The climate change hoax

Now the cojona narrative starts to get a bit repetitive and long winded, it is clear that the elites will increasingly focus on the climate change hoax in order to steer behavioral patterns and attitudes. We know the elite looks for means of control. The way they do it is they create a problem (sometimes real, usually completely fake), they reach their hand to a panicking population offering their help and lastly they implement their preferred solution which is another step in the centralization of power on a global level. We have seen this over and over again with wars (WWI/WWII), financial crises (great recession in the 30s), the perceived threat of global terrorism (perfect invisible enemy), the threat of nuclear weapons for the world and now the ''cojona pandemic''.

The intellectual propaganda arm for climate change got public in the Club of Rome in the 60s. This was a group of scientists and ''experts'' who announced that climate change was coming and we were all in danger. First, it was stated that it would become colder. Then, the narrative became the threat of the hole in the Ozon layer. When that didn't work too nicely the tone was changed to the word climate change, in which human activities are seen as the reason that the earth if heating up, which will result as argued in the future collapse of the planet. Books like Limits to growth and The first global revolution were released to emphasize the urgency of the matter.

The club of Rome stated that ''The common enemy of man is man. In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confessed by everyone together. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.'' (p.75 the first global revolution)

Nowadays we see talk about climate lockdowns, which obviously we only can avoid if our behavior is changed:



Gill Bates states that climate change is going to be the real deal in the near future:


Terms such as ''ecocide'' are used and we are warned about the number of deaths climate change is going to cause:



The BLM equivalent for climate change is being established:


What then is fact and what is fiction? What are articles they're pushing in the media? What are the next steps they're going to take?

Let's get their climate plans onto the rader.
 

Sinabelus

Sparrow
Climate change is a very tough subject to deal with, more so than covid, because it's more coherent and also because people have been softly penetrated by the idea for quite some time now. To the average normie anthropomorphic climate change is an absolute evidence. Besides it is so deliberately convoluted and complex that gathering enough proof to properly debate people with facts requires no less than you becoming an amateur climatologist. Thus my line of reasoning is as follows :
- the politico-mediatic industry has the means (financial, etc) to establish their proclamations as truth
- it proclaims that climate change caused by men is real
- yet it is very much up for debate
- so it can be reasonably inferred that it is a hoax. Otherwise with the means involved and the base truth it would be unquestionable.
It's not a particularly strong reasoning but it does the job.

As for their plans, the Great Reset is just that, as it has Covid as the impulse but the true underlying cause is the climate hoax. Green bonds and green economy (meaning more corruption and connivence), collectivisation, abolition of private property, probably social score with integrated ecological behaviour, all that funny stuff. You understand my friend, all of this is necessary to allocate resources in a way that stops climate change. Ecological lockdowns would be quite a surprise however, and my intuition would tell me that people would never let that slip, but my belief in the normies is falling to unimaginable depths.
 

Climate racism. Cojona was racist, now the climate is racist. While the climate change hoax is primarily about restructuring all our social behavior and the global economies (deindustrialization to make the slaves get into a hunger game society) we have to give them credit for how they manage to put some divide and conquer into the matter :laughter:
 
Climate change is a very tough subject to deal with, more so than covid, because it's more coherent and also because people have been softly penetrated by the idea for quite some time now. To the average normie anthropomorphic climate change is an absolute evidence. Besides it is so deliberately convoluted and complex that gathering enough proof to properly debate people with facts requires no less than you becoming an amateur climatologist. Thus my line of reasoning is as follows :
- the politico-mediatic industry has the means (financial, etc) to establish their proclamations as truth
- it proclaims that climate change caused by men is real
- yet it is very much up for debate
- so it can be reasonably inferred that it is a hoax. Otherwise with the means involved and the base truth it would be unquestionable.
It's not a particularly strong reasoning but it does the job.

As for their plans, the Great Reset is just that, as it has Covid as the impulse but the true underlying cause is the climate hoax. Green bonds and green economy (meaning more corruption and connivence), collectivisation, abolition of private property, probably social score with integrated ecological behaviour, all that funny stuff. You understand my friend, all of this is necessary to allocate resources in a way that stops climate change. Ecological lockdowns would be quite a surprise however, and my intuition would tell me that people would never let that slip, but my belief in the normies is falling to unimaginable depths.
Great observation. They have limitless options with climate change for it portrays an imminent threat to each and every one of us. They can only make the normies accept when they are brainwashed step by step. It is interesting too to see the depopulation agenda playing out in relation to climate change. This is a long hold wish of the elite and wouldn't it be good for the world if there were less people? Some examples in movies:




It's interesting to see that these ideas have gained a cultlike following, such as video's elaborately discussing whether what Thanos did (killing 50% of the universe population) was actually good and heroic.
 

stugatz

Pelican
For me, the worst is just the hypocrisy. I was raised to not waste things. What remained of the Boy Scouts when I was in it (early 1990s to the mid 2000s) also taught me to respect nature, not litter, and respect the environment by camping responsibly.

