The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not carbon dioxide.


Google translate version of same in French from Belgotopia

Climate tourism – fly more. Buy offsets!

After its cancellation in Chile following the current turmoil in this country, COP 25, the annual high mass on climate, will be held in Madrid from 2 December. As every year, it will bring together tens of thousands of participants, most of whom are transported, housed and fed at taxpayers’ expense.

The 25 th “United Nations Conference on Climate Change” is a further step towards the objective longstanding but increasingly affirmed UN: impose a world government term.

A key instrument in this agenda, the climate debate has for a considerablenumber of years, left the scientific field for the ideological, political andfinancial fields. He has become the object of all excesses and amalgam,imposing a single point of view on the question, and muzzling all contestationor draft debate. It justifies a profound change in the industrial andeconomic policy of the so-called developed countries, in practice only Europeancountries, pending the return of the US from the outset of Trump. Some ofthe leaders of countries receiving compensation for so-called climatedisruptions – including China and India – are likely to be confirmed by agenerous distribution of funds supplied by taxpayers from so-called“rich” countries.

All circles interested in climate issues will be present,

First of all, part of the scientific world. Today it is necessaryto involve anthropogenic global warming, even anecdotally, in any study to seethe financial windfall of subsidies. In just a few years, the annualglobal budget for climate science has grown from $ 170 million to severalbillion dollars.

The political world has found in the subject a good way to collectvotes, and today everyone wants to look greener than green. Theimplementation of such a policy also allows the creation of a growing multitudeof so-called “ecological” taxes and constraints, affirmed ordisguised, benefiting in addition to the unexpected approval of a part of thepopulation that we have persuaded that by this means, we will save the planet.

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

The financial world also benefits greatly from the system put in place,through investments in companies, banks or so-called “ecological andresponsible” funds.

Let us not forget also a constellation of NGOs engaged ineco-responsible citizen actions; and, of course, the powerful ideologicaland political lobbies who are obsessed with the unconditional support of allfor their own purposes.

“Emerging” countries, meanwhile, are impatientto see the annual sum of $ 100 billion promised to them at the Copenhagenconference. A commitment that they intend to remind us imperiously on thisoccasion.

This convergence of interests has taken on such a global dimension that anybacktracking has become extremely difficult, because it would put into play thevery credibility of the main pillars of our societies: the political, thehumanitarian and the industrialist.

And recently, the religious world joined the movement bythe voice of the Pope. (3)

As every year, I come out this ticket barely cleanedaccording to the new COP 25 …

The aim each time affirmed is to impose imperative restrictive norms on(mainly European) states which would still doubt the existence of a climaticthermostat, with the help of which the man would regulate at will the globaltemperature. All this is supported by more and more apocalyptic mediainterventions as the opening date approaches. In fact, almost every day,we are bathed in catastrophic climatic or environmental events, immediatelycataloged as consequences of global warming. Currently, we have Californiafires, and any new disaster within days of the opening of the conference wouldbe welcome.

Because it will be, no doubt, our new last chance to “save theplanet”. (1)

All this beautiful world prefers to hide a fact now established: globalwarming has slowed considerably, if not capped for a long time since 1998,while human emissions of CO2 would cease, it is said, to increase, denying allclimate models who did not foresee this embarrassing phenomenon, among otherrealities just as disconcerting and just as unnoticed elsewhere.

In the note below, Viv Forbes is concerned that Australia alone has sent ateam of 114 people – including his Prime Minister – to the CopenhagenConference. What about the Belgians, whose delegation in Copenhagen had120 people, in Cancun, 108 participants, the other conferences to match.

A sumptuous “Magical Climatic Tour” !

The Rio +20 conference in 2012 alone brought together 50,000 participants,including more than 100 heads of state. In Marrakech for COP 22 in 2016,30,000 participants were expected. At COP 23 in Bonn, there were plethoricAfrican delegations; Côte d’Ivoire alone had 492 participants. In Madrid,25,000 participants are expected, but we bet they will be more numerous …

In recent years in the world, millions of people have died in armedconflicts, others in famines or lack of clean water, and even in our countriescitizens are dying of cold because they can not afford to heat or even shelter,while millions of people are parceled in refugee camps, or have taken thedangerous path of a Europe which counts the tenths of degrees which, it seems,threaten the existence even of its populations.

Nobody died because of global warming. An overall warming of 0.4 to0.7 ° C depending on the sources -sept tenths of a degree- throughout thetwentieth century, remember.

So, where are the priorities, and is it wise that taxpayers continue todirectly or indirectly fund the annual stays of our (ir) leaders in moretourist than scientific stays, so that they show their presence in cyclicalconclaves which also lead to so many failures? It would also be fun tocalculate the “ecological footprint” of these gigantic conventionsdesigned to reboost climate catastrophism.

For what were the consequences on the climate of theprevious 24 climate conferences?

But the vast majority of my readers are aware of what has just beensaid. And that’s the problem: we go around in circles in a smallcircle of convinced . And yet, each of us can extend the debateby intervening in the comments of the media, in social networks, within hisprivate or professional circle etc …

Challenging the conclusions of climate conferences, combating“one-size-fits-all thinking” and restoring an exchange of ideas onthese issues that engage the future of our society is paramount and concernsall of us.

Here are the significant parts of the ticket published by Viv Forbes in2014 in the WUWT site of Anthony Watts (2) (home translation)

Jo Moreau.

Twenty-two years ago, a group of green activists calling themselves“The Earth Summit” gathered in Rio and invented a way to visit theworld at the expense of taxpayers: to initiate endless conferences on alarmsthreatening the environment.

(…) But they discovered the juiciest of the veins with their creationcalled “Global Warming”, and its sub-branches “ClimateChange” and “Extreme Weather Phenomena”.

These “noble causes” have generated a profusion of steeringcommittees, reference committees, policy committees, scientific subgroups,working committees, evaluators and leading agencies, and have generatedmeetings with 20,000 participants. countries in places such as Rio, Berlin,Geneva, Kyoto, Buenos Aires, Bonn, The Hague, Marrakech, New Delhi, Milan,Montreal, Nairobi, Bali, Poznan, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Qatar, Doha,Warsaw, Stockholm , Lima, Abu Dhabi and New York.

The Climate Conferences circuit has become a real boon for airlines, hotelsand fine restaurants, even more so than the Olympics or the G20.

Taxpayers around the world have spent the last 21 years spendingunnecessary money, which would have been much better spent on flood controlinfrastructure, drinking water supply for drought-endemic populations, andpollution control. .

Viv Forbes




1 Comment


    I agree with your message, especially the part about what we could have done with the money which would have enriched so many lives in every country. But, how do we get this message out to the public that they are being so brainwashed.

Leave a Reply! Please be courteous and respectful; profanity will not be tolerated.

Friends of Science Calgary