Tag: climategate

“CopenPay” – Europe’s First Climate-Centric Social Credit Scheme

The world’s first climate-related social rewards scheme came into being two weeks ago, when the city of Copenhagen officially launched it’s new “CopenPay” system.

Through the CopenPay scheme, tourists visiting the city will be rewarded for “green actions” – such as using public transportation or cycling – with access to “cultural experiences”, free meals, etc.

WonderfulCopenhagen.com adds:

There is a need to change the mindset of tourists and encourage green choices […]Through CopenPay we therefore aim to incentivize tourists’ sustainable behaviour while enriching their cultural experience of our destination. It is an experimental and a small step towards creating a new mindset […] The hope is not only to continue the pilot project, but also to inspire other cities around the world to introduce similar initiatives.

Now, complimentary organic meals and free windsurfing lessons might seem benign enough, but any talk of “changing mindset” and/or “encouraging behaviour” makes my brain itch.

It’s pretty easy to see through the happy-clappy tone of the promotion to the heart of the issue, it’s right there in their own words: Transforming green actions into currency.

This is climate-change-based behavioral modification. This is a social credit system. Small scale and optional, sure, but there’s no denying that’s what it is.

For now it’s optional and only for tourists. They are testing the waters. Barring a catastrophic failure it won’t stay that way for long. They likely won’t ever make it mandatory to take part, rather – like bank accounts and cellphones – opting out will simply be too difficult for most people to bother with.

Eventually “rewarding green actions” will segue into “punishing non-green actions”. The currency of “cultural experiences” replaced with actual currency.

Keep reading

Misrepresentation of Critical Satellite Data by IPCC

The 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) concluded “It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs [greenhouse gases] were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979” (IPCC, 2021; p.5). This statement implies that all known climate forcings have properly been evaluated using the available data, and GHGs have been found to exert a disproportionally large radiative effect on the Global Surface Air Temperature (GSAT) over the past 45 years. However, a close examination of Chapter 7 of the Working Group I (WG1) Contribution to the IPCC AR6 (Forster et al. 2021), which discusses the Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity, reveals that the observed decrease of Earth’s albedo and the corresponding increase of absorbed shortwave radiation by the Planet for the past 20 years have not been taken into account as contributors to the recent warming. Section 7.2.2 of Chapter 7 entitled “Changes in Earth’s Energy Budget” acknowledges that there have been multidecadal periods of significant decreasing and increasing trends in surface solar radiation (SSR) called “global dimming” (i.e. from 1950s to 1980s) and “global brightening” (after 1980s), respectively. The report states: “There is high confidence that these [SSR] trends are widespread, and not localized phenomena or measurement artefacts.” Indeed, the existence of such dimming and brightening multidecadal periods has been acknowledged by science for more than 10 years (Stanhill et al. 2014; Yuan et al. 2021), but the IPCC AR6 provides no global estimate of the observed positive trend in SSR since 1980s and its impact on GSAT. Instead, the Report simply states “The origin of these trends is not fully understood”.

Keep reading

Kamala, Heir to the Neoliberal Throne, Promotes Depopulation for Climate Change™

As far as I am concerned, there are two options here, each of which is equally plausible:

  • The Karamel-uh entity overheard the true impetus of the Climate Change™ hoax at some point and didn’t realize or forgot that she’s not supposed to say the quiet part out loud
  • The social engineers are simply getting more brazen in their declaration of intentions, and so these comments were intentionally inserted into the Karamel-uh entity’s speech — later to dismiss it as a “gaffe” — to move the Overton window in the direction of global genocide

Either way, these words escaping the lips of a possible future president (and maybe sooner that we realize if the MIA Brandon entity never resurfaces and is declared dead from COVID or domestic terrorism or whatever) should be front page news everywhere.

What explanation I don’t buy is the framing by the White House, relayed via the New York Post uncritically, that this was a “gaffe.”

Via New York Post (emphasis added)

“Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday called on the US to ‘reduce population’ in an effort to combat climate change, but she meant to say ‘reduce pollution,’ according to the White House.

The shocking gaffe happened as the 58-year-old vice president delivered remarks at Coppin State University in Baltimore, Md., on the need to build a ‘clean energy economy.’

‘When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water,’ Harris said, eliciting applause from the audience.

The official White House transcript of her speech acknowledges and corrects Harris’ disquieting error.*

In the transcript, ‘population’ is crossed out and ‘pollution’ is added in brackets to denote what the VP intended to say.”

*This is gaslighting nonsense; shame on the New York Post for printing it. Transcripts are supposed to reflect what was actually said, not edited later on to say whatever the governing authorities would like them to say.

Keep reading

Maine Dem congresswoman rails against climate change… despite making VERY hypocritical choices in her private life

A Maine congresswoman has shared a video of herself railing against climate change, despite enjoying luxurious, carbon-spewing flights on a private jet. 

Chellie Pingree, 69, shared a video of herself addressing the House of Representatives during a talk on climate change earlier this week. 

In it, the Democrat Maine representative speaks of her worries of what the world will be like for her children and seven grandchildren. 

