Climate Change: The New Fear Porn (Consolidated Thread)

[schwartzie]

American Farmland Seized to Advance Green Agenda

Frank Bergman
August 31, 2024 - 11:52 am



American farmland is being seized in order to advance the globalist green agenda of the Biden-Harris administration.



Five states in the Midwest are currently battling the construction of controversial carbon dioxide pipelines.



The pipelines are putting farms in jeopardy as land is being confiscated from owners.



A carbon dioxide pipeline captures carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from facilities like ethanol plants.



The CO2 is then compressed and transported via a pipeline to a site where it can be stored underground indefinitely.



This proceeded reduces the carbon intensity of ethanol.



According to globalist green agenda advocates, CO2 causes “global warming,” despite scientific evidence proving otherwise.



In late June, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) approved a petition by Summit Carbon Solutions for the construction of a carbon dioxide pipeline across the state of Iowa.



According to the IUB, because the pipeline is considered for “public use,” Summit can seize land from landowners via eminent domain.

Eminent domain has historically been used to seize private land for government projects that seek to serve a public good.



It is normally used for private businesses.



The company says it has already reached agreements with more than 2,700 landowners to build its pipeline.



It’s all part of a broader plan by Summit to build pipelines across Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Minnesota.


The project has an estimated cost of $5.5 billion and the pipeline will span around 2,500 miles.



The captured carbon dioxide will be piped to deep underground storage sites in North Dakota.



The company is also seeking billions of dollars in taxpayer money from the federal government.



Should the pipeline become operational, Summit Carbon Solutions could receive as much as $85 per metric ton in tax credits.



The company plans to sequester as much as 18 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.



If Summit meets this target, it could receive up to $1.5 billion in tax credits each year.



The project has reportedly already attracted interest from ethanol producers in the five states involved.



57 ethanol plants are already hoping to sell captured carbon dioxide to Summit.



In addition to the payments from Summit, the plants may be eligible for billions of dollars in federal funds that are given to ethanol plants that capture CO2.



In addition, by reducing their CO2 emissions, these ethanol producers could qualify their ethanol as a sustainable aviation fuel for use by commercial airlines.



However, this solution comes at the expense of farmers and landowners who are losing land and crop yields.



There are several other drawbacks as well.



Past efforts involving carbon dioxide capture have not yielded good results.



In fact, there are already 47 significant CO2 capture and storage plants in the world.



Yet, most of them have been sustaining financial losses despite receiving heavy government subsidies.



Not only do the ethanol plants that use the pipeline stand to lose money, but the taxpayers who are funding these subsidies will also lose out.



One example of their poor track record is the Quest CCS project in Alberta, Canada.



The Canadian project is operated by oil giant Shell.



It captures just over a third of the carbon dioxide emitted in the process of upgrading bitumen from oil sands.



The $811 million project was fully paid for by taxpayer-funded grants from the government.



It will cost $41 million to run per year.



However, just $27 million of this is offset by the payments provided by carbon credit subsidies.



All of the existing CCS facilities are only capturing 0.1% of the world’s industrial emissions.



Yet, none of these efforts are having any effect on global temperatures.



Even the Sierra Club considers these measures to be “false climate solutions.”



There is also the risk of rupturing these pipelines.



A CO2 pipeline in Mississippi in 2020, created a disaster for the local community.



When it ruptured, the pipeline emitted CO2 for roughly four hours in an invisible cloud.



The leak forced the evacuations of hundreds of people in the surrounding rural community.



At least 45 people were hospitalized with problems such as shaking, unconsciousness, and an inability to breathe.

link

[schwartzie]

Corporate Media Claims Surge in Child Marriages Caused by ‘Climate Change’

Frank Bergman
September 1, 2024 - 10:05 am



The corporate media is now claiming that “climate change” is fueling a rise in child marriages in Pakistan.



This narrative is being promoted by Agence France-Presse (AFP).



However, the entire narrative rests on the false claims that “global warming” is causing an increase in extreme weather events.



Top scientists have previously debunked such claims.



As Slay News reported, one of the top climate scientists behind the claims admitted that she provided false data for her study that claimed “climate change” has caused in increase in hurricanes.



She confessed that she fabricated the false link in order to get her study published in scientific journals and receive funding from the United Nations.



Dr. Judith Curry admitted that she faked her study when other scientists noticed inconsistencies in her data.



Nevertheless, the corporate media continues to parrot the false claims while attempting to link “climate change” to the weather.



And now, AFP is claiming “global warming” is causing heavier and longer summer monsoon rains in Pakistan.


Those rains are apparently leading to increasing numbers of adult men choosing to marry children, the French State-owned outlet claims.



Human rights workers are warning such weddings are on the rise “due to climate-driven economic insecurity.”



However, the report provided no scientific evidence to support the claims, with the claims resting only on the assumption that the reader believes the “climate crisis” narrative.



The report continues by calling for the banning of hydrocarbon use can help solve a pedophilia problem that has been endemic in many cultures since time immemorial.


Yet, according to the World Bank’s “climate change knowledge portal,” monsoon rains in June, July, and August in the period 1991-2020 were marginally less in Pakistan than fell during 1961-1990.



The error-strewn article, reproduced in many publications around the world, claims that flooding in Pakistan plunged a third of the country under water in 2022.



This claim is simply impossible, however.



Even the climate alarmist BBC’s statistical show “More or Less” debunked the claim.



AFP, which alarmingly also serves as one of Facebook’s “fact-checkers,” claims that “scientists say” monsoons are heavier and longer because of “climate change.”



The alleged issue is “raising the risk of landslides, floods, and long-term crop damage,” the outlet adds.



AFP goes on to claim that the “extra” rain has led to a new trend of “monsoon brides” as families give away their female children in exchange for money.



However, massive flooding in low-lying parts of Pakistan is not new.



Flooding in 1950, 1992, 1993, and 2010 killed more people than in 2022.



Meanwhile, a recent study concluded that globalist claims of “manmade climate change” are completely fabricated and have no basis in reality, as Slay News reported.



The researchers found that there is no scientific evidence to support theories of anthropogenic “global warming.”



According to the study, led by leading scientists in Greece, claims that humans cause “climate change” are based on imagination and assumptions.



The study’s paper, authored by lead researcher Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis of the National Technical University of Athens, was published in the scientific journal AIMS Press.



In the “Conclusions” section of the study’s paper, the researchers write:



“Rather, such claims are based on imagination and climatic models full of assumptions.



“However, as shown in the causality direction in time series produced by climatic models is opposite to that of the real-world data.”



The study found that the narrative of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions affecting temperatures is based on fake science.

link

[schwartzie]

Government Report Calls for All Airports Closed to Comply with ‘Net Zero’

Frank Bergman
September 14, 2024 - 12:54 pm



All airports must be closed and the consumption of meat and dairy products among the general public must be completely banned in order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” agenda, according to a disturbing government report.



The report was produced by Oxford University and Imperial College London for the UK government.



Experts at the prestigious colleges are advising government officials on the drastic steps that must be taken to meet the “Net Zero” targets set by the United Nations (UN) and the World Economic Forum (WEF).



The report lays out a roadmap identifying when certain targets must be achieved.



It reveals that all airports will be ordered to close, eating beef and lamb will be made illegal, major restrictions will be placed on farming, and construction of new buildings will not be permitted.



To meet the legal commitment of complying with the WEF’s “Net Zero” by 2050, the report breaks down the goals into a list of targets that must be met before 2029, with further restrictions implemented by 2049.



The report states that all airports must close by 2029 with the exception of one main airport in England, Scotland, and Ireland.



Those airports -Heathrow, Glasgow, and Belfast – can only stay open on the condition people are only able to travel to them via rail.



However, those remaining airports must then close between 2030 and 2049 to meet “Net Zero” by 2050.


The report asserts that every member of the general public must “stop using airplanes.”



In addition, the report states that the public will be required to stop doing anything that causes emissions, regardless of its energy source.



According to the report, this will require the public to never eat beef or lamb ever again.



Those who consume meat and dairy products would be in violation of the law of the Climate Change Act, the report warns.


To achieve this target, the national consumption of beef and lamb will drop by 50% between 2020 and 2029.



Then, between 2030 and 2049, the consumption of meat and dairy products must be completely banned.



The WEF, one of the architects of the “Net Zero” agenda, has been increasingly pushing for restrictions on public freedom to supposedly “save the planet” from “climate change.”



Klaus Schwab’s organization has long been advocating for meat and dairy products to be replaced with lab-grown “beef” and insect-based “foods.”



The WEF has been one of the main drivers behind the global crackdown on the farming industry.



The unelected Switzerland-based organization has also been pressuring governments to ban private vehicle ownership and outlaw home-grown food.



Meanwhile, officials in the United States have been measures to ensure that the American people comply with these demands.



In the U.S., 14 cities have set a “target” to comply with the WEF green agenda goals by banning meat, dairy, and private car ownership by 2030.



The U.S. cities have formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40).



The C40 has established an “ambitious target” to meet the WEF’s goals by the year 2030.



To fulfill the “target,” the C40 Cities have pledged that their residents will comply with the following list of mandatory rules:



“0 kg [of] meat consumption”

“0 kg [of] dairy consumption”

“3 new clothing items per person per year”

“0 private vehicles” owned

“1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person”

The C40 Cities’ dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report.



Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization.



The American city members of C40 include:



Austin

Boston

Chicago

Houston

Los Angeles

Miami

New Orleans

New York City

Philadelphia

Phoenix

Portland

San Francisco

Washington, D.C.

Seattle


The WEF has been increasingly highlighting how restrictions implemented during the Covid pandemic could be used to force unpopular “Net Zero” targets onto the public.



As Slay News recently reported, WEF has declared that the Covid pandemic was merely “the test” for “a huge number of unimaginable restrictions” on the general public’s freedoms.



In a post on the WEF’s website, the organization gloats that the willingness of “billions of citizens across the world” to comply with Covid restrictions proves that members of the public can be manipulated into accepting “individual social responsibility.”



The WEF lauds how “billions” of people complied with Covid “restrictions,” arguing that they would do the same under the guise of reducing carbon emissions.



Titled “My Carbon: An approach for inclusive and sustainable cities,” the article suggests that the same fear tactics could be used to impose further “restrictions” on the general public.



The subject of the piece is how to convince people to adopt “personal carbon allowance programs.”



The WEF laments that such schemes have so far been largely unsuccessful.



However, Schwab’s group notes that improvements in tracking and surveillance technology are helping to overcome “political resistance” against such programs.



“COVID-19 was the test of social responsibility,” the article asserts.



