The Climate Lie - PART 8 : The Sham of "Man-Made Climate Change" and "the 97% Consensus". Foreword: Dr. Mike Yeadon. A guest article by Uwe Froschauer.
They distort the recipient's evaluation framework with an illusion of reality and thus create new “truths”.
Foreword :
Dr. Mike Yeadon, January 2, 2024 :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/2335
If you only get to memorise one piece of propaganda-dismantling information, I’d recommend the revelation that the “97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing climate change” is a lie. It’s nothing like that proportion, but instead closer to a third. Two thirds don’t agree. See image.
( Editor's note: Dr. Yeadon posted a screenshot of the following fragment of the article published below. You can find the text again further down in the article. )
Note, even those who are noncommittal about humans role in climate change are paid for by the sponsors of systematic distortion of “the science”.
Additionally, it’s well worth rehearsing at least one good line of evidence showing that the media stories can’t possibly be true.
Best wishes
Mike
Ps Happy New Year!
Dr Mike Yeadon. December 8, 2024 :
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/silver-bullet/comment/80548899
There’s no evidence whatsoever that crisis level climate change is imminent.
That’s one of the three mega lies.
1. The lie that the world is over populated
2. The lie that we’re destroying the environment specifically the climate.
3. The lie that infectious disease pandemics happen & are worse because of GIF research.
We’re living in advanced civilizations which the perpetrators are systematically dismantling.
They don’t plan to continue sharing the world with us.
They’ve devised a plan to control everything digitally.
All that’s needed then is to dream up a series of Fahd pandemics and coerce you to accept mRNA”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
“I think it is no longer a big secret that science is increasingly placing itself in the paid service of the elites and their puppet politicians, and feeding the narratives of their financiers with appropriate arguments, even if this “evidence” comes from convictions and hardly with them evidence-based methods were created. If the scientific “results” are not in line with the decision-makers’ narrative, they are adjusted accordingly. Facts often no longer have any place in the ideology of decision-makers.”
- Uwe Froschauer
………………………………………………….
The sham of "Man-Made Climate Change" and the "97% Consensus".
A guest article by Uwe Froschauer
Updated on Dec. 14, 2024
The original source in German :
https://apolut.net/mogelpackung-menschengemachter-klimawandel-von-uwe-froschauer/
The original title in German : Mogelpackung „menschengemachter Klimawandel“ ( In Engl. : Sham "Man-Made Climate Change" ).
…………………………………………
A point of view from Uwe Froschauer.
On the United Nations (UN) website <1> you can read:
“The term 'climate change' refers to long-term changes in temperatures and weather patterns. These changes can be of natural origin and arise, for example, from fluctuations in solar activity. But since the 19th century, climate change has been primarily due to human activities, most notably the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas.
Burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gas emissions that form a blanket around the earth, trapping the sun's heat and causing temperatures to rise.”
My article addresses the question of the extent to which humans are primarily to blame for climate change.
From the light of enlightenment into the darkness of disinformation
The German climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf was outraged in his article from December 1, 2024
about the election of Donald Trump and his flat, completely unscientific, and yet perhaps not entirely wrong statements about climate change. In the introduction to his article Rahmstorf writes:
“We have known for 200 years that the greenhouse effect is an important factor in the Earth's temperature. And yet in 2024 the USA will elect a president who simply denies the clearly proven facts about climate change. And in Germany too, many politicians deny or trivialize the climate crisis. How could this happen?”
First of all: What and who does Stefan Rahmstorf mean by “We know”? I believe that only a small fraction of the population is seriously concerned with this issue and takes – mostly superficial – information from the media at face value. Behind the scientists and media pushing man-made climate change are the interests of the “eco-industry” worth trillions of euros, and behind the scientists and media who “play down” or “deny” man-made climate change are, according to Rahmstorf, the “lobby groups of the fossil coal, Oil and gas industry and its think tanks”. According to a report by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the German Association for Negative Emissions (DVNE), the global carbon dioxide removal (CDR) industry has an economic potential of 470-940 billion euros annually.
