Swedes Chill To Harvard’s “Sun Dimming” Experiment

The political statement of this geoengineering experiment is that if you don’t voluntarily stop using fossil fuels on your own, Technocrat scientists will simply turn the lights out on you by “dimming the sun”. It is a slippery slope. ⁃ TN Editor

An early experiment toward using sun-dimming technology to cool global warming has opponents fearing a slippery slope toward engineering the climate.

Harvard University scientists plan to fly a test balloon above Sweden next year to help advance research into dimming sunlight to cool the Earth, alarming environmentalists opposed to solar geoengineering.

Open-air research into spraying tiny, sun-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, to offset global warming, has been stalled for years by controversies – including that it could discourage needed cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

In a small step, the Swedish Space Corporation agreed this week to help Harvard researchers launch a balloon near the Arctic town of Kiruna next June. It would carry a gondola with 600 kg of scientific equipment 20 km (12 miles) high.

“There are very many real concerns” about the risks of climate change and solar geoengineering, said David Keith, who is involved in the project and is a professor of applied physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

“Understanding them requires a range of activities including experiments,” said Keith, who is also a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The unmanned flight had originally been planned for the United States but was moved, partly because of U.S. restrictions caused by coronavirus.

The flight, which requires approval from a Harvard project advisory committee, will test how to manoeuvre the balloon and check communications equipment and other systems. It would not release any particles into the stratosphere.

Still, if successful, it could be a step towards an experiment, perhaps in the autumn of 2021 or spring of 2022, to release a tiny amount – up to 2 kg – of non-toxic calcium carbonate dust into the atmosphere, Keith said.

Studying that material’s effects on high-altitude sunlight could help advance understand of how solar geoengineering might work.

A SLIPPERY SLOPE?

But opponents see the Swedish balloon as a step on a slippery slope towards engineering the climate with an artificial sunshade – something with potentially large and hard-to-predict risks, such as shifts in global rain patterns.

“There is no merit in this test except to enable the next step. You can’t test the trigger of a bomb and say ‘This can’t possibly do any harm’,” said Niclas Hällström, director of the Swedish green think-tank WhatNext?

“Swedish society is increasingly calling for real, immediate solutions to climate change,” he said – such as a rapid transformation away from fossil fuels and toward a zero-carbon society.

He said the Harvard project “represents the polar opposite”, as it could create the impression that continuing use of fossil fuels is possible.

Read full story here…




UN Demand To Leaders: Declare A ‘State Of Climate Emergency’

Climate and coronavirus alarmism narratives were created by the same people with the same modus operandi to drive the world into the UN’s Sustainable Development economic system, aka Technocracy. After the Great Panic of 2020, the UN is intensifying its demands on world leaders to submit. ⁃ TN Editor

Every world leader must immediately declare a “state of climate emergency” or face “catastrophic” results, U.N. chief Antonio Guterres warned Saturday.

Speaking at the opening of the Climate Ambition summit, held online to mark five years since the Paris Agreement, the Portuguese socialist warned nations’ current commitments were “far from enough” and were plainly unacceptable to the globalist body.

Around 70 heads of state and government took part in the meeting, which was organised by the UK, U.N. and France. They outlined broad new pledges and commitments to curb carbon but gave very little – if any – detail as to how that would be achieved.

“If we don’t change course, we may be headed for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than 3.0 degrees this century,” Guterres said.

Guterres said G20 nations were spending 50 percent more in their coronavirus rescue packages on sectors linked to fossil fuels than to low-carbon energy.

“This is unacceptable. We cannot use these resources to lock in policies that burden future generations with a mountain of debt on a broken planet,” he said via video-link, returning to a theme he expressed in the first week of December:

RESET: Nature is determined to destroy humanity through flood, famine, fire, and pestilence, U.N. Secretary-General Guterres declared Wednesday, prophesizing the time has come for us to repent and mend our ways through a great climate and economic “reset.” https://t.co/sZUDhH7YT8

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) December 4, 2020

Guterres urged countries that had already announced net-zero targets to make good on their promises and to accelerate emissions cuts in line with the science.

“Every country, city, financial institution and company needs to adopt plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050 — and start executing them now, including by providing clear short-term targets,” he added.

One area that yielded little progress at the meeting was the question of finance. Rich countries had promised to mobilise $100bn a year from 2020 under the Paris Agreement – but the commitments on cash have largely been ignored.

Guterres has already said he awaits Joe Biden in the White House to provide U.S. taxpayer funds to remedy that cash shortfall.

Read full story here…




UN’s Anti-Human Push To De-Carbonize The World

The UN’s irrational war on carbon is a war against humanity itself. However, if depopulation is the ultimate goal, then it makes perfect sense because the human body is 12% carbon. The carbon cycle in food production and human nutrition requires CO2, and abundantly so. ⁃ TN Editor

The head of the United Nations is calling on countries to end what he calls a war on nature and instead embrace a future without carbon pollution triggering global warming

As an extreme year for hurricanes, wildfires and heat waves comes to an end, the head of the United Nations challenged world leaders to make 2021 the year that humanity ends its “war on nature” and commits to a future free of planet-warming carbon pollution.