But after sharing the video to her social media on Wednesday afternoon, Pingree was labelled a ‘hypocrite’ after having previously traveled on a private jet. 

Pingree was caught on camera disembarking the jet of her then husband and hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman in 2010. 

The Maine Wire replied to Pingree sharing her views on battling climate change with the video, saying: ‘A private jet can emit more CO2 in one hour than the average Mainer’s annual output.’

In her video, Pingree said: ‘I don’t know if you have children or grandchildren, but I worry about what the future will be for my children and my seven grandchildren. 

‘I don’t want them to come to me someday and say, ‘Hey Grandma, what were you doing when we needed to do something about this?.

‘What were you doing when we needed to prevent the climate change that is upon us today? 

‘Were you just sitting there with you eyes closed and pretending it didn’t exist using a bunch of jargon, quoting social media and some memes you saw somewhere. 

‘Or were you talking about scientific fact, and really doing things to invest in our children and grandchildren’s future.’

According to The Washington Examiner, Pingree was caught disembarking the corporate charter jet by the conservative website Maine Watchdog. 

In the footage, Pingree disembarked from the airplane onto a red carpet after the plane touched down at Portland airport in Maine. 

At the time of the incident, Pingree said that criticism of her use of the corporate jet was politically motivated.

Keep reading

The Climate Change Agenda and Rockefellers’ Frontmen

In the climate change arena, the Rockefellers call the shots. The whole thing was their idea, they took a silly but interesting theory and amped it up with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. They founded institutions and linked the survival of those institutions to promoting climate change and population reduction. They adopted one likely politician after another.

The Rockefellers have created 990 Climate Change activist organizations. They give them directions, and financing, and launch them into the world. The Green Movement was started, financed, organized, and militarized by the Rockefellers. By the late 40’s the family was all in, on the same page. In the 50s they began to stand up countless institutions, committees, university departments, university institutes, foundations, and policy shops gathered around this one idea, as below.

Keep reading

The earliest mention of man-made global warming is in US government documents relating to weather modification

Peter Kirby is the author of the book ‘Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project’.   The book is essentially a compilation of the articles he had been posting on the independent media outlet Activist Post for the previous five or six years. He also has a website which you can find HERE.

In 2016 he joined James Corbett to tackle the two questions most frequently asked by chemtrail sceptics: Would the government do something like this and could they do something like this?

They also discussed CIA Director John Brennan’s 2016 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations calling for stratospheric aerosol injection (“SAI”) and a 2016 study on the health effects of stratospheric aerosols.

The most significant pieces of evidence regarding the question “Would they do something like this” are two books.  “One was written by Dr. Leonard A. Cole called ‘Clouds of Secrecy’ and the other one was written by someone named Andrew Goliszek and that’s called ‘In the Name of Science’,” Kirby said.  “These two books outline hundreds of open-air testing experiments done covertly against the American people over the last 70 years.”

“There’s other evidence of us being sprayed openly and covertly.  As far as ‘would they do it’?  The evidence shows that yeah, they would and they have and they are,” he said.

You can read a synopsis of Cole’s book HERE and a synopsis of Goliszek’s book HERE.

The Manhattan Project, a research and development program undertaken during World War II to produce the first nuclear weapons, gave rise to the New Manhattan Project, which includes using chemicals to electrify our atmosphere.

“The people who put together the first atomic bomb were physicists,” Kirby explained.  “There’s a certain group of scientists who were the most prominent scientists of their time and they developed the original Manhattan Project, they developed the first atomic bombs.  And on into the radiation laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, they developed also a lot of technology that went into this New Manhattan Project specifically … the electromagnetic aspects of the New Manhattan Project.”

The New Manhattan Project employs electromagnetic energy to manipulate the dispersed particles that are sprayed out of aeroplanes.  In this respect, it differs from conventional weather modification or geoengineering, such as cloud seeding. 

Another distinction between the New Manhattan Project and conventional geoengineering is that conventional weather modification efforts are conducted on a regional basis while the New Manhattan Project is global.  To get a fuller understanding of what the New Manhattan Project is, you can read the history of the New Manhattan Project which Kirby wrote the year before his interview with Corbett HERE.

Kirby said the US Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) appear to be deeply involved in the New Manhattan Project.  He found a 1965 document from the office of the executive branch under President Lyndon B. Johnson titled ‘Restoring the Quality of Our Environment’.

Keep reading

The Economic Folly of a Carbon Tax

The push for a carbon tax has regained popularity as the fiscal storm in 2025 and climate change debates intensify. Advocates claim it’s a solution to pay for spending excesses while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But a carbon tax is a misguided, costly policy that must be rejected.

A carbon tax functions more like an income tax than a consumption tax, capturing all forms of work, including capital goods production and building construction. These sectors are heavy on carbon emissions, meaning the tax disproportionately burdens them, stifling investment and innovation — much like a progressive income tax, but with broader economic repercussions.

