posted October 14, 2019 05:56 PM            

You mean like the authoritarian coup leftist lunatic demorats have be running the last 3 years?

And yet, Trump is still in the White House with approval ratings 5-6 points higher than your little Marxist Messiah, Obama had at the same time in his administration.

posted October 15, 2019 04:07 PM            

Dr. Tim Ball (Ph.D. in Historical Climatology) Crushes Climate Change: The Biggest Deception In History

With a 50-year academic career focusing on Historical Climatology, Dr. Tim Ball is uniquely qualified to address man-made climate change, and he demonstrates that it is a flat-out hoax.

Thinking people everywhere should get multiple copies of this book and hand them out to everyone they know.

President Trump was correct to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. He could have explained that the science was premeditated and deliberately orchestrated to demonize CO2 for a political agenda.

Wisely, he simply explained that it was a bad deal for the United States because it gave a competitive economic edge to other nations, especially China.

Read: The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE Against Plants, Forests and All Life on Our Planet

A majority of Americans think he was wrong, but more would disagree if he got lost in the complexities of the science.

I speak from experience having taught a Science credit course for 25 years for the student population that mirrors society with 80 percent of them being Arts students.

Promoters of what is called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) knew most people do not understand the science and exploited it.

The plants need more atmospheric CO2 not less. Current levels of 400 parts per million (ppm) are close to the lowest levels in 600 million years.

This contradicts what the world was told by people using the claim that human production of CO2 was causing global warming.

They don’t know the UN agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established to examine human-caused global warming, were limited to only studying human causes by the definition they were given by Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

It is impossible to identify the human cause without understanding and including natural causes. Few know that CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gases.

They assume that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. It doesn’t, in every record the temperature increases before CO2.

The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models of the IPCC.

This partly explains why every single temperature forecast (they call them projections) the IPCC made since 1990 was wrong. If your forecast is wrong, your science is wrong.

I studied weather as aircrew with the Canadian Air Force, including five years of search and rescue in Arctic Canada.

After the Air Force, I went to university to study weather and climate, culminating in a Ph.D., in Historical Climatology from the University of London, England.

When I began in the late 1960s global cooling was the consensus. I was as opposed to the prediction that it would continue cooling to a mini-Ice Age, as I later was to the runaway AGW claim.

I knew from creating and studying long-term records that climate changes all the time and are larger and more frequent than most know. I also knew changes in CO2 were not the cause.

The Club of Rome (COR), formed in 1968, decided that the world was overpopulated and expanded the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply to all resources, especially the developed nations.

Alexander - To illustrate that the Global Matrix was further developed, the 1991 publication The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome shows us that early on the common denominator was invented around which the world could rally, thereby creating a common purpose:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” - Read more HERE.

COR member Maurice Strong told Elaine Dewar in her book Cloak of Green that the problem for the planet were the industrialized nations and it was everybody’s duty to shut them down.

Dewar asked Strong if he planned to seek political office. He effectively said you cannot do anything as a politician, so he was going to the UN because:

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.

After five days with him at the UN she concluded: Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

He created the crisis that the by-product of industry was causing global warming. Even Obama claimed that 97 percent of scientists agree.

If he checked the source of the information, he would find the research was completely concocted. It is more likely that 97 percent of scientists never read the IPCC Reports.

Those who do express their concern in very blunt terms. Consider German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckart Puls experience.

“Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day, I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
He discovered what I exposed publicly for years. My challenge to the government version of global warming became increasingly problematic.

They couldn’t say I wasn’t qualified. Attacks include death threats, false information about my qualifications posted on the Internet, and three lawsuits from IPCC members.

Most people can’t believe that such things occur about opinions in a democratic society. Test the idea by telling people that you don’t accept the human-caused global warming idea.

The reaction from most, who know nothing about the science, will invariably be dismissive at best.

I documented what went on in a detailed, fully referenced, book titled The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. A lawyer commented that it lays out and effectively supports the case, however, it was “a tough slog.”

I recently published a brief ‘non-slog’ handbook (100 pages) for the majority of people, not to insult their intelligence, but to help them understand the science and its misuse for a political agenda.

Titled, Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History. Presented in the logical form of a criminal or journalistic investigation it answers the basic questions, Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How.

It provides the motive and method for the corruption of science to substantiate and bolster Trump’s decision.

Sources: DrTimball.com; TechnoCracy.news (Originally published on July 3rd, 2017)
http://humansarefree.com/2017/03/un-climate-scientist-carbon-dioxide.html

UN Climate Scientist: 'Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Making The Earth Greener And More Fertile'

Carbon dioxide emissions are making the Earth greener and more fertile, a United Nations (UN) climate scientist has said.

In a paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr Indur Goklany, who has previously represented the United States on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally”.

The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he adds.

“Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15 per cent,” Dr Golkany argues.

“This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature.”

This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015.

Credits: Boston University/R. Myneni

Increasing crops yields has helped reduce hunger and improved human well being, as well as generating around $140 billion a year.

As well as crops, the “wild places of the Earth” have seen an improvement, becoming greener in recent decades. Dr Golkany attributes this to carbon dioxide, saying it can also increase their water-use efficiency, thus making them more resistant to drought.

“Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters,” Dr Golkany says, “These benefits are firmly established and are being felt now.

“Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark. My report should begin to restore a little balance.”

Professor Myles Allen of the University of Oxford admitted there were some benefits from increased levels of carbon dioxide, but nonetheless said Dr Golkany’s assertions had “Stalinist overtones”.

He told the Sunday Times:

“… I worry about the Stalinist overtones of adding up the losses and benefits and deciding humanity as a whole will benefit from global warming. Drowning Bangladeshis might not be reassured by higher crop yields in Ukraine.”

However, in a foreword to the report, Professor Freeman Dyson, a world-renowned physicist, said Dr Golkany’s conclusions show how “a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts”, adding that “the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal”.

I would also like to add the following from NASA's website:

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25, [2016].