With new reports highlighting 2020’s record-breaking weather and growing fossil fuels extraction that triggers global warming, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres delivered yet another urgent appeal to curb climate change. It was tinged with optimism but delivered dire warnings, as the UN gears up for a Dec. 12 virtual climate summit in France on the 5th anniversary of the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement.

“The state of the planet is broken,” Guterres said in a speech at Columbia University. “Humanity is waging war on nature. This is suicidal.”

“Apocalyptic fires and floods, cyclones and hurricanes are increasingly the new normal,” he said.

In a report, the World Meteorological Organization said this year is set to end about 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the last half of the 1800s, which scientists use as a baseline for warming caused by heat-trapping gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Most trapped heat goes into the world’s seas, and ocean temperatures now are at record levels. It also means 2020 will go down as one of the three hottest years on record.

“There is at least a one-in-five chance of it temporarily exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2024,” WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said. The Paris climate accord set a goal of not exceeding 1.5-degree (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warming since pre-industrial times.

new analysis by Climate Action Tracker scientists who monitor carbon pollution and pledges to cut them said public commitments to emission cuts, if kept, would limit warming to about 2.6 degrees Celsius (4.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and possibly as low as 2.1 degrees Celsius.

Guterres saw hope in promises by more than 100 countries that by mid-century they will not be adding more heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere than trees and technology can remove, along with shorter term pollution cuts. China and U.S. President-elect Joe Biden have pledged net zero carbon emissions.

“I firmly believe that 2021 can be a new kind of leap year — the year of a quantum leap towards carbon neutrality,” Guterres said.

But he said the two U.N. reports Wednesday “spell out how close we are to climate catastrophe.”

When countries spend trillions of dollars to recover from the pandemic-triggered economic slowdown, Guterres said they must to do so in a way that emphasizes clean energy.

Nations should stop funding and subsidizing fossil fuels, he said. And countries need to fulfill their Paris promise to spend $100 billion annually to help poorer countries develop cleaner energy.

Read full story here…




Geoengineering

Scientists Openly Look To ‘Chemtrails’ to Cool Planet Earth

For all those who suffered abuse, ridicule and shaming for blowing the whistle on “chemtrails” in years past, or the spraying of sun-reflecting materials into the atmosphere, you are now officially vindicated as the entire program is out in the open for all to see and it is rapidly gaining global support.

The New York Times titled this article, As Climate Disasters Pile Up, a Radical Proposal Gains Traction. It states that “One way to cool the earth is by injecting aerosols into the upper layer of the atmosphere, where those particles reflect sunlight away from the earth.”⁃ TN Editor

The idea of modifying Earth’s atmosphere to cool the planet, once seen as too risky to seriously consider, is attracting new money and attention.

As the effects of climate change become more devastating, prominent research institutions and government agencies are focusing new money and attention on an idea once dismissed as science fiction: Artificially cooling the planet, in the hopes of buying humanity more time to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

That strategy, called solar climate intervention or solar geoengineering, entails reflecting more of the sun’s energy back into space — abruptly reducing global temperatures in a way that mimics the effects of ash clouds spewed by volcanic eruptions. The idea has been derided as a dangerous and illusory fix, one that would encourage people to keep burning fossil fuels while exposing the planet to unexpected and potentially menacing side effects.

But as global warming continues, producing more destructive hurricanes, wildfires, floods and other disasters, some researchers and policy experts say that concerns about geoengineering should be outweighed by the imperative to better understand it, in case the consequences of climate change become so dire that the world can’t wait for better solutions.

“We’re facing an existential threat, and we need to look at all the options,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School and editor of a book on the technology and its legal implications. “I liken geoengineering to chemotherapy for the planet: If all else is failing, you try it.”

On Wednesday, a nonprofit organization called SilverLining announced $3 million in research grants to Cornell University, the University of Washington, Rutgers University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and others. The work will focus on practical questions, such as how high in the atmosphere to inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols, how to shoot the right size particles into clouds to make them brighter, and the effect on the world’s food supply.

Kelly Wanser, SilverLining’s executive director, said the world is running out of time, and protecting people requires trying to understand the consequences of climate intervention. She said the goal of the work, called the Safe Climate Research Initiative, was “to try to bring the highest-caliber people to look at these questions.”

The research announced Wednesday adds to a growing body of work already underway. In December, Congress gave the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration $4 million to research the technology. NOAA will also start gathering data that will let it detect whether other countries start using geoengineering secretly. And Australia is funding experiments to determine whether and how the technology can save the Great Barrier Reef.