Once again it's about the money, which automatically - due to human greed - leads to different narratives with "certified facts" on both sides. More about the eco-industry as an economic factor under <2>
Mr. Rahmstorf, there is absolutely no scientific consensus among experts on the causes of climate change. So be careful with the words “We know”! Experts who are at least as technically qualified as you do not represent the position of man-made climate change. In the declaration initiated by the Norwegian Nobel Prize winner in physics and Professor Ivar Giaever (source: <3> ), which has so far been signed by 1961 scientists worldwide - including two Nobel Prize winners - it is argued that climate science has degenerated into a mere debate based on belief rather than solid science.. In the future, climate research must place significantly more emphasis on empirical science. The climate models and statistics cited have so many flaws that they are anything but plausible. They would inflate the effects of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and completely ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO 2 is also useful, especially since CO 2 is essential for all life on earth. Thanks to photosynthesis, plants convert light, water and carbon dioxide into glucose and oxygen. More CO 2 definitely makes the earth greener. Additional CO 2 in the air promotes the growth of the world's plant biomass and is good for agriculture because it increases crop yields.
Therefore my appeal: Get rid of the environmentally damaging, economically and ecologically inefficient pipe dreams in the form of wind turbines and solar systems - reforest forests on the ground that has been gained!
In addition, according to the World Climate Declaration, there is no solid statistical evidence that global warming is increasing natural disasters.
I could sign this declaration with a clearer conscience than your statements, Mr. Rahmstorf.
The conclusion of this statement: There is neither a “climate emergency” nor a reason for the panic that climate hysterics – like you, Mr. Rahmstorf – constantly spread.
Here is the short statement by Donald Trump that was criticized by Rahmstorf:
“They used to say global warming, but that didn't work because there is actually cooling. Our biggest problem is nuclear warming. They keep talking about the ocean rising an eighth of an inch in 500 years, who the hell cares?”
not even that wrong. Whether the 3 mm will be true in 500 years remains to be seen. Donald Trump's statements are certainly not evidence-based. Donald Trump is a politician and not a scientist. However, the key question is still: Is climate change primarily man-made or not, regardless of how high sea levels rise.
More about this under <4>
Rahmstorf speaks of “clearly proven facts about climate change”. Of course we have climate change - that is beyond question. However, I doubt that humans are the main cause of this climate change. If Rahmstorf means the many studies that prove man-made climate change, I would like to point out a sleight of hand that Health Minister Karl Lauterbach also apparently fell for. However, he may also have knowingly spread the following false information - which he would be capable of doing given his lies in Corona times.
It is often quoted that “97 percent” of all climate scientists confirm man-made climate change. In the meantime, the media and other climate activists spreading this nonsense have become somewhat quieter, as this claim has long since been refuted.
In his article “Let’s talk about the so-called climate deniers,” which appeared on the Ansage.org platform, geophysicist Uli Weber wrote the following about the alleged 97 percent of all climate scientists who support the thesis of man-made climate change:
“Scientific Sleight of Hand [UW]
...Let us now come to the core of the publicly widespread hatred of deniers: the belief in man-made climate change through the industrial use of fossil energy sources. According to a publication by Cook et al. (2013) <5> supposedly 97 percent of all climate scientists believe in the thesis of man-made climate change. However, when you take a closer look, you realize that this ominous 97 percent was conjured up by manipulatively shifting the 100 percent reference value from the original data set (12,000 publications) to a subset of only 32 percent.
And it goes like this (all numbers are heavily rounded): The summaries of 12,000 scientific papers were examined to determine which cause the authors had attributed to climate change. As a result, 68 percent of the authors made no statement at all and of the remaining 32 percent, 30 percent blamed humans for climate change. Exactly this 32 percent was then included as the new 100 percent basis in the ominous 97 percent statement - and the silent majority of 68 percent was simply ignored. In reality, only 97 percent of 32 percent = 30 percent of all scientific papers examined supported the model of man-made climate change...” <6>
A very popular manipulation technique is the fragmentation and/or distortion of information, as shown in the example above. “97 percent” is disinformation, Mr. Rahmstorf, a distortion of the facts, which your camp in particular is often concerned about.
Stefan Rahmstorf wonders in his article:
“How can it be that many people not only suppress established facts, but even actively deny them? And also fight the possible solutions to the problem?”
