Thirty years of fear mongering, and global warming still hasn’t destroyed the planet

Image: Thirty years of fear mongering, and global warming still hasn’t destroyed the planet

(Natural News)
When we hear “experts” talking about how global warming is going to destroy our planet in 25 years, it’s natural to wonder how much of a possibility that really is. Is Earth going to become completely inhabitable and cause all of us to die a miserable death? They’ve got a lot of predictions and projections, and they seem very convincing. However, it is worth keeping in mind that they said the same thing 30 years ago… and it never came to pass.

For the last three decades, activists and scientist alike have been sounding the alarm that our planet is on the brink of experiencing a global warming apocalypse. If we don’t stop using fossil fuels entirely, they insist that we are destined for a future of doom and gloom.

It would all be very frightening were it not for the fact that we keep hearing this over and over and it has yet to become reality. It has happened so often, in fact, that the Daily Caller recently put together a list of the many occasions on which experts have gotten their doomsday predictions completely wrong.

For example, there was the time 25 years ago when 1,700 scientists signed a letter to warn that society would collapse if pollution and overpopulation weren’t dealt with immediately. Their group, which now counts 15,000 members among its ranks, has recently issued another warning, and it’s hard to take them seriously considering how wrong they were the first time around.

In another highly publicized warning, Prince Charles said we had just 96 months to save the planet from an irreversible collapse in terms of climate and ecosystem. That was in July 2009, so some quick math tells us the deadline has come and gone. We’re pleased to report that this predicted collapse did not occur, and we feel even better about the warning when we consider the fact that he lobbied lawmakers in the U.K. to institute policies that would help his own investments in a Bermuda sustainable forestry company.

Speaking of expired deadlines, if the group of world leaders who met at the Vatican are as prescient as they seemed to think they are, our last chance to save the planet passed two years ago. Likewise, at a May 2014 meeting with John Kerry, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said we had just “500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Once again, the deadline came and passed – is the world now beyond the point of being saved?

Getting it wrong again and again

Some of these predictions merely failed to come to fruition, but others actually predicted the opposite of what happened. For example, environmentalist George Monbiot said in 2002 that within just ten years, the world would have to choose between using arable farming to feed our planet’s animals or using it to feed the people; doing both would no longer be possible at that point. Interestingly, at the time he wrote that, 930 million people were undernourished; that number has now dropped to 805 million.

In one of the most damning predictions, senior U.N. environmental official Noel Brown said that entire nations would be wiped off the planet by rising sea levels should we fail to reverse global warming before the year 2000 rolled around. That was 17 years ago, and we haven’t seen the sea swallow up a single nation yet. That hasn’t stopped them from continuing to sound the same warning even now.

If that all sounds completely over the top to you, consider this: a cover story that recently appeared in New York magazine actually said that the extreme global warming alarmism that we keep hearing about – and that never pans out – is actually too tepid.

Sources include:



Source Article from

‘Global Warming’ 30 years on: How and why it never came to pass

Global Warming


For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels – coal, natural gas and oil – that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left – or even less!

Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”

This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.

To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns “soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

“We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home,” the scientists and experts warned.

It’s a terrifying warning – if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition.

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death, “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote.

3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened

Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” That deadline has passed, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved.

Though the recently-released “Paradise Papers” show Charles lobbied U.K. lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate’s investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there’s that.

4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now

Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the “ice apocalypse” at a pace “too quickly for humanity to adapt.”

Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers – Pine Island and Thwaites – could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in “flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.” Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren’t really backed up by the science.

“I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain,” Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who’s studied Antarctica, wrote in The Guardian about Holthaus’s article.

Comment: As noted above, our inter-glacial period seems to be ending and we’re moving into an ice-age – but it has nothing to do with human activity.

5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming

World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming…since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 – some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

7. Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming

When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans,” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”

8. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?

World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

9. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth

The year 2009 was a bad time for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then.

10. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world

Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2017 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

11. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green

Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

About 930 million people around the world were undernourished in 2002, according to U.N. data. By 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.

12. Global warming apocalypse 1980s edition

The U.N. was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 17 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

Source Article from

Crying Wolf (Again): UN Chief Warns Global Warming Is “The Defining Threat Of Our Time”

Speaking to attendees at the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (shown) warned that the world may have only five years to Doomsday, unless concerted action is taken to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. Climate change, said Guterres, is “the defining threat of our time,” and requires concerted action by the international community.