It continues by commending how “a huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world.”



“There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations, and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility,” the WEF adds.

link

[schwartzie]

Banks Urged to Defund Farming Industry to Limit Meat & Dairy Consumption

Frank Bergman
September 15, 2024 - 12:22 pm



Major banks are being urged to stop financing the global farming industry as part of an effort to force limits on the general public’s meat and dairy consumption.



A collective of over 100 climate groups, led by Friends of the Earth, is pressuring JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and other private banks to stop financing global meat and dairy companies.



According to a report from Agriculture Dive, the groups argue that the institutions’ lending activities undermine their environmental commitments.



An open letter from groups to some of the world’s biggest banks calls for a halt on any new financing that expands industrial livestock production.



The banks are being pressured to add requirements that meat, dairy, and feed clients disclose their climate action plans.



The letter calls out the banks by name for supporting the world’s biggest meat, dairy, and animal feed producers like JBS, Tyson Foods, and others.



While food companies are a small part of the banks’ overall lending portfolios, the groups say they have a much bigger impact on the institutions’ environmental footprints.



The letter says increased lending has let the world’s biggest emitters grow their operations and emissions.



According to research from Profundo and Feedback Global, from 2019 to 2022, financial institutions granted 15% more credit to the largest meat, dairy, and feed corporations than the previous four years.


Of the $134 billion in loans and underwriting to the meat and dairy sectors, more than half are tied to Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.



The climate groups’ letter comes as the world’s largest meat producer JBS seeks a listing on the New York Stock Exchange, a move heavily criticized by climate alarmists.



Green agenda globalists warn the move would allow the company to easily access more capital.



It also comes ahead of Climate Week in New York City, where industry leaders, climate change organizations, and government officials are set to push for “action” to tackle “global warming.”



“Industrial livestock companies are incompatible with a safe future for our planet, so it is time for banks and investors to turn off the taps and stop providing the finance that is enabling them to grow,” Martin Bowman, senior policy and campaigns manager at Feedback Global, said in a statement.



It comes amid increasing demands for major restrictions on the public from globalist interests.



As Slay News reported earlier, a disturbing government report is calling for all airports to be closed and the consumption of meat and dairy products among the general public be completely banned in order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero.”



The report was produced by Oxford University and Imperial College London for the UK government.



Experts at the prestigious colleges are advising government officials on the drastic steps that must be taken to meet the “Net Zero” targets set by the United Nations (UN) and the World Economic Forum (WEF).



The report lays out a roadmap identifying when certain targets must be achieved.



It reveals that all airports will be ordered to close, eating beef and lamb will be made illegal, major restrictions will be placed on farming, and construction of new buildings will not be permitted.



To meet the legal commitment of complying with the WEF’s “Net Zero” by 2050, the report breaks down the goals into a list of targets that must be met before 2029, with further restrictions implemented by 2049.



The report asserts that every member of the general public must “stop using airplanes.”



In addition, the report states that the public will be required to stop doing anything that causes emissions, regardless of its energy source.



According to the report, this will require the public to never eat beef or lamb ever again.



Those who consume meat and dairy products would be in violation of the law of the Climate Change Act, the report warns.



To achieve this target, the national consumption of beef and lamb will drop by 50% between 2020 and 2029.



Then, between 2030 and 2049, the consumption of meat and dairy products must be completely banned.

link

[ExquisiteGerbil]

Climate Expert: Global Warming Has Saved the Lives of 282,000 Babies
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.
15 Sep 2024

Danish climate change expert Bjorn Lomborg observed Sunday that global warming has saved the lives of more than 282,000 babies between 2001 and 2019, citing a 2024 study by Nature magazine.



Lomborg, who heads up the Copenhagen Consensus Center, noted that more people die each year from cold than from heat, which helps explain why warming ambient temperatures would result in fewer net deaths.


“Higher temperatures mean more heat, and more babies dying from heat, but it also means less cold, and many more babies not dying from cold,” he wrote.



Even though the establishment media have ignored the study, in total, “higher temps saved 282,251 babies in 29 poorer countries from 2000-19,” added Lomborg, who is also the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen.



In its study, whose stated purpose was “to determine how much climate change has so far contributed to the burden of neonatal mortality,” Nature underscored the special vulnerability of newborn infants to extreme temperatures and the need to protect them from extreme heat and cold.



“Exposure to extreme temperatures can be especially detrimental to the health of newborns because of their inherent physiological and anatomical vulnerabilities,” it stated, which include their “immature thermoregulatory systems and much narrower optimal body temperature ranges than adults.”


For its study, Nature focused on 29 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where infant mortality is highest, using data from the years 2001-2019.



Across all study locations, Nature found that 4.3 percent of all neonatal deaths in the period 2001–2019 were associated with “non-optimal temperatures,” with heat-related deaths accounting, on average, for 1.5 percent of the total and cold-related deaths accounting for nearly double that (2.9 percent).



The researchers estimated that 32 percent of the heat-related neonatal deaths in the period 2001–2019 can be attributed to climate change, which amounts to 175,133 additional neonatal deaths.



On the contrary, over the same period, climate change reduced the burden of cold-related neonatal deaths by an average of 30 percent, Nature found, equaling 457,384 fewer neonatal deaths in total.



Based on these figures, a total of 282,251 babies were saved by climate change.

link

[ExquisiteGerbil]

Alarmists: Florida Everglades ‘at Risk of Vanishing’ from Climate Change
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.
8 Sep 2024

A new climate doomsday report warns New Orleans and Miami may not exist by 2050 because of rising sea levels caused by global warming.



The apocalyptic report by Lakeisha Ethans for The Travel, lays out “7 places in America that might not exist soon,” if climate change continues unabated.



The disappearance of “the majestic glaciers of Glacier National Park,” for instance, is a “looming threat due to the relentless march of climate change,” Ms. Ethans cautions.



In subdued and dispassionate tones, the article asserts that rising sea levels are “swallowing coastal cities,” extreme weather events are “wreaking havoc,” and once-abundant wildlife is “facing extinction.”



New Orleans, Louisiana, is “on the frontlines of climate change” Ethans writes, and is threatened by “the relentless rise of sea levels and the sinking of its landmass.”



Because of this, the city of New Orleans “could be partially underwater by 2050 due to the increasing threat of sea level rise,” she adds.


If the article is to be believed, Miami, Florida, will fare even worse, and is on the short list of “major US cities that could be underwater within 50 years.”



Meanwhile, in Alaska, the small Iñupiaq village of Shishmaref, located on an island in the Chukchi Sea, is facing an existential threat from coastal erosion and permafrost melting.



“Due to rising sea levels, Shishmaref is expected to disappear within 20 to 25 years, creating a large population of climate refugees,” Ethans contends, conjuring up images of desperate natives piling into birchbark canoes and fleeing the sinking island.



The entire population of Shishmaref is 563 souls.



On the other hand, recent studies suggest that despite some rise in sea levels, many islands have not shrunk — as alarmists predicted — but have been stable or even grown.


Earlier this summer, the New York Times acknowledged that island nations are not, in fact, in danger of sinking under the seas due to climate change, despite what alarmists have predicted.



In a June 26 article titled “The Vanishing Islands that Failed to Vanish,” New York Times climate reporter Raymond Zhong chronicled the surprising find that atoll nations — like the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu, which seemed doomed to vanish — somehow have not.



Zhong wrote:



Of late, though, scientists have begun telling a surprising new story about these islands. By comparing mid-20th century aerial photos with recent satellite images, they’ve been able to see how the islands have evolved over time. What they found is startling: Even though sea levels have risen, many islands haven’t shrunk. Most, in fact, have been stable. Some have even grown.



link

[schwartzie]

WEF Demands ‘Global Collaboration’ to Usher in ‘Green Economy’

Frank Bergman
September 18, 2024 - 12:22 pm



World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab is calling on all “governments, businesses, and civil society” to enter into a “global collaboration” to “fight climate change.”



Schwab made the call in his “Chairman’s Statement” to introduce the WEF’s latest annual report.



In the WEF’s “Annual Report 2023-2024,” Schwab lists the “five transformative shifts” he expects nations around the world to comply with.



He then lays out the WEF’s “role” in this global “transformation.”



Under number three in the list, titled “Need to transition to a green economy,” Schwab states:



“Climate change and environmental degradation compel us to transition to a green economy.



“This shift involves adopting sustainable practices, reducing carbon emissions, and promoting renewable energy sources.



“The urgency to fight climate change is not only a moral imperative but also a pathway to economic resilience and innovation.



“Achieving this transition demands coordinated efforts across governments, businesses, and civil society.”


Schwab continues by explaining how he expects governments to “interconnect” with the WEF at the core.



He described the WEF as a “trusted platform” at the center of his plan for “global collaboration.”



“In a world where economic, political, social, environmental, and technological dimensions are interwoven, the Forum’s systematic approach plays an important role,” Schwab explains.



“We provide comprehensive analyses and frameworks that consider these interconnected aspects, helping stakeholders make better-informed decisions and develop integrated solutions.”


Elsewhere in the report, Schwab calls for increased efforts to tackle one of the greatest threats to the unelected globalist organization’s agenda: “Disinformation.”



Lamenting a “societal polarization,” which Schwab blames on an alleged “rise of misinformation,” the WEF leader asserts:



“In an increasingly complex and fast-moving world, societies are experiencing heightened polarization as people seek to reaffirm their identities.



“This manifests in cultural, political, ideological, and social divides and the rise of mis and disinformation.



“Addressing this polarization requires fostering inclusive dialogues, promoting mutual understanding, and creating environments where diverse views and identities can coexist harmoniously.”



Number one in Schwab’s list of his so-called “transformative shifts” is the WEF’s plan for a “transition from the industrial to the intelligent age.”



Schwab explains that much of the human labor in today’s industries will soon be replaced by automated machines.



However, Schwab argues that this “transition is revolutionizing industries.”



He claims that the shift to an AI-dominated world will only end up “enhancing productivity.”



“The world is rapidly evolving from the Industrial Age, characterized by mechanization and mass production, to the Intelligent Age, where artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and digital technologies drive unprecedented advancements.



“This transition is revolutionizing industries, enhancing productivity, and fostering innovation.



“However, it also necessitates new skills, regulatory frameworks, and ethical considerations to ensure technology benefits all.”



Schwab concludes by promoting his plans for a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” – a key element of his “Great Reset” agenda.



“The Forum is inherently future-oriented, leveraging our extensive knowledge base, particularly in the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.



“By understanding and anticipating technological advancements, we help stakeholders harness these innovations for sustainable development and inclusive growth.”



