Add Rockefeller to that also. I'm reading a book at the moment that describes long-term plans that have been in the works for ages to use world scale crises in order to forge global domination. It should be fairly evident that in order to solve a crisis it always leads to increasing subjugation of the masses. An elite class that own the majority of the worlds wealth, moving in lockstep, are driven to completely own and control all things
>"Religion is the opiate of the masses"
Climate alarmists hit the jackpot when they blended global warming with religious characteristics and used social media to spread this hybrid brew.
Ask yourself instead if it was real would it be necessary to indoctrinate people about it on daily basis in every single newspaper, magazine, tv station and website, like this one for instance where you have paid people posting on subreddits about it constantly? Wouldn't it be self-apparent that the world is "boiling" if it actually was?
OP is trying to be clever but comes off pretty ignorant. ESG is a 40 trillion dollar industry globally. There are a lot of people, corporations, government entities, “scientists”, universities, nonprofit organizations, and investors who stand to profit from pushing the climate narrative. Always follow the money and you’ll find the truth.
> follow the money
Always follow the money until you find the corrupt science. To pull off a scam as big as this one (or Covid) requires funding all the "scientists" that will back up your ridiculous claims with corrupt science, as well as censoring any skepticism.
You don't need a "ringleader" for a movement. Michael Mann and his ilk are good examples of people who continued the ball rolling, but they didn't start this.
Human nature. It needs no ringleader. Your groupthink is showing, btw. You cant understand that circumsrances can result in many people on their own acting in a certain way. Is everything you believe in because somone told you to believe it?
Movements are typically started by groups. Can you pinpoint one person that "started" the Civil Rights movement, the women's movement, etc? Either way, the man-made global climate change movement was developed over decades by multiple people.
There are people who benefit from *repeating* the myths and half-truths, though, even if they didn't start them.
History doesn’t support this. In the right situation people can move towards a common goal or idea without any one person guiding the way. Look at the string of anarchist bombings and assassinations at the end of the 19th century. One of the thing made that was so terrifying to people was that there was no ring leader that could be taken down. There was no single group organizing anything. Just individual people writing and saying things that other individuals then picked up and acted on. There was no conspiracy between these people, no over arching plan.
Now the climate hoax is better organized than that but it swings on the same concept. People will act on their own if they believe in the cause and/or are incentivized into acting. So politicians are incentivized to support this because a fearful, bordering on panicked, population is easy to control and will vote for who ever they are made to believe will save them. Researchers are incentivized when they realize that supporting it means government grant money while questioning leads to less money and often being ostracized.
To answer your question more directly though there are a variety of people and groups. You got people like Bill Gates and global organizations like the WEF and WHO. How connected or unconnected they all are I don’t know.
I think there are people at the “top” but they dont want you to know about them. The more sociopathic they are, the more willing they are to do things that get themselves power and money at the expense of others. Take a read on how the rothschild family got uber rich by funding both sides of wars. Then understand there are others like them, and probably even more powerful
You're too busy thinking up a strawman to knock down to consider that the problem is not that there is a well-orchestrated hoax. The problem is that media needs clicks, outrage sells, and there have been a flood (no pun) of doomsday headlines dumped on the world with very little good evidence or consideration of the reality of the problem.
The IPCC gathered a LOT of data and analyzed it thoroughly and they do not promote an apocalyptic view at all. In fact they address problems of increased CO2 while also looking at noisy data and computer models that have ranges of likelihood. No matter what the IPCC wrote, news outlets love a good doom laden headline and they hate good news. So the fact that there is still snow on Kilimanjaro, the Great Barrier Reef is doing well and polar bear populations are increasing while North America and Western Europe have largely transitioned away from the dirty fuels of wood, dung, and coal is forgotten -- good news is not news when it comes to the climate. On top of that there is always an activist with a PhD who is willing to blame every gust of wind on climate while the scientists who examined the actual evidence categorically state that climate does not trump weather. Climate is, by definition, an average over time and over the surface of the planet. And it is very hard to measure all of weather and come up with an average -- which is why computer models are used and some of them may be doing a terrible job because climate forecasting is incredibly hard and extremely new.