“Decarbonizing is necessary but going to take 20 years or more,” Chris Sacca, co-founder of Lowercarbon Capital, an investment group that is one of SilverLining’s funders, said in a statement. “If we don’t explore climate interventions like sunlight reflection now, we are surrendering countless lives, species, and ecosystems to heat.”

One way to cool the earth is by injecting aerosols into the upper layer of the atmosphere, where those particles reflect sunlight away from the earth. That process works, according to Douglas MacMartin, a researcher in mechanical and aerospace engineering at Cornell University whose team received funding. “We know with 100 percent certainty that we can cool the planet,” Dr. MacMartin said in an interview.

Read full story here…




California Legislature Rejects Radical Climate Bill, Governor Does It Anyway Via Executive Order

California continues to drift toward lawlessness as Governor Newsom ignores the will of the state legislature and the citizenry, and writes Executive Orders to achieve his ultra-radical green agenda. ⁃ TN Editor

Two bills would have established new land, water, and ocean protection goals, including to protect 30 percent of the state’s land areas and water by 2030.

Assembly Bill 3030, by Assembly Member Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), as well as AB 2954, by Assembly Member Robert Rivas (D-San Benito), passed the State Assembly but was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Suspense File in mid-August and therefore failed passage in the recently-concluded 2020 Legislative Session. Nonetheless, on October 7, Governor Newsom issued EO-N-82-20 which sounds very similar to the provisions of AB 3030.

Provisions of AB 3030

In Section 1 of the bill, there were 18 legislative findings and declarations, including that “access to public land, nature, and a healthy environment should be a right for all people…” Also, “the Natural Resources Agency has made environmental justice and tribal consultation a priority…” Moreover, “scientists are documenting a rapid loss of natural areas and wildlife in California.”

Also, “California should protect land, water, ocean, and wildlife in the state as necessary to prevent the further decline of nature. This act is not intended to undermine the Fish and Game Commission’s authority in managing the public trust resources of the state. Conserving and restoring nature is one of the most efficient and cost-effective strategies for fighting climate change. The implementation of this policy includes promoting voluntary cooperation with private land owners.”

Additional findings and declarations stated that, “as a step toward achieving that goal, scientists have recommended that all countries commit to conserving and protecting at least 30 percent of land areas and waters and 30 percent of the ocean in each country by 2030, with a long-term goal of conserving one-half of the planet. Implementation of a state policy to protect at least 30 percent of California’s land areas and waters within the state and 30 percent of the nation’s oceans by 2030 should be consistent with state housing and economic goals.”

In Section 2 of the bill, Section 9001.6 would have been added to the Public Resources Code. Subdivision (a) defined the terms “protect” and “protection.” Subdivision (b) provides that “it is the goal of the state to protect at least 30 percent of California’s land areas and waters and to help advance the protection of 30 percent of the nation’s oceans by 2030, inclusive of existing protections afforded by state and federal laws and regulations.”

Subdivision (c) specifies that it “is further the goal of the state to support regional, national, and international efforts to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land areas and waters and 30 percent of the world’s ocean by 2030.” Subdivision (e) permits the state to “achieve the goals established in this section through activities that include, but are not limited to, any of the following:

  • Working with the federal government, local communities, Native American tribes and tribal entities, other countries, willing private landowners, and recreational and commercial stakeholders to conserve natural places and resources.
  • Improving access to nature for all people in the state, with a specific emphasis on increasing access for communities of color and economically disadvantaged communities.
  • Preventing extinction by recovering and restoring biodiversity, including species listed under the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code).
  • Enhancing climate resilience by protecting genetic diversity.
  • Sequestering carbon and greenhouse gas emissions through natural measures in the land, waters, and ocean.
  • Focusing work at a scale that is biologically and ecologically meaningful, including at a landscape or seascape scale, where appropriate.
  • Collaborating with federal, tribal, regional, and international governments to support and advance protections for terrestrial and marine habitats that lie outside of the state’s jurisdiction to ensure effective protections for California species that travel, are migratory, or have ranges that extend beyond the borders of the state.
  • Considering how existing processes to evaluate or strengthen environmental conservation in California can contribute to the goals described in subdivisions (b) and (c) and leveraging those processes to identify, evaluate, and implement measures to meet the goals described in subdivisions (b) and (c).
  • Stabilizing ecosystems and the services of ecosystems, restoring degraded ecosystems, and maintaining and enhancing ecological functions, including functional ecological connectivity in the face of human impact and climate change.
  • Aligning the state’s economic and purchasing power with efforts to protect ecosystems and threatened biodiversity within the state, nationally, and internationally.
  • Ensuring that protected areas within the state are effectively managed and enforced.
  • Securing protections for habitat types that are underrepresented in protected areas.
  • Consulting with Native American tribes when conservation efforts impact tribal ancestral homelands to help restore tribal access to those lands and maintain or restore tribal land management, stewardship, and ownership.
  • Partnering with Native American tribes to learn from and apply traditional ecological knowledge and reintroduce and promote traditional practices to restore ecosystem interconnectivity and balance, including through cooperative management agreements and other related legal instruments.

