EXPOSED! World Leaders 'Duped' by Fraudulent, Manipulated Global Warming Data

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Read the rest:

archive.is/uyMU3
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Other urls found in this thread:

zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-27/europe-proposes-confiscating-gold-crackdown-terrorist-financing
archive.is/zfboz
theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/11/uk.greenpolitics
theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/24/business.travelnews
scribd.com/document/337186171/Falsification-of-the-Atmospheric-CO2-Greenhouse-Effects-Within-the-Frame-of-Physics
scribd.com/document/337186053/180-Years-of-Atmospheric-CO2-Gas-Analysis-by-Chemical-Methods
scribd.com/document/332096737/Falsification-Summary
scribd.com/document/337186048/Atmospheric-CO2-Aerosols
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

HOLY WEW

shills ain't even hiding it anymore.
STAY MAD ABOUT THE PATRIOTS WINNING

...

North pole is thawing fast. Many resources are going to surface so they need to hide attention for the antarctic to keep other nations from taking too much interest in the new pool of resources.

...

i get the feeling that these posts are some dank memer pretending. shills on a board like this would be trying demoralization tactics. we're fighting shadows.

why don't we figure out what the global warming shills have to gain? if you understand what motivates your enemy you understand the battlefield

is it just to manipulate the markets? is it to devalue sovereignty? why manipulate environmental science?

President Trump needs to order an FBI criminal investigation into him.

Nah he's just another lefty flipping back to sanity to preserve his job

this is how stupid Holla Forums is

Climate Science is used to suppress white birth rates by saying it is 'racist' to reproduce. I'm not joking. It's to prevent white men from having any claim to being any sort of hero for anything or cause but their own genocide, ever. The entire narrative is spun so the white man doesn't make himself healthy or have an avenue for exposing their lies.

What next, the shoah was real?

If there were no climate change, the white man could call his enemies simple 'haters' for when they criticize him for 'consuming too much resources'.

zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-27/europe-proposes-confiscating-gold-crackdown-terrorist-financing

archive.is/zfboz

So - cash, bitcoin, precious metals, and prepaid cards over $150 are all instruments of the "terrorists" and are now open to confiscation if you are a suspicious person… which, by their rhetoric, you are if you actually hold any of these assets.
Because apparently terrorists use these things to fund their operations rather than the thousands of euros they get in the form of welfare each month.

Sweden.

Greece

India

South Korea

Philippines

All want to go cashless.

The elite also want to implement carbon credits.

Canada is starting to do so.

everyone on earth will be given the same number of 'carbon credits' so a person living in a village in India, who doesn't even own a car, will suddenly has a 1000 carbon credits. If a family in America wants to have two cars and heat their home in winter they will have to buy credits from poorer countries.

Every citizen would be issued with a carbon "credit card" - to be swiped every time they bought petrol, paid an energy utility bill or booked an airline ticket - under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme that could come into operation within five years, according to a feasibility study commissioned by the environment secretary, David Miliband, and published today.

The idea was floated in a speech in the summer, but the detailed proposals show Mr Miliband is serious about trying to press ahead with the radical idea as a central part of his climate change strategy. Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else. The report admits huge questions would have to be resolved, including the risk of fraud, the relationship to ID cards, and costs. However Mr Miliband said "bold thinking is required because the world is in a dangerous place".

theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/11/uk.greenpolitics

In a few years from now you will have another plastic card in your wallet - your carbon card. You will start the year with 1,000 points on it and each time you fill up your car, you put the card in a slot on the pump and it will deduct a few points. Each time you buy an airline ticket, it will cost you a minimum of 100 points. If you fly regularly, you may have to buy more points through the carbon market - but since it is all in the cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions you do not mind so much.

theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/24/business.travelnews

I try not to get involved in this global warming/climate change/whatever it's called debate but I've been around since the whole ozone layer being gone by now multiple times over. There's always this alarmist lobby that exists and that's all I'll say about that but again I don't really get myself involved in these matters but if Doc Bates is saying so, that's pretty big. Really BIG.

if there are problems with a theory it's dishonest to pretend they don't exist

there's certainly money from oil companies for researches willing to try and disprove anthropogenic climate change, but that's dwarfed by money in support of the idea. it's surely possible for man to change the climate, but we really don't understand weather and climate enough to predict the cycles of warming and cooling

everyone on earth will be given the same number of 'carbon credits' so a person living in a village in India, who doesn't even own a car, will suddenly has a 1000 carbon credits. If a family in America wants to have two cars and heat their home in winter they will have to buy credits from poorer countries.

Every citizen would be issued with a carbon "credit card" - to be swiped every time they bought petrol, paid an energy utility bill or booked an airline ticket - under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme that could come into operation within five years, according to a feasibility study commissioned by the environment secretary, David Miliband, and published today.

The idea was floated in a speech in the summer, but the detailed proposals show Mr Miliband is serious about trying to press ahead with the radical idea as a central part of his climate change strategy. Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else. The report admits huge questions would have to be resolved, including the risk of fraud, the relationship to ID cards, and costs. However Mr Miliband said "bold thinking is required because the world is in a dangerous place".

theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/11/uk.greenpolitics

In a few years from now you will have another plastic card in your wallet - your carbon card. You will start the year with 1,000 points on it and each time you fill up your car, you put the card in a slot on the pump and it will deduct a few points. Each time you buy an airline ticket, it will cost you a minimum of 100 points. If you fly regularly, you may have to buy more points through the carbon market - but since it is all in the cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions you do not mind so much.

theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/24/business.travelnews

I wish we could skip the pointless bullshit and go straight to slashing their throats. Antifa/commies has shown the world that "they" believe violence is the ultimate decider, I completely agree with them on that. "Better dead than red!!" kill a commie today.

This tbh, I've heard many swpls justify never having children with
and

They don't really believe it though, it's just that they need a smart sounding excuse to justify their failures and lack of ambition.

Are you really this fucking autistic? Can nobody recognize obvious satire anymore?

This actually sounds believable and it would indeed work towards their goal of global wealth redistribution. Still doesn't mean we should just rely on coal till it all runs out

Solid shitpost

What we should do is phase out Coal and all other sources of ernergy for Fusion.

We can phase out coal for Natrual gas bgy transfering coal workers into the oil industry,and build Natrual gas power plants in Coal towns.

We can phase out the Oil workers as they age. By the time Fusion has arived the oil wokers will have retired due to age.

Are you familar to Superconducting tape?

Reminder to report everyone who believes in AGW.

I'll believe it when I see it. What we do have is fission, and it works. Neither fusion nor fission is a real long term solution either, of course. For that you need solar power satellites. Which would handily replace all the jobs lost in coal mining, it turns out, since it's a rather massive undertaking.
And thinking about jobs being lost is s bit simplistic, since pretty much the entire service sector is about to be automatized anyway. It's either 90% leech welfare state or space colonization from there on out

...

Daily reminder that no one has actually proven the basic assertions wrong. The kikes exaggerate the shit out of it, but the underlying mechanism is still a credible danger.

Nice meme. It's been meme for the last 50 years since its inception, and it still is just as big a meme as it used to.

Reported.

Reported back.

REPORTED FOR OBVIOUS KIKE SHILL.

Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.

ONE

There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.

TWO

The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.

THREE

We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.

FOUR

If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).

FIVE

The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.

SIX

Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.

We never had technolody such as super conductive wire until recently which is required for producing a magnetic feild that's neded for fusion.

The honus is on the scientists to prove their theories, not the other way round. You might know that if you weren't a fucking retard.

Fellate a gun, illiterate!
scribd.com/document/337186171/Falsification-of-the-Atmospheric-CO2-Greenhouse-Effects-Within-the-Frame-of-Physics
scribd.com/document/337186053/180-Years-of-Atmospheric-CO2-Gas-Analysis-by-Chemical-Methods
scribd.com/document/332096737/Falsification-Summary
scribd.com/document/337186048/Atmospheric-CO2-Aerosols
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

And where will you get raw carbohydrate materials to synthesize plastic from, brainiac?

Natrual gas ecnomicaly rapes Coal.

For one you don't need a constant train load of coal going into a coal plant to feed it.

You just need a Natrual gas pipeline.

Where did I say that? I was talking about energy, retard.

Great, finally someone makes a case that isn't just "kikes said x would happen but actually only half of x happened". Now excuse me as I go and read all that.

Superconductors were successfully used for ages, it's fusion where there's no success. Those -200 Centigrade superconductors not gonna improve anything because existing fusion reactors already function just fine with -270 Centigrade superconductors.

Where we're going we don't need plastics

Good writing.

#37

Muslims there are Islamophobic by western standards, chased laden thru sudan into egypt during his 85' hearts and minds campaign

WTF? Are you from the future? What's this week's lotto numbers?

Lord Monckton perfectly predicted Tony Abbott's backstabbing from Turnkike - for this very reason of pushing through the Paris Agreement - at least a year before it happened.

is correct, in that newer matierials will allow for fusion reactors, but will still take at least a decade before a viable design for public use is made.

Are you from the future as said, or did you mean for testing proposes?
Also Thorium Fission ftw

Plants.

Typical commie tactic. That "one" muslim terrorist. That "one" muslim rape gang. That "one" black criminal. That "one" antifa riot. That "one" case of election fraud. That "one" jew globalist.

Yeah, I'm sure the organization with massive conflicts of interest that exaggerated data for a conclusion that wasn't supported was honest every other time :^)

...

...

Why does anyone care about climate change anyway? It's pollution of fresh water that'll drive the wars in the coming century, not the earth getting hotter by a fucking degree

By banning some of the most useful energy sources?
Marketing buzzword.
The most stupid shit can create jobs, that's not an argument.
Are not an argument in themselves.

And the rest doesn't require the environmentalist nonsense we have now. At least try.

Like what? Fracking? That stuff costs tons of water and is incredibly bad for the environment.

It does, because otherwise our big cities would look like those in China and India, and our big cities are already incredibly overpopulated and polluted.

Why do they call them green jobs?

Focus on pollution, and the problem will take care of itself. No need to get strung out on meaningless climate change arguments.

There's no evidence that global warming is caused directly by human activity inb4 muh carbon dioxide that has a temperature ceiling as well as makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere and is quickly utilized by plants. Not mention global warming doesn't even exist. It's climate change and the climate changes all the time seasonally as well as in a greater sinusoidal shift that takes place over hundreds or thousands of years.

Like coal and especially nuclear power, though some environmental types are torn on the latter.

I didn't realize that not buying into the global warming scam meant "gas the rainforests, I love pollution".

Tell that to Ukraine and all the closed up factories and power plants just so they can get a chance to get into the EU.
Tell that to all the people who were left jobless and out on the steets. Tell that to all the morons against nuclear energy while building windmills in your back yard in Germany. Tell that to the countries going broke, spending cash on unreliable solar panels.
non-existent

Why are you so badly failing at trying to fit in Holla Forums? You know damn well this is just a Communist scheme to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third.

No I am not going to fall for your pseudo-intellectual garbage just because a bunch of greedy watermelons want to tear civilization to the ground on the basis that its 'good for the environment.

linked wrong post
polite sage

Renewables are shit, faggot. Solar and wind won't work. Instead, the "green" retards are busy killing actual, working solutions like nuclear and hydro. And would probably oppose orbital solar beamed power too.

...

Agreed.


user, I don't think you understand how incredibly polluted our oceans are, how damaged our coral reefs are, and how many flagship species are on the verge of extinction.


Nope, I'd be okay with that.

This is a natsoc board, user. You should care about your soil and do what you can to preserve it. It's what whites are best at.

Now, let's be completely fair. Fresh water IS a limited resource, as demonstrated by commiefornia. You can't irrigate farmland with sea water, plants will die. You can't give sea water to domestic animals, they will die, too. You can't drink sea water, it's one of the most ironic ways to die out in the open sea if you run out of fresh water. You can't even use sea water for rough work, like putting out fires and washing streets - sea water is full of metallic ions and thus very corrosive compared to fresh water. It eats away at pipes unless they're galvanized, which is expensive.

tl;dr fresh water is a precious resource, and with our population trends, we have less and less of it per capita. Now, if we somehow exterminate the shitskins, and preferrably the chinks, we'll be way better off on fresh water.

Fuck right off.

