Understanding Climate Change
97% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them
On March 20, 2000, a British journal named The Independent published an article entitled “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” Here is an excerpt:
According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
For some reason The Independent later took the article down without archiving it, even though The Independent’s archives contain many older articles. But fortunately, the Internet is forever, and there are some people who saw such incredible value in Viner’s prediction that they’ve preserved it for us. For example, you can read the whole thing here. There’s another copy here. And you can hear an interesting discussion of this travesty here. Here’s the earliest copy saved by the WayBack Machine.
Despite the fact that snowfalls are now just a thing of the past and have been for over twenty years, since 2000 there have been numerous snowfall records worldwide. For example:
According to weather.com, February 2019 broke monthly snowfall records across the United States. I live near Minneapolis, where I am responsible for the shoveling of such snow, and so I can attest to the plausibility of this statement.
According to Boston.com, on March 15, 2015, Boston broke its record for the snowiest season in history, beating its previous record from 1995.
According to WIVB.com, the 2022 blizzard in Buffalo exceeded the intensity of the 1977 blizzard, which itself was a record-setter. I’m having trouble fathoming this because I was in the 1977 blizzard, which despite being less severe almost defied imagination.
According to ITV.com, on January 9, 2021 Madrid experienced its heaviest snowfall in the past 50 years.
Here in Minnesota, as I write this in April 2023, we are recovering from the third-snowiest winter in Twin Cities history. I am so sick of shoveling, snowblowing, and otherwise dealing with snow that I’d be just fine never seeing any again.
I could go on and on with this list. Strangely these reports of snow and corresponding occurrences of record cold never seem to make the national news, at least not in the sense of causing anyone on TV to wonder how this all fits in with the great planetary meltdown that is supposedly taking place.
Equally strange is the fact that David Viner, the guy whose quote was apparently used as the basis of the article, still seems to be employed in the climate hysteria business. According to his LinkedIn profile, Viner:
in 2022 became the “Head of Environmental Science” at an organization called CGG;
has “over 30 years’ experience working globally in all aspects of climate change, resilience and sustainability;”
is “Currently a Co-ordinating Lead Author for the IPCC and been involved with the IPCC since 1992;”
is “developing Climate Resilience as a brand and ensuring world leader status for my organization.”
Some very august organizations, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are unfazed by Viner’s past predictive capabilities, which makes me wonder what other sorts of colossal inaccuracies also don’t faze them.
Viner and his article are not outliers. There is no shortage of such climate predictions. Here are a just a few doozies for your consideration. The ones contradicting the current narrative are in italics:
1970: TIME Magazine: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1974: TIME Magazine: Another Ice Age?
1974: The Guardian: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1978: New York Times: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1988: Canberra Times: Maldives Islands will Be Underwater by 2018
1989: Washington Post: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019
1989: U.N.: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
2000: The Independent: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2004: The Independent: Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - LITERALLY
2005: ABC News: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
2007: Al Gore: North polar ice cap will be gone between 2014 and 2029
2007: BBC News: Arctic summers to be ice-free by 2013
2007: Associated Press / NASA (Zwally): Arctic ice gone by 2012
2008: Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Huffington Post: John Kerry: Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013
2009: Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2009: The Independent: Prince Charles: Just 96 Months to Save World
2009: The Independent: UK Prime Minister: 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: CBS News: Al Gore: 75% chance the Arctic ice-free in summer 2015
2009: Going Green: Arctic ice to vanish in summer by 2019 (11/24/24: updated to archived copy)
2010: Boston.com: Ice-free arctic predicted "within decades"
2010: Greenpeace: Arctic summer sea ice to disappear by 2030 (11/24/24: defunct & not archived)
2012: Live Science: Arctic ice-free in 4 or 5 years, no wait, 20 or 30 years
2012: Business Insider: Arctic ice-free between 2016 and 2040
2013: Daily Beast: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2013: National Geographic: Polar bears starving from global warming (11/24/24: defunct & not archived)
2013: Live Science: Arctic summer sea ice to disappear by 2030
2014: GeoEngineering Watch: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
2014: NASA: "Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum" (11/24/24: updated to new location)
2016: The Guardian: Arctic summer sea ice to disappear by 2018 at latest
2016: Anchorage Daily News: Arctic summer sea ice to disappear by 2020 at latest
2017: The Economist: Arctic summer sea ice to disappear by 2040
2017: New Scientist: On front line of climate change as Maldives fights rising seas
2017: Ocean Bites: Polar biosphere will disappear by 2020
2018: National Geographic: Polar Bears Really Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Study Shows
2019: NPR: Arctic summer sea ice now to disappear by 2040
2019: Fox: Al Gore says his predictions have come true
2019: Climate Depot: Polar bear population highest in decades
2020: National Geographic: Arctic summer sea ice now to disappear by 2035
2021: Breitbart: Antarctica has coldest avg. winter temp in recorded history
2022: Hotelier Maldives: Maldives to See Twelve New Resort Openings in 2022
2024: Global Warming Policy Foundation: Polar bears are thriving; Arctic sea ice in summer has not declined since 2007
These are just a tiny fraction of the failed climate predictions of the past few decades. You could easily spend all day searching online for more. One might ask how it is possible for such phenomenally incompetent people to continue defining the world’s supposed climate consensus. It might be entertaining to ponder the intelligence of people who regard Al Gore, Prince (now King) Charles, and Greta Thunberg as climate authorities. My guess is that these climate luminaries together couldn’t tell you anything about the kinds of equipment that are used to collect temperature or sea level data, nor could any of them tell you where to find such data or how to interpret it. Yet they constantly stand on stages in front of global audiences, receiving honorary degrees and raining down their wisdom upon us.