“There’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate,” he insisted. The UN honcho was addressing the 23rd annual “Conference Of the Parties”(COP23) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was scheduled to run from November 6-17. However, as with virtually all UN conferences and summits, it ran into overtime, wrapping up early in the morning on Saturday, November 18, around dawn.

Before ascending to his current position as secretary-general of the United Nations, otherwise known as the corrupt Dictators Club, Guterres had distinguished himself as a lifelong Marxist-globalist, becoming secretary-general of the Socialist Party of Portugal, prime minister of Portugal, and president of the worldwide Socialist International. As UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Guterres was a top architect of the disastrous (and still ongoing) “refugee” tsunami that flooded Europe with over one million (mostly Muslim) migrants from the Middle East and Africa in 2015.

If just a handful of our 600,000 monthly readers donated one dollar, I could easily crush my modest yearly fundraising goal of $10,000 by January 31 2018. If you value the information on this site and have the means, please consider making a donation below. Your support will help us expand, keep ads off the site and buy out any remaining advertising contracts we have with vendors. No contribution is too small and will undoubtedly go towards the many expenses this site incurs. If would like to learn more about our mission, please visit our manifesto here.

Thank you so much for your support,
Thomas Dishaw Editor @ Gov’t Slaves

Source Article from

Global Warming ‘Weaponizing Smallpox’ on CBS’s ‘Madam Secretary’

We’ve heard all the usual warnings about the dangers of global warming, like rising sea levels and uncontrollable weather patterns. However, the reemergence of smallpox was a new one for me. CBS’s Madam Secretary dives into that latent threat in the latest episode.

The November 19 episode “North To The Future” begins with a Russian ecological dissident escaping to the United States only to later be diagnosed with smallpox. With Russia being one of the few countries that carries a sample of the extinct disease, the U.S. administration quickly accuses the country of biological warfare, though the Russian ambassador firmly denies it.

However, with the help of retired U.N. Ambassador Kat Sandoval (Sara Ramirez), they soon discover that Russia wasn’t behind the spread of smallpox, Mother Nature was. Or at least that’s how Secretary of State Elizabeth McCord (Téa Leoni) explains it to the president.

Dalton: How does an eradicated disease just show up in Siberia?

Elizabeth: Well, Mr. President, our working theory is permafrost.

Jay: The permanently frozen soil under the topsoil in Arctic regions.

Russell: We’re aware.

Elizabeth: Permafrost is so cold, organic matter inside anything that dies in the Arctic doesn’t decompose. Carbon dioxide in plants, anthrax inside infected reindeer, smallpox in humans, remains frozen in the ground, dormant.

Jay: Until the permafrost thaws, like it’s doing in Siberia. Then, it all gets released.

Elizabeth: And the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet.

Dalton: So Russia isn’t weaponizing smallpox. The Earth is.

Elizabeth: If we don’t act fast to work with Russia to contain this, we could be looking at a global pandemic.

First of all, considering real-life measurements on the Arctic ice caps and permafrost have fluctuated in the past, I’m certainly not taking a fictional show’s word on climate science. Second of all, if floods, hurricanes, lack of crops, and uninhabitable temperatures in disaster movies weren’t enough to convince people climate change is a threat, what makes the show think adding smallpox to the mix will help? Finally, just like their attention on “fake news,” the refugee crisis, and the non-essential government employee, this plot only shows how drastically out-of-touch with reality Madam Secretary continues to be.

The show spends the rest of the episode diving into methods to stop the melting process in Russia despite their current hostile relationship with the United States. After sending in their proposition to reintroduce a wooly mammoth-like species to the permafrost areas (I’m being serious), we’re left wondering just how much more alarmist they can be in portraying the effects of global warming to us science-intolerant knuckle-draggers. I expect the next time around might include locusts.

Source Article from

CW’s ‘Supergirl’ Unveils New Trump-like Villain, Calls Global Warming Skeptics ‘Morons’

CW’s Supergirl has now had almost five extra months to come to terms with the Trump Presidency. At this point, the show could either move on like the rest of the country or double down in disgrace. Unfortunately, the October 9 premiere “Girl of Steel” doubled down and doesn’t show any signs of letting up its liberal, anti-Trump slant.