“Together, we will continue to navigate these transformative times, seizing opportunities, mitigating risks, and building a resilient, inclusive, and sustainable future,” Schwab adds.

link

[schwartzie]

John Kerry Calls for Relaxed Trade Rules with Communist China to Fight ‘Climate Change’

Frank Bergman
September 19, 2024 - 12:37 pm



Former Biden-Harris administration “climate czar” John Kerry is calling on the U.S. government to relax trading rules with Communist China to supposedly tackle “global warming.”



Earlier this year, Kerry stepped down from his lucrative role as the first-ever United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate (SPEC).



The position was established for Kerry by his old friend President Joe Biden.



Kerry said he was stepping away from the role to focus on campaigning for Biden’s now-failed re-election bid.



However, Kerry still appears to be using the climate to advance his own agenda.



On Wednesday, Kerry urged the U.S. government to take a new look at global trade rules.



He called the existing mediator of trade disputes, the World Trade Organization, “neutered.”



The long-time diplomat made the calls during wide-ranging comments on trade, tariffs, and the energy transition from fossil fuels at the Gastech energy conference in Houston, Texas.



Kerry insists that cooperation with China is vital for tackling “climate change.”

“We need an understanding among nations, which China and the U.S. could help lead, about fair processes within the trading structure of the world,” said Kerry.



He argues that relaxing trade rules with the Chinese Communist Party will help to combat “global warming” because China is developing “technologies” for “transitioning” to “green energy.”



Kerry also blasted the rising use of tariffs on Chinese imports, arguing that they harm efforts to encourage clean energy businesses such as those that produce solar panels, batteries, and electric cars.



“I’m not big on tariffs at all,” Kerry said.


“I think historically tariffs have proven to be very problematic for the marketplace and countries.”



“I advocate working with China on climate because China is 30% of all emissions on the planet and is now the biggest producer of some of these (energy transition) technologies,” Kerry declared.



He warned that U.S. lawmakers and regulators need to help to advance clean energy projects by relaxing trade rules with China.



“We have some blockages – political and regulatory – and one of them is the permitting, you cannot take 10 years to permit this stuff, we don’t have that kind of time,” he said.



“Nobody else is going to sit around and wait for us to get our act together.”



This is not the first time Kerry has questionably used “climate change” while weighing in on global politics.



As Slay News reported, Kerry claimed in March that people around the world would “feel better” about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine if Moscow would “make a greater effort to reduce emissions.”



During a foreign press briefing in Washington, D.C., Kerry made a weak attempt to link the endless foreign war to his globalist green agenda.



The event was the last presser Kerry gave a “climate czar” as he departed from the position.



Kerry shockingly claimed that people are against the war because Russia doesn’t do enough to fight “climate change.”



However, Kerry failed to explain why he believes the two are linked.



In 2021, Biden appointed Kerry to be the U.S. SPEC, a position that he invented for his old friend.



The bureaucratic role had not previously existed and did not require Senate approval.



Kerry was operating without regulation in the powerful position, despite blowing vast sums of taxpayer cash and making major decisions on behalf of the American people that could impact lives for generations to come.



In the role, Kerry traveled worldwide on taxpayer-funded private jets, attending high-profile climate summits and diplomatic engagements.



The jet-setting was supposedly part of a push for a global transition from fossil fuels to “green” energy alternatives.



link

[schwartzie]

Bill Gates Funding Scheme to Promote ‘Climate Change’ Agenda in Corporate Media Reports

Frank Bergman
September 26, 2024 - 11:52 am



Bill Gates and other liberal donors are funding a new scheme that seeks to inject narratives into corporate media reports to promote the globalist “climate change” agenda.



Some of America’s largest liberal organizations are involved in the scheme, including the Microsoft co-founder’s Gates Foundation.



The plan seeks to encourage and reward journalists who push “global warming” narratives in their news reports.



The scheme has been dubbed the Climate Blueprint for Media Transformation.



It emerged from a 2023 green agenda conference sponsored by the Solutions Journalism Network and Covering Climate Now.



The Solutions Journalism Network is funded by several left-wing foundations, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Hewlett Foundation.



The Gates Foundation has been instrumental in the war on food by pushing for restrictions on meat and dairy products.



Gates has also been heavily involved in the push to replace meat and dairy with lab-grown products and insect-based “foods.”



Meanwhile, the Hewlett Foundation has a track record of working to influence reporters.


Their influence can be seen in the Climate Blueprint, a 14-part guide for how journalists should insert green agenda narratives into their reporting.



Each section of the document is written by a different journalist or activist.



It covers subjects ranging from “Community Engagement” to “Climate Justice.”



The Climate Blueprint opens with a section called “The Everything Story.”



In this section, Covering Climate Now deputy director Andrew McCormick encourages journalists to “take bold action.”



McCormick argues that journalists should make stories on “every beat,” including crime and sports, about “climate change.”



Covering Climate Now co-founder Kyle Pope echoed his colleague’s advice in the Columbia Journalism Review Monday.



Pope complained that the Kardashian family received more coverage than alleged rising ocean temperatures.



He also claimed that “global warming” has begun to be covered only “very recently.”



In response, Pope urged journalists to step up and “tell the most important story on Earth.”



In the Blueprint’s section, on “Community Engagement,” “India Currents” audience engagement editor Prachi Singh provides guidelines for reporters.



Singh says that “reporters need to shift from chasing deadlines to meaningfully connecting” with “women, people of color, Indigenous peoples, the LGBTQIA+ community,” and other groups he claims are more affected by the so-called “climate crisis.”



Investigative reporter Amy Westervelt explicitly urges journalists to paint anyone involved with the fossil fuel industry as a villain.



Westervelt urges reporters to find universities that take money from energy companies and build relationships with “one professor who doesn’t particularly like the arrangement,” presumably to have him criticize his employer.



Meanwhile, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jennifer Oldham encourages reporters to “put in the time to gain activists’ trust.”



Oldham notes that “validation is paramount” and offers tips for reporters to “best cover climate campaigns in order to give them the weight they deserve.”



“Be intentional with your language,” is one of Oldham’s tips.



“Do you call an event a ‘demonstration; or a ‘riot’?” Oldham asks.



“Words matter. Calling an encounter a ‘violent clash with police’ criminalizes demonstrators without offering a comparable criticism of law enforcement’s actions.”



The Climate Blueprint calls for reporters to go all-in on fearmongering about the alleged “climate crisis.”



However, it also warns that doing so could be traumatic for journalists.



In the Blueprint, Yessenia Funes, “a New York-based queer Latina journalist,” writes:



“Leadership at the publication has taken thoughtful steps to lighten the workload in summer, when heat-driven extreme weather — from wildfires to hurricanes — worsens.



“By getting ahead on stories during the lull of winter and spring, the team isn’t overwhelmed by the onslaught of tragedy after summer tragedy.”



“Ultimately, climate and environmental reporters can’t carry this burden alone,” Funes adds.



“It is incumbent on the industry to take the time to build resources professionals urgently need — including access to high-quality health care and flexible work schedules that give journalists the time they need to pause and reflect on the stories they’re responsible for sharing and the emotions they’re silently carrying.”



The push to inject more hysteria into reporting comes amid mounting evidence that the warnings about the “climate crisis” have been overblown.



The Washington Post this month published a chart showing the Earth’s current mean surface temperature is actually around the lowest it has been in the past 485 million years.



This year also marks the deadline for the Pentagon’s 2004 predictions in a report to President George W. Bush.



At the time, the report claimed that in 20 years, “climate change” would wreak havoc on the world.



It said “global warming” would turn the United Kingdom’s climate “Siberian” and lead to nuclear conflict, drought, and famine.



None of those predictions have come to pass.



link

[OmegaMan]

[Berean]

Media Uses Hurricane Helene To Promote "Global Warming" Agenda

Wednesday, Oct 02, 2024 - 08:55 PM

Authored by Eric Lendrum via American Greatness,



Even as the death toll from Hurricane Helene continues to rise, pundits in the mainstream media are rushing to use the disaster as an excuse to promote their narrative that “global warming” is real.


As reported by Just The News, a number of prominent anchors, commentators, and other television personalities have used the occasion of the hurricane to spread lies about so-called “global warming,” also referred to as “climate change.”



“We are living in an era of extreme weather that requires new language,” said CBS News’ Major Garrett.



He went on to falsely claim that the world has seen an increase in the number of every kind of natural disaster, despite this having been debunked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.



CNN’s Angela Fritz declared that Hurricane Helene was caused by “fossil fuel pollution,” claiming with no evidence that “the atmosphere, warmed by more than a century of fossil fuel pollution, is hotter now than it was in pre-industrial times.”



However, studies have shown that carbon dioxide emissions are created by just about every single process in existence that provides basic necessities to the population, including the shipping of materials and products, ranging from food to clothing.



Fritz went on to further claim that “More than 90% of warming around the globe over the past 50 years has taken place in the oceans, and it’s making storms more likely to undergo these rapid intensification cycles.”



But this claim has also been disproven, with Dr. Matt Wielicky, former assistant professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama, explaining how two consecutive similar tropical storms that impacted North Carolina in 1916 were even worse than Helene despite lower carbon emission levels overall.



“The 1916 event occurred even though atmospheric CO2 levels were approximately 120 ppm lower than they are today,” Wielicki confirmed.



“Blaming the fossil fuel industry for all weather-related disasters overlooks the complexity of natural climate variability and the role of poor urban planning in flood-prone regions.”



The subject of global warming was brought up at the vice presidential debate on Tuesday night, with CBS News’ moderators blaming global warming for the hurricane.



After both candidates gave their answers on the statement, the moderators falsely claimed that the “scientific consensus” is that global warming is real, even though there is no such consensus.



The overall death toll from Hurricane Helene has risen to 139.



The storm impacted the southeastern United States, including Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

link

[schwartzie]

WEF Demands Ban on Home-Grown Food to Stop ‘Global Warming’

Frank Bergman
October 6, 2024 - 12:54 pm



The World Economic Forum (WEF) is demanding that governments enforce bans on members of the general public growing their own food at home in order to comply with the unelected globalist organization’s “Net Zero” agenda.



The WEF argues that home-grown food creates “emissions” that allegedly cause “global warming.”



According to so-called “experts” behind a recent WEF study, researchers apparently discovered that the “carbon footprint” of home-grown food is “destroying the planet.”



As a result, the WEF and other globalist climate zealots are now demanding that governments intervene and ban individuals from growing their own food in order to “save the planet” from “global warming.”



