There is no climate emergency
“Pandemic” and “global warming” are the two topics that occupied the world’s media most before the NWO. And there is no guarantee that under the guise of fighting another “pandemic” and climate warming, the “masters of discourse” will not renew efforts to reshape humanity, declaring it the “great reset” (a transition to “inclusive capitalism”).
What the proverbial “pandemic” was and where its drums may be sounding again is becoming clearer today.
The fight against so-called climate warming is of the same order of magnitude. It was introduced onto the international agenda in the 1970s and 1980s by the Club of Rome, with David Rockefeller at the helm. Even then there were calls for the “decarbonisation of the economy”. Behind the slogan of decarbonisation was de-industrialisation, part of the global elite’s plan to “cleanse” the planet of “surplus” people and “surplus” productive forces. This plan was presented in artistic form even before the Club of Rome in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” (1957).
Practical implementation of the plan to decarbonise the world economy began in 1992, when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted at the international conference on the environment in Rio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit). Recall: the USSR no longer existed and the world agenda was unequivocally dictated by the masters of money.
In 1997, at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan, dozens of countries agreed and signed the Kyoto Protocol, an action plan to implement the general principles of the Framework Convention. The Kyoto Protocol imposed in Kyoto mandated developed countries to reduce or stabilise emissions of gases from various fuels (coal, oil, petroleum products, oil shale, natural gas, etc.) that create the greenhouse effect.
In December 2015, the Paris climate agreement was signed in Paris, which imposed an obligation on states to achieve carbon nullification of their economies no later than mid-21st century.
Both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement have been signed by Russia, but Russia has not ratified the agreement, and it is clear why. The Russian economy is “high-carbon”, based on the extraction and export of oil and natural gas. For Russia, meeting its ‘decarbonisation’ obligations is particularly stressful.
With maniacal persistence, most countries in the world have embarked on “decarbonisation”. I note that this whole climate bacchanalia, which began half a century ago, has been severely criticized by scientists and experts all this time. Alternative (green) forms of energy are not capable of replacing traditional energy carriers in the foreseeable future. Accelerated decarbonisation will lead to the destruction of the economy and the aggravation of social problems (and maybe even the death of part of the world’s population). Criticism has been focused on the natural scientific basis of the so-called greenhouse effect theory, which, according to the critics, is built on fraud and deception.
The Russian Academy of Sciences responded to a request of Russian authorities to express their opinion on Kyoto Protocol in 2004 with a rather exhaustive statement (signed by Yuri Osipov, president of RAS at the time). Here are key provisions of scientists’ answer: 1) “Kyoto Protocol has no scientific substantiation”; 2) “Kyoto Protocol is ineffective for achievement of the final goal of the UN Framework Convention…”; 3) “Ratification of the Protocol in conditions of availability of a stable link between CO2 emissions and carbon-based economic growth means substantial legal restriction of Russian GDP growth rates”.
One may recall an interview with RAS corresponding member Andrey Kapitsa (son of the famous physicist Pyotr Kapitsa). He said he agreed with tens of thousands of scientists around the world that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was a scam. Kapitsa noted that it is not the climate disaster but this protocol and “the trends behind it that are the real threat to humanity and a severe blow to its future”.
And renowned climate scientist James Hansen explicitly called the agreement “fraudulent”.
According to scientists, the greenhouse effect is not even a hypothesis, but an outright hoax. Frederick Seitz, former president of the US Academy of Sciences, has fought the lie for years. Seventeen thousand American scientists signed a collective petition against this deception. As a result, the plan to “decarbonise” the US economy failed. President Donald Trump announced that he would stop the de-industrialisation of America and begin to restore its former industrial strength. During the campaign, Trump called global warming a hoax. He announced his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. In a televised address on 1 June 2017, he said, “In order to do my solemn duty to protect the United States and American citizens, I must withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.” True, Joe Biden has brought America back into that agreement again.
However, scientists in the US and elsewhere in the world are not giving up. In August 2022, a document called the World Climate Declaration appeared. The subtitle of the document is “There is no climate emergency”. The document was prepared by an initiative by a group calling itself the Global Climate Intelligence Group. As of August 24, the declaration had 1107 signatures by scientists and experts from around the world. The document is open for signature by all scientists who share the main points of the document. I would like to quote some of the declaration’s provisions.
There is no climate emergency. Climate science should be less political and climate policy should be more scientific. Scientists should speak openly about the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should calculate impartially the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policies.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. The geological record shows that the Earth’s climate has been changing since the planet existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended only recently, in 1850. It is therefore not surprising that we are now experiencing a warming period.
Warming has been much slower than expected. The world is warming much less than predicted by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – V.K.) based on modelled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy is based on inadequate models. Climate models have many shortcomings and are not very credible as policy tools. Not only do they exaggerate the impact of greenhouse gases, but they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial… There is ample evidence that measures to reduce CO2 emissions are as harmful as they are costly.
…We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Instead of mitigation, go for adaptation; adaptation works regardless of the causes…
Note which countries’ scientists have signed the Declaration. As of 24 August, the largest number of signatories was the USA and Italy (168 each). They were followed by Australia (134), the Netherlands (116), France (94), Canada (84), the United Kingdom (59) and Germany (54). Some countries were poorly represented. For example, four signatures each from countries such as Russia, Poland and Portugal. One signature is from South Korea. And China is not among the signatories at all.
Today, as a result of the collective West’s sanctions war against Russia, the shortage of traditional energy resources – oil, natural gas, coal and oil shale – has sharply increased on the world market. There has been an astronomical surge in the price of these raw materials. The green energy industry has demonstrated its utter helplessness in covering the resulting energy shortages. Instead of replacing carbon-based energies with green energies, there has been a transition to those energies that were stigmatised as ‘dirty’ in the last century – coal, oil shale, peat and firewood. And in the West they mutter something about not violating the Paris climate agreement. The “global warming” orthodoxy calls for the choice to save the climate, even if we have to stop industry and endure the cold all the time.
The time has come for the Paris climate agreement to be denounced in the onset of opposition to globalism. Russia does not need it.
Valentin Katasonov, FSK
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel