Why I’m so Angry about the Scam of Global Warming
Thankfully, there is plenty of empirical evidence to refute the lies
Why I’m so Angry about the Scam of Global Warming
Those who argue in favour the scam of Global Warming almost invariably denigrate sceptics as “conspiracy theorists”[1]. I’m not interested in “conspiracy theory” and won’t defend “conspiracy theorists” of whatever shape, colour or form.
What I’m interested in (as everybody should be) is the truth, which doesn’t mean that I have a monopoly on the subject.
The search for the truth is an ongoing endeavor or an ongoing adventure, which can never be resolved. The truth is perhaps a hopeless ideal, a Holy Grail, but this oughtn’t deter us or make us give up.
We know more and more, gather more and more information, gain an ever-greater insight but we can never know everything; this is an impossibility. There are always surprises, without which life would be hopelessly dull.
I envy the naive admiration for “climate scientists” who, many seem to believe, are peddling “authentic science”. How nice to know so little and to be so completely unaware! Their superficial, ignorant, conformism to the mainstream narrative (which is controlled by the Global Deep State) doesn’t interest me either.
I have to ask myself, again and again: Why do so few have any ideas of their own? Why do so few make any observations of their own? Why do so few do any research?
Firstly, and most importantly: I remember full well the predictions of “Global Warming” and “Rising Sea Levels” over the course of forty years. Have they happened or not? Why haven’t they happened? Why did it snow in winter in my neck of the woods? Was it despite “Global Warming” (which predicted that there would be no snow) or was it because “Global Warming” is a lie? Why was the summer in my neck of the woods, to a large extent, wet and cold? Was it despite “Global Warming” (which predicted that there would be considerable heat) or was it because “Global Warming” is a lie?
At the end of the day: we need to trust our own experience and the empirical evidence before our very eyes and not some “expert” (who is most probably paid to lie).
Secondly, if one does the research, one finds out about the Club of Rome, the WEF and other Globalists who are using the lie of “Global Warming” to reduce the population and impose a brutal form of Fascism on the world. This is why they created the lie of “Covid”: to impose poisonous injections, which will reduce the world’s population in the coming years (which will then be attributed to “Disease X”).
Without the myth of “Global Warming” they would not have been able to persuade the “middle management” (the bureaucrats etc.) to go along with the “the world is overpopulated” agenda (the world is not overpopulated).
If one reads philosophy or the philosophy of science or studies science itself one will realize that science deals in hypotheticals in which there is never sufficient evidence to prove a theory one way or another (thus a flat mate at university had to relearn what he learned in the first year of university in his third because the theory had changed in the course of two years!).
A theory always remains a theory. If one bothers to do research one will notice that the “climate scientists” have freely admitted that they have faked the data and one will find out how they have done so (by putting the measuring instruments close to hot spots e.g. airports[2] and by messing around with the statistics).
The fact that the warming of the Middle Ages was much greater than any warming today is all one needs to know. Or the fact that the warmest period in the twentieth century was in the 1930s and not at its end (as the “climate scientists” claim)! Apart from which CO2 is a CONSEQUENCE of warming not its CAUSE!
Thankfully, there is plenty of empirical evidence to refute the lies.
[1] I’m fully aware that the term “conspiracy theory” has been pushed by the CIA since 1967 and only knaves or fools (useful idiots) make use of this hackneyed cliché. In the same way that anyone who wasn’t a Nazi in Germany in the 1930s was denounced as a “communist” so anyone who doesn’t conform to the official narrative (who has a mind of their own) is denounced as a “conspiracy theorist”. Those who mistake the infotainment pushed by the Mainstream media (MSM) are like people who mistake McDonalds for first class restaurants selling steaks from Argentina. There’s nothing wrong with McDonalds but there is a problem if one errs in this fashion.
[2] https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/trillions-spent-on-climate-change-rely-on-inaccurate-temperature-readings-and-faulty-modeling-5575177?fbclid=IwAR0-lYGbbetVpTrkJo0DFwU-vmGCsCz6Q0D1O9YCAoUP378vLIdghWTbyUk
Tha New York Times
WAR OF THE WEATHERS
BY Lowell Ponte
April 17, 1976
SANTA MONICA, Calif.— “From space one could control the earth's weather, cause drought and floods, change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, make temperate climates frigid,” then‐Senator Lyndon B. Johnson told a joint session of Congress in 1957. Like many other legislators, he accepted Defense Department fantasies that the United States was in race with the Soviet Union to develop environmental weapons.
