No scientifically literate person denies that climate changes. However anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, also referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “is a pious fraud based on spurious correlation and post hoc ergo propter hoc” [an error in logic that assumes the cause of something is another thing that merely occurred earlier].1,2
The fraud was perpetrated by linking the REAL environmental crisis (Holocene extinction) to AGW, i.e. valid environmental concerns were hijacked to serve a hidden financial and political agenda. This agenda does NOT serve nature or ourselves.
Fake science, legal consequences
Unscrupulous people tried to fool us about AGW using (1) Mann’s “hockey stick” and (2) a false scientific “consensus.” Further, these liars wanted us to believe that (3) CO2 causes global temperatures to rise, (4) fossil fuel emissions increase concentration of atmospheric CO2, and (5) human action could modify weather globally.
1. The “hockey stick” graph — False
1998. This infamous graph published by Dr Michael Mann and others (Mann et al., 1998)3 shows a sharp increase in mean global temperatures from 1900 until present, after about 500 years of climate stability. This deception forms the centerpiece of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) environmental policy and it has been an iconic image cited by environmentalists clamouring for urgent action on ‘man-made’ global warming. Further — at least until Dr Tim Ball exposed his fake science and defeated him in court last year4 — mainstream media acclaimed Dr Mann as “a world-leading climate scientist”4 despite this graph being “an audacious fraud.”5
2003. Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick exposed the “hockey stick” as junk science.6 They showed that the curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” The corrected data uncovered a warm period in the 15th Century; temperatures were actually higher in the late fifteenth century than in the late twentieth.
2007. A UK court found the documentary film The Inconvenient Truth [based on the discredited “hockey stick” graph] guilty of political bias and containing NINE significant science errors.2
2011. Climatologist Dr Tim Ball warned that scientists at the forefront of AGW are corrupt and he stated that Dr Michael Mann (climate professor at Penn State University) “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” Consequently Dr Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against Dr Ball on 25 March 2011. Dr Ball argued that if the numbers used in Dr Mann’s hockey stick curve were examined in open court, it would conclusively prove Dr Mann was motivated to commit a criminal fraud.4
2019. After endless delays from Dr Mann and his refusal to surrender to an open court his method of working out the numbers used for his graph, on 23 August 2019 a Canadian court in effect vindicated Dr Ball’s criticisms. The court dismissed Dr Mann’s case against Dr Ball and awarded Dr Ball full legal costs. This outcome should serve as a warning to alarmists who falsely claim that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.”4
Compare Dr Mann’s discredited graph with Dr Ball’s more reliable version to see how Dr Mann altered climate data to falsely show modern temperatures rising ‘catastrophically’ in order to fit the IPCC doom-saying lie.4
Image source: John O’Sullivan.4
2. Scientific “consensus” — False
2013. The claim of an overwhelming “consensus” on AGW within the scientific community comes from Cook et al. (2013)7 who stated that 97% of the scientific community endorsed AGW. This was one of the most downloaded and frequently cited publications in environmental science.1
2013. Re-analysis of the data showed significant bias and unrepresentative sample sizes. Cook et al. had excluded 75% of all papers discussing climate change. Geologists have long known about climatic fluctuations across vast geological timescales but studies from the earth sciences were largely ignored.8
In fact since 1998 over 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs, have signed a petition rejecting the IPCC’s human-caused global warming hypothesis because it is without scientific validity. Evidently real scientists strongly oppose the 2,500 “scientists” of the IPCC, many of whom are UN bureaucrats, not scientists.2,9
3. CO2 causes global temperatures to rise — False
Pedro et al. (2012)10 reported that during deglaciation, rising Antarctic temperatures preceded increases in CO2. Using Antarctic and Greenlandic ice cores they showed that atmospheric CO2 has lagged temperature since the Late Paleolithic. Rising CO2 is attributed to unspecified biogeochemical processes occurring in the ocean. This further implicates temperature as the variable modulating CO2 variation, rather than vice versa. Similarly, Humlum et al. (2013)11 showed that CO2 lags temperature, not vice versa as would be expected if AGW was correct.
