A new United Nations (“UN”) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) report claims that the planet is in peril unless urgent action is taken. This comes after growing calls for harsher government measures, even lockdowns, to tackle the so-called climate emergency due to increasing carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and global warming. However, climate changes are not due to CO2 and there is no climate emergency. On the contrary, thanks to CO2, the Earth’s greening gas, the planet is healthier than ever.
In recent months, the IPCC published the first two instalments in a trilogy of mammoth scientific assessments covering how greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet and what that means for life on Earth. Finalised on 4 April the third report, ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’, gives their suggestions as to what can be done about it. Consisting of 2800 pages it is by far the most comprehensive assessment ever produced of how to halt global heating, News.com.au wrote.
The world’s nations, the report said, are taking our future right to the wire. Humans have less than three years to halt the rise of planet-warming carbon emissions and less than a decade to slash them by nearly half. The global temperature will stabilise when carbon dioxide emissions reach net-zero, or so they say.
“It’s now or never if we want to limit global warming to 1.5C,” said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and co-chair of the working group behind the report. “Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”
The solutions touch on virtually all aspects of modern life, require significant investment and need “immediate action”, the IPCC said. Their very first item on the global to-do list is to stop greenhouse gas emissions from rising any further, stating that must be done before 2025 to have a hope of keeping within the Paris Agreement’s target.
The Paris Agreement
Former Labour leader Ed Miliband, fresh from defeat at the 2015 UK General Election, became a “climate evangelist” at the Paris talks in 2015. Whether they come in the form of a man, a woman or an organisation, climate champions are characterised by their disconnection from ordinary people and everyday life.
Shortly after the Paris talks had taken place The Spectator wrote:
“It is incredible how climate orthodoxy has transformed political life. At the Paris talks, any suggestion that cutting emissions might not enjoy a popular, democratic mandate was ignored.
“Journalists covering the event seemed to forget that it is their job to challenge authority and were found literally jumping for joy when the deal was announced.
“Radical protesters argued not for the state to take its hand off the yoke, but for more of its power to be used in more draconian ways.
“Science was invoked not for its potential to transform material conditions, but to service the political cause of limiting aspirations.
“Billionaires who have lost faith in capitalism spoke about their role in this post-democratic world: bringing half-baked technologies to the market, with full government subsidy, of course.
“Even popstars managed to get in on the act, inventing something called a ‘cultural mandate’ to act on climate change – something that, apparently, only people with charts hits are qualified to do.”
What the Paris talks gave the climate champion, however, was a superficial “agreement,” which, by virtue of its vagueness, would allow anything to be projected onto it.
Read more: Paris talks: agreeing to dodge democracy, The Spectator, 17 December 2015
Calls for Harsh Government Measures
“Covid-19 is awful, climate change could be worse,” Bill Gates threatened in August 2020 and demanded dramatic measures to prevent climate change, claiming it will be worse than the pandemic.
Calls for harsh government measures in the name of saving the environment are common. We’re at a tipping point, it’s a pandemic, a health emergency, a human rights crisis, and we need to lock the planet down some proponents claim. BBC has even claimed climate change is racist. There seems to be no limit to how low these people and organisations will stoop to push their climate change agenda onto us.
In November 2020, echoing Gates, the Red Cross proclaimed that climate change is a bigger threat than Covid and should be confronted with “the same urgency”.
At the Climate Ambition Summit in December 2020, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said 38 countries had already declared a “climate emergency” and called on leaders worldwide to follow suit. “Every country should declare a state of climate emergency until the world has reached net-zero carbon emissions,” he said.
February 2021, the UK government published an article with the dramatic title ‘Climate emergency impacts hitting “worst case scenario” levels’ and an even more dramatic lead sentence: “As the Government’s roadmap out of lockdown is announced the Environment Agency chief calls for same effort in tackling the ‘unseen pandemic’.”
Former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney fell in line with Gates and predicted climate deaths will dwarf those of the pandemic. “When you look at climate change from a human mortality perspective, it will be the equivalent of a coronavirus crisis every year from the middle of this century, and every year, not just a one-off event,” he told BBC.
March 2021, authors of a paper published in Nature Climate Change claimed that carbon dioxide emissions must fall by the equivalent of a global lockdown every two years for the next decade for the world to keep within safe limits of global heating.
It’s worth pointing out that the paper’s data source is Integrated Carbon Observation System (“ICOS”). A graph published on ICOS’s website connects every “successful” reduction in CO2 to a disastrous event. It makes one wonder if the net-zero fanatics eagerly await the next global crisis.
October 2021, the Royal College of Nursing (“RCN”) urged the government to treat climate change as a health emergency. And Amnesty International declared that the climate emergency was a human rights crisis. “As the climate crisis intensifies with every passing day, so do the losses to our human rights,” Amnesty Secretary-General Agnès Callamard said.
November 2021, COP26, the UN Climate Change Conference 2021, “recognised the emergency” and produced new “building blocks” to advance the implementation of the Paris Agreement with the outcome being the Glasgow Climate Pact.
All of these announcements were to generate the perception that the planet was reaching a tipping point.
Decades of Tipping Points
Less than two months before COP26, UN Secretary-General António Guterres underscored in a video message: “We have reached a tipping point on the need for climate action.”
This is not the first tipping point the UN has announced. In 2014 the UN issued a 15-year climate tipping point and also issued tipping points in 1982 and another 10-year tipping point in 1989, Climate Depot noted. In fact, the official history of climate tipping points began in 1864.
In his 2018 book ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’, Marc Morano gives a voice to the millions who are sceptical about the multibillion dollar “climate change” complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven wrong.
