Tag: climategate

The Rockefellers Created 990 “Climate Change” Institutions, Foundations, And Activist Groups

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 million 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, financing, and launch them on 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 50’s they began to stand up countless institutions, committees, university departments, university institutes, foundations, and policy shops gathered around this one idea…

Let’s just pause here and recognize that the United States and Canada are 5% developed. If it were 50%, then maybe we would have reason to worry about the effects of trace gas that takes up .04% of the atmosphere, of which 3% is currently contributed to by humans. But were we to have that level of development, our science would have long ago solved the problem. Our sense of proportion, size and consequence has been twisted, propagandized via hundreds of billions of purposed dollars. And all of it is exaggerated science done by scientists compromised by Rockefeller money.

By 1998, the Rockefeller family had swept the table clean of any opposition to this one idea. Any scientist not on board with the agenda was imperiled. Any university department not working towards this one artificial goal, was in danger of being marginalized. Infiltration had begun into every media organization, every entertainment division of every major corporation. This, as stated below, would be a generational goal. For everyone. Or get off the bus.

Keep reading

Climate and climate change do not cause or influence weather

It is now a ubiquitous cultural ritual to blame any and every weather event on climate change. Those hot days? Climate change. That hurricane? Climate change. The flood somewhere that I saw on social media? Climate change.

With today’s post, the first in a series, I go beyond the cartoonish media caricatures of climate change, which I expect are here to stay, and explore the actual science of extreme events – how they may or may not be changing, and how we think we know what we know, and what we simply cannot know.

Quite apart from the outsized and oversimplified role of climate-fuelled extreme weather in culture and politics, climate is fascinating and important – and worth understanding as more than a meme. This post lays the groundwork for this new The Honest Broker (“TBH”) series, starting with some important definitions and a quantitative thought experiment.

Let’s start with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) definition of “climate”(bold emphasis added):

In a narrow sense, climate is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

Climate refers to a “statistical description”1 of the climate system, defined as:

The global system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere and the interactions between them. The climate system changes in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations, orbital forcing, and anthropogenic forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land use change.

Keep reading

Net Zero Will Boost the Economy? Pull the Other One

According to a recent Bloomberg article, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has urged the next Government to “put Net Zero at the heart of its economic plans” in order to achieve a “£57 billion economic boost by going green”. The article draws from a recent speech by CBI Chief Exec Rain Newton-Smith, in which she argued that “the next Government can’t be pro-growth and deliver for our people, planet and communities, without being pro-green”. This claim is in turn based on an analysis from CBI Economics, “which found that the U.K.’s Net Zero sector grew by 9% in 2023, a year when the U.K. economy fell into technical recession”.

If it is true, it is remarkable, surely, that a sector of the U.K. economy could grow at such a rate, despite headwinds. And it would indeed be an extremely foolish Government that ignored such a stark metric. But the CBI has form in making big statements about the direction that U.K. Governments should take, including most famously an injunction that Britain should ditch the pound and join the Eurozone – a policy position which Vote Leave later revealed likely to be related to the fact that “12% of the CBI’s retained income” came from the European Commission. “Since 2009, the CBI has received £7,031,797 from 140 taxpayer-funded public sector bodies in membership fees,” explained Vote Leave in 2015. Might funding sources also explain its arguments for a doubling down on Net Zero policy?

Keep reading

Net Zero will Destroy You, Your Family and Everything You Love

The drive towards Net Zero is fuelled by the climate change myth and is based on a delicately balanced raft of pseudoscientific evidence and fake news material which are used by professional propagandists and skilled conspirators to sustain the notion that fossil fuels are threatening our world and our very existence.

The myth they have created has been propagated with absurd enthusiasm by small but vocal teams of compliant and easily led enthusiasts, most of whom almost certainly believe that the lies they have been told are the truth and that if we do not make substantive changes to our way of life then we have no future. They’ve been taught that the seas will boil and rise up to engulf the land, life as we have known it will become impossible and the human race will be doomed.

As a result of this nonsensical belief (which is no better established in science than the equally absurd but far less dangerous and damaging theories that the Earth is flat, there are no germs and that gravity does not exist) governments around the world now argue that they have no choice but to take drastic action to save us from doom. Aided and abetted by gullible, easily led, virtue-signalling leaders of charities, lobby groups, bankers and investment groups, action is, therefore, being taken to halt the use of all fossil fuels and to change every aspect of the way we live.

The Supreme Court in the UK has ruled that a local council should have considered the climate impact of burning oil before allowing new wells. This will put all future oil and gas projects in doubt both in the UK and in the EU. A Swiss woman won a victory at the European Court of Human Rights to force Switzerland to do more to deal with the myth of climate change. This is all insanity.

The best joke of the century so far is that China is selling solar panels and electric vehicles to the West and burning coal to create the electricity to make them.

And as we in the West are encouraged by the lunatics to condemn fossil fuels no one is allowed to mention that 84% of global energy comes from fossil fuels. (That is just 2% less than in 1973, by the way.) Without oil and gas, we would have to survive on 16% of the energy we use now. Oh, and you can’t make fertiliser or fly planes with solar power or ugly, bird-crunching windmills.

Keep reading

Geoengineering Foes Say ‘No’ to Pouring 60K Gallons of Sodium Hydroxide Into Waters Off Cape Cod

Biodiversity advocates on Wednesday called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reject a new geoengineering project spearheaded by researchers in Massachusetts that one critic said would do “nothing to solve the root causes of the climate crisis and instead puts at risk the oceans’ natural capacity to absorb carbon and their role in sustaining life on Earth.”

Friends of the Earth (FOE) and other groups warned that an experiment called LOC-NESS by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) carries “potentially catastrophic risks” for the Atlantic Ocean, where researchers have proposed dumping more than 60,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide near Cape Cod to test a “carbon dioxide removal approach” called Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE).

WHOI’s website states that the experiment would involve the release of “nontoxic, fluorescent Rhodamine WT dye into the ocean from a research ship,” with researchers tracking the dye’s movement over 72 hours in order to determine whether the ocean’s alkalinity could be enhanced.

If so, the scientists say, they could ultimately help to regulate atmospheric carbon.

The EPA’s notice about the proposed study from last month, however, says that the project “would involve a controlled release of a sodium hydroxide solution”—which is “essentially lye, a substance known to cause chemical burns and one that must be handled with great care,” according to Tom Goldtooth, co-founder and member of the board of directors of the national Climate Justice Alliance.

Keep reading

The climate fear-mongering enterprise behind the Planetary Boundaries to stabilise population growth

There is nothing new about fear-mongering propaganda being disseminated by politicians and corporate media, but they are now joined by “scientists.”

A fair amount of catastrophic climate change propaganda has made its way into the scientific method and perhaps in no venue more clearly than the Planetary Boundaries framework, Dr. Jessica Weinkle writes and explains where it comes from and what is driving the narrative.

Last month we published an article that brought attention to the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (“FAO’s”) roadmap to achieve its “global commitment to transform agrifood systems.”  The FAO is an agency of the United Nations.

To publicise this scheme, in January, FAO chief economist Maximo Torero Cullen said a roadmap is necessary because “we are violating six of the nine planetary boundaries.”

In September, 20 scientists funded by the European Research Council, the German government, the Carlsberg Foundation and the Volkswagen Foundation published a paper “establishing” 9 planetary boundaries. They determined that 6 of their 9 boundaries had been “crossed.”

As we read Dr. Weinkle’s article below about what is behind the Planetary Boundaries narrative, we should bear in mind that she also writes for The Breakthrough Institute, whose funders include some of the usual suspects driving the false climate change crisis narrative, such as Profiteer Bill Gates (see ‘About the Author’). Why is this relevant? For one thing, while people may feel free to expose nefarious actors, there is the possibility that this freedom might be limited to those who do not fund them.

Keep reading

Exposed: How Climate Racketeers Aim to Force Us into Smart Gulags

Shocking evidence is emerging from Australia and New Zealand of how the climate scam is being used to impose a techno-totalitarian smart-city future.

The criminocratic global imperialists often use their Commonwealth colonies to try out the most insidious escalations of their tyranny – think of Canada, New Zealand and Australia during Covid.

We can therefore assume that this is going to be the blueprint for the roll-out of their Fourth Industrial Revolution agenda across the world.