Mr. Johnson as President made the fantasies real by ordering rainmaking in Southeast Asia, Between 1967 and 1972 he and President Richard M. Nixon authorized at least $3.6 million annually on secret cloud‐seeding over North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in an attempt to muddy trails and slow enemy movements.
Although in one instance this enhanced rainfall by 30 percent, Pentagon officials call the operations failure. But the Pentagon defends them as humane, saying, “Raindrops don't kill people; bombs do.” (The Department of Defense denies it was seeding over North Vietnam in 1971 when that nation suffered the heaviest rains since 1945. In 1945. a million Vietnamese died of flood and famine.)
Can a nation that tampers with natural balances deny responsibility for what follows? This question, together with recognition that United States policy condemns warfare aimed at civilians, prompted Senator Claiborne Pell in 1973 to introduce a resolution calling for an international treaty to prohibit environmental warfare “or the carrying out of any research or experimentation directed thereto.” The Senate voted 82 to 10 to approve the resolution, which lacks force of law.
Last August, at the 31‐nation United Nations conference of the Committee on Disarmament, in Geneva, the United States and Soviet Union jointly proposed a draft convention to ban “military or any other hostile use of environmental techniques.” Unfortunately it is far weaker than the Senate resolution. For example, it fails to prohibit military research or development of environmental‐modification techniques, and allows all “peaceful” work on such things.
The Pentagon says its Climate Dynamics program, formerly Project Nile Blue, is peaceful and needed to detect Soviet attempts to disrupt North American weather. (Because the treaty appoints no inspection agency to enforce its ban, leaving nations to bring evidence of violations to the United Nations Security Council, treaty ratification would justify increased funding for Climate Dynamics monitoring.)
But Climate Dynamics researchers. using computer models of oceans and atmosphere, have studied ways to melt the polar ice caps, generate destructive storms, and otherwise use “key environmental instabilities” to release huge amounts of energy. They have found how the United States, acting secretly from space, could inflict bad weather on the Soviet Union, thereby ruining harvests and keeping that country dependent on United States grain imports.
In the Soviet Union, engineers are reversing the Arctic‐flowing Pechora River and creating inland seas, actions that experts say will alter global climate. This is “peaceful.”
In 1975 the National Academy of Sciences reported that cooling in the Northern Hemisphere since the 1940's makes the start of a new ice age within 100 years a small but real possibility. Scientists cannot determine whether the cooling is caused by humans or if one nation's had weather is caused by another's weather‐modification programs, so the potential for hostility arising from such programs is obvious. Global climatic changes will prompt many nations to use such modification techniques, but the world's unstable political climate demands that such techniques be internationally regulated, with adequate safeguards and with reparations for those who suffer drought or storm damage.
The draft treaty could be a step toward such regulation. But the treaty allows some weather warfare by prohibiting only techniques having “widespread, long‐lasting or severe effects harmful to human welfare.” What does this mean? The tiniest tampering with natural balances can set off chain reactions with unforeseen consequences.
Senator Pell and Representatives Gilbert Gude and Donald M. Fraser have proposed that all United States environmental‐modification research—by civilians, the military and the Central Intelligence Agency—he put under Congressional control. Until this is done and the United States amends the draft treaty to eliminate loopholes and cloudy language, few nations will believe we want environmental warfare banned.
Lowell Ponte is author of the forthcoming booh “The Cooling,” about climatic change and modification.
The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
April 17, 1976, Page 16
https://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/17/archives/war-of-the-weathers.html
⭐️ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202947926002353&set=a.3919411746962&type=3&app=fbl
Worth noting: In 1892, at the Geneva Convention, the smartest man in the oil industry J.D. Rockefeller paid scientists to call oil a 'fossil fuel' to induce the idea of scarcity, in order to set a 'world price for oil'. The truth is that oil is actually the second-most prevalent liquid on earth next to water, and regenerates within the earth faster than it can ever be used. It will never run out.