The Climate Tyranny

             IF there is one thing in this World that has been as incessantly pushed upon the general public as the great terror to current civilization, it would have to be climate change. Climate change/global warming/the climate crisis is literally everywhere, and climate panics initiated by the media have been making headlines for nearly 130 years. Environmental issues have been militantly adopted by the Establishment, such as the current Establishment administration, who have stated that “climate change poses an existential threat” to everything. The Pew Research Center published the results of surveys in April 2020, showing how an average of two-thirds of Americans have been led to believe in the drastic urgency of climate change. Yes, indeed, climate has become the hot button issue of the century, and a lot of political capital is being bet on it.

          However, what is the true nature regarding the climate narrative? Too frequently, as we have observed, things influenced by Establishment outlets are far removed from the truth about them. Climate, which is in a similar situation, must be thoroughly analyzed and its official narrative reconsidered as a result. Too often has sensationalized or misrepresented data been used by the Establishment to condone all sorts of atrocities, like the vast network of lies perpetuated by the Bush administration to validate the devastation of Iraq. What might be in store for the World with this climate agenda is what we will examine and piece together in this article.

Now, the official narrative regarding climate change (see page 16) is this: The rise of atmospheric CO₂ is directly a result of fossil fuel burning, the rise of atmospheric CO₂ causes a greenhouse warming effect, that a measurable global surface warming has occurred since the Industrial Age began, and that the warming of the Earth (due to artificial causes) is the driving force behind so-called “extreme weather events”. So, essentially, CO₂ is bad for the environment, the temperature of the Earth is increasing (and we should tie this back to industrial CO₂ emissions), and this warming is causing worldwide climactic alterations. A lot of the climate narrative does indeed come back to CO₂; think about it, have you ever heard of a “methane tax” or a “nitrous oxide tax”, of methane-free vehicles, or of SO₂-scrubbers?

So, it is good and logical that we start off with CO_2­, considering its boogeyman-style prominence in this subject. The question we must ask is in response to the first point of the official narrative, “Has the rise of atmospheric CO₂ directly been a result of fossil fuel burning?” Well, quite simply, no.

University of Bristol earth scientist Wolfgang Knorr conducted research back in 2009 that analyzed atmospheric CO₂ and all the relevant data, and came to the conclusion that “the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.” Knorr is a real scientist who has nearly three decades of experience under his belt, and despite his research seems to be a supporter of the climate change narrative, so it is not like this could have been biased research. You can find a PDF of his research paper here, and while the language is quite high-brow, the conclusion is simple: “If process models are used, however, they need to be carefully constructed in order to answer the question of why [atmospheric CO₂] has remained constant and not shown more pronounced decadal-scale [per decade] fluctuations or a stronger secular [consistent] trend.”

One more study, this time produced by two scientists from the University of Wisconsin in 2011, studied “long-term trends in downwelling spectral infrared radiance over the U.S. southern Great Plains”. What does that mean in English? Downwelling infrared radiation is infrared radiation (or heat) that returns to the Earth’s surface rather than exiting the atmosphere; it is what would cause increased warming. What did this research conclude? As it is stated in the paper’s abstract, “The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring…”

What is the significance of this? Well, according to another webpage that explains the real [weak] influence on the greenhouse effect by CO₂ (and my source for this research), during the same timeframe the atmospheric CO₂ concentration was recorded as rising 7%. So, despite the fact that the [dubious] king of greenhouse gasses was increasing throughout this time period, and before it, the actual effect on the atmosphere is that infrared radiation is not returning to the surface as much? That is what is significant; despite “rising” CO₂, retention of infrared radiation (heat energy) is not being recorded by highly-detailed and sensitive measurements.

If CO₂ has not risen at all, then how could fossil fuel burning be tied back to anything? If infrared is not being retained at higher and higher levels, how can CO₂ emissions be blamed for anything? Knorr’s research is sufficient on its own, but this additional research paper validates Knorr’s research, because despite the asserted rise in greenhouse gasses the atmosphere is not showing signs of such an effect, heat is not being trapped as if it were in a greenhouse. For these reasons, the official story that atmospheric CO₂ is rising due to fossil fuel burning is debunked, because it has not risen at all, and atmospheric data backs that.