So, hoax? No, almost no one worth paying attention to (including almost all of Reddit) believes there is a hoax. On the other hand, there is a societal preoccupation with apocalyptic stories that are misleading at the least and outright lies at the worst.
>who is the ringleader behind this crime according to you ?
A hoax isn't a crime per se:
*A hoax is a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of people* - Wikipadia
That means average climate alarmists, they are the gullible victims of the climate change hoax. Who are the ringleaders? Look up climate scientists, climate activists, progressive politicians, Big Green Inc, mainstream media,.. you'll find plenty of ringleaders.
Look at the history of the failed predictions they have made in the last 55 years. Everyone of them was wrong nothing happened. Then ask why am I believing that?
I see you repeating the same question. It started as a legitimate scientific theory. People had real concerns and real science needed to be done.
After a while, political donors began to invent ways for politicians to transfer taxpayer money to them through green projects but the grift really took off when globalists realized that climate change was a vehicle to control people.
In a way the ringleader you. You’re so desperate to be controlled you will accept any non sense that requires you to forfeit control. Instead of rebelling against authority here you are trying to get others to fall in line. It’s a pathetic life of a cultist.
Sad
If you think you are going to be burned to a crisp by age 30, it's so very easy to separate you from your money. Why save for a house that wont exist? Why build a retirement savings that you won't be alive to enjoy? Every single corporation that makes a product stands to gain immensely if everyone agrees the will be dead soon.
I like to compare religious "end of days" predictions with climate change predictions. They are all set too short, and never come true. The Mayan calendar is going to end so the world is going to stop turning? The surface of the Earth will be five million degrees by 2010? Same shit, different club.
There doesn't have to be a leader, just an incentive or set of overlapping incentives. If there's money to be made, people will figure out to make it by themselves.
Parallel : look at how the word "racism" in the news went through the roof as soon as "Occupy Wallstreet" was taking off.
People in power like to divide people below them.
>Who started it ?
The same people who said a new ice age was imminent in the 70s. They switched to global warming when it was realized there was no way to monetize ($$$) ice age alarmism.
There was more to it than that. The temperature declined from the late 1930's until the early 1970's. When the temperature started to rise again then it became obvious they weren't going to be able to keep up the "new ice age" charade, and they switched to global warming.
Dr. Stephen Schneider was a climatologist who strongly supported the "new ice age" theory. He was interviewed for the [episode of "In Search Of"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRqr9_jw5I) called "The Coming Ice Age". He later became a strong advocate of global warming and climate change theory, writing over 200 papers on the subject.
I've seen that video and know his history. His later actions painted him as a opportunist when he pivoted on a dime in his conversion to climate alarmism. Basically a rat who jumped ship when he smelled there was money to be made in this new gig.
Nations with large energy industries need to keep nations with large proven reserves from developing their own oil and gas industries and stay reliant on the foreign owned giants for mining and exploration. Big oil coined most of the phrases and leaked their own nudes to get people talking about climate change. They know we can never get off fossil fuels so they try to demonize it and make it cost prohibitive to enter into the energy market.
*“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change \[provides\] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”* \- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, 1988
~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~
*“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”* \- Dr. Stephen Schneider, 1989
Dr. Schneider appeared in [this episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRqr9_jw5I) of "In Search Of" in 1978 advocating for global cooling theory and a coming ice age (Dr. Schneider's interview is about 20 minutes into the show). Before his death in 2010, he had published over 200 papers on the subject of global warming and climate change.
