Tag Archives: Climate Change

Here is The Hidden $150 Trillion Agenda Behind The “Crusade” Against Climate Change, by Tyler Durden

There’s a lot of money to made on climate change. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

We now live in a world, where bizarro headlines such as the ones below, have become a daily if not hourly occurrence:

  • *TREASURY TO STUDY IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON HOUSEHOLDS, COMMUNITIES
  • *TREASURY LAUNCHES EFFORT ON CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIAL RISKS
  • *BRAINARD: CLIMATE-SCENARIO ANALYSIS WILL HELP IDENTIFY RISKS
  • *BRAINARD: CLIMATE CHANGE COULD HAVE PROFOUND ECONOMIC EFFECTS
  • *MESTER: FED LOOKS AT CLIMATE CHANGE FROM VIEW OF RISKS TO BANKS
  • *FED IS TAKING THE RIGHT COURSE ON MONITORING CLIMATE CHANGE
  • *FED SHOULD CONSIDER CLIMATE-CHANGE RISK TO FINANCIAL SYSTEM

Now, in case someone is still confused, none of these institutions, and not a single of the erudite officials running them, give a rat’s ass about the climate, about climate change risks, or about the fate of future generations of Americans (and certainly not about the rising water level sweeping away their massive waterfront mansions): if they did, total US debt and underfunded liabilities wouldn’t be just shy of $160 trillion.

So what is going on, and why is it that virtually every topic these days has to do with climate change, “net zero”, green energy and ESG?

The reason – as one would correctly suspect – is money. Some $150 trillion of it.

Continue reading→

Google Banning Ads With ‘Inaccurate’ Content on Climate Change, by Katabella Roberts

“Inaccurate,” as we know, means anything that doesn’t conform to the official script. From Katabella Roberts at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:

Google is banning advertisements featuring content that contradict what it called “inaccurate” content on climate change, and will no longer allow ad revenue to be made from them, the company announced in a blog post on Oct. 7.

The tech giant said the new policy will go into effect in November and will help “strengthen the integrity” of Google’s advertising ecosystem, and also align with their past work to promote sustainability and “confront climate change.”

“In recent years, we’ve heard directly from a growing number of our advertising and publisher partners who have expressed concerns about ads that run alongside or promote inaccurate claims about climate change,” the company said in Thursday’s blog post announcing the updates.

“Advertisers simply don’t want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators don’t want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos.”

Google said that those concerns are what led them to create the new monetization policy, which applies to commercials Google places online, as well as the websites and YouTube videos that run Google ads.

The updated policy prohibits advertising for and monetization of content that contradicts what Google calls the “well-established scientific consensus” on the existence and causes of climate change.

Continue reading→

The Coming Climate Crisis Shakedown in Scotland, by Patrick Buchanan

Climate change has always been a hustle to transfer money from the wealthy West, primarily the US, to all sorts of nefarious autocrats and organizations. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

“Follow the money!”

The old maxim is always sound advice when assessing the motives of those advancing bold agendas for the benefit of mankind.

Invariably, the newest progressive idea entails a transfer of wealth from the taxpaying classes of Western nations to our transnational, global and Third World elites.

For the masters of the universe, establishing justice and equality for the world’s poor are rewarding exercises in every sense of the word.

Consider the 2015 Paris climate accords.

Its declared goal: Save the planet from the ravages of climate change, which is caused by carbon dioxide emissions, which are produced by industrial nations with too many of the world’s factories, farms, ships, planes and autos.

Under the Paris accords, wealthier nations of the West were to set and meet strict national targets for reducing their carbon emissions.

Together, these reductions were to prevent any rise in the planet’s temperature of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

This was presented as the world’s last best hope of preventing a climate catastrophe in this century.

Continue reading→

Scientists Rename Climate Change ‘COVID’ So Americans Will Immediately Give Up All Their Rights To Fight It

From The Babylon Bee:

U.S.—In a clever ploy to fight global warming, scientists have renamed “climate change” to “COVID,” so that Americans will immediately give up all their rights in order to fight the unprecedented phenomenon where weather trends change over time.

“Listen up, guys—we’re not calling it ‘climate change’ anymore,” said climate researcher Dr. Brittany Boyd. “We’re going with ‘COVID,’ which stands for ‘climate oscillation & variation into destruction’—this will ensure people will listen to us and quickly surrender all their liberties to fight climate cha—sorry, I mean, COVID.”

According to Dr. Boyd, studies have shown that if you refer to the coronavirus instead of climate change, Americans who otherwise wouldn’t care about climate science will stumble over themselves to be locked in their homes and give up all rights to their state and federal governments to help out.

