The Climate Change narrative is fake. The Earth’s resources, especially so-called fossil fuels, are not running out. But these ideas underpin the globalist depopulation agenda. Food production is to be cut to protect the planet, and our health weakened by the jabs.
Here’s a Thought Experiment. Imagine that there were two Earths in the Universe which were identical in every way. On our Earth global temperatures are currently about one degree centigrade above the level recorded in the mid-19th Century. But, on the other Earth, temperatures have fallen by about one degree centigrade since the 1850s instead.
Would the cooler Earth also be in the grip of a climate change or global cooling hysteria which is being used by statist control freaks to impoverish, enslave and reduce what had previously been relatively free, affluent populations? The answer is yes, providing that society too has a permanent bureaucratic state with the legal privilege to steal and bully.
Somebody is always going to try to profit from frightening people into handing over their liberty and resources. It is as easy to claim that a superficial correlation between modest temperature changes and CO2 levels ‘proves’ CO2 levels caused either a fall, or a rise, in temperatures. All you need is state power to enable and monetise the scam.
Populations have been so mal-educated by compulsory state schooling that many people do not understand that correlation does not prove causality. And the schools teach the climate change hoax as though it were true. Then the media, ruthless as ever for audiences and government and corporate advertising, endlessly repeat panic-inducing stories which are untrue, and they know it. But repetition of lies is the major, and very expensive, method states use to bamboozle and exploit their subjects. I have covered some of these official misrepresentations in past posts, including polar bears dying out, Australian reefs ‘bleaching’, and allegedly rapidly rising sea levels.
Every so often the United Nation’s IPCC publishes a huge report with thousands of pages of highly technical scientific work. No journalist reads it. Few in the mainstream media are capable of understanding it. Instead, they write the same old headlines: ‘UN says we have only 10 years to save the planet!”, which they have been using for decades.
It is important to face the fact that these are barefaced lies. What the most recent IPCC report says is that, if CO2 is in reality capable of affecting global temperatures – for which there is still no clear evidence – then global temperatures may increase by 2 or 3 degrees centigrade over the next century. The effect on the USA could be to delay the next doubling of American GDP by a decade or two, but way in the future when our great-great grandchildren might be thinking about setting up house. It’s not a big deal.
If you doubt this, click here to see an earlier www.awah.uk post ’What Science Advisers Actually say about Climate Change’. It contains a link to a speech by a former US science undersecretary (at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London) explaining how unthreatening the body of the ‘Science’ really is in the latest IPCC report.
THE MASS OF THE PEOPLE WILL MORE EASILY BELIEVE A BIG LIE THAN A SMALL ONE
Goebbels, the Nazi head of propaganda, understood the importance of the big lie. Let us be clear. Climate change, like the parallel and equally sinister Coronavirus hoax, is a lie. It is the brainchild of sociopathic bureaucratic and corporatist globalist elites, fronted by deeply compromised Western politicians.
As soon as the cold war with the Soviet Union ended thirty years ago, our elites adopted the global warming narrative as a way to keep people cowed and fearful. It was also seen as a way of reintroducing state central planning and control of economies. The fall of Soviet Communism was a profound shock to power hungry bureaucrats in the West because it made it clear to everyone that state planning does not work.
Right now, farmers across the world, and most notably in the Netherlands, are resisting efforts to drive them out of business and seize their property. The method chosen is to enforce limits on the production of ‘greenhouse’ gases by livestock farmers, and suppressing fertilizer production and imports. Astonishingly the idea is to reduce nitrogen emissions. Perhaps our ‘leaders’ don’t know that four fifths of the air they breathe is nitrogen.
The aim is to cut food supplies and increase FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Despair). It is simply a power grab. As the WEF site informed us in 2020, we will own nothing and we will be happy, and we won’t be eating much meat, by 2030.
Readers will be very tempted to go on trusting state ‘science’ because facing the evil that is the state is just too difficult. But there is no honest basis for trusting these people. Look at how trustworthy the Covid ‘Science’ turned out to be.
The UK government just announced that 94% of covid deaths are happening among vaccinated people, and almost all the dead were triple-jabbed. Imposing immunity sapping jabs, and totalitarian ‘passports’ to support mass surveillance, was the real aim of the pre-planned Covid psychological operation (PsyOp).
Infants, who basically never die of Covid, are nevertheless being jabbed. The bureaucrats and Big Pharma know that the only possible result of jabbing infants is more death and injury of the innocent. As a result, all causes mortality among jabbed children is now 300 times greater than for unvaccinated children according to official sources. This is being done simply for legal technical reasons to consolidate Big Pharma’s legal immunity. I think it is impossible not to conclude that our nanny states are harbouring evil.
