Climate Change

[Signalcalc]

Boom! There we have it folks, its in the open, climate change agenda and big finance in lockstep. Let the climate trade wars begin.

Mr. Mark Joseph Carney of Canada - Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance | United Nations Secretary-General

On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance.

www.un.org

 

[Signalcalc]

Quelle suprise, the Greta bandwagon remit is about to widen, expect censorship and orwellian style impositions from above if you are a non-believer.

 

[Signalcalc]

Prime example of the chaos that results from the climate change hoax.

Watch -- Delingpole: Green Policies Are Turning Chile Into Venezuela

The most important thing you need to know about the U.N.'s latest climate circus is that it was originally going to be staged in Chile.

www.breitbart.com

 

[counter_violent]

 

[counter_violent]

 

[Signalcalc]

Climate, climate, climate, please don't change
Climate, climate, climate, please don't change....

 

[Signalcalc]

Sooner or later the climate change hoax will be outed into the mainstream, it will be the climate and the science that will out it.

The problem for real science is that the climate hoax movement is spreading rapidly, by design, they have a short period by which to get legislation, the mindset and govts on board, they can only do this via the globalist routes such as the UN and the cultists, and by imposing an arbritary timescale of 5 years at the shortest and 12 years at the latest.

If the real science is showing we are heading for a solar minimum in about 5 years and higher food prices based on shortages, then the hoaxers must have a trick up their sleeves to be able to account for this, so far all they have is an accelerated timescale, it's no wonder the banksters and big money men are sending out dictats right now to get this in within the timescales, they are not stupid and know what they are doing.

The UN puts pressure on global corporations and govts, the cultists put pressure on the education system to indoctrinate the following generations and by guilt tripping the public using their children, brilliant setup when you look at how it is evolving.

The real science oppostition is at a major disadvantage, it doesn't have the backing of MSM or govts that started the hoax (led by the UK, the EU and UN) or the banksters. However if the real science can be spread much wider and much further than it is now, then at least real science has a chance of convincing the public not to back the global agenda.

 

[tomorton]

Sooner or later the climate change hoax will be outed into the mainstream, it will be the climate and the science that will out it.

The problem for real science is that the climate hoax movement is spreading rapidly, by design, they have a short period by which to get legislation, the mindset and govts on board, they can only do this via the globalist routes such as the UN and the cultists, and by imposing an arbritary timescale of 5 years at the shortest and 12 years at the latest.

If the real science is showing we are heading for a solar minimum in about 5 years and higher food prices based on shortages, then the hoaxers must have a trick up their sleeves to be able to account for this, so far all they have is an accelerated timescale, it's no wonder the banksters and big money men are sending out dictats right now to get this in within the timescales, they are not stupid and know what they are doing.

The UN puts pressure on global corporations and govts, the cultists put pressure on the education system to indoctrinate the following generations and by guilt tripping the public using their children, brilliant setup when you look at how it is evolving.

The real science oppostition is at a major disadvantage, it doesn't have the backing of MSM or govts that started the hoax (led by the UK, the EU and UN) or the banksters. However if the real science can be spread much wider and much further than it is now, then at least real science has a chance of convincing the public not to back the global agenda.

That is the point at which I will believe climate change has been a hoax, when the majority of scientists say so.

 

[Signalcalc]

That is the point at which I will believe climate change has been a hoax, when the majority of scientists say so.

The issue for the scientists is the involvement of big money, politics and educational peer pressure. Do we have a situation now where scientists from all sides are able to sit in an interference free conference to argue and debate? No, that scenario does not exist because it is not scientists that are leading the agenda, it is out of their hands. We just have a one-sided agenda where every dissenting voice gets shut down, it is money and politics leading the agenda.

We might all be fully subscribed to the hoax if the mounting evidence contrary to the mainstream hadn't been exposed, if there hadn't already been scientific corruption, doctoring of figures and leaked emails between climate scientists showing they believed that climate change is not man-made.