That's exactly what I'm asking myself, Mr. Rahmstorf, as I was during Corona times and in the Ukraine case! Recent findings show that man-made climate change and the climate emergency are no longer tenable narratives that continue to serve you. Even in Corona times, people were led to believe that there were “certain facts”. However, the RKI protocols revealed the greatest fraud of all time against humanity. Clear thinkers knew this from the start. The effect of the Corona measures was and is devastating. I see it the same way with climate measures from a human and economic perspective. Why should people trust your “verified facts”? Representatives of the opposing position also speak of “established facts”. So who to believe? I know one thing for sure: “The climate has always been changing.” What you call an “argument” is fact!
Rahmstorf continues with the following words:
“Yes, these are unpleasant facts. They trigger unpleasant feelings, and because people like to suppress them, there is a demand for calming fairy tales. And there is an offer of plausible-sounding denial of reality: by lobby groups for the fossil coal, oil and gas industries and their think tanks. The most popular argument for decades has been that the climate has always changed - without people understanding what this means <7> : namely how sensitive the climate reacts to disturbances in the radiation balance (e.g. to the known Earth orbit cycles), and that this is the case will of course do again in response to the disruption we have now caused…”
On “denial of reality”:
In my opinion, storytellers are green eco-terrorists who want to scare people with dreamy visions of the end times. When a narrative from elite-informed politicians no longer corresponds to reality, prostituting scientists commissioned by the decision-makers try to change people's perceptions of reality with supposedly evidence-based studies with the help of the “presstitutes”. They distort the recipient's evaluation framework with an illusion of reality and thus create new “truths”. The climate stickers of the last generation exploited by politics and the media are an excellent example of this.
I think it is no longer a big secret that science is increasingly placing itself in the paid service of the elites and their puppet politicians, and feeding the narratives of their financiers with appropriate arguments, even if this “evidence” comes from convictions and hardly with them evidence-based methods were created. If the scientific “results” are not in line with the decision-makers’ narrative, they are adjusted accordingly. Facts often no longer have any place in the ideology of decision-makers.
The Corona plandemic with all the lies supported by scientists and the media about the danger of the virus, about the effectiveness and harmlessness of the vaccination, about the necessary measures such as wearing masks, lockdowns, social distancing, 3G, 2G and the other meaningless, harmful to health and robbing of freedom Orders, is the best and most shocking example of the venality of science and the media. A large part of elite-financed science has long since ceased to be based on empirical findings, but rather provides alleged facts - mostly fakes - for ready-made decisions. The power and property elites abuse politicians, scientists and the media to achieve their inhumane goals. The political, scientific and media prostitutes have become part of “evil” through their venal subservience
“… disruption caused by us …”
And that is exactly the point, Mr. Rahmstorf! It may be that the climate reacts to disturbances in the radiation balance and has all sorts of devastating consequences, but in my opinion this disturbance was not caused “by us” humans. This is now supported by findings from – in my opinion – more credible experts. I find it difficult to take seriously someone who utters dogmatic sentences such as “disruption caused by us”, “facts proven beyond doubt” or suggestive phrases such as “we have known for 200 years” with the utmost conviction.
In his article, Stefan Rahmstorf writes about measurement facts such as the rise in global sea levels, the massively increasing storm surge problems for many coastal cities and the impending collapse of low-lying island states. He writes of “increasing heat waves, droughts, forest fires, extreme precipitation and stronger tropical cyclones, and that you can now see “these consequences in the news almost every week, sometimes even daily.” This is perhaps also due, Mr. Rahmstorf, to the fact that the world is now communicatively networked (www), and we in Germany know within nanoseconds when a gerbil has coughed in Mexico and possibly triggered a hurricane. In the past, people simply weren't as well informed, but also not as misinformed by the elites and their puppets. Natural disasters and extreme weather events have actually “always existed”. We just didn't get it all.
In 1540, for example, Europe was hit by a prolonged drought in which almost no rain fell for 11 months. As early as May, wells and springs dried up and water became scarce. The mills stood still, grain dried up or was not milled, people starved, and livestock was slaughtered. Countless forest areas in Europe burned down, rising smoke obscured the sun, and not a single thunderstorm was recorded in the summer of 1540. Around a million people died in Europe in 1540. Man-made CO 2 in the atmosphere could have been bad. Maybe one of Putin's ancestors was to blame - if the media and scientists can't think of anything else.
And what about geoengineering, Mr. Rahmstorf?