Ebin.

user, I don't think you have read my post.

You're a fucking red and you damn well know it. I'm not even fascist and one of the things they have right is the natural order, i.e. the food chain.

If you actually wanted to protect the environment you'd be a fierce defender of property rights and punishing those that harm it. Not Communist schemes to trick Average Joe into supporting another tax that solves nothing

Why is Holla Forums so retarded when it comes to the environment?

You can fiddle about the models, but the basic science behind climate change is rock solid. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and is able to increase the temperature of a system when the levels are increased (look at Venus).

How much? Plenty of science on that, but even if you ignore it, small increases are bad. Defrosting the tundra releases more, and you can have a run away effect. The only way people can deny the general concept is by lying or ignoring everything that is experimentally proven.

We have plenty of water and filtering sea water is cheaper than ever. It costs $2.50-$5.00 to desal (and deliver) 1000 gallons tradinial water sources cost $2/1000 gallons to filter and deliver. It's hardly an issue and its cheap enough to use for agriculture.

I think the argument is as to what the current rate of climate change is, and how much of it is due to the human element.

Try again

t. Big Oil cockgobbler

...

This is you.

Matt Walsh is a faggot.
Unless he was referring to niggers.

Good for you admitting you're a red. Now GTFO.

Is this thread being raided or something? It's one thing to discuss AGW but these (1)s coming in with exactly the same post style are suspicious.

You live in a country where the government spends 60% of its budget on gibs. Shut the fuck up.

You guys are so easy to spot its like playing wack-a-mole with retarded sloths.

As long as they're brown, I don't give a shit.

This isn't a flag board cunt.

...

Doesn't matter, Americans need to be called out on their shit, whether it's their disregard for the the environment, or their blind worship of Israel.

Who do you think is getting starved? Niggers and spics can't even run their own countries, the Asians don't give a shit about your climate conference, and the sandniggers have a monetary interest in opposing your tax.

But you know that, your only goal here is to pose as a 'friend of the environment' and use the NatSoc label hide your Communist propaganda.

And that's why we need to kill them all.

Social Security and Medicare are not "gibs". We pay into those services and they are returned to us when we reach retirement age. It's a government mandated savings, not a free lunch.

Fuck off back to cuckchan you hook-nosed rat.

lugenpresse gonna lugenpresse

You're arguing like a kike.

RebCo High temperature Supra conductor.
Its cool cause it can generate higher fields and you can make jumpers to it.

With repeated gaffes like this (endlessly), constant irrefutable evidence of "scientists" lying and conspiring to keep their false narrative going, and no actual observed effects in the real world, how is it still possible that normies are convinced by the "global warming" meme?

No energy or drastic reduced available energy is “being independent” as well.

Hobos do have an “independend” lifestyle.

Plants grow better with increased CO2, basic biology.


Has nothing to do with the use of coal, oil or nuclear energy. Has much to do with a „unsustainable” population grow in third-world. A population grow only possible because we subsidize them giving them the means for population grown they could not have from their own hands work.

Feudal middle age were „sustainable“.

There is nothing „sustainable“, since that violate laws of physics, learn thermodynamics.

Subsidized, government mandated jobs are a net drain on economy and personal wealth.

In which way is CO2 connected to livable cities?
The reason why US cities are unlivable is a sociological problem, not one of technology.

Abundant available cheap energy is the only way to have huge „livable cities“, everything else is Lagos/Nigeria or the Slums of Calcutta.

Middle age was 100% recycling, organic everything.

There is nothing „renewable“, since that violate laws of physics, learn thermodynamics.

It cost huge amounts of energy to clean the water, the alternative is to kill huge amounts of people, because people will foul up the water with their refuse.

Needs huge amounts of energy to feed them and provide them with medical support through “evil industry”.
Middle ages, third world had, has masses of malnourished, sick children.

If you think cheap abundant energy is a evil we should ban, you should also agree to be put to death for being a strain to natural resources.


Your „green sustainable organic world” would be significant worse than today's China and India, who are at least able to avoid the worst by applying cheap energy to have industry and feed the people.