If politicians, big money and a ridiculous religious fervour weren't involved in this non-debate, then at least we would have a debate, without a debate there will never be any answers and globalists will continue their covert operations to ensure we all get screwed for their benefit.

Making money out of climate change using the public to do the bidding, a brilliant business model, the globalists really are taking the planet for a ride at our expense.

 

[tomorton]

The issue for the scientists is the involvement of big money, politics and educational peer pressure. Do we have a situation now where scientists from all sides are able to sit in an interference free conference to argue and debate? No, that scenario does not exist because it is not scientists that are leading the agenda, it is out of their hands. We just have a one-sided agenda where every dissenting voice gets shut down, it is money and politics leading the agenda.

We might all be fully subscribed to the hoax if the mounting evidence contrary to the mainstream hadn't been exposed, if there hadn't already been scientific corruption, doctoring of figures and leaked emails between climate scientists showing they believed that climate change is not man-made.

If politicians, big money and a ridiculous religious fervour weren't involved in this non-debate, then at least we would have a debate, without a debate there will never be any answers and globalists will continue their covert operations to ensure we all get screwed for their benefit.

Making money out of climate change using the public to do the bidding, a brilliant business model, the globalists really are taking the planet for a ride at our expense.

Whether climate change is man-made or not is a scientific question. I will believe the answer that is supported by the majority of scientists. There is no other rational standpoint.

 

[Signalcalc]

The issue for the scientists is the involvement of big money, politics and educational peer pressure. Do we have a situation now where scientists from all sides are able to sit in an interference free conference to argue and debate? No, that scenario does not exist because it is not scientists that are leading the agenda, it is out of their hands. We just have a one-sided agenda where every dissenting voice gets shut down, it is money and politics leading the agenda.

We might all be fully subscribed to the hoax if the mounting evidence contrary to the mainstream hadn't been exposed, if there hadn't already been scientific corruption, doctoring of figures and leaked emails between climate scientists showing they believed that climate change is not man-made.

If politicians, big money and a ridiculous religious fervour weren't involved in this non-debate, then at least we would have a debate, without a debate there will never be any answers and globalists will continue their covert operations to ensure we all get screwed for their benefit.

Making money out of climate change using the public to do the bidding, a brilliant business model, the globalists really are taking the planet for a ride at our expense.

Ask yourself why the debate doesn't exist?

Why do we not have an ongoing discussion at a scientific level? Are we just expected to believe the XR cultists, no questioning, no presentation of alternative views?

If it is such a crisis of extinction proportions, then why aren't the MSM devoting much needed and pressing time to public space discussions on the subject?

Simple answer really!

 

[Signalcalc]

Whether climate change is man-made or not is a scientific question. I will believe the answer that is supported by the majority of scientists. There is no other rational standpoint.

Says who? The scientists? How can that be true when the scientists aren't running the agenda? Are you going to ask the politicians and the banskters instead? How can it be true when there is a growing body of science and scientists that don't believe the hoax, when is the last time you saw an alternative viewpoint being presented on the BBC, for example.

Until there is a proper scientific debate there is no right or wrong, no answer and no argument for man-made climate change.

 

[tomorton]

Says who? The scientists? How can that be true when the scientists aren't running the agenda? Are you going to ask the politicians and the banskters instead? How can it be true when there is a growing body of science and scientists that don't believe the hoax, when is the last time you saw an alternative viewpoint being presented on the BBC, for example.

Until there is a proper scientific debate there is no right or wrong, no answer and no argument.

If the majority of scientists supporting climate change was only 1, I would still believe what the larger group said. If it was 10,001 v's 10,000, I'd go with the 10,001.

People who aren't scientists don't qualify for a vote in a poll of scientists on a scientific question.

 

[Signalcalc]

If the majority of scientists supporting climate change was only 1, I would still believe what the larger group said. If it was 10,001 v's 10,000, I'd go with the 10,001.