4. Fossil fuel emissions increase atmospheric CO2 — False
Munshi (2017)12 found no correlation between fossil fuel emissions and concentration of atmospheric CO2, Kauppinen and Malmi (2019)13 found no evidence for significant anthropogenic climate change, and in a break-through paper US physicist Dr Edwin Berry (2019)14 shows that the IPCC Bern model is invalid, natural and human CO2 do not “add” CO2 to the atmosphere, and “nothing would be gained by stopping human CO2 emissions.”
5. Human action could change weather globally — False
Scientists and technicians would need supernatural powers to modify weather globally. Weather and climate are influenced by an astronomical amount of energy delivered to Earth from space every second. Specifically, claims by the IPCC and its globalist lackeys that we could alter Earth’s climate by reducing human carbon emissions have been exposed as a fake science racket.2,15
More fake science, more legal consequences
2009. A server at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was hacked and thousands of emails leaked. These emails revealed outright fabrication, manipulated data and wilful suppression of evidence instead of scientific objectivity. The emails proved that CRU scientists were pursuing a political agenda in a conspiracy to feed biased information to the IPCC. The CRU’s top scientists only avoided criminal prosecution due to a legal technicality.1,16
2014. The AGW documentary Merchants of Doubt smeared respected US physicist Dr Fred Singer as a “liar.” Dr Singer had previously argued (a) there is no evidence that increases in CO2 produced by humans cause global warming, (b) radical environmentalists are exaggerating the dangers, and (c) IPCC methods are unscientific. As Dr Singer’s statements on AGW and the IPCC are backed by scientific facts, he sued the film director for libel and won.1,5
2018. A Canadian court dismissed the defamation lawsuit brought against Dr Tim Ball by Dr Andrew Weaver (author on four of the IPCC Science Reports) after Dr Ball wrote an article criticizing the IPCC.17
Assessment of the AGW agenda
The AGW agenda is evaluated in terms of psychology, nature, finance and politics.
The UN IPCC and its lackeys evidenced:
- A gross lack of respect for our rights — particularly our right to be treated with respect.
- Abuse of our rights to an extent that is blatantly aggressive.
- Antisocial conduct that is psychopathic.
- AGW is uncoupled from any genuine environmental concerns.18
- Although the carbon-trading market masquerades as “environmentalism,” it does nothing positive for the environment; it does not even address the “problem” of carbon emissions.18
- The cost of AGW to nature is enormous. In addition to AGW hijacking resources (time, money, goodwill) that could have been used to address our ecological emergency, “green” technologies are actually harmful to nature:
Battery production results in “dust, fumes, wastewater and other environmental impacts from cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; water shortages and toxic spills from lithium mining in Latin America, which can alter ecosystems and hurt local communities; a heavily polluted river due to nickel mining in Russia; or air pollution in northeastern China . . . .”19
“The giant spinning turbines are basically bird death traps — and often they cut through prime flying space making the carnage even worse.”20 In the United States alone, wind turbines kill many hundreds of thousands of birds each year and a huge number of bats.21 Birds killed by blade strikes include critically endangered species22 and the number of birds found dead from blade-strike injuries increases as more wind farms are built.22 Further, due to the flying ranges of large birds such as eagles, a significant portion of raptors killed by wind turbines are birds from up to hundreds of miles away.23
“Photovoltaic production is an environmental nightmare of toxic minerals and nanoparticles.”2
The meaning of green in “green” technology.