Globalists insist that allowing citizens to grow their own food will undermine efforts to meet the goals of the “Net Zero” agenda as dedicated by the WEF and the United Nations (UN).



The research indicated that garden-to-table produce causes a far greater carbon footprint than conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms.



This research, conducted by WEF-funded scientists at the University of Michigan, was published in the journal Nature Cities.



The study looked at different types of urban farms to see how much carbon dioxide (CO2) was produced when growing food.



On average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07 kilogram (kg) of CO2, according to the study.


However, the WEF-funded researchers claim that the impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual city gardens.



The paper’s first author Jake Hawes said:



“The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food, from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.”



The study recruited 73 urban agriculture sites around the world.



Those farms included some in Europe, the United States, and the United Kingdom.



The researchers say they conducted a comprehensive life cycle assessment on the site’s infrastructure, irrigation, and supplies.



Hawes and his teammates grouped urban agriculture sites into three categories: individual or family gardens, including allotments; collective gardens, such as community gardens; and larger, commercial-orientated urban farms.



The researchers also found other factors that they claimed are “hazardous” when it comes to impacting the alleged “climate crisis.”



JOIN THE FIGHT - DONATE TO SLAY NEWS TODAY!

Poorly managed compost and other synthetic inputs contribute to “global warming,” they warned.



They further advised that fruit was 8.6 times more “eco-friendly” when grown conventionally compared to in a city.



Vegetables, meanwhile, were 5.8 times better for the environment when left to the professionals, they claim.



Moreover, two-thirds of the “carbon footprint” of allotments is created by the garden itself, as per their data.



Nevertheless, they insist that people should be limited when it comes to keeping plants inside their homes, as well as growing food in their gardens.



Urban gardeners used to have no qualms about greening their indoor spaces.



For one, this reduces city living anxieties and emotional stress.



Also, being able to take care of plants inside their offices and homes could be part of interior design and a slight improvement in air quality.



However, climate alarmists are not going to give city dwellers peace of mind.



According to the WEF researchers, greening indoor spaces can also come at an environmental cost.



They cite “carbon emissions” from the trucks that transport plants, plastic pots, and synthetic fertilizers.



These, they said, are made from petroleum and the harvesting of soil components like peat can “tear up slow-forming habitats.”



Susan Pell, the director of the U.S. Botanic Garden in Washington, D.C., downplayed the narrative.



Pell argues that members of the general public should at least still be able to grow potted plants at home, even if they can’t buy them.



They just need to consider the “environmental harm of indoor gardening,” she claims.



The news comes amid a growing war against the food supply to supposedly fight “global warming.”



As Slay News reported, 14 major American cities have set a “target” to comply with the WEF’s green agenda goals by banning meat and dairy products by 2030.



The agreement also seeks to ban private car ownership and place other restrictions on public freedoms to meet the WEF’s “Net Zero” goals.



The U.S. cities have formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40) which has established an “ambitious target” to meet the WEF’s goals by the year 2030.



To fulfill the “target,” the C40 Cities have pledged that their residents will comply with the following list of mandatory rules:



“0 kg [of] meat consumption”

“0 kg [of] dairy consumption”

“3 new clothing items per person per year”

“0 private vehicles” owned

“1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person”

Earlier this year, New York’s anti-Trump Democrat Attorney General Letitia James advanced this agenda by filing a lawsuit against the world’s largest beef producer, as Slay News reported.



NY AG James is suing JBS USA over claims the company has failed to meet its so-called “Net Zero” pledge.



The get-Trump prosecutor accuses JBS of allegedly contributing to “global greenhouse gas emissions” as “families continue to face the daily impacts of the climate crisis.”



In an announcement, James blasted the agriculture industry and argued that beef production has the largest “greenhouse gas footprint” of any major food commodity.



James also claimed that animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.



Essentially, the taxpaying masses must stop eating meat and using natural fuels to meet the goals of the elite.


link

[Midnight]

Peter Sweden: UNREAL- Danish CARBON TAX on Cows

by Peter Sweden
Oct. 6, 2024 11:40 am

This article was written by Swedish independent journalist Peter Imanuelsen, also known as PeterSweden. You can follow him at PeterSweden.org.



Farmers in Denmark will have to pay a tax to offset emissions made by farting cows.



You literally cannot make this up.



A few years ago this would have been called a ”crazy conspiracy theory”. Yet here we are.



Denmark is introducing the world’s first carbon tax on agriculture, meaning that dairy farmers in the country will have to pay around €90 per cow annually because of the cow farts and burps.



It may sound comical, but this is serious stuff. Farmers are basically being taxed because their animals fart too much.



This of course will mean that food prices will go up even more. It’s almost like more Socialist government regulations make things more expensive…


The government coalition has agreed to implement this tax, but it still needs to be approved by parliament. The tax will of course begin in the year 2030.



But the carbon tax price will be increased as the years go on. By 2035, the carbon tax will be at a whopping €225 per cow annually.



Denmark has a goal of cutting 70% of their total emissions by the year 2030. Of course, this all goes back to the UN Agenda 2030.



And guess who has been funding the Agenda 2030? None other than Bill Gates. You can read all about it in my previous article here.



In other words, it doesn’t seem like Denmark has been listening to the massive farmers protests that took place all over Europe earlier this year.



Hundreds of thousands of farmers all across Europe protested against climate measures that is making life difficult for farmers.



Naturally, farmers aren’t happy about this tax., with Danish farmers complaining that this is a ”scary experiment”.



Without farmers, we won’t have any food.



This is what Climate Communism looks like.



Don’t forget the farmers!

link

[schwartzie]

UN Demands Extra $308 Billion Per Year to ‘Fight Climate Change’ in Third World

Frank Bergman
October 12, 2024 - 11:20 am



The United Nations (UN) is demanding that taxpayers in Western nations contribute an additional $308 billion per year to help the unelected globalist organization allegedly fight “climate change” in third-world countries.



The UN argues that the United States and other developed nations are responsible for the suffering in “climate-vulnerable countries.”



The organization detailed its demand in a new “Climate and Environment” report.



The UN cites another report from the International Labour Organization (ILO).



According to the UN, the ILO is warning that “Half the world lacks social protection amid climate crisis.”



The UN report states:



“Social protection is essential to safeguard people from shocks, but half the world is without any coverage, including over 90 percent of people living in climate-vulnerable countries, according to a new report released on Thursday by the International Labour Organization (ILO).



“Around 50 percent of us do have access to at least one social protection benefit – but 3.8 billion people lack any kind of safety net, including 1.8 billion children worldwide, according to the World Social Protection Report 2024-26: Universal social protection for climate action and a just transition.”



In a fearmongering statement, ILO Director-General Gilbert Houngbo warned:


“Climate change does not recognize borders, and we cannot build a wall to keep the crisis out.



“The climate crisis affects us all and represents the single, gravest threat to social justice today.”



The UN claims that the “findings showed that governments are failing to make full use of the powerful potential of social protection to counter the effects of the climate crisis and support a just transition to a greener future.”



In addition to its report, the ILO also published a promotional video.


However, the video is filled with falsehoods and fasly links weather events such as storms and floods to the so-called “climate crisis” from the onset.



WATCH:







“Low-income countries, including the most climate-vulnerable States, need an additional $308.5 billion a year, or 52.3 percent of their GDP, to guarantee at least basic coverage and international support will be needed to reach this goal,” the UN asserts.



“The [ILO] report also recommends prioritizing investment in social protection, including external support for countries with limited fiscal space.”



Yet, despite the claims from the UN and the ILO, the money would provide no benefit whatsoever for the intended recipients.



Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati responded to the demands for more cash to be sent to his nation in a statement.



“For God’s Sake, Please Stop the Aid!” Shikwati urged.



Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good.



The avid proponent of globalization spoke with Spiegel about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.



“Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years,” Shikwati noted.



“If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid.



“The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape.



“Despite the billions that have poured into Africa, the continent remains poor.”



“Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent,” Shikwati added.



“In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need.



“As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems.



“If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice.



“Only the functionaries would be hard hit.



“Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.”

link

[schwartzie]

MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Global Warming’ Is Globalist ‘Propaganda’

Frank Bergman
October 12, 2024 - 9:15 am



A world-renowned climate scientist has warned that the official “global warming” narrative is nothing more than “propaganda” that is being peddled by power-hungry globalists.



Professor Richard Lindzen recently spoke in Brussels, at the invitation of the Hungarian political think tank MCC.



Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.



He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers.



From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University.



In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).



He remained at MIT until his retirement in 2013.



Lindzen has disputed the “settled science” on “climate change” and criticizes what he has called “climate alarmism.”



At the MCC event, Lindzen spoke about the role of consensus in political movements claiming a scientific basis (as is the case nowadays with climate).


“Hopefully, we will awaken from this nightmare before it is too late,” Lindzen said of the globalist “climate change” agenda.



Below is the full text of his speech and the video of Linzen’s address is at the end of the article.



Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, MIT:



In modern history, there are several examples of political movements claiming a scientific basis.


From immigration restriction and eugenics (in the US after WW1) to antisemitism and race ideology (in Hitler’s Germany) and communism and Lysenkoism (under Stalin).



Each of these claimed a scientific consensus that allowed highly educated citizens, who were nonetheless ignorant of science, to have the anxieties associated with their ignorance alleviated.



Since all scientists supposedly agreed, there was no need for them to understand the science. Indeed, ‘the science’ is the opposite of science itself.



Science is a mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority.



However, the success that science achieves has earned it a measure of authority in the public’s mind, and this is what politicians frequently envy and attempt to appropriate.



The exploitation of climate fits into the preceding pattern, and as with all its predecessors, science is, in fact, irrelevant.



At best, it is a distraction which led many of us to focus on the numerous misrepresentations of science in what was purely a political movement.



The following focuses on the situation in the United States, though a similar dynamic occurred throughout the developed world, with meetings at the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation’s Bellagio Center and at Villach in the 1980s playing an important role.



Most of this talk will concern the origin of the obsession with decarbonization in the US.



I will return briefly to the matter of the consensus at the end of this talk.



I would suggest that the obsession with decarbonization (i.e., Net Zero) had its roots in the reaction to the amazing post-WW2 period when ordinary workers were able to own a house and a car.



I was a student in the 50s and early 60s.



The mockery of the poor taste and materialism of these so-called ordinary people was endemic.



With the Vietnam War, things got amplified as the working class got drafted while students sought draft deferments.



Students, during this period, were still a relative elite; the massive expansion of higher education was only beginning.



Students justified their behavior by insisting that the Vietnam War was illegitimate while ignoring the obvious fact that Vietnamese people were fleeing south rather than north.



