Climatologist and former fear monger comes clean...More problems for the U.N. carbon tax agenda.

A few years ago when I used to do a talk radio show on AM radio during the morning "rush hour" (such as it is in rural northern Maine) up here, I used to have former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's science adviser, Lord Christopher Monckton on as a regular guest. He is, in my honest opinion, the best advocate for the "climate change fear mongering" denier set. He is very knowledgeable, witty, and a great interview. If you get a chance, you should Google him up. I can promise you that his insider knowledge of the "global-warming/climate-change" hoax will keep you riveted.

(Lord Christopher Monckton, courtesy of heartland.org.)

Following the American mainstream media's near absolute refusal to cover the French gillette jaune (i.e. yellow vest) movement in Paris and other French cities I started reading up about it on foreign media. Turns out, it's BECAUSE it is largely a push back/ blow back against Macron's carbon tax agenda, coming from the SAME GREEN NEW DEAL agenda being forwarded by communists in the USA right now, I knew that. Along with mandatory vaccination, it is clear that this was going to be the year the globalists pushed their draconian agendas-- like the whole "climate change" hoax-- to its ultimate intended limits.

Now, a whistle blower with the power to blow the lid of this entire hoax is emerging to challenge my friend Lord Monckton for "climate change" sanity leader.

Check out this link:

https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming

(Judith Curry, courtesy of npr.org.)

Here's a nice long excerpt (less than 50%):

"'Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently. 'Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,' she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. 'There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,' she says. 'The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.'

Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.

(Image courtesy of newscats.org.)

But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? 'Yes,' Curry replies. 'Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.' Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for 'climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.' To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but 'some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.' She says that 'nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.'

This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. 'Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,' she charges. 'If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.' These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from 'global warming' to 'climate change,' which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

(Image courtesy of armstrongeconomics.com.)

Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: 'politics, money, and fame.' Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, 'a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations' think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. 'Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,' she complains. In other words, 'the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.'

'Nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct.'

This has long been true in environmental science, she points out. The global warming controversy began back in 1973, during the Gulf oil embargo, which unleashed fear, especially in the United States, that the supply of petroleum would run out. The nuclear industry, Curry says, took advantage of the situation to make its case for nuclear energy as the best alternative, and it began to subsidize ecological movements hostile to coal and oil, which it has been doing ever since. The warming narrative was born."

(Image courtesy of thefederalistpapers.org.)

FAUX SCIENCE....It sure does seem to be everywhere these days, from the "need" for government/psychiatric intervention in family life, to the bogus vaccine-safety/herd-immunity crap, to global war...uh..."climate change," wherever we look we are being forced to fund and finance and accept the conclusions of all the BOGUS SCIENCE we pay for to enslave us, and to forward agendas that ALWAYS end up in more power for governments. AND...the power seems to be always driving to the top..from local to county, and county to state, state to federal, and federal to U.N.

At some point the people are going to notice that the Emperor's "beautiful new clothes" don't actually exist, and that that sucker is BUTT ugly, naked...literally.

The stampede to get away at that point is going to be utter chaos, and sadly many will die.

"Evenso, come quickly, Lord Jesus."