The sinister scheme in question, called “Managed Retreat”, has been exposed by independent researcher Kate Mason on her excellent Substack blog aimed at “deconstructing 4IR narratives”.

The idea is that exaggerated “modelling” of the imagined effects of “climate change” is being used to define certain areas as unsuitable for human settlement.

Working hand in hand with the state is the insurance industry – long a central part of the corrupt criminocratic empire – which deems homes in these areas to be “uninsurable”.

Banks are also playing their part (of course!) saying they are unwilling to provide mortgages for these “uninsurable” properties.

Keep reading

War What Is It Good For? Money, Money, Money

Israel’s war on Palestine has generated the equivalent of burning 675,000 tons of coal and causing 166.5 million tons of debris.  Thousands of zoo animals have died of starvation.   Pets have been bombarded with bombs and died due to lack of water.   Solid waste up to 300,000 tons have accumulated in makeshift dumps.   Contamination by asbestos and heavy metals, dust and fine particles, toxic waste from hospitals and industries, and diseases spread by decomposing bodies.   Where are the Climate Protesters?

“US’s “War on Terror” has released 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is more warming than the annual emissions of 257 million cars.”  War Games kill an uncounted number of sea mammals and consumable fish.  The US military has the largest climate footprint in the world with Qatar coming in second.  In one year Lockheed Martin contributed 33 megatons of GHG emissions.  Airbus’ contribution was 444 megatons and Raytheon 12.7 megatons.  To charge one electric vehicle uses the same energy for 257 homes.Holcombe, Randall GBest Price: $5.00Buy New $12.90(as of 09:02 UTC – Details)

The Economist, “The exponential growth of solar power will change the world”.  Also from The Economist, “China’s giant solar industry is in trouble”.   Why?  Overcapacity.

Europe is transitioning away from natural gas to hydrogen as their newest green initiative.  The Steam Method of producing hydrogen requires natural gas, water and biomass.  The production of one ton produces 6.7 to 9.3 tons of carbon dioxide.   Electricity from the grid can be used to produce hydrogen through water electrolysis.   What powers the grid?  Don’t we have a water crisis?  Brought to you by our ever evaporating – Scientists.   Those ‘experts’ who routinely falsify their reports to satisfy a quotient.

Call in the aliens – we are making a MESS!

One megaton TNT hydrogen bomb can destroy 80 square miles. Israel dropped 70,000 tons of bombs on Gaza Strip since last October, exceeding World War II bombings in Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined.  36 prisoners in Israeli jails have been tortured to death.   723 health workers have been killed and another 900 injured. 151 journalists have been killed.   And Netanyahu posts a video asking the world for more bombs in order to ‘get it done’.   As in no more Palestinians.  Does The Middle East even know they are all NEXT?

Blinken has made fourteen visits to Israel – flying with his security entourage that includes two US Air Force crews.  More climate change and fossil fuels…  The joke of the century.

Manipulating climate in the Middle East is common.  Manipulating climate for ski resorts is common.   Manipulating climate for war is common.  Eleven US states manipulate climate routinely.  Despite the fact that climate manipulation is human derived, it is not added to the equation.  Why?   Because it would skew their expert scientific dramatization.

According to the DoD, weather manipulation is based on the ‘chaos theory’.  “Any input into the atmospheric “system” via weather modification will result in some unknown and unforeseen output somewhere else. The more chaotic a system is, the more sensitive the system is to small perturbations”.  Some states actually charge a tax for the privilege of their ability to modify OUR weather.  Even though citizens don’t own the sky or the weather –

In Colorado, the state issues ‘permits’ to companies which desire to modify the weather.  The permit costs $100 plus a 2% commercial fee for a five year renewable applicant.  Wind turbines can be shifted or manipulated to cause greater wind speeds.  The larger the wind farm, the more it can alter/shape wind speeds.  The higher wind speeds dry up the land causing droughts.   Droughts require cloud seeding and cause fires.  Cloud seeding alters where the rain will fall.  A circle of events that can destroy a state.

