Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

I agree Dilip - there are many people on a mission, like you, to displace the "Democratic" form of government, with some type of "Authoritarian" one........

Won't the hard-working taxpayers be surprised if they ever can be convinced to try this option!..........they'd then choose in droves rather to pay a progressive tax, under Democratic Marxism, than lose their human rights.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

I fear you are a lone Libertarian, with a policy of anti-democracy, Dilip.

Bob A

O I have a lot of good company, Bob A., unlike you being the only member of your Ontario DM party!
And you love dreaming about using democracy to exploit hard-working taxpayers even more than they are being now, don't you? Highlighting that fact is not being anti-democratic; what you are fearful of acknowledging is that the best democracy is one which everyone can feel represented in, like a system enforcing the Natural Law, instead of trying to enforce a myriad of divisive, stupid laws, only giving lawyers a lot of unnecessary business...

[Bob Armstrong]

Legal Confirmation of the Existence of Negative Climate Change (with negative consequences to citizens) - NOT A SCAM!

"STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday (24/4/9) that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.

....the Swiss case.....sets a legal precedent in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged.

“This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.

Although activists have had success with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change — and the first decision confirming that countries have an obligation to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.

She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27 EU nations as well as many others from Britain to Turkey."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...pe/ar-BB1lmyvo

(Cited by Pargat Perrer in another CT Thread)

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

I fear you are a lone Libertarian, with a policy of anti-democracy, Dilip.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

And DM believes in "democracy"....DM must become the gov't by majority vote!


Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Like if a vote was held in the jungle, the numerous wolves outnumbering the lions would win a majority, and then use the 'notwithstanding' clause against their courts trying to implement animal rights, to exterminate the lions! Or maybe something like George Orwell's novel 'Animal Farm' is what you have in mind, Bob A?

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism will let the people know clearly what they are voting for....and they will not then get lots of stuff they didn't vote for. .And DM believes in "democracy"....DM must become the gov't by majority vote!

It is correct that today there has now arisen a very polarized debate about government taxation/regulation vs minimal government (Evidenced by the first Libertarian [wild-west Capitalism] government in the world, recently democratically elected, in Argentina [President Javier Milei]). It may be that the future sees the further collapse of the political middle, and the two main engagers will be Libertarianism vs Democratic Marxism.

It is interesting that an old-style Communist Country, China, has such influence in the new Argentinian Libertarian society:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsl...m_campaign=bop

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Climate Alarmists Battle to Censor Film Exposing ‘Climate Crisis Scam’


The movie features an elite list of scientists, including Nobel Laureate John Clauser.

By Katie Spence 3/31/2024 Updated: 4/3/2024

It’s been a little over a week since “Climate: The Movie,” a documentary produced by Thomas Nelson and directed by Martin Durkin, was released on Vimeo, YouTube, Rumble, and other platforms. And already, it’s garnered millions of views and thousands of reviews.

“Watch this documentary to understand the lies, the pseudoscience,” Maxime Bernier, the founder and leader of the People’s Party of Canada, posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, about the film that details how “an eccentric environmental scare grew into a powerful global industry.”

“The final nail in the coffin for the ‘human-induced climate change’ scam. An absolute MUST-WATCH!” Wide Awake Media posted on X while linking to the movie, which features an elite list of scientists, including Nobel Laureate John Clauser, Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, and Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist and professor at NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering.

Still, not all the responses have been positive.

“I’m a Dutch science journalist, and I watched [Climate: The Movie],” Maarten Keulemans posted on X. “It’s full of crap.”

Some reviewers went so far as to call for censorship.

“I’m thinking we can get 10,000 people to report ‘Climate: The Movie’ on YouTube as having harmful and misleading content,” Eliot Jacobson, a retired mathematics and computer science professor, posted on X on March 23.

Following Mr. Jacobson’s call, Vimeo removed the video from its platform on March 24, citing a “violation of Vimeo’s Terms of Service and/or Guidelines.”

“The [V]imeo link to ‘Climate the Movie’ I shared two days ago has been censored!” Nir Shaviv, a physics professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who appeared in the film, posted on X. “Fully removed beyond the mere shadow blocking [YouTube] has.”

Neither Mr. Durkin nor Mr. Nelson were surprised.

“There’s something bigger going on behind the climate thing, beyond the narrow arguments about whether it’s true that [carbon dioxide] causes all this stuff—which, of course, it doesn’t,” Mr. Durkin told The Epoch Times. “There’s almost a blanket ban on skepticism on mainstream television.

“It’s a kind of Marxism, I suppose. There’s an entire class of people who have an interest in high levels of taxation and high levels of regulation, in what might broadly be termed the ‘publicly funded establishment’ and the ‘education establishment.’”

