“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Albert Einstein
I have some questions for you; do you notice how much warmer it is in the past twenty years? And what are the Dutch going to do about all the flooding and the dikes collapsing? What about the horrific droughts and worldwide food shortages? Don't you wish you'd listened now?
There was a time, not so long ago, when nobody voted for the Greens unless they happened to be German. They were largely a fringe party obsessed with the environment and we just weren't interested. They were too shouty and monomaniacal; a single issue movement that didn't have a wide enough perspective.
And now there is even less call for them, because their policies are now the policies of the mainstream parties who govern us. We don't really see it that way, but that's because they aren't telling us. They are seducing us with policies that seem logical, that we hold no strong objection to. But the policies have consequences that we are unaware of; the top line, the strap line is deliberately deceptive and we don't seem to have the capacity or the willingness to dig deeper.
So, ask yourself; if these policies are so great, why do they need to lie to us? Because all they need to do is set the narrative; once they do that, it becomes the accepted truth. Nothing that comes thereafter can shake that, even if there are facts that should cause the entire edifice to crumble.
No-one is listening then. They're all committed to the official narrative, they have too much invested in it to change course; the fanatics because it wouldn't matter what logic you use, they won't believe you, the followers because they don't want to admit they were wrong and the elites, well, it's not actually about the environment and never was. So, all the state has to do is set the agenda, sell it to the gullible and unduly trusting and then, with them, jointly shame anyone who challenges the paradigm.
But the state knows that it has to sell it first; if it truthfully described the policy and its consequences it would be giving ammunition to the critics and allowing its own useful idiots to be outgunned. This way, the vocal minority intimidates the vast majority who just want a quiet life and the enlightened are denied the oxygen of support because it's all too difficult and, anyway, 'what's the harm?'
I guess it depends where you are on that spectrum; if you feel that lying about your intentions is necessary for the greater good, then you may be fine with it. After all, the end justifies the means, right? If you're in the middle, you almost certainly don't care enough to be reading this. If you can see what's going on, you're frustrated and, whether you admit it to yourself or not, more than a little afraid, because you know what's coming.
A sensible person, who operates in what we may have to start calling a 'traditional way' – in other words they think of cause and effect and weigh decisions based on evidence – would not be putting forward policies and laws that are illogical and harmful. And don't think they don't know that what they are proposing is stupid; they know it, otherwise why would they seek to seduce us with lies?
How can anybody who puts climate change at the center of all policy considerations be taken seriously? Just stop and think. At the center – everything is driven by climate change and now, of course, Covid too. Do you remember when it used to be called global warming? What happened to that slogan? Well, it got a bit embarrassing, because the globe wasn't warming in the first decade of this century, despite the fact that CO2 levels were steadily rising, so they dropped the phrase.
But seeing as how all the woes allegedly heading our way and apparently already with us in the form of forest fires and 'adverse weather events' are caused by the warming effect, I'm afraid they're going have to stick or twist. It's either global warming or it's not; the climate always changes, always has and always will.
They are also going to have to stick with the allegation that CO2 is causing it; it may surprise you to learn that that has never been established. I'm not referring here to any argument where I demonstrate that it was warming in the medieval period or in early Roman times, or that they were growing grapevines on Greenland (all of which are true). We could, after all, be talking about other types of climate interaction in those cases although, again, the climate alarmists wouldn't have an answer to that, either; they'd prefer to look the other way when climate history hoves into view.
I'm referring to the modern era; from the 1920s to the 1940s, global temperature rose. So far, so good as industrialization was taking off and we were emitting increasing amounts of CO2. Between 1940 and 1975, the world cooled, then 1975-1998 was a warming period, 1998-2012 another stagnant era and then a slight warming since then. As CO2 is released into the atmosphere immediately, citing multi-year lags in effect is not a viable explanation. And given that over the past 120 years levels of carbon dioxide have steadily risen, the temperature-CO2 relationship doesn't fit.
I'm not about to get into a long diatribe about global warming (although I will in another article), but you can see the problem. Policy is being made on the back of a false premise; there being no evidence that more CO2 means higher temperatures. And another thing; what if it did? Why would that be a bad thing?
Plants do not grow in the quantity and quality that mankind needs at less than about 180ppm (parts per million) of CO2. We were dangerously close to that level and now we are at around 400ppm. Higher levels would be even more beneficial, up to possibly 1,000ppm. There's a reason why gardeners used CO2 in greenhouses.
Higher temperature means a higher treeline and more usable agricultural land, which translates into more food. It is much more likely that there is a link between higher temperatures (from natural causes) and the release of CO2 from the biggest, easily accessible store of it, the oceans, in that order. And how is it in any way possible (even if you are sufficiently cerebrally challenged to believe the CO2/global warming nexus) to calculate how much of the alleged warming effect is down to mankind? Unless, of course, you engage in circular logic; i.e. CO2 causes warming and we are releasing CO2 so, hey presto, it's all down to us.
The historical record doesn't fit the theory and, conveniently for the alarmists, there is no agreed date when human intervention should be traced from, because they there’d be a properly defined debate. Some more facts: global temperature has risen by 1°C in a century, the Little Ice Age didn't end until 1850 (after which a period of warming would be expected) and the computer models used to guess future temperatures do not correspond to observed reality.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” (1)
These facts are not small things; if they can't explain how it is that CO2 causes higher temperatures, there is no basis for anything. And they can't. And there's a reason for that:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore....we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." (2)
This from a man who co-chaired the United Nations' Climate Change panel. You'd think he'd know. It's not about the science, it's not about humankind self-immolating. The elites aren't that stupid and I doubt that climate activists are, either, although anyone in the general population who does believe in impending climate catastrophe just hasn't been doing their homework.