Subdivision (f) requires the Natural Resources Agency to ensure that actions made in furtherance of this section are conducted in a manner that incorporates the agency’s environmental justice and tribal consultation policies, including subsequent updates to those policies, into relevant program planning, development, and implementation decisions. Finally, subdivision (g) specifies that this section does not undermine, limit, contravene, or modify any other law or regulation in effect on January 1, 2021.

Provisions of AB 2954

In Section 1 of the bill, there were over a dozen legislative findings and declarations, including that “climate change is causing historic droughts, devastating wildfires, torrential storms, extreme heat, the death of millions of trees, billions of dollars in property damage, and threats to human health and food supplies. The state’s forests, agricultural and ranch lands, wetlands, oceans, and other natural and working landscapes define the beauty and well-being of our state, but tragically are suffering increasing degradation caused by a changing climate.”

Moreover, “While the state’s natural and working landscapes confront impacts from climate change, they continue to provide a valuable carbon sequestration service that can help the state meet its long-term climate, public health, environmental, and economic goals.” It also noted that the state has taken a number of specific steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Section 2 of the bill, Section 38561.5 would have been added to the Health and Safety Code. Subdivision (a) would have added definitions for the terms “natural lands” and “working lands.” Subdivision (b) would have required, as part of the next update to the scoping plan prepared, the state board, in collaboration with the relevant state agencies and departments, to do all of the following:

  • Identify by January 1, 2023, an overall climate goal for the state’s natural and working lands to sequester carbon and reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions. The climate goal shall support the state’s efforts to achieve carbon neutrality and resilience to climate impacts.
  • Identify practices, policy incentives, and potential reductions in barriers that would help achieve the climate goal established pursuant to paragraph (1).
  • Integrate opportunities to enhance other important public benefits and needs, including, but not limited to, the enhancement of water and air quality, climate resilience, public health, biodiversity, jobs, species habitat, the production of food and fiber, public access to recreation, and the protection of vulnerable communities against climate impacts.
  • Develop methods for state agencies to consistently track greenhouse gas emissions reductions, carbon sequestration, and cobenefits from natural and working lands over time.

Provisions of Executive Order N-82-20

The Governor’s new Executive Order includes 11 “whereas” clauses. For example, “WHEREAS California’s natural and working lands – our forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, coast, deserts, and urban greenspaces – sustain our economy, support our unique biodiversity, contribute to the global food supply, support outdoor heritage and provide clean water and air.”

In addition, “WHEREAS California’s rich biodiversity is increasingly threatened by loss of habitat, spread of invasive species, decreasing water supplies, and increasingly frequent and severe climate impacts.” Also, “WHEREAS as we work to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, we must also accelerate actions to enable the State to adapt and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change, including expanding nature-based solutions – the use of sustainable land management practices to tackle environmental, social and economic challenges.”

Governor Newsom ordered, in order to “combat the biodiversity and climate crises, the California Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Environmental Protection Agency and other state agencies, is directed to establish the California Biodiversity Collaborative (Collaborative) to bring together other governmental partners, California Native American tribes, experts, business and community leaders and other stakeholders from across California to protect and restore the State’s biodiversity.”

Read full story here…




Oregon Professor Blames ‘White Christians’ For West Coast Wildfires

Global warming religionists are drawing the battle line against “white Christians” as being the source of their troubles. Professor Susan Shaw blames them for the unprecedented west coast fire season because of their disbelief of man-made global warming. Shaw’s anti-Bible and anti-God views are plainly evident.

The religion of Scientism is at the root of all things Technocracy and Transhumanism, and it posits that truth about the universe and man can only be found through science. All other belief systems are flatly rejected. Thus, philosophy, other religious systems and especially anything connected to the Bible, are viewed as worthless and in this case, harmful. ⁃ TN Editor

An Oregon State University professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies has alleged “white Christians” are to blame for West Coast wildfires because of their “denial of climate science.”

As revealed by the attentive folks at Campus Reform in an October 2 essay, Prof. Susan Shaw has insisted that “the West is burning while most white Christians turn away from the root causes of the devastation.”

Shaw writes that “the intensity and scope of these fires are a result of climate change” and its spread is due to the fact that “many Christians, especially white Christians, have embraced denial of climate science.”

“Just over half of white mainline Protestants agree that climate change is a crisis or major problem,” Shaw declares. “Only 44% of white evangelicals say the same. Nearly a quarter say it’s not a problem at all.”

The problem is not just religious but is also political, Shaw predictably asserts.

“The disturbing link between white evangelical support for Trump and disregard for climate change that disproportionately affects poor people of color around the world should probably not be all that surprising,” writes Shaw, who states that her “current research interests are in feminist studies in religion.”