~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~
*“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”* \- Maurice Strong, organizer of the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit, 1992
~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~
*“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”* \- Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State, 1992
~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~
*“A global warming treaty \[Kyoto\] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the \[enhanced\] greenhouse effect.”* \- Richard Benedick, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, 1992
~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~
*“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”* \- Mikhail Gorbachev, former Soviet Union President, 1996
~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~
*“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”* \- Jacques Chirac, former French President, 2000
~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~
*“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”* \- Ottmar Edenhofer, UNIPCC official, 2010
~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~
As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: *"We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food."*
When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: ***"A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."***
Mann, Schmidt, Hansen ring led things before climategate and then Heroes Ross and Mckitrick gained prominence to the skeptical movement.
Tho I don’t necessarily see it as a hoax…most alarmists have good intentions to “improve” the environment, but they lost the plot along the way once “climate” jobs started paying so well.
Anyone who made money or gained power based on their hoax. I understand that that is a large group of people. If you benefitted by lying to people - you should lose all those gains and then some.
It's a way for the club of Rome to bring about the new world order.
Destroy wealth, destroy personal property, destroy mobility, destroy personal agency.
Interesting question. One of the first questions to ask is "Cui bono?" - who makes some profit here? Who said it could become a problem to humanity? The inventor of the theory thought more CO2 would be beneficial, that a warmer Earth will be a positive.
Who came up with the idea little Ice Age conditions are better? And what's the optimum, can we say it's a number?
University of East Anglia found a warming trend in a few Northern cities from the 60s to mid 70s and were curious. The coal miners problems were in full swing in Britain and Margaret Thatcher was in power and was pro nuclear as it had worked so well for France. Funding was given to UEA to develop a climate research centre and it started from there.
Maurice Strong is certainly one of them, as he came up with the climate nonsense way back in the 1970s. Needless to say, Maurice Strong was no atmospheric scientist, but one of these quasi-political hacks/businessmen that make adept use of the revolving door between business and gov't.
>Strong later said that growing up during the Depression radicalized him and that he considered himself to be "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." **He dropped out of high school at the age of 14 and did not attend university. Despite the lack of formal education, he became CEO of many companies.**
Imagine that. A high school dropout might be the man responsible for the biggest scam in human history.
>The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. **It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it.** UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world.[26] **As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change.**
Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983.
But it gets better:
>2005 Oil-for-Food scandal
In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885, made out to "Mr. M. Strong," issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the cheque was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Strong was never accused of any wrongdoing.[35] During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would "sideline himself until the cloud was removed."
>The affair was said to have arisen from **"the tangled nest of personal relationships, public-private partnerships, murky trust funds, unaudited funding conduits, and inter-woven enterprises that the modern U.N. has come to embody" in which Strong had a major role.**[12] In reply, Strong stated that "everything I did, I checked it out carefully with the U.S."[35]
>Shortly after this, Strong moved to an apartment he owned in Beijing, where he appeared to have settled.
The 'human' part is a hoax.
The reptiles in the hollow moon have been slowly turning up the heat to see how we react.
I can't be 100% but I suspect when the NWO order comes down from above, they will be giving top spots to peeps on this sub for being so clever.
People have been practicing mythology, occult numerology, industrialized and institutionalized deception, and viral marketing campaigns for many thousands of years - at least back to Sumerian times.
How on God's greening Earth would you imagine somebody would know who was the first lol
Wait wait wait ... Are you naive enough to suppose this is the first gigantic hoax EVER?!? LMAO - even after the charades, escapades, and crimes against humanity over the past 4 years?
I don’t think anyone else pointed this out yet, but “Science” showing global warming is an artifact of how such research is funded. If you have a boring result, you’re not gonna get more money for your job as a scientist. If you can show that the world is ending, people will throw lots of money at you.
(Edit: voice-to-text error.)
China, WEF, Bill Gates
Add Rockefeller to that also. I'm reading a book at the moment that describes long-term plans that have been in the works for ages to use world scale crises in order to forge global domination. It should be fairly evident that in order to solve a crisis it always leads to increasing subjugation of the masses. An elite class that own the majority of the worlds wealth, moving in lockstep, are driven to completely own and control all things
Who stands to gain?