It was fashionable to regard the US as evil and deserving of overthrow.



Opposition often turned to violence with groups like the Weather Underground and SDS (Students for a Democratic Society).



In 1968, I was teaching at the University of Chicago.



We were spending the summer in Colorado, and we had a student taking care of our apartment.



When we returned, we found a police car monitoring our apartment.



The house-sitter had apparently turned our apartment into a crash pad for the SDS during the Democrat Party Convention.



Our apartment was littered with their literature which included instructions for poisoning Chicago’s water supply.



This period seemed to end with Nixon’s election, but we now know that this was just the beginning of the long march through the institutions: a march being conducted by avowed revolutionaries intent on destroying Western society.



For the new revolutionaries, however, the enemy was not the capitalists, but, rather, the working middle class.



The capitalists, they realized, could easily be bought off.



Currently, there is great emphasis on the march through the educational institutions: first the schools of education and then higher education in the humanities and the social sciences, and now STEM.



What is usually ignored is that the first institutions to be captured were professional societies.



My wife attended a meeting of the Modern Language Association in the late 60s, and it was already fully “woke.”



While there is currently a focus on the capture of education, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, a movement emphasizing racial differences and encouraging conflict) was not the only goal of the march through the institutions.



I think it would be a mistake to ignore the traditional focus of revolutionary movements on the means of production.



The vehicle for this was the capture of the environmental movement.



Prior to 1970, the focus of this movement was on things like whales, endangered species, landscape, clean air and water, and population.



However, with the first Earth Day in April of 1970, the focus turned to the energy sector which, after all, is fundamental to all production, and relatedly, involves trillions of dollars.



As we will see, this last item was fundamental.



This new focus was accompanied by the creation of new environmental organizations like Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council.



It was also accompanied by new governmental organizations like the EPA and the Department of Transportation.



Once again, professional societies were easy pickings: the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and even honorary societies like the National Academy of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, etc.



The capture of the Royal Society in the UK was an obvious European example.



There was a bit of floundering to begin with.



The movement initially attempted to focus on global cooling due to the reflection of sunlight by sulfate aerosols emitted by coal-fired generators.



After all, there seemed to have been global cooling between the 1930s and the 1970s.



However, the cooling ended in the 1970s.



There was an additional effort to tie the sulfates to acid rain which was allegedly killing forests.



This also turned out to be a dud. In the 70’s, attention turned to CO2 and its contribution to warming via the greenhouse effect.



The attraction of controlling CO2 to political control freaks was obvious. It was the inevitable product of all burning of carbon-based fuels.



It was also the product of breathing. However, there was a problem: CO2 was a minor greenhouse gas compared to the naturally produced water vapor.



Doubling CO2 would only lead to warming of less than 1 degree C.



A paper in the early 70’s by Manabe and Wetherald came to the rescue.



Using a highly unrealistic one-dimensional model of the atmosphere, they found that assuming (without any basis) that relative humidity remained constant as the atmosphere warmed, would provide a positive feedback that would amplify the impact of CO2 by a factor of 2.



This violated Le Chatelier’s Principle that held that natural systems tended to oppose change, but to be fair, the principle was not something that had been rigorously proven.



Positive feedbacks now became the stock in trade of all climate models which now were producing responses to doubling CO2 of 3 degrees C and even 4 degrees C rather than a paltry 1 degree C or less.



The enthusiasm of politicians became boundless.



Virtue-signaling elites promised to achieve net zero emissions within a decade or 2 or 3 with no idea of how to achieve this without destroying their society (and, with off-shore wind, killing marine mammals).



Ordinary people, confronted with impossible demands on their own well-being, have not found warming of a few degrees to be very impressive since the warming projected was what everyone successfully negotiates every day.



By contrast, most educated elites learned how to rationalize anything in order to please their professors – a skill that leaves them particularly vulnerable to propaganda.



Few ordinary people, by contrast, contemplate retiring to the Arctic rather than Florida.



Excited politicians, confronted by this resistance, have frantically changed their story.



Rather than emphasizing minuscule changes in their temperature metric (which, itself, is a false measure of climate), they now point to weather extremes which occur almost daily some place on Earth, as proof not only of climate change but of climate change due to increasing CO2 (and now also to the even more negligible contributors to the greenhouse effect like methane and nitrous oxide) even though such extremes show no significant correlation with the emissions.



From the political point of view, extremes provide convenient visuals that have more emotional impact than small temperature changes.



The desperation of political figures often goes beyond this to claiming that climate change is an existential threat (associated with alleged ‘tipping points’) even though the official documents (for example, the Working Group 1 reports of the IPCC) produced to support climate concerns never come close to claiming this, and where there is no theoretical or observational basis for tipping points.



I should note that there was one exception to the focus on warming, and that was the ozone depletion issue. However, even this issue served a purpose.



When Richard Benedick, the American negotiator of the Montreal Convention which banned Freon passed through MIT on his way back from Montreal, he gloated over his success, but assured us that we hadn’t seen anything yet; we should wait to see what they would do with CO2.



In brief, the ozone issue constituted a dry run for global warming. To be sure, the EPA’s activities still include conventional pollution control, but energy dominates.



Of course, the attraction of power is not the only thing motivating politicians.



The ability to award trillions of dollars to reorient our energy sector means that there are recipients of these trillions of dollars, and these recipients must only share a few percent of these trillions of dollars to support the campaigns of these politicians for many election cycles and guarantee the support of these politicians for the policies associated with the reorientation.



That the claim of consensus was always propagandistic should be obvious, but the claim of consensus has its own interesting aspects.



When global warming was first exposed to the American public in a Senate hearing in 1988, Newsweek Magazine had a cover showing the Earth on fire with the subtitle “All scientists agree.”



This was at a time when there were only a handful of institutions dealing with climate and even these institutions were more concerned with understanding the present climate rather than the impact of CO2 on climate.



Nonetheless, a few politicians (most notably Al Gore) were already making this their signature issue.



And, when the Clinton-Gore administration won the election in 1992, there began a rapid increase by a factor of about 15 in funding related to climate.



This, indeed, created a major increase in individuals claiming to work on climate, and who understood that the support demanded agreement with the alleged danger of CO2.



Whenever, there was an announcement of something that needed to be found (i.e., the elimination of the medieval warm period, the attribution of change to CO2, etc.), there were, inevitably, so-called scientists who would claim to have found what was asked for (Ben Santer for attribution and Michael Mann for the elimination of the medieval warm period) and received remarkable rewards and recognition despite the absurd arguments.



This did produce a consensus of sorts.



It was not a consensus that we were facing an existential threat, but rather, as noted by Steven Koonin, that the projected increase in GDP by the end of the 21st century would be decreased from about 200% to 197% and even this prediction is an exaggeration – especially since it ignores the undeniable benefits of CO2.



So here we are, confronted with policies that destroy Western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march, a march that the energy sector cowardly accepts, being too lazy to exert the modest effort needed to check what is being claimed.



As Voltaire once noted, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”



Hopefully, we will awaken from this nightmare before it is too late.



WATCH:

MIT Climate Scientist: 'Global Warming' Is Globalist 'Propaganda'



link

[schwartzie]

UK Launches Major Effort to Promote Insect-Based ‘Foods’ and Lab-Grown ‘Meat’

Frank Bergman
October 12, 2024 - 10:05 am



A major new initiative has been launched in the UK that seeks to radically transform the food supply by replacing traditional meat and dairy products with “planet-friendly alternatives” such as insects.



A $50 million nationwide center has been established to research and develop insect-based “foods” and lab-grown “meats.”



The center is funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Innovate UK, and three universities.



The project aims to create “acceptable and planet-friendly alternatives to animal proteins.”



Launched by the University of Leeds, the virtual research center will examine Bill Gates-promoted lab-grown “meat.”



The center will also investigate the insect, plant, and fungus-based meat alternatives pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN).



The project seeks to determine the health, sustainability, and feasibility of eliminating traditional meat in the general public’s food supply.



The National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre (“NAPIC”) has a mission to develop “acceptable and planet-friendly alternatives to animal proteins.”



The center is set to research alternatives to animal proteins, particularly from insects, plants, fungi, algae, and meat grown in labs.

Funding has come from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and Innovate UK, as well as three universities and the James Hutton Institute.



A statement by the organizations said replacing traditional agriculture with “alternative protein sources” is “critical if we are to meet increasing demands sustainably.”



Alternative proteins are derived from sources other than animals and include terrestrial and aquatic plants, insects, proteins derived via biomass or precision fermentation and cultured meat.



Over 30 researchers from the institutions will work with the farming industry, regulators, investors and policymakers to create a “vibrant alternative protein innovation ecosystem.”


In a statement about the project, the organization said:



“Animal agriculture is estimated to produce up to a fifth of planet-warming emissions, and with the global population projected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, the demand for protein is expected to rise significantly.



“Some sources, such as the UN Environment Programme, estimate meat consumption alone could grow up to 50 percent by 2050.



“We need to find more sustainable sources of protein and thankfully there is a huge biodiversity in non-animal sources of protein, and we’ve barely scratched the surface of this.”



Dutch scientist Mark Post unveiled the first lab-grown “meat” burger on live television in 2013.



The industry has since grown to more than 150 companies on 6 continents as of late 2022, backed by $2.6B in investments, each aiming to produce cultivated meat products.



Dozens more companies and globalist organizations have formed to create technology solutions along the value chain.



However, despite all the corporate media frenzy that’s circulated about prospects to “save the planet” by producing lab-grown “meat,” there’s a darker side to culturing muscle cells in a laboratory for food production.



Reports have emerged that reveal the claims of environmental “benefits” surrounding lab-grown “meat” have been fabricated.



In fact, studies have found that these “alternative proteins” are far worse for the environment than traditional animal-derived meats.



Fake meat, synthetic meat, test tube meat, franken meat, clean meat – call it what you will – is the trend to grow meat artificially in a laboratory.



The new industry has been attracting some impressive billionaire investment backing and media interest in recent times.



What has been interesting in this era of so-called “disinformation” and “fact-checking” is the number of media articles about fake meat that repeat false claims by its commercial proponents that real beef is bad for just about everything, while lab-grown products are without ethical or environmental baggage.



There is no apparent attempt to verify those claims from the corporate media.



Of course, eliminating farmers and replacing meat and dairy with corporate-controlled lab-grown “foods” has nothing at all to do with “saving the planet.”



It’s a globalist power grab that seeks to seize control of the global food supply.

link

[schwartzie]

Top Study Confirms Sunlight and Clouds Drive Earth’s Climate, Not ‘Carbon Emissions’

Frank Bergman
October 13, 2024 - 11:52 am



A major new study has confirmed that Earth’s global temperature and climate are driven naturally by sunlight and clouds, not by so-called “carbon emissions.”



The news comes as government officials, unelected globalist bureaucrats, and their allies in the corporate media continue to push the narrative that human activity causes “climate change.”



The European Commission’s Copernicus published an August report that found that the global average temperature had reached record highs in the past 12 months.



The report claimed an increase of 1.51 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.



Similarly, Roy Spencer and John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville used satellite data to determine that the average temperature in August was 0.88 degrees Celsius higher than the 30-year average from 1991–2020.



The Biden-Harris administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra used the report to promote the federal government’s green agenda.



“Extreme heat is not just an environmental crisis, it’s a serious threat to our public health—and communities across the country are struggling to respond,” Becerra said in a news release.



“What we’re facing today wasn’t what we were experiencing 30 or 40 years ago.



“This is a different world we are in.”

On August 14,  Joe Biden released the National Heat Strategy for 2024–2030.



The report fulfills a promise made in July to take additional action to address increasing temperatures.



The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that changes in Earth’s temperatures are primarily caused by human-induced increases in carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas.



In a press release, Panmao Zhai, a Chinese climatologist and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group I, stated:



“Stabilizing the climate will require strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net zero CO2 emissions.



“Limiting other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, especially methane, could have benefits both for health and the climate.”



Ned Nikolov, a physical scientist and researcher affiliated with Colorado State University, told The Epoch Times the IPCC is incorrect regarding CO2.



“The greenhouse theory claims that atmospheric composition is important,” Nikolov said.



“They are arguing that tiny increases of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause global warming and that we must stop burning fossil fuel to avoid dangerous climate change.



“That is completely wrong.”



On Aug. 20, Nikolov and Karl Zeller, a retired U.S. Forest Service meteorologist, published their study that found that recent warming is not the result of increasing CO2.



Instead, after analyzing satellite data, the two researchers concluded that the Earth has warmed because it’s been absorbing more sunlight due to reduced global cloud cover.



According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth’s atmosphere is constantly working to balance the planet’s “energy budget”—the amount of energy entering and leaving it.



After the Sun’s shortwave radiation—sunshine—reaches the Earth, the energy flows back into space as thermal radiation.



If this balance is disrupted, and more sunlight is absorbed or not enough heat escapes to space, Earth’s temperature will rise.



An imbalance in the energy budget is known as radiative forcing, with the incoming radiation being shortwave and the outgoing radiation being longwave (or thermal).



Additionally, Earth’s albedo, the fraction of sunlight reflected back into space, impacts the amount of radiation that reaches the surface.



In its Sixth Assessment Report, the IPCC states that, due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration from human greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s energy budget is out of balance—more thermal energy is being trapped, resulting in elevated temperatures and warmer oceans.



It also notes regarding the Earth’s albedo that, between 1950 and 1980, there was “evidence for a widespread decline of surface solar radiation (or dimming),” followed by “a partial recovery (brightening) at many observational sites thereafter.”



As to the cause, the IPCC states, “Multi-decadal variation in anthropogenic [human-caused] aerosol emissions are thought to be a major contributor (medium confidence), but multi-decadal variability in cloudiness may also have played a role.”



In addition, the IPCC said some studies show that “cloudiness” can play a role in “dimming” and “brightening.”



However, the contribution of aerosols and clouds to dimming and brightening is still debated, and “the origin of these trends is not fully understood.”



That, according to Nikolov, is where his study comes in.



NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) website states:



“Climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infrared energy emitted to space.



“These quantities—together with their differences—define Earth’s radiation budget.”



Since March of 2000, the NASA team has been collecting satellite data to examine the energy exchange between the Earth and space.



Using those measurements and a “novel climate-sensitivity model derived from independent NASA planetary data,” Nikolov and Zeller evaluated how Earth’s decreasing albedo impacted global temperature during the 21st century.



“CO2 is an invisible trace gas that does not interfere with sunlight,” Nikolov said.



“It’s believed to trap thermal radiation coming from the surface, but that’s a misconception because the absorption of longwave radiation by CO2 and heat-trapping are completely different physical processes.



“According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat-trapping is impossible in an open system such as the atmosphere.”



He added that while water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, it becomes visible when it condenses and forms clouds.



And because clouds “reflect solar radiation back to space,” their impact on the climate is “measurable and significant.”



“Cloud formation is partially controlled by cosmic forces,” Nikolov added.



“When clouds decrease, the planetary albedo drops and more radiation reaches the surface, causing warmer temperatures.”



“In our paper, we show, using the best available observations from the [Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System] platform, that the warming of the last 24 years was entirely caused by the observed decrease of Earth’s albedo and not by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations as claimed by the IPCC.”






Figure 1. Monthly radiative anomalies derived from the CERES EBAF 4.2 dataset: (a) Earth’s global albedo calculated via dividing the reflected all-sky shortwave anomaly by the globally averaged incident solar flux at the TOA (i.e., the global insolation) and multiplying the resulting fraction by 100 to convert to a percent; (b) Earth’s absorbed solar flux calculated via multiplying the CERES reflected all-sky shortwave anomaly by −1 based on the fact that radiation absorption is opposite (and complimentary) to reflection.



Figure 7. Comparison between observed GSAT anomalies and CERES-reported changes in the Earth’s absorbed solar flux. The two data series, representing 13-month running means, are highly correlated with the absorbed SW flux, explaining 78% of the GSAT variation (R2 = 0.78). Also, GSAT lags the absorbed shortwave radiation between 0 and 9 months, which indicates that GSAT is controlled by changes in sunlight absorption.






Nikolov said that, in the greenhouse theory, atmospheric composition is “very important” for a planet’s global surface temperature.



By applying dimensional analysis to NASA’s data describing the environments of different planets and moons in the solar system—including Earth—Nikolov and Zeller discovered a new universal relationship across planetary bodies.



This revealed that the atmosphere warms the surface not through longwave radiation emitted by greenhouse gases but through total pressure—adiabatically, without the loss or gain of heat—and that atmospheric composition has no effect on global temperature.



“Adiabatic heating (a.k.a. compression heating) is a well-known thermodynamic process. This revolutionary discovery about the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect (currently known as greenhouse effect) was published in [our] peer-reviewed literature in 2017,” Nikolov said.


 
link



“This is why when you get up in elevation, it gets cooler—either in the mountains or when you’re flying on an airplane—because the pressure drops with height.”



He compared the Moon’s surface temperature, as measured by NASA, compared to Earth’s global temperature to evaluate the thermal effect of the atmosphere.



“The data shows that the Moon is a perfect, airless equivalent of Earth because it orbits the Sun at the same distance as Earth but has no atmosphere,” Nikolov explained.



“So, the temperature difference between Earth and the Moon gives us the net thermal effect of the Earth’s atmosphere.”



Nikolov found that the Moon was about 88 degrees Kelvin cooler on average than the Earth.



That’s significant, he said.



“Currently, the greenhouse theory claims that without an atmosphere, the Earth would only be about 33 degrees colder than it is now. Some estimates even say only 18 degrees cooler,” Nikolov said.



“So, the present theory grossly underestimates the actual thermal effect of our atmosphere.



“However, this 88-degree thermal enhancement is due to total pressure.



“And that’s one of the fundamental differences between the greenhouse theory and our new climate concept.”



Through analyzing the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI), “calculated as a difference between absorbed shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere,” Nikolov and Zeller discovered that the scientific community had misinterpreted it.



“EEI is not caused by ‘heat-trapping’ resulting from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gasses as currently claimed, but ‘arises from adiabatic dissipation of thermal energy in ascending air parcels in the troposphere due to a decreasing atmospheric pressure with height,’” Nikolov said.



Specifically, using mathematics, Nikolov and Zeller showed that EEI is an “apparent phenomenon” rather than a “real imbalance,” which they said necessarily implies no long-term heat storage in the Earth system by increasing greenhouse gases and no “warming in the pipeline,” as claimed by the latest Report by the IPCC.



Nikolov said Earth’s reduced cloud cover could have several causes, including galactic cosmic rays, solar wind, and interactions between the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields.



“We have hypotheses about what’s driving the cloud cover changes, but we don’t have an exact mechanism or a conclusive theory,” Nikolov said.



“This is why we cannot mathematically describe it yet in a model to make predictions. ”



He called for “large-scale interdisciplinary research into the physical mechanisms controlling the Earth’s albedo and cloud physics,” as they are “the real drivers of climate on multi-decadal time scales.”



“The current climate science acknowledges that the clouds have been declining, and the Earth’s albedo has been decreasing, but they attribute it to internal climate variability. This is incorrect!” Nikolov said.



“Changes of cloud cover and albedo are externally forced. Identifying this external forcing is where future research has to focus instead of studying carbon emissions and [greenhouse gas] radiative forcing.”



Nikolov notes that if the rising global temperature was due to greenhouse gasses, there should have been more warming than observed.



“The simple fact is that the solar forcing alone explains the entire warming of the 21st century and leaves no room for any anthropogenic forcing,” Nikolov said.



“This inconvenient truth for the UN’s Climate Agenda might explain the absence of discussion in the 2021 IPCC Sixth Assessment Report about the decrease of Earth’s albedo since 2000 observed by [NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System] and its impact on recent warming.”



In response to the question “Is the Sun causing global warming?” on its website, NASA states:



“No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades.



“The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive.



“We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages.



“But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.”



The IPCC has not issued a response regarding Nikolov’s findings by the time of publication.

[Midnight]

UC San Diego Rolls Out Required Climate Change Courses
Olivia Rondeau
14 Oct 2024

University of California (UC) San Diego has introduced a mandatory program for all new students, regardless of major: “Climate Change Education.”



The graduation requirement, officially named the Jane Teranes Climate Change Education Requirement (JTCCER) after a Scripps Institution of Oceanography professor who died in July 2022, was implemented this fall, the school announced in a press release.



The initiative was “designed to ensure that undergraduates across all majors on campus are equipped to understand and address climate change,” the university said.



Over 7,000 first-year students will need to complete a one-quarter course from a list approved by the UC San Diego Academic Senate in order to graduate.



“The program was thoughtfully designed to ensure that approved climate courses align with general education and major-specific requirements, allowing students to meet the mandate without increasing their overall workload,” school officials said, noting that transfer students are exempt but “welcome and encouraged to enroll in one of the approved courses.”



