Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Lol good one!
- Status
ccn
Well-known member
Bill Gates Says He Is ‘The Solution’ To Climate Change So It’s OK To Own Four Private Jets
Bill Gates has the right to fly around the world on private jets while normal people are forced to live in 15 minute cities without freedom of travel, according to Bill Gates himself, who told the BBC he is doing much more than anybody else to fight climate change.Gates claimed that because he continues to “spend billions of dollars” on climate change activism, his carbon footprint isn’t an issue.
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/bill-gat...te-change-so-its-ok-to-own-four-private-jets/
ccn
Well-known member
Wasn't meant to be funny .
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Man, you guys argue my point for me better than I ever could lol
ccn
Well-known member
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Signs Declaration: ‘Climate Change Is a Hoax’
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has joined hundreds of other top scientists in signing the World Climate Declaration (WCD) and declaring that so-called man-made climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global elite.This comes as Democrat President Joe Biden is reportedly “close” to signing an executive order to declare a “climate emergency” in America
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-signs-declaration-climate-change-is-a-hoax/
ccn
Well-known member
They Don’t Want Us to Travel Anywhere
https://expose-news.com/2023/09/08/they-dont-want-us-to-travel-anywhere/
ccn
Well-known member
The below should help you figure what climate change is really about .
The Political Origins Of The ‘Climate Change’ Scam
A Canadian oil magnate and friend of David Rockefeller, Maurice Strong [pictured] set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1992
Strong had been chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Conference, at which he advocated population reduction and the lowering of living standards in the interest of “saving the environment.”
Strong asked:
He also boldly claimed:
Strong had helped found the Club of Rome in 1968, which incorrectly believed that Earth’s population was out of control and using up resources too fast.
Their beliefs stemmed from the mistaken idea advanced by Thomas Malthus in his 1798 essay that the world’s population would outgrow the food supply.
In his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb“, Paul Ehrlich revived Malthus’ idea.
Ehrlich predicted:
Although Ehrlich’s forecasts proved incorrect, many people, some of them billionaires, still believe the world’s population should be as low as one billion – not the current 7.5 billion. (Bill Gates stated this explicitly in a Ted Talk!)
They’re afraid that if Third World people get the energy they need to raise their living standards, the Earth’s population will rise further.
This couldn’t be more untrue. History has shown in every instance that when a population’s living standards increase, the birth rate decreases. This principle is known as the Demographic Transition.
The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, stated:
Here they had hit on something to make people feel guilty for.
A well-known strategy for grabbing power that has been known and used for a long time is:
PROBLEM → REACTION → SOLUTION
Those in power create a problem or crisis that is real or imagined.
They sell this “problem” to the people using thousands of reports and articles – cleverly contrived propaganda.
The public begs for a solution, which is then handily provided by the people in power.
These solutions almost always require more regulations, more restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms, and more power given to governments.
Because global warming is a worldwide “problem”, the “solution” is too difficult for nation-states by themselves to handle. Thus, the solution to this particular “problem” is nothing short of totalitarianism on a global scale.
Just as in the book, 1984, a common enemy against which the entire planet could rally had been found. Environmentalism has been taken over and used by those who benefit from it.
The ruling elite could care less about the environment, as evidenced by their huge mansions and trips in private jets to exotic places for climate conferences.
Taking the moral high ground, the power seekers cleverly hijacked the environmental movement by claiming that only those willing to take action against climate change care about the earth.
As assistant secretary-general of the United Nations, Strong organized the IPCC and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit at which the globalist-inspired UN Agenda 21 (now “Agenda 2030”) was also conveniently established.
When asked why he didn’t run for office, Strong responded that he could get his agenda accomplished much more easily at the UN, where he could get all the money he needed, appoint anyone he wanted and push his ideas forward without interference.
An unelected bureaucrat thus created a dangerous chapter in history!
In 1995 Hubert Lamb, founder of the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia, concluded:
To create the science he needed to advance this political agenda, Strong set up the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would provide policy recommendations for politicians. Climate scientists were used to provide the scientific authority for the policy reports.
These IPCC scientists were permitted to consider only the IPCC’s definition of the term “climate change”, which was defined as:
Notice that this definition says nothing about natural causes of climate variability.
IPCC scientists were not allowed to consider any cause of ‘climate change’ other than the human emission of CO2. In their 1995 report summary, they truthfully acknowledged that there was no clear evidence of this.
Despite their conclusion, however, the final IPCC policy report by Dr. Ben Santer reads:
Santer completely disregarded the conclusions reached by the IPCC scientists.
Although many IPCC scientists are competent and truthful, few have had any influence over the report’s conclusions.
Their work is cherry-picked line by line by political appointees, many of whom are not scientists but activists from groups like the World Wildlife Fund.
These unscientific procedures prompted Dr. Frederick Seitz, a world-famous physicist and former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and Rockefeller University, to write:
Several other top scientists have protested its unscientific practices, incompetence, and dishonesty in its gross exaggeration of the influence of human CO2 emissions on the climate.
https://principia-scientific.com/the-political-origins-of-the-climate-change-scam/
ccn
Well-known member
46 ‘Climate Change Denying’ Statements Made By Former IPCC Scientists
Below is an enlightening list of comments made by former IPCC contributors after cutting ties with the politicized body — so scientists no longer subject to professional repercussions.Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
Continued
ccn
Well-known member
Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.
Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
Dr Murry Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
The global warming theory is being unraveled by the same researchers formerly charged with its promotion. But with the baton continually passed to the next generation of duped university graduates–thoroughly schooled by AGW Party doctrines–the same climate yarns are forever repackaged and redistributed to the next generation of naive citizenry.
An endless cycle of ‘control by ignorance’, of ‘The Science says’ preachings.
Regardless of said narrative, however, natural forcings continue to dominate as they were always destined to do.
The upshot of all these forcings…?
Swings between extremes, and, ultimately, global cooling.
https://principia-scientific.com/46...ng-statements-made-by-former-ipcc-scientists/
Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.
Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
Dr Murry Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
The global warming theory is being unraveled by the same researchers formerly charged with its promotion. But with the baton continually passed to the next generation of duped university graduates–thoroughly schooled by AGW Party doctrines–the same climate yarns are forever repackaged and redistributed to the next generation of naive citizenry.
An endless cycle of ‘control by ignorance’, of ‘The Science says’ preachings.
Regardless of said narrative, however, natural forcings continue to dominate as they were always destined to do.
The upshot of all these forcings…?
Swings between extremes, and, ultimately, global cooling.
https://principia-scientific.com/46...ng-statements-made-by-former-ipcc-scientists/
W
WEF Chairman
Banned
Well-known member
Jesus fuck. Nobody’s gonna read any of that.
Not even the other tinfoilers.
Not even the other tinfoilers.
Stripped Rights
Well-known member
You're making a lot of sense, Saddam.
ccn
Well-known member
There goes woke anus AGAIN. Copying what PLX is known for . Dumb bastard can't even think for himself.
ccn
Well-known member
Woke anus acting like he's a believer now LOL.
Everybody knows you're a lucifer worshiper .
Everybody knows you're a lucifer worshiper .
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
You've gotta respect the amount of work ccn puts in regardless of whether you bother to read it or not.
IMHO.
IMHO.
W
WEF Chairman
Banned
Well-known member
No way. All the obsessive collections of memes and articles he regurgitates are consistent with symptoms of mental illness or meth abuse.You've gotta respect the amount of work ccn puts in regardless of whether you bother to read it or not.
IMHO.
He needs to either seek help or put the pipe down.
- Status