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions.

The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth.

Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect.

To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.

“The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

posted November 07, 2019 01:05 PM            

(thousands of scientist have shows the climate change scientist used fraudulent math. the scientist above shows the scientific impossibility of carbon dioxide raising the ocean temperature to the degree these climate change advocate claim..yet the Rothschild's media /scientific establish lackeys continue to push for fascist societal changes in response to this climate non issue.yes the climate is drastically changing but it has nothing to do with human behavior. todd)

Scientists Declare Climate Emergency

Scientists Around the World Declare ‘Climate Emergency’

by Avery Thompson/Smithsonian.com

The world’s scientists are increasingly worried about our civilization’s reluctance to tackle climate change, so in a paper released today, thousands of them are raising the alarm.

In a report published in the journal BioScience, over 11,000 of the world’s leading climate scientists have added their names to a declaration calling the planet’s current warming trends a “climate emergency.” Titled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency,” the paper takes an urgent tone, detailing a dire situation that will require extreme responses to avert disaster.

“As a scientist, I feel that I must speak out about climate change, since it is such a severe threat to humanity,” says Bill Ripple, an ecologist at Oregon State University and lead author of the new report. In addition to a warning about the future, Ripple, his co-authors and the 11,258 other people who attached their names to the paper suggest a set of tools to make sense of our changing world.

The paper, which looks at 40 years of climate data, argues that scientists as well as world leaders should start moving away from using a single number to track the progress of climate change: global average surface temperature.

posted November 10, 2019 03:23 PM            

11,000 Scientists Sign Paper: Humans Are Bad Because They Eat Meat and Engage in Transportation

For the last five years, we’ve been warning that scientists are using the climate change hoax to pursue a planetary depopulation agenda that aims to eliminate billions of humans from planet Earth.

The assertion has been predictably mocked by the CIA-run fake news media as a “conspiracy theory,” even as those same media outlets fabricate their own baseless conspiracies about Russia, Trump and the 2016 election.

Today, the media is once again eating crow as a new science paper, reportedly signed by 11,000 scientists, demands the world’s governments take action to eliminate billions of humans from our planet.

(“Democide” is the term describing mass genocide carried out by governments, by the way. In the last century or so, governments of the world have already mass murdered 262 million people. Apparently, that’s not nearly enough, according to genocidal climate scientists.)

The paper, published in BioScience, is entitled, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” (DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088)

Authored by William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf and other colleagues, the paper declares that “planet Earth is facing a climate emergency” which must be addressed by making sure human populations to plummet.

Humans are bad, the paper argues, because they eat meat and engage in transportation. Seriously. This is part of their argument.

All the science is faked, and even the charts are faked (but journalists don’t understand them anyway)

The science paper published in BioScience is, of course, entirely based on wildly false quack science conclusions such as claiming, “greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are still rapidly rising, with increasingly damaging effects on the Earth’s climate.”

In truth, carbon dioxide is actually re-greening the Earth, even according to a NASA paper based on comprehensive satellite imagery. Rising CO2 levels, in other words, are healing planet Earth, not damaging it.

Yet somehow, the simple chemistry of carbon dioxide and photosynthesis now escapes 11,000 scientists who have declared that CO2 — the single most important nutrient for plant life on our planet — is somehow a pollutant or poison.

The paper also rolls out a series of incomprehensible graphs, each of which is carefully selected to narrow the lines and dots to a specific time window that exaggerates observed reality and tries to convince people to be very afraid of lines and dots:

And yet, the paper readily admits all the charts are completely bogus, consisting of pure scientific fraud. For example, one explanation below the charts says, “Forest gain is not involved in the calculation of tree cover loss.”
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fM5OOOWnUoM/XcaubovqG-I/AAAAAAAA2vo/0bk_SO0Mzis3KX_0NnGxY_I-sZsJjdDnwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Scary-Climate-Charts-600.jpg

Huh? Tree cover loss calculations don’t consider trees growing back?

With that sort of logic, you could make any scenario look catastrophic. And that’s exactly what these researchers did.

If you want to see some truly, really, really scary climate charts, check these out:

The problem is too many humans (and livestock), claim researchers

The root of all these scary graphs, warn the quack scientists, stems from, “sustained increases in both human and ruminant livestock populations.” They go on to explain that people are eating too much meat, taking too many airplane flights (Al Gore, anyone?) and releasing too much CO2 per person.

But remember, since CO2 is actually a nutrient that re-greens the planet and boosts food crop production, these scientists are arguing that sustainable food production is bad for the planet.

By the way, nobody has a larger CO2 footprint than the jet-setting globalists and demented Hollywood celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio, who demands everyone else lower their CO2 consumption while he flies a private jet everywhere.

In pointing out what they see as GOOD things for planet Earth, the scientists cite the success of “decreases in global fertility rates,” which is of course the entire agenda behind vaccines, transgenderism, 5G EMF exposure and pesticide contamination of the food supply. It’s all about causing spontaneous abortions and infertility as a means to eliminate humans from planet Earth.

(Yes, the globalists truly hate any human who is living, and they are trying their best to carry out mass death and genocide.)

The paper goes on to claim that ocean sea levels are “trending upward” but fails to point out that the increases are so tiny, there isn’t a single city that has been inundated under 20 meters of ocean as has been repeatedly (and absurdly) predicted by climate lunatics like Al Gore.

Despite all the failed warnings that a “tipping point” would be reached many years ago, these scientists now argue about “irreversible climate tipping points” that will spell disaster, causing a “catastrophic ‘hothouse Earth’ beyond the control of humans.”

But wait, aren’t these authors claiming it’s humans who controlled the entire climate to ruin it in the first place? Somehow, humans are said to be in control of the climate, yet the climate is out of control of humans.

This self-contradictory junk science smacks of the very kind of irrational lunacy we repeatedly hear from climate change alarmists, none of whom can honestly be called “scientists” in the first place, since they have abandoned the very process of scientific thinking.