Geoengineering supposedly stands for the fight against – in their opinion man-made – climate change. The aim of this technology is to reduce global temperatures or influence the weather. Geoengineering methods are theoretical concepts such as the release of aerosols into the stratosphere to scatter sunlight and thus reduce solar radiation on Earth, installing mirrors in space to increase sunlight reflection, sea fertilization to produce more oxygen through algae, or carbon dioxide removal (CDR). to reduce the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.
Are these technologies brilliant or dangerous? That is the question! So it is not surprising that there are supporters of such projects, especially environmental engineers, but also opponents, such as me, who accuse these supporters of megalomania. These technologies, in my opinion, will almost certainly have an extremely negative impact on this planet. People and alleged philanthropists who are not yet satisfied with their power and wealth may now want to play God.
And who tells me that these technologies can only be used in supposedly positive ways against climate change? Maybe earthquakes like those in Turkey recently or extreme weather events like those in Valencia or Maui can be caused by this, right? Yes, yes, Froschauer, you conspiracy theorist! All I can say is thank you for the compliment, especially since pretty much all of the conspiracy theories I was attached to have now come true, be it related to chemtrails, the effects of corona measures and vaccination, etc.
And what about HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), the research facility in Alaska that conducts ionospheric research? Can HAARP manipulate the weather? If so, then probably in a negative direction to produce extreme weather events, right? Sometimes a small earthquake here, sometimes a tsunami there, maybe even 10 days of torrential rain! Extreme weather events are good for maintaining the narrative of man-made climate change, which is increasingly turning out to be a climate lie. With over 300 registered patents for targeted weather manipulation, there is definitely something to reinforce the climate lie, aka man-made climate change. Just conspiracy theories? Might be. However, the elites and their political, media and scientific puppets cannot be trusted one meter away.
Rahmstorf writes that “the causes and consequences of global warming have been known and scientifically proven for many decades,” and that the mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier recognized as early as 1824:
“The temperature can be increased by the atmosphere because the incoming light heat (from the sun) encounters less resistance as it passes through the air than the non-luminous heat on its way out in the opposite direction.”
In his article, Rahmstorf quotes John Tyndall, who wrote in 1859:
“In this way, the atmosphere allows the sun’s heat to enter but prevents it from escaping, causing the heat to accumulate on the planet’s surface.”
I don't want to doubt the accuracy of these findings, but the main cause of climate change presented by Rahmstorf - humans - does.
Now, I am not a climate scientist, but I have studied the topic of climate change and have read many articles by both deniers and believers of man-made climate change. You can't deny climate change. He exists. However, the causes can be debated. I have come to the conclusion that humans only have a marginal influence on the climate. If this is the case - which I assume - then all the financial and personal sacrifices expected of people - offered on the altar of the climate disciples and the elites who invested billions of euros in the "Green Deal" - are not justifiable.
Here are a few examples of the sacrifices that have to be made due to this eco-nonsense:
Habeck's heating law, a spawn of ecologically and economically inefficient nonsense ( Editor's note : Robert Habeck is currently the German Minister of Economics, although he has no qualifications for the post. In fact, he is a children's book author. The perpetrators want us to be outraged by this so that they can later abolish governments and install a stakeholding system in their place, with corporations officially playing the role of the leading power. ).
tax) , which has been introduced since 2021, The CO 2 price (also known as the CO 2 levy or CO 2 is causing fuel prices to rise in order to achieve climate goals in Germany. As of January 1, 2024, it was not increased from 30 to 40 euros as planned, but to 45 euros per ton of carbon dioxide emitted due to the federal government's budget crisis. In 2025 the price is expected to rise to 55 euros, which means around 15.7 cents per liter of petrol and 17.3 cents for diesel from the taxpayer, and in 2026 there will be another 55 to 65 euros per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, that is 16.9 or 18.9 cents levy per liter of petrol or diesel fueled.
From spring 2025, owners of Euro 5 diesel cars could be threatened with decommissioning by the EU due to allegedly high CO2 emissions and particulate matter.
At the inefficient climate spectacle COP29 in Baku, after long negotiations and extensions, developing countries were granted a sum of 300 billion dollars per year until 2035 to deal with climate change. Helping developing countries solve their problems is perfectly fine. Only: Climate change is not your problem, nor our problem. It can be assumed that these tax-financed funds are being diverted into the pockets of the organic industry.