The fake science of AGW set up the latest opportunity (after swindles including the tech stock bubble, the housing bubble and the rigged bailout) for parasitic bankers to exploit productive people using “gangster economics.”24
- AGW is first and foremost about resource consolidation and speculation.18
- Although carbon is not a commodity, according to Louis Redshaw (head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital and former power trader at Enron) “Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall” (larger than real commodities like oil, coal, gas, iron).18
- “Carbon trading, especially through banks’ proprietary trading desks, is a way for banks to make money from money, without contributing new capital towards solving climate change” (Bank Track).18
- In effect “a small tribe of greedy-as-hell . . . swine [are turning] another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme.”24
- The carbon credit market is a commodities bubble disguised as an ‘environmental plan.’24
- As with other bubbles created by these banks, the victims in this mess are ordinary taxpayers who pay for it; “there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay.”24
Apart from AGW enriching banks via carbon trading, the existing energy titans and their associates monopolize the new industries of “green” technologies and renewable energy sources. Although none of the alternative technologies used today are cost-effective or capable of becoming a real alternative, these energy corporations benefit from enormous government subsidies to build wind generator plants that never produce any net energy and break down after 20 years. The companies can only afford to invest billions in such failures because they are doing so with our tax money.2,15
NWO: New World Order
Canadian businessman Maurice Strong (1929-2015) founded the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972. His persistent lobbying resulted in the UN playing a central role in establishing the ideology of AGW and making it a dominant orthodoxy embraced by most Western governments. Environmentalism emerged in the industrialized West to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Marxist ideology.15
Strong wanted to use environmentalism as a way of achieving global governance under the aegis of the UN. He was not primarily concerned about the environment. Apart from making money, Strong was driven to use the UN as a stepping stone to full world government. He saw ‘environmentalism’ — which transcends national boundaries — as the most promising route to world government. The UN Environment Program that he set up was able to command funding from national governments and move toward the world government goal.15
Further, Strong was instrumental in developing the Brundtland Commission Report’s (1987) concept of “sustainable development,” a term embodied in the IPCC’s use of climate “adaptation and mitigation” as a vehicle for promoting egalitarian principles. Subsequently the concepts of man-made climate change and social redistribution form the basis of the UN’s environmental policy.15
By 1988 Strong had persuaded the UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to form an “intergovernmental mechanism” to monitor AGW and suggest policy recommendations for the UN and Western governments. This organization was the IPCC. AGW was a pretence for socialist redistribution on a global scale. In 2008 former Czech President Václav Klaus wrote that Marxists and environmentalists both aim for “restrictions of freedom, through the dictates of a small, elitist minority over the overwhelming majority.” In other words, this fake environmentalism is really black-and-white moralizing within a Marxist framework.15
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves” — Lenin.
As is indicated below, the AGW controlled opposition serves the financial and political agenda of their controllers.
This teenage Swedish ‘environmental’ activist arrived in New York on a Rothschild family racing yacht18 and on 23 September 2019 she read a speech at the UN Climate Action Summit.25 Transcript here.
Early in her speech Thunberg briefly refers to scientific facts on the collapse of ecosystems and mass extinction. She then proceeds to mislead uninformed people with AGW references to carbon emissions and global temperature that have been exposed as fake science (discussed above).
“Greta Thunberg’s backers are financial speculators in companies seeking billions in profit from taxpayer-funded ‘climate change’ programs.”26
- Similar to Thunberg’s demand at the UN Climate Action Summit, this AGW group calls on governments to “tell the truth by declaring a climate [LIE] and ecological [TRUE] emergency.”27
- Using this combination of lies and truth, Extinction Rebellion demands that “government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025;” and
- They demand that governments partner up with activists to “create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.”27 The Citizens’ Assembly would be government-created and guided by a collection of NGOs and academics.27
“Central to all of the group’s demands is a radical expansion of state power” and government restriction or outright denial of citizens’ freedom, and they also seek wealth redistribution.27 In other words, they are continuing Maurice Strong’s efforts (discussed above) toward world government under cover of fake environmentalism.
The group’s backers
As expected of a group serving the agenda of global financiers and captains of “green” industry, Extinction Rebellion is backed by big money. This includes large donations from the Getty family oil wealth via the Climate Emergency Fund and groups like the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, set up by a hedge fund manager and run by a former vice-chairman of billionaire financier George Soros’ Open Society Institute.27
Achievements of the controlled opposition
As a result of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion, eleven countries and dependencies, including Britain and Ireland, have declared a state of “climate emergency.” Using this scientific fraud as cover, the World Bank and a gang of investment firms pursuing profits in “climate-related sectors” have banded together to form the Climate Finance Partnership and Blended Finance Action Taskforce. Further, this Taskforce intends funding itself with taxpayer money and pension funds.27
The power of knowledge
Many enlightened people are speaking out against the economic gangsters and nation wreckers referred to above. In contrast to this evil cabal, we value:
- Life over money.