Their solution? Collapse all plant life on planet Earth by eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere

The solution to all these “climate emergency” fears centers around annihilating life as we know it on the planet. It’s all based on demonizing — and the eliminating — CO2 from the atmosphere, which would collapse food crop production and plant life across the entire planet (including rainforests).

The paper quite literally demands the removal of the CO2 nutrient from the air — “carbon extraction from the source and capture from the air” — as a way to starve plants to death and collapse the global food supply, killing off humans. This process of altering the atmosphere to prepare a planet for occupation by a completely different species is, of course, called terraforming. And that’s exactly what’s being done to Earth.

It makes you wonder how crops are going to grow at all, and since these 11,000 scientists also demand an end to livestock, claiming “reducing the global consumption of animal products” is absolutely necessary to save the planet, they never answer the question of how will all their genetically modified soybeans grow at all when CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, since soybeans require photosynthesis.

Similarly, the stratospheric pollution initiatives now being pushed by Bill Gates and others — under the “Project SCoPEx” moniker — will dim the sun, shutting down photosynthesis and robbing food crops of the cellular energy they need to produce food in the first place.

blob:471C600B-3822-4FFF-A35D-5C229D481382
If anything, this science paper reads like a suicide wish list for the complete extermination of humankind… all run by mad scientists who seem to despise the very idea of humans surviving on this planet much longer.

Continue reading: NaturalNews.com / References: Brighteon.com; Brighteon.com

posted November 20, 2019 05:14 PM            

Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore from Harry Potter Among the 11,000 “Scientists” Who Warned About an Impending “Climate Emergency” — Turns Out, There Was No Study and They Are Just “11,000 Random People”

Scientific “consensus” is a popular buzzword commonly used by climate fanatics to “prove” that man-made climate change is a real thing. But is there really even a consensus as these hysterics claim? Not even close.

As it turns out, the climate lobby loves to pull its “facts” right out of thin air, including the newly minted fiction that “More than 11,000 scientists declare ‘climate emergency.'” While this regurgitated mainstream media headline is pretty cut and dry, the claim it makes is patently false, we’ve now learned.

Just like the Greta Thunberg hoax, the notion that more than 11,000 actual scientists are suddenly lamenting an impending “climate emergency” has absolutely no basis in reality.

In truth, these 11,000 “scientists” are actually just 11,000 ordinary people who were duped into believing that cow farts are destroying the planet, and subsequently responded by signing their names on some website.

According to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, some “buddies” of his over at the group Power Line were the first to discover that these 11,000 so-called “scientists” aren’t actually scientists at all, despite what fake news media outlets like NBC, CNN, The Guardian, and Al-Jazeera continue to claim.

“There was no study; there was just a press release,” Limbaugh explained on his program. “And it wasn’t 11,000 scientists; it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a website. This was a total managed lie. There was no study. There were no scientists.”

Even worse, dozens of fake signatories, including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster, Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts, have been found on the list, and subsequently removed. Again, there was no study involved, and clearly anyone could go to this website and sign the petition.

Meanwhile, a real petition which was signed by more than 30,000 scientists has basically declared man-made global warming a hoax. Unfortunately, this one — and not the Mickey Mouse list — was labeled as fake news by Facebook and got my account deleted.

In other words, the whole thing was contrived out of nowhere to push the lie that scientists have somehow reached a “consensus” about a so-called “climate emergency” that, in truth, doesn’t actually exist.

“People went on a Web page and asked others reading it to put their signature on it. That was then presented as a scientific paper,” Limbaugh went on to explain.

“It’s kind of like these two skeletons that put together Center for Science in the Public Interest that banned coconut oil, MSG. They weren’t scientists. They were just a couple people that didn’t want you to eat what you wanted so they created an icon, got a fax machine, got the media going. It was all made-up stuff.”

Facts: Coconut oil is healthy for you, and there is no “climate emergency”

Limbaugh brings up a good point about that whole coconut oil fiasco, which as you may recall similarly involved “scientists” vilifying this healthy fat as “dangerous” in order to push their own agenda.

Just like with climate change, the excuse of scientific “consensus” was used as evidence to falsely declare coconut oil as a public health menace.

It’s really important that people recognize what’s going on here with all of this, as “consensus” is what’s being used on multiple fronts to eliminate Americans’ freedoms and liberties.

In the case of the coconut oil fiasco, it’s about driving the public to consume unhealthy industrial chemicals instead of natural healing fats. In the case of climate change, it’s about micromanaging people’s lives down to the foods they choose to serve their families for dinner.

5 Ways the 'Green New Deal' Exactly Mirrors Agenda 2030

If the climate fanatics are successful – and they openly admit their scheme, including in this climate “study” that was endorsed by 11,000 “random people” – humans will no longer be allowed to eat meat. Everything in your meal regimen will need to be “plant-based.” You won’t be able to drive a gas-powered vehicle anymore. And most of your earnings will end up being stolen from you to pay for “carbon credits”, [which will be used to make others rich].

posted December 13, 2019 05:38 PM            

Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. The recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the recent low values for the total solar irradiance. Data source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels. Last day shown: 31 October 2019. Last diagram update: 1 November 2019. [Courtesy climate4you.com]

*Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone*

Overview

The sun is currently in the midst of a deep solar minimum and it is about to reach an historic milestone. So far this year the sun has been blank (i.e., no visible sunspots) for 266 days and, barring any major surprises, it’ll reach 269 days early next week which will be the quietest year in terms of sunspots since 1913 when the sun was spotless for 311 days. In fact, the current stretch of consecutive spotless days has reached 29 and for the year the sun has been blank 77% of the time. The current record-holder in the satellite era for spotless days in a given year is 2008 when the sun was blank for 268 days making the 2008-2009 solar minimum the deepest since 1913.........

posted January 17, 2020 01:32 PM            

(well it is finally revealed why the climate hoax is be9ing pushed by the elite.
it will allow them to establish is first ever world wide tax system .....on cattle, which is why cattle are being blamed as a prime source of CO2 pollution. then other taxes will be instituted after this precedent is set todd)

The Global Government Is Preparing A Global Tax Regime

The New World Order’s global(ist) government has just proposed a new global taxation regime to solidify their control over the tax cattle on the human plantation we call planet Earth. …

… But perhaps you missed that story when it ran in the controlled corporate media last month. Maybe that’s because the New York Times went with the headline “Tech Giants Shift Profits to Avoid Taxes. There’s a Plan to Stop Them.”