The second prong of the official narrative is this: “The rise of atmospheric CO₂ causes a greenhouse warming effect.” Well, we have just proven that CO₂ is not rising at all, so that seems to refute this assertion already. But let us go a little deeper, let us analyze the mechanics of the nefarious carbon dioxide molecule a little bit more carefully than the MSM would like us to.

To make it simple, there are sources all over the dang place to refute this claim. Geologist Jonathan DuHamel wrote an article on his website entitled “Evidence That CO₂ Emissions Do Not Intensify the Greenhouse Effect”, wherein he presents a volume of evidence that shows inconsistencies with observed data and the official claims that CO₂ is destroying the environment through its [ostensible] heat-trapping properties. One interesting observation, out of many, that DuHamel makes in his article is this: “There is one more failed [anthropogenic global warming] prediction: CO₂ is supposed to start warming which evaporates water, a stronger greenhouse gas that will enhance warming. That should increase global humidity, but measurements show that global humidity is not increasing.” The graph DuHamel presents next shows an average 12-point decrease in global humidity measurements between 1948 and 2012.

Another piece of evidence comes from research conducted by physicist (yes, a real one) Denis Rancourt, in an article entitled “Radiation Physics Constraints on Global Warming: CO₂ Increase Has Little Effect”. In the conclusion to his paper (page 16), Rancourt states that, “In view of the above model sensitivity calculations and given the physical simplicity of the model…and based on established physical principles it is clear that many factors will have a larger effect on surface-temperature-determining radiation balance than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.” Simply, anything but CO₂ is more likely to alter atmospheric and climactic dynamics. Instead of turning this article into a research paper and making it too long, I highly suggest skimming Dr. Rancourt’s paper on your own time so as to understand his data and conclusions.

Perhaps the most amazing and damning piece of evidence against the assertion that CO₂ has a warming effect is this article posted by WND. Over 100+ scientific papers have been compiled, as shown by WND, which represent research conducted by tons of scientists dating from the 1960s to the present, making the simple conclusion that CO₂ negligibly affects the state of the environment. The source for WND’s article makes the claim that this compilation of research shows that Nature’s sensitivity to doubled CO₂ levels ranges from 0 to less-than-1°C.

Here are some excerpts from a few of the compiled articles:

“This method demonstrates that the removal of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere leads to a decrease of the average temperature of the Earth’s surface by 4 K; however, doubling of the carbon dioxide amount causes an increase of the Earth’s temperature by 0.4 K from the total 2 K at CO₂ doubling in the real atmosphere…” – “Greenhouse Effect in Atmosphere of Earth and Venus”, by Vladimir Krainov and Boris Smirnov, 2019.

“Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.” – “Has Global Warming Already Arrived?”, by Costas Varotsos and Maria Efstathiou, 2018.

“A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03°C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO₂.” – “Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide Through Sciences”, by Georgios Florides and Paul Christodoulides, 2009.

          These three articles, and the 100+ other ones, all make this similar conclusion: CO₂ possess a negligible influence on temperature change based on its atmospheric concentration. This copious volume of scientific literature just slaughters the accusation that demonizes CO₂ as a civilization-ending pollutant. At this point, it seems like civilization’s true archnemesis is widespread pathological alarmism. Again, you can find WND’s article and the sources of the research articles here.

          Having gutted climate assertion #2, we come to #3, which is the idea that the surface temperature of the globe has measurably risen since industrial pollution began. What has the science have to say about that? Well, evidently industrial pollution is a bit of an exaggeration, because as we learned earlier CO₂ has not increased, although the other – more serious – gasses such as methane and sulfur dioxide have. Although, have any of these increases affected global temperature?

          Well, the observational evidence is abundant that global temperature has actually been remaining stable for decades. Various compiled studies by authentic sources have shown this. The biased mainstream media, however, has done all it can to suppress these facts. Let me present the data now.

          First, let us discuss that all the natural disasters we have been experiencing over the past few years have no discernible or major connection to anthropogenic global warming. The widespread fires in Australia, Greece, and California (also) that have occurred, while being blamed on climate change by the MSM, have overwhelmingly been due to arson or human manipulation. Temperatures have also been measurably falling in many places, such as Japan, Libya (a desert country), and Greece. The Texas blizzard that occurred earlier in 2021 was not a climate disaster and was totally within the climactic rhythm of that region; what exacerbated the blizzard was a poorly winterized power grid.

