(Also available as a video here.)
By now it should be very clear: this new coronavirus is not a more deadly virus than the flu viruses that we experience year after year. The numbers speak for themselves, the mortality rates are roughly the same, yet our governments are imposing totally irrational and disproportionate measures on us, and we just put up with it. Our leaders have collectively lost the plot, and we are following them like good little lambs into the abyss.
Apologies for the rude title, but I’m getting tired of this. Once again, I smell a rat.
As country after country succumbs to the latest wave of collective madness, reason and commonsense is in even shorter supply than toilet paper.
There’s widespread panic at governmental level from the UN down, in the business community, of course in the financial markets that are irrational at the best of times, and in the general population. And the fear and panic is being dutifully fuelled by a thoroughly complicit mainstream media – nothing new there.
Still, I don’t buy into the hype, and I was suspicious from day one. I prefer to think for myself and trust my own judgement. I can’t be certain what exactly is going on here, but I’m quite certain that this is not about preventing the spread of a killer virus.
There is an easy way to expose the supposedly man-made climate crisis or climate emergency as an elaborate indoctrination and propaganda scheme: look at unadulterable historical records such as old newspapers, for instance.
A post by a climate activist on Twitter lamented the recent death of 3,000 flying foxes in the Kangaroo Valley in Australia, no doubt attributing the insufferable heat which caused this calamity to man-made climate change. This tweet prompted me to do a search for similar events in history, and it took me about a minute to find some in the Trove newspaper archive.
On page 13 of the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 January 1932 (during this year the CO2 levels are thought to have been about 305ppm, before the big spike in man-made CO2 emissions) we find the following article:
The only relevant question regarding climate change is: are human-generated CO2 emissions driving climatic changes? This is purely a scientific question, and the entire global warming theory hinges on this one question.
We can either unquestioningly (as we are asked to) accept and believe the alleged consensus that answers this question resoundingly in the affirmative, or we examine the scientific arguments and understand the issue ourselves.
Having done that, my understanding is that CO2 has little or even no discernible influence on the Earth’s climate system as a whole, let alone the huge but still relatively small amount of human-made CO2 emissions.
And if that is the case, the entire global warming theory collapses in a heap – there is no need to worry about whether climate models are accurate (they’re not!), whether there is a consensus amongst 97% of scientists (there isn’t!), etc…
But I am not a scientist, and whilst I think I now understand CO2 much better, others can explain that much better. So below some useful video sources that helped me understand the science behind CO2 and that convinced me that CO2 cannot possibly be the climate control knob alarmists claim it to be.
And in German:
[Last updated 21 Dec 2019]
The following headline is telling of the prevailing hype, censorship and propaganda, specifically when it comes to climate change: Bernie Sanders wants to take fossil fuel companies to criminal court. Another example would be the warning by former Australian High Court Justice Kenneth Hayne that company boards must take the issue very seriously or face the legal consequences:
“International opinion is now firmly behind the need for all entities with public debt or equity to respond to climate change issues in their governance, their strategy, their risk management and their metrics and targets and, importantly, to record their responses to the issues in their financial reports.”
What Kenneth Hayne says about climate change, Australian Financial Review, 9 Dec 2019
Indeed, as the world awaits a final decision on the case brought by the Urgenda Foundation against the Dutch Government (the judgment commits the Dutch Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the end of 2020), and ExxonMobil and others are currently being dragged through the US courts (although without the desired result), self-righteous shareholders and lobby groups the world over are pressuring companies to take steps to not only reduce their carbon footprint (whatever that means), but to reduce their climate change liability risk (whatever that means).
Below is the text of my submission to Senate Committee which is scrutinising a bill currently before the Australian parliament that in my view represents nothing less than an underhanded attempt by the government and Treasury to restrict the use of cash in this country, in preparation of introducing negative interest rates during the next recession.
The earth’s climate is and has always been changing. Just about everybody agrees on that. But for the last decades and especially more recently there has been fervent disagreement when it comes to the question whether the climate changes of the last decades have been caused by humanity, more precisely, whether our massive CO2 emissions have caused a warming of the planet, and whether this could have consequences for the environment, which could also affect humans.
The mainstream view seems to be that humans have indeed caused the Earth’s climate to change, and that urgent action to prevent the potential effects is required. But there are also people who have a more or less opposite view.
So whom should we believe?
A new draft report, A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, sponsored by the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, was published on 3 September.
The study comes to the conclusion that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 could not have been caused by fire (the official story), but that it was the result of a “global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”
This should have been all over the news, especially with the anniversary just around the corner, but the mainstream media have so far completely ignored the release of this report, despite a press conference being held at the National Press Club in Washington on 11 September where the newest modelling was also presented, and PR Newswire reporting the release of the report.
An international search of the print media via Thomson Reuters Westlaw news service shows that so far there have only been a handful of mentions of this significant report. The UK’s Daily Star and the Express, and The Asian Age are the only non-alternative news publications that have so far acknowledged the new report in some way. No major newspapers – none!
Some of the alternative news sources I know of that have written on the report are Truth in Media and The Corbett Report, as well as the German alternative media outlets Rubikon and KenFM, which have published the same article by Swiss peace researcher Daniele Ganser.
At least on Twitter a bit of a storm has broken out.
Whether you swallow the official story of 9/11 or not – the fact that a new report on a major event of that day is simply ignored by the mainstream media should make us all very worried about the state of the so-called 4th pillar of democracy.