“COVID is going to destroy us in less than 12 years,” said Al Gore to a packed house. “We must stop this by purchasing as many of my books as possible, so I can fly to more places to spread the word about COVID.”

All books previously referring to climate change have been destroyed, just as the ones referring to “global warming” were destroyed before them. “There will only be an endless present in which we are always right,” said Boyd.

https://babylonbee.com/news/scientists-rename-climate-change-covid-so-americans-will-immediately-give-up-all-their-rights-to-fight-it

The problem with climate change politics, by Alasdair Macleod

Allowing governments to “solve” the climate change problem is allowing people with only a tenuous connection to reality to propagate their solutions unchecked by feedback from the people who must live under those solutions and bear their cost. From Alasdair Macleod at goldmoney.com:

Climate change bears all the hallmarks of a state-sponsored crisis, useful to shift attention from other political failures. But the absence of financial accountability which characterises government actions also introduces behavioural errors.

The absence of a profit motive in any state action exposes the relationship between governments and their electors to psychological factors. We all know that governments use propaganda and other tools to manage crowd psychology and influence their electorates. What is less understood is that governments themselves are misled by a crowd psychology in its own ranks which contributes to policy failure.

This article does not question the climate change debate itself. Instead, it examines the debate in the context of the psychology driving it. The release of government-sponsored propaganda on climate change in the form of a unanimous IPCC report predicting the end of the world as we know it is the latest example of a political and bureaucratic phenomenon, making the timing of this article apposite.

Introduction

Western economies have moved on from free markets to the point where they hardly exist in the true meaning of the phrase. Yet the state continually claims that it is free markets that fail, not government.

The reason governments fail in economic terms is that economic calculation is never part of their brief, and nor can it be. By economic calculation, we mean taking positive actions aimed at a profitable outcome. To survive and prosper, businesses and individuals must do this all the time — the only exception being when they can rely on the state to underwrite their failures, which is why established businesses encourage statist regulation to place hurdles in the way of upstart competitors. And why at an individual level there is a ready demand for state welfare.

Continue reading→

In Defense of CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate and Common Sense Revisited, by Matthew Ehret

Carbon dioxide is getting a bum rap. From Matthew Ehret at lewrockwell.com:

According to such modern climate experts as Bill Gates, Greta Thunberg, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Carney, Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Prince Charles and Klaus Schwab, carbon dioxide must be stopped at all cost. Images of submerged cities, drowning polar bears and burning deserts taking over civilization flash before our eyes repeatedly in schools, mainstream media and films.

The Paris Climate Accords demand that all nations reduce their emissions to pre-industrial levels and the upcoming COP27 Summit in the UK will certainly demand that these reductions be made legally binding and enforceable by new global governance mechanisms.

But is CO2 really the existential threat it is being made out to be?

I would like to take a few moments to entertain the hypothesis that we may be drinking some poisonous Kool-Aid in a modern-day Jonestown cult and we are just minutes away from a hearty “bottoms up”.

While some of the questions and facts you are about to read are considered heretical in certain quarters, I think that history has shown that it is only by permitting the mind to question sacred cows at the risk of being denounced as “heretical” that any creative progress can made. With this thought in mind, I will venture the risk and only ask that you accompany me for this thought experiment with an open mind.

Continue reading→

Obama’s Party Ruined As Mansion Sinks Into Sea Thanks To Climate Change

From The Babylon Bee:

MARTHA’S VINEYARD, MA—Well, this is tragic news: Barack Obama’s long-awaited birthday bash has been ruined by climate change as his mansion sank into the sea thanks to global warming.

As guests participated in the activities, from fun games like “Pin the Drone on the Middle Eastern Country” to a rousing session of Settlers of Yemen, the sound of crashing water caused everyone to run outside. “Oh no!” shouted Hillary Clinton. “We’ve gotta cheese it—it’s climate change!”

“How dare you!” shouted Greta Thunberg, lecturing the wave on how it’s just supposed to consume evil white men.

“Aw, man!” said a disappointed Obama as he swam away. “I was looking forward to that Predator drone-shaped cake—it looked delicious!”

“I knew I shouldn’t have invested in a $12 million-dollar mansion when I’ve warned people over and over again that it would be underwater in just a few years.”

Many guests were soaked or swept away into the sea, though John Kerry and Al Gore called their pilots and got picked up in their private jets.

At publishing time, Obama had purchased yet another multi-million-dollar mansion on the new Atlantic coast in eastern Kansas.