          However, that is not at all, that is just disproving agenda-laden news media. Here is the observational data:

          In Tuscany, there is a CO₂ spring at Bossoleto, and both CO₂ concentrations and temperatures were recorded for a few days there. A lot of data was acquired during this study and analyzed by the scientists. The scientists noted that CO₂ concentration went from 1,000 ppm in the afternoon to 750,000 ppm by the next morning. At a nearby site CO₂ concentrations remained around 360 ppm. At the Bossoleto spring, the temperature variation was 33°C at afternoon to 23°C at morning; the other site had a variation of 23°C to 33°C.

          What does this show? Simple. Regardless of CO₂, temperatures will vary. With high CO₂, a ten-point variation was measured. With low CO₂, a ten-point variation was measured. CO₂ is not the link between the variables. The best cause I could figure would be the Sun, that big ball of heat always in the sky.

          A collection of studies has shown that temperatures in various nations are either decreasing or remaining static. In Sweden, home of youth climate activist Greta Thunberg, temperatures have apparently not changed for two entire centuries! So that far north chilly land of Nords is still a chilly land of Nords. No global warming here, Sven!

          The above source also includes Iceland. Three temperature-recording stations are included in the data, and two of these three have recorded cooling. Furthermore, analysis of sediments in Iceland have proven that over 10,000 years ago (beginning of the Holocene epoch) summers were three degrees warmer! So, temperatures have cooled since the Industrial Revolution, not increased.

          And let us go with one more proof that global temperature has not risen. This final piece of data was published in 2012, during the height of the liberal Obama administration that was just as climate-focused as the Left is today. This study showed that global warming paused between 1997 and 2012. Some climate scientists dismissed the data, but others, such as Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, state “it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.” Even the skeptics of the data acquiesced that they did not understand the impact of “natural variability”, i.e., natural shifts in climate/weather.

          Ah, shoot, I can’t stop myself, here’s one more! A Finnish study was published back in 2019 aptly titled “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change”. The researched conducted therein shows that human activity can only be responsible for just a 0.01°C rise in global temperatures. 0.01°C is unbelievably small; it is a hundredth of the “catastrophic” 1°C rise that mainstream media outlets have been constantly screeching about. The Finnish scientists explain that it is natural variations in cloud cover that are responsible for climate change, and these variations are caused by changes in Earth’s magnetosphere’s strength. Another study out of Kobe University, Japan, confirms this.

          So, let us review the whole article thus far. “Has the rise of atmospheric CO₂ directly been a result of fossil fuel burning?” We examined the evidence from Wolfgang Knorr and two other scientists showing that CO₂ has not only failed to increase, but that global warming has been scantly observed over a years-long period. “Has the rise of atmospheric CO₂ caused a greenhouse warming effect?” Well, the first question we answered showed that CO₂ actually hasn’t risen, but we also showed numerous studies (over a hundred!) that confirm that CO₂ has a negligible greenhouse effect. “Has a measurable global surface warming has occurred since the Industrial Age began?” Nope; as we have just seen, numerous studies prove that the Earth’s temperature has not shifted immensely, and whatever shifts that can be detected are so minor as to be laughable.

          There is a lot more I could discuss here, but for the sake of time and space these additional sources must be mentioned in passing. We know that Antarctica is in fact gaining ice, not losing it and flooding the oceans like alarmists assert. We know that one of the greatest icons of global warming, polar bears, are actually thriving and doing better. We also can relish in the fact that all of climate alarmist Al Gore’s decade-old predictions have been falsified.

          Let me also touch on CO₂ a bit more, specifically in order to improve its unfairly tarnished reputation. Reality is, contrary to the climate narrative, CO₂ is actually very helpful to the environment. NASA itself reported back in 2016 that atmospheric CO₂ is helping green the Earth, as part of a multinational study of 32 authors. The “CO₂ Coalition” has published a lot focusing on the goodness and ecofriendliness of this most infamous molecule, such as this article. It is a simple scientific fact that carbon dioxide is an intrinsic part of Earth’s ecosystem.