And maybe you missed it when the global government put out its press release announcing its intentions in October. Maybe that’s because the globalists are hiding behind the moniker “The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development” (OECD) and titled their document announcing the scheme “Secretariat Proposal for a ‘Unified Approach’ under Pillar One.”

Global Government

In fact, you could be forgiven for missing this story given the way it has been non-announced and un-reported. “Secretariat Proposal for a ‘Unified Approach’ under Pillar One”? What does that hodgepodge of bureaucratic gobbledygook even mean?

If you’re like 99.9% of the public, those words, when presented without context, would mean absolutely nothing to you. And if you’re like 99.99% of the public you probably dozed off just reading that title.

(And if you think that’s bad, just wait until you get to the action-packed, informative first sentence of the document’s introduction: “The tax challenges of the digitalisation of the economy were identified as one of the main areas of focus of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan, leading to the 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report)”

Yes, the most important and horrific pieces of legislation are presented to the public under false cover, either by naming it the opposite of what it is — USA FREEDOM Act, anyone? — or by giving it an incomprehensible and thoroughly uninteresting title and spelling it out in impenetrable legalese.

So what’s the real story here, and what does it mean for the future of free humanity? Let’s roll up our sleeves and find out, shall we?

First things first: Yes, Virginia, there is a global government. The trick is that the globalists don’t refer to it as “global government.” Instead, they have split it up into a number of disparate but interlocking organizations that cooperate and coordinate actions at a number of different levels in various economic, financial and political spheres.

There’s the World Trade Organization. The IMF and World Bank and the BIS and the FSB. The United Nations. The G7 and the G20. The BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

The World Economic Forum. Bilderberg and the CFR and the Royal Institute for International Affairs. The Council of the Americas. And seemingly a million other organizations, including the OECD.

In this case, the OECD has been handed the “global tax” football by the G20. Picture it this way: The G20 is quarterbacking and they want to get the ball to the OECD to run it up the field. Quarterback G20 hands it off to “The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS,” which then passes it to the Task Force on the Digital Economy.

Unless you’re watching closely, you won’t even know who has the ball. But you don’t have to watch very carefully to tell that all these organizations are just different players on the same team: Team Globalist. And the ball is about to be run into the end zone.

OK, enough metaphor. Here’s the point: the G20 and the OECD have been pushing to implement a global taxation regime under the guise of — as the venerable NYT puts it — “prevent[ing] large multinational companies like Apple, Facebook and Amazon from avoiding taxes by shifting profits between countries.”

It’s a classic Problem – Reaction – Solution set up that will lead us inevitably into the maw of the globalist beast.

Problem – Tech giants are shifting their profit sources to countries with lower tax rates.

Reaction – The public, already mad at Big Tech in particular and the corporate fat cats in general, clamor for someone to come along and enforce stricter rules to stop these multinational companies from acting multinationally.

Solution – The global government will save us all with a global tax net!

But as you might have guessed, this isn’t just about Big Tech and multinationals. The G20 and the OECD have been working for years now to get the ball rolling on building out the infrastructure for a total global taxation grid.

This process traces back to the US and its implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) back in 2010. At the time, FATCA was touted as a way for the IRS to sink its claws into all those pesky international tax evaders.

As was pointed out at the time, FATCA essentially ended any pretense of bank secrecy, requiring all foreign financial institutions to disclose any information they had on holdings by US persons.

It took a few years, but by 2013 a number of states had signed on to the deal (yes, even Switzerland) and began opening up their banks’ books to inspection by the IRS. This was followed up by the launch of an IRS-run “International Data Exchange” in 2015, making it easier than ever for subservient vassal states to spill the financial beans on anyone in Uncle Sam’s crosshairs.

When the G20 saw how well all this was working, they wanted in on the action. At the September 2013 G20 Summit in Russia they provided the mandate for the OECD to form its own body to look into a reciprocal data-sharing agreement between the 36 OECD signatories.

In 2016, the OECD concluded negotiations on the predictably eye-wateringly boringly titled “Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” which led to a mandate from the 2017 G20 Summit for a task force to issue an interim report on the digitalization of the economy that led to further rounds of meetings and negotiations that led to this latest “Public consultation document.”

Clear as mud? I thought so. And that’s the point.

The global government is not going to step out from behind the curtain and admit that there’s a global government in the process of slotting a global tax grid into place.

No, you can rest assured that when they finally do pull back the curtain, the whole thing will be done. A fait accompli. And you won’t be able to complain because it all took place right there in plain sight. How on earth did you not see it?

Let’s be clear: This is not the end of the story. This story is still very much in the process of unfolding. And even when and if this OECD task force does manage to get some version of its proposed global minimum corporate tax rate in place, this will not be used to issue a global tax ID to everyone on the planet and get them on the grid the next day.

No, this process will take years to reach that end goal. But therein lies the danger. This is a war of attrition being waged in stealth from behind a smokescreen of bureaucracy and legalese. And not on person in a thousand even knows it’s happening.

posted January 17, 2020 04:16 PM            

Davos is coming up. Trump will be there laying down the law to the conspirators. Which is why they're so desperate to get Trump out of office.

posted January 22, 2020 01:51 PM            

George Soros Launches Campaign to Silence “Climate Deniers” on YouTube
http://youtu.be/eJjWDBKPaTk

Many would agree that climate change is perhaps the biggest and most critically important issue that we face globally as a society. And I personally would agree with that 100%. But it all depends on which side of the fence you land on. And of course just like any argument, or debate, there are at least two sides to every story.