At least the Dutch farmers, who are in open revolt (unreported in the mainstream media), understand that we humans are the carbon that Davos WEF Globalists want to get rid of, either by creating food shortages or by disabling people’s immune systems. It’s time for a more general re-evaluation of what is really going on.
WHAT IS THE REALITY BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING?
The global warming hoax depends on selecting the right start point from which to assert that some worrying change has occurred. Around 200 years ago the world was emerging from a cyclical low when global temperatures were about one degree centigrade lower than they are now. Before this so-called ‘Little Ice Age’, or ‘Maunder Minimum’, there were several cycles of temperature change running back for ten thousand years until the end of the most recent glaciation (or the ‘proper’ ice age as one might think of it).
The cycles include several warm periods when temperatures were the same or higher than they are now. As glaciers retreat on European mountains, objects from Medieval, Roman and earlier periods see the light of day once again. It looks as if these glaciers were smaller, and global temperatures higher, than they are now. Clearly in these earlier pre-industrial periods there could be very little CO2 released by human activity. Far from being unusually high, current temperatures are fairly mediocre. If the start date chosen for the scary narrative had been the 1250s instead of 1850s there would be no story at all.
It seems that CO2 doesn’t have much impact either way. Since 1850 there has been a one degree rise in temperatures. It had mainly already happened by the 1930s. But it is generally agreed that mass global industrialization didn’t really get into its stride until the 1950s and 60s. Therefore, most of the rise since 1850 can’t be our fault anyway.
The paramount role of variations in solar output, mainly outside the visible light spectrum, is becoming ever clearer. One reason why the would-be New World Order technocrats brought forward their bid for total control to 2020 may have been that the scientific collapse of the artificial CO2 warming narrative could not be delayed much longer.
In any case, right on cue, as industrialization and CO2 emissions spread like wildfire after WWII, global temperatures began to fall again. We really had a global cooling scare in the 1970s. It was promoted by some of the people who then pioneered global warming in the late 1980s as another minor cyclic change lifted temperatures again. That cooling was all the fault of humanity too, of course. Government control of our lives was needed to ‘save the planet’ from cold temperatures. This is why we can be sure that a cooling planet could also support an irrational and unfounded climate change narrative.
Since the 1990s, satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures suggest very little change. If the CO2 story were true, the marked rise in atmospheric CO2 to over 400 parts per million from around 300 in the mid-20th century should have driven temperatures higher. However, this increase in CO2 has greened the planet and raised food production but it hasn’t achieved the level of warming that state-sponsored climate ‘models’ expected.
We can all play this game (and game it truly is) of altering start dates to achieve ‘shocking’ results. How about starting many millions of years ago when temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees higher than now – without any particular harm to the planet? Or one could choose a point 7,000 years ago in the earlier part this current interglacial to decry the one or two-degree global cooling since then. Why not choose any time between about 20,000 BC and 70,000 BC when Southern England was freezing uninhabitable tundra? Parts further north were under hundreds of metres of permanent ice (something that will almost certainly be the case again at some point in the future). How about starting during one of the ‘Snowball Earth’ episodes in our very deep past?
We must recognize that those whose incomes, and/or professional licences, depend on the state cannot easily afford personal integrity. Scientists, MSM journalists and indeed medics, mutely witnessing the dishonesty of the Covid and Climate change narratives, have understandably chosen to be complicit in states’ lies, given the risk of losing livelihoods. The information that most scientists support the state story is therefore meaningless.
Practically everybody whose income does not depend on Government recognizes that the climate change (and Covid) narrative is nonsense. For another comprehensive debunking of the climate hoax one could do worse than read ‘There is no Climate Crisis’ by David Craig.
RUNNING OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS?
Underlying the climate change narrative is the view that resources of all kinds are somehow ‘running out’. This is a key justification for the not-so-hidden statist globalist project to reduce the world’s population to a fraction of its current size. ‘The help will all die anyway when the resources run out so why not get it over with?’ seems to be the idea. Judging by events in the Netherlands they have decided to speed up depopulation.
But is anything running out? When I was a teenager something called the Club of Rome grabbed unwarranted attention by claiming that in twenty years basically all resources, including oil but also metals and food, would have ‘run out’. But no resources have run out. The Daily Telegraph newspaper in the UK recently pointed out that at the World’s current much increased rate of oil consumption we now have 47 years of proven reserves to rely upon. Oil prices in real terms have been stable or falling for decades (excluding temporary price changes caused by political upsets such as the West’s recent self-harming ‘sanctions’). This also suggests that there is no real supply constraint.
