come as no surprise that the World Economic Forum insists the future of food and public health hinges on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), laboratory-grown protein, drugs and industrial chemicals.

The EAT Forum And The Rise Of Food Imperialism

To further the fake food takeover, the World Economic Forum has partnered with the EAT Forum, which will set the political agenda for global food production.

The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline.

EAT currently collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods, which was cofounded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.14

As noted by The Defender, the ultimate aim is to “replace wholesome nutritious foods with genetically modified lab creations.”

To this end, EAT is working with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to establish global dietary guidelines and sustainable development initiatives.

The “Planetary Health Diet”15 developed by EAT is a diet that is supposed to replace all others.

Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels told The Defender:16

“The diet aims to cut the meat and dairy intake of the global population by as much as 90% in some cases and replaces it with lab-made foods, cereals and oil.”

Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., has raised harsh critique against the proposed diet saying it “is not about nutrition at all. It’s about big business and it’s about a corporate takeover of the food system.”17

The Defender adds:18

“According to EAT’s own reports, the big adjustments the organization and its corporate partners want to make to the food system are ‘unlikely to be successful if left up to the individual,’ and the changes they wish to impose on societal eating habits and food ‘require reframing at the systemic level with hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration and other economic and structural measures.’

But Shiva said this is the wrong approach, because ‘all of the science’ shows that diets should be centered around regional and geographical biodiversity. She explained that ‘EAT’s uniform global diet will be produced with western technology and agricultural chemicals. Forcing this onto sovereign nations by multinational lobbying is what I refer to as food imperialism.’”

The Future Of Food And Health Care

You can get a feel for where the future of food is headed by analyzing the World Economic Forum’s strategic intelligence map.19

As you can see, this top-down approach ties food production to a wide range of sectors, including biotech, the chemical industry, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and the digital economy.

For more details on Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s strategic intelligence plan, see Covert Geopolitic’s article,20 “Breaking Down the Global Elite’s Great Reset Master Plan.”

Future Of Food

If any of this raises your concern, you’re probably not going to like what the World Health Economic Forum has in store for health care reform either. As detailed on their website:21

“Our current capital intensive, hospital-centric model is unsustainable and ineffective. The Platform for Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare leverages a data-enabled delivery system and virtual care, integrated across the continuum of care from precision prevention to personalized care delivery …”

Aiding the World Economic Forum in this health care transformation are the biggest corporate criminals in the history of the modern world, including Bill Gates, AstraZeneca,22 Bayer,23 Johnson & Johnson,24 Merck,25 Pfizer,26 Novartis27 and a host of others.28

These companies have at various times been found guilty of all sorts of crimes that they have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines for.

They are also loaded with conflicts of interest in nearly every venture they are involved with.

Yet we’re now supposed to believe these companies are going to put aside their profit incentives and fix the whole system?

Build Back Better

As noted in a July 21, 2020, World Economic Forum article,29 the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity for generations to come.”

The answer is to come up with stimulus measures, such as infrastructure development, that can allow countries to move forward.

But while at it, countries are urged to make sure the economic system is “built back better.”

Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. As reported by Fox News:30

“A radical movement called the Great Reset embraced by some Democrats poses a grave threat to liberty and free markets in the United States and around the world … The Great Reset is perhaps the biggest danger to capitalism and individual rights since the collapse of the Soviet Union …

It would destroy the current capitalist system and replace it with progressive and modern socialist systems, with a special emphasis placed on eco-socialist policies …

Policy ideas offered by ‘Great Reset’ advocates include government-provided basic income programs, universal health care, massive tax increases and the Green New Deal …

For example, at a campaign event on July 9, Biden said we need to end the ‘era of shareholder capitalism,’ a major part of the Great Reset proposal that would alter how companies are evaluated, elevating social justice causes and climate change concerns over property rights …

The Build Back Better plan comes straight from the Great Reset’s playbook … As recently as July 13, the World Economic Forum promoted ‘building back better’ through ‘green’ infrastructure programs as part of the Great Reset …”Joe Biden’s Campaign Slogan ‘build Back Better’ Was Actually Taken From Un's New World Order Agenda

Read: Joe Biden’s Campaign Slogan ‘Build Back Better’ Was Actually Taken From UN’s New World Order Agenda

Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital currency system, which in turn is part of the system of social control, as it can easily be used to incentivize desired behaviors and discourage undesired ones.

An August 13, 2020, article31 on the Federal Reserve website discusses the supposed benefits of a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

There’s general agreement among experts that most major countries will implement CBDC within the next two to four years.

Many uninformed people believe that these new CBDCs will be very similar to existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, but they would be mistaken.