“Not surprisingly, more than 70% of Democrats accept that human activity causes climate change, while only 22% of Republicans do,” Shaw laments. “Scholars suggest that politics more than religion may drive these beliefs, especially in such a partisan context as we presently have.”

Shaw fails to mention the role of forest management in the rampant spread of the fires. Last month, NPR observed that “California and Oregon in particular are far behind stated goals of treating millions of acres of forests and wild lands through restoration projects, selective thinning of trees and brush and prescribed burning.”

“The treatments they’ve been implementing for years haven’t really been at the scale that they need to be to offset a wind-driven, climate change-exacerbated event,” said Andrew Sánchez Meador, director of the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University.

Similarly, Chuck DeVore, the vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, wrote last year in Forbes that “it’s not climate change that’s burning up the forests, killing people, and destroying hundreds of homes; it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush.”

Shaw, instead, sees the problem as rooted in apocalyptic evangelicalism.

“Many white Christians believe God won’t let climate change destroy the earth. Others see climate-related disasters as signs of the end times,” she declares.

Read full story here…




Facebook Debuts New Climate Change Info Center

Facebook is honing its propaganda machine with its third “Information Center” in recent months, this one focusing on Climate Change. The ‘settled science’ of global warming is not worthy to be called pseudo-science, but rather it is really ‘fraudulent science.’ ⁃ TN Editor

If you’ve logged on to your Facebook today, you may have already noticed something a little different at the top of your feed.

Today, Facebook launched its new Climate Science Information Center, its third information center in the last few months, following the COVID-19 Information Center and the Voter Information Center.

Users can access the Climate Science Information Center at the top of their Facebook feed or as a tool. It appears as though Facebook “will continue to apply warning labels to demonstrably false information,” according to NBC News. By clicking the link, users will be redirected to information and pages promoting the existence of climate change. Otherwise, Facebook has released little specific information about how the new Information Center will impact users’ usual Facebook experience.

The inclusion of this information center appears to be yet another instance of Facebook caving to the left’s demands.

Just as recently as July of this year, several Democratic politicians had expressed “concerns over reports that Facebook is exempting climate change misinformation from fact-checking,”G according to The Hill.

Facebook claimed in a blog post that “The Climate Science Information Center is a dedicated space on Facebook with factual resources from the world’s leading climate organizations and actionable steps people can take in their everyday lives to combat climate change.”

“We believe a lot of our users are particularly interested in climate science,” Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview with NBC. He added that there is “a very strong political push around the world for more action.”

Read full story here…




Environmentalists Cause Environmental Disaster In Europe

Under the guise of saving the environment by cutting CO2 emissions, environmentalists demanded wood pellets be used as a source of non-fossil fuel, “enviro-friendly’, heating. Deforestation is now up 49% as they cut down the trees to make pellets. Well, duh! ⁃ TN Editor

Wood pellets.

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann calls it “the dumbest energy and environmental policy ever”. Now, finally, after years of being warned, Germany’s mainstream media are finally showing signs of waking up to it.

Germany’s flagship ARD public broadcasting recently presented a report earlier today about how “CO2 neutral” wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe – a rather embarrassing development for the Europeans, who recently expressed their condemnation over Brazilian forest policy.

Deforestation up 49%

The ARD’s “Das Erste” reports how satellite images show deforestation has risen 49% since 2016 in Sweden, Finland and the Baltic countries. The reason: “Because of the CO2 targets. That sounds totally crazy but precisely because of the trend to renewable energies is in part responsible for deforestation in Estonia,” says the Das Erste moderator.

Having spent some time working for the EU, Liiana Steinberg explains in the report how she recently returned to her native Estonia and was shocked to see how much deforestation had taken place over the recent years (2:25). “I discovered how the forests no longer exists here left and right.”

For “CO2-neutral” wood pellets

Where once massive hardwoods once stood now grows tiny fir trees. The harvested trees, the report says, were used for wood pellets – a form of renewable green energy. The trees, the pellet industry says, will grow back.

Not only are the forests taking a hit, but so is the wildlife that once inhabited in them. According to Ms. Steinberg, bird life has fallen some 25%. “It’s wasted. Now we have to start all over again.”

Idiots “follow the science”

Climate activists, including the media like ARD, have long insisted that burning trees was good for the climate and environment because the emitted CO2 would simply be recycled back into nature – “follow the science” they insisted again and again. But they failed to understand that trees, depending on their age, acted as sinks and that some 100 years of stored carbon would be unloaded into the atmosphere in just a matter of hours if burned for heat.

It’s sad that they are just waking up to this (maybe).

Read full story here…




Club Of Rome: Planetary Emergency Plan Declared

Club of Rome was originally founded at a meeting in David Rockefeller’s house in Bellagio, Italy, and promoted alarmism over population growth. Its 1973 book, Limits to Growth, coincided with the creation of the Trilateral Commission, also by Rockefeller. They are still at it.