Mr. Nelson concurred. “There’s a big difference between the climate realists and the other side,” he told The Epoch Times. “[Climate alarmists] are constantly reporting us and tattle-telling on people that don’t agree with them.

“I never see [climate realists] saying, ‘let’s report people from the other side, and let’s take down their videos, let’s censor them.’ All the censorship is coming from one side, and all the free speech and ‘let’s debate’ is coming from our side. We want to talk about it because we’re confident with our evidence.”
Censorship Unchecked


Immediately after Vimeo removed Mr. Durkin’s film, he reached out to the platform, “You know, I’m a reasonably well-known, veteran filmmaker, award-winning,” he said. “And I told them [via an electronic form], ‘Look, all the archive and music is cleared. We see absolutely no reason whatsoever why this was suspended. We’ve got a lot of good scientists in it.”

Mr. Nelson posted to X, “Hey @Vimeo: Specifically what is your justification for censoring ‘Climate: The Movie’?”

“A lot of people said they couldn’t believe it was being censored,” Mr. Nelson said. “But I never got an official response from anybody.”

Mr. Durkin didn’t get a response, either. “About 12 hours after I reached out, it went back up again. But we don’t know why. I presume that some ‘greens’ complained about it and that they automatically took it down. Fair dues to Vimeo that they put it back up, though, that was good.”

Vimeo wasn’t the only platform to take action against “Climate: The Movie.” On March 22, Food Lies, which has 44,000 subscribers, reported that when they first shared the movie on their channel, YouTube “immediately” removed it, and Food Lies had to seek special permission to repost.

When the report was granted, YouTube added the following contextual warming, “Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas,” and included a link to the United Nations’ “What is Climate Change?” website.

Further, Mr. Nelson said he believes Google is censoring the movie’s website. “We may have been shadow-banned, but we can’t prove it either way,” he said. “I don’t think Google wants to direct people to our site.”

However, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Durkin agree that the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk in 2022 changed the social media censorship game.

“I love the fact that X is open right now, and we’re able to talk freely on X,” Mr. Nelson said. “Because just two years ago, if this had come out when we were all suppressed, it would have made a big difference.”

“[Social media] is not so much a problem,” Mr. Durkin said. “Social media is leaky enough now that it gets out there.

“The bigger point is that I pitched this idea to the BBC and Channel Four about a year before I [was on Tom Nelson’s podcast]. Why, I have no idea. I knew they'd say no, but I think I wanted to satisfy myself. And, of course, they did say no.”

Mr. Durkin said that even if a station wanted to air a story expressing skepticism about the “climate crisis,” broadcast regulators in Canada, and the UK can destroy that station.

“In effect, they’re saying, ‘If you put out skeptical views, you’ll be sanctioned.' And that can go as far as to have your broadcasting license revoked,” Mr. Durkin said. “So, you know, this is full-scale state censorship on mainstream media, and [the general public isn’t] making a fuss. We’re just sort of accepting that this is the case.”
Paying the Social Cost


When asked why “Climate: The Movie” has received such pushback, Mr. Durkin said it boils down to what he terms the “New Class.”

“Many of these characters have built their careers on the climate scam,” he said. “I mean, their reputations, their livelihoods, everything depends on it, and so they feel enormously threatened.

“But beyond that, there’s this kind of political-ideological movement; it’s not just about the weather. And the people who promote it—most of science is publicly funded, and lots of scientists are involved directly with publicly funded institutes—are part of that publicly funded establishment, so they have that worldview.

“You know, if you look at the political analysis of people in universities, they are 99 percent Democrats, or left-wing even.

“And it’s now de rigueur in those circles to hate Trump, to believe that more regulation is a civilized thing, to think that public backing for the arts, is a good thing, and so on and so forth. And when you come out and say that you don’t think the climate thing is true, you’re not just making a narrow point about the medieval warm period, or the geological record, on temperature, you’re saying something much bigger, ideologically.

“You’re saying that maybe Trump’s not so bad. And the Second Amendment is a good idea. And you’re suddenly lumping yourself in with the deplorables and people in pickup trucks. And if you’re in Britain with Brexiteers. You’re putting yourself in a whole other social caste, as it were.”

[Peter McKillop]

Members of the WEF have repeatedly suggested that mass reductions in the number of humans on earth would help the organisation reach its green agenda goals, and as Slay News has reported, Dennis Meadows who is a “celebrated member of the WEF, has called for a staggering 86 percent reduction in the population of humans. ........

Gotta love the irony of Meadows' depopulation ideas being reported by Slay News! :)

[Sid Belzberg]

Members of the WEF have repeatedly suggested that mass reductions in the number of humans on earth would help the organisation reach its green agenda goals, and as Slay News has reported, Dennis Meadows who is a “celebrated member of the WEF, has called for a staggering 86 percent reduction in the population of humans.