Bitcoin is decentralized and a rational strategy to opt out of the existing central bank controlled system, while these CBDCs will be centralized and completely controlled by the central banks and will have smart contracts that allow the banks to surveil and control your life.

The Great Reset Psyops Guide

It goes without saying that to achieve the kind of radical transformation of every part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan.

So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool there is.

As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, there’s an entire school of public health research that focuses on identifying the most effective ways to frighten people into accepting desired public health measures.

By adding confusion and uncertainty to the mix, you can bring an individual from fear to anxiety — a state of confusion in which you can no longer think logically — and in this state, you are more easily manipulated.

The following graphic illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.

Technocracy And The Great Reset

Social Engineering Is Central To Technocratic Rule

In closing, keep in mind that technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering.

Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “science” is another. Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-science,” and any science that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.”

The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it.

We’ve seen this first hand during this pandemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the World Health Organization, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine.

If we allow this censorship to continue, the end result will be nothing short of devastating. We simply must keep pushing for transparency and truth. We must insist on medical freedom, personal liberty and the right to privacy.

One fight in particular that I don’t see us being able to evade is the fight against mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations.

If we don’t take a firm stand against that and fight for the right to make our own choice, there will be no end to the medical tyranny that will follow. As noted in the Covert Geopolitics article:32

“As you might have guessed, ‘the most important anchor of recovery’ is for a COVID-19 vaccination … The implication is that without a vaccine the world will be unable to return to any sense of normality, particularly in terms of open interaction with your fellow man …

You can actually participate in the global efforts to cripple the Deep State organized criminal cabal’s ability for genocide, while enjoying healthcare freedom at the same time, by boycotting Big Pharma for good.”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, author of Fat for Fuel: A Revolutionary Diet to Combat Cancer, Boost Brain Power, and Increase Your Energy

From the author: The existing medical establishment is responsible for killing and permanently injuring millions of Americans, but the surging numbers of visitors to Mercola.com since I began the site in 1997 – we are now routinely among the top 10 health sites on the Internet – convinces me that you, too, are fed up with their deception. You want practical health solutions without the hype, and that’s what I offer.

References:

WHO Using The Plandemic To Push Climate Change Agenda

Fox News host Tucker Carlson warned that the World Health Organization (WHO) is linking coronavirus to “climate change.”

On his top-rated talk show last night, Carlson stated that the sweeping social and economic changes that have inflicted the world since the COVID-19 coronavirus lockdown will not end when a vaccine is developed.

“The World Health Organization says that finding the vaccine is not the goal,” he said.

Reordering society is the goal. Quote, ‘We will not, we cannot go back to the way things were.’ That’s a direct quote from the leader of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros (Adhanom Ghebreyesus) who, by the way, is not really a doctor,” Carlson continued, referring to the fact that Tedros’ doctorate from the University of Nottingham is in public health.

According to Tedros, COVID-19 is really about global warming,” said Carlson.

The director of the WHO has stated that “the COVID-19 pandemic has given new impetus to the need to accelerate efforts to respond to climate change.”

Carlson noted that billionaire Bill Gates wrote something similar in an essay he posted earlier this month. In the essay, Gates regretted that the pandemic will lead to only an 8 percent reduction in carbon emissions this year.

“Consider what it’s taking to achieve this 8 percent reduction,” the influencer wrote.

“More than 600,000 people have died, and tens of millions are out of work. This April, car traffic was half what it was in April 2019. For months, air traffic virtually came to a halt,” he continued.

“What’s remarkable is not how much emissions will go down because of the pandemic, but how little.”

Gates believes that the climate change death rate “could be” as high as the current death rate for COVID-19 (which he states is 14 per 100,000 people) in 2060 and by 2100 it “could be five times as deadly.”

The billionaire also believes that within 10 to 20 years the economic damage caused by climate change will “likely be as bad as having a COVID-sized pandemic every 10 years.”

Gates believes that COVID-19 contains a lesson about “climate change.”

“Health advocates said for years that a pandemic was virtually inevitable,” he wrote.

“The world did not do enough to prepare, and now we are trying to make up for lost time. This is a cautionary tale for climate change, and it points us toward a better approach,” he continued.

“If we start now, tap into the power of science and innovation, and ensure that solutions work for the poorest, we can avoid making the same mistake with climate change.”

Carlson objected to Tedros’ and Gates’ silence over the fact that China is responsible for both the Wuhan coronavirus and massive amounts of carbon emissions, scoffing that neither man would ever “meaningfully criticize the Chinese government.”

The Fox News host believes that both men think of climate change and the pandemic as “useful pretexts for mass social control.”