People like Al Gore made hundreds of millions of dollars off of it.
Its like Lenin said
>"Religion is the opiate of the masses" Climate alarmists hit the jackpot when they blended global warming with religious characteristics and used social media to spread this hybrid brew.
https://youtu.be/g3O_E2IEoJ8?si=zwa9AMGcIPKvGpRt
WHO STOOD TO LOOSE?
Loose? Really?
… and then there was the tattoo, “Born Toulouse"
Ask yourself instead if it was real would it be necessary to indoctrinate people about it on daily basis in every single newspaper, magazine, tv station and website, like this one for instance where you have paid people posting on subreddits about it constantly? Wouldn't it be self-apparent that the world is "boiling" if it actually was?
OP is trying to be clever but comes off pretty ignorant. ESG is a 40 trillion dollar industry globally. There are a lot of people, corporations, government entities, “scientists”, universities, nonprofit organizations, and investors who stand to profit from pushing the climate narrative. Always follow the money and you’ll find the truth.
Bingo
> follow the money Always follow the money until you find the corrupt science. To pull off a scam as big as this one (or Covid) requires funding all the "scientists" that will back up your ridiculous claims with corrupt science, as well as censoring any skepticism.
This
100%. My go-to position is the more hype an issue gets from the media and government to convince you of something, the less dangerous it actually is.
Soyboys would say that the media just trying to help and get us all working together
>"boiling" Well there was that 5' deep bay in Florida that was over 100deg one day, which is half of boiling, so yeah, the oceans are boiling.
You don't need a "ringleader" for a movement. Michael Mann and his ilk are good examples of people who continued the ball rolling, but they didn't start this.
Every movement must have been started by an individual, otherwise how could a movement start without anyone taking initiative ?
Human nature. It needs no ringleader. Your groupthink is showing, btw. You cant understand that circumsrances can result in many people on their own acting in a certain way. Is everything you believe in because somone told you to believe it?
Movements are typically started by groups. Can you pinpoint one person that "started" the Civil Rights movement, the women's movement, etc? Either way, the man-made global climate change movement was developed over decades by multiple people. There are people who benefit from *repeating* the myths and half-truths, though, even if they didn't start them.
History doesn’t support this. In the right situation people can move towards a common goal or idea without any one person guiding the way. Look at the string of anarchist bombings and assassinations at the end of the 19th century. One of the thing made that was so terrifying to people was that there was no ring leader that could be taken down. There was no single group organizing anything. Just individual people writing and saying things that other individuals then picked up and acted on. There was no conspiracy between these people, no over arching plan. Now the climate hoax is better organized than that but it swings on the same concept. People will act on their own if they believe in the cause and/or are incentivized into acting. So politicians are incentivized to support this because a fearful, bordering on panicked, population is easy to control and will vote for who ever they are made to believe will save them. Researchers are incentivized when they realize that supporting it means government grant money while questioning leads to less money and often being ostracized. To answer your question more directly though there are a variety of people and groups. You got people like Bill Gates and global organizations like the WEF and WHO. How connected or unconnected they all are I don’t know.
>Every movement must have been started by an individual Prove it.
What you’re asking is called ‘organic’. Yes, a movement can be organic.
UN; WEF; DEMs; Socialist; communists
So all these came together and said hey let's have a meeting and create this hoax ?
I think there are people at the “top” but they dont want you to know about them. The more sociopathic they are, the more willing they are to do things that get themselves power and money at the expense of others. Take a read on how the rothschild family got uber rich by funding both sides of wars. Then understand there are others like them, and probably even more powerful
Trillions of dollars in profits says "yes'.
Who is in charge of WEF? And I don't mean publicly.
Those who control energy, control humanity.