Choice Antipathy, by Eric Peters

Hostility against free choice continues to mount as our betters decide what’s best for us. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

A long, long, time ago – none apparently remember – people could decide to buy an electric car if that’s what they wanted and weren’t punished if they didn’t want one. They were free to choose.

What a concept!

Americans have, to a sad extent, forgotten what that was like and many are actively hostile to the concept for reasons that are psychologically interesting.

A psychologically healthy person does not care what kind of car his neighbor drives, provided his neighbor pays for it. A psychologically disturbed person cares very much what kind of car his neighbor drives and wishes to make him pay for it. He seeks to punish him for driving a car he does not like, as via exorbitant taxes sicced on his neighbor’s car or the fuel it uses or perhaps restrictions on where he is allowed to drive it.

Yes, of course – there is the putative nostrum about non-electric cars “changing” the “climate”  – a transparently non-specific, non-objective assertion that is of a piece with the one made about people who aren’t sick possibly spreading a sickness they might have. It is a wonderfully elastic, open-ended and difficult to “deny” thesis – which is precisely how it serves its intended purpose.

If it is accepted that vague assertions are synonymous with facts.

The “climate” is “changing”? How, exactly? How much, exactly? It is because people are not driving electric cars? How, precisely? Prove that people who are not driving electric cars are “changing” the “climate” and then prove that this “change” is something that is causing harm.

No vague if scary assertions, please. One can assert all kinds of things. As for instance 3 million dead from the ‘Rona. As for instance “asymptomatic” spread. If assertions, however scary, are to be the justification for impositions than any imposition can be justified by painting a scary picture – as Al Gore did, literally – in his now-ancient movie that asserted we’d be under water by now or at least treading it.

A fact, on the other hand, is objective. Something is  – or it is not. It did – or did not – happen. Like the coastlines going glub-glub-glub under water, for instance. There is no need to argue about it because it just is (or isn’t) and that is the elegance – and justice of it.

If it can be shown – if it is a fact – that not driving an electric car “changes” the “climate” in a way that is harmful then it is not unreasonable to favor it. But it is the definition of unreasonable to demand it when there is nothing more behind it than assertions based on projections; on scary pictures like Al Gore’s movie and Greta Thundberg’s twisted visage.

Continue reading→

Six Facts the Left Doesn’t Want You To Know About Global Warming, by David Simon

It’s a close call as to which issue’s “accepted science” is the most polluted: Covid-19 or global warming. From David Simon at realclearmarkets.com:

President Biden implores us that climate change is an “existential threat” to humanity. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry preaches to us that “[t]he climate crisis as a whole is a national security threat because it is disruptive to the daily lives of human beings all over the world.” Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warns us that in 2030, “the world is going to end … if we don’t address climate change.”

Hold on to your wallet. The Left’s global warming Chicken Littles insist that the sky is falling but don’t want you to know six key facts.

First, in his new book “Unsettled,” Obama Administration Department of Energy chief scientist Steven Koonin shows that the models relied upon by the Left to predict future global warming are so poor that they cannot even reproduce the temperature changes in the 20th century.

If these models cannot reproduce past temperatures already known when the models were developed, how can they possibly reliably predict temperatures decades into the future?

Second, Koonin’s book also documents that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own analysis indicates that any negative economic impact that global warming eventually may have will be so modest that it warrants no action.

Continue reading→

3 Radical Government Programs and What They Mean for You Today, by Chris MacIntosh

We’re being fed programs from our rulers that will impoverish and enslave us. From Chris MacIntosh at internationalman.com:

When initiatives like vaccinating the planet, “climate change,” and implementing a minimum global corporate tax are on the G7 agenda, and they’re selling it to a citizenry who would be content with their peanut butter on toast because “they are doing their best for us,” you know that freedom-loving people are in for a lot of trouble.

All three of these initiatives in isolation would be (and should be) horrifying to any freedom-loving individual. Collectively they are the equivalent of grabbing the global economy, hoisting it up onto your shoulders, and then tightrope walking across the Grand Canyon blindfolded with a swarm of mosquitoes biting you, but only after drinking an entire bottle of Absolut vodka. You might make it across to the other side, but the odds are right up there with finding a juicy T-bone steak at a vegan festival.

What these initiatives cement is a collapse in living standards of the global citizenry and ultimately a rather dramatic increase in the likelihood of a major international war.

Why? By pushing the climate hysteria agenda with its bedfellow of “CO2 reduction” and forcing it upon developing nations, they will be forcing not just a decrease in living standards but sending billions of people (literally) into extreme poverty.

Continue reading→