The Climate Crisis is a Lie - Read this carefully

[dan_s]

Climate Change Dictates Are Self Destructive - But Also Part of A Bigger Agenda
BY: TYLER DURDEN
ZeroHedge July 19, 2022

For many years we have been anticipating the implementation of far-reaching and transformative restrictions on industry and agriculture in the name of “climate change” initiatives, and now it would seem the time has come for the fight to commence. The first major battleground is Europe, as individual nations follow the emissions dictates of the centralized EU government, crushing their economies during a self-induced energy crisis. It seems like madness, but there's a bigger agenda at play here.

Today, a farmer's rebellion is rising across Europe as the actual producers of the food that keeps the public alive are being demonized for refusing to work under conditions that would essentially bankrupt them. European emissions rules are not just about carbon, though that is a big focus. Rather, the rules include other natural gases including methane and nitrogen which are a byproduct of large farming operations. The nitrogen restrictions alone are set to destroy most farming operations in the Netherlands, which is one of the largest agricultural nations in the EU. Germany is set to follow the Netherlands with its own emissions rules in the near term.

First, it's important to ask “why now?” There are a host of reasons. First and foremost, the EU climate agenda closely aligns with the UN climate protocols for the year 2030 and requires a 55% reduction of emissions in less than a decade (and net zero by 2050). If you think these decisions are being made by individual governments then you are mistaken; the 2030 plan was formulated by globalist institutions like the UN and the Club of Rome - Member states are simply following orders. The time frame for drastic environmental rules was likely set back in 1992 during the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro (also known as Agenda 21). < IMO the reason Team Biden is pushing this now is because they know they are going to lose power in the mid-terms.

Why the year 2030? It's hard to say. There is no scientific basis for the timeline. There is no evidence to support the notion that climate change will make any noticeable environmental impact by 2030. They just really want carbon controls and other measures in place by 2030, and they won't give a concrete reason for it.

Climate doomsday predictions have been presented by establishment-paid scientists and activist hysterics for decades, and not a single one of these predictions has ever come true. For example, in the 1970s climate scientists predicted a “new ice age” by the year 2000 and this nonsense scenario was spread widely by the media. Then they claimed that “acid rain” would kill off life in freshwater lakes in the 1980s, but that never happened. After that, the climate cult switched over to the global warming narrative, predicting that the ice caps would melt and rising seas would “obliterate nations” by the year 2000. Obviously, this never happened.

In the year 2000, scientists at the Climate Research Unit in Britain stated that snowfall was a “thing of the past” and that the next generation would not know what snow was. In 2008 NASA scientists argued that the Arctic would be “ice-free” by the year 2018. The list goes on and on, and it would be hilarious if the people that made all these faulty predictions were not still influencing government policies, but they are.

The following quote from the Club of Rome, a group directly connected to the UN, should illustrate why the public has been constantly bombarded with climate doom-mongering for the past few decades. The quote comes from a book titled ‘The First Global Revolution’ published in 1992. In that document they specifically recommend using the FEAR of global warming as a vehicle:

'In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions, these phenomena do constitute a common threat that must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and they can be overcome only through changed attitudes and behavior. The real enemy then is humanity itself.'

The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is clear; a common enemy must be conjured to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator.

Except, there is no environmental catastrophe, at least not within the narrative the establishment presents. It simply doesn't exist. There is no evidence to support the theory of man-made climate change. None. Global temperatures have risen only 1 degree Celsius in the past century, and there is no concrete proof that this single degree of temperature was caused by human activity. < BTW of the same 100 years we have seen the most significant improvement in the human standard of living EVER thanks in large part to fossil fuels.

The primary argument of climate scientists is one of exclusion: They say that all other potential causes (including the sun) have been proven not to be the cause, therefore, the cause “must” be human industry and emissions. But this is a lie.

Interestingly, the increase in temperatures cited by the NOAA and NASA coincides directly with an increase in solar activity over the past 100 years according to a study released in 2006. Furthermore, scientists have discovered that solar activity in 2022 is OUTPACING previous predictions. Overall solar activity has been increasing at the same time as the earth has been warming – Imagine that.

Climate scientists continue to discount the sun as a cause because they say there's not enough data to support the idea. Of course, there's not enough data because all the money goes to scientists that support the man-made theory; there's no funding to be had for scientists who present alternative theories.

Since the official temperature record used by climate scientists only goes back to the 1880s, there is no way of knowing for sure how often these warming patterns actually occur and how many times the earth has warmed by 1 degree Celsius over the millennia. But it doesn't matter, because climate science is not about saving the Earth, it's about creating an excuse to micromanage every aspect of human production and thus human society.

For emissions targets to be met by 2030, drastic society-changing events will have to take place within the next eight years. The very fabric of our current trade system and the global supply chain will have to be torn to shreds and replaced with an exceedingly limited production model. Not only that, but the human population would have to be reduced by billions. This model will be artificially contained within arbitrary climate guidelines set by unelected governing bodies in the name of stopping environmental changes that have not been proven to be caused by human beings at all. What it accomplishes is the formation of an authoritarian framework, one that the globalists will say is “environmentally justified.”

[Fraser921]

In case you missed it, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, having witnessed the utter collapse of Sri Lanka’s government and formerly prosperous society, decided on Friday it would be a great idea to implement the same destructive fertilizer policies that led to that island nation’s collapse.

Trudeau has decided to move forward with his cap on nitrogen emissions by reducing fertilizer use even as provincial Agriculture Ministers beg him to stop.

As per a Government of Saskatchewan news release, both the Alberta and Saskatchewan Ministers of Agriculture have expressed “profound disappointment” in Trudeau’s decision to attempt to reduce nitrogen emissions from fertilizer.

“We’re really concerned with this arbitrary goal,” Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture David Marit said. “The Trudeau government has apparently moved on from their attack on the oil and gas industry and set their sights on Saskatchewan farmers.”

“This has been the most expensive crop anyone has put in, following a very difficult year on the prairies,” Alberta Minister of Agriculture Nate Horner said. “The world is looking for Canada to increase production and be a solution to global food shortages. The Federal government needs to display that they understand this. They owe it to our producers.”

This deadly and destructive action by Trudeau will inevitably result in much lower crop yields, the destruction of Canadian sizable food exports and thereby contribute to growing famine in third world nations. In fairness to Trudeau, the government in the Netherlands also recently moved to implement Sri Lanka-style policies in following its own climate alarm-driven fetish about nitrogen reduction. The Netherlands has been Europe’s most prolific exporter of meat products, a reality that will now come to an inevitable end.
It is fair to note that all three governments are following advice contained in a 2019 World Economic Forum report titled “How to fight climate change in agriculture while protecting jobs”. Given all the newly-destitute farmers in Sri Lanka and the soon-to-be out of work farmers in the Netherlands and Canada, it is a mystery exactly whose jobs the WEF pretends to be protecting in that report.

As national obsessions over achieving high ESG scores continue to grow, we can expect more and more governments to adopt similar policies under the cover the WEF brand provides them.

Is it really just a coincidence that all this intentional destruction of farming operations around the globe by climate-obsessed government figures is happening at a time of growing food shortages and looming famine in developing nations? Or is there a very clear cause-and-effect relationship at play here?