- National freedom — we totally reject the gangsters’ attempts at world government.
- Genuine action to conserve nature as a matter of extreme urgency.
Widespread awareness of the AGW fraud would favour the above three points. Fortunately it seems that general public awareness of the fraud is increasing rapidly due to publications such as those listed in the references below. Specifically, awareness of this scam is high among people I speak with in daily life, on political websites, and in reader comments under videos such as this one28 on YouTube: The climate change hoax – Dr. Tim Ball.
What is the experience of other people? Are honest hard-working citizens now sufficiently aware to say NO! to this evil?
1. Bardamu, F. (2019). Global Warming and the Leftist War on Western Industrial Society, Parts I and II, Occidental Observer, 17 Sep 2019.
2. Dobler, S. (2017). Climate Change Explained.
3. Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., & Hughes, M. K. (1998). Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, 392, 23 Apr 1998.
4. O’Sullivan, J. (2019). Climate fraud justice: Dr Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann’s climate lawsuit! Signs of the times, 23 Aug 2019.
5. Nova, J. (2012, updated thereafter). The Skeptic’s Handbook II.
6. McIntyre, S., & McKitrick, R. (2003). Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series. Energy and Environment,14 (6), 751-772.
7. Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A. et al. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environmental Research Letters, 8 (2), 5 May 2013.
8. Idso, C. D. (2013). 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them. Popular Technology.net.
10. Pedro, J. B., Rasmussen, S. O., & van Ommen, T. D.: (2012). Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation, Climate of the Past, 8, 1213–1221.
11. Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., & Solheim, J.-E. (2013). The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature, Global and Planetary Change,100:51–69.
12. Munshi, J. (2015). Responsiveness of atmospheric CO2 to anthropogenic emissions: A note, Aug 2015.
13. Kauppinen, J., & Malmi, P. (2019). No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change, arXiv.org >physics >arXiv:1907.00165.
14. Berry, E. X. (2019). Human CO2 emissions have little effect on atmospheric CO2, International J of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 3 (1), 13–26.
15. Bardamu, F. (2019). Global Warming and the Leftist War on Western Industrial Society, Parts III-V, Occidental Observer, 18 Sep 2019.
16. Derbyshire, D. (2010). Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data: But legal loophole means they won’t be prosecuted. MailOnline, 28 Jan 2010.
17. Update: Tim Ball’s huge courtroom win, now targets Michael Mann. Principia Scientific International, 15 Feb 2018.
18. Publius, J. Q. (2019). The Way Life Should Be: #Squad Goals and the U.S Corporate Elites That Fund Them, Occidental Observer, 18 Nov 2019.
19. Eckart, J. (2017). Batteries can be part of the fight against climate change – if we do these five things, World Economic Forum, 28 Nov 2017.
20. Eveleth, R. (2013). How Many Birds Do Wind Turbines Really Kill? Smithsonian magazine, 16 Dec 2013.
21. Lallanilla, M. (2013). How Do Wind Turbines Kill Birds? Live Science, 14 May 2013.
22. SBS News (2019). Wind turbines killing endangered birds, 25 Jun 2019.
23. Katzner, T. E., Nelson, D. M., Braham, M. A. et al. (2016). Golden Eagle fatalities and the continental-scale consequences of local wind-energy generation. Conservation Biology, 29 Sep 2016.
24. Taibbi, M. (2010). The Great American Bubble Machine, Rolling Stone, 5 April 2010.
25. Transcript: Greta Thunberg’s speech at the UN Climate Action Summit, npr, 23 Sep 2019.
26. Brabantian (2019). Greta Thunberg – Rothschild Pawn, henrymakow.com, 29 Sep 2019.
27. Who are Extinction Rebellion — the ‘eco-activists’ grounding planes & shutting down cities, Russia Today, 10 Oct 2019.
28. Ball, T. (2018). The climate change hoax – Dr. Tim Ball, YouTube, 16 Apr 2018.