Contributed – an opinion from Europe.

Reblogged with permission and in a Google translated from French from Belgotopia. Please see the Belgotopia blog for many interesting, long lists of wild climate and weather events throughout the years. Changing climate is the ‘normal’ – nothing ‘new’ about it. History helps put the climate ‘hysteria’ in perspective. 

COP24 is at our Door

The Katowice conference on global warming will take place from 2 to 14 December 2018, again justifying all the media runaways that will spare us no flood, natural disaster or “temperature record” (on the rise, of course) where it occurs on the planet.

This “United Nations Conference on Climate Change” is another step towards the more and more obvious goal of the United Nations: to  eventually impose a world government.

A key instrument in this agenda, the climate debate has for a considerable number of years, left the scientific field for the ideological, political and financial domains. He has become the object of all exaggerations and amalgam, imposing a single point of view on the question, and muzzling any contestation or draft debate. It justifies a profound change in industrial and economic policy in developed countries. Part of the leaders of countries receiving compensation for so-called climate disruptions will undoubtedly be confirmed a generous distribution of funds fed by the taxpayers of the so-called “rich” countries.

Let us first recall some facts which at least are not very questionable.

– The climate is everything except stable. Throughout history, our planet has been the scene of sometimes sudden and often catastrophic weather events. (1)

– We can admit a certain global warming, as it appeared at the end of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle of the 19 th century. However, the magnitude of this warming is subject to discussion, given the evolution of measuring instruments, architecture and location of weather stations requiring adjustments for all manipulations. (2)

– There is NO scientific evidence that human activity causes climate change. The whole argument of the supporters of the IPCC is based on a correlation between the increase of industrial activities on the one hand, and global warming of the earth’s temperature on the other hand. But correlation does not mean any causality …

– CO2 emitted by human activities represents less than 5% of all CO2 released annually into the atmosphere, 95% of this CO2 being released by nature.

– It is wrong to claim that there would be a global consensus of all scientists, which would be in line with the conclusions of the IPCC. Tens of thousands of scientists of all disciplines have expressed varying degrees of reservations about these conclusions, when they are not totally opposed to them.

The press, especially European and even more French-speaking, has seized the catastrophic scenarios emitted by the followers of the anthropogenic global warming, and has established a total blackout on any information or theory that would go against what has become unique and obligatory thought.

The entire media and political world is in tow of ideological-political movements and NGOs such as GREENPEACE, the WWF or Global Footprint Network, whose “studies” and anathemas are considered divine words that nobody takes the trouble to check, or dare to dispute.

We have been able to mix everything and anything in a gigantic “melting pot”, maintaining the confusion between pollution and global warming, or calling CO2 a pollutant, which is not despite recent attempts to to classify in this category.

But who benefits from this state of affairs?

First of all, part of the scientific world. Today it suffices to involve anthropogenic global warming in any study to see the financial windfall of subsidies open up. In a few years, the annual global budget for climate science has grown from $ 170 million to several billion dollars.

The political world has found in the subject a good way to collect votes, and today everyone wants to look greener than green. The implementation of such a policy also justifies the creation of a multitude of so-called “ecological” taxes, affirmed or disguised, benefiting in addition to the unexpected approval of a large part of the population.

The industrial world is engulfed in the juicy new market, by the premature marketing of so-called “renewable” energies such as wind power or photovoltaics. This placing on the market was facilitated by incentives, bonuses, green certificates, network improvements and various tax refunds supported by all taxpayers, financial incentives also essential to impose the emergence of electric vehicles. This is the triumph of what is called “connivance capitalism”.

The financial world benefits greatly from the system put in place by investing in companies, banks or so-called “ecological and responsible” funds.

This convergence of interests has taken on such a global dimension that any backtracking has become extremely difficult because it brings into play the credibility of the main pillars of our societies: the political, the humanitarian and the industrialist.

But of all this, the vast majority of my readers are aware. And that’s the problem: we go around in circles in a small circle of convinced. And yet, each of us can extend the debate by intervening in the comments of computer logs, in social networks, within his private or professional circle etc …

Challenging the conclusions of climate conferences, combating “one-size-fits-all thinking” and reestablishing an exchange of ideas on these issues that engage the future of our society is paramount and must involve all of us.

Jo Moreau

Note: Friends of Science Society’s view is slightly different than that expressed here. Friends of Science Society agrees that humans affect climate change, however more regionally than globally and through many other means (i.e. land use, water diversion, Urban Heat Island, deforestation, etc) than simply carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, the effect of carbon dioxide emissions has been one of fertilization and some places, like Canada, have a net benefit from nominal warming. See our Climate Science Essay for a fuller discussion.