One side is currently being championed as the people who want to save the world, young people mainly, who are willing to speak out against the establishment and their evil ways for the good for mankind and mother earth.

This side of the argument which portrays itself as grassroots, just so happens to fall in line essentially word for word with the establishment, whom they blame for this supposed climate crisis.

George Soros Launches Campaign To Silence “climate Deniers” On Youtube

The other side of the argument is anyone who dares to even question the legitimacy, or science behind the claims that the world is about to end unless we do something about man made climate change right now! This side is known as the climate deniers.

That’s right, if you wish to have an open discussion, dialogue, ask questions, engage in a debate or any such action which does not fall in line with the UN 2030 climate agenda you are part of the problem and must be silenced.

posted January 25, 2020 02:14 PM            

100+ Scientific Papers Show That Carbon Dioxide’s Effects on the Climate Are “Negligible”

Climate change activists love to insist that carbon dioxide is behind global warming, and they’ve made a sport out of refuting claims to the contrary.

However, it’s getting harder to defend their delusional stance as more than 100 different scientific papers and counting show that carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate is actually quite small.

The papers use terms such as “negligible” to describe the effects of CO2 on the climate.

100+ Scientific Papers Show That Carbon Dioxide’s Effects On The Climate Are “negligible”

For example, a paper from last year said there was not “a consistent warming with gradual increase (in CO2) in low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory.”

After pointing out the complexity of climate predictions, the researchers said it is simply not possible to support the notion that global warming stems from human-caused greenhouse effect.

Last fall, a group of 500 scientists and other professionals in the climate science space penned a letter to the United Nations sharing their view that there isn’t a climate crisis and that they consider spending so much money on the issue to be “cruel and imprudent.”

In the letter, they encouraged the UN to follow a climate policy that is based on “sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”

The fact remains that the so-called global warming science that many adherents love to quote is based on a biased interpretation of questionable science that keeps getting repeated as though it were fact.

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less.

He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

31,487 Scientists Say Global Warming Is A Hoax — They’re Speaking Out Against Junk Science

Lying to get what they want

He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money.

The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down.

Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse.

Co2

Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it?

posted January 25, 2020 06:51 PM            

Prince Charles flew 16,000 miles in just 11 days using three private jets and one helicopter before proudly posing with Greta Thunberg in Davos
•Prince Charles took three flights on private jets and a helicopter before meeting the activist Greta Thunberg
•After an impassioned speech on climate on Wednesday, he took a fourth private jet from Switzerland to Israel
•His flight travel totalled over 16,000 miles in less than a fortnight at an estimated cost of £280k to taxpayer
Kate Mansey
25 January 2020

posted February 07, 2020 04:48 PM            

Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"
https\://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM

Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” as Pseudoscience
The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible.” — Dr David Kear

Dr David Kear is a former Director General of New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) – as such he would have been considered one of New Zealand’s top scientists. He has been publishing on sea levels since the 1950s.

In 2013 Dr Kear prepared a booklet in which he set out his views on the globalist climate project. In the booklet, Dr Kear describes:

Dr David Kear New Zealand
•his experience with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change
•the corrupted science behind the Global Warming narrative
•the corrupted science behind the claims of rising sea-levels
•the demonisation by “Global Warmers” of the “essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide”
•how councils are making zoning & other decisions purely to satisfy a false narrative, with total disregard for the facts

Think globally, act locally (UN catchcry)

Dr Kear describes how local councils are ignoring scientific fact in order to satisfy an agenda imposed on them from above. No matter if scientists, engineers and local observers all indicate that the sea is not rising, even retreating – once a council has decided on a policy that assumes that the sea IS rising, the council is immovable, and makes decisions on zoning and building codes on that basis.

Such policies will be being applied in coastal and non-coastal areas alike, thereby contributing to fulfillment of Agenda 21 goals of eventually eliminating small towns and villages and moving people to “sustainable” megacities.

Dr Kear’s text is reproduced here in its entirety with minimal changes to format.

GLOBAL WARMING alias CLIMATE
CHANGE

[the NON-EXISTENT, incredibly expensive,
THREAT TO US ALL,
including to our GRANDCHILDREN]

by David Kear, 34 West End, Ohope, Whakatane, NZ (former Director-General, NZ DSIR; United Nations consultant; & South Pacific geoscientist)

INTRODUCTION

“Climate Change” has become an important international topic – one might almost say religion. It began life as “Global Warming”.

So very many people, including politicians and “news people”, appear to have been overwhelmed by it, and have led others to believe, and follow the doctrine.

It has sponsored a good deal of international co-operation, which can only have been good.

However, the cost of “Combating Carbon” has been extremely high, and the debt and economic consequences are being passed on to present citizens, and, worse still, to future generations, including all our grandchildren.

This booklet attempts to raise, in citizens’ minds, questions regarding the enormous sums of money and effort being wasted on this topic.

Is it soundly based? Will it “do good” or “do bad” for ordinary citizens? Do those promoting it deserve our attention?

This booklet suggests that Global-Warming-alias-Climate-Change, as proposed by “Global Warmers” makes no sense. You, as the reader, must judge that for yourself – not to help the writer of this booklet, but to help you and your family.

Do you think after reading all this that the proponents are absolutely reliable?

Should you add your voice to those against it, or at least talk to your councillors and members of parliament and see how they feel?

THE ANCIENT ACCEPTABLE VIEW

Our Earth’s climate is highly variable, and records show clearly that it always has been so. Animals and plants have had no option but to accept what comes, and to adapt life in ways that suit best. Evolution gave some help by introducing “the Survival of the Fittest”

Humans found early that their discussion and understanding were helped by a belief in some extraneous source being the cause of recorded changes of climate – perhaps with divine power. This booklet uses “Mother Nature” in that role to avoid wordy explanations.