If this climate nonsense continues, rationing, blackouts, travel restrictions and the like can be expected in the next few years. The virus scam no longer works, so the climate club is unpacked.
Maybe Stefan Rahmstorf thinks this eco-terrorism is okay - I certainly don't!
In April 2023, the non-attached member of the Bundestag Robert Farle gave the following committed, courageous and apt speech in the Bundestag on the subject of German climate protection policy:
“The entire insanity of their climate protection policy emerges from a single calculation. 78% of our air is nitrogen, 21 percent is oxygen, 1% is noble gases and trace gases such as carbon dioxide. The CO 2 content is 0.04%. Of the annual CO 2 emissions, nature itself produces 96% and only 4% is man-made. 4% of 0.04 percent results in 0.0016% man-made CO 2 . Germany's share of this is 1.76%. Germany influences the proportion of CO 2 in the air worldwide by 0.000028%. Even according to the IPCC formula, the proportion is only less than one thousandth of a percent due to temperature, and with the one thousandth of a percent that Germany can influence worldwide by emitting zero CO 2 , do you want to save the climate? How stupid do you think people are?”
As a German taxpayer and citizen with a strong need for moral superiority, you are happy to accept the financial and personal sacrifices to save the climate if you can use it to correct the CO 2 share in the air by 0.000028% worldwide, don't you realize ? The rest of the former wealth will then be used to supply weapons to Ukraine, and 99 percent of people will finally be happy in 2030 because they no longer own anything, as the elite master of ceremonies and “philanthropist” Klaus Schwab described it.
Alternative insights into climate change
Below I would like to show you, dear readers, alternative insights to the narrative of man-made climate change advocated by Stefan Rahmstorf.
Justifying climate change based on data from weather records since around 1850 falsifies the data.
The researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen <8> from the Niels Bohr Institute <9> at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark found that in the Middle Ages around 1000 years ago, temperatures were significantly higher than today, according to measurement results from ice core drilling in three kilometer deep ice layers in Greenland (The Greenland ice sheet covers more than 80 percent of the island and is on average 1.5 kilometers thick). They then cooled until 1850 (the coldest time in 10,000 years!), at which point they rose again. The measurements therefore began at a very cold time and have increased again since then. An increase in temperatures since 1850 is therefore nothing unnatural. Cold times and warm times are considered normal in geological history. Link to the English language video <10> .
The Austrian physicist Dr. Bernhard Strehl said, analogous to the data from ice core drilling, that it is currently “significantly cooler than around 1,000 years ago”. Dr. Strehl. He scientifically explains that neither humans can influence the climate nor that temperatures in our latitudes are constantly rising <11> .
Original measurements from the Hohenpeißenberg weather station in Upper Bavaria from 1781 to 1995 - which were later modified and adapted to the climate narrative of those in power - show that the recorded temperature around 1800 - i.e. before industrialization - was higher than in almost the entire 20th century. Well, something like that, even though no factories were polluting the air yet! In the period from 1950 to 1970, the average temperature fell for years, from about 6.7 to about 6.3 degrees. It got colder at a time when human-caused carbon dioxide emissions rose sharply. Shouldn't it be the other way around if there was actually a connection between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature? ( Editor's note: The author is mistaken here because he did not take into account the possible delay in the effect. However, I find his other arguments to be accurate ).
In this respect, these records clearly speak against man-made climate change caused by industrialization. The carbon dioxide produced by humans would therefore not be the decisive factor for climate change.
When glaciers thaw, tree trunks are exposed that lie above the tree line. This indicates that in ancient times the CO 2 content in the atmosphere must have been higher than today, since the growth limit depends in particular on the partial pressure of CO 2 . When CO 2 levels are higher, trees can grow to greater heights.
According to a study based on over 31,000 satellite measurements, despite media and scientific hysteria, ice melting in Greenland has slowed by 0.11 degrees over the past 20 years due to cooling surface temperatures. Nature doesn't seem to be following the eco-terrorists' script <12> .
According to geoscientists from the European Geosciences Union (EGU), the ice shelf in Antarctica has increased in area by a whopping 5,305 square kilometers between 2009 and 2019 (that's twice the area of Saarland), and has grown by 661 billion tons <13> . ( Editor's note : The area of the German federal state of Saarland is 2,569.69 km² ).