Let’s start with the moderate stuff and work our way up the ladder. Since the lackluster season two finale, Cat Grant (Calista Flockhart) became Press Secretary to female President Olivia Marsdin (Lynda Carter), which is sadly not the most unbelievable thing we have to take in this episode. Right off the bat, she answers a question about whether the president believes in climate change.

Cat: Okay, Carl.

Carl: Does President Marsdin believe climate change is real?

Cat: Uh, yes. Yes, Carl. As a matter of fact, she does. She also believes that two plus two equals four and the Earth is round because the President is not a moron. Any third grader knows that global warming is the biggest threat of our time. And I’m happy to report that the intellectual capacity of our President is not inferior to that of an eight-year-old. Next question.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say they wanted to appear on Newsbusters this week. And what does this remark on climate change have to do with the plot? Absolutely nothing. It’s just yet another excuse for the show to remind us how enlightened they are when it comes to “science.” Forgive me for thinking that people who call those who have the slightest doubt about the religion of climatology names are the actual eight-year-olds.

However, that’s nothing compared to the actual plot of the episode which features its own Trump-like villain. Here we meet Morgan Edge (Adrian Pasdar), originally a media mogul in the DC comics, who is now a…real estate mogul. Not just any real estate mogul, mind you, but one that seems to play golf, have sexist behaviors, and make pointed remarks about the media.

Let’s take this scene, for example, after he purchases the magazine company CatCo and is confronted by fellow business owner Lena Luthor (Katie McGrath).

Morgan: Lena, twice in my office in as many days. [Sing-song voice]People are gonna start talking.

Lena: Morgan, you have all the charisma of a Michael Douglas movie from the ’90s.

Morgan: You didn’t come all this way just to flatter me, did you?

Lena: I came because I have a proposition.

Morgan: Ooh, good. I do like propositions.

Lena: Now, you know I don’t agree with your waterfront development. But you are still the best developer in National City.

Morgan: Let me get you a drink before that compliment leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Lena: Your work is why I have invested in your portfolio and why I intend to invest more.

Morgan: Let me guess… You want me to stay away from Catco?

Lena: Oh, come on, Morgan. Catco isn’t good business for you and you know it. There’s a city out there that needs to be rebuilt. That’s what you’re good at. Focus on that.

Morgan: You know you can take the Luthor logo off your name, but people still aren’t gonna trust you. And that’s a really easy sentiment to reinforce once I have Catco’s editorial under my control. People love to believe what they read.

Lena: Using Catco to defame your enemies and promote your own agenda. That’s despicable.

Morgan: Oh, no. That’s good business.

Lena: I’ll see myself out. 

If that’s not enough for the show, the episode later reveals him to be personally behind an attack on the city just to boost his new development. I know from experience that Supergirl has been far from subtle when it comes to their social justice issues, but this guy might already be clinching the top liberal bias instance of the third season. The other moments we could have just accepted them and move on, but now we have an evil, capitalist, Trump-like punching bag for several more episodes.

I’m sure the writers feel smug about portraying a Trump figure as the bad guy, but the downside is that real life doesn’t work that way. The moment the episode is done Trump will still be president, and he will be president for long after this season ends. With propaganda like this, you can count on it.

Source Article from

Over 31,000 scientists say global warming is a total hoax; now they’re speaking out against junk science

(Natural News) Over 31,000 scientists have united against the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, supports the necessity of carbon dioxide and sheds light on the agenda of global warming, which includes industrial energy rationing, central economic planning, and global taxation schemes. These scientists are now speaking out against the hoax of global warming and how global agreements to limit greenhouse gases are actually destructive to all plant and animal life on the planet.

The petition, which includes important peer-reviewed research, is backed by various scientists with a wide spectrum of expertise. The petition warns the United States about signing international treaties that only put a financial burden on the citizens of the country, steal national sovereignty, and restrict its energy production. The global warming alarmism, in other words, is pseudo-warfare designed to take down a country.

A letter from Frederick Seitz, President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, is also being circulated with the petition. The letter warns about the flawed science against carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is essentially a miracle molecule of life, not a dangerous pollutant that needs to be eradicated from the atmosphere. His letter also shines a light on the dangers of the U.S. entering global treaties which will ration energy and confiscate the Nation’s wealth.

Just because climate alarmist Al Gore can walk a stage, point to a graph, and correlate rising temperatures over oceans with a rise in greenhouse gases, does not make global warming a real issue or some kind of “settled science” that is going to destroy the planet. As the scientists point out, the vapor pressure of CO2 over sea water is temperature dependent. It’s natural for the two data sets to go up together. It’s not something to be alarmed about.

The petition urges elected leaders to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997 and all other proposals similar in nature. Thankfully, President Trump broke the U.S. free from the Paris Climate Accord. Removing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide would actually hurt the planet, taking away the compound that plants need to thrive. If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?

The petition and its accompanying research dispel the myth that projected carbon dioxide levels are going to cause a catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and the disruption of climate. The evidence is actually in favor of greenhouse gases, which are beneficial to plant and animal environments on Earth. The petition also takes aim at the global warming agenda, and says that it will hinder the advancement of science and technology around the world. The confiscation of U.S. energy output is a threat to U.S. sovereignty and the nation’s ability to offer aid to other countries. What if climate change alarmists just took a deep breath, exhaled some carbon dioxide, and actually focused on real pollutants that are plaguing our environment and health? (Related: Read more at

Sources include:

Source Article from

58 New Peer Reviewed Scientific Studies Published In 2017 Reveal No Global Warming

  1. U.N. Requests Immunity From Criminal Prosecution For Climate Scientists Engaged In Constructive Fraud!
  2. Supreme Court Denies United Nation’s Ploy To Teach Climate Warming As Real: First U.N. Must Prove Scientific Credibility Of Their Global Warming Claims By Means Of Legally Competent Evidence.

Millions of Americans have been awakened to the diabolical falsehoods that proclaim the same mantra over and over; if our carbon output increases, the imminent destruction of our planet is at hand.

But those who know better have heartstrings that are not pulled when bought and paid for scientists and politicians feign sympathy for third world nations and coastlines teeming with poor people who will starve, drown or become climate refugees unless we drastically reduce our carbon footprint.

The enlightened observer may only give scant attention to these fifty-eight scientific papers published in 2017 which “invalidate the claims of unprecedented global-scale modern warming,” as reported by

  1. Global Warming Scam Born In San Fransisco By Rothschild Banking Cartel’s Maurice Strong

But maybe these charts and accompanying data can be shared with your brainwashed friends and family sheeple who’ve been hoodwinked by this insidious plan. They just don’t know, as reports, that the trillion dollar climate change racket is the “only major industry in the world dependent upon consumer and voter ignorance.”  Ms. Nova asks some important questions:

What if they [the believing public] learned that the climate models are unskilled, broken, and non-functional, or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is a fruitless pursuit? What if they knew historic records are wildly adjusted to make the current weather look warmer than it would?”

  1. Rothschild Purchases Weather Central: Why? To Control The Warming Hype What Else?
  2. Rothschild’s Media: To Control Information, To Assure Banking Propaganda, To Be Both Dominant And Ubiquitous

What if ordinary, everyday folks who don’t really have time to do the research, and have children in school who are being indoctrinated with this false paradigm, knew that the whole idea behind the scheme, as reported by, is to  “intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

  1. What If The Public Of The United States Knew The Truth?

That quote came from Christiana Figueres, who, at the time of her statement, was the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and key architect of the Paris climate agreement.

Brother Sun Sister Moon

  1. The Laudato Si: Exorcism Of The New World Order

In other words, she was the propagandist in charge of getting 195 nations to agree how much money they would put in — or get out — of a slush fund, in order to control the globe’s temperature. Pure nonsense. Reason and intellect, when it comes to the climate change/global warming cabal, aren’t allowed at the table of ideas.

The Guardian reports that Ms. Figueres is on the short list of candidates who want to succeed Ban Ki-moon and run the world via the U.N. That’s a scary thought.

Now her day job is cheerleader and chief conspirator for a new PR front group of climate liars called Mission2020. These people just won’t stop until they are exposed. Until then, they’ll spend a few of those collected billions to convince the whole world of one of the biggest scientific frauds in the history of mankind. Now, they’ve bumped up the impending doom to 2020, unless we stop exhaling our carbon filled outbound breath and eliminate cheap energy.

The results of severely lowering carbon could lead to starvation and genocide.

But isn’t that the goal of these globalist snake oil salespeople? Knocking off a few million here and there is an end that needs a means. And boy oh boy, the money is good.

Are these globalists not familiar with the sun’s influence on the earth’s climate? That truth just isn’t convenient for Mr. Gore and Ms. Figueres.