The list of more than 40 approved courses that can fulfill the requirement includes “Gender and Climate Justice,” “Indigenous Approaches to Climate Change,” “California Politics,” and simply, “Water.”



While the Scripps Institution of Oceanography offers many of the JTCCER courses, others are being offered by arts, political science, and gender studies professors.



“UC San Diego has a long history of leadership in climate research and education, and the Jane Teranes Climate Change Education Requirement marks a new path forward,” Chancellor Pradeep K. Khosla said in the press release. “Whether undergraduates are majoring in STEM, the humanities, arts, social sciences or any other field, this requirement will equip them with a strong understanding of climate change and how they can contribute to meaningful solutions.”



The idea for the climate change courses was introduced in 2022, with Muir College Provost Wayne Yang saying that UC San Diego administration drew inspiration from the school’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) requirement implemented in 2011, which mandates that all undergraduates pass at least one approved DEI class.



“We took the best learnings from the DEI requirement — which Jane [Teranes] was also involved with — ensuring that the requirement does not add additional time to degree for students,” said Yang. “The climate requirement incentivizes and encourages faculty to integrate climate change education into their upper division courses, and thus deepens the curriculum by focusing on what students can actually do about climate change from their disciplines. Importantly, it treats climate change as an interdisciplinary issue.”



Teranes was among those finalizing the proposal when she suddenly fell ill and passed away, leading to the program being named after her.



“Jane had been an integral part of both getting the idea on the table and then co-chairing the workgroup, so we quickly reached a consensus to name the requirement in her honor,” said Scripps professor Sarah Gille. “She had a deep understanding of how to teach climate to students, and her absence leaves a significant void. This new requirement is just one way of paying tribute to her lasting impact on campus.”



“We set up the new requirement with the best intentions to make sure that UC San Diego produces graduates who are ready to meet the challenges of a changing climate, regardless of their field of study,” Gille added. “We need everyone engaged in this work, and we hope the JTCCER program will inspire others to follow suit.”

link

[schwartzie]

Carbon Dioxide Has Zero Impact on ‘Global Warming,’ Top Study Finds

Frank Bergman
October 20, 2024 - 12:23 pm



A group of leading Polish researchers has confirmed that carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has zero impact on so-called “global warming.”



The study, led by Professor Stan Kubicki of the Military University of Technology in Poland, debunks the globalist narratives regarding “climate change.”



The study, published in Science Direct, confirms that the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited.



In fact, that limit has already been reached, decades ago.



The study found that carbon dioxide emissions have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures.



The findings confirm what “climate scientists” should have told the public a long time ago: Even if we dug up all the world’s coal and extracted all the world’s oil and burned it in one giant pyre, its CO2 emissions wouldn’t heat the planet.



The findings of this study directly conflict with the globalist “climate crisis” narrative being promoted by the United Nations-funded “science” community.



Even the taxpayer-funded National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) continues to push these “global warming claims.”



In a statement explaining “climate change” to children, NASA presents the “greenhouse effect” as a simple cause-and-effect:


How are humans impacting the greenhouse effect?



Human activities are changing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.



NASA has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth’s atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up.



What NASA doesn’t mention is that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause Earth to warm up infinitely.



The three Polish scientists at the Military University of Technology in Warsaw who authored this latest study were following in the footsteps of other scientists who drew similar conclusions in their own research, published in the last few years.



As Slay News reported, one recent study found that the atmosphere becomes saturated with carbon dioxide.



Much like a sponge, it can only hold so much, meaning carbon dioxide cannot increase temperatures anymore as the saturation point was reached a long time ago.


The corporate media has refused to report on these studies, however.



All of these studies follow the same underlying concept.



The latest study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse that is steadily emitting heat.



The greenhouse grows increasingly hotter but at some point, the heat will start to dissipate, and the temperature inside levels off.



The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before they start emitting it to the outside.



The case of CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar.



It can act as a “greenhouse” gas but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse.



CO2 Coalition explains:



“The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as [CO2’s overall] concentration increases.”



Once the overall limit has been reached, adding more CO2 has no more impact.



Interestingly, the greenhouse limit may have been reached before the first coal-fired factory was even built.



The Polish scientists assert, based on their findings, that there is “currently a multiple exceedance of the saturation mass for carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere.”



According to the study, we already reached the point, long ago, where CO2 lost its effectiveness in warming the planet.



Scientists at McGill University made the same point last year:



Transmission in the CO2 band center is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated.



By “already saturated,” they meant that absorption has been saturated for centuries—since the “pre-industrial age,” in fact.



The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a little above 400 ppm today.



According to Prof. Dieter Schildknecht of Bielefeld University, Germany, carbon dioxide’s saturation level is just 300 ppm, a level that was probably reached around 1950, as the graph below illustrates.



Based on previous research, Schildknecht writes that beyond this level, emissions caused by human activity have no significant effect on carbon dioxide’s greenhouse properties.





According to National Geographic, however, CO2 levels reaching 400 ppm was a “climate milestone”:



The last time the concentration of Earth’s main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic.



Seas were at least 9.1 meters (30 feet higher)—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.



National Geographic doesn’t provide any evidence to prove these remarkable assertions, however.



Yet, it does admit that “the last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch…”



It then attempts to bolster the case by claiming:



But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there’s no other way to explain how warm Earth was then.



There are actually many ways, like changes in solar activity, to explain why Earth may have been warmer, and colder, in the past.



But what National Geographic and climate alarmists are attempting to promote is the fear of the future unknown:



The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer.



But Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down.



However, the May 2013 reading represented something different.



This time, 400 ppm was a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future.



Parents may want to check how much of their children’s science textbooks are filled with fearmongering as opposed to proper physics.



Explanations of how greenhouses and greenhouse gases work are key to understanding the facts about the Earth’s climate.

link

[schwartzie]

$41 Billion of World Bank’s ‘Climate Change’ Fund Has Gone Missing

Frank Bergman
October 26, 2024 - 12:23 pm



The globalist World Bank has “misplaced” a staggering $41 billion in “climate change” funds, an investigation has revealed.



Oxfam launched an investigation into the World Bank’s handling of the funds and found that billions in “misplaced funds” had gone missing.



Investigators revealed that there is “No clear public record showing where this money went or how it was used.”



The World Bank was created, in part, to help alleviate extreme poverty.



Roughly 10% of the world’s population, 700 million people, are living on less than $2 a day.



The bank gets its funding from taxpayer-funded contributions made by rich nations.



However, the World Bank recently decided to divert 45 percent of its development funds from poverty programs to globalist “climate change” schemes.



About $40 billion a year from the World Bank is now earmarked to fund green agenda efforts.



Yet, since the money shifted to “climate change” initiatives, vast sums of cash have become mysteriously “misplaced.”


An investigation by Oxfam of the World Bank’s finances shows that anywhere between $24 and $41 billion of “misplaced funds” are now missing.



There is no way of locating the missing money due to “poor record-keeping practices,” says Oxfam.



These funds were most likely stolen.



“An Oxfam audit of the World Bank’s 2017-2023 climate finance portfolio found that between $24 billion and $41 billion in climate finance went unaccounted for between the time projects were approved and when they closed,” according to Oxfam.


“There is no clear public record showing where this money went or how it was used, which makes any assessment of its impacts impossible.



“It also remains unclear whether these funds were even spent on climate-related initiatives intended to help low- and middle-income countries protect people from the impacts of the climate crisis and invest in clean energy.”



In a statement, Kate Donald, Head of Oxfam International’s Washington, D.C., Office, said:



“The Bank is quick to brag about its climate finance billions —but these numbers are based on what it plans to spend, not on what it actually spends once a project gets rolling.



JOIN THE FIGHT - DONATE TO SLAY NEWS TODAY!

“This is like asking your doctor to assess your diet only by looking at your grocery list, without ever checking what actually ends up in your fridge.”



The World Bank’s unelected bureaucrats has tey to explain the missing fund or even respond to the allegations.



Next year, climate bureaucrats, celebrities, world leaders, and poorer nations will all descend on that destination vacation spot, Azerbaijan, to negotiate a new global climate finance goal, the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG).



The poorer nations are going to demand $5 trillion every year in public funds for the Global South.



This payment is being described “as a down payment towards their climate debt” to the countries, people, and communities allegedly most affected by “climate change.”



“Climate finance is scarce, and yes, we know it’s hard to deliver,” Donald added.



“But not tracking how or where the money actually gets spent?



“That’s not just some bureaucratic oversight — it’s a fundamental breach of trust that risks derailing the progress we need to make at COP this year.



“The Bank needs to act like our future depends on tackling the climate crisis, because it does.”

link

[schwartzie]

UK Government to Fund Bill Gates’ Geoengineering Experiments to Fight ‘Global Warming’ by Cooling Earth

Frank Bergman
November 16, 2024 - 12:23 pm



The UK government has revealed that British taxpayers will be funding controversial experiments that supposedly seek to tackle “global warming” by blocking sunlight to cool the Earth.



As Slay News has previously reported, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has been championing global geoengineering efforts in recent years.



Gates’s radical plan to “save the planet” from “climate change” by blocking out the Sun has already launched in other nations as scientists began pumping chemicals into the sky earlier this year.



The billioanire has long been advocating for the plan to fight “global warming” using experimental geoengineering to block the Sun.



The idea, promoted by Gates and leftist billionaire George Soros, involves pumping manmade white clouds into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the planet’s surface.



The radical scheme would lower the planet’s temperature and allegedly “combat global warming.”



Soros claims the technology will help to prevent ice sheets from melting.



“Our civilization is in danger of collapsing because of the inexorable advance of climate change,” Soros claimed.



“The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would increase the level of the oceans by seven meters.


“That poses a threat to the survival of our civilization,” he alleged.



The method pushed by Bill Gates involves increasing aerosol concentrations in the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation away from the Earth.



Gates has been funding a major project at Harvard using balloons to deploy aerosols.



However, Gates’s Harvard project was shut down following pushback from the public over the plan.


Nevertheless, other groups of scientists have been advancing Gates’s plan, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.



In February, scientists in Australia started injecting reflective particles into the sky, dumping chemicals in the ocean, and spraying saltwater in the air in a desperate effort to stop or reverse “climate change.”



In September, the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) announced a major new investment of £57 million ($72M) to fund plans to artificially cool the planet through small-scale outdoor geoengineering experiments.



Proposals for funding the experiments close in early December.



All successful projects that will receive funding will be announced before July 2025.



ARIA is the UK’s equivalent of the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).



The agency is an innovation lab that was the brainchild of Dominic Cummings, the former No. 10 adviser to ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson.



