Carbon Dioxide

On Carl Sagan and the book "Climate Miracle" by Ed Berry

• “We have to offer up scary scenarios about global warming ... ...each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist

• "We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration Under Secretary of State

• "A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the enhanced greenhouse effect." - Richard Benedick, deputy assistant secretary of state, USA

YouTube served up this short clip recently.

I’ve watched it several times.

It’s part of a longer presentation that Sagan did in Feb. 1990.

Carl Sagan Keynote Speech at Emerging Issues Forum

Dr. Sagan's 2/9/1990 address before the 5th Emerging Issues Forum at NCSU, broadcast live on NC Public TV. Sagan spoke at the invitation of former Gov. Jim Hunt, co-creator of the Forum. The speech begins at 6:12.

Up to this point, I had considered Sagan one of the good guys.

Granted, I now accept that anybody can be duped, literally anybody, but is Sagan being a useful idiot here? My gut feel says, unlikely.

In 1990 there was no robust, incontrovertible, science to support a multi-trillion dollar spend to avert a probabilistic calamity. There still isn’t today.

But here he is, first finding a clever rationalization for why the government was right to spend all the wealth of the nation on something that didn’t happen, because well, it could have:

The amount of money that the United States has spent on the Cold War since 1945 is approximately 10 trillion dollars trillion that's the big one with the T.

What could you buy for 10 trillion dollars the answer is you could buy everything in the United States except the land everything every building truck bus car boat plane pencil baby's diaper everything in the United States except the land that's what we've spent on the Cold War.

--

So now let me ask how certain was it that the Russians were going to invade?

--

Remote contingencies if there serious enough have to be prepared for, it's classic military thinking, you prepare for the worst case.

And now that he has given that framing his blessing, he easily conflates that with global warming:

Why doesn't that same argument apply to global warming?

The poor audience has no idea what is happening. Why would they, Sagan is a trusted figure, which is why he was trotted out to win public consent for targeting Empire’s new enemy. Her new windmill.

For those of us who have read Rancourt’s 2019 study, watching this will make perfect sense. We are watching Empire, in public, and in real time, change direction by creating a new boogie man.

Empire’s Religions - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

In summary, all the reviewed data shows that “global warming” suddenly became “a thing”, both in the general culture and in the science community, when the UNFCCC and Earth Summit said it was a thing. Both the UNFCCC and Earth Summit were organized immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union. – Rancourt

And they used, arguably the most trusted man in America, to pull off the swindle.

I will never be able to listen to Sagan the same way again.

Anyway, at the same time I accidentally came across this book put together by Ed Berry.

I had never heard of either before.

Ed Berry Climate Miracle There Is No Climate Crisis Nature Controls Climate Independently Published (2020)

10.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

About Dr. Ed Berry — Edberry.com

It’s a great book, I just wish these honest, dissident experts in the climate science community would make more of an effort on the production values of the final product. Even if you self-publish, you need to do a much better job on editing and design. The amateur look is a considerable devaluation of the message.

Anyway, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, what Berry has done is masterful.

He has focused on just one item of this intentionally complex story, Carbon Dioxide, the most important item of all, and using the IPCCs own numbers and logic, dismantles the who house of cards. He does it in a way that we ordinary folk can understand.

The reason I really like Berry is because he said this in the book:

The climate myth cripples America.

In South Africa in the 1960's, I saw children with their legs bound with ropes to make them grow up with crippled legs.

Today, in America, I see children with their minds bound with climate myths to make them grow up with crippled minds.

In a world where information abounds, people still believe in myths. Some myths do little damage. Other myths damage our economy, science, technology, national defense, and our minds. To make America great, there is no room for myths that do damage.

A survey, conducted from April 7 to 17, 2020, with an error margin of 3 percent, found 73 percent of Americans now believe our CO2 causes climate change. 54 percent are "extremely" certain it is happening. Only 10 percent of Americans said human-caused global warming was not happening.

Shame on you Sagan, for putting your considerable shoulder behind the crippling of the world’s young minds. Shame. Shame. Shame.

As I commented to one of my long-time readers:

The worst part of the climate story for me is the depressive suffocating pessimistic blanket it has thrown over the young. For me that is the most important reason to break the spell of this poisonous story.

This has been such an important subject for me that it was the first eBook that I put together. The single item that I chose to focus on as the thread that unravels the whole sweater was sea levels.