So seeing these people talk about going green, and then littering at every demonstration they have and not being able to even think of going without a smartphone...ugh, I don't feel like engaging with them.
 

Pantheon

Sparrow
Some spiritually alarming observations about climate change:

* It demonizes CO2 and makes us antagonistic towards a substance which is essential for life.

* It makes us think of the sun as a giant gas bomb waiting to swallow us whole, instead of a benevolent light-source in a fine-tuned universe.

* It treats nature as a giant canvas for human wish fulfilments while the "environment" becomes nothing but a mere landscape for social posers who want to save the planet from the city-centre.

* It makes us anxious towards natural changes in temperature rendering people unable to enjoy the weather, leading to a compulsion to control and predict it. Control is sought as a compensation for what is seen as a fundamentally "chaotic" universe.

* Secular alarmists and environmental activists become no different from creationists predicting the end of the world every other decade, showing that they are just a other sect of religious fundamentalists borrowing the mantle of science.

* It makes us obnoxious towards the climate, constantly seeking reports for tomorrow instead of trusting God's providence in the now.

* Coronavirus comes in as a nice complement to boost the social hypochondria, for now not only is the climate "contaminated" but also our very own bodies. A desperate desire to "fix" the climate and "clean" the environment reigns while imaginary threats and enemies are pointed at as symbolic scapegoats.

* A seasonal virus is politicized and manufactured as the new black plague, while local temperature heating most likely created by overcrowded cities and concrete is imagined as 'global warming'.

* Every kind of distraction is conjured up as long as humanity can evade to look inwards and face its own solipsism and illusions of grandeur.

* Veganism becomes the dietary justification for the complete detachment from the body and the flesh, so that we can become disembodied robots.

Conclusion: modern society has become detached from reality and nature but is trying to "whitewash" itself by pretending to clean the environment and pandering to science. The constant outcry to save the climate reflects a deeper mistrust and aversion towards life itself.

Our souls have become polluted, so we try to "clean" the environment. That way, we can keep hiding from our own nature and the skeletons in the wardrobe.
 
Last edited:
Some thoughts on climate change. My background: I work as a data engineer and do a lot of data analysis for my job. Also, I have more than a layman's understanding of Chaos Theory, because it's also related to my line of work.

With that out of the way, the first question I like to as about climate change is "What does the ideal climate look like? What should the target be? 1900? 1950? 1800?" In response, they'll usually say pre-Industrial Revolution, but we have very limited data from that time that is also prone to error because of inaccurate measuring devices.

Another issue is that they frequently graph worldwide average temp data, but we have only been measuring that by satellite since the 1970s. Before that, it was being measured by regular thermometers on the earth's surface that are prone to being influenced by the micro-environment around the thermometer, as well as being prone to error, and having the possibility of being moved or being replaced by other thermometers. The worldwide average data is a way to filter some of those errors, because they are just looking for a trend.

Those are just minor details, however. The number one issue with climate change is that the climate is a Chaotic System, which makes it inherently unpredictable.

Basics about Chaos Theory here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

The basic idea is that chaotic systems are extremely sensitive to changes in inputs, and those changes lead to unpredictable results.

In other words, we don't know all of the variables that influence our climate, but even if we did, we cannot predict the future values of those variables well enough to make meaningful predictions, and any slight variation from those predictions would lead to unpredictable outcomes.

One other major problem with climate predictions: even if none of the above were problems, when you are trying to predict the outcome of a system with a vast number of inputs, the range of possible outcomes is so wide going into the future, that you don't know if the real changes you see are a result of your efforts to change the climate, or just what could have happened anyway even if you hadn't intervened at all, because the range of possible outcomes is so wide, especially as you move are into the future (+10 years).
 

Sinabelus

Sparrow
Great observation. They have limitless options with climate change for it portrays an imminent threat to each and every one of us. They can only make the normies accept when they are brainwashed step by step. It is interesting too to see the depopulation agenda playing out in relation to climate change. This is a long hold wish of the elite and wouldn't it be good for the world if there were less people? Some examples in movies:




It's interesting to see that these ideas have gained a cultlike following, such as video's elaborately discussing whether what Thanos did (killing 50% of the universe population) was actually good and heroic.
Climate change is linked at its core with depopulation. Coupled with the modern obsession for virtue signalling some people literally choose to not make children for the climate, or rather use it as a moral justification for their decision to extract every bit of earthly pleasure from life. Nietzsche said a lot of things that ought to be considered carefully and not swallowed whole, but he was right on nihilism and climate change is nothing more than an expression of the Europeans' wish to die and to return to a primal, void-like state that is considered more "pure".
For me, the worst is just the hypocrisy. I was raised to not waste things. What remained of the Boy Scouts when I was in it (early 1990s to the mid 2000s) also taught me to respect nature, not litter, and respect the environment by camping responsibly.

So seeing these people talk about going green, and then littering at every demonstration they have and not being able to even think of going without a smartphone...ugh, I don't feel like engaging with them.
Ugh, they are so unbearable. I was raised in the countryside in constant contact with nature and I'm supposed to be lectured by well-off boomers city-dwellers who carefully avoid everything they advocate : immigrants, nature…
 

C-Note

Ostrich
Gold Member
There are some very well written books on the global warming/climate change hoax. Christopher Booker's tome "The Real Global Warming Disaster" is a very entertaining read. A shorter, more updated essay summary of that book is his "Global Warming: A Case Study in Groupthink." Another good one is "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford.

The climate change issue is like a religion to leftists. It contains all the elements that appeals to their worldview:

1. That humanity is basically evil, so of course humans are destroying the planet
2. The evident solution is wealth redistribution by a socialist, central government
3. It provides evidence that their leftist worldview is based on "science."
4. We must use continual vigilance to protect "the environment."

There are some weird dichotomies with leftists and their climate change activism. If you point out that nuclear energy produces no carbon and is more efficient than "green" energy, they suffer cognitive dissonance. Also, many of the globalists supporting climate change activism are the heads of large corporate conglomerates that probably would end up being purged if the environmental wackos ever took over. Furthermore, a number of studies have pointed out that mass human migration, which the globalists are promoting, greatly increases carbon production and environmental damage. For example, the Sierra Club, a leftist environmental activist organization, used to publicly state (before globalists took over the Democratic Party) that it was against illegal immigration to the US. Again, leftists suffer some serious cognitive dissonance when you point this out.
 
Last edited:

Sinabelus

Sparrow
There are some very well written books on the global warming/climate change hoax. Christopher Booker's tome "The Real Global Warming Disaster" is a very entertaining read. A shorter, more updated essay summary of that book is his "Global Warming: A Case Study in Groupthink." Another good one is "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford.

The climate change issue is like a religion to leftists. It contains all the elements that appeals to their worldview:

1. That humanity is basically evil, so of course humans are destroying the planet
2. The evident solution is wealth redistribution by a socialist, central government
3. It provides evidence that their leftist worldview is based on "science."
4. We must use continual vigilance to protect "the environment."

There are some weird dichotomies with leftists and their climate change activism. If you point out that nuclear energy produces no carbon and is more efficient than "green" energy, they suffer cognitive dissonance. Also, many of the globalists supporting climate change activism are the heads of large corporate conglomerates that probably would end up being purged if the environmental wackos ever took over. Furthermore, a number of studies have pointed out that mass human migration, which the globalists are promoting, greatly increases carbon production and environment damage. For example, the Sierra Club, a leftist environmental activist organization, used to publicly state (before globalists took over the Democratic Party) that it was against illegal immigration to the US. Again, leftists suffer some serious cognitive dissonance when you point this out.
Very good point. It's basically a perverted narrative to support their beliefs, the same way that (((something that didn't happen in WW2))) acts as a narration for zionism and the overall willingness of the population to comply with their overlords belonging to the tribe.

What's unfortunate is that when you buy into this narration, you're basically leftist by default. Because believing in a narration implies that by need of coherence you adhere to the logical consequences and solutions. If you believe Jesus is resurrected, how can you not worship him and believe He is God? Same thing with the climate change hoax. You can't believe in it and not thing humanity is evil, uncontrollable, etc.
 

BoiBoi

Pelican
Years ago, at my university we had an event. The topic was "You can save the earth" or something along these lines. The main speaker was the head of the national IPCC chapter, a well decorated scientist. He gave a big speech about climate change and how it's the biggest challenge to mankind ever. Nothing out of the ordinary.