For example, in the US, the construction sector alone accounts for about 40 percent of carbon emissions. A carbon tax would heavily penalize this industry, reducing its capacity to grow, generate new housing, and create jobs. Moreover, implementing a carbon tax involves massive administrative costs. The federal tax code is already complex and costly; a carbon tax would exacerbate these issues.

Determining net carbon emissions is a nuanced process subject to ever-changing and arbitrary federal definitions, increasing compliance costs for businesses and consumers.

Keep reading

Climate Research Fails a Science Integrity Test

Last February I documented how PNAS had published a paper — Grinsted et al. 2018 — that was based on a fake ‘dataset” of hurricane losses assembled by a successive set of interns for a now defunct insurance company, for purposes of marketing insurance products. The “dataset” was never intended for research.

I won’t rehash the details here — you can take a deep dive here. The “dataset” simply does not exist and thus the paper’s analysis and conclusions are based on false information. This case is not complicated or difficult to understand.

At the time, I requested of the editor of the paper, Kerry Emanuel of MIT, that the paper be retracted based on its reliance on a fake dataset. Emanuel agreed to escalate my request to PNAS.

Today, I heard back from PNAS that the dataset and paper are without problems and the matter is now closed. I reproduce the full PNAS email to me below. Some highlights:

  • Remarkably, PNAS did not actually examine the dataset in question;
  • PNAS apparently relied instead on an unrelated letter I submitted on the paper’s methods from 2019 — the information I shared with them earlier this year was based on new information, which was apparently ignored.
  • Remarkably, one of the “expert” reviewers wrote: “the conclusions of the Grinsted et al. article do not depend on the ICAT dataset due to the robustness analyses performed with the other datasets.” This is easily shown to be false — The “other” datasets are subsets of the fake dataset, as I explained to PNAS but which they apparently did not read or ignored. Remarkable.
  • The “expert” reviewer wrote that my request: “does not change my impression of the validity of the data, and again ignores the robustness analyses performed with the other datasets.” There are no other datasets. Rather than rely on an “impression,” PNAS could have actually looked at the data and done some simple analyses to confirm my assertions — it might have taken all of 10 minutes.

Today, I emailed Kerry Emanuel, who edited the original paper, and asked if he agreed with the PNAS verdict. He said that he did agree that the paper was fine.

Keep reading

Prof. William Happer: “More CO2 is good for the world”

Why is CO2 good for the world?

“If you look at the geological history … we’re in a CO2 famine now compared to what’s normal for plants. And just about any plant if you give it more CO2, and a lot more, it will do better … most greenhouses double or triple the amount of CO2 … because the plants grow so much better – the quality of the flowers and the fruits are so much better,” Prof. Happer said.

He further explained that since the Cambrian explosion of life “CO2 levels have gone way down.”

The Cambrian explosion refers to the rapid and sudden emergence of complex life forms on Earth, approximately 541 million to 530 million years ago.  It is believed to have laid the foundation for the incredible diversity of life on Earth, with many modern animal groups emerging during this period.

The high levels of carbon dioxide during the Cambrian period may have played a crucial role in the evolution of life on Earth. Studies suggest that carbon dioxide concentrations during the Cambrian period were much higher than they are today. One study found that CO2 levels were 1,000 parts per million (“ppm”) and R.A. Eggleton’s book ‘A Short History of Climate Change’ stated that CO2 levels may have been as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, compared to the current level of around 400 ppm.

“[CO2 levels have] typically been three, four, five times than they are now.  And plants are adapted to much higher levels and so they’re harmed in a number of ways by the low levels [of CO2] now,” Prof. Happer explained.

One of the harms to plants with low CO2 levels is photorespiration.  Photorespiration is an important aspect of plant metabolism and plays a fundamental role in plant growth and development.   When CO2 is low, “the enzyme [plants] use is poisoned by oxygen if there’s not enough CO2, so plants have to devote a lot of their resources to detoxifying this oxygen poisoning [instead of to growth],” he explained. 

“If you double CO2 [the plants] don’t have to work as hard to protect themselves from oxygen.  That’s the main reason greenhouses work better is that you get rid of the oxygen poisoning – the photorespiration,” he said.

Keep reading

Climate Change Causes Earthquakes Now, Y’all

Dear Climate Alarmists: If you want to know why such a high percentage of the public detests you and doesn’t believe anything you say, it’s because of nonsense like the new report from LiveScience.com claiming that ‘climate change’ now causes earthquakes.

No, really, it’s a real report, headlined “Will we have more earthquakes because of climate change?”

Naturally, the story answers that question with a resounding “yes.” Because of course it does. What else would a good climate alarmist say? It’s a requirement to blame literally everything in our lives on the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-causing, all-powerful boogeyman we call ‘climate change.’ If you don’t, you won’t get that next government grant, now, will you?

That’s the game. It’s been the game for 30 years now, and the net effect has been the utter corruption of what we call “science.” The raising of outlandish claims such as this in glaring headlines or by hyperventilating-but-cute weather girls on our local news channels is exactly why a constantly rising percentage of the population holds the field of climate “science” in contempt.

Keep reading