The SCC is the thumb on the scale that can justify virtually any policy aimed at eliminating fossil fuels. When the EPA first proposed its rule to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the agency’s cost-benefit analysis determined the benefits would be minuscule. Any putative benefits, it turns out, would come instead from reductions in carbon emissions and, here’s the key, based on a calculated value for the SCC.

The same was true for the EPA’s earlier attempt at carbon regulation via a “Clean Power Plan,” which was shut down by the Supreme Court. But here we are again with the agency’s newest rules trying to force coal plants to further reduce mercury emissions and to force both coal and natural gas-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions. The technology to accomplish this doesn’t exist and EPA Administrator Michael Regan admitted the rule will force the closure of fossil-fuel power plants.

The SCC values used by the EPA are derived from calculations in integrated planning models (IPMs). Those models assume a simplistic linear relationship between carbon emissions and world temperature (never mind that the validity of that linear assumptions is a subject of deep debate in scientific circles). The models then assume that the resulting temperature increases cause all forms of environmental doom – rising sea levels, more disease, and declining agricultural production – for which yet more estimates are made to assign future cost consequences.

Here’s the key: the IPMs project these costs out for the next 300 years (not a typo). Then, those far future costs are “discounted” to estimate a value in today’s dollars by using truly absurd assumptions about such things as inflation and economic growth.

A tongue-in-cheek forecaster’s creed is “Give them a number or give them a date. Don’t give them both.” Attempting to predict the future three centuries hence may be standard fare for science fiction writers, but basing energy policies on such predictions is insane.

Imagine someone in the year 1724 predicting life – and technology – today. Benjamin Franklin was 18 years old and working in his father’s print shop. George Washington would not be born for another eight years. The French scientist Antoine Lavoisier, who first identified carbon as an element in 1789, would not be born until 1743. The first patent on a flush toilet would not happen for another half-century. Thomas Edison would not invent the light bulb and the telephone for another 150 years. Could anyone in 1724 have imagined automobiles, mobile phones, and MRI machines? How about integrated circuits, nuclear power, and B-2 bombers?

To presume we can accurately predict, or even imagine, what the world will look like 300 years from now is just as preposterous. Yet, simplistic models and arbitrary assumptions are being used to drive energy policy decisions today. Using the SCC estimates, and assuming that new technologies will magically appear, the EPA can justify virtually any pollution control regulation, including those that effectively mandate electric vehicles.

Similarly, even though offshore wind generation costs five times more than natural gas and coal, the SCC can “prove” the benefits of offshore wind exceed its costs. New York State, for example, assumes that, by 2040, thousands of megawatts of “dispatchable emissions-free generators” (the equivalent of a natural gas generator burning pure hydrogen) will provide the necessary backup for unreliable offshore wind, even though no such generators exist.

Contrary to the economic fantasies peddled by green energy advocates, policies to eliminate fossil fuels based on the supposed benefits captured by the SCC will cripple the U.S. economy. Electricity prices, coupled with ill-considered plans to electrify virtually everything, will soar. Supplies will dwindle, requiring rationing, either explicitly or through rolling blackouts, such as those experienced every day in South Africa. Rather than creating some green energy nirvana, the lack of adequate and affordable electricity will cause societal decay.

All of this based on a made-up number.

Jonathan Lesser is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics and president of Continental Economics.

1. Milk Consumption: Thousands of movies and shows feature lead characters filling up a glass with milk to drink, as if it’s normal and healthy to consume, even though conventional milk causes chronic inflammation and often contains hormones, antibiotics and other contaminants.
2. Global Warming, a.k.a. “Climate Change”: Never has a bigger lie swept the globe faster than fake “climate change,” where humans are all supposed to believe that if Americans stop using gasoline, quit eating meat and scream “climate change” all day, the whole world will be saved from burning up and blowing away (plus dying from pandemics caused by human-warped weather). It’s climate change mass hypnosis, and the liberals are eating it up faster than an obese kid eats candy on Halloween night.
3. Prescription Medications: Nearly every movie and show has a protagonist who swallows prescription drugs straight from the bottle next to the bed, usually first thing upon waking. Pay no mind that most of these drugs (including vaccines) contain dangerous, lab-concocted formulas that CAUSE disease and disorder, but never heal anything at all.
4. Food Waste: Oftentimes, characters in movies and shows cook enough food to feed a small army, even though only a few people are eating (who usually only take one bite and leave). It’s common to see an entire kitchen table full of prepared food, fueling the obesity epidemic in America (one in every three people are overweight, and half of those are obese).
5. Hard Drugs: In most movies and shows, actors who do hard drugs are just fine again within minutes or hours, having no problem functioning with daily life affairs. This is a grand illusion, as most drug addicts quit their jobs, have horrible health issues, become perverted, homeless and desperate for more drugs, plus risk overdose and/or prison with every high.
6. Tap Water: In nearly every movie and show, at some point, an actor takes an empty glass, walks over to the faucet, turns on the water, fills the glass, then drinks it, like it’s perfectly normal and healthy. After all, it’s just water, right? Wrong. Most U.S. tap water is contaminated with a deadly insecticide called fluoride, that causes cancer, brittle bones, a calcified pineal gland, lowered IQ and does NOT prevent cavities. Check the research.