After the speech, there was a Q/A and he was asked, what the individual can do right now to save the planet. His answer was we have to stop eating meat. Furthermore, he was asked what kind of technologies he regards as key to achieving the 2 °C goal. He explained that CCS (Carbon capture and storage) would be crucial and needs to be jumped on immediately if we want to have a chance.

Now, it happens that I was studying energy engineering at this university. Just a week prior to this event, we actually calculated how much space you'd need to use for CSS to make an impact. Of course, this was a rough estimation but the results were super obvious. Basically, CCS is useless as a bridge technology for a number of reasons. It took us (a group of M.Sc. students + professor) about 30 minutes to come to this conclusion.
My entire class and the professor were in disbelieve. How could such a great scientist with all these accolades to his name be so clueless?
 

kel

Ostrich
Great observation. They have limitless options with climate change for it portrays an imminent threat to each and every one of us. They can only make the normies accept when they are brainwashed step by step. It is interesting too to see the depopulation agenda playing out in relation to climate change. This is a long hold wish of the elite and wouldn't it be good for the world if there were less people? Some examples in movies:




It's interesting to see that these ideas have gained a cultlike following, such as video's elaborately discussing whether what Thanos did (killing 50% of the universe population) was actually good and heroic.
I hadn't heard of Utopia, a US remake of a British series from 2013 that came out in 2020 as the video says. A bit on the nose, isn't it?
 

kel

Ostrich
Climate change is ideal because the general public can't verify it for themselves, so it never needs to actually come to a head nor do "solutions" to it ever need to produce real results. You can manipulate it on a spreadsheet and keep it going as long as you want, much like a virus.
 

Pantheon

Sparrow
There are some very well written books on the global warming/climate change hoax. Christopher Booker's tome "The Real Global Warming Disaster" is a very entertaining read. A shorter, more updated essay summary of that book is his "Global Warming: A Case Study in Groupthink." Another good one is "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford.

The climate change issue is like a religion to leftists. It contains all the elements that appeals to their worldview:

1. That humanity is basically evil, so of course humans are destroying the planet
2. The evident solution is wealth redistribution by a socialist, central government
3. It provides evidence that their leftist worldview is based on "science."
4. We must use continual vigilance to protect "the environment."

There are some weird dichotomies with leftists and their climate change activism. If you point out that nuclear energy produces no carbon and is more efficient than "green" energy, they suffer cognitive dissonance. Also, many of the globalists supporting climate change activism are the heads of large corporate conglomerates that probably would end up being purged if the environmental wackos ever took over. Furthermore, a number of studies have pointed out that mass human migration, which the globalists are promoting, greatly increases carbon production and environmental damage. For example, the Sierra Club, a leftist environmental activist organization, used to publicly state (before globalists took over the Democratic Party) that it was against illegal immigration to the US. Again, leftists suffer some serious cognitive dissonance when you point this out.

It seems to me that the more hardcore anti-humanist environmentalists are the 'deep ecologists' of the right. These tend to be consequent realists and fervently defend nature in itself against urbanization and technology. These are completely willing to take any measures against democratic notions to make space for nature. This is the original "masculine" form of environmentalism, which avoids social approval and targets the system.

The popular form of environmentalism came with leftism. This is when environmentalism went from anti-systemic decentralization to being about saving the system and creating a 'sustainable' urban life. The left realized that it needs technology and big cities to survive, so environmentalism became about "planning" a better tomorrow through one-size-fits-all politics.

Conservatives prefer self-discipline in favor of letting society and nature run its course without much intervention. The leftist mind is internally chaotic hence it favors external control. On the one hand, leftists pretend to be nature lovers, but on the other hand they find nature unequal, amoral, unpredictable and scary. Hence, they project a big smile on the universe where life becomes a social question instead of a spiritual concern.

This is why leftism ultimately is not spiritually allied with nature, but actually wants to subdue it. The reason it hates fossil fuels is because they "pollute" their vision of sterilized cities where skyscrapers and street lights block the stars during the night. Leftism is spiritually subservient to electricity, which is an odorless and colorless power which isolates us from nature and replaces natural heat and light.

When you think about it, leftism is all about preventing any natural order from reasserting itself. This two-faced nature of the left also explains the paradoxical nature of the environmentalist narrative, where it on the one hand seems to be working to save the planet but on the other seems hellbent to kill us all.
 
Last edited:
Top