All of this horse manure and the hucksters who spread it could be easily dismissed if it were not for the fact that major government organizations are saying the same things. For example, here are two graphs of 20th century temperatures that were disseminated to the public by NASA during two different periods:
In 1999 NASA was distributing a graph showing actual measured raw temperature data. Notice that the trend line was upwards from 1890 to the mid 1930s, after which it went steadily downward until 1979. This graph is consistent with other data collected during the 20th century, including reports of the incredible dust-bowl heat of the 1930s and the dire, hysterical warnings of a coming ice age that were common during the 1970s. But in the 21st century NASA distributes graphs like the 2017 version, in which the 20thcentury’s central heat wave has almost disappeared and is now dwarfed by a far more severe wave that has apparently been burning us up since 1970.
The 2017 graph conveys the idea that it represents raw temperature data, but actually the graph has been massively manipulated to make the temperatures seem to follow the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Various other agencies have at times released even more ridiculous graphs that would have you believe that the dust bowl could never have happened, and that the 1970s were actually warmer than preceding decades. Like this one here:
This graph shows a flat temperature trend from 1940 to 1980. But in its 6/24/1974 issue, TIME Magazine published an article entitled, “Another Ice Age?” Some excerpts:
“Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.”
“Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds — the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.”
Note how in 1974, “the science” said that polar vortexes were signs of global cooling, whereas today “the science” says that polar vortexes are signs of global warming. Note also that in the archived article above, TIME Magazine inserted [mostly nonworking] links to photos, videos, and articles apparently intended to contradict the archived article.
During the 1970s TIME Magazine was not alone in its dire assessment of our frozen future:
TIME Magazine Cover, January 31, 1977:
Science News Cover, December 1, 1975:
The Guardian, January 29, 1974:
1972: Representatives of a conference of 42 “top American and European investigators” warn President Nixon of the dire global cooling trend:
If you search for any of the above articles, you will suffocate in an avalanche of blather describing hoaxes involving TIME magazine covers, phony articles, etc. Unless you know exactly what dates and terms to use, it is almost impossible to find these materials using a search engine. What sort of incredible force is powerful enough to smother the Internet with so much propaganda that most people can never find actual historical records?
There is seemingly a whole publishing industry dedicated to convincing people that:
The 1999 NASA graph (of raw temperature data) never existed.
There were never any dropping temperature trends during the 20th century.
There were no scientists who during the 1970s feared a coming ice age.
There was no scientific consensus during the 1970s that global temps were cooling.
All of the above statements are blatant lies, but the average person would have trouble finding the truth amidst all the gaslighting.
The larger question is the motive. Someone is paying for this constant brainwashing and profiting from it. It’s true that the press benefits daily by terrorizing the public with ridiculous, sensational headlines, but this goes much deeper. Why are universities, corporations, and government agencies relentlessly generating these lies? Who has the power to force even corporate giants like Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and BP to demonize themselves and to destroy their own successful businesses?
The enormity of the lie
Here is a graph of the annual average maximum temperatures in Minnesota since 1900, complete with trend line:
Here’s Alabama:
Here’s New York State:
My guess is that the atypical linear rise in New York is driven mostly by urbanization of the temperature recording stations in the NYC area; a thermometer surrounded by asphalt will record higher temperatures than one in a natural area.
Does this collection of rather sedate trend lines above look anything like the apocalyptic hockey-stick-shaped graphs (below) being published by our climate agencies?