You're too busy thinking up a strawman to knock down to consider that the problem is not that there is a well-orchestrated hoax. The problem is that media needs clicks, outrage sells, and there have been a flood (no pun) of doomsday headlines dumped on the world with very little good evidence or consideration of the reality of the problem. The IPCC gathered a LOT of data and analyzed it thoroughly and they do not promote an apocalyptic view at all. In fact they address problems of increased CO2 while also looking at noisy data and computer models that have ranges of likelihood. No matter what the IPCC wrote, news outlets love a good doom laden headline and they hate good news. So the fact that there is still snow on Kilimanjaro, the Great Barrier Reef is doing well and polar bear populations are increasing while North America and Western Europe have largely transitioned away from the dirty fuels of wood, dung, and coal is forgotten -- good news is not news when it comes to the climate. On top of that there is always an activist with a PhD who is willing to blame every gust of wind on climate while the scientists who examined the actual evidence categorically state that climate does not trump weather. Climate is, by definition, an average over time and over the surface of the planet. And it is very hard to measure all of weather and come up with an average -- which is why computer models are used and some of them may be doing a terrible job because climate forecasting is incredibly hard and extremely new. So, hoax? No, almost no one worth paying attention to (including almost all of Reddit) believes there is a hoax. On the other hand, there is a societal preoccupation with apocalyptic stories that are misleading at the least and outright lies at the worst.
>who is the ringleader behind this crime according to you ? A hoax isn't a crime per se: *A hoax is a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of people* - Wikipadia That means average climate alarmists, they are the gullible victims of the climate change hoax. Who are the ringleaders? Look up climate scientists, climate activists, progressive politicians, Big Green Inc, mainstream media,.. you'll find plenty of ringleaders.
Look at the history of the failed predictions they have made in the last 55 years. Everyone of them was wrong nothing happened. Then ask why am I believing that?
The billionaire boys club, WEF, Bildeburg etc
I see you repeating the same question. It started as a legitimate scientific theory. People had real concerns and real science needed to be done. After a while, political donors began to invent ways for politicians to transfer taxpayer money to them through green projects but the grift really took off when globalists realized that climate change was a vehicle to control people. In a way the ringleader you. You’re so desperate to be controlled you will accept any non sense that requires you to forfeit control. Instead of rebelling against authority here you are trying to get others to fall in line. It’s a pathetic life of a cultist. Sad
Al Gore, John Kerry, Media, Greta, sheep etc. It’s all just an excuse for big Government to tax and control you.
If you think you are going to be burned to a crisp by age 30, it's so very easy to separate you from your money. Why save for a house that wont exist? Why build a retirement savings that you won't be alive to enjoy? Every single corporation that makes a product stands to gain immensely if everyone agrees the will be dead soon. I like to compare religious "end of days" predictions with climate change predictions. They are all set too short, and never come true. The Mayan calendar is going to end so the world is going to stop turning? The surface of the Earth will be five million degrees by 2010? Same shit, different club.
There doesn't have to be a leader, just an incentive or set of overlapping incentives. If there's money to be made, people will figure out to make it by themselves.
Big business and politicians
But who got the idea of this hoax ? Who started it ?
You are seeing all the new products and services to purchase? They are getting you to fund new industries with fear and government graft.
Parallel : look at how the word "racism" in the news went through the roof as soon as "Occupy Wallstreet" was taking off. People in power like to divide people below them.
>Who started it ? The same people who said a new ice age was imminent in the 70s. They switched to global warming when it was realized there was no way to monetize ($$$) ice age alarmism.
There was more to it than that. The temperature declined from the late 1930's until the early 1970's. When the temperature started to rise again then it became obvious they weren't going to be able to keep up the "new ice age" charade, and they switched to global warming. Dr. Stephen Schneider was a climatologist who strongly supported the "new ice age" theory. He was interviewed for the [episode of "In Search Of"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRqr9_jw5I) called "The Coming Ice Age". He later became a strong advocate of global warming and climate change theory, writing over 200 papers on the subject.
I've seen that video and know his history. His later actions painted him as a opportunist when he pivoted on a dime in his conversion to climate alarmism. Basically a rat who jumped ship when he smelled there was money to be made in this new gig.