“Less freedom. More regulation. Higher costs. Make no mistake: those are the sure-fire consequences of the modern global warming campaign waged by political and cultural elites,” a book abstract states.
Morano noted on page 231 that perhaps the best summary of the tipping point phenomenon comes from UK scientist Philip Stott. “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed,” Stott explained. “Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter.”
Lockdowns, which significantly reduced carbon emissions during 2020, could be the solution, they claim. After all, the EU’s climate service gloated, the first Covid lockdown may have saved 800 lives.
What could climate lockdowns look like?
Most likely a gradual and discrete ramp-up of restrictions. Special carbon taxes have been discussed which would limit the miles you can drive or fly. Schools, especially those heavily influenced by teachers’ unions, could impose permanent online-only days.
At the same time, areas of the country could regularly experience rolling blackouts. And as fossil fuels go by the wayside, consumers may be prevented from buying new cars, lawnmowers or chainsaws.
Anyone against such measures would be labelled a “climate denier” or simply a “domestic terrorist”. Facial recognition and plate-reading software, already in use across the country, could lead to severe enforcement.
But don’t expect the new rules to apply to everyone equally.
Read more: Coming soon: Climate lockdowns? The Hill, 2 February 2022
The Technocrats’ Climate Agenda
“You will own nothing and you’ll be happy,” states a World Economic Forum (“WEF”) prediction first touted in 2016.
Imagine a world where private property has been largely abolished and replaced with “servitisation.” You don’t own things anymore. You pay a subscription fee to rent them. Society is already being nudged in this direction.
Picture if almost everything you owned worked like this, where you pay a subscription fee to use the communal whatever. You don’t have property. The corporations do, or the Party does. Everyone pays money, over and over, to use the same unit of production. Zuckerberg’s Metaverse is practically the ultimate expression of this rent-seeking phenomenon.
Why would they do this? Why would they impose a system like this on us? Well, because owning real property is bad for the environment and causing global warming and sea level rise, or something of that nature, or so they say.
The real reason has to do with the velocity of money. It is in the interest of the architects of high finance to ensure that you’re always consuming things nonstop, even if you don’t really need them. That’s why, even though we always see talking heads proclaiming our impending doom if we don’t do something about the environment, billions of dollars of tech gadgets are produced by sweatshop workers in China, shipped to the West on gigantic container ships burning nasty heavy fuel oils that produce the pollution of millions of passenger cars, consumed for the sake of vanity, and then thrown in a landfill after a couple years with all the other two-year-old smartphones and laptops and tablets. This model worked for a while, but it had a fatal flaw. People were financing their consumption by taking on massive, unsustainable levels of debt. These debt bubbles always burst.
So, how do you engineer a financially metastable society where people are always paying for things? Simple! You make it impossible for average people to accrue wealth, by replacing property ownership with a subscription model and making it so that people’s savings expire.
Read more: COVID-19 Deep Dive Part VI: Technocracy, Spartacus, 5 April 2022
Changes In Climate Are Not Due to CO2 Omissions
In response to the latest IPCC report Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore tweeted: “Absolutely nothing in this IPCC report is true.”
In 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the UN warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, wrote AEI.
In 2019, on the same day Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people.
A study released in August 2021 concluded the Sun, and not human emissions of CO2, may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades which sharply contradicted the conclusions of the IPPC.
The 2021 study, titled “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate,” cites dozens of other studies that have pointed to the Sun—not human activity—as the primary driver of climate changes.
According to the study authors, these dissenting scientific views have been deliberately suppressed by the IPCC and have not been reflected in the UN IPCC reports, for reasons that have not been adequately explained.
Multiple authors told The Epoch Times that the IPCC appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its reports. One of the authors, Willie Soon who is an astrophysicist, said: “It is time for this abuse of science by the IPCC to be stopped.”
Even some UN IPCC reviewers expressed scepticism of the dominant narrative and support for the work of Soon and others. Accredited UN IPCC reviewer Howard Brady acknowledged a lack of expertise regarding the Sun specifically and slammed the IPCC and its models. Among other concerns, he noted that they “still predict more storms even though they are declining,” and “they still report accelerating sea level [rise] when that does not exist.”
Incidentally, Soon believes global temperatures may decline in the coming decades, also due to changes in solar activity.
- What Governments Know, The Adam and Eve Story and Climate Change – We Need to Talk About the Causes of Climate Change
- Study Finds Sun—Not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming, The Epoch Times, 16 August 2021
Thanks to Global Warming, The Planet Is Healthier Than Ever
Scientists have known for many years that increased levels of CO2 have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions. The planet’s ecology is thriving thanks to CO2, despite first world policies that are undermining it.
CO2, also known as “nature’s fertilizer,” has steadily been enriching Earth’s atmosphere, from 320 parts per million in 1970 to 365 parts in 2000, to more than 412 parts today. The evidence of a flourishing planet – once anecdotal – is now plain to see, thanks to satellite imagery that has been monitoring the amount of greenery on the planet since 1979.
As noted in a 2018 Nature study that tracked the changes from 1982 to 2016, although Earth lost some tree cover where forests became farmlands, especially in Brazil and other South American countries, those losses were far exceeded by new forests. Overall, since 1982, Earth’s tree cover increased by 2.24 million square kilometres, an addition to nature’s bounty of 7.1 percent.
CO2 – “plant food,” as schoolchildren were taught for generations – has bathed forests as well as fields, producing many record harvests. It may be one of the reasons why the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation forecast a record world grain harvest last year.
- Planet Earth Is Healthier Than Ever, Thanks to Global Warming, The Epoch Times, 13 December 2021
- Carbon dioxide, the Earth’s greening gas, The Conservative Woman, 8 March 2021
by Rhoda Wilson
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post