The extent of proven reserves largely depends on the amount of capital directed to finding and developing them. Globalists are trying to use ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) regulation to choke off capital investment in energy and mining. Provided they fail, there is no reason why we shouldn’t have abundant energy, food and mineral resources indefinitely. Fortunately, the majority of the world’s population lives in countries where the Western globalists have been resisted, so far, so there is indeed hope.
The whole scarcity story is a lie. It started. like climate change, with hasty and self-interested theorizing without much foundation. In my www.awah.uk post ‘The Electric Universe and State Academia’, I explained that the story about ‘greenhouse gases’ causing runaway warming was cooked up when we sent probes to Venus. Quite unexpectedly, astronomers found Venus was hotter than hell and had an atmosphere 3,000 times denser than that of the Earth. The theory was never proven. Probably CO2 doesn’t give rise to much of a greenhouse effect, or even any. Venus’s state could instead be explicable as a result of electro-magnetic forces that modern astronomers – and climate scientists – are still fighting not to include in their models.
In fact, there is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse effect’ in real greenhouses. And no science, IPCC or otherwise, has ever suggested that the Earth could experience runaway warming. There is however no need to stop the ignorant plebs worrying about it though, is there?
The expression ‘Fossil Fuels’ was allegedly invented up by Rockefeller 150 years ago to give the impression that his oil was ‘scarce’ and therefore somehow more valuable. When you extract oil, and indeed gas and coal, you are indeed likely to bring up bits of fossilized life. But does that mean that all crude oil is really produced by decomposing animal remains trapped underground millions of years ago?
As we find oil deeper and deeper in the Earth’s crust, and further and further from the land, the question arises how on earth did these ancient critters get all the way down there to do their rotting away. Yes, I know, mountains rise and fall etc. etc., but an increasing proportion of the world’s oil is described, by some people at least, as ‘abiotic’. It’s said not to be decayed pre-historic bugs. Could it be that under our feet in the heat of the pressure cooker that is the Earth’s crust, abundant water (H2O) and CO2 are continuously being transformed into hydrocarbons? Are they ‘Fossil Fuels’ or are they to some extent, renewables, and economically viable renewables at that, unlike Solar and Wind?
NUCLEAR POWER AND THORIUM REACTORS
The theory that hydrocarbons are being renewed (‘Abiotic Oil’) may or may not stand the test of time. What certainly is worthy of our attention is the story of nuclear power. Our self-appointed governing ‘elites’ have sociopathic fixations on warfare and on controlling (restricting) our access to good things such as cheap energy and food. Their research became concentrated on nuclear power as a way of producing materials for nuclear bombs.
The result was inherently dangerous reactor designs that could blow up, releasing radioactive material into the atmosphere. The original Green parties started off hostile to nuclear power because they recognized that irresponsible officials were promoting unnecessarily dangerous reactor designs. Their view seems rather understandable.
States messed around with fusion, but neglected the potential of using Thorium fission. Thorium is a more abundant fuel. Its energy density which is said to be more than an order of magnitude higher than Uranium’s. The American Department of Energy (the Pentagon’s nuclear ‘subsidiary’) developed Thorium reactor technology in the 1960s and then abandoned it. Thorium salt reactors don’t produce weapons grade material. Plus, if power is cut off, the salt solution solidifies rather than blowing up. Where’s the fun in that?
Outside the flailing bureaucratic structures of the West, pilot Thorium reactors are in operation or under construction in Russia and China. Fingers crossed - we deplorables may yet have a decent future powered by cheap energy despite the efforts of our rulers. Meanwhile Western eco-nuts inflict impoverishment and hunger, for no sane reason at all.
CONCLUSION
Once again, the take-away is that the collective hallucination we call the ‘State’, or ‘Government’, acts dishonestly and unhelpfully. It promotes narratives about the world, in particular about climate change, resource scarcity and Covid, which are lies. The lies spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). They exist to justify elites’ attempts to extend their power exponentially over their put-upon subject populations. The goal is to take as much as possible from them. In some cases, that may include their very lives.
I need hardly add that in a Private Law, free society without a state, none of this could have happened. There would be no intimidation and no self-censorship by professionals who have been reduced to dependency on governments for their livelihoods. We would have abundant food and energy. It would be much like the West pre-Covid, only much better.