“Both are essentially unsolvable crises that they can harness to bypass democracy and force powerless populations to obey their commands,” he said.

Carlson pointed out that Tedros and Gates do not get equally as upset about the epidemics of opiate abuse and suicide in the United States because such deaths are “useless to them.”

Earlier in his monologue, the host noted that nobody in Virginia, which has asked for mandatory vaccinations against COVID-19, is asking for mandatory vaccinations against hepatitis, HIV, or meningitis, despite the fact that meningitis kills more college students than coronavirus does.

Carlson observed that the coronavirus spread from China through Europe to every major city in the West, and that the WHO had done nothing to stop this and even spread disinformation. The lessons he takes from this are that “globalism has risks” and that “the WHO is corrupt.”

Another major figure who has connected the pandemic with the physical health of the planet is Pope Francis.

In his Wednesday audience last week, the pontiff stated that when the pandemic is over, we should not act as though it hadn’t happened.

“Many want to return to normality and restart economic activities,” he said.

“Of course, but this ‘normality’ should not include social injustice and the destruction of the environment. The pandemic is a crisis and one does not leave a crisis the same: either we leave better or we leave worse,” the pontiff continued.

“We should leave better, to ameliorate social injustices and the environmental decay.”

Germany Threatens Naomi Seibt With Prison Over Climate ‘Denialism’

Naomi Seibt is the non-alarmist counterpart of hysterical Greta Thunberg. Naomi brings logic and facts to the table on climate change and encourages people to think, but she is the one who German authorities want to throw in jail. – TN Editor

The response to our appeal for Naomi Seibt has been splendid – but more of us need to help her, because the State Media Authority in North Rhine Westphalia, in the hope of interfering with Naomi’s right to post YouTube videos critical of the Party Line on climate, have menaced her not only with two enormous fines and two sets of costs but also with prison.

Naomi really, really needs our help. If you have already donated, many thanks for your generosity. More than $1000 a month has been pledged in just 24 hours. Keep it coming – she’ll need every penny. Just donate to Naomi directly. Do it now, if not sooner.

Germany Threatens Naomi Seibt With Prison Over Climate ‘denialism’

Naomi’s defense lawyer has already scored one success: the Authority has been compelled to abandon its campaign to force her to take down the first of the three videos it has complained of, because she made it long before she had met anyone from the Heartland Institute, which the Authority dislikes because they regard her single mention of it in one of the three videos complained of as constituting “product placement”, contrary to the anti-free-speech law of North Rhine Westphalia, where she lives.

Though the two videos of which the Authority continues to complain would constitute a first offense – Naomi is only 19, after all, and cannot be expected to have known that free speech had been shut down in her part of Germany by an obscure and inspissate law – the Authority is trying to make her pay a fine of 1000 euros plus another 200 euros costs for each of the two videos: total 2400 euros. If she doesn’t pay, this is the threat these wretches have made:

“If the enforcement of the penalty payment is unsuccessful, the competent administrative court may, upon application by the enforcement authorities, order first-time compulsory detention. The substitute compulsory detention is at least one day and at most two weeks.”

While Script repeater Greta Thunberg is given global promotion, her High-Intelligent challenger Naomi Seibt is threatened with jail in “free” Germany for “climate denialism”

Posted Feb 11, 2020

Hello, everyone. My name is Naomi Seibt and I am a new member at the Heartland Institute. And I’ve got very good news for you. The world is not ending because of climate change.

In fact, 12 years from now we will still be around, casually taking photos on our iPhone 18s, Tweeting about the current President on Twitter and ranting about the latest celebrity gossip.

However, we are currently being force-fed a very dystopian agenda of climate alarmism that tells us that we as humans are destroying the planet and that the young people especially have no future: that the animals are dying, that we are ruining nature.

I truly believe that many members of Antifa, Fridays for Future groups, Rebellion Extinction, I really believe that many of them have good intentions but they are genuinely scared of the world ending, and scared that their parents and grandparents are ruining the planet, that it’s breaking relationships, it’s breaking up families, and we at the Heartland Institute, we want to spread truth about the science behind climate realism, which is essentially the opposite of climate alarmism.

Many people are now actually developing mental disorders, and referring to it as eco-anxiety and eco-depression.

And I believe it is important that we act now and change this entire mainstream narrative of fear-mongering and climate alarmism, because it’s basically just holding us hostage in our own brains.

With all of that said, don’t let an agenda that is trying to depict you as an energy-sucking leech on the planet get into your brain and take away all of your passionate spirit.

I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think.