You certainly wouldn’t have any idea that Minnesota’s 123-year high-temperature trend line is flat by listening to our crazed media or our political leadership. None of them has much to say about the fact that (at this writing) the Twin Cities just experienced its third-snowiest winter in recorded history, 23 years after famed climatologist David Viner’s prediction that snow will simply be a memory, at latest by maybe 20 years ago.
What explains the radical difference between the raw data and the government graphs? The difference is that the temperatures in the government graphs are almost entirely fiction.
The black graphs above were produced by a tool that you can run by yourself at Real Climate Tools. This program takes data straight out of the U.S. Historical Record (as maintained by NOAA). At the bottom of the screen the program shows you the URL of the NOAA database that it’s using as its source. You can learn how to use this tool by watching this brief tutorial.
So then: what is this climate-alarmist graph being presented by NASA, NOAA, and the like? It’s not real data at all; it’s a climate model that is created by taking actual temperatures and modifying them by precisely the amount needed to make the temperatures parallel our CO2 emissions. Like the COVID death counts that were presented to us in early 2020 for the purpose of terrorizing us, it has almost no correspondence to the real raw data.
There are two sets of videos you can watch to understand what’s being done to doctor the raw temps in order to manufacture the climate-terror graphs:
SHORT VERSION:
LONG VERSION:
Summarizing the above: Our climate agencies declare huge swaths of raw temperatures to be either invalid or missing, and then they replace those temperatures with whatever numbers will make the resulting graphs match their climate models.
How to become a trillionaire
There seems to be only one force on earth capable of mounting such an enormous fraud, and that is the collective power of the banking industry. In a previous article (Three Companies Now Run The World), I ended by pointing out that the banks were absent from the current crop of robber barons. Quoting:
Without anyone planning it, the technology of the late 20th and early 21st centuries has reorganized the world’s power such that the banks no longer have the degree of control that they formerly did. In order to regain their “rightful” piece of the global power pie, the banks must institute an enormous counteracting change. They must create a “new world order,” if you will, and during this process they must amass incredible, unimaginable wealth at the expense of the world’s populace. In fact, that is precisely what they are doing, and that is the subject of a future article.
This is that future article.
Every year, a bunch of billionaires from around the world gather at the self-anointed “World Economic Forum” to decide how they will exert their will upon the rest of us. Each of these people is to some degree aware of the fact that he or she is there largely as a matter of luck. Had it not been for a set of remarkable coincidences, you would never have heard of Bill Gates. So too with almost anyone in the billionaire class; had it not been for some very fortunate series of events, someone else (or perhaps nobody) would be occupying that person’s role.
Even if these billionaires could replicate their earlier good luck, they’d still be merely billionaires, and growth of their new business ventures would probably take decades, just as it did the first time around. There are no legitimate businesses that can generate enough profit to make their owners into trillionaires. To make that kind of money you must commit a fraud that is unprecedented. You must steal, on average, at least $143 from every person on earth. More realistically, you must steal thousands of dollars from every productive middle-class wage earner on the planet. How do you do this?
Well one way is to force the entire world to pointlessly replace its entire energy infrastructure. You make it mandatory. You find an excuse with which to require the world to rip out its perfectly functioning energy systems and replace them with new systems, provided and financed by - you!
How do you go about forcing the world to pointlessly buy hundreds of trillions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure and services? Well first you terrorize the global population with a propaganda campaign designed to induce hysteria and desperation. This will take decades, but fortunately you started decades ago. At some point you need a young generation, fully brainwashed via the public schools and TV propaganda, to be mentally ill over our fictitious coming disaster. You want the upcoming kids to believe that they are doomed unless they subscribe to your “solutions.” The American Psychological Association says, “Rising temperatures can fuel mood and anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and vascular dementia, and can increase emergency room usage and suicide rates.” Of course, the APA’s statement is preposterous. The average person isn’t consciously experiencing any rising temperatures, and even if temps were actually rising, the change would be so subtle that nobody would notice. The actual source of the anxiety, schizophrenia, and other disorders is obviously climate change propaganda.
As we noted at the start of this article, it seems that the population is eternally ignorant of actual climate realities, to the point where charlatans (especially government charlatans) can post failed predictions year after year and decade after decade, and the population never catches on. Add to this the fact that the sheeple have no concept of the historical realities of past weather events, as described here in The Bambi Syndrome ("They describe ordinary weather events that have happened countless times as being ecological disasters.")
Nobody understands all this better than our current crop of climate hucksters, who live in oceanfront mansions while proclaiming that we will soon be underwater; read about them here: Rising Oceans – Not
So, who will force the world to throw out its perfectly working energy infrastructure? Who has the power to reach into every corner of the economy of every nation and force all the suckers there, both corporate and private, to pony up for replacement of all their energy sources?