This text is taken from the Club of Rome’s 2002 report, Planetary Emergency Plan: Securing a New Deal for People, Nature and Climate.

In that the Great Panic of 2020 (pandemic) is currently dominating the new cycle, don’t think for a minute that radical climate change alarmism has gone away. To the contrary, it is just waiting for the massive funding that will be sprung during the Great Reset. ⁃ TN Editor

For 10,000 years, human civilisation has grown and thrived because of Earth’s remarkable climate stability and rich biological diversity. In the last 50 years, human activity has severly undermined this resilience. Our patterns of economic growth, development, production and consumption are pushing the Earth’s life-support systems beyond their natural boundaries. The stability of these systems – our global commons on which we so fundamentally depend – is now at risk. The science is clear that we are now accelerating towards tipping points and that the consequences of inaction will be catastrophic for humanity. The time to act is running out.

This is a Planetary Emergency. The definition of an emergency is a dangerous event requiring immediate action to reduce risk of potentially catastrophic results. The impacts of climate change and ecological destruction are more severe and are manifesting themselves earlier than many scientific predictions in previous decades had foreseen. The most authoritative global scientific assessments conclude that without major interventions, the risks will soon reach a critical stage. We need to stabilise the climate at 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, halt the loss of biodiversity, slow polar ice sheet melt and glacier retreat, protect critical biomes and store more carbon in soils, forests and oceans. This is how we will guarantee the longterm health and well-being of both people and planet. To do that, however, our response to this complex emergency must reflect the intricate links between life on our planet and the systems that regulate it. It must address the convergence of crises and tipping points which have created this Planetary Emergency. We have no more time for incremental, siloed policy action.

2020 is a “Super Year” for international policy action. It is the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. It is the first opportunity for nations to increase climate ambition and meet 2050 net-zero goals. A new treaty on the oceans will be agreed. Biodiversity targets will be announced. And 2020 will mark the beginning of the decade to scale action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. This decade must be a turning point, the moment when the world bends the curve, averts the impending disaster and opts instead to embark on the fastest economic transformation in our history. Declaring a Planetary Emergency provides a new compass for nations and injects the essential urgency into decision-making. It will ensure that all action from 2020 will be taken in light of its impact on the stability of Earth’s life-support systems, and be underpinned by the social and economic transformations needed to secure the long-term health and well-being of people and planet. While our efforts should be global, our responses must be local. They should be tailored to local needs, resources and cultures to ensure they have maximum impact and work to everyone’s advantage.

The existential risk is real. Yet, the opportunities to not just avert disaster but to rebuild, improve and regenerate are readily available. History has shown that humanity is remarkably resilient. We are well adapted to respond to disaster through cooperation and innovation. But the potential consequences we face this time are different – we have a narrow window to act now to reduce risk or avoid catastrophe. We don’t know how to reconstruct the cryosphere, the hydrological cycle, the rainforests, coral reefs and all other life-support systems on Earth. Once the emergency fully manifests itself, it will simply be too late to reverse the breakdown. As well as halting climate change and protecting nature, these efforts will improve health, livelihoods and equity and create more liveable and sustainable cities and rural communities.

Our proposed commitments and underpinning action are of the scale needed to respond to the emergency facing people and planet. Our aim is to protect the Global Commons through 10 clear commitments, and ensure they are met by immediately implementing a set of transformational policy and market levers. This is our insurance policy to emerge from emergency and guarantee a just transition for all.

We invite nations to discuss the case for a Planetary Emergency Plan. We propose such a plan be founded on the urgent need to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, to reach carbon-neutrality by 2050, while halting biodiversity loss and protecting essential Global Commons. Such an initiative is consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals to end poverty and improve quality of life. We can emerge from emergency to a world which benefits all species, within planetary boundaries and leaving no one behind. This is the world we envisage, and the world to which we must all aspire.

The Rationale For Emergency Action

The science is clear: the climate and biodiversity are fully integrated and interdependent. Every year since the Industrial Revolution, land-based and ocean ecosystems have absorbed close to half of all emissions from fossil-fuel burning. Without nature’s ability to absorb and store our GHG emissions, we would have already exceeded 2°C of warming, with potentially disastrous consequences. Breaching this threshold of warming could push the planet towards irreversible and catastrophic biosphere feedbacks

When climate change alters a chink in the planetary system, it can set off a chain of negative feedback loops. Increasing droughts, for instance, are reducing the ability of tropical forests to store carbon, making them more prone to fires, releasing yet more GHG emissions. The significant loss of the Cryosphere has reduced the albedo capacity of key Earth systems to reflect heat away from the planet. The higher the temperature, the more permafrost thaws, with greater emissions of both CO2 and methane, leading to even greater warming and triggering further negative feedback loops.

At least one million species risk disappearance, many within decades7 . Food chains could disintegrate and vital ecosystems collapse. Species diversity and ecosystems integrity play a fundamental role in regulating the climate, water cycles, carbon sequestration and food production.