Humans discovered that they could ameliorate climatic effects with buildings, clothing and the rest, and even create “microclimates” through windbreaks, forest clearing, artificial lakes, fossil fuel burning, and the rest.

However, no-one originally thought seriously that man could change the basic influences to our climate – our Sun, our Earth’s rotation, the total quantity of our Planet’s water, and the rest. Mother Nature is able to change all such things (and has been doing so for some 3,000,000,000 years), but we are not.

THE NEW BELIEF – THE NEW PROBLEM

Introduction

That ancient and acceptable view was amended in the minds of some people whom I call the “Global Warmers”. I’ve heard nothing convincing about their so-called “Science”; but what they publish convinces me that it’s close to nonsense. The most convincing evidence against it comes mostly from the Global Warmers themselves.

In this booklet, the beliefs of “Global Warming”, and “Climate Change” have initial capital letters. That contrasts with natural warming, or natural changing of climate – indicated by lower case initial letters. The idea of a human cause is much less than 300 years old.

My interest in our changing climate and sea level

During fieldwork for a PhD thesis I found a coastal exposure of soft sandstone at Ohuka Creek, south of Port Waikato. There were Pliocene fossils of marine shellfish below an extensive horizontal bedding plane. Above that plane were more fossils, but of cool-lovinga plants.

A finger could show the exact location of the abrupt change to the cooler climate at the onset of the first of the world-wide Pleistocene glaciations [Ice Ages]. Ice formed widely at the ultimate expense of sea water, so sea level fell. At Ohuka, sea bed had become land.

Such changes are rarely seen in a continuous sequence, so I recorded it in a 1957 scientific paperb. That resulted in my joining an informal world-wide Group researching changing sea levels.

Most interest then was about the rate of sea level rise as the Earth warmed following the “Little Ice Age”. That cool period, from about 1500 to 1700 AD, halted winemaking in England and taro cropping in New Zealand.

Our Group determined the rate of sea level rise in many different World regions, from widely-available readings of tide gauges (less variable than those of thermometers). The average for us all was 125 mm/century (“125” here). Hence it would take 8 centuries for sea level to rise 1m – no serious threat to us.

Global Warming Dawns

Subsequently, I attended many international science conferences representing DSIR, NZ or Pacific Nations. I noted the words “Global Warming” appearing increasingly in paper titles, and sensed a growing number of adherents.

Those latter arranged a first-ever “Conference on Global Warming” in Vienna in 1985. Unlike most such meetings, where a communiqué summarising achievements was released on the final day, the full results of this one were delayed for over 2 years.

When they did appear (front page NZ Herald, two days before Christmas 1987) a World Declaration included “Overseas scientists have estimated that the seas around New Zealand will rise by up to 1.4 m in the next 40 years”. That article concentrated on the massive consequent problems, caused by our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but gave no adequate supporting science.

That rate of rise was equivalent to 3,500 mm/century, 28 times faster than our 125. Hence we stupidly ignored it, thinking noone could possibly believe it. But the World did believe, and the Global Warming mirage was born. Had 3,500 been true, sea level should have risen by almost 1 m by today – it hasn’t, not even closely.

This showed unambiguously that those “Overseas Scientists” were not true scientists. They ignored a most important basic rule of true science “Thou shall not publish Science without first checking it. A check against local tide gauges would have shown how wrong 1.4 m in 40 yrs was; they simply hadn’t bothered to check. That was a First Grave Error.

Australian government scientists were concerned about the effects on Pacific Island nations by any sea level rise of around 3,500 mm/century, and launched a project to determine the correct figure at that time. They announced the result at the 1992 meeting of SOPAC – a geoscientific organisation of South Pacific nations. Their figure was 122 mm/century, confirming the order of magnitude of our group’s 125 average value.

Fooling the World

The Global Warmers persisted with their use of pseudo-science and made further predictions. Understandably they too all proved wrong. At conferences I began to hear, regardless of the science involved, when a speaker wished to “rubbish” some scientific idea or research, he/she stated that conclusion firmly, and followed it by “Just like Global Warming”.

Clearly the Global Warmers heard that too. They didn’t change their pseudo-science, but cleverly changed the name to ‘Climate Change”. [One can disprove warming, but the words change of climate can’t be proved wrong].

The United Nations became interested – major sea level rise could cause havoc in low-lying areas or island groups. They established an Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and invited nations to send delegates. Not surprisingly those chosen were almost entirely Global Warmers, because they clearly knew something about it. But to do them credit the Panel members acted a little more like true scientists than those earlier.

They accepted that “1.4 m in 40 yrs” was wrong and re-evaluated it as “0.49 m by 2100”, [roundly a century ahead]. Thus they dropped 3,500 down to 500 mm/century – to 14% of the original. The cause remained unchanged – our CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. In no other human activity would those involved retain a belief when the most crucial item involved was found to be 86% wrong by themselves. That was a Second Grave Error.

In spite of that, the World was taken in. Politicians were able to promise to save us from the consequences, and the Media had an unending “Field Day”. It wasn’t that people necessarily believed, but they lacked the courage to risk that it might come true, and that they might have to bear the terrible consequences that had been so forcibly promised.

The New Errors

The new value of “0.49 m by 2100” became widely accepted. In New Zealand, District Councils were instructed by Government Departments, like Conservation and Environment, and by Regional Councils, that they must take full account of the risk that “0.49” implied for a sea level rise by 2100. Councils had to consider that in the same way as earthquake and volcanic risk. Yet that “0.49” value doesn’t stand up to the most simple scientific scrutiny.

First, the rate is four times faster than the current sea level rise, as indicated by regional, widely-available tide gauges; second, no reason was given for quadrupling the value, and third, good science interprets “0.49” in this sense as being deliberately different from 0.48 and 0.50. Thus that effectively claims that those who determined that value know, for sure, where sea level will be a century ahead to ±5 mm. That was, and is, patently absurd

These were the Third, Fourth & Fifth Grave Errors.