We American’s should be very thankful to President Donald Trump for withdrawing from the fraudulent extortion racket called the Paris Climate Accords. But Ms. Figueres and her gang of thieves isn’t stopping. Take a look at her approach to the millennial generation at this outdoor stadium where she spewed her saucy lies.

Why does she need cue cards?

Deep State Christiana Figueres

The SleuthJournal

Related News:

  1. Rothschild Climate Report Sauced Up By Pseudo Scientists ~ Follow The Money
  2. Social Engineering: From The Constitution To Pathological Deep State Psychosis
  3. Vatican’s, Global Network Against Deep State Organized Crime And Corruption Is Born
  4. Global Awakening ~ Behold Is Suddenly Upon You: Roman Catholic Church Condemns Global Warming Scheme.
  5. Remember, Remember, The Greatest Lie Ever Told: Global Warming Was A Corporatist Lie From Start To Finish.
  6. U.S. Senate EPW Committee Found Climate Scientists Obstructed, Concealed, Manipulated, Colluded, & Lobbied Influence Upon Political Processes
  7. Government Documents Link Global Warming “Catastrophes” By Advanced Military Climate Modification Technology aka; HAARP & Chemicals.

Source Article from

No link between a warming climate and the war in Syria

The latest issue of the journal Political Geography explores the alleged link between a warming climate and recent armed conflicts.

A study by Professors Jan Selbya, Omar S. Dahib, Christiane Fröhlich and Mike Hulme, shows that it is beyond any doubt whatsoever, that there is no link between climate change and the war in Syria.

From the beginning of the “Arab Spring”, a number of experts have declared that these events were provoked by different factors such as sudden migratory movements or, for Syria, a warming climate. Western politicians have encouraged the dissemination of these theories either to mask how Western Secret Services had planned these pseudo revolutions or to justify the urgency in abandoning sources of fossil energy. However, the publication of Thierry Meyssan’s book, Sous nos yeux (Right before our eyes) has introduced into the public domain a clear picture of how these events were conceived in Whitehall in 2004, based on the model of the Arab Revolt of 1915 (Lawrence of Arabia); how Tony Blair “sold” this plan to George W. Bush Jr, and how the plan was then implemented jointly by the MI6 and the CIA [1].

Between 2006 and 2009, it was the case that there were several particularly dry seasons in Syria, provoking an exodus of peasant families to the cities. This issue did not involve shifting 1.5 million peasants but only 40 – 60,000 families. And there is nothing that permits us to make a connection between the displacement of this population and the attempt to topple the Syrian Arab Republic by the Muslim Brotherhood. On the contrary, a roadblock is placed in our thinking process by the fact the neighbourhoods that welcomed these populations, provided no shelter for the jihadists.

The authors of the study Political Geography are astonished that the theory presenting a link between changes in the climate and the war in Syria could be so well accepted. This is because to their minds it lacks any foundation whatsoever.

Source Article from

LA painting streets white to reduce urban warming

We already know that the urban heat island effect can significantly increase temperatures and worsen heat waves, even in neighboring cities. But what can communities do about it?

Cities like Louisville, Kentucky, have already been exploring large-scale tree planting as a way to cut down on heat build up, now LA is unleashing another potential tool against urban warming:

They are painting some of their streets—trial roads in all 15 council districts to be precise—white. (Actually, it’s more like an off-white/gray—but the principle is the same.) By covering blacktop asphalt with a more reflective “cool pavement” treatment, LA Street Services claims they’ll reduce temperatures on a summer afternoon by ten degrees or more. In fact, Curbed Los Angeles reports that a similar scheme in Encino reduced surface temperature on a parking lot by a whopping 25 to 30 degrees.

Of course, immediate localized surface temperatures are probably less important than how the build up of heat on hard surfaces impacts the overall urban microclimate, and associated energy use. And an EPA study on the subject suggests that covering 35% of LAs roads with reflective pavement could reduce average air temperature by a full degree fahrenheit.

Combine this approach with other measures like urban tree planting, cool roofs, returning parking lots to nature and electrified transportation (all LA’s buses will be zero emission by 2030!), and you can begin to see how cities could significantly move the needle on urban heat islands.

And the even better news is this: Air conditioning contributes to the urban heat island effect too, meaning any immediate reduction in temperature should mean an additional benefit of less waste heat being dumped from buildings and vehicles too.

Source Article from