Would you inflict a fine of 1000 euros plus 200 euros costs, or up to two weeks’ jail in lieu, for that short, harmless video that does little more than announce to Naomi’s 46,000 subscribers that she was going to work for the Heartland Institute?

This was a first “offense” – if “offense” were the right word, which of course it is not.

Would you imprison a teenager who had not actually said or done anything wrong, except to exercise her right of free speech in terms of the European Human Rights Convention? No. But welcome to today’s Europe.

Here’s the full text of the second video, which doesn’t mention Heartland at all. It is a speech that Naomi gave in Germany.

Heartland had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not pay for it and did not influence the content in any way.

Much of the material, including data and even some direct quotations, came from a speech that Naomi had heard me give in Munich a few weeks previously:

ANTI-GRETA Or PRO-HUMAN?

Posted Feb 16, 2020

Manmade climate change has become a topic so unquestionable that everyone who dares to express even just a hint of scepticism is immediately labelled a “Climate Denier”.

And, out of all people, it is the ones who tend to call us “Nazis” who fail to realize that this is a truly disgusting way to mock the severity of the Holocaust. I personally prefer the term “Climate Realist”. [Applause]

But why should you, in the context of such a profound and scientific topic, listen to some girl with long blonde hair giving a speech?

And – yes, exactly – this question, “Why are you listening to a young girl?”, is the same question that I ask the people who go out and protest for Fridays for Future every single week,as Greta-worshippers.

And this is why I ask you not to believe every word I say unconditionally, but to give me a chance to speak, to listen carefully, and then to continue doing your research and form your own opinion on the climate change situation and any other political topic.

I can be wrong sometimes. Don’t create an ideology out of something that a young girl has to say, regardless of the political side she’s on.

All the predictions that the IPCC, which you have probably heard of before, has published since 1990 have not been supported by the empirical evidence.

In the last copule of decades global warming has been way less severe than initially foretold by the IPCC. They calimed that we would have tro expect a third of a degree of global warming per decade.

Well, that prediction failed, so they are now calling it “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming”.

On top of that, they overestimated the magnitude of global warming even despite the fact that CO2 emissions have been increasing more than anticipated by the IPCC – which shows us just how successful all those political “Climate Conferences” with their CO2 reduction goals have been in recent years.

Moreover, all hypotheses that the IPCC has put out there are entirely based on climate models.

So this means that they come up with lots of climate-related variables that they think will have an effect on global warming.

But in reality those variables cannot possibly describe climate processes accurately, because the climate is way too complex to be depicted by a computer model.

We have to consider so many factors, such as the makeup of the Earth’s surface, feedback responses, from water in all of its aggregate phases, mechanisms in the atmosphere – and what about the Sun?

Has anyone considered the immense impact that the Sun has on the climate in comparison to manmade CO2 emissions?

The IPCC’s climate models predict that you get a warming effect of 4.1 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

However, when we apply the reverse calculation with real temperature data since 1850, we will find that CO2 emissions only account for 1.4 degrees of actual extra warming.

So that means that those climate models are calculating with amplifying factors that artificially inflate the global warming prognoses.

But what is so dangerous about all of this is that we are now doing real politics with this fictional science – and that does not work. [Applause]

Man overestimates his power if he thinks that his plastic straw could have any significant effect at all on the climate.

Furthermore, it is incredibly primitive to confuse “climate “ with “weather” in the same breath, which is what most people do.

This overestimation of Man’s power leads to a hysterical implementation of climate policies and we must not tolerate such an impulsive reaction because the consequences for our society will be detrimental. We know that.

The scientific scepticism of climate alarmists fails in the face of even the most simple questions: What is the ideal global mean surface temperature for the Earth? [Applause].

Has anyone ever given you an answer to that question?

And if not, that means that we don’t even have any kind of foundation upon which we can base an evaluation of the repercussions of global warming.

Perhaps global warming isn’t even that detrimental. But as long as we don’t answer simple questions, we cannot tolerate impulsive political reactions. [Applause]

And this is exactly what becomes evident: it is not about science. It is all about politics. It is about the suppression of scepticism.

It is about the suppression of free science and free speech, and that’s why we have to fight back. [Applause]

And they all worship Greta, a young and innocent, but als an utterly immature and uneducated girl who is being shamelessly taken advantage of for the perfidious agenda of climate hysteria.

And this is why I want to make this very clear: I am not the anti-Greta. Because that is exactly the label that those protesters outside want me to embrace, so that they have another scapegoat whom they can put in a simple box with the rest of their adversaries.

The message that I want to send out is way more than “Anti-Greta”. I am not “Anti-Greta”. I don’t force anyone to give up their dogmas about climate change.