For the period of the polar eclipse, from April to September 2021, the average temperature in Antarctica was -60.9 ° C, "a cold record for these months," according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
Positive effects of carbon dioxide
At the end of the last ice age around 12,000 years ago, there was only 182 ppm (parts of CO 2 per million parts of air) in the atmosphere. Below 150 ppm CO 2 , plant life and therefore our life stops. Over hundreds of millions of years, plants - especially the phytoplankton in the sea - converted carbon dioxide into oxygen, lime and petroleum, coal or natural gas. Real experts also know that CO 2 fertilization accelerates plant growth and increases agricultural yields.
Physics Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser demonstrated that an additional 300 ppm of CO 2 has a significant yield-increasing effect on agricultural production. A summary of 270 laboratory studies (Idso, 2013 <14> ) with 83 food crops showed that an increase in CO 2 concentration by 300 ppm increased plant growth by an average of 46% for all plants examined.
Other studies show the adverse effects of a low-CO2 environment . German plant ecologist and professor at the Institute of Ecology at the Technical University of Berlin, Dieter Overdieck, found that plant growth in the period before the Industrial Revolution with a low CO 2 concentration of 280 ppm was reduced by 8% compared to today. A reduction in CO 2 concentrations is therefore bad for plants, animals and humanity.
More about this under <15> .
Conclusion
8.25 billion people alive today want to be fed. The eugenically oriented power and property elite's demand for a reduction in global CO 2 levels is met in two respects: their trillions of dollars invested in green technologies would finally pay off, and the world population could be fed less and less. Eugenicists like Bill Gates - the largest private owner of farmland in the USA - are unlikely to be interested in the world's future food security.
Bill Gates is a follower of the Malthusian theory (named after Thomas Robert Malthus), which pursued a eugenics-oriented concept of limiting population growth. His commitment in this regard included the promotion of genetically modified seeds and cultivation methods. For example, the self-proclaimed philanthropist supported extensive projects by Monsanto - in my opinion one of the most criminal companies on earth - and pursued the goal of farming entire countries on this basis and thus making them dependent on supplies from Monsanto. In the United States, thousands of small, independent farmers who resisted Monsanto were driven to ruin, particularly by litigation.
When people like Stefan Rahmstorf sound the alarm about extreme weather events due to supposedly high CO 2 emissions, and point out an allegedly man-made climate change that will affect us all in the foreseeable future, they should also take into account the positive sides of CO 2 , which in my opinion are in view that weigh more heavily on world nutrition.
If a few cows burp or fart too much in Holland, you'll hear a huge outcry from climate hysterics and the press. Of course, the anti-social farmers must be taxed immediately. But when grenades and rockets from our pacifist, primarily green warmongers explode in Ukraine and now also in Russia, releasing CO 2 without end , no one is interested, least of all the mainstream media. ( Editor's note: Maybe we should also think about uranium ammunition at this point? ). Double standards are in high season worldwide and especially in Germany.
Finally, a suitable text from Eo Scheinder, the editor of the small but fine and absolutely worth reading paper “Ennericher Allgemeine”, here from No. 35 from November 2024:
“The left-wing dream dancers with claims to absoluteness and totalitarian attitudes, i.e. the radical scrappers in the name of human rights and equality, (the pseudo-religious worshipers of dubious universalistic progress) are struck above all with ideological blindness. So their social and global utopias are a large patchwork of contradictions, unrealistic promises of salvation and totalitarian executions, in short a comprehensive screw-up scenario that they, as willing enforcers and useful idiots of despotic masterminds, use to satisfy their unacknowledged but limitless vanity and secret desires beyond all common sense to try to impose totalitarian methods and measures on the people who are considered immature.”
I don't think you can put it better. Cheers!
If you want to find out more about the extraordinary journalist and person Eo Scheinder and his newspaper, here are two links <16> , <17> .
