22 of the left-wing activist groups listed as partners in the Global Climate Strike received $24,854,592 in funding from liberal billionaire George Soros
Climate Change or Global Warming is a false flag designed to scare us (the sheep) into submission. It is easier to get a large group of people to bend to your whims by fear than violence.
If they scare us into shredding the constitution they don’t have to use brute force and (totalitarianism) war to get the same result. If the economy tanks in the process & all private wealth of Earth’s citizens is depleted at the same time it’s a win win.
“The Green New Deal was never about the CLimate, it was a change the economy kind of thing.” AOC Chief of Staff June 2019.
Why would a freshman democrat congresswoman want to push a bill that is so invasive and completely overhauls every US citizens life down to the food they eat and the car they drive? Why did a political nobody with no family money or name behind her end up on the cover on Time after being in office just 3 months? What has this Woman done to be so famous?
That’s right. She’s done zip. However she is backed by BIG MONEY! Al Jazeera & I’m sure Mr. George Soros. Her PR Agent bill alone is tens of thousands a month at least. She can not and does not afford that bill.
She is influential to the biggest demographic group in the Nation. The Millennials. They love her. The millennials are catered to by every industry. They have so much power in the retail/food industry they have been accused of chain restaurants going out of business. Simply because they don’t eat at places like Applebee’s. If the dems can monopolize this groups vote plus the illegals (don’t even BS me and try and say they don’t vote or their ID’s aren’t used on mail in ballots!) they actually have a good shot at beating Trump in 2020.
That is the only goal for the Democrats from 2016-2020: Get rid of Donald Trump at any cost by any measure. I’ve discussed this in other blogs.
NOW FOR THE CLIMATE HOAX FACTS YOU CAN USE TO TRIGGER LIBERALS.
COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE: LOOK AT THE CO2 LEVELS :
The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%.
Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for ABOUT A TENTH OF A PERCENT (1/10 OF %) of the atmosphere.
Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.
REMEMBER THE OZONE LAYER HOLE SCAM ?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H. L. Mencken
The claim was that the ozone hole was going to cause skin cancer in Australia by allowing too much ultra-violet light through the atmosphere.
There are lots of problems with this claim.
First problem is that the ozone hole never extends beyond Antarctica, and only appears in the winter, when there isn’t any sunlight. Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere by sunlight. You can’t get skin cancer from sunlight during times when the sun isn’t shining. As soon as the sun comes back out over Antarctica, the ozone hole disappears. How are people in Australia going to get skin cancer from an ozone hole thousands of miles away during winter when the sun is low in the sky?
Second problem is that the ozone hole size varies tremendously from year to year, despite relatively steady levels of CFC’s in the atmosphere. It is quite clear that CFC’s are not the controlling factor.
Just like the global warming scam, the ozone hole scam was another opportunity for government to tax and control, and another opportunity for scientists to imagine themselves saving the planet.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
H. L. Mencken
FACTS THAT DISPROVE:
- The CFC’s and all those ozone-depleting things that they came up with are in fact too heavy to make it up to the ozone layer to do the damage they claim it is doing. However, how many of you bothered to research it, or knew that was even a thing
- Our Sun is always going through its own climate change. Every eleven years, the sun undergoes radical changes from within, which start with its core and magnetic properties. When these changes peak, we see an upturn in solar storms erupting in huge mass ejections of plasma and other forms of radiation. Those storms on the sun, affect weather around the globe. As a side note, it is worth mentioning that skin cancers seem to rise with these storms, and then ebb as the sun goes into a different phase of its ‘activity.’
- For more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal. But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread. SOURCE
A well-known NASA scientist Michaels raised the concern that scientific consensus, meant to be objective has been hijacked by those with something to gain by pushing the narrative catastrophic climate change is happening. He also makes the point that a lot of climate change projections, particularly that which is human induced, is based on modelling and different models provide widely different projections.
Unsurprisingly, those who predict imminent calamity adopt the model based on a worst-case scenario.
Did you know that there is no conclusive, peer reviewed paper using real world data and not computer modelled data which proves that CO2 drives global temperature rises?
The raw data quite rightly shows that CO2 rises follow a temperature rise not the other way around. Which makes sense as when the earth warms, the ocean evaporates and as the oceans are the single largest areas of CO2 capture on the planet, the CO2 which is stored there is released into the atmosphere as the water evaporates.
It’s only when Climate ‘Sciences’ computer modelling is used that miraculously the rise in CO2 precedes the temperature rises. Its complete bullshit and if you had a modicum of knowledge about the energy companies like Shell, BP and Exxon etc. as I worked in that industry for 30 years, you’d know that these companies are the ones far more heavily invested in renewables than anyone else.
They ARE the renewable energy industry
They are in receipt of huge amounts of taxpayer subsidies to develop new, energy sources and their profits are enhanced because of it.
Climatologist Judith Curry
The professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. One of the 500 Scientists to send scathing letter to UN calling their climate hoax a lie last week.
She also runs a great blog and is a fighter for accurate science regarding the climate and for no free speech censorships. Let’s hear some more FACTS to rile up the left.
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
THOMAS: What empirical evidence is there, as distinct from modelling, that ‘missing heat’ has gone into the deep oceans?
CURRY: Basically, none. Observations below 2 km in the ocean are exceedingly rare, and it is only since 2005 that we have substantial coverage below 700 meters.
THOMAS: Are you supportive of the line that the ‘quiet sun’ presages an era of global cooling in the next few decades?
CURRY: One of the unfortunate consequences of the focus on anthropogenic forcing of climate is that solar effects on climate have been largely neglected. I think that solar effects, combined with the large-scale ocean-circulation regimes, presage continued stagnation in global temperatures for the next two decades.
THOMAS: If the skeptic/orthodox spectrum is a range from 1 (intense skeptic) to 10 (intensely IPCC orthodox), where on the scale would you put yourself and why has there been a shift (if any)?
CURRY: In early 2009, I would have rated myself as 7; at this point I would rate myself as a 3. Climategate and the weak response of the IPCC and other scientists triggered a massive re-examination of my support of the IPCC and made me look at the science much more skeptically.
50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low-lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.
Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.
Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt
THE CHANGE IN CLAIM:
Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.
61% Fake Data
The vast majority of high quality long-term temperature data comes from the US, and in fact much of the planet has little or no long-term temperature data. Because of the poor coverage, it is doubtful that the published global temperature record has any scientific validity. The US is one of very few places with reliable temperature data.
In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020 (next year.)
But three years later, NOAA reported that there had been no warming in the US over the past century
And by 1999, Hansen’s US temperature data (left graph below) showed cooling since the 1940s.
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
This was very disturbing to both NASA and NOAA. Their CO2 warming theory was failing badly, so they simply changed the data, turning cooling into warming. This happened at the same time Michael Mann was erasing the Medieval Warm Period.
The blue line below shows the five year mean of the average annual temperature at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network Stations. The red line shows the graph they release to the public, which has been highly altered to create the appearance of warming – which does not exist in the thermometer data.
If they believe there is error in the data, the correct way to handle it is to leave the data intact, and put error bars on it. Not alter the data and pass it to the public as if it represents the actual thermometer data.
The next graph shows the adjustments they are making, which creates a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering since the 1960s.
Plotted with atmospheric CO2 on the X-axis instead of time, it becomes apparent that the data is being altered precisely (R² = 0.97) to match global warming theory. The ultimate junk science.
Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up. In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.
I grouped the NOAA adjusted temperatures into two groups:
- Measured and adjusted (blue)
- Estimated (red)
Almost all of the US warming since 1990 is due to fake data from computer models, which now makes up 60% of the data.
But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees warming by 2020. Of course they still has a few more months to heat the US up six degrees.
There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.
There is only one possible conclusion regarding the reliability of climate predictions. Outspoken catastrophic-minded climate scientists and high-ranking officials don’t have a clue about future climate and its consequences and are inventing catastrophic predictions for their own interest. Government policies should not be based on their future predictions.
Another conclusion is that studies and opinions about future climate are heavily biased towards negative outcomes that fail to materialize, while ignoring positive outcomes that are materializing.