I want us to havew more opportunities for discussion. I want us to listen to one another. And I want us to be allowed to be scientific sceptics. [Applause]

Instead, by misrepresenting us in the media, chanting malicious slogans to defame us and prohibiting us from making public appearances, they want to strip us of every opportunity to speak up, because our words and free thoughts are a threat to those whose world-views are no more than an ideological complex on shaky foundations. [Applause]

No, I am not “Anti-Greta”, and we are not “Climate Deniers”. We must not let anyone degrade us and make us members of the controlled opposition.

For we have our own positive ambitions, ideas and qualities.

We are not “Anti-Nature”, but “Pro-Science, “Pro-Innovation”, “Pro-Sensible Environemtnal Policies”; and, most importantly, we are “Pro-Human”. [Applause]

The true Anti attitude belongs to the enemies of reason – the proponents of anti-humanism. [Applause]

We are not parasites on the planet. For hundreds of years we have been exploring, researching, inventing and building for a healthier, better and freer society.

We must not put ourselves into a tight strait-jacket of overtaxation. We must not deny to ourselves, nor to the people from very poor third-world countries, access to cheap and reliable energy.

We must not take away the young generation’s hope for a good future and drive them into an eco-depression. [Applause]

So please do not leave this event with a profound rage against Greta or the protesters or even the media who might want to depict us as Climate Deniers or radical right-wing egoists.

It’s time we put an end to this depressing “Anti” attitude. Rage and panic belong to our opponents. [Applause]

My last words to you: I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think. [Standing ovation]

Some commenters on my first piece about this burgeoning international scandal could not quite believe that fines – and, as it now turns out, menaces of imprisonment – could possibly have been issued in what is supposed to be a democratic country without any court hearing. But that is exactly what happened.

Worse, when the Authority demanded that Naomi should reply to its original letter, it gave her a frighteningly short time to reply in detail.

Yet she had been very ill with an ailment that came quite close to proving fatal, so her lawyer wrote to ask for more time.

The Authority paid no attention and issued the demand for fines and costs regardless.

Watch “A Message To Humanity” on YouTube

Inventor of Cloud Seeding Created ‘Weather Weapons of War’

While everyone is busy arguing that control over weather doesn’t exist, or that those who claim it does are crazy, conspiratorial nutters, actual history reveals that it not only exists, but was developed for an ulterior motive.

This video provides an interesting bit on General Electric’s Irving Langmuir, his ties to the brothers Vonnegut, and the military’s attempts at destroying the enemy with wicked weather.

In the sources shown in the video, Irving Langmuir and others admit to:

a) steering hurricanes,

b) causing a 1947 and 1948 hurricane to change course, resulting in the coastal destruction of American cities that wouldn’t have been hit by hurricanes,

c) seeding clouds, changing ice/snow and rain patterns,

d) creating the conditions for floods in the early 1950’s which caused destruction and property damage throughout the mid-west, Galveston, Texas,

e) seeding clouds in New Mexico that either denied rain to the Eastern coast of the U.S. or overwhelmed other areas with too much rain… and well, much more.

Weather Weapon Lincoln Journal Star 1955

Irving Langmuir himself, though he called for using weather as a weapon of war, also cautioned that the military was undertaking weapon experiments that were creating negative consequences for American cities, people, land and crops, and admitted there was nothing he could do to stop it, despite being its progenitor.

Seeding Caused Floods 1955

Also admitted is the fact that the lessons learned in the 40s and 50s – though leading to a 13 year moratorium on hurricane seeding – were applied to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the late 60s and early 70s under the later declassified Operation Popeye – which sought to alter the course of the Vietnam War by reducing, or impacting traffic along the Ho Chi Minh Trail via drastic increases in rainfall and harsh weather.

Rainmakers Mar 19 1971

SO?! What is happening now, today, and in recent years?

Of course, it is not admitted; the issue is deflected; critics are derided as conspiracy theorists, search engines and algorithms de-list, hide and suppress discussions of ‘chemtrails’ and ‘HAARP’ and ‘weather modification.’

However, experiments are taking place – likely covertly for military purposes – and admittedly under the guise of battling global warming / climate change.

How have we reached the point where few in the public are aware of the documented existence of this technology and the phenomenon of weather control? Why is rational or critical discussion of this issue ridiculed or even banned? What is the real agenda at work here?

This stuff is documented.

In the video above, a great deal of information was found in newspaper archives, as well as internet postings. However, it is also dealt with in academic literature.