The banks. The banks can assert the power that they lost in the technological revolution of the past fifty years. They can form a cabal that enforces a rating system upon every corporation and every individual on earth, and they can withhold financial services based upon that rating. They can call it ESG. By forcing it on the world’s public companies and requiring those companies to incorporate their vendors’ ESG ratings into their own, the banks can recursively impose their energy-source replacement down the throat of every public and private company. Then, aside from extorting trillions from the world’s economies via ESG requirements, the banks can profit from selling everyone ESG consulting services. Essentially, the banks can convert a substantial fraction of the world’s GDP away from productive activities and redirect it into their own pockets by forcing almost everyone on earth to spend time and effort on counterproductive ESG initiatives.
The propaganda
To understand the power of ESG propaganda, consider this. Prior to ESG, the replacement of a tiny oil pipeline that’s invisible to almost everyone, and which moves oil that is already being moved by other means, would cause an enormous uproar. Native American tribes would demand that their sacred lands not be violated and that their reservations not be crossed. Environmental groups would tie up construction with lawsuits until construction stopped. All for a pipeline that almost nobody would ever see.
Today, energy companies like Xcel, which operates in multiple midwestern states, proudly tout how they are going to litter millions of acres of farmland and pristine landscape with windmills. Isn’t it amazing how we haven’t heard a single peep from the Native Americans and the environmentalists? And isn’t it astounding how an entire nation’s population has been trained to look at a picture like this one below with admiration, believing it to be some sort of ecological Nirvana? How stupid does it have to get before the Average Joe figures out that something is amiss?
It boggles the mind. We’ve been sold a massive rape of the earth that will require:
unprecedented strip mining to retrieve precious metals for batteries,
windmills that must operate for years, possibly their entire lifetimes, to “save” the amount of CO2 that was required to build both them and their enormous, unseen concrete bases,
non-recyclable carbon-fiber windmill blades that will end up as millions of tons of landfill,
non-recyclable solar panels deployed over millions of acres, enormously changing the ecology of those acres and most likely destroying the ecosystems that live there.
All this is unquestioningly accepted as “green” by the sheeple, who never realized that something was terribly wrong when our WEF masters changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change,” in preparation for the day when they’d finally have to admit that there isn’t actually any warming, and instead start associating literally any change in the weather with their ongoing farce.
The banksters running the ESG extortion racket know they can say just about anything, no matter how contradictory and ridiculous, and most of the population will always be ignorant enough to buy it. They’re already changing their story. Some folks are getting hip to the fact that temperatures aren’t actually rising, so the ESG hucksters are now pushing weather extremes. The average person will never realize that global weather disasters are actually getting rarer and that there’s nothing abnormal about having weather extremes on a regular basis. In fact, a year without weather extremes would be highly abnormal, but the ESG folk can rely on a population that will never know enough about weather history or about statistics to understand what a “normal” weather year should look like.
The Final Goal
I doubt that the real cause of the 1776 American Revolution was taxation. "Taxation without representation" was the excuse, not the cause. Most U.S. residents today can't imagine the real cause because they've never experienced it.
Under the monarchy the king owned essentially all the land in Britain. Since he could not run the whole place alone, he parceled it up into jurisdictions ruled by dukes. Those parcels were in turn subdivided among lower-ranking earls, who in turn subdivided their land to lower ranks. Land ownership was thus determined by birth and/or one's associations with the aristocracy. The vast majority of land was owned by a very small group. While it was possible for commoners to hold land, in 18th century England only about one percent of households owned the land upon which they lived; the rest were tenants, mostly tenant farmers. In this agricultural society, land equaled wealth, and so the aristocrats were very intent on keeping the land to themselves.
The attraction for most American colonists in populating the New World was the nearly certain prospect of land ownership. If I had been a land-owning colonist in the 1760s, a disturbing idea would have entered my head: What if this arrangement of colonists owning their own land was just temporary? Why should British aristocrats, who must have held the colonists in even lower regard than British commoners in Britain, allow American riff-raff to enjoy privileges to which they would not have been entitled in England? It is inconceivable to me that the British aristocracy would NOT have planned to eventually migrate themselves to the colonies whenever conditions became sufficiently civilized there, and simply take over the territory. After having undertaken all the work and risk to inhabit a land mass many times larger than their homeland, the colonists' great grandchildren would eventually have been forced to yield all their properties to the king, and once again be reduced to tenant farmers. And that, I believe, was the real reason the colonies went to war*.
