climate: truths and consequences

Chris Martz - the unapologetic client Ninja - takes few prisoners once again...

"... Listen here communist,

The IPCC was never created with the intention to study both natural and man-made causes of climate change. Their founding documents may say differently, but let’s get real.

There was no need for it — universities and government organizations such as the BoM in Australia, Met Office in the UK and NASA, NCAR and NOAA here in the U.S. were already on the case.

The United Nations, which the IPCC is a part of, is a political organization, period. Their primary goal is globalism — that is, the objective of planning economic and foreign policy on a global basis, and one of these aims is securing control of the energy industry by regulating coal, oil and natural gas companies . If you control the production and distribution energy, you control everything.

Power-hungry bureaucrats and political opportunists saw the emerging science of “global warming theory” as a way to advance their agenda. There was some growing evidence that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels was slightly enhancing the Earth’s natural “greenhouse effect,” and that it explains the global warming trend. 

However, science was far from “settled” as to precisely how much our emissions contributed to warming, and whether or not warming was dangerous. Scientists were in widespread dispute.

However, in seeing that there was some evidence that fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions might be the primary cause of global warming, political opportunists at the United Nations sought to use that as a crutch to use the scientific community to build a case to regulate coal, oil and natural gas companies by via regulation of carbon emissions.

Bureaucrats decided to build a scientific panel of climate experts to specifically find evidence of harmful, human-caused global warming. They told them to come to some sort of agreement that warming is human-caused and dangerous. They were not tasked with examining evidence for natural variability, nor any benefits of warming. After all, if warming since, say, 1850, turned out to be largely natural or of no significant harm, then there’d be no case to regulate energy companies. So, they put the cart before the horse. 

And, the public, at least back then, had trust in the scientific community. So, if the experts were saying that humans are screwing up the climate, then the United Nations would be able to carry on with their globalist agenda without any major pushback.

This entire “green” movement revolves around regulation of energy and control over people’s daily lives, micromanaging the most minute details.

It has nothing at all to do with environmentalism.

Your outrage here confirms this because you would otherwise try to prove me wrong. You just don’t like that people like me are standing in your way.

From X - @chrismartzwx