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.
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:
Go ahead and call me a sensationalist clickbait artist if you wish, but i chose the title because there seems to be an obvious link between SSRI drugs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and mass shootings. As a matter of fact, SSRI drugs (aka antidepressants) have been the common thread in nearly every mass shooting since and including Columbine. One of the very few exceptions has been the Paddock-Vegas shooting where Stephen Paddock had been prescribed Valium (diazepam) which is not an SSRI drug, but which shares many of the same side effects.
In the interest of not biting the hand that feeds you, the mainstream media, which receives a massive amount of money from the pharmaceutical industry, will not properly investigate the obvious link between SSRI drugs and ultra-violent outbursts such as mass shootings.
As of 2014 the number of Americans on SSRI drugs was approximately 1 in 8 and that number is growing rapidly since doctors are pushing these immensely dangerous drugs like candy to treat a variety of issues that have little or nothing to do with depression.
The "norm and practice" of Pharmaceutical companies is to vehemently deny the most serious adverse side effects of their products. This industry's success in concealing the truth about the serious harm caused by their drugs and vaccines has been aided and abetted by government officials in the FDA and the CDC.
In the case of Prozac, and the other drugs in the SSRI antidepressant family of drugs, the worst adverse effects include uncharacteristic violent outbursts in the form of suicide and homicide — including mass shooting sprees. Manufacturers of these drugs have committed multiple serious crimes to cover-up the deadly side-effects of these drugs.
In the article, Possible problems with the UAF WTC 7 collapse study, i take a look at the recent University of Alaska, Fairbanks, study which attempts to refute the findings of the NIST study regarding the global collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 9/11.