Get ready to see climate alarmism embedded in 50% of all new shows and movies Hollywood puts out

Eugenicist billionaires are now funding climate alarmists and Hollywood writers to embed climate “change” propaganda into at least HALF of all movies and shows, making characters highly emotional about the whole Ponzi scheme, pretending that it’s real and matters more than anything else ever.

This is the new playbook for “Follywood” and the writers are being commanded (with big payoffs) to make characters act angry and depressed about the fake climate crisis. It’s the “climate emergency fund” and if you don’t support it, you are deemed a domestic terrorist intent on killing everyone and everything that moves on the planet (even though nobody in India or China is attempting to pollute anything any less at all). This may seem like history repeating itself, as Hitler used propaganda films to get the rest of the world to believe in his psychotic schemes of depopulating the world while he attempted to become the sole tyrant.

Tune your apocalypse dial to Preparedness.news  for updates on real news that exposes all the fraud and lifestyle detriment embedded in Hollywood movies and shows.

Sources include:

• Censored.news
• NaturalNews.com

The Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution crashed through the walls of absolute monarchies and reoriented political systems on the foundations of natural law, religious toleration, constitutional government, and individual liberty.  Twentieth-century postmodernism later led to a rise in religious agnosticism and a growing uncertainty about even the existence of God.  First, philosophers stole monarchs’ divine right to rule; then they convinced new generations to question God altogether.

Unsurprisingly, both of these intellectual revolutions weakened the innate authority upon which governments relied.  Stripped of any divine pretense for exerting power over their subjects, governments have been attempting to justify their existence ever since.

From this perspective, it is easy to see why those with power today have gone all-in on “global warming” fearmongering.  By replacing God with the apocalyptic threat of “climate change,” governments have effectively created a “higher power” that they exclusively control.  Instead of beseeching citizens to follow God’s will here on Earth, governments beseech them to “follow the science.”  The “science,” for its part, is treated as some kind of infallible religious scripture that can never be questioned.  It doesn’t matter that climate models have been wildly incorrect, that research has been fabricated, that sea levels are not rising, or that the proposed “solutions” for manipulating naturally dynamic climates will accomplish nothing.  Governments have decreed, “The science is settled,” and once the “science” has spoken, no lowly heretic may disagree.

In truth, the “global warming” con is about three things: gods, money, and control.

Those who hold the authoritative flame of “science” have regained their divine right to rule.  Governments effectively give their citizens a spiritual choice: they can either follow oppressive carbon-neutral regulations that micromanage every detail of life…or they can burn in a fiery apocalypse.

You might not think John Kerry, Klaus Schwab, and Bill Gates are gods, but they certainly think they are.  It might make no sense for Barack Obama to own two luxury beach houses if he actually believes the oceans are rising, but his disciples are asked to ignore his actions and devote themselves entirely to his empty words.

Climate taxes and “green”-energy-induced inflation are essentially religious tithes — except all these new “global warming” fees far exceed 10%!  In order to “save the planet” (and be redeemed), we must hand all our property over to the State and beg Swedish gnome Greta Thunberg for absolution.

Ruling governments have always viewed ordinary people as their most dangerous enemy and therefore spend the majority of their time figuring out how to herd them into a pen.  What does a religious-like belief in “global warming” provide for government if not a religious-like obedience from their postmodern parishioners?  The “climate change” hoax is entirely about control.

Government is not the people.  Government does not even represent the people.  It may pretend to represent the people, but it is concerned with only one proposition: self-preservation.  If the people must be abandoned, so that their government may survive, the powerful few will sacrifice the powerless rump without a second thought.

You might have noticed, for instance, that the U.S. government has spent the last seventy years building nuclear silos in “flyover country” while fortifying a small number of secret bunkers for high-ranking apparatchiks and their friends.  Any attack on our intercontinental ballistic missile chambers would require so many devastating enemy strikes for “success” that the middle part of the country would be utterly annihilated.  Thus, it is the official policy of the federal government to sacrifice the vast American middle in a barrage of mushroom clouds, so that a tiny slither of coastal elites might live to worry about carbon emissions and internal combustion engines.

What sane person would agree to that arrangement?  Easy answer: none.  The government must therefore spend all its time and resources convincing otherwise rational individuals to voluntarily embrace absolutely irrational things.

Government is most secure when the people under its boot struggle to imagine life any other way.  As unnatural, clumsy, and often violent as a government’s thrashing tentacles tend to be, most people look at the bizarre bureaucratic Leviathan pushing them around and accept it as perfectly normal.

They become accustomed to the illusion that some man-made monstrosity must be allowed to tax their labor, regulate their activities, indoctrinate their children, intimidate them with threats of force, and send them off to war whenever defense industry CEOs think business is slow.  They often choose to fight and die for their government’s honor — even when those in power do the most dishonorable things.  They will romanticize instances of past political corruption as whimsical tales from a bygone era — even as new episodes of government corruption rapidly unfold.  They will look at the technological transformations around them and illogically conclude that only the clunky, corroded cogs of government’s inefficient and outdated machinery can handle the immense complexities of an ever-changing world.  In other words, vast majorities in search of some modicum of mental peace do their damnedest to ignore the government’s ongoing output of harmful injuries, so that they might limp through life under pleasant delusions.

In many ways, living within the walls of government is a lot like serving a life sentence in the penitentiary: at some point, people become so used to the bars on their cells and so dependent on the directions of their jailers that, when push comes to shove, they would gladly choose to stay locked up in chains.  Those who love government’s coercive grip over their lives are forever “institutionalized.”

All rulers — whether in the mold of communist dictator Xi Jinping or Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” fake-but-folksy politician — wield power as Machiavelli’s “prince” by seeking to “institutionalize” the people under their charge.  As such, all forms of government pursue two identical policies: first, they invent threats for their citizens to fear, and second, they establish a monopoly over available solutions.

An adept government will never solve a problem unless it has a new problem prepackaged and ready to mass-produce for the public.  That’s why Joe Biden didn’t mind bungling America’s exit from Afghanistan when he and other Obama administration alumni were already working on the next forever-war in Ukraine for the upcoming spring.  That’s why the CDC and other government scientists owned and operated by the pharmaceutical industry never batted an eye when their miracle elixir COVID “vaccines” proved to be neither safe nor effective — because there is always some new exotic disease ready to be released from a Chinese bio-lab tucked away in an abandoned California factory that will require billions in taxpayer funds, too.  Any government worth its salt has an endless supply of boogeymen and a limited supply of expensive solutions that coincidentally require total citizen compliance.

At the United Nations, dopey diplomats speak in flowery clichés about the value of international cooperation.  In the real world, though, governments succeed in corralling their peoples into pens only if everyone is afraid.  North Korea’s dictator must make his people afraid of Americans.  America’s dictator must make his people afraid of Russians.  The European Union’s dictators must make their hodgepodge of nations all afraid of nationalists.  The ruling atheists must make their postmodern peoples all hostile to Israel.

And the whole smorgasbord of manipulative, malicious governments must keep the world’s peasants perpetually petrified of COVID…and “hate speech”…and Donald Trump…and, most importantly, “global warming”!

Back in May, the NOAA released what it called “very informative” climate maps that display the average temperature across the world in April 2023 compared with the climate normal. However, the Swedish news outlet New Times pointed out that the two parallel maps from the agency contradict each other – even though they used absolutely the same measurement data. Both maps also depart from the official temperature records of many countries for that month, which showed a cooler spring than normal.

The first map released by NOAA displays land and sea temperature changes from the average in April, where the average is calculated based on the 30-year climate norm, in this case the period between 1991 and 2020. It is color-graded on a scale with 0.5-degree accuracy – displaying colder deviations in blue shades, neutral in white and warmer deviations in red. This map is what climate researchers often use.

The second map, which NOAA posted on the website of the National Centers for Environmental Information, is used by the mainstream media when doing climate reports. This “media-adapted map” does not mention temperatures, percentages or any true value. Instead, undefined temperatures are contrasted with an average, which is also not clearly specified, unlike the “researcher version” of the map.

Seeing red: NOAA’s map for the media is “warm” all over

It is worth noting that unlike the first map provided to researchers by NOAA, the second map is almost completely red. The weaker blue shades are very grayish, producing the illusion that everything appears warmer and nothing cooler. It has made a deceitful impression that April is warmer than normal, even in parts of the world where official data is showing the opposite.

Cold and snow records have been set globally for both the winter and spring seasons. All continents have experienced cold and precipitation that substantially differs from the so-called climate normal, which is the average of the identical measurement data over three decades.

A recent examination in detail of temperature, snow and ice data for the months of April and May from around the globe has found numerous interesting variations. Moreover, the winter season’s snow mass and bound water quantity in the northern hemisphere are considerably higher than normal.

As reported by the Canadian climate authority Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), their own statistics revealed that the amounts of water locked up in the northern hemisphere’s snow mass at the end of April this year add up to about 2,600 cubic kilometers. The norm is only about 1,600 cubic kilometers.

This indicates that this winter was over 60 percent more snow-rich than the norm for the period between 1998 and 2011. In at least 13 states, many of which are situated in the southern U.S., the snow covered twice to 4.5 times as wide areas as normal.

“What makes this temperature fraud so serious is that it is used to prove an alleged man-made global warming, a narrative that globalists then use to impose on the world’s governments and populations a total restructuring of society and our lives,” wrote the New Times‘ Christer Ericsson.

“These mandates have already seriously damaged energy and food security, eroding Western treasuries and private economies, and taking away a large part of our freedom and quality of life.”

Watch this video below explaining how the NOAA is pushing junk science.

This video is from the Real Free News channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• NO WARMING AT ALL: Global COOLING continues for eighth straight year, according to NOAA data.
• Is the climate being engineered?
• Weather forecasters: El Niño is coming this summer and will likely stretch into winter.

Sources include:

• FreeWestMedia.com
• Brighteon.com
• NATURAL NEWS

It turns out that the temperatures measured were ground temperatures as opposed to air temperatures, meaning they measured the temperature of the dirt or asphalt rather than the air two meters above ground, as is usually the norm.

The claim is that southern Europe saw temperatures as high as 48 degrees Celsius, or 118.4 degrees Fahrenheit, in places like Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and Poland. But again, this was ground temperature in some spots rather than air temperature, which was conveniently unspecified in most media reports.

In some cases, the media flat-out lied and claimed that the 48 degrees Celsius figure was the air temperature, which is simply false information aimed to perpetuate the global warming myth.

“Temperatures are sizzling across Europe this week amid an intense and prolonged period of heat,” one report read. “And it’s only just begun. Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Poland are all facing a major heatwave with air temperatures expected to climb to 48°C on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia – potentially the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe.”

A follow-up report from the same source did specify that the temperature readings came from “land surface,” and somehow the 48°C figure was magically reduced to 45°C.

European Space Agency’s false reporting the “most intense climate lie since temperature recording began”

By the time the anomaly was identified and addressed, the fake news version of events had already spread around the world and solidified in people’s minds. Consequently, many now falsely believe that southern Europe experienced dramatic global warming last week that proves the climate is changing.

The only thing changing are the facts that get reported, as well as the way they get reported. It is all designed to mislead and hoodwink the masses – and by the time people figure it out, the damage has already been done.

The European Space Agency (ESA), the entity responsible for spreading the fake news in the first place, did provide clarification, albeit vague, about the difference between the two temperature readings.

“Land surface temperature is how hot the ‘surface’ of Earth feels to the touch. Air temperature, given in our daily weather forecasts, is a measure of how hot the air is above the ground.”

Notice that even in this explanation, the ESA still failed to mention that surface temperatures are significantly warmer than air temperatures. Readers will still be left with confusion about what difference it even makes to take temperature readings from the ground versus the air.

“What we experienced over the past days was the most intense climate lie since temperature recording began,” reported Germany’s Achtung Reichelt about the ESA’s sloppy and manipulative reporting. “The problem with that report is that none of it is true.”

The hottest it got in Sicily over the weekend was 32°C, or about 89.6°F. This is a far cry from the 48°C that was originally reported.

Spiegel, which also initially reported the false numbers, quietly changed the wording in its report to specify that the 48°C figure came from measurements that “were not the usual air temperature, which can be considerably lower.”

“It’s clear that the authorities and media tries to pull a fast one on the public, but were caught again thanks to careful readers,” reported Watts Up With That about the fiasco.

The latest news about the climate lies coming from the corporate media can be found at Climate.news.

Sources for this article include:

• WattsUpWithThat.com
• Newstarget.com
• Natural News

Entitled “No climate crisis: carbon dioxide has zero effect on temperatures,” the piece blows to bits the myth that carbon dioxide, a natural substance that all plants need in order to produce oxygen so we can breathe, has absolutely nothing to do with planetary temperatures.

Using two graphs and less than 300 words, the front-page story demolishes the climate hoax, exposing it as a sinister tool for stripping humans of their basic freedoms, including the right to work, travel and access public places.

Under the guise of promoting “ecological responsibility,” the globalists and their roving bands of climate fanatics aim to shift the world away from freedom and tradition into the tyrannical hands of corporate greed and control.

“The climate hoax is an attack on farming and food production – documentaries bemoan the methane production of cows, while the growth and transportation of soya beans destroys rainforests and requires an immense amount of water,” the article states.

“In terms of CO2, little is done to prevent celebrities and world leaders from flying in private jets from London to Inverness, while we must cycle to work, turn off the lights and eat bugs, while none of it makes any difference …”

(Related: One of the co-founders of Greenpeace is on record as confirming that carbon dioxide is the building block of all life on earth, which used to be taught as a basic science concept in grade school before the climate cult gutted education and turned it into a propaganda factory.)

COVID protocols like single-use masks, gloves and tests massively polluted the world

The article includes two graphs illustrating that even as CO2 levels have risen, air temperatures have remained roughly the same or even decreased at different points throughout recent history.

Over the past several thousand years, in fact, temperatures have been on an over decline, which is why back in the 1970s the corporate media was warning about global cooling. Since then, they shifted to a warming narrative followed by a general climate change narrative that encompasses it all.

During the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), there was a lot of talk about implementing a “new normal” that dovetailed with the goals of the climate brigade. They took the opportunity to use the “pandemic” as an excuse to push for massive changes in support of the climate, even as they forced the world to use highly polluting things like single-use masks, gloves and tests.

“Post-pandemic, it was said that animals returned to towns and air quality improved,” the article explains. “This was not the case, and also the recent push for reusable plastics was ignored, as single-use plastic COVID tests, gloves and masks were produced and used by the billions, while again making no difference.”

“The idea that we are helping the Earth by staying inside and complicit is pushing the public to accept that, in order to save the world we love so much, we must completely sacrifice our freedom.”

The article is really eye-opening and worth a read, as is the entire 23-page June issue of The Light.

“It’s really a simple hoax,” one commenter wrote about the myth of climate change. “The UN set up the IPCC to find evidence of man-made climate warming – not to investigate if it is actually occurring, but rather to procure anything suggesting that it does without question.”

Learn more truths the climate cult wants you in the dark about at Climate.news.

Sources for this article include:

• TheLightPaper.co.uk
• Expose-News.com
• Newstarget.com
• TheLightPaper.co.uk
• NATURAL NEWS

There was the customary ideological fanaticism—the insistence that we radically retool our societies on the basis of computer models that don’t come close to matching climate realities (and daring to call those who question the validity of faulty models “ideologues”). There was the stubborn refusal to conduct a balanced cost-benefit analysis of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, literally ignoring CO2’s manifold benefits (e.g. a vast greening of the planet, longer growing seasons and increased agricultural productivity, reduced deaths due to cold, and a 99 percent reduction in the death rate from weather events due to economic and technological advances powered by fossil fuels) as well as ignoring other known influencers of climate such as solar and volcanic activity, fluctuations in Earth’s orbit, albedo (cloud cover), ocean currents, etc.

There were recklessly irresponsible and anti-scientific statements, such as that by Simon Stiell, the UN official overseeing their climate change agenda, who stated, “All of the other things—interest rates, cost of living, even wars—come to an end, but climate change just marches on” and that “the damage that is caused by climate impacts … [is] only increasing.”

Stiell ignored the UN’s own published position that “prediction of future climate states is not possible” because “the climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system.” How does he know the climate will become more destructive? He doesn’t—and can’t—know.

COP27 also reached a new low in its ongoing child abuse. For years, the UN climate cabal—in collusion with certain domestic special interests—has been needlessly imposing anxiety and depression on millions of children by filling their innocent minds with unfounded fears of climate catastrophe, depriving the likes of  Greta Thunberg of a normal childhood. At COP27, there was a Children and Youth Pavilion. Ten thousand children were flown in (their jets emitting CO2 all the way) to be exploited as stage props mouthing the desired anti-CO2 nonsense in which they have been indoctrinated.

Theatrics aside, the true agenda of the climate change cabal has (as their leaders have been stating openly for decades) been socialistic in nature—a desire for more undemocratic control over people’s lives and the distribution of wealth. Thus, a primary theme of COP27 was the issue of fairness.

The lip service to “fairness” is best encapsulated in a statement that deserves some sort of prize for most vacuous, most fatuous: “Climate change is deeply unfair.” This statement was made in connection with Pakistan having suffered extreme flooding this year. Yes, those floods are tragic. So was the tornado that destroyed much of Mayfield, Kentucky, last December, the flooding that inundated Hazard, Kentucky, in July, and Hurricane Ian that flattened much of Ft. Myers, Florida, and inflicted fearsome damage on a number of nearby cities on the Gulf Coast. Isn’t it interesting that the UN has been conspicuously reticent about lamenting devastating weather events in the United States?

“Fairness,” of course, has nothing to do with destructive weather events. Such events are mindless and random. They don’t choose where to happen or who to hurt; they just happen, as they have been happening for countless millennia. But that didn’t stop our sensationalistic media from hyping the climate change angle.

For example, CNN reported that the monsoons in Pakistan were by far the wettest since records were first kept in 1961, implying that climate change is responsible. But is it? A weather event being the most extreme in only six decades (a mere blink of geological time) can be extremely misleading. It’s like those who are crying out that wildfires in California are far more frequent than they were 50 years ago, while failing to point out that California wildfires are far less frequent than they were 100 years ago. Data can be used to create misleading impressions simply by choosing the starting point or time frame that most effectively serves one’s agenda.

Related to the disingenuous “fairness” canard promoted at COP27, the message went out, “It’s the underdeveloped countries that suffer the most.” Although this isn’t always going to be categorically true (again, remember the floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes that have battered parts of the USA), it does have an element of truth to it. Less-developed countries often lack the engineering and technological capacity that wealthier countries have at their disposal to mitigate the impact of weather-related events. Where the UN gets it wrong is in implying that it’s unfair that the developed countries used carbon-based fuels to attain their higher levels of affluence, while the poorer countries consumed less of those fuels, and so lagged behind.

Today, in the name of “fairness,” the UN climate change cabal wants the wealthier countries to pay “reparations” to less developed countries—compensation for the alleged sin of being wealthier, which was the result of having used more fossil fuels, thereby supposedly changing Earth’s climate for the worse.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it isn’t the rich countries’ fault that the poorer countries didn’t avail themselves of fossil fuels. Those unfortunate countries have been held back from economic development by poor governance and unwise policies—policies ranging from socialism to good-old-fashioned corruption. But this didn’t stop the UN from proudly unveiling at the end of COP27 a “breakthrough agreement” to provide “loss and damage” funding for poorer countries hit hard by climate disasters.

Most of you reading this will readily recognize the gross unfairness of making the rich countries pay for the poor countries’ largely self-inflicted failure to develop. However, the unfairness at COP27 is far more vicious than that. The perpetrator of the greatest unfairness is current, not historical. It’s the UN climate change cabal itself that’s guilty. Indeed, even as Germany is dismantling a wind-power installation to extract the coal that’s underneath it (after all, Europeans desperately need reliable energy today) the UN climate change cabal continues to push aggressively for the development of intermittent sources of energy for African nations while blocking and opposing the use of fossil fuels in Africa. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has loudly condemned this blatant double standard—as well he should.

The hypocrisy of the UN is vicious. Africans need access to reliable energy far more than they need financial handouts. Former President Donald Trump was right to withdraw the United States from the 2015 UN-crafted Paris agreement. Unfortunately, current President Joe Biden is fully on-board with the UN’s socialistic redistribution of wealth and unjust suppression of African economic development. This is another low point in the Biden presidency. What a shame.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

Jet aircraft would be deployed high up in the sky to blast out massive plumes of microscopic aerosol particles designed to reflect sunlight back into space, preventing it from reaching Earth. This, we are told, will cool down the icecaps.

In order to make this happen, ironically enough, some 175,000 jet flights per year would be necessary – which means a lot of polluting jet fuel will need to be burned.

Millions of tons of these toxic chemicals will also float around before eventually setting onto the icecaps and into the water, causing untold harm to sea life – but at least the planet would be a little cooler, maybe.

“Under the plan, a fleet of 125 military air-to-air refuelling tankers would release a cloud of microscopic sulphur dioxide particles at an altitude of 43,000ft (13km) and latitude of 60 degrees in both hemispheres, roughly equivalent to the Shetland Islands in the north, and the Falklands in the south,” reports explain.

“The particles would slowly drift towards the poles on high-altitude winds, slightly shading the Earth’s surface beneath.”

Jet exhaust from chemtrail “cooling” planes disperse greenhouse gases into upper atmosphere where they’re said to be more damaging

If the planes can successfully deposit at least 13 million tons of particulate matter into the skies in spring, by summer the polar regions would reduce in temperature by about 2 degrees Celsius “with more moderate cooling at mid-latitudes.”

The number of flights it would take to accomplish this feat is the equivalent of the entirety of global air traffic combined over the course of more than two days – not to mention the greenhouse gases deposited into the upper atmosphere.

It is one thing for greenhouse gases to accumulate in the lower atmosphere, but it is a whole lot worse, we are told, for that to happen way up high where airplanes fly. So would this not defeat the entire point, based on official global warming dogma?

Those in favor of the proposition say no because less than one percent of the entire global human population lives in the areas where sun-blocking aerosols would be sprayed. And the costs associated with the project, amounting to nearly $11.5 billion annually, are somehow less than carbon capture technologies.

“If the risk-benefit equation were to pay off anywhere, it would be at the poles,” says Wake Smith, who led a study about the spraying plan. “Any intentional turning of the global thermostat would be of common interest to all of humanity.”

Smith and other climate alarmists insist the planet has become too hot, especially at the poles. Eventually, they say, the world will reach a tipping point, resulting in rising sea levels that flood out places like Martha’s Vineyard where the Obamas live.

“We are right there, right now,” claims Sir David King, a former government chief scientist and founder of the Centre for Climate Repair (CCR) at the University of Cambridge.

“The idea is to buy time while we reduce greenhouse gas emissions deeply and rapidly. That’s essential. If we keep on emitting at the current rate, we are cooked.”

Shaun Fitzgerald, the director of CCR, agrees. He says all that burned jet fuel is worth it to stop warming at the poles because he and his colleagues are “worried about the impacts” of climate change “right now,” while the jet fuel impact would have a longer-term effect.

More related news can be found at ClimateAlarmism.news.

Sources for this article include:

• Newspunch.com
• NaturalNews.com
• NATURAL NEWS

• ESG, or environmental, social and governance, funds are supposed to be those focused on companies with strong environmental ethics and responsibility
• Further investigation reveals rampant greenwashing has occurred, and many ESG-labeled funds are far from “sustainable”
• The SEC is investigating Goldman Sachs overs its ESG funds, including whether the bank’s management of ESG funds differs from what it has disclosed to investors
• In May 2022, electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla was removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index, despite its focus on creating environmentally conscious vehicles
• Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk tweeted in response that ESG is a scam, considering Exxon Mobil is still listed in the S&P 500 ESG Index top 10

Pouncing on investors’ interest in environmentally friendly, sustainable investing, the S&P 500 ESG Index was launched in 2019.¹ ESG, or environmental, social and governance, funds are supposed to be those focused on companies with strong environmental ethics and responsibility, but further investigation reveals rampant greenwashing has occurred, and many ESG-labeled funds are far from “sustainable.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been scrutinizing ESG funds for years, as their popularity soared. While funds focused on socially responsible investing were valued at $2.83 billion in 2015, this grew to $17.67 billion by 2019, when Alex Bernhardt, U.S. head of responsible investments at investment consultant Mercer, told The Wall Street Journal, “In every asset class, in every region, ESG product development is the thing right now.”²

Fast-forward to 2022, and the SEC is cracking down on ESG labels, with multiple investigations launched into ESG greenwashing on Wall Street by multiple mega-banks. Globally, $41 trillion are expected to flow into ESG funds in 2022.³

Murky Guidelines Mire ESG Label Credibility

A glaring problem with ESG labels is the lack of regulations that define what qualifies as a company that’s environmentally or socially responsible. In 2019, the SEC began sending letters to asset managers asking for what models were used to determine ESG investments.

In 2019, Betty Moy Huber, co-head of law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP’s environmental, social and corporate governance group, told The Wall Street Journal, “This is a relatively new area. Now the SEC is saying, ‘Wait, how do you know these are ESG products and that you don’t have a fossil fuel company with known, poor ESG performance in there?’”⁴

S&P and MSCI have established their own ratings system for ESG labels, with controversial methodologies. For instance, ESG funds may hold up to 20% of their shares in non-ESG stocks, such that “fossil fuel-free” funds may actually hold fossil fuel companies.⁵

“As a result, many “ESG” funds still hold major emitters like ExxonMobil, and are only marginally less carbon-intensive than the market average,” Quartz reported.⁶ It wasn’t until May 2022 that the SEC announced plans to develop stricter standards for ESG labels.⁷

SEC Goes After Goldman Sachs

After an investigation into greenwashing by Deutsche Bank in 2021 — that led to a raid of the bank’s offices in Germany by German authorities⁸ — and a $1.5 million fine to BNY Mellon for “misstatements and omissions about ESG considerations,” the SEC is now going after Goldman Sachs.

In the BNY Mellon case, one ESG fund included 185 investments, 67 of which had no ESG-quality score when the security was purchased, but shareholders were told its strategy included “identifying and considering the environmental, social and governance risks, opportunities and issues throughout the research process.”⁹ But in the case of Goldman, as reported by Quartz:¹⁰

“The Goldman investigation is focused on mutual funds. Because there is no legal standard for ESG definitions, the SEC will determine whether the bank’s actual methods for managing ESG funds differ from what it has disclosed to investors, not whether the funds are really green or not.”

Goldman manages at least four ESG or “clean energy” funds and renamed its Blue Chip Fund the U.S. Equity ESG Fund in June 2020. According to The Wall Street Journal:¹¹

“Goldman says in regulatory documents that its ESG fund aims to keep 80% of its net assets in stocks issued by companies that meet the fund manager’s criteria. They exclude companies that earn most of their revenue from selling alcohol, tobacco, weapons, coal, oil and gas, and some other products.

Goldman says holdings in the U.S. Equity ESG Fund undergo an ESG analysis but reserves the right to invest in some companies without such a screening. It can also invest up to 20% of its net assets in stocks that deviate from its ESG standards.”

When the SEC first began scrutinizing ESG labels, it was done via compliance examiners, who would forward any concerns to SEC enforcement attorneys. An SEC enforcement task force was launched in 2021 to further investigate greenwashing related to ESG investing products, and the Goldman investigation could result in formal enforcement action.¹²

‘The World’s Largest Ponzi Scheme’

BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink, who has close ties to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) head Klaus Schwab, and joined WEF’s board in 2019, stated in October 2021, “Short-term policies related to environmentalism in terms of restricting supply of hydrocarbons has created energy inflation, and we’re going to be living with that for some time … We’re in a new regime.”¹³

On Twitter, Russ Greene wrote, “ESG advocates have sought to portray as a conspiracy theory the link between ESG and higher oil and gas prices, but if so it’s one that’s shared by many of the most successful figures in finance, including ESG investors,” referring to Blackstone cofounder, billionaire Steve Schwarzman, who has said that a focus on ESG is “driving a credit crunch for oil and gas companies.”¹⁴

However, investment firm BlackRock has more power than most governments on Earth, and it also controls the Federal Reserve, mega-banks like Goldman Sachs and the WEF’s Great Reset, according to F. William Engdahl, a strategic risk consultant and lecturer who holds a degree in politics from Princeton University.¹⁵

BlackRock also has ties to Blackstone — the largest landlord in the U.S. as well as the largest real estate company worldwide, with a portfolio worth $325 billion¹⁶ — as Schwarzman and Fink started out in business together.¹⁷ BlackRock, Engdahl believes, may control the world’s economic future, in part via ESG investing:¹⁸

“Fink … now stands positioned to use the huge weight of BlackRock to create what is potentially, if it doesn’t collapse before, the world’s largest Ponzi scam, ESG [Environment, Social values and Governance] corporate investing. Fink with $9 trillion to leverage is pushing the greatest shift of capital in history into a scam known as ESG Investing.

The UN ‘sustainable economy’ agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. This time they are preparing the Klaus Schwab WEF Great Reset by steering hundreds of billions and soon trillions in investment to their hand-picked ‘woke’ companies, and away from the ‘not woke’ such as oil and gas companies or coal.

BlackRock since 2018 has been in the forefront to create a new investment infrastructure that picks “winners” or “losers” for investment according to how serious that company is about ESG — Environment, Social values and Governance.

For example a company gets positive ratings for the seriousness of its hiring gender diverse management and employees, or takes measures to eliminate their carbon “footprint” by making their energy sources green or sustainable to use the UN term.

How corporations contribute to a global sustainable governance is the most vague of the ESG, and could include anything from corporate donations to Black Lives Matter to supporting UN agencies such as WHO.

… Oil companies like ExxonMobil or coal companies no matter how clear are doomed as Fink and friends now promote their financial Great Reset or Green New Deal.”

Elon Musk Calls ESG a ‘Scam’

In May 2022, electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla was removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index, despite its focus on creating environmentally conscious vehicles. Incidents of racial discrimination at a company factory were cited as one factor in its removal, and Tesla was said to be “ineligible for index inclusion due to its low S&P DJI ESG Score, which fell in the bottom 25% of its global GICS® industry group peers.”¹⁹

Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk tweeted in response “@SPGlobalRatings has lost their integrity [sic],” considering Exxon Mobil is still listed in the S&P 500 ESG Index top 10.²⁰ Musk tweeted:²¹

“Exxon is rated top ten best in world for environment, social & governance (ESG) by S&P 500, while Tesla didn’t make the list! ESG is a scam. It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors.”

What’s more, TIME reported, “According to Bloomberg, the world’s largest ESG-focused exchange-traded fund has almost invested 3.1% of its assets in the oil and gas sector …”²²

A New System of Control Via Allocation of Resources

ESG is one tactic being used to push the “green” agenda forward. While the notion of a pollution-free world is an attractive one, ultimately this isn’t about the environment — it’s all about creating a control system in which the world’s resources are owned by the richest of the rich, while the rest of the population can be controlled through the allocation of those resources, including energy. As explained in an anonymous Winter Oak article:²³

“Under such an economic construct, asset holding conglomerates can redirect the flow of global capital by aligning investments with the UN’s SDGs [sustainable development goals] and configuring them as Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) compliant so that new international markets can be built on the disaster and misery of potentially hundreds of millions of people reeling from the economic collapse caused by war.

Therefore, the war offers a huge impetus for the governments pushing the reset to actively pursue energy independence, shape markets towards ‘green and inclusive growth’ and eventually move populations towards a cap-and-trade system, otherwise known as a carbon credit economy.

This will centralize power in the hands of stakeholder capitalists under the benevolent guise of reinventing capitalism through fairer and greener means, using deceptive slogans like ‘Build Back Better’ without sacrificing the perpetual growth imperative of capitalism.”

The WEF also discusses ESG as part of its “sustainable” resource-based economic system:²⁴

“Digital finance refers to the integration of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), mobile platforms, blockchain and the Internet of things (IoT) in the provision of financial services. Sustainable finance refers to financial services integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria into the business or investment decisions.

When combined, sustainable digital finance can take advantage of emerging technologies to analyze data, power investment decisions and grow jobs in sectors supporting a transition to a low-carbon economy.”

But it’s important to be aware of the downside of reliance on suspect labels like ESG, which could ultimately tie large parts of the global population, including small farmers, to a new form of data slavery. According to one of Navdanya’s reports:²⁵

“A global ‘seal’ of approval based on fake science, fake economics of maximizing profits through extraction will create new data slavery for farmers. Instead of using their own heads and cocreating with the Earth, they will be forced to buy ‘Big Data.’ Instead of obeying the laws of Mother Earth, they will be forced to obey algorithms created by Big Tech and Big Ag.”

• ^1, 20, 22 TIME May 25, 2022
• ^2, 4 The Wall Street Journal December 16, 2019
• ^{3, 6, 7, 10} Quartz June 13, 2022
• ⁵ Quartz May 26, 2022
• ^{8, 9, 11, 12} The Wall Street Journal June 10, 2022
• ^13, 14 Twitter, Russ Greene June 10, 2022
• ^15, 18 WilliamEngdahl.com June 18, 2021
• ¹⁶ ZeroHedge June 22, 2021
• ¹⁷ Yahoo Finance June 22, 2017
• ¹⁹ S&P Dow Jones Indices May 17, 2022
• ²¹ Twitter, Elon Musk May 18, 2022
• ²³ Winter Oak March 9, 2022
• ²⁴ World Economic Forum, Sustainable Digital Finance Can Unlock a Low-Carbon Economy
• ²⁵ Navdanya