A question about Global Warming

[Dominoid]

Now that I have read a lot, especially on this website, including Pierre Lescaudron's book, I understand that mankind is not generating global warming, ok. So I kept wondering why the elite/PTB are pushing it so much, especially as sooner or later, people will eventually realize it doesn't exist. Why not focus on a real problem instead?

After thinking about it, I think it's just about "Divide and Conquer". First lets convince a huge percentage about global warming, with the like of Greta admonishing us. THEN, some people discover all of this is a fraud. So it first generate mistrust among the population. But above all, it is expected that a hefty percentage of the population will retain the global warming narrative, so in the end there will be strife and tension between two deliberately created, opposing groups of populace.

In fact the same thing is simultaneously happening with all the idiotic narratives about sexism/genders/LGTB/white-men-evil/etc. Instead of promoting tolerance and benevolence toward people who are different (LGBT etc.), the PTB want some artificial groups of people to rise with hate against other supposed groups.

 

[bianca etezete]

...so... what is your question?

 

[Dominoid]

My question is : What do other people think ?

For example, in Pierre Lescaudron's book it is suggested that the elite claims mankind is the only cause of problems, so the government can save them (with new regulations, etc.) hence justify its position of power and retain it. Reason for which they are speaking about global warming caused by industrial civilization. Personally, I don't suscribe to this idea. Why not instead warn about impending global cooling or crusade about plastic pollution of oceans? Why choose a fake concern? I thus think it's about keeping people ignorant of what happens and divide and conquer in creating infighting instead of people uniting to solve real problems.

Well, I guess I am more ranting than asking a question anyway...

 

[Wandering Star]

Cassiopaea

Home of the Cassiopaean Experiment

cassiopaea.org

I recommend you read the articles on this page.

It takes a while, but it's worth it.

 

[ApotheosisMMC.]

Everyone has their agenda ... but in general, through their wishful thinking, they do not conceive that they will lose or that their plan will fail (especially the lizzies), some want to invest in ecological technologies, others want eugenic control.
a smaller population is easier to control by psychopaths and even more in fourth density that could represent a difficulty of control ... you also have the addition of generating a lot of psycho food with all those deaths, and of course if you are aware of this issue , its impact on the standard current of thought and materialism could be enormous ...

 

[Pierre]

My question is : What do other people think ?

For example, in Pierre Lescaudron's book it is suggested that the elite claims mankind is the only cause of problems, so the government can save them (with new regulations, etc.) hence justify its position of power and retain it. Reason for which they are speaking about global warming caused by industrial civilization. Personally, I don't suscribe to this idea. Why not instead warn about impending global cooling or crusade about plastic pollution of oceans? Why choose a fake concern? I thus think it's about keeping people ignorant of what happens and divide and conquer in creating infighting instead of people uniting to solve real problems.

Well, I guess I am more ranting than asking a question anyway...

Ascribing the so-called "global warming" to human activities give legitimacy to the elites to tax those human activities (carbon tax). So greed might be a factor involved in the man-made global warming scam.

 

[bjorb]

So I kept wondering why the elite/PTB are pushing it so much, especially as sooner or later, people will eventually realize it doesn't exist. Why not focus on a real problem instead?

How would you convince the public that we are responsible for global cooling and what to do about it? And I doubt plastic pollution is convincing enough.

The Co2 hoax is far from perfect but perhaps the best they came up with?

Telling people that we are guilty of climate change implies that we can solve it, which can prevent global panic as the climate becomes more extreme. It is then supposedly our fault and we can then exert influence by reducing the increase in CO2, which can give the established order an excuse to act authoritatively on a global scale to 'protect humanity from ruin’. With this they create the possibility for further control and regulation of every facet of our lives.

Humans are responsible for climate change, just not in the way everybody thinks.

How does humans influence the fluctuating climate? The hypothesis in the book you are reading explains that the human state is affecting earth changes. The authors show a strong correlation between periods of authoritarian suppression and natural disasters caused by the cosmos, meaning that the continuing and more extreme pathological control over humanity can prove disastrous in the form of catastrophic earth changes.

In other words, creation is a school and if humanity goes ‘’off-track’’ disasters will follow in order to help us get ‘’on-track’’ again.

If all of this is true, it is in the best interest for the elite/PTB that we don't find out about our ''connection to the cosmos'' Otherwise we might interprete climate change as a sign that we must change our ways and that change in leadership is crucial.

- I hope that my explanation answered your questions, if not feel free to ask. It's not an easy subject for sure! Maybe others can explain it better.

 

[Woodsman]

My question is : What do other people think ?

For example, in Pierre Lescaudron's book it is suggested that the elite claims mankind is the only cause of problems, so the government can save them (with new regulations, etc.) hence justify its position of power and retain it. Reason for which they are speaking about global warming caused by industrial civilization. Personally, I don't suscribe to this idea. Why not instead warn about impending global cooling or crusade about plastic pollution of oceans? Why choose a fake concern? I thus think it's about keeping people ignorant of what happens and divide and conquer in creating infighting instead of people uniting to solve real problems.