Meadows who is one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s 1972 pro-depopulation book “The Limits to Growth.” and an honorary member of the Club of Rome as well as a member of the World Economic Forum. argues that the goal can be achieved “peacefully.”


Meadow’s book was published over 50 years ago, but his ideology appears to still align with the WEF’s anti-human, depopulation agenda, of today. He argued that “most of the world’s population must be wiped out so that the survivors can “have freedom” and a “high standard of living.”

“The survivors” are a select few, however, and it is unlikely that many of us will be included. (It’s that big club again). Source
One Way or Another


Experts who have warned of the dangers associated with stopping oil should not be ignored, it is blatantly obvious that our unelected leaders are not interested in our well-being. Those who have been promised a privileged position in the depopulated world of the future, have many ways they hope to achieve their aims, whether it be through chemtrails, vaccines, pharma products, toxic substances in food, water, etc. etc., they aim to get us, one way or another, and stopping oil is just one more way.

---

Never forget: decarbonization = depopulation

A bit more color on the sociopathic eugenicist Dennis Meadows:
Reminder: A “Peaceful Culling” is Underway


·
OCTOBER 22, 2022

The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 to deliberately push the global climate terrorism agenda in order to usher in the eventual planetary Great Reset. Today, the WEF and UN and their various assets are the public faces of this PSYOP-CLIMATE-CHANGE scam.

Read full story
Democide is real, ongoing, and accelerating.

They want you dead.

[Sid Belzberg]

Greenhouse Gases

Generating an impervious "Heat Shell" around Earth


"‘Garbage Lasagna’: Dumps Are a Big Driver of Warming, Study Says

Decades of buried trash is releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, at higher rates than previously estimated, the researchers said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/c...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

More scientifically debunked https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...340#post228340 propaganda from Bob Armstrong's endless arsenal of trusted swords of ignorance, another WEF-controlled propaganda rag https://www.weforum.org/organization...ew-york-times/




The World Economic Forum (WEF) and its fellow unelected globalist leaders are pushing for governments around the world to phase out fossil fuels. Leading experts have spoken out against their plans and are warning the public that the WEF’s “Net Zero” goal to eliminate fossil fuels will result in the deaths of over four billion people or more.

The “Net Zero” target to end fossil fuel use is part of the WEF and UN’s “Agenda 2030” and “Agenda 2050” plans for humanity and involves dramatically reducing fossil reliance by 2030 and completely eliminating their use by 2050.

The WEF continues to push its agenda and has been calling for taxpayers worldwide to pay $3.5 trillion per year, which they insist is necessary to fund the noble global power in order to meet the globalist organisation’s “Net Zero” goal of “decarbonizing” the planet. 

However, critics argue that “decarbonization” is just a euphemism for the WEF’s anti-human agenda and experts are raising the alarm about what this will actually mean for civilization, which includes the death of over four billion people.

Starvation


Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg is just one who has warned that ending fossil fuel use will lead to the deaths of around half of the world’s population through starvation alone.

“4 billion people are dependent on fossil fertilizer for food,” Lomborg notes. “Without, 4 billion will starve to death. “It is time to call out the astoundingly destructive & misanthropic campaigners,” he declared.

The article Lomborg was responding to was by British economist Neil Record in the Telegraph, who argued that the number of people that might die was closer to six billion.
Six Billion Would Die in a Year.


Neil Record reported: “If we literally just stopped using fossil fuels and “did without the natural resources on which the world, its economies and populations depend, most likely six billion people would die within a year.”

Breaking down what would happen in a world without fossil fuels, Record notes that most people would suffer blackouts due to the grid being so seriously compromised, possibly fatally, and they may be widespread and permanent.”

From day one, gas users would be the first to feel the change of no more mining of coal; the world’s oil wells shut down; the world’s gas fields likewise, and in10 or 15 days, the UK would have to turn off its gas distribution system as it would be unable to maintain pressure.

In turn, the domestic supply would be shut down too – gas would stop flowing, and some 21 million households (74% of the population) would no longer have heating, hot water, and cooking facilities.

“In their panic, people might turn to electricity for their cooking and heating, but wait…” says Record, who adds, “The UK electricity grid relies on natural gas as its “buffer” energy source. Every day, demand varies according to consumer demand, and the other main energy supplier, renewables, are highly variable and can only power the grid when gas is picking up the lion’s share of the gap between their output and consumer demand.”Source


So the moment that the main gas distribution system is de-pressurised, the grid-balancing system fails and power cuts ensue.

Electricity demand would have rocketed through the switch to electric space heating, cooking and water-heating, and so it seems very likely that the sudden excess demand would be undeliverable, and therefore that the grid would spiral into uncontrollability resulting in no electricity. This also means there would be no communication systems no mobile phones and no television.

Without power, there will be no running water and no heating and the most vulnerable people will start to die, according to Record. Initially, this will be the elderly in their own homes, then in hospitals when the diesel backup generators run out of fuel. Within the first 25 days new “existential problems emerge for ordinary people in the form of food availability and distribution.” Source
Starvation Begins From Day 25


Day 25 – By the twenty-fifth day, diesel and petrol are likely to have run dry, although, Record says that he is probably being generous with the timing here, but what this will mean is that food distribution would fail, and so as most of the population are entirely dependent on bought food they will begin to starve.

Interestingly, it will be only the isolated rural communities, and those who are agriculturally self-sufficient would be relatively unaffected.

Day 50 – Many people in urban areas would now be near death from starvation, Record claims, and “law and order would have broken down” and due to the “increasingly desperate search for the means of survival” he suspects there will have been “mass conflict and slaughter taking place.

Without the sanitary conditions that we have due to power, water supply, and sewage flow, we will see a return of Victorian diseases such as cholera and dysentery.

Day 100 – money and status will be irrelevant as time passes and just three months after the world stops oil, Neil Record, guesses that around half of the world’s population of approximately four billion, people would be dead “The first to die would be the urban poor; then the middle and upper classes”

Again, the survivors would be those in rural areas and able to live off local agricultural produce or live off dwindling food stocks.

For fifty-five percent of people in urban areas, it will be almost impossible to access food and safe water as there will be none of the normal distribution routes for food or storage facilities (chillers/freezers) without electricity, and without pumped water, clean water would be unavailable, or close to impossible to access. Source

A Year Without Oil – Murder and Mayhem.


Day 365 – after a year without oil Record says “perhaps a further two billion people would have starved or frozen to death, leaving, say, two billion left alive remaining food stocks would have been exhausted or spoiled, and the inevitable breakdown of law and order would have meant many would meet a violent end.”

“Competition for scarce resources, so elegantly solved by the invention of markets and prices, would be replaced by murder and mayhem”

There is now no going back as the means to reverse the just stop oil experiment would have gone.

“The mass extinction would have robbed societies of their cultures, education, and survival techniques. A new dark age would ensue” and as Record says this is a nightmarish scenario, but claims that everything in this scenario is well supported by fact. Source
Meadows Depopulation

[Bob Armstrong]

Greenhouse Gases

Generating an impervious "Heat Shell" around Earth


"‘Garbage Lasagna’: Dumps Are a Big Driver of Warming, Study Says

Decades of buried trash is releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, at higher rates than previously estimated, the researchers said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/c...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

HUGE NEWS Massive tractor convoy outside the British parliament protesting tonight.

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/sta...55115900449118

End Genocidal WEF imposed Climate communism now! They want you dead from starvation and disease!

[Sid Belzberg]

Negative Climate Change & Capitalism

One Opinion

"Increasingly, making money and bending the curve on planet warming emissions is not an either-or proposition. Akshat Rathi, a Bloomberg News climate reporter, writes in his new book Climate Capitalism that there is a growing body of evidence that suggests short-term profit incentives can deliver long-term change.

“Even in the economic system that exists, which has worsened climate change, there can be modifications made, and capitalism can tackle the climate problem while delivering profits.

https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Dem. Marxist & Anthropogenicist)

Bloomberg News is another propaganda arm of the WEF https://www.weforum.org/organizations/bloomberg-lp/. Of course, the techno elites that run that organization would want to destroy all businesses except theirs (We will own everything, and you will own nothing) under the pretense of a fake "man-made" climate emergency that is blamed on all businesses except theirs.
Just another form of Marxism's inevitable outcome: a few at the top own everything, and everyone else owns nothing! Do you want to prevent future scamdemics and fake man 'made" climate emergencies? Step 1 Disband the WEF and get rid of WEF-installed puppet governments around the world, as well as the WEF-controlled WHO and UN.

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change & Capitalism

One Opinion

"Increasingly, making money and bending the curve on planet warming emissions is not an either-or proposition. Akshat Rathi, a Bloomberg News climate reporter, writes in his new book Climate Capitalism that there is a growing body of evidence that suggests short-term profit incentives can deliver long-term change.

“Even in the economic system that exists, which has worsened climate change, there can be modifications made, and capitalism can tackle the climate problem while delivering profits.

https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Dem. Marxist & Anthropogenicist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Climate Change- The Cold Truth
This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past. Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’? The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis.

It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism. But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government. This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become is a breach of social etiquette. The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph), Willie Soon and several others. The film was written and directed by the British filmmaker Martin Durkin and is the sequel of his excellent 2007 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Tom Nelson, a podcaster who has been deeply examining climate debate issues for the better part of two decades, was the producer of the film. ClimateTheMovie is now available for free at many online locations.

Enjoy!

Hi Sid,
Thanks for illustrating how 'climate anxiety' is much more harmful than 'climate change'...