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sources :
<1> https://unric.org/de/klimawandel/
<2> https://www.bcg.com/press/28june2024-billionen-industrie-europa-konnte-bis-2050-technologiefuhrer-in-der-co2-entnahme-werden
<3> https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/WCD-241122.pdf
<4> https://www.hintergrund.de/kurzmeldung/es-gibt-keinen-klimanotstand/
<5> Cook et al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
<6> https://ansage.org/sprechen-wir-mal-ueber-die-sogenannten-klimaleugner/
<7> https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/was-die-eiszeit-ueber-den-klimawandel-lehrt-a-cfce2e0b-564d-4887-949d-ab3bafec4363
<8> https://perma.cc/NZQ4-ZUTS
<9> https://perma.cc/2WAY-QP2M
<10> https://www.google.com/search?q=Video+Eiskernbohrungen&rlz=1C1ONGR
<11> https://auf1.tv/klimaschwindel-auf1/dr-bernhard-strehl-wir-sind-noch-deutlich-kuehler-als-vor-ca-1-000-jahren
<12> https://legitim.ch/interessante-klimadaten-in-groenland-sinken-die-oberflaechentemperaturen-seit-20-jahren/?ref=apolut.net
<13> https://transition-news.org/antarktisches-schelfeis-wuchs-im-letzten-jahrzehnt-um-uber-5000
<14> http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
<15> https://tkp.at/2023/08/11/hoehere-co2-konzentration-foerdert-wachstum-der-pflanzen-und-ertrag-fuer-bauern/
<16> https://deref-gmx.net/mail/client/dpMgKXNw3oY/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fneue-spryche.blogspot.com
<17> https://deref-gmx.net/mail/client/nS9ffKQHek4/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eoscheinder.de
+++
Thanks to the author for the right to publish the article.
+++
This article first appeared on December 10, 2024 at wassersaege.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
For the most reliable information about the "Covid" scam and deceptions of the system, read Dr. Mike Yeadon's daily statements :
Here you can find Dr. Mike Yeadon and his statements :
Substack by Dr. Mike Yeadon : https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/
The Telegram channel of Dr. Mike Yeadon ( other Telegram channels with his name are fake ! ) :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel
There is also a chat channel connected to the channel linked above, which is managed by his friends : https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannelChat
When searching for Dr. Yeadon's videos only two browsers are recommended : Yandex and Mojeek. But you can also try other, smaller browsers, too.
Censorship is omnipresent on Google or Safari.
Many statements and videos from Dr. Mike Yeadon can also be found on Suavek's Substack, which is recommended by Dr. Yeadon on the main page of his Substack.
Both links lead to Suavek`s Substack :
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Climate Catastrophism
"In the past people even skipped school in protest against 'global warming'. . ."
I have witnessed cloud seeding over my home and it was unmistakable. On a sunny day a small plane appeared and sprayed chemtrails in a small patch of sky directly over my house. It was a grid pattern and the plane went back and forth at right angles to spray and only covered a central patch with lines of grey mist (about a sixth of the area of an entirely blue sky).
The plane then flew off after about 30 seconds of spraying this small patch.
This spray coalesced rapidly, the grid disappeared as it coalesced into one cloud, spread wider, and sank lower in the sky. As it did so the temperature dropped markedly within about a minute, as whatever was sprayed reflected so much of the sunshine and heat.
The chemtrail cloud then rapidly spread to extend from one horizon to the other, end of warm sunny day , all cold and overcast and unpleasant for the whole of remainder of day. The entire operation only took about three to five minutes to totally alter the weather.
Don't tell me they are not manipulating the weather, it has been massively changed in the UK for the past two years. Our usual weather has been changed to continual abnormal cloud, whitish unnatural haze, and rain. The perpetrators want to bankrupt our farmers and get their land cheap.
God knows what they are polluting our land and water with.
I have written to my MP several times about this - she does not deny that cloud seeding is occurring over the UK, but blathers on about "climate change" She will not take my complaints further.
I can see that farmers are being financially and legally attacked. As I said, weather modification is part of the scheme to bankrupt them, remove their land, and hand it to the corporates.
I have heard that the spraying is now being done offshore west of Cornwall. Most of the planes turn their transponders off but those that do not can be followed flying in a circular path at night. The seeded clouds follow the prevailing westerly winds to blanket the UK with the strange whiteout.
This is a serious matter. A criminal matter.
Our government is deluding itself if it believes that no-one has noticed what they are up to.
great to get this perspective. elizabeth nickson has been doing herculean work on the human and economic cost of global warming hysteria
https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/cowering-before-carbon-aa7
https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/how-green-activists-destroyed-americas