People who aren't scientists don't qualify for a vote in a poll of scientists on a scientific question.

But that is not my point. My point is that if there is no debate, between scientists, a debate that can be scrunitised publicly, a debate that includes all the evidence, from all the institutions collecting that evidence, then:

1. No debate = no answers
2. No scrutiny = no transparency
3. Pro-active shutdown of alt view climate science (produced by climate scientists) = something to hide
4. Scientific community corruption on climate change, exposing an opposing view and suppressed by authorities until leaked = corruption and something to hide.
5. Globalist organisation, big money, MSM and cultist involvement to extract money from global citizens = biased agenda and power
6. And so on, just like every other contentious political topic without a debated foundation or root cause.

The debate must be had, otherwise a top-down imposed agenda of such magnitude to all our lives cannot be accepted at face value and must be resisted and opposed until the debate is had.

 

[Signalcalc]

If the majority of scientists supporting climate change was only 1, I would still believe what the larger group said. If it was 10,001 v's 10,000, I'd go with the 10,001.

People who aren't scientists don't qualify for a vote in a poll of scientists on a scientific question.

So you believe that the science is settled, I do not, I would like to see who decided it was settled, when and how?

 

[tomorton]

But that is not my point. My point is that if there is no debate, between scientists, a debate that can be scrunitised publicly, a debate that includes all the evidence, from all the institutions collecting that evidence, then:

1. No debate = no answers
2. No scrutiny = no transparency
3. Pro-active shutdown of alt view climate science (produced by climate scientists) = something to hide
4. Scientific community corruption on climate change, exposing an opposing view and suppressed by authorities until leaked = corruption and something to hide.
5. Globalist organisation, big money, MSM and cultist involvement to extract money from global citizens = biased agenda and power
6. And so on, just like every other contentious political topic without a debated foundation or root cause.

The debate must be had, otherwise a top-down imposed agenda of such magnitude to all our lives cannot be accepted at face value and must be resisted and opposed until the debate is had.

I thought it was a fact that some scientists do not support the climate change theory. Therefore there actually is a debate.

 

[tomorton]

So you believe that the science is settled, I do not, I would like to see who decided it was settled, when and how?

It is settled, in so far as the majority of scientists can say. Like all scientific theories, it is open to challenge and being disproven. But meantime I accept what the majority of scientists say.

 

[Signalcalc]

Another quiet development, have you noticed recently, that any climate related videos on YT have a clickable banner link to the Wikipedia entry on climate change? The WP entry is 100% supporting man-made climate change, is that a paid ad? Do YT own WP now? Who owns YT? It's one of them big four internet thingies isn't it? Who owns WP?

It's too obvious!

 

[tomorton]

Another quiet development, have you noticed recently, that any climate related videos on YT have a clickable banner link to the Wikipedia entry on climate change? The WP entry is 100% supporting man-made climate change, is that a paid ad? Do YT own WP now? Who owns YT? It's one of them big four internet thingies isn't it? Who owns WP?

It's too obvious!

I guess the Wiki entry is drawn from a conventional rational standpoint - that scientific evidence should be weighed by scientists (rather than e.g, Nigel Lawson) and if a majority believe its valid, that's what we go with until the majority favour a new alternative. Like the earth being round and gravity and the moon landings and all that evolution stuff.

 

[barjon]

I guess the Wiki entry is drawn from a conventional rational standpoint - that scientific evidence should be weighed by scientists (rather than e.g, Nigel Lawson) and if a majority believe its valid, that's what we go with until the majority favour a new alternative. Like the earth being round and gravity and the moon landings and all that evolution stuff.

I think climate change is pretty self evident, albeit that it is within historic limits so far. Whether it is man made seems likely, albeit still open to debate. Whether it can be halted - let alone reversed - seems doubtful, albeit still open to debate. Whether we are busy preparing ourselves for the consequences seems........................................................................