FREE eBook: The Climate™ - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who died on Friday October 16 aged 83 after a short illness, knew more about sea level than did Poseidon himself. He wrote more than 650 papers on the subject in his long and distinguished career. He became even more well-known after his retirement than before it, because he decided to take the risk of publicly opposing the false notion, profitably peddled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change et hoc genus omne, that global warming would cause many meters of sea-level rise.

Here are some of my new learnings from Berry.

"Cause" scientists and "Effects" scientists.

There are two kinds of climate scientists: "cause" scientists and "effects" scientists.

All the scientists you reference are "effects" scientists. They focus on the effects of climate change.  They tell you climate change causes bad stuff to happen. Then they scare you into believing humans caused the bad stuff.

Their science error is they assume, incorrectly, that human CO₂ causes all the CO₂ increase. They have no idea their core assumption is wrong.

"Cause" scientists focus on the cause of climate change. They are the physicists. And they have proved human CO₂ has little effect on atmospheric CO₂. (Section 2.4)

The idea that 97 percent of scientists support Globalist Gore is false, and even if it were true it would be irrelevant to science.

According to the scientific method, one proof that a theory is wrong outvotes all scientists who claim the theory is true. (Section 5.2)

There is no climate crisis. Nature controls climate.

I find this distinction helpful and a way to navigate through the “consensus” propaganda they use.

Seeing that we have mentioned Gore, it’s always good to be reminded of what this Nobel Prize winner was saying in 2007.

Berry lays out the IPCC case this way:

IPCC's three theories

The IPCC makes three fundamental claims or hypotheses. For simplicity, we use the word "theory" to include what scientists would call a "hypothesis."

Figure 2.1 shows IPCC's three connected theories:

1. IPCC's core theory: Natural CO₂ stays constant at 280 ppm, or human CO₂ causes all the increase in atmospheric CO₂.

2. IPCC's second theory: CO₂ increase causes global warming.

3. IPCC's third theory: Global warming causes bad stuff to happen.

IPCC's complete theory is human CO₂ causes dangerous climate change. To support its complete theory all three theories must be true. If any one of its three theories is not true, then IPCC's complete theory is not true.

We show IPCC's core theory is false, which is sufficient to show IPCC's complete theory is false.

It’s a three-legged stool model!

I love three-legged stools, it has been the foundational model with which I have thought and written about childhood vaccination.

Necessity - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

So, straight out of the blocks, I like Berry, he’s a stool guy!

Next, I had no idea that the IPCC dealt with human CO₂ differently. What an incredible sleight of hand.

Natural CO₂ and Human CO₂ is exactly the same. That’s basic chemistry!

Human CO₂ does not stick in the atmosphere. It flows out of the atmosphere as natural CO₂ flows out of the atmosphere. (Section 4.1)

Human and natural CO₂ will behave the same because their CO₂ molecules are the same. If natural CO₂ sticks in the atmosphere for thousands of years, then the CO₂ level would be over a million ppm. (Section 2.8)

Since that has not happened, no CO₂ sticks in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

Griffin said it perfectly in his Introduction to Tragedy & Hope 101:

G. Edward Griffin

If you have ever watched an illusionist perform up-close magic, you know the power of misdirection and sleight-of-hand. Even in a room full of suspicious and attentive observers, the illusionist can fool them all. By exploiting known weaknesses in the human mind and employing his tools of the trade, he will deceive the crowd whether it wants to be deceived or not.

Imagine what an equally talented “network” of political illusionists can accomplish. Performing before an audience of mostly trusting and casual observers, exploiting known weaknesses in the human mind, and employing their tools of the trade, they, too, will deceive the crowd whether it wants to be deceived or not.

Berry helped me with the answer to a simple question. How much of the new CO₂ going into the system is ours versus natural?

The 5% Problem

The IPCC has a problem because natural CO₂ inflow is 20 times the human CO₂ inflow. If IPCC used the Equivalence Principle, it would have to conclude the human CO₂ inflow, of 5 percent, would only increase the level of atmospheric CO₂ by 5 percent (before we account for how human CO₂ adds carbon to the carbon cycle).

So, if every single thing that all humans do in a year, sends 1 particle of CO₂ into the world, nature sends 20. So long before we start talking about whether it’s good or bad, this gives us a very simple to understand model of quantum.

Next, if we are putting in 5%, and we are also obsessively measuring the total, we should, by now, be able to see the correlation between what we put in, and the levels of increase. Berry helps with this point also:

Zero Correlation

There are hundreds of examples of time-series correlations that do not have any cause-effect relationship.

Statisticians detrend time-series data before doing a correlation. They have proved the correlation of annual human CO₂ emissions with the annual changes in CO₂ is zero. Zero correlation means human CO₂, is not the cause of the increase in CO₂. (Section 3.6)

Next, if we are obsessively measuring the total, and also obsessively measuring temperature, we should find that temperate increases AFTER CO₂ increases, right?

Temperature increases occur BEFORE CO₂ increases

But modern data show temperature increases occur before CO₂, increases and temperature decreases occur before CO₂ decreases. Temperature changes precede CO₂ changes by 80 to 800 years.

So, this patsy of a gas, cannot be the lone gunman, agree?

At this point we should be able to pack up and send the jury home.

But we continue…

Let’s go back to the first IPCC core theory:

1.    IPCC's core theory: Natural CO₂ stays constant at 280 ppm, or human CO₂ causes all the increase in atmospheric CO₂.

Let’s think about this, if the core theory assumes that before we messed up the world, 280 ppm was a long term “stable” number, that means that the system works to “balance”. If so, that means that all the natural CO₂ that comes in, also has to flow out. But for the IPCC models to work they need human CO₂ to behave differently, to be more “sticky”. But it’s the same molecule. Chemistry is just Chemistry.

The Magic Demon

Therefore, according to the IPCC, natural CO₂ flows in and out of the atmosphere and its level remains perfectly in balance, as the physics model explains.

But the IPCC needs a magic demon in the atmosphere to capture human CO₂ molecules and make them stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO₂ molecules stay in the atmosphere.

That IPCC anti-science position is the basis of all climate alarmism.

Next, where does the IPCC say that all the natural CO₂ is?

Their answer is that 90% of it is in the deep ocean (vs 2% in the surface ocean) and 1.4% is in the atmosphere.

But because of their Magic Demon chemistry their models assume that human CO₂ spreads differently. That 61% of our emissions stay in the atmosphere. Because the public has been made deeply ignorant of this subject, they are able to fool us with this bullshit.

Blaming humans is fraudulent.

Rather the IPCC simply inserted into the atmosphere the human carbon it needed to support its core theory and then dumped the remainder in the deep ocean.

This is proof that the IPCC claims human CO₂ caused all the rise in atmospheric CO₂.

The CO₂ level in 2005 was 393 ppm. Subtract 280 ppm to get 113 ppm. This is the CO₂ increase above 280 ppm in 2005. This is also 61 percent of the sum of all human CO₂ emissions through 2005.

Notice IPCC's circular reasoning. It assumes IPCC's core theory is true. Then it inserts the amount of human CO₂ into the atmosphere to satisfy IPCC's core theory. Then it concludes that IPCC's core theory is true. Beautiful circular reasoning.

--

IPCC's human carbon cycle is the basis of all government policies and laws that claim human CO₂ causes dangerous climate change. This basis is a fraud.

So, where did the vast majority of the extra CO₂ come from?

Where did most of the “extra” CO₂ come from? Nature.

Berry showed that a few years ago, when the CO₂ level was 413 ppm, natural CO₂ was responsible for 380 ppm and the human effect was only 33 ppm, based on IPCC data.

And specifically, which part of nature?

It’s the Ocean!

In 2020, a preliminary paper by Kenneth Skrable, George Chabot, and Clayton French uses carbon 14 data to conclude the dominant cause of the increase in atmospheric CO₂, since 1750 is natural carbon from the ocean and that human CO₂ is a minor cause.

The Skrable et al. paper supports Courtney's 2008 conclusion and Berry's 2020 conclusion that the ocean is the source of the carbon that has caused most of the increase in atmospheric CO₂.

So, what’s a really simple way of saying all of this?

Extra CO₂ in the atmosphere, sourced from the deep ocean, does not lead to rising temperatures.

You will notice that the sentence makes no mention of humans.

It’s all a fraud.

Once again, shame on you Sagan.

Chapter 8 of Berry’s book lay’s out a good summary of it all.

---

CHAPTER 8 —THE TRILLION DOLLAR FRAUD

IPCC's climate theory "is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist." - Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society, emailed on October 8, 2010.

"Future generations will wonder in amazement how the 21st century world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree - on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections and implausible chains of inference -contemplated a roll-back of the industrial age." -Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Meteorology

America paid the IPCC and its supporting scientists a trillion dollars, and they did not get basic physics correct. The IPCC has no use for "cause" scientists because it assumes its core theory is true.

The "effects" scientists tout their "peer-reviewed" papers that assume IPCC's core theory is true before they claim to prove IPCC's core theory is true, in the most blatant example of mass circular reasoning in history.

Science is not UN's goal. The UN uses pseudoscience to achieve its political goals. Their goal is to control you and your country.

This book shows you how to prove the IPCC climate claims are a fraud.

You do not have to be a scientist to use this proof. This proof is not "an opinion" as the alarmists may claim. This proof can win in court.

Here are the steps to prove the IPCC is wrong that you learned in this book:

8.1 IPCC's core theory is the natural CO₂ level stayed constant at 280 ppm before and after 1750.

1.    Data show the CO₂ level rose to 410 ppm by 2020, an increase of 130 ppm.

2.    The IPCC assumes its core theory is true, which forces the conclusion that human CO₂ caused all the increase above 280 ppm.

3.    IPCC agrees that human CO₂ emissions are less than 5 percent of natural CO₂ emissions.

4.    How can less that 5 percent of all CO₂, emissions cause 32 percent of the CO₂, in the atmosphere? Answer: It can't.

8.2       Multiple lines of evidence prove IPCC's core theory is wrong.

1. Ice core data prove natural CO₂ caused the CO₂ increase.

2. Direct CO₂ data prove CO₂ was much higher than 280 ppm before 1750.

3. Leaf stomata data prove CO₂ was much higher than 280 ppm before 1750.

4. Statistics prove human CO₂ is not the primary cause of the increase in CO₂.

5. IPCC's human carbon cycle is not consistent with its own natural carbon cycle. This is a basic physics error.

6. Inspection shows IPCC's human carbon cycle is based on IPCC's invalid assumption that its core theory is true. carbon cycle.

7. The true human carbon cycle shows human CO₂ has added only 33 ppm to the CO₂ level as of January 2020.

8. The IPCC 20-percent error bounds of this 33 ppm are 24 ppm and 48 ppm, with these bounds being improbable.

8.3 A simple physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC's data for its natural carbon cycle.

1.    This model easily calculates the true human carbon cycle.

2.    The true human carbon cycle shows human CO₂ has added only 33 ppm to the CO2 level as of January 2020.

3.    The IPCC 20-percent error bounds of this 33 ppm are 24 ppm and 48 ppm, with these bounds being improbable.

8.4 The true human carbon cycle shows:

1.    If human CO₂ emissions were to stop in 2020, the human-caused 33 ppm increase would decrease to 16 ppm in 20 years and to 10 ppm by 2100.

2.    Natural CO₂ caused about 100 ppm of the CO₂, increase since 1750.

3.    Human CO₂ does not stick in the atmosphere for thousands of years as IPCC claims.

4.    Human CO₂ is not a threat to the planet.

5.    Stopping all human CO₂ emissions cannot reverse nature's 100 ppm or stop nature from increasing the level of CO₂.

8.5 This proof that IPCC's core theory is false means:

1.    All peer-reviewed scientific papers that assume, openly or secretly, that IPCC's core theory is true are invalid.

2. There is no basis for climate laws, climate regulations, climate treaties, climate brainwashing, and climate environmentalism.

3. There is no basis to continue funding the IPCC or any research based that assumes IPCC's core theory is true.

4. There is a basis for removing all textbooks and literature that claim IPCC's core theory is true.

5. There is a basis for finally telling people the truth about climate change.

---

And I’d like to also highlight Chapter 7, it’s a very good short history of the birth of this cancerous myth.

If it’s a fraud, then what’s its purpose?

This is from a wonderful comment left by Brian Murphy yesterday:

It seems we are confronted with an edifice made up of the descendants, disciples and detritus of narcissistic psychopaths with superiority delusions and God complexes, groomed to be Malthusian elites and assorted megalomaniacs, with some in-breeding, esoteric exotica and ritual abuse thrown in for good measure. Over a long game with single-minded focus, they’ve been able to plan for and eventually co-opt everything - the long march through the institutions without the communist overtones - simply because we are not like them. All we have in our defence is numbers, and enough of us have to see the threat this edifice is and always has been if we are to break the endless cycle of death and devastation, starting with Tragedy & Hope. Yes, it really is about waking up the normies.

“An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over its ashes.”

---

CHAPTER 7 — THE CLIMATE MYTH ORIGIN

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, 1970.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic." –President Kennedy

7.1 How climate alarmism began.

From the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, to the Earth Summit in June 1992, climate alarmism was born and raised in politics.

Maurice Strong's lifetime goal was to transform the United Nations (UN) into a world government. From November 1970 until December 1972, Strong was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.

In 1972, Strong founded and became the first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Strong argued that rich Western countries had benefited by exploiting the earth's natural resources and, therefore, the Western countries must fund the poorer countries so their economies could catch up with America. President Obama supported this UN idea.

Under Strong's leadership, the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference made the environment an international agenda.

Strong commissioned the report by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. Their report promotes the Principles of the Stockholm Declaration which encourages people to safeguard natural resources and wildlife, share non­renewable resources, and indoctrinate the public to believe in UNEP's environmental cult.

7.2 The UN protects and promotes climate theory.

In 1978, Professor Bert Bolin of Sweden and his tiny band of meteorologists proposed that human CO₂, emissions cause the rise in atmospheric CO₂, and more CO₂ increases global temperature. Although he lacked scientific evidence, Bolin believed human CO₂, emissions could be harmful.

The International Council for Science (ICSU) and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) sponsored the first World Climate Conference in Geneva in 1979. Bolin submitted a paper to the Conference. The WMO put Bolin's theory at the top of its agenda because a new disaster might help WMO get more funding.

Strong realized Bolin's idea that connected human CO₂ emissions to potential harmful results would support his goal of transforming the UN into a world government.

In October 1985, the UNEP and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) sponsored the First International Conference on Climate Change in Villach, Austria. Bolin presented his theory with an urgent call to action.

The conference concluded that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide could cause an historic rise in global temperature. This was a political conclusion, not a scientific conclusion. Bolin's idea was never tested with the scientific method.

To protect Bolin's theory from critique by the scientific community, Strong set up procedures that would block criticisms of Bolin's theory.

7.3 The Brundtland report, 1987

Strong was a member of the Brundtland Commission. The Brundtland report warned that human CO₂ could increase global temperature enough to harm agriculture, increase sea levels, flood coastal cities, and disrupt national economies.

The report called for a major global effort to curb human emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases. It promoted the idea of "sustainability" as a possible solution to human-caused environmental problems.

7.4 The IPCC is born, 1988

In 1988, UNEP and WMO formed the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More accurately, it is the "IP-on-CC".

The IPCC Charter states:

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

There is nothing in IPCC's Charter about investigating the cause of climate change. The IPCC merely assumes our CO₂ causes climate change.

The U.S. government under President G.H.W. Bush was the main force in forming and funding the IPCC.

Under Strong's control, the IPCC appointed Bolin to be its first chairman and John Houghton, Bolin's supporter, to lead "Working Group 1" that would produce IPCC's climate reports.

Strong made IPCC's goal to produce reports that show human emissions cause climate change. IPCC's goal is NOT to find the real cause of climate change. The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization.

Bolin's climate theory survived only because Strong made it a key part of UNEP and IPCC, and then protected this new IPCC climate theory from scientific criticism. This protection was critical because it gave Strong enough time to turn Bolin's climate theory into a political certainty.

Strong's protection of IPCC's climate theory still exists today. Many professional societies and professional journals will not publish scientific papers that disagree with IPCC's first theory. Strong masterminded the perfect crime.

7.5 America promotes the IPCC, 1988

In 1988, James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), testified before a Senate committee chaired by Senator Tim Wirth. Senator Al Gore was on the committee. Hansen predicted the world was headed for a global warming disaster.

The media produced headlines across America and cover stories in Newsweek and Time. Senator Al Gore carried the climate change agenda in America.

In 1990, IPCC's First Assessment Report made global headlines, thanks to UN marketing power. It claimed human CO₂ caused global warming and warned that the world must reduce its CO₂ emissions by 60 percent immediately to save the planet.

Of course, there are no data that support those IPCC claims.

However, the environmentalists quickly adopted IPCC's climate claims because these climate claims supported and amplified their environmental agenda.

7.6 Earth Summit, 1992

In June 1992, Maurice Strong was Secretary General of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. He chaired the "Earth Summit" conference in Rio de Janeiro.

U.S. President G.H.W. Bush and 107 other world leaders attended the conference along with 20,000 climate activists and green lobby members. The UN and the US government paid all attendees' expenses.

Strong declared in his Summit speech,

"A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns. We may get to the point, where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"

Then Strong founded and chaired the Earth Council Alliance where he worked with Mikhail Gorbachev to create the Earth Charter which called for a

"... sustainable global society founded on the principles of respect for the Earth and life in all its diversity, economic and social justice, and a culture of peace and non-violence."

Strong declared,

"the real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments."

Strong long supported global governance at the expense of national sovereignty. He said environmental mandates require the eventual dismantling of the power of the nation state:

"It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation."

"We need a system of global governance through which nations can cooperate and deal with issues they cannot deal with alone. The ultimate example is climate change."

In 1992, Al Gore claimed:

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

More accurately, the politics is settled but the science is not.

7.7 Strong becomes UN Under-Secretary General

In 1997, Strong became Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and served as a special advisor to UN head Kofi Annan. Strong used the UNFCCC to stage another mega-conference in Kyoto.

Strong was a leading architect of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that set binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries.

Strong inserted his long-term agenda into the Kyoto Protocol to commit 'developed' countries such as America to reduce CO₂ emissions and pay developing nations like China and India.

In 2000 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation, with Barack Obama on the board, granted $1.1 million to establish Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which made Strong a CCX director.

Strong died on November 28, 2015. The organizations he created to achieve his political goals are his legacy.

His goal was to turn the United Nations into a world government. He realized the idea that human CO₂, emissions increase global temperature, whether true or false, was a key to achieving his goal.

7.8 Environmentalism

Today's climate alarmism did not begin in the normal scientific process. It began in Strong's incubator that protected IPCC's climate theory from scientific critique. It flourished when environmental organizations adopted it into their programs.

After communism fell, environmentalism replaced communism. But it seems to have the same goal of world government as communism.

"Environmentalism" has a moral component. It alleges Man is destructive, unnatural, evil, and guilty of destroying the environment on this planet. Environmentalism is not a science. Its basic premise is nature is good and human is bad. IPCC reports assume the same moral view.

Environmentalism's moral assumption is embedded in Strong's remarks on behalf of the United Nations and in IPCC reports.

If you begin your climate study by assuming nature is good and human is bad, then you will conclude that natural CO₂ is good and human CO₂ is bad. If your environmental premise is that rising CO₂ is bad, then you will assume that human CO₂ caused it.

By contrast, physics is amoral. Physics tries to understand nature. Physics will get different answers to climate questions than environmentalism.

7.9 Political actions

Education from grade school through the highest levels must teach rigorous logic and critical thinking. Students must learn to doubt fashionable theories, and to distrust all "hop-on-the-bandwagon" dogma.

US President Trump tweeted on July 10, 2020:

"Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education. Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!"

To this day, The UN, all governments (Yes, even the US government), all scientific organizations, all schools, colleges, and universities, and all the major media continue to protect the IPCC climate theory from scientific criticism. If you are in a space they control, they will not allow you to ask any questions that suggests their cult belief is wrong.

Their globalist call "to address climate change" is a diversion from much more important problems. For example, a much greater concern for many countries is protection against an EMP attack.

In 2008, America's EMP Commission warned that America must ensure the safety of its power and information grid against an EMP attack. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a short burst of electromagnetic energy, natural or manmade.

The Obama—Biden administration did nothing to protect Americans for eight critical years.

In 2016, the U.S. Government Accountability Office ("GAO") reported that the federal government had not implemented its recommendations to prevent massive first order of its kind to establish a comprehensive policy damage by an EMP attack.

The EMP Commission warned Congress that an EMP attack would "shut down America's electric power grid." Within a year, 90 percent of Americans would be dead. In March 2019, US President Trump signed an executive order that instructed federal agencies to strengthen America's infrastructure against EMP attacks. It was the first order of its kind to establish a comprehensive policy to improve resilience to EMPs.

Climate change can take decades and it will not kill us.

An EMP attack can take seconds to knock a country into the stone age and kill 90% of the people within a year.

---

---

Thanks for being here.

Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to help covid vaccine injured Australians.

I am always looking for good, personal GMC, covid and childhood vaccination stories. You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com

If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment

If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes

If you want to help someone, give them a book. Official Stories by Liam Scheff. Point them to a safe chapter (here and here), and they will find their way to vaccination.

Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:

FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein

FREE eBook: The Climate™

FREE eBook: What is a woman? - “We don’t know yet.”