Further Damning Disclosures

The United Nations appointed me personally to their UNCSTD Committee which assists small countries with their ability regarding Science and Technology Development. Three or so of us would go to a central city to talk and discuss their options with delegates from regional countries. On one occasion we met in Prague, to assist countries on both sides of the “Iron Curtain”.

While there, we were invited to visit the World’s only “Institute for Global Warming”. It was founded and funded incredibly by the USA and Soviet Union jointly, at the height of their “Cold War”, in an attempt to fund something “for the good of Mankind”, rather than “for armaments”. Some of its staff could have attended the 1985 Conference, and helped create the 1987 World Declaration.

I took the opportunity of asking to see copies of the documents that had been brought to that 1985 Meeting in neutral Austria. Several attendees brought their estimates for sea level rise due to Global Warming. The values, converted to mm/century, ranged from 500 minimum to 3,500 maximum.

There can be no doubt that, to ensure that their 1987 World Declaration made the greatest impact, they published the maximum value – contravening the most sacred rule of acceptable science Thou shall not publish items for monetary, political, or personal gain that are not clear un-biased un-inflated truths.

The fact that “up to” was used, might be allowed in non-scientific areas, but not in Science. If World Media had distorted the message, the Warmers should immediately have denied what was wrongly claimed, and ensured that the proper statement got equal publicity. Using a maximum value for greatest effect was the Sixth (and
Worst) Grave Error.

OLD SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS ON CLIMATE IGNORED

19th Century science posed a important question. Why is our Earth’s average temperature significantly higher than that calculated from the then-recent determinations of our Sun’s distance and its radiation? Knowing my interests in climate, DSIR librarians found me a publication in German that answered that puzzle early.

It had Scandinavian author(s), if I remember correctly. Its answer was that the CO2 in our atmosphere acts like glass in a glasshouse. Both change the optical physical nature of the Sun’s infra-red rays [that carry the warmth to us] such that they may enter, but cannot then leave. So we are warmed by the heat trapped below our CO2; like the glasshouse below its glass.

I surmise that the Global Warmers, along with Al Gore, noted correctly that CO2 keeps us warm, but thought wrongly that more would make us warmer. The analogy with glass is important. Horticultural experiments long ago found that more (thicker) glass does not cause more warming, so more CO2 probably doesn’t either.

The effect is like that of polarising spectacles, where the change takes place as light begins passing through the lenses. Thickness makes no difference. Polarisation is either 100%, or not at all. A coincidence timed the Little Ice Age’s end with the Industrial Revolution’s start. The Warmers blamed the undoubted warming on the latter – ignoring the glasshouse evidence.

THE NEW CLIMATE REGIME

NIWA

The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) retains New Zealand climate records. It has a history of persuading successive governments that Global Warming and Climate Change are both real. It often encouraged media headlines like “We are Getting Warmer”, when any news item suggested any higher temperature.

Science progresses by new concepts and ideas being aired freely for scientific scrutiny. That has sometimes taken centuries to be completed. Although I don’t agree with some of NIWA’s views, it is proper that they should be aired for discussion, as in this booklet.

One announcement (that surely originated from NIWA) was very important to me and all citizens, and was a credit to NIWA itself. At the close of 2007, it stated that the decade just finishing was the warmest since New Zealand records began. The announcement added that, of those 10 years, 1998 was the warmest ever since records began.

I was grateful to NIWA, and concluded that 2007 was no warmer than 1998, and probably cooler. I could assume therefore that warming at our 125 rate finished in 1998. In the roundest of figures, the Little Ice Age lasted for some 200 years. There would be no conflict with accepting that the following warming should similarly last for some 200 years.

As always in Science one seeks confirmation whenever possible. I have seen many items that lead to that same view of “no warming since 1998”. The best was a written debate in the Imperial Engineer of autumn 2008. [That scientific journal is produced for engineering graduates of Imperial College, London – arguably UK’s top university in engineering.]

The debate was on whether Humans were to blame for current changes of climate. Prof Joanna Haigh blamed Humans, Lord Monckton blamed Mother Nature. The only point on which they both agreed was that there had been no warming since 1998. That confirmed NIWA’s statement perfectly, along with several comparable pronouncements.

My conclusion is that warming since the Little Ice Age’s end is now almost certainly finished. That was supported further by NIWA’s release at the end of 2012,concerning the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Their report was that 2012 had been drier and colder than 2011.

Citizens also notice that warming seems to be over. Skiing seasons are extended, winter fires are needed earlier, and some of us travelling overseas have been asked by those from Queensland, even Hawaii, whether we in New Zealand feel colder generally – as they do. I conclude that the New Zealand climate has not been warming since 1998.

THE AFFECTS ON CITIZENS

Astronomical Cost of Major Measures to Combat a Non-Existent Threat: Politicians and the Media have listened to the proponents of Global-Warming-Climate-Change, but don’t seem to have made any critical assessment of it all.

Perhaps they were bemused by the Global Warmers constantly naming themselves and associates as “Scientists”. As has been shown, those people disregarded the basic rules of true Science. Their political and media audiences innocently believed the statements – which contained grave errors.

Innocents in politics and the media were badly mis-led. They gladly supported projects to combat the non-existent threat of Global-Warming-Climate-Change.

The projects were unnecessary because there was no threat; extremely costly in money time and effort; full of praise where ridicule was deserved misleading about benefits & options; and above all diversionary away from today’s real problems.

A huge international bureaucratic industry was born – with Cabinet Ministers, government departments, company sections, travel, conferences, treaties, carbon credits, and carbon trading, and very much more. The challenge was often heard that we must curb our carbon emissions or sacrifice our grandchildren’s well-being.

In truth, those children were being saddled with a gigantic debt to pay for everything encompassed by the Warmers’ “carbon footprints”, including the salaries and expenses of the loudest proponents.