What most “Greens” and romantic people following their on the surface charming ideas don't understand is, cheep abundant energy did made the comfortable lifestyle possible everybody takes for granted.
Before the heavy use of coal and latter oil, most people, the overwhelming majority lived in squalid circumstance, were extremely poor, had very short, extremely hard working lives, ending worn out and in sickness.

In case cheep and abundant energy is no longer available expect a return to a pre-modern lifestyle, were 99% life in the dirt and only 1% quite comfy. That said, if you or your potential offspring will then life at all, because huge famines will have reduced world population to 1/10 or 1/100 of the current head count.
Lord Soros, Prince Charles and her offspring will still have a comfortable lifestyle in a potential “eco, green, 100% organic, renewable, totally sustainable” future, you serfs not.



After a certain content of CO2 is reached no significant further increase of IR reflectivity is possible. So that carbon dioxide greenhouse gas argumentation was always for those ignorant of physics.
Learn astro- and geophysics

Would like to see #2 with highest jewish majors.

If this were profitable, wouldn't the free market have implemented it already? I'm sure we just use coal and oil for fun. We need bigger government to solve this issue :^))))

That's where you're wrong, kiddo (1). The greenhouse effect is what it is: a proclaimed effect. You can always dismantle the whole topic by looking at who is profiting from the constructed narrative. Concerning the global warming scam: This is the Jewish end game and master plan. When everything is in place, humans are taxed based on theit "co2 footprint". Every move you make will be tracked and taxed accordingly. Every industrial process is made unnecessary expensive because energy is made scarce on purpose.

The mere idea that a gas with the concentration of some 300-500 parts per MILLION has a SIGNIFICANT effect on the climate is just laughable.

you think a couple apes are more important than a human?

This is how stupid CREW is.

Why when we have fast reactors?

Correct, and there are many, many more important and urgent environmental issues than some kike ponzi scheme designed to deindustrialize the west and give control of all energy resources to the UN while Wall Street makes billions speculating on it with carbon credits. 96+ percent of predictive models of AGW have been falsified, and the existing data indicates minor warming that is not a big deal at all. Pollution is a much bigger problem that can be mitigated quite easily with the political will to do so, and unlike AGW the existing data completely backs up the simple fact that pumping shitloads of industrial toxins into ecosystems is a bad thing. Environmentalism is NatSoc, AGW is a kike scheme to take away sovereignty, and most environmentalists are virtue signalling retards who accomplish nothing whatsoever.

This just highlights the broader issue of intellectualism vs character. Seeing as we're all brought up to be socialists and get everything for free, with only around half of the people in this country managing to mature past that stage of childhood, there are even a lot of right-wing folks with liberal ideas implanted in their heads. The worst of them all: intellectualism, that is, a social liberalism.

This story and all those like it highlight exactly why intellectualism fails–the idea that people with strong character will always be second to those with intelligence–the "intellectual elite." This is a convenient idea created in the enlightenment as retaliation by the cowardly intelligentsia what spent its time pondering on nothings against the men of strong character who were always dominant in government and policy.

This is still happening today, and during the election it was most obvious when liberals claimed Hillary should win because she has the most experience and knowledge, and Donald Trump should lose because he doesn't adhere to mainstream, government funded science. In a just world, men of character who are standard bearers of their people (Trump) will ALWAYS have their boot placed firmly over the squabbling, ineffective intellectuals, and they hate the fact that this is how the world works, hence all the slander against Trump, trying to call him stupid. The scientists in this story are exactly what you'd expect from intellectualism: all degrees, zero character, zero integrity.

>"What if it is a big hoax and we create a better world Agenda 21 for nothing?"

FTFY

What if Communism is a big hoax and we murder hundreds of millions of people for nothing?
What if Talmudism is a big hoax and we murder the son of God for nothing?

Damn, my mistake. I should've realized the formatting wouldn't just copy-paste like that.

What a disgusting cartoon. You should be ashamed of yourself. Anyone that lies, then tells you that the truth doesn't matter is a lying con artist. He will promise you everything and deliver nothing. No good will come of him. You sicken me.

...

I believe the planet could possibly be warming, or cooling, but I am not sure how much humans influence it.

I like this heebtuber and I would like someone to explain how these Glaciers are disappearing faster and faster if the planet is not warming.