The debate about climate science is still important, at least in terms of the public sphere, but you'll be in for a long, soul destroying journey if you believe that if you could just convince the powers-that-be that they're mistaken, we'd be on the straight and narrow again. They know it's a lie and they don't care. But the public, even if they are sceptical (as many seem to be), can't bestir themselves to do anything about it, because...well, what harm can come from caring about the environment? And coal and gas are polluting, aren't they, and they won't last for ever, so what's the harm in trying to reduce our usage and use wind and solar? They're free and natural. How can you be against that?
And so, it begins. What the people are never told are facts like the following; because wind and solar are unpredictable and because we lack the technology to store the energy they create, we need to have conventional power stations available as back up. Wind farms only produce about 30% of the energy they could. They are hugely expensive to build, they kill hundreds of thousands of bats and birds every year, they contribute a miniscule amount of energy to the grid, will never be the answer due to their inherent instability and the impossibility of siting enough of them and every individual who is liable for an electricity bill is paying through the nose for them.
How about some other policies? Like a truck toll (will make all goods more expensive), an air ticket levy (one more tax for you to pay), binding laws mandating CO2 emissions that are 30/40/50% lower than 1990 levels (unachievable without driving an economy back into the Dark Ages) and a spot of population control; all under the guise of sustainable development. They won't be spending money repairing the roads, because you won't be using the roads.
You may have noticed your bills increasing exponentially in the past decade; utility companies are charging you for their Green policies, and the makers of windmills and solar panels are being heavily subsidized by the government, with your tax dollars. The net result of all that will be a more unstable and expensive national grid, for which you are being charged twice over and have been for years.
And it's not just the environment; it's the same with pretty much everything. In the US, there are bills winding their way through the legislative process (or already passed) that purport to enshrine election integrity, solve the gun crime problem, reform the 'racist' police, provide Covid relief and finance much needed infrastructure works, none of which do what their proponents say they do: as a general guide, assume that they are intended to do the opposite of what is claimed and you'll be in the right neighborhood.
In the immediate here and now, of course, and overarching everything, is Covid and the many and varied lies we have been fed in order to justify the loss of our liberties in the past year, in the present and into the future. I have covered this in depth elsewhere, but to summarize; the PCR tests overestimate disease, deaths have been grossly inflated, viable treatments have been demonized, unconstitutional or illegal mandates have been forced upon us, science has been subverted, unapproved, inadequately tested experimental drugs are being foisted upon us and the virus is mutating rapidly precisely because of the policies of human intervention that have been mandated. If we don't want to succumb and take a drug that isn't a vaccine and that the vast majority of us don't need, we will be denied numerous rights that we have previously enjoyed and which have always been considered 'inalienable', until now. And, once again, the motivation given for a new policy, a new demand, won't be the the true one.
Because vaccination passports make no sense, whichever way you look at them. The vaccines were not designed to prevent the disease; you're still going to get it, but milder (possibly) than you would have. They don't necessarily prevent you infecting others. Of course, if they prevent you becoming symptomatic, the chance of you infecting someone else is miniscule, but the state can't admit that because it would undermine the main reason given to justify lockdowns, which is that asymptomatic people still spread the disease. Hence, lots of mixed messaging; you still have to wear a mask, even after vaccination, although the whole point of the vaccines was to get us all back to normal.
The state also knows that, because the vaccines are too specific, you can still be infected with Covid, despite having been injected. This is happening more and more (in Israel, which is well advanced in its vaccination programme, 60% of new cases requiring hospital treatment are vaccinated people) and it begs the question: what legitimacy do vaccination passports possess if you can still infect others and still catch Covid yourself? The answer to that is obvious.
So, assuming once more that the elites aren't stupid, why are they vaccinating as many people as they can, as quickly as they can and setting up systems that will force the majority of those that remain to also get the jab, while allowing people who are just as much of a risk as the great unwashed to wander around unhindered? Because it's not about Covid and it's not about vaccinations; if we're going to credit the elites with a modicum of intelligence, it can't be. It doesn't make sense.
It's about control and it's about data; your medical data on an app. Remember what a precedent is? It's a two week lock-down to 'flatten the curve' and look where we ended up with that. In the same way, a vaccine passport (or whatever user friendly misnomer they assign to it) will only be used in this one, narrow context. Honestly. We can trust them....if you're able to forget the fact that, despite the seductive and misleading tones, what it actually is is the first manifestation of a social credit score, because it prevents you from doing things and the state is the one doing the preventing. They can claim it's private businesses' doing and that they are just 'working with them' to ensure that it works, but it's not. This has been in the works for a long time and, if the state was really looking after our best interests, it wouldn't be demonizing people who won't take unapproved vaccines for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8% plus, would it?
Covid has cast a giant shadow, or rather the reaction to it has, so Global Warming has temporarily taken a back seat, but not to worry; we'll be hearing about it again soon. In the eyes of the elite they are conjoined; both phenomenons that can be presented as existential threats, one short term and one long term. They both require co-ordination (on a global scale, naturally) and supranational bodies to do the necessary. And they are both flagrant falsehoods that are being used to frighten us into submission, to make us willing to give up hard won and fundamental freedoms and rights.
The world isn't about to reach a tipping point at mankind's hands; neither are we all about to die in our beds because of Covid. But the elites are winning the battle of hearts and minds by seducing the people into believing that their policies are benign and benevolent, when they are intended to dominate and control us instead. And those of us who dissent have as much chance of being heard as a jilted lover.
Citations
(1) Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 2002, pg 16
(2) Ottmar Edenhofer, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-”climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/