Perhaps the saddest part has been that the essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide, has been demonised and criminalised.

It is essential in creating plant growth using chlorophyll and photo-synthesis. It is thus essential for our very existence. Crops grow better in a CO2-enriched and warmer atmosphere, when heated by an oldfashioned vertical kerosene heater. It gives off “carbon emissions” that are valuable to us all.

Costs and Dangers of Local Measures to combat the Non-Existent Threat: Local authorities were compelled to adopt measures designed to combat the nonexistent threat.

Typically, maps were drawn showing the coastline’s position now, and in the year 2100 with intermediate zone(s), assuming that sea level would rise 0.49 m in the next 100 years. Onerous restrictions have been emplaced within the zones that were thus defined.

Many regions have vast quantities of sand transported by rivers to their coast, released by the erosion of hills and mountains, continuously raised by Mother Nature. Their coastline extends seawards steadily.

Citizens in such regions have long noted (with surveys and photos) that the coastline has a net seawards movement. It contrasts with many Councils’ imposed belief in “0.49” which demands landwards movement (“inundation”).

Councils seem unable to accept their citizens’ constant and loud protests about all this. They seem to feel that higher authorities insist that they must ignore such views. It is not just (a) the absurdity of restrictions about where houses may be erected (only inland of certain lines), etc.; or (b) the increasing costs to those building their first home.

At the other end of the scale there are enforced dangers; a requirement for higher floor levels, leading to more steps, with unnecessary risks to elderly folk falling, when using them.

The fact that sea level is no longer rising is a new extra factor for councils to ignore. In the example of Ohope Beach, a Commission of enquiry, set up by Council, backed the Council’s view of landwards inundation.

That rejected all citizens’ factual evidence of seawards net movement for periods ranging from 50 to 5,000 years. Council also rejected the advice, supporting the Citizens, by one who was highly qualified in engineering and science and had had long and successful experience in coastal work.

Much worse, the Council’s own appointed consultants provided an additional report based on every coastal survey for which a record was available.

It showed a “retreat of the sea” [seaward shoreline movement, or accretion] at the only three Ohope sites, of 0.30-0.94 m/yr over 130 years that was still ongoing in 2008. Clearly neither Council nor Commission had bothered to read that critical report, written by highly regarded consultants, who had been appointed for this project by the Council itself.

The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible. It leads to unfair treatment of some citizens, and a massive bill for all, for nothing useful.

When will citizens revolt effectively against such callous disregard for their observations and wishes, by those who are essentially their elected employees?

When will the perpetrators examine the basis of their ideology, and realise that it’s based on unfounded unscientific beliefs, not on confirmed, widely-available investigations by real scientists who abide by the moral standards of their profession?

References to Kaawa — Ohuka

a) Couper RA & McQueen DR 1954: Pliocene and Pleistocene plant fossils of NZ and their climatic interpretation. Trans Roy Soc NZ 77(3): 398-­‐420

b) Kear D 1957: Statigraphy of the Kaawa-­‐Ohuka coastal area, West Auckland. NZ J Sci Tech B 38 (8): 826-­‐42

c) Kear D 1963: Geology of Te Akau, West Auckland & regional implications. PhD thesis, London University. 2 vols, 599 pp (copies at libraries of GNS, and of London, Auckland &
Waikato Universities).

ISBN 978-­‐0-­‐473-­‐25154-­‐3

July 2013

By Dr David Kear, Guest writer

Biographical Note: Dr David Kear has a background in geology and engineering, becoming the Director General of the DSIR (New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) in 1980. He is a Fellow and Past Vice-President of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and Past President of the New Zealand Geological Society. Dr Kear has over 100 publications on New Zealand and Pacific geology, vulcanology and mineral resources. He has been publishing on sea-levels since the 1950s.

Nobel Laureate in Physics; “Global Warming is Pseudoscience”:

Thousands of climate scientists and professionals have signed petitions and letters, rejecting the claims that humans are responsible for global warming.

More than 1,000 scientists challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President
Al Gore: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (pdf)

Letter to the UN: 500 Climate Scientists & Professionals Sign Letter to UN: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

Global Warming Petition Project: 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition asking the US government to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement. A summary of peer-reviewed research is included.

Purpose of Petition: The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

posted March 13, 2020 05:04 PM            

( just repeating the reason for the fraud of climate warming is because the Rothschild are claiming that cows contribute to global warming...therefore they propose a WORLD WIDE TAX on cows. this will be the first new world order tax and as a precedent it will be the first shot in taxing everyone into economic slavery in the world.

todd)

Scientists Pressured to Say ‘Everything is a Cause of Climate Change’ Amid NO EVIDENCE of a Connection Between ‘Climate Change’ and Australian Fires

Nationals Senator Matt Canavan says it might be necessary to “rekindle the benefits of unorthodoxy” to create an effective government response to climate change.

During Senate estimates a CSIRO official failed to explain why a previous CSIRO finding which said there was no evidence to suggest a link between climate change and bushfires was not found in a recent document explaining the bushfires.

Mr Canavan told Sky News host Chris Kenny it would have been “pretty easy” to include the fact there has been no evidence linking climate change and bushfires in the document.

Scientists Pressured To Say 'everything Is A Cause Of Climate Change'

He said climate change activists however demand “it has all got to be one way” and “everything is a cause of climate change”.

“Scientists sometimes feel that pressure too and are somewhat reticent to put the more complex picture into papers like this,” he said.

“It is very easy to blame climate change and that becomes the orthodoxy and cannot be challenged, yet it leads to some very poor policy decisions.

“Everyone apparently is saying if we shut down coal-fired power stations there won’t be any bushfires in Australia anymore.

“It is absurd but it gets somehow established as gospel in this place.”

Check this out: The Truth About the Australian Bushfires
http://youtu.be/g2tjgW-TjMY