Coronavirus information & resources
Treating effects of COVID-19 vax
Vaccines - What You Need To Know

Climate Disruption: It’s Not Due to CO2 - Global Research

Climate Disruption: It's Not Due to CO2 - Global Research

The IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, the Rockefellers, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. And they found, I think it was an analysis by William Engdahl, who said they found or invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined which is humanity itself.


The climate non-crisis crisis

The catalyst for this post was the article, The 97% consensus on global warming on Skeptical Science.

We are told that human produced greenhouse gasses will inevitably lead to climate catastrophe; that we are doomed unless change our ways immediately; that there is a consensus among the worlds climate scientists.

Except it's all bullshit. Or at least much of it is.

As anyone who has studied government and politics knows, there is almost always a hidden agenda behind the rhetoric and fear is often the emotion that is played upon in order to achieve the goal. It's the ol' 'problem reaction solution' tactic that is employed again and again where the problem is invented, the reaction is anticipated, and the solution was contrived long before the problem was. The so-called war on terror is an excellent example.

As of this writing, 31,487 scientists in the U.S. have signed the following petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

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

James Corbett has done much research into the global warming/climate change subject and in his work you will find a plethora of resources from which he has derived his opinions and conclusions. Much of his work on the subject can be found on his website, The Corbett Report. Here are a few examples:

10 Climate Myths Debunked (in 60 seconds!)

Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink

Geoengineering: The real climate change threat

Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics

Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change

Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

The Global Warming Pause Explained

Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed

Why Would People Lie About Climate Change? – Questions For Corbett #033

Won’t Someone Think of the Polar Bears?!?

The history of Monsanto (now Bayer), 1901-2014

This article was written in 2014 before Monsanto was absorbed by Bayer. One of the most striking realizations while reading it is how in the hell such an evil corporation could have possibly weathered so many storms and remain functioning. It nearly boggles the mind, until of course one realizes the role the legacy (mainstream) media plays. And today Monsanto/Bayer is being tested yet again with the massive attention being given to glyphosate and the utterly disastrous effects this toxin and carcinogen has and continues to wreck upon the planet and the people. One might think that the glyphosate scandal will surely sink the Bayer ship, but it likely will not. Bayer surely knew about the many legal problems Monsanto was facing, yet they acquired the company anyway. I can only speculate as to the why of it, but i think one possibility is that Monsanto might have sunk on their own and so a deal was made with Bayer.

Read: The Complete History of Monsanto, The World's Most Evil Corporation

Monsanto/Bayer Roundup being banned world-wide (video)

I've worked with glyphosate in the past and though i hated having to use it, it does indeed work very well. Unfortunately i was unable to find an alternative way of killing weeds along a fence line. I've seen news of many studies linking glyphosate to health problems, as well as news of it being banned in various places. I'm happy to see Brasscheck report on the issue.

Courtesy of Brasscheck TV, Good news – strangely censored (click to see the video)...

Roundup – which contains the deadly biocide glyphosate implicated in many serious health problems – is being banned by countries and cities all over the world.

Even in the US!

It’s headline news, right?

No it isn’t.

Greenpeace, Global Warming and the State of "Science" Today

We're told that the science clearly dictates that humans and our industrious nature are clearly the cause of global warming, except there's two problems with this dictum; 1), the science is anything but settled and 2), there seems to be so much margin of error in the data used to prove that humans are the cause of warming as to make it almost entirely useless.

Yes, we are absolutely killing the planet with the incredible amount of pollutants that we produce and we desperately need to rectify our trashy ways. I don't think there's any arguing with that, but it is another matter entirely to link human activities to a global rise in temperature. While i think it is certainly possible that human activity may be causing a warming trend, the data that "scientists" are using to prove this out seems to be utterly unreliable and heavily manipulated at best and completely fabricated at worst.