Well, I guess I am more ranting than asking a question anyway...

It's a good question; I've wondered about it myself. It seems unreasonable to think it was an arbitrary choice, so what boxes did it tick off?

I think there are two big ones:

1. It mobilizes people against wealth, the primary source of which comes out of the ground in the form of coal, oil and gas. What a great way to spur mass unrest against the winners of industry? Socialism is fueled by a sense of lopsided wealth, but people can live with that if they feel the players aren't cheating and the game is, on the whole, fair enough. Unrest needs to be fanned to fire by the idea that the winners are actually bad people deserving of punishment. -In this case, for hurting Mother Gaia.

2. Carbon is Life! I think the Dark Side wins by making people, deep down, choose against their own souls, and by extension, their bodies. What better way than to demonize the very particle upon which life itself is constructed (notice the push to remove the very idea that souls even exist)? It sets a standard of self hate on a meta-level; It's easier to punish people if they have built into their belief system a deep and fundamental shame reagarding their own existence. Why fight back? -When you know you are made of evil and probably deserve punishment?

"Yes we're taxing people into poverty, we're forcing them into tiny houses (cages) and small footprints. We didn't want to take away their power, but they demanded it!"

If we look at every nihilist con played against Humanity, they take on the modus operandus of misleading people into believing that which is good is instead actually bad for them, making them choose to fight against their own wellsprings of creation, to reject God.

Seen through this lens, the choice to demonize Carbon seems like it should have been obvious and inevitable. -Though had you told me it was coming thirty years back, I'd have laughed at just how ridiculous and audacious an ad campaign it would be. Nobody could possibly buy such a line!

Shows how big a dummy I was, (and probably still am).

 

[Chad]

My question is : What do other people think ?

For example, in Pierre Lescaudron's book it is suggested that the elite claims mankind is the only cause of problems, so the government can save them (with new regulations, etc.) hence justify its position of power and retain it. Reason for which they are speaking about global warming caused by industrial civilization. Personally, I don't suscribe to this idea. Why not instead warn about impending global cooling or crusade about plastic pollution of oceans? Why choose a fake concern? I thus think it's about keeping people ignorant of what happens and divide and conquer in creating infighting instead of people uniting to solve real problems.

Well, I guess I am more ranting than asking a question anyway...

There has been conjecture online that there was a push by the mainstream about an upcoming ice age in the 1970's; some evidence for this argument can be found in some news articles of the period, the Time magazine covers stating that an ice age was up ahead, and at least one relatively well known documentary on same.

As noted in the documentary blurb:

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

I'm no expert but from what i understand from the 1970's up until relatively recently, there was a slight warming trend, as seems to be the case before an ice age, which is then followed by rapid cooling. And so it could be that there was a shift to global warming propaganda because, in some ways, if one looked at a very brief time frame and ignored the cyclical nature of things, then that's what the data and daily life seemed to show; the climate was warming.

Obviously the state of climate science (much of science?) has now been taken over and no longer reflects reality, but it may be that at the time the assertion that there was warming was valid.

It also seems to be that humanity tends to prefer lies that make them feel more comfortable, and thinking that they're responsible for global warming via CO2 supports the need that they have that they can somehow control their future; all they need to do is stop cows farting and use an electric bus. Of course, it may be true that humanity is responsible, just not in the way that they think - i'm thinking of the human-cosmic connection, not CO2.

I think that the threat of an Ice Age could have equally been coopted and the public could have instead been brainwashed into buying 'cooling credits' instead of carbon credits.

Whatever the issue is, pathological types and their followers will coopt it for their benefit and to increase control of the population, because that's how they feel most comfortable.

I'm 36 years old, and when i was growing up global warming wasn't the issue, children's shows featured programs about how old refrigerators were causing ozone holes and that may just kill us all. In turn manufacturers stopped producing fridges with whatever chemical it was that was doing the damage. Did they have a point? Probably. But was it the great threat that deserved the publicity it got? Probably not.

The fact that many in the world are terrified about global warming - a demonstrable lie - rather than the very real possibility of an ice age may make for a tastier STS meal, but whether it was intended that the public buy into a lie, i don't know. I get the feeling that at least at some levels of power they're opportunistic and so it may just be that the global warming lie happened to 'stick' - after so many other attempts had failed (ice age, ozone, etc..) - and so they ran with it.

 

[Ca.]

From Kevin Sorbo and the climate fraud! The new McCarthyism (era), witch hunt.

Kevin Sorbo in new film exposing climate alarmism’s agenda of control

Premiered 17 hours ago True North / 14:18
"Actor and director Kevin Sorbo is taking on the climate change alarmists. Sorbo, of ‘Hercules’ and ‘Andromeda’ fame, now stars in Climate Hustle 2, a film exposing the activists capitalizing off of stoking global warming fears. The movie also features the skeptical climate scientists who call out the alarmists only to be maligned as “deniers” by the media. Kevin Sorbo joins The Andrew Lawton Show to talk about this project, plus Hollywood hypocrisy and media bias".

Sep 11, 2020