Armed with £800 million ($1.01B), it is tasked with pursuing scientific research to unlock “breakthroughs at the edge of the possible.”



According to The Telegraph, ARIA is “a nondescript office tucked in a corner of the British Library.”



The agency has big ambitions with projects that include engineering the climate, replacing physical labor with robots, and merging human brains with artificial intelligence (AI).



It was established by an Act of Parliament in 2022.



ARIA is sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).



The Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 exempts the agency from coming under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.



ARIA said it was pursuing geoengineering research because “even under the most aggressive scenarios” of cutting greenhouse gasses.



However, the agency warns that it may not be possible to reduce those emissions fast enough to prevent dangerous increases in global temperatures.



Without conducting physical tests of those strategies, the agency said:



“There is no prospect of being able to make proper judgments” about whether any type of geoengineering is “feasible, scalable, and controllable.”



The agency, which is publicly funded but has a degree of independence from the British government, is soliciting proposals to be submitted before 9 December from researchers around the world.



ARIA expects to announce the recipients in the first half of next year.



ARIA’s website states:



“This program will explore whether approaches designed to delay, or avert, climate tipping points could be feasible scalable, and safe.”



The British effort was the latest in a string of funding announcements for geoengineering research, according to The New York Times.



The UK’s sister socialist nation Canada has also been pumping tax dollars into Gates’s radical geoengineering scheme.



As Slay News reported, the Canadian government has announced that the country will be investing millions of dollars in taxpayer money into a scheme championed by Bill Gates that seeks to “fight climate change” by blocking out the Sun.



The government’s Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released a 5-year plan for tackling so-called “global warming.”



As part of the plan, the ECCC revealed that major investments will be made into technologies that block the Sun’s light and heat from reaching the surface of the Earth.



According to Gates and other globalist scientists promoting the plan, the idea involves “saving the planet” from the alleged threat of “manmade global warming” by cooling the Earth instead.



Meanwhile, American scientists have also been conducting Earth-cooling experiments off the coast of California.



In April, shocking details emerged to reveal that a Gates-funded scheme is already underway that involves blocking out the Sun in American skies to fight “global warming.”



Alarmingly, the secretive project has already begun but it was kept hidden from the American people to “avoid a public backlash.”



Scientists have started spraying trillions of aerosol particles into the sky from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the San Francisco Bay.



The scheme aims to increase cloud cover to block sunlight from reaching the Earth and supposedly prevent “global warming.”

link

[schwartzie]

Al Gore Melts Down During Angry ‘Global Warming’ Rant at UN ‘Climate Change’ Conference

Frank Bergman
November 17, 2024 - 12:23 pm



Former Vice President Al Gore unloaded in an angry tirade about “global warming” during an address at the United Nations Climate Change Conference.



During a speech at the UN’s COP29 event in Baku, Azerbaijan, Gore raged about “polluters” and demanded that the general public obey “climate science.”



The COP29 summit started Monday as globalists from around the world gathered to make proposals for advancing the green agenda.



The event has featured speakers who proposed taxes on the meat and dairy industry to fight “global warming.”



Others have promoted “climate finance” initiatives to funnel Western taxpayers’ money into third-world countries.



While addressing the conference, Gore falsely claimed that predictions by climate scientists had been proven to be “dead right.”



Eliciting cheering and applause from the salivating globalists in the audience, Gore vehemently told the crowd:



“The fact that the scientists who predicted all of this decades ago have been proven dead right should cause the rest of us to pay more attention to what they’re telling us now!



“Do we listen to the polluters, who don’t want to do anything meaningful that might reduce fossil fuels, or do we listen to the scientists who have been telling us what we need to do?


“This was a very extreme drought in China in the middle of this year, and what’s happening in the Amazon, the Rio Solimões, the Rio Negro, it’s the worst drought on record in the Amazon — 90% of the river flow in Colombia is gone, Ecuador’s losing its hydro because of this,” Gore continued.



“In Namibia, and also Zimbabwe, they are now killing livestock — killing wild animals in order to help feed hungry people.



“How long are we going to let this get worse until we decide to take action?!” he raged, growing increasingly angry.



“I’m sorry, I press my own buttons these days.”


Gore claimed that during the hour he was speaking, 30 million tons of ice was melting in Greenland.



He warned that the melting ice could have catastrophic consequences for the oceans.



“That is fresh water coming off Greenland into the North Atlantic, where a key part of the ocean current circulation system is involved. It could be disrupted,” he said.



“Some scientists disagree, but more and more, they’re raising the alarm.



“And if you look at the bottom statement, these peer-reviewed — these scientists say in this peer-reviewed study, ‘We estimate a collapse around mid-century.’



“What?! What?!” Gore continued.



“Some of the load-bearing elements of our entire Earth’s ecological system are at risk.



“And what are we doing?” he asked angrily.



“Just talking away, talking away, not making much progress.



“Again, I’m getting stirred up here so I’ll try to calm down.”



WATCH:


Al Gore Melts Down During Angry 'Global Warming' Rant at UN 'Climate Change' Conference


Multiple officials from the Biden-Harris administration are attending the event in Azerbaijan.



Federal bureaucrats representing the American people at COP29 include Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, White House climate advisor John Podesta, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.



During a Monday speech, Podesta told attendees at the conference that his allies in the federal government are planning to undermine President Donald Trump regarding the globalist green agenda, Bloomberg reported.



Podesta declared that despite the election of Trump, the United States would still be involved in addressing “climate change.”



link

[Midnight]

U.N. Alarmist-in-Chief: Climate Disasters ‘Kill People Everywhere’
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.
17 Nov 20244

United Nations (U.N.) Secretary-General António Guterres has launched a scaremongering campaign, asserting that climate change is destroying lives and economies around the world.



“No country is spared from the effects of climate disasters,” the Portuguese socialist wrote Saturday. “They kill people — everywhere.”



Ubiquitous death is not the only consequence of global warming, he warned, because in a global economy, supply chain shocks caused by climate change also “raise costs — everywhere.”



“Decimated harvests push up food prices — everywhere,” he continued. “Destroyed homes increase insurance premiums — everywhere.”



The inevitable conclusion to this omnipresent terror? “We need #ClimateAction — everywhere,” he declared.



Commentators on social media were quick to suggest that the U.N. chief needs to brush up on his science.



One noted that extreme weather events are not “climate disasters” while another reminded Guterres that the People’s Republic of China emits more greenhouse gases than the entire developed world combined.



Yet another observed that reliable and affordable energy “has been the key contributor to a much better protection against deaths from weather extremes” and has allowed humanity to reduce the number of deaths significantly.



It would appear that the U.N. “wants to make reliable energy expensive and unaffordable instead of accelerating adaptation,” he added.



There is a growing sense that climate alarmism may be falling from grace and holds less sway with each passing month as the world stubbornly refuses to end because of global warming and none of the doomsday prophecies come to pass.



This past week, the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal poked fun at the U.N.’s failed COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan.



“Back in reality, political support for net zero is collapsing,” the essay stated. “Donald Trump is set to reverse his predecessor’s green subsidies and hostile regulatory acts against fossil fuels.”



“He withdrew from the Paris Agreement once and is likely to do so again. Germany’s governing coalition imploded last week because Berlin can no longer afford its net-zero transition,” it added.



At the same time, other European countries “are likely to abandon their climate targets as the costs become clear to voters,” while China storms forward in building coal power plants “even as its leaders mouth climate pieties.”



Meanwhile, for António Guterres it is business as usual in his crusade to spread fear of an impending climate apocalypse. He may, however, soon find that he is preaching to an empty auditorium.


link

[schwartzie]

An eternity is coming when Mr. Castro (you know Fidel was his father, right?) will wish he had so much as a single cockroach to eat, but he won't have even that. Good - I have ZERO compassion for scumbags! 


Canada: ‘Climate Change’ Agenda More Important Than Feeding Children

Frank Bergman
November 21, 2024 - 12:23 pm



Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared that the general public must accept that the globalist “climate change” agenda is more important than feeding children.



Trudeau, one of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Young Global Leaders,” made the remarks during a talk at the Global Citizen conference at the G20 World Leaders’ Summit in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, on Sunday.



The Canadian leader asserted that families must prioritize the globalist green agenda over putting food on the table or paying rent.



Trudeau defended his government’s so-called “carbon tax.”



He framed the increase in costs to Canadians as a necessary “priority.”



Trudeau warned the panel that it can be “really, really easy” to “put climate change as a slightly lower priority” when one has “to be able to pay the rent this month” or “buy groceries” for their “kids.”



However, insisted that “we can’t do that around climate change.”



Trudeau then blamed Canada’s citizens for speaking out against his carbon tax.



He blasted political opponents and members of the public who prioritize shelter and food over his government’s globalist “climate change” tax schemes.


“Unfortunately, we have an awful lot of public amplification of the kind of narrative that is directly opposed to that,” he lamented.



WATCH:


Canada: 'Climate Change' Agenda More Important Than Feeding Children

The comments from Trudeau come as an increasing number of Canadians are living in poverty under his socialist government.



According to a recent MNP Consumer Debt Index survey, nearly half of Canadians are just $200 away from financial ruin.



The cost of housing, food, and other necessities has skyrocketed since Trudeau took power in 2015.



In addition to the still-increasing domestic carbon tax, Trudeau’s Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault wants to create a new “global’ carbon tax.



The tax will be applied to all goods shipped internationally.



However, experts warn that the tax will cause prices to surge higher for families already struggling with inflated costs.



Trudeau’s comments at the G20 align with his government’s continued push for citizens to foot the bill for the United Nations’ (UN) “Sustainable Development Goals” and the WEF’s “Great Reset” agenda.



Both the UN and the WEF have been demanding that the public accept dramatic cuts to their quality of life in order to comply with these agendas.



As Slay News previously reported, the WEF recently called for governments around the world to ban members of the public from growing their own food at home.



The WEF argues that home-grown food creates “emissions” that allegedly cause “global warming.”



According to so-called “experts” behind a recent WEF study, researchers apparently discovered that the “carbon footprint” of home-grown food is “destroying the planet.”



In addition, the United Nations last year called for members of the general public to live in mud huts in order to meet the goals of the “Net Zero” agenda.



As Slay News reported, the UN made the call in a report that lays out extreme measures citizens in Western nations will need to endure to comply with the corporate elite’s green agenda.



To meet the target of reaching “zero carbon emissions” before 2050, as dictated by the UN and the WEF, the public will need to significantly slash their quality of life and begin to align with the globalist vision of collectivism.



Unsurprisingly, Trudeau and several of his cabinet are deeply tied to the WEF.

link