Keep reading

Net Zero Will Prevent Almost Zero Warming, Say Three Top Atmospheric Scientists

Recent calculations by the distinguished atmospheric scientists Richard Lindzen, William Happer and William van Wijngaarden suggest that if the entire world eliminated net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 it would avert warming of an almost unmeasurable 0.07°C. Even assuming the climate modelled feedbacks and temperature opinions of the politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the rise would be only 0.28°C. Year Zero would have been achieved along with the destruction of economic and social life for eight billion people on Planet Earth. “It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain,” note the scientists.

In the U.K., the current General Election is almost certain to be won by a party that is committed to outright warfare on hydrocarbons. The Labour party will attempt to ‘decarbonise’ the electricity grid by the end of the decade without any realistic instant backup for unreliable wind and solar except oil and gas. Britain is sitting on huge reserves of hydrocarbons but new exploration is to be banned. It is hard to think of a more ruinous energy policy, but the Conservative governing party is little better. Led by the hapless May, a woman over-promoted since her time running the education committee on Merton Council, through to Buffo Boris and Washed-Out Rishi, its leaders have drunk the eco Kool-Aid fed to them by the likes of Roger Hallam, Extinction Rebellion and the Swedish Doom Goblin. Adding to the mix in the new Parliament will be a likely 200 new ‘Labour’ recruits with university degrees in buggerallology and CVs full of parasitical non-jobs in the public sector.

Hardly any science knowledge between them, they even believe that they can spend billions of other people’s money to capture CO2 – perfectly good plant fertiliser – and bury it in the ground. As a privileged, largely middle class group, they have net zero understanding of how a modern industrial society works, feeds itself and creates the wealth that pays their unnecessary wages. All will be vying to save the planet and stop a temperature rise that is barely a rounding error on any long-term view.

They plan to cull the farting cows, sow wild flowers where food once grew, take away efficient gas boilers and internal combustion cars and stop granny visiting her grandchildren in the United States. On a wider front, banning hydrocarbons will remove almost everything from a modern society including many medicines, building materials, fertilisers, plastics and cleaning products. It might be shorter and easier to list essential items where hydrocarbons are absent than produce one where they are present. Anyone who dissents from their absurd views is said to be in league with fossil fuel interests, a risible suggestion given that they themselves are dependent on hydrocarbon producers to sustain their enviable lifestyles.

Keep reading

Carbon Tax Dystopia

The financialisation of nature’s resources as an asset class in South East Asia has several manifestations, including carbon credits, green bonds, and other initiatives that promote so called “sustainable development and environmental conservation.” Within the altruistic trappings of tapping into humanity’s desire to “save the planet” and for the perpetual quest to attain “the greater good” mythos, this dystopian road paved with green gold, is nothing short of a giant Ponzi scheme. It is a system of tyrannical control over (complicit) corporations and (unwilling?) citizens, whom shall be herded into a system of carbon tax, carbon credits, lifestyle choice curtailment, and ultimately, deprivation and despair.

Whitney Webb and Mark Goodwin wrote:

In a 2023 article, Lockton’s head of Digital Integration and Special Projects, David Briscoe, wrote that making carbon credits “a stable and trusted currency” would “require the support of the insurance market.” This is because, as Briscoe notes, “voluntary” carbon markets come with risks, particularly because “of the financial values involved.” Per Briscoe, these risks include “non- or under-delivery of forward purchased carbon removal credits,” “start-ups involved in the voluntary carbon market may face insolvency risks,” and “fraud and negligence.” Indeed, mismanagement and fraud has been a major driver of why carbon markets have failed to catch on despite relentless promotion and the adoption of ESG and climate change plans by many of the most powerful names in finance and industry. Instead of addressing the rampant fraud in carbon credits directly, it appears that the high probability of fraud and insolvency has been seen as an opportunity to create a new market for the insurance industry, with carbon credit insurance being framed as the only “feasible” means of de-risking the fraud-prone world of carbon markets, which have been criticized by environmental groups and have been shown to have a negligible impact on climate.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been exploring the creation of a regional carbon market to facilitate the trading of carbon credits among member states. This initiative aims claim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote sustainable development, and generate revenue for participating countries. The ASEAN Carbon Market would allow companies to purchase carbon credits from other companies within the region, incentivizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the use of renewable energy sources.

Keep reading