          Am I saying that CO₂ should be allowed to make up 10% of our planet’s atmosphere, to run up into massive proportions? Of course not, the life-friendly conditions of our planet are very fine-tuned and need to be respected. Of course, we need to also respect the basic truth that CO₂ is mostly beneficial. We do not need to worry about industrial CO₂, not only because is it a minor constituent of those pollutants but also because CO₂ has no greenhouse properties, but because the other pollutants – methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, etc. – are dangerous and unhelpful to the environment.

          Am I even saying that climate change is false? No, obviously the climate changes. I am saying that a climate apocalypse that is inevitable and will lead to worldwide societal collapse is false. Will the Earth get warmer and cooler? Yes, that is what it is designed to do. Will these cycles destroy us within the next ten years, or the next ten years after that, or the next ten years after that? No, not at all. These cycles have probably happened many times throughout the Earth’s history, and life still marches on.

          Why do we keep hearing about climate change almost daily if all this contrary evidence exists? Well, the reason why is obvious: there’s an agenda to carry out. Because of this agenda that is created, promoted, and enforced by the Elite, the real news regarding climate science is misconstrued or suppressed. The “97% of scientists believe in global warming?” motto? Totally false and misleading. The reality is that hundreds of scientists have broken rank and declared, “There is no climate emergency!” In fact, Greenpeace’s own co-founder Patrick Moore has declared that anthropogenic global warming is a farce. Need I mention the 30,000+ scientists who have signed a petition refuting the climate narrative?

          What is all this climate alarmism, which has been linked to dozens of vague and various issues, about? Why must we deal with all this crying and whining about scientifically negligible issues? Why is there a climate agenda to begin with? Considering how much we have discussed already refuting anthropogenic global warming, I will try to keep this new discussion brief. However, understanding the climate tyranny is no easy matter.

          The goal behind the climate agenda is control, plain and simple. “Crisis” is the second stage of national subversion that KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov revealed. Before crisis comes demoralization, which we have seen with the suppression and rejection of constitutional values in America, and after crisis is normalization, which sees the uncomfortable feelings of change including losses of freedom being absorbed and accepted. The highly influential and aristocratic Club of Rome declared climate change a “planetary emergency”, Kamala Harris – our Vice President – wants to criminalize climate change skeptics, and, as stated at the beginning of this article, the Biden administration (with its deep and broad Deep State connections) considers climate change to be an existential threat.

          COVID-19 and climate change have been getting equated by globalist politicians and pundits frequently (such as here and here), and COVID-19’s involvement in the globalist agenda is very obvious. It is about control, it is about bringing us closer and closer to the point of no return so that the wool may be pulled over our eyes as an Orwellian superstate emerges “all of a sudden” (not so suddenly for those who have been warning of it for decades). These carefully engineered crises (not saying they are fake, but the associated hysteria certainly is) will carry on for as long as necessary for the public to become complacent, and then (per the program exposed by Mr. Bezmenov) society destabilizes and the parasitic Elite that operating the downfall behind the scenes takes power.

          This is what all the false science and hysteria exposed throughout this article is about. Control. Get enough people to believe that God’s green Earth is dying, the Earth that even the dumbest person realizes they rely on, they will do anything to defend it. As I said earlier, a large majority of Americans believe that we are not doing enough to fight climate change. Many Americans think we need the Green New Deal, a proposed program that will absolutely usurp the Constitution and work to the benefit of the NWO.

          The falsification and suppression of climate science works towards fanning the flames of mass hysteria and ideological radicalization. The “climate crisis” will bring upon more and more radical and strenuous policies that people will fall in line with in order to live as normal and free of lives they can. Perhaps you do not want to follow the Great Reset agenda your nation’s government is forcing upon you, but then again, you don’t want to end up in a camp, so you suck it up and go with the flow because you got more important things to worry about, such as why you’re feeling chronically ill even though you’re young and active.

          We, who have already pulled the wool off our eyes, need to do the same for others. No one is truly lost, and perhaps the World is not, yet. As I say a lot, act before it is too late. They will keep trying to get their agenda enforced so long as they are in power. But, if we can kick out their chairs from under them, they will have nothing. They are mere men, after all, not the demigods they view themselves as. Go outside and breath the fresh air (which is made up of CO₂, naturally), and work tirelessly to keep it fresh and free.