Read full story here…

 




Germany Threatens Naomi Seibt With Prison Over Climate ‘Denialism’

Naomi Seibt is the non-alarmist counterpart of hysterical Greta Thunberg. Naomi brings logic and facts to the table on climate change and encourages people to think, but she is the one who German authorities want to throw in jail. ⁃ TN Editor

The response to our appeal for Naomi Seibt has been splendid – but more of us need to help her, because the State Media Authority in North Rhine Westphalia, in the hope of interfering with Naomi’s right to post YouTube videos critical of the Party Line on climate, have menaced her not only with two enormous fines and two sets of costs but also with prison.

Naomi really, really needs our help. If you have already donated, many thanks for your generosity. More than $1000 a month has been pledged in just 24 hours. Keep it coming – she’ll need every penny. Just donate to Naomi directly. Do it now, if not sooner.

Naomi’s defense lawyer has already scored one success: the Authority has been compelled to abandon its campaign to force her to take down the first of the three videos it has complained of, because she made it long before she had met anyone from the Heartland Institute, which the Authority dislikes because they regard her single mention of it in one of the three videos complained of as constituting “product placement”, contrary to the anti-free-speech law of North Rhine Westphalia, where she lives.

Though the two videos of which the Authority continues to complain would constitute a first offense – Naomi is only 19, after all, and cannot be expected to have known that free speech had been shut down in her part of Germany by an obscure and inspissate law – the Authority is trying to make her pay a fine of 1000 euros plus another 200 euros costs for each of the two videos: total 2400 euros. If she doesn’t pay, this is the threat these wretches have made:

“If the enforcement of the penalty payment is unsuccessful, the competent administrative court may, upon application by the enforcement authorities, order first-time compulsory detention. The substitute compulsory detention is at least one day and at most two weeks.”

I WANT YOU TO THINK

Welcome to the Heartland Institute 2020

Posted Feb 11, 2020

Hello, everyone. My name is Naomi Seibt and I am a new member at the Heartland Institute. And I’ve got very good news for you. The world is not ending because of climate change. In fact, 12 years from now we will still be around, casually taking photos on our iPhone 18s, Tweeting about the current President on Twitter and ranting about the latest celebrity gossip. However, we are currently being force-fed a very dystopian agenda of climate alarmism that tells us that we as humans are destroying the planet and that the young people especially have no future: that the animals are dying, that we are ruining nature.

I truly believe that many members of Antifa, Fridays for Future groups, Rebellion Extinction, I really believe that many of them have good intentions but they are genuinely scared of the world ending, and scared that their parents and grandparents are ruining the planet, that it’s breaking relationships, it’s breaking up families, and we at the Heartland Institute, we want to spread truth about the science behind climate realism, which is essentially the opposite of climate alarmism.

Many people are now actually developing mental disorders, and referring to it as eco-anxiety and eco-depression. And I believe it is important that we act now and change this entire mainstream narrative of fear-mongering and climate alarmism, because it’s basically just holding us hostage in our own brains.

With all of that said, don’t let an agenda that is trying to depict you as an energy-sucking leech on the planet get into your brain and take away all of your passionate spirit.

I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think.

Would you inflict a fine of 1000 euros plus 200 euros costs, or up to two weeks’ jail in lieu, for that short, harmless video that does little more than announce to Naomi’s 46,000 subscribers that she was going to work for the Heartland Institute? This was a first “offense” – if “offense” were the right word, which of course it is not. Would you imprison a teenager who had not actually said or done anything wrong, except to exercise her right of free speech in terms of the European Human Rights Convention? No. But welcome to today’s Europe.

Here’s the full text of the second video, which doesn’t mention Heartland at all. It is a speech that Naomi gave in Germany. Heartland had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not pay for it and did not influence the content in any way. Much of the material, including data and even some direct quotations, came from a speech that Naomi had heard me give in Munich a few weeks previously:

ANTI-GRETA or PRO-HUMAN?

Posted Feb 16, 2020

Manmade climate change has become a topic so unquestionable that everyone who dares to express even just a hint of scepticism is immediately labelled a “Climate Denier”. And, out of all people, it is the ones who tend to call us “Nazis” who fail to realize that this is a truly disgusting way to mock the severity of the Holocaust. I personally prefer the term “Climate Realist”. [Applause]

But why should you, in the context of such a profound and scientific topic, listen to some girl with long blonde hair giving a speech? And – yes, exactly – this question, “Why are you listening to a young girl?”, is the same question that I ask the people who go out and protest for Fridays for Future every single week,as Greta-worshippers.

And this is why I ask you not to believe every word I say unconditionally, but to give me a chance to speak, to listen carefully, and then to continue doing your research and form your own opinion on the climate change situation and any other political topic. I can be wrong sometimes. Don’t create an ideology out of something that a young girl has to say, regardless of the political side she’s on.