Danger Seeding Aug 27 1950

Please read (or browse through) the paper “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: three cycles of promise and hype” (PDF) by academic James Fleming, of MIT, for more discussion on a) early episodes of rainmaking and weather modification, b) the period involving cloud seeding by General Electric scientists Irving Langmuir, Vincent Schaefer, and Bernard Vonnegut, et al. and also c) the current wave of climate change modification that remains ongoing.

e) seeding clouds in New Mexico that either denied rain to the Eastern coast of the U.S. or overwhelmed other areas with too much rain… and well, much more.

Weather Weapon Lincoln Journal Star 1955

Irving Langmuir himself, though he called for using weather as a weapon of war, also cautioned that the military was undertaking weapon experiments that were creating negative consequences for American cities, people, land and crops, and admitted there was nothing he could do to stop it, despite being its progenitor.

Seeding Caused Floods 1955

Also admitted is the fact that the lessons learned in the 40s and 50s – though leading to a 13 year moratorium on hurricane seeding – were applied to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the late 60s and early 70s under the later declassified Operation Popeye – which sought to alter the course of the Vietnam War by reducing, or impacting traffic along the Ho Chi Minh Trail via drastic increases in rainfall and harsh weather.

Rainmakers Mar 19 1971

SO?! What is happening now, today, and in recent years?

Of course, it is not admitted; the issue is deflected; critics are derided as conspiracy theorists, search engines and algorithms de-list, hide and suppress discussions of ‘chemtrails’ and ‘HAARP’ and ‘weather modification.’

However, experiments are taking place – likely covertly for military purposes – and admittedly under the guise of battling global warming / climate change.

How have we reached the point where few in the public are aware of the documented existence of this technology and the phenomenon of weather control? Why is rational or critical discussion of this issue ridiculed or even banned? What is the real agenda at work here?

This stuff is documented.

In the video above, a great deal of information was found in newspaper archives, as well as internet postings. However, it is also dealt with in academic literature.

Danger Seeding Aug 27 1950


Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball Sets the Record Straight on the Deliberate Deception to Demonize CO2

By Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist

Many years ago, I compared the claim that human CO2 was causing global warming was analogous to determining what was causing your car to falter.

To simplify the analysis, you decided to not look at the engine, the transmission, the gearbox, the drive shaft, the differential, the axle, and the wheel, to focus attention on one portion of the thread of one bolt of one nut on the right rear wheel.

Figure 1 is a systems diagram of the atmosphere and atmospheric processes.

Tim Ball Co2 1

It appears complex, but is, in reality, a simple representation. The people who created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) decided this system, analogous to your car was faltering. Through their definition of climate change as only those changes caused by humans, they narrowed the search to human CO2.

In the diagram, it is one thread on one bolt in the section labelled “Atmospheric composition.” That section includes all the gases of the atmosphere and the billions of tonnes of particulates. These gases and particles affect the incoming solar radiation and outgoing long-wave heat energy.

They also vary over time, but we have virtually no idea of quantities or the variability. Of all the gases in the composition, the so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) comprise approximately 4 percent. And of that 4 percent total, carbon dioxide (CO2) is 4 percent, and human CO2 is approximately 3.4 percent.

It is one thread on one bolt of the complex system. The actual amount of human-produced CO2 added to the system is an estimate produced by the IPCC. It is, like all other numbers used, a barely educated guess presented with the authority that it is accurate and real.

Tim Ball Co2 2

The first use of CO2 for a political agenda was by Margaret Thatcher. She wanted to break the coal miner’s union that was holding the country to ransom and also to promote nuclear power.

She used Sir John Houghton, head of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, to produce the science. He later became the first co-chair of the IPCC.

Houghton was an ideal candidate because he believed human industrial development was a sin and wrote articles on the subject. He is entitled to his personal opinions, but science must be amoral and apolitical, but that, apparently, does not apply to Houghton. Later in life Margaret Thatcher, to her credit, accepted that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis was wrong, but a dangerous precedence was set.

The precedence was to maintain the lie that CO2 was a dangerous gas. They ignored from the start its role as a life source for plants, without which there is no oxygen or any lifeform.

A major assumption was that an increase in CO2 would result in a temperature increase. In 1990 the Antarctic ice core was produced that appeared to show confirmation (Figure 3).

Tim Ball Co2 3

Within 5 years it was shown that the graph showed that temperature increased before CO2. They claimed that the residency time in the atmosphere of the CO2 humans produce was 100 years. The argument was that even if we stopped production now, the problem would persist for a very long time.

Also, failure to stop prolonged the problem. It didn’t take long to show that the actual residency time was at most 6 years. Figure 4 shows a comparison of independent research measures against that of the IPCC.