Remember when the Climategate scandal hit the interwebs in 2009? Climategate was a huge leak of internal data, software source code and emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). I downloaded that dump and examined some of the data myself. The leak was a major embarrassment to the CRU, one of the premiere research institutions regarding climate science. Among the data was an email in which the director of the CRU was "disappointed" with the temperature data because it indicated that the temperature had been declining for the last 15 years or so as i recall. There were many more bits of information in that leak that brought the whole man-made-global-warming hypothesis into serious question and a lot of scientists became upset when they learned that the data they had been relying on was in error.

Science these days is bought and paid for. Richard Horten, editor in chief of the prestigious Lancet medical journal, had this to say:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

Simply put, if you, as a scientist, fail to produce the results a vested interest expects and provides funding for, do you think you'll ever get funding from them again? And science is all about funding.

I haven't researched the deepest depths of the human-warming climate question, but James Corbett of The Corbett Report has dug quite deeply into many aspects of this question over the years and i highly suggest watching some of the many videos James has produced regarding the subject. Here's a short introductory video, 10 Climate Myths Debunked (in 60 seconds!):

What prompted me to write this was a couple of articles from Breitbart, Greenpeace Founder: Climate Change Hoax Is Completely Made-Up Issue and Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists. Patrick Moore, B.Sc., Ph.D., a co-founder and former president of Greenpeace, had this to say as quoted from the first article:

As time went on, I watched as Greenpeace evolved, basically hijacked by the extreme left. We were pretty centrist when we started. We were basing our positions on science and logic, as I saw it, and I’ve been a scientist all my life; that’s my orientation — not to make up stories and not to exaggerate unnecessarily. And I found that Greenpeace was just going off into this sensationalism and misinformation, and using fear to get people to send them money...

[...] [They] invent ever-more far-fetched problems that in the end don’t really exist. The climate change issue is a completely made-up issue. Of course, the climate has been changing ever since the Earth was born; and, of course, it’s still changing now. It hasn’t really changed very much. People don’t even realize that 20,000 years ago there was a mile of ice on top of New York City and three miles of ice on top of Montreal. That change from then until now is substantial, but the little bit of temperature change that has occurred in the last couple of hundred years on the planet Earth is nothing compared to the changes that have occurred in the past over time. It is completely exaggerated, and it being used to scare people. [...]

Our addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is fertilizing all of the plant life on Earth, including all the forests and all the food crops on Earth, and we have something like a 30-percent average increase in the growth of plants over the last 50 years because of the CO2 that we’ve put in the atmosphere. CO2 is the primary food for life, and along with water, H2O and CO2, plants make sugar, mainly glucose, which is a carbohydrate, which is the basis for all the energy for all of life, beginning with photosynthesis.

If people just understood that basic fact, and the fact that CO2 is now lower than it has been virtually in the history of the Earth — because life has taken it out and deposited it in sediments, called fossil fuels, and carbonaceous rocks like limestone and marble and chalk, all of which contain carbon that used to be in the atmosphere or dissolved in the ocean where they were absorbed by living creatures to make themselves.

In the second article Dr. Moore says the following:

Scientists are co-opted and corrupted by politicians and bureaucracies invested in advancing the narrative of "climate change" in order to further centralize political power and control.


And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber — fake news — repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children. And then you’ve got the green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials. And then you’ve got the green businesses, the rent-seekers, and the crony capitalists who are taking advantage of massive subsidies, huge tax write-offs, and government mandates requiring their technologies to make a fortune on this. And then, of course, you’ve got the scientists who are willingly, they’re basically hooked on government grants.
When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false number. But most of the scientists — put it in quotes, scientists — who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money, ...

The fact that much of the science of today is junk science is something i am well aware of. It is a fact which became all too apparent during my research into pharmaceutical companies and vaccines. Regarding vaccines, "the science is settled" we are repeatedly told, however this is completely untrue. The same is true regarding man-made global warming. Science is never settled, it is an ongoing process of discovery and we haven't been here very long. We are still a 'type 0' civilization according to science, bumbling around in our diapers still trying to figure out the most basic of things.

Resources for further study: