The Climate Change Agenda

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: The Climate Change Agenda

Unread post by rachel »

F4DrVAYWkAArb9C.jpg
F4EGPJiaEAAxkuV.jpg
F4ENEmMbcAAqhSz.jpg
F4HRefxaoAA8ntn.jpg
Samson79
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:50 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 111 times

Re: The Climate Change Agenda

Unread post by Samson79 »

Those memes :lol: :lol: :D
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 261 times

G20 2023: One Earth, One Family, One Future

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

I didn't know where to post this but climate change should work, I found the design worth showing. They put the lands in blue on their logo which is disconcerting.
logo.png
Their motto:
One Earth, One Family, One Future
OneEarth7.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konark_Sun_Temple
28 ft tall structure (4*7)
shiva.png
Not as odd as the one at CERN since the event was held in India but they probably built it for the same reason.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: The Climate Change Agenda

Unread post by rachel »

Confirmed ☠️

Climate Change ⇄ Chemical Agent

F7xHopHWcAAsi9-.jpg

Another one...

F6bCWANXYAAR6O7.jpg
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

The King of Babylon - COP28

Unread post by rachel »

King Charles: The Only Head Of State On The COP28 Podium - UK Column News



Article referenced in video:
https://www.mercatornet.com/the_environ ... _sacrifice
THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CULT DEMANDS HUMAN SACRIFICE
Augusto Zimmermann, November 22, 2023


The modern environmentalist movement is often compared to a religion. Indeed, a great number of environmentalists are Gaia worshipers who perceive ‘Mother Earth’ as a living entity. These individuals possess an apocalyptic view of the world and their approach to the ‘environment’ is intimately associated with the worship of nature. More about this later.

We are constantly told by the believers in “global warming” that the temperature is increasing, the seas are rising, the ice is shrinking, and the polar bears are vanishing. These claims are not supported by conclusive evidence; indeed, the opposite appears to be the case considering predictions usually fail. However, the unshakable belief that carbon dioxide emissions are heating up the Earth’s atmosphere to a catastrophic degree has been afforded the status of religious dogma.

Naturally, a reasonable concern to avoid pollution and preserve our natural resources in a responsible manner is a commendable ethical position. However, ‘environmentalist’ efforts to cut carbon emissions make energy less affordable and accessible, which drives up the costs of consumer products, stifles economic growth, costs jobs, and imposes harmful effects on the Earth’s poorest people.

By contrast, allocating monetary resources to help build sewage treatment plants, enhance sanitation, and provide clean water for poor people would have a greater immediate impact on their plight than would the battle over alleged ‘global warming’.


Ulterior motive

It should come as no surprise that Australian governments across all jurisdictions have embraced the idea that global warming is happening, humans are to blame, and that doing something drastic about it is in the country’s best interest. Australia has even created a government Minister for ‘Climate Change’, suggesting that politicians can save us by appeasing the ‘gods of the weather’!

Arguably, our politicians are assisting in the fabrication of a “climate crisis” so as to sell their own solution, namely big government. So, the government, previously viewed as a ‘necessary evil’ and potential violator of basic rights and freedoms, now becomes our ultimate “saviour”. Call this a form of idolatry if you wish.

Global warming theory rests on the belief that rising carbon dioxide levels drive up the temperature of the atmosphere. Despite this degree of terrifying environmental alarmism and crippling government spending to curb ‘carbon emissions’, historically, temperature increases have often preceded high carbon dioxide levels, destroying this theory of cause and effect. The fact is that the world has always warmed and cooled, and the theory of anthropomorphic global warming contradicts what we know historically to be the case.

Nonetheless, according to Senator James Paterson'
  • The public shaming and bullying of any scientist who differs from climate change orthodoxy is eerily reminiscent of a latter-day Salem Witch-trial or Spanish Inquisition, with public floggings meted out – metaphorically speaking – for their thought crimes. Indeed, ‘dissenters’, as they have also been labelled, suffer ritual humiliation at the hands of their colleagues and the media, with their every motivation questioned and views pilloried.
Global warming is subject to empirical refutation with accumulated evidence of cooling. So, when the temperature rises, we hear, “Wow, that’s clear evidence of climate change”. But when climate takes a rapid cooling turn, we hear, “Wow, that’s more proof of climate change”. This is obviously a tautology – anything that happens, no matter what it is, can be attributed to a single theory. And if anything happens, no matter what it is, that can be attributed to a single theory, is quintessentially a totalitarian theory, such as global warming.

According to Jonah Goldberg, the founding editor of National Review Online, “the beauty about global warming is that it touches everything we do – what we eat, what we wear, where we go. Our “carbon footprint’ is the measure of man”. In other words, the idea of “climate change” is essentially irrefutable, because somewhere, in some way, the climate is always changing. And any theory that is not refutable is not scientific; it is religion.


Anti-natalist

We have come to the point that even a new human life is seen as a threat to “Mother Earth”, where some candidly contend that new babies represent an undesirable source of greenhouse emissions and consumers of natural resources. Forgoing children and even having an abortion is thereby promoted in Australia as environmentally friendly, while childless women are doing their bit to reduce the carbon footprint of civilisation.

For example, an adjunct professor of medicine at the University of Notre Dame Australia and clinical associate professor in medicine at the University of Western Australia, believes that childbearing is a “greenhouse unfriendly behaviour”. He seriously wants the Australian government to consider population control measures like China’s, with its one-child-per-family policy backed by draconian penalties, sterilisation and forced abortions.

This type of thinking is reminiscent of the ancient pagan religions. History teaches us that some ancient civilisations killed their children to change the weather. They used to practice child sacrifice to appease their gods in an attempt to court their good graces. Those primitive peoples believed that through human sacrifice, the forces of nature could be coerced in their favour. For example, the ancient Aztecs honoured their gods by killing people in a field with arrows so that their blood might fertilise the land.

Tragically, not only are the young generations being fooled into forgoing children due to the fear of endangering the planet, but they are also terminating their healthy pregnancy, with some going so far as to openly claim that it was done in service of climate goals. A married woman once told a newspaper that “not having a child is the most environmentally friendly thing she could do.” The same article reports another woman who terminated her pregnancy in the firm belief that:
  • Having children is selfish… Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of overpopulation.
Of course, concerns about overpopulation growth are not new. In 1968, ecologist Paul Ehrlich echoed 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus when he predicted worldwide famine due to overpopulation and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb was one of the most influential books of the last century. “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come,” he said in a prophetic tone, more than 50 years ago.

Needless to say, these apocalyptical predictions never came true. Despite all the worry, access to food and resources increased as the global population rose.

Obviously, this has not stopped some environmental activists from continuing to make similarly bizarre statements about humanity and the future of our planet. Prince Philip, the late Duke of Edinburgh, commented in 1988: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation”. Clearly, he felt so strongly about this that he later would say the following: “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus”.

We should be deeply suspicious of any argument that employs language that refers to humans as an “invasive virus”, a “plague”, or even a “problem” that needs to be resolved. Some environmentalists even lament that neither war nor famine are capable of reducing the population enough and prefer the arrival of a deadly virus to prey on the innocent. This type of argument betrays an apocalyptic desire to bring death and destruction at a large scale. It is a type of religious thinking that reveals a sinister desire to eliminate human beings in search of some utopian small number of sustainable survivors.

-----------------
And from the main blog:
https://fakeologist.com/where-is-everyb ... tion-hoax/

Where is everybody? The population hoax
Kim Osbøl - Copenhagen Denmark
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Net Zero

Unread post by rachel »

We need to get rid of King Charles and all of his family...They are murderous pagan dickheads.

https://alethonews.com/2023/12/21/brita ... ower-scam/
Britain’s Net Zero Disaster and the Wind Power Scam
By Rupert Darwall | RealClear Energy | December 20, 2023


“This is not about complicated issues of cryptocurrency,” assistant U.S. attorney Nicolas Roos declared in the Sam Bankman-Fried trial, after accusing the defendant of building FTX on a “pyramid of deceit.” Much the same can be said about the foundations of Britain’s net zero experiment. Energy is complicated, and electricity is essential to modern society and our quality of life, but as with FTX, the underlying story is straightforward: wind power and net zero are built on a pyramid of deceit.

Net zero was sold to Parliament and the British people on claims that wind-power costs were low and falling. This was untrue: wind-power costs are high and have been rising. In the net zero version of “crypto will make you rich,” official analyses produced by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility rely on the falsehood that wind power is cheap, that net zero would have minimal costs, and that it could boost productivity and economic growth. None of these has any basis in reality.

The push for net zero began in 2019, when the U.K.’s Climate Change Committee produced a report urging the government to adopt the policy. Part of the justification was historic climate guilt. In the words of committee chair Lord Deben, Britain had been “one of the largest historical contributors to climate change.” But the key economic justification for raising Britain’s decarbonization from 80% to 100% by 2050 – i.e., net zero – was “rapid cost reductions during mass deployment for key technologies,” notably in offshore wind. These illusory cost reductions, the committee claimed, “have made tighter emission reduction targets achievable at the same costs as previous looser targets.” It was green snake oil.

During the subsequent 88-minute debate in the House of Commons to write net zero into law, the clean-energy minister, Chris Skidmore, also asserted that net zero’s cost would be the same as the previous 80% target, which Parliament had approved in 2008. Challenged by a Labour MP on the absence of a regulatory-impact assessment, Skidmore misled Parliament, saying that there had been no regulatory-impact assessment in respect of raising the initial 60 percent target to 80 percent.

The regulatory-impact assessment that Skidmore says doesn’t exist gave a range of £324 billion to £404 billion when the target was raised to 80% – an estimate that excluded transitional costs – and cautioned that costs could exceed this range. Unlike today’s political pronouncements, the assessment was honest about the consequences of Britain acting if the rest of the world did not. “The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action cannot be achieved would be weak,” it warned.

The Climate Change Act was passed to show Britain’s climate leadership and inspire the rest of the world to follow its example. How did that work out? In the 11 years that transpired from passing the Act to legislating net zero in 2019, Britain’s fossil fuel emissions fell by 180 million metric tons – a 33% reduction. Over the same period, the rest of the world’s emissions increased by 5,177 million metric tons – a rise of 16%. Put another way, 11 years of British emissions reduction were wiped out in around 140 days by increased emissions from the rest of the world.

Someone who claims that he’s a leader but who has no followers is typically regarded as a fool. It’s different with climate. Politicians parade their green virtue – Skidmore is to quit the House of Commons, and he teaches net zero studies at Harvard’s Kennedy School – while voters get mugged with higher energy bills. Analysis of Britain’s Big Six energy companies’ regulatory filings reveals that fuel-input costs for gas and coal-fired power stations were flat from 2009 to 2020. Still, the average price per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity paid by households rose 67%, driven by high environmental levies to subsidize renewable-energy investors. Yet supposedly the cost of renewable energy has plummeted.

During Prime Minister’s Questions earlier this year, Rishi Sunak claimed the cost of offshore wind had fallen from £140 per megawatt hour (MWh) to £40 per MWh, numbers assiduously propagated by the wind lobby and the Climate Change Committee. His claim is flat-out false. The prime minister has been suckered by falling per MWh price bids made by wind investors in successive allocation-round bids for offshore wind subsidies.

The explanation for this is to be found not in falling costs but in a flawed bidding process that rewards opportunistic bidding by wind investors. The government was giving away valuable options that commit the government to honor the prices paid for winning bids but commit investors to nothing. Because investors don’t pay anything for these options, the only way they can get them is by cutting the price they offer – but are not obliged to take – for their electricity unless they choose to exercise their options much later in the process.

Falling prices in successive allocation rounds are thus an artefact of moral hazard hardwired into the allocation mechanism; they reveal nothing about the trend in the costs of offshore wind. Analysis of audited financial data of wind farm companies undertaken by a handful of independent researchers comprehensively debunks the falling wind costs claim. The unavoidable move to deeper waters offset any cost reductions and operating costs per MWh of electricity for new offshore wind projects; the prices for the move are around double those assumed in the subsidy bids.

Preeminent among these researchers is Gordon Hughes, a former economics professor at Edinburgh University and adviser to the World Bank on power plant economics. Hughes’s analysis shows that by the twelfth year of operation, rising per MWh operating costs of deep-water wind turbines exceed their government-guaranteed prices, squeezing out their capacity to repay their capital and financing costs.

The intermittency and variability of wind and solar led the government to create a capacity market to pay for standby generation. In any economic appraisal of renewables, the costs of running the capacity market should be allocated to wind and solar as their intermittency and variability create the need for it. Electricity procured from the capacity market is not cheap. In 2020, German-owned Uniper’s thermal power stations obtained an average price of £224 per MWh, around four times the typical wholesale price.

Confirmation that offshore wind has huge, likely insuperable, cost and operating difficulties came in June, when Siemens Energy issued a shock profits warning and saw its shares plunge by 37 percent, in part because of higher-than-anticipated turbine failure rates. According to Hughes, the implication is that future wind operating costs will be higher, and output significantly lower, shortening the turbines’ economic lives. His conclusion is crushing:

The whole justification for the falling costs of wind generation rested on the assumption that much bigger wind turbines would produce more output at lower capex cost per megawatt, without the large costs of generational change. Now we have confirmation that such optimism is entirely unjustified . . . It follows that current energy policies in the UK, Europe and the United States are based on foundations of sand – naïve optimism reinforced by enthusiastic lobbying divorced from engineering reality.

The British government has been conned into placing a massive bet on offshore wind and is forcing electricity consumers to spend billions of pounds on a dead-end technology.

The falling cost of wind deception contaminates official assessments of the macroeconomic consequences of net zero. The Office for Budget Responsibility claims that the cost of low-carbon generation has fallen so fast that it is now cheaper than fossil fuel generation. Similarly, the Treasury erroneously took falling prices in wind subsidy allocation rounds as indicating falling wind costs. Both see the economy riddled with multiple layers of market failures, while not recognizing the real danger of government policy being captured by vested interests, as, indeed, it has been. Taken to its logical conclusion, theirs is an argument for switching to central planning and a command-and-control economy.

The Treasury argues that “other things being equal,” the added investment required by renewable energy “will translate into additional GDP growth.” Other things, of course, are not equal. As recent history shows, there’s a world of difference between investors and politicians making capital-allocation decisions. The centrally planned economies of the former communist bloc squandered colossal amounts of capital, immiserating their populations. Few now believe that investment in those economies boosted growth.

We don’t need to hypothesize. Government data disprove the Treasury’s contention and demonstrate that increasing deployment of renewable capacity reduces the productivity of Britain’s grid. In 2009, 87.3 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity, comprising only 5.1 percent of wind and solar, generated 376.8 terrawatt hours (TWh) of electricity. In 2020, 100.9 GW of generating capacity, with wind and solar accounting for 37.6 percent of capacity, produced 312.3 TWh of electricity. Thanks to renewables, 13.6 GW (15.6 percent) more generating capacity produced 64.5 TWh (17.1 percent) less electricity.

Those numbers are damning for renewables and demonstrate why they make electricity more expensive and people poorer. Before mass deployment of renewables, 1 MW of capacity in 2009 produced 4,312 MWh of electricity. In 2020, 1 MW of capacity generated 3,094 MWh, a decline of 28.3 percent. It’s as clear as can be: investment in renewables shrinks the economy’s productive potential. This is confirmed by the International Energy Agency’s net zero modelling. Its net zero pathway sees the global energy sector in 2030 employing nearly 25 million more people, using $16.5 trillion more capital and taking an additional land area the combined size of California and Texas for wind and solar farms and the combined size of Mexico and France for bioenergy – all to produce 7 percent less energy.

Britain’s energy-policy disaster has lessons for America. The physics and economics of wind power are not magically transformed when they cross the Atlantic. Whenever a politician or wind lobbyist touts wind as low-cost or says net zero will boost growth, they become accessories to the wind power scam. The data lead ineluctably to a decisive conclusion: net zero is anti-growth. It is a formula for prolonged economic stagnation. Anyone who wants the truth about renewables should look at Britain and the sorry state of its economy. For the last decade and a half, it has been going through its worst period of growth since 1780.

Unlike in business and finance, there are no criminal or civil penalties for those who promote policies based on fraud and misrepresentation. Rather, net zero is similar to communism. Like net zero, communism was based on a lie: that it would outproduce capitalism. But it failed to produce, and belief in communism evaporated. When the collapse came, it was sudden and rapid. The truth could not be hidden. A similar fate awaits net zero.

Rupert Darwall is a senior fellow of the RealClear Foundation and author of The Folly of Climate Leadership: Net Zero and Britain’s Disastrous Energy Policies.
https://assets.realclear.com/files/2023 ... l-v7_1.pdf
pasterno
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2023 12:50 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: The Climate Change Agenda

Unread post by pasterno »

I think what's behind it is the threatening power of Europe to US hegemony.

Only in Europe "climate change" policy is having any effect and is leading to de-industrialisation.

At this moment in Europe countries are closing down heavy industry, power plants and intensive agriculture.

This will lead to impoverisation, the decline of Europe vs the US, and secure the dollar hegemony.

Meanwhile China is industrializing as is the US.
y.png
x.png
https://www.swift.com/our-solutions/com ... tre?page=0

In the graphs we see the currencies as share as a global payment's currency

And we see the very fast decline of Europe now in the use of the Euro.

I think the fake Ukraine war, the fake "climate crisis" is just there to bring Europe down and secure the current power structure in the world.

Europe is a weak continent, with weak politicians, weak financial and industrial policy and weak people at this moment, a little toy for the cat.

Anyhow you would wish your worst enemy "climate policy".
napoleon
Posts: 3720
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:23 pm
Has thanked: 1663 times
Been thanked: 664 times

Re: The Climate Change Agenda

Unread post by napoleon »

the script is sett ,theres only one way of changing the plan and that is to find something more news worthy that eventually will eat up the narrative and spit it out
xileffilex
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:57 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 344 times

Re: The Climate Change Agenda

Unread post by xileffilex »

Tony Heller shows the criminal element of the climate change hoax

If you don't like the data, you just make them up yourself to suit the agenda.
It's a little more serious than faking a PhD.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: The Climate Change Agenda

Unread post by rachel »

https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1748317807006118335
How kind of the temperatures to wait for the 'consensus' to be established in 1979.
As soon as the 'consensus' formed, the temperatures started increasing.
GENFiSvWkAE1k9_.png
Post Reply