All the predictions that the IPCC, which you have probably heard of before, has published since 1990 have not been supported by the empirical evidence. In the last copule of decades global warming has been way less severe than initially foretold by the IPCC. They calimed that we would have tro expect a third of a degree of global warming per decade. Well, that prediction failed, so they are now calling it “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming”. On top of that, they overestimated the magnitude of global warming even despite the fact that CO2 emissions have been increasing more than anticipated by the IPCC – which shows us just how successful all those political “Climate Conferences” with their CO2 reduction goals have been in recent years.

Moreover, all hypotheses that the IPCC has put out there are entirely based on climate models. So this means that they come up with lots of climate-related variables that they think will have an effect on global warming. But in reality those variables cannot possibly describe climate processes accurately, because the climate is way too complex to be depicted by a computer model. We have to consider so many factors, such as the makeup of the Earth’s surface, feedback responses, from water in all of its aggregate phases, mechanisms in the atmosphere – and what about the Sun? Has anyone considered the immense impact that the Sun has on the climate in comparison to manmade CO2 emissions?
The IPCC’s climate models predict that you get a warming effect of 4.1 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. However, when we apply the reverse calculation with real temperature data since 1850, we will find that CO2 emissions only account for 1.4 degrees of actual extra warming. So that means that those climate models are calculating with amplifying factors that artificially inflate the global warming prognoses.

But what is so dangerous about all of this is that we are now doing real politics with this fictional science – and that does not work. [Applause]

Man overestimates his power if he thinks that his plastic straw could have any significant effect at all on the climate. Furthermore, it is incredibly primitive to confuse “climate “ with “weather” in the same breath, which is what most people do. This overestimation of Man’s power leads to a hysterical implementation of climate policies and we must not tolerate such an impulsive reaction because the consequences for our society will be detrimental. We know that.

The scientific scepticism of climate alarmists fails in the face of even the most simple questions: What is the ideal global mean surface temperature for the Earth? [Applause]. Has anyone ever given you an answer to that question? And if not, that means that we don’t even have any kind of foundation upon which we can base an evaluation of the repercussions of global warming. Perhaps global warming isn’t even that detrimental. But as long as we don’t answer simple questions, we cannot tolerate impulsive political reactions. [Applause] And this is exactly what becomes evident: it is not about science. It is all about politics. It is about the suppression of scepticism. It is about the suppression of free science and free speech, and that’s why we have to fight back. [Applause]

And they all worship Greta, a young and innocent, but als an utterly immature and uneducated girl who is being shamelessly taken advantage of for the perfidious agenda of climate hysteria. And this is why I want to make this very clear: I am not the anti-Greta. Because that is exactly the label that those protesters outside want me to embrace, so that they have another scapegoat whom they can put in a simple box with the rest of their adversaries.

The message that I want to send out is way more than “Anti-Greta”. I am not “Anti-Greta”. I don’t force anyone to give up their dogmas about climate change. I want us to havew more opportunities for discussion. I want us to listen to one another. And I want us to be allowed to be scientific sceptics. [Applause]

Instead, by misrepresenting us in the media, chanting malicious slogans to defame us and prohibiting us from making public appearances, they want to strip us of every opportunity to speak up, because our words and free thoughts are a threat to those whose world-views are no more than an ideological complex on shaky foundations. [Applause]

No, I am not “Anti-Greta”, and we are not “Climate Deniers”. We must not let anyone degrade us and make us members of the controlled opposition. For we have our own positive ambitions, ideas and qualities. We are not “Anti-Nature”, but “Pro-Science, “Pro-Innovation”, “Pro-Sensible Environemtnal Policies”; and, most importantly, we are “Pro-Human”. [Applause]

The true Anti attitude belongs to the enemies of reason – the proponents of anti-humanism. [Applause]

We are not parasites on the planet. For hundreds of years we have been exploring, researching, inventing and building for a healthier, better and freer society. We must not put ourselves into a tight strait-jacket of overtaxation. We must not deny to ourselves, nor to the people from very poor third-world countries, access to cheap and reliable energy. We must not take away the young generation’s hope for a good future and drive them into an eco-depression. [Applause]

So please do not leave this event with a profound rage against Greta or the protesters or even the media who might want to depict us as Climate Deniers or radical right-wing egoists. It’s time we put an end to this depressing “Anti” attitude. Rage and panic belong to our opponents. [Applause]

My last words to you: I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think. [Standing ovation]

Some commenters on my first piece about this burgeoning international scandal could not quite believe that fines – and, as it now turns out, menaces of imprisonment – could possibly have been issued in what is supposed to be a democratic country without any court hearing. But that is exactly what happened.

Worse, when the Authority demanded that Naomi should reply to its original letter, it gave her a frighteningly short time to reply in detail. Yet she had been very ill with an ailment that came quite close to proving fatal, so her lawyer wrote to ask for more time. The Authority paid no attention and issued the demand for fines and costs regardless.

Read full story here…