Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[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.

[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]

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.”

[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)

[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]

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

Bob A

[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

[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]

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]

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

Too bad Sid was not called upon to enlighten those 'judges'... he would have explained to them quite elaborately that the harm caused by the Swiss authorities enforcing the climate change agenda would be a myriad times higher than what the plaintiffs claimed to have suffered, and the 'compensation' for the plaintiffs would be only a tiny miniscule of the 'compensation' to everyone if the climate change activists had their way...

[Dilip Panjwani]

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

You love to go on a tangent, rather than discuss the points being raised, don't you?... you need to try hard to avoid being a liar lawyer... you know very well, but are refusing to acknowledge it, that enforcing the Natural Law is not authoritarianism.

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip:

I am unclear..........

Under Libertarianism, it will be a system that the worker/everyone can feel represented in. And it will be "the best democracy". The only law to be enforced will be the "Natural Law". [Dilip: Post # 1958]. This much sounds OK [If doable.]

But here comes post # 1955 by Dilip: "Like if a vote was held in the jungle, the numerous wolves outnumbering the lions would win a majority..." Dilip has a real problem with one animal, one vote. To me, this is the definition of "Democracy". And he has a problem with the majority ruling after it wins an election! There is clearly an anti-democracy element to Dilip's version of Libertarianism. So at this point now, it doesn't sound OK [And I surely hope it isn't doable].

It is the Constitution that protects the minority against the majority, and the Government, and protects the rights of the minorities.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip:

I am unclear..........


Bob A

Read the post #1955 fully, and you will be very, very, clear!
(It seems, though, you are afraid of becoming clear, lest you realize the nonsense DM really is...)

[Bob Armstrong]

I read Post # 1955 again - I got what I got, and have the same problem with your version of Libertarianism.

You have a definite problem with rule by majority after a vote....seems it may stem from some belief that the majority are inferior, and cannot be trusted to govern.

I'll move on..........

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

The Greenhouse Gas "Egg Shell" Around Earth

Trapping Heat in Earth's Soil, Oceans, Air & Atmosphere




"Three greenhouse gases, three all-time highs

	By David Gelles

The extreme weather. The melting glaciers. The weirdly warm oceans. They’re all the product of global warming, which is being driven by the release of the three most important heat-trapping gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

And according to a new study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, emissions of those three greenhouse gases continued to surge last year to historic highs.

Global average carbon dioxide concentrations jumped last year, “extending the highest sustained rate of CO2 increases” in NOAA’s 65 years of record-keeping. Methane and nitrous oxide levels also rose sharply last year. All this despite a wave of global policy measures and economic incentives designed to wean the world off fossil fuels.

These weren’t just one-off anomalies. In each case, the rising emissions continued a long-term trend.

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

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)