The billionaires of the World Economic Forum have made it extremely clear that they view the current wealth and economic freedom of the world’s middle classes as a temporary condition. On November 12, 2016 the WEF published a page entitled, “8 predictions for the world in 2030”. At this writing that page is still up, but the first item on it, namely “All products will have become services”, now points to nothing. But happily the Internet is forever, and we can use the WayBack Machine to see an early version of it.
Read the page – all of it. Grasp the delusional insanity of it. Then understand that despite having taken it down, the World Economic Forum is totally serious. At this writing, the WEF (through its puppets in your government) has seven years to divest you of all your property, i.e. to reduce you to serfdom. I’d say the goal is a bit ambitious, but with our current governance in the USA and the EU, your days as a non-serf are definitely numbered.
==== ADDENDUM OF 5/13/2024
Well, the banks are certainly in on the Climate Change farce, but since publishing this article I’ve come up with a considerably better explanation: Climate Change is actually about going all-nuclear
==== ADDENDUM OF 6/27/2024
Please watch these videos here:
Hawley Questions Granholm On Personal Stock Trading Violations, Executive Branch Stock Trading Ban
Hawley Calls On Granholm To Resign Over Stock Trading Lies & Dark Money Connections
Jennifer Granholm, the person being grilled here:
was the Attorney General of the state of Michigan from 1999 to 2003,
was a two-term governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011,
and is now (at this writing) the U.S. Energy Secretary under the Biden administration.
She presides over a federal agency where, according to Senator Hawley’s research, a third of her senior staff (including her) held shares of individual energy stocks (Exxon, Chevron, etc.). She herself owned shares in Proterra, a now-bankrupt “green” company that received millions in aid from the federal government and was later personally promoted by Joe Biden (for whom Granholm works), until she was eventually forced to divest them as a result of her ownership being publicly disclosed. She claims, of course, that somehow she was unaware of these pesky conflicts of interest lurking in her portfolio.
Remember Obama’s Solyndra? A pattern is emerging here. The pattern goes like this:
As a leading politician (along with your government-agency operatives), decide upon a policy by which you can fleece the global middle-class public.
Preferably choose energy policy, since energy is predictably always in huge demand (plus, there’s already a decades-long government terror campaign supporting your scheme here).
Locate some smallish “green” energy companies in which to invest.
Continue the relentless Climate Change PR campaign designed to terrorize middle-class suckers into believing there is some existential global threat that can be solved only by radically changing our energy policy.
Swindle those middle-class suckers out of their life savings by forcing them to pay for infrastructure changes that benefit the energy companies in your portfolio.
Enrich yourself further by shoveling government money into your alternative-energy investments.
Bail out at the moment that your unsustainable energy investments peak just before they collapse.
SO if you lay awake nights wondering how middle-class folks like Obama, Biden, and Granholm become multi-millionaires on their salaries as “public servants”, perhaps now you can get more sleep. And if you’ve been wondering how a story that’s littered with so many lies and liars continues to have such powerful legs after all these decades, well maybe now you’ve got a line on that too.
==== ADDENDUM OF 2/1/2025
* My theory about the colonists’ actual motivation for going to war is not mere speculation. In early 1774 England passed the Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party. In response, Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the king entitled, “A Summary View of the Rights of British America”, containing the following excerpts:
That we shall at this time also take notice of an error in the nature of our land holdings, which crept in at a very early period of our settlement. The introduction of the feudal tenures into the kingdom of England, though antient, is well enough understood to set this matter in a proper light. In the earlier ages of the Saxon settlement feudal holdings were certainly altogether unknown; and very few, if any, had been introduced at the time of the Norman conquest. Our Saxon ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in absolute dominion, disencumbered with any superior, answering nearly to the nature of those possessions which the feudalists term allodial …
The fictitious principle that all lands belong originally to the king, they were early persuaded to believe real; and accordingly took grants of their own lands from the crown. And while the crown continued to grant for small sums, and on reasonable rents; there was no inducement to arrest the error, and lay it open to public view. But his majesty has lately taken on him to advance the terms of purchase, and of holding to the double of what they were; by which means the acquisition of lands being rendered difficult, the population of our country is likely to be checked. It is time, therefore, for us to lay this matter before his majesty, and to declare that he has no right to grant lands of himself.
Jefferson’s older and wiser peers, not yet ready to put their lives on the line by declaring war, and understanding the typical fates of people who question the legitimacy of their authorities’ power and wealth, decided not to send it.
==== ADDENDUM of 4/18/2025
Gore and Cortez should be confined to a small closet and fed Ex-Lax!
Excellent post. I expect to show it to many people. :D