Tim Ball Co2 4

Before CO2 became the focus more attention was paid to methane (CH4). This was pushed by groups battling the cattle industry. Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book and led a campaign titled, “Beyond Beef.” The basic claim was that cattle were the cause of virtually every ill, both environmental and socio-economic, afflicting the world.

They conveniently ignored the 210 million “Holy Cows” in India that produce no foodstuffs whatever. The biggest challenge involved the fact that methane, although a greenhouse gas, is only 0.36% of all the GHG by volume and just 0.00017% of all atmospheric gases. Compare this with water vapor (H2O) that is 95% of GHG.

They tried to inflate the impact of CH4 by introducing an effectiveness scale. This claimed, without evidence, that the global warming potential (GWP) of CH4 was 50 times greater than CO2. GWP became an official designation, but even with the multiplier, the actual effect is a fraction of that for H2O.

All you need to know is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates for the GWP for CH4 is between 28 and 36. The GWP became important again later when the focus shifted from CH4 to CO2 because it was pointed out that CO2 is only 4% of the total GHG. The IPCC included a GWP Table for all GHG, almost all are man-made elements, but they do not include H2O. This is statistical manipulation of the worst kind and central to the estimates of the GWP is the residency time, which we already discussed.

This process is a standard practice of the AGW claim.

There are virtually no actual measures of anything including temperature and precipitation, but especially GHG. What they do is produce data in a separate computer model and then use it as real data in another model.

This practice is the basis for the data on which the global climate models (GCM) are built. We have no real weather data for 85% of the Earth’s surface and less than 1% above the surface. They create data in a process called parameterization and use it as real data to build the GCM.

When the deception began, they assumed the increase in CO2 and temperature was unlimited. Very early it was shown that the atmosphere was virtually saturated with CO2’s capacity to slow down the rate of heat escape to space. I describe it using a black paint analogy. If you want to stop light coming through a window, apply one coat of black paint.

That coat is equivalent to the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Add a second coat of paint and only a small fraction more of light is blocked. This is the same as increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Figure 5 shows estimated temperature increases for doubling CO2 by 3 different scientists. The fact they disagree all using physics shows how imprecise the understanding is of the dynamics.

Tim Ball Co2 5

In response to this problem, a positive feedback was proposed. This claimed that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase and this increased the rate of evaporation. A higher level of H2O in the atmosphere would enhance the warming started by CO2 would continue.

The first problem is that with more H2O in the atmosphere the more cloud potential which acts as a negative cooling feedback. Second, there are not even crude measures of the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, so it is impossible to determine the effect of a human addition. Third, measures of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are also very crude estimates.

For example, two of the major natural sources of CO2 are the oceans and rotting vegetation. The error of the estimate for annual production both these sources exceeds the gross amount estimated for human production.

Finally, the IPCC says the current atmospheric level of CO2 is 400 parts per million (ppm). Al Gore and others will have you believe this is the highest level ever. People like Bill McKibben of an organization called 350.org join with Gore demanding a reduction in that level. Their name implies this is an optimal level. Let’s put this in context by looking at a reconstruction of CO2 and temperature levels inferred from a variety of geologic and biologic sources (Figure 6).

Tim Ball Co2 6

Some important points:

  • The current level on the right side shows 400 ppm was only matched 300 million years ago (y.a).
  • The highest reading is 7000 ppm.
  • Around 438 million y.a., with atmospheric CO2 at 4500 ppm the Ordovician Ice Age occurred.
  • For most of the last 300 million years, the CO2 level averaged 1200 ppm.

The last point is important because research by Sherwood Idso and others show this is the optimum level for plant growth. It is confirmed over the last 100 years by commercial greenhouses injecting this level to achieve four times greater yield.

So, fix that car and keep on driving because the CO2 it produces is not causing global warming and is essential for both flora and fauna (that includes you) on planet Earth.

It is one thread on one bolt of the complex system. The actual amount of human-produced CO2 added to the system is an estimate produced by the IPCC. It is, like all other numbers used, a barely educated guess presented with the authority that it is accurate and real.

Tim Ball Co2 2

The first use of CO2 for a political agenda was by Margaret Thatcher. She wanted to break the coal miner’s union that was holding the country to ransom and also to promote nuclear power.

She used Sir John Houghton, head of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, to produce the science. He later became the first co-chair of the IPCC.

Houghton was an ideal candidate because he believed human industrial development was a sin and wrote articles on the subject. He is entitled to his personal opinions, but science must be amoral and apolitical, but that, apparently, does not apply to Houghton. Later in life Margaret Thatcher, to her credit, accepted that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis was wrong, but a dangerous precedence was set.

The precedence was to maintain the lie that CO2 was a dangerous gas. They ignored from the start its role as a life source for plants, without which there is no oxygen or any lifeform.

A major assumption was that an increase in CO2 would result in a temperature increase. In 1990 the Antarctic ice core was produced that appeared to show confirmation (Figure 3).

Tim Ball Co2 3

Within 5 years it was shown that the graph showed that temperature increased before CO2. They claimed that the residency time in the atmosphere of the CO2 humans produce was 100 years. The argument was that even if we stopped production now, the problem would persist for a very long time.

Also, failure to stop prolonged the problem. It didn’t take long to show that the actual residency time was at most 6 years. Figure 4 shows a comparison of independent research measures against that of the IPCC.

Tim Ball Co2 4

Before CO2 became the focus more attention was paid to methane (CH4). This was pushed by groups battling the cattle industry. Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book and led a campaign titled, “Beyond Beef.” The basic claim was that cattle were the cause of virtually every ill, both environmental and socio-economic, afflicting the world.

They conveniently ignored the 210 million “Holy Cows” in India that produce no foodstuffs whatever. The biggest challenge involved the fact that methane, although a greenhouse gas, is only 0.36% of all the GHG by volume and just 0.00017% of all atmospheric gases. Compare this with water vapor (H2O) that is 95% of GHG.

They tried to inflate the impact of CH4 by introducing an effectiveness scale. This claimed, without evidence, that the global warming potential (GWP) of CH4 was 50 times greater than CO2. GWP became an official designation, but even with the multiplier, the actual effect is a fraction of that for H2O.

All you need to know is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates for the GWP for CH4 is between 28 and 36. The GWP became important again later when the focus shifted from CH4 to CO2 because it was pointed out that CO2 is only 4% of the total GHG. The IPCC included a GWP Table for all GHG, almost all are man-made elements, but they do not include H2O. This is statistical manipulation of the worst kind and central to the estimates of the GWP is the residency time, which we already discussed.

This process is a standard practice of the AGW claim.

There are virtually no actual measures of anything including temperature and precipitation, but especially GHG. What they do is produce data in a separate computer model and then use it as real data in another model.

This practice is the basis for the data on which the global climate models (GCM) are built. We have no real weather data for 85% of the Earth’s surface and less than 1% above the surface. They create data in a process called parameterization and use it as real data to build the GCM.

When the deception began, they assumed the increase in CO2 and temperature was unlimited. Very early it was shown that the atmosphere was virtually saturated with CO2’s capacity to slow down the rate of heat escape to space. I describe it using a black paint analogy. If you want to stop light coming through a window, apply one coat of black paint.

That coat is equivalent to the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Add a second coat of paint and only a small fraction more of light is blocked. This is the same as increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Figure 5 shows estimated temperature increases for doubling CO2 by 3 different scientists. The fact they disagree all using physics shows how imprecise the understanding is of the dynamics.

Tim Ball Co2 5

In response to this problem, a positive feedback was proposed. This claimed that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase and this increased the rate of evaporation. A higher level of H2O in the atmosphere would enhance the warming started by CO2 would continue.

The first problem is that with more H2O in the atmosphere the more cloud potential which acts as a negative cooling feedback. Second, there are not even crude measures of the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, so it is impossible to determine the effect of a human addition. Third, measures of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are also very crude estimates.

For example, two of the major natural sources of CO2 are the oceans and rotting vegetation. The error of the estimate for annual production both these sources exceeds the gross amount estimated for human production.

Finally, the IPCC says the current atmospheric level of CO2 is 400 parts per million (ppm). Al Gore and others will have you believe this is the highest level ever. People like Bill McKibben of an organization called 350.org join with Gore demanding a reduction in that level. Their name implies this is an optimal level. Let’s put this in context by looking at a reconstruction of CO2 and temperature levels inferred from a variety of geologic and biologic sources (Figure 6).

Tim Ball Co2 6

Some important points:

  • The current level on the right side shows 400 ppm was only matched 300 million years ago (y.a).
  • The highest reading is 7000 ppm.
  • Around 438 million y.a., with atmospheric CO2 at 4500 ppm the Ordovician Ice Age occurred.
  • For most of the last 300 million years, the CO2 level averaged 1200 ppm.

The last point is important because research by Sherwood Idso and others show this is the optimum level for plant growth. It is confirmed over the last 100 years by commercial greenhouses injecting this level to achieve four times greater yield.

So, fix that car and keep on driving because the CO2 it produces is not causing global warming and is essential for both flora and fauna (that includes you) on planet Earth.

Source: Technocracy.news

Wake Up!