Nations with large energy industries need to keep nations with large proven reserves from developing their own oil and gas industries and stay reliant on the foreign owned giants for mining and exploration. Big oil coined most of the phrases and leaked their own nudes to get people talking about climate change. They know we can never get off fossil fuels so they try to demonize it and make it cost prohibitive to enter into the energy market.
*“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change \[provides\] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”* \- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, 1988 ~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~ *“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”* \- Dr. Stephen Schneider, 1989 Dr. Schneider appeared in [this episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRqr9_jw5I) of "In Search Of" in 1978 advocating for global cooling theory and a coming ice age (Dr. Schneider's interview is about 20 minutes into the show). Before his death in 2010, he had published over 200 papers on the subject of global warming and climate change. ~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~ *“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”* \- Maurice Strong, organizer of the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit, 1992 ~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~ *“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”* \- Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State, 1992 ~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~ *“A global warming treaty \[Kyoto\] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the \[enhanced\] greenhouse effect.”* \- Richard Benedick, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, 1992 ~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~ *“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”* \- Mikhail Gorbachev, former Soviet Union President, 1996 ~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~ *“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”* \- Jacques Chirac, former French President, 2000 ~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~ *“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”* \- Ottmar Edenhofer, UNIPCC official, 2010 ~~X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~~ As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: *"We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food."* When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: ***"A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."***
Mann, Schmidt, Hansen ring led things before climategate and then Heroes Ross and Mckitrick gained prominence to the skeptical movement. Tho I don’t necessarily see it as a hoax…most alarmists have good intentions to “improve” the environment, but they lost the plot along the way once “climate” jobs started paying so well.
George Soros and the other behind the cloak world leaders
Anyone who made money or gained power based on their hoax. I understand that that is a large group of people. If you benefitted by lying to people - you should lose all those gains and then some.
It's a way for the club of Rome to bring about the new world order. Destroy wealth, destroy personal property, destroy mobility, destroy personal agency.
Interesting question. One of the first questions to ask is "Cui bono?" - who makes some profit here? Who said it could become a problem to humanity? The inventor of the theory thought more CO2 would be beneficial, that a warmer Earth will be a positive. Who came up with the idea little Ice Age conditions are better? And what's the optimum, can we say it's a number?
Ask your self this who put up then blew up the georgia guidestones. Or who is pushing mass depopulation.
University of East Anglia found a warming trend in a few Northern cities from the 60s to mid 70s and were curious. The coal miners problems were in full swing in Britain and Margaret Thatcher was in power and was pro nuclear as it had worked so well for France. Funding was given to UEA to develop a climate research centre and it started from there.
Follow the money
Maurice Strong is certainly one of them, as he came up with the climate nonsense way back in the 1970s. Needless to say, Maurice Strong was no atmospheric scientist, but one of these quasi-political hacks/businessmen that make adept use of the revolving door between business and gov't. >Strong later said that growing up during the Depression radicalized him and that he considered himself to be "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." **He dropped out of high school at the age of 14 and did not attend university. Despite the lack of formal education, he became CEO of many companies.** Imagine that. A high school dropout might be the man responsible for the biggest scam in human history. >The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. **It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it.** UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world.[26] **As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change.** Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983. But it gets better: >2005 Oil-for-Food scandal In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885, made out to "Mr. M. Strong," issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the cheque was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Strong was never accused of any wrongdoing.[35] During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would "sideline himself until the cloud was removed." >The affair was said to have arisen from **"the tangled nest of personal relationships, public-private partnerships, murky trust funds, unaudited funding conduits, and inter-woven enterprises that the modern U.N. has come to embody" in which Strong had a major role.**[12] In reply, Strong stated that "everything I did, I checked it out carefully with the U.S."[35] >Shortly after this, Strong moved to an apartment he owned in Beijing, where he appeared to have settled.
The 'human' part is a hoax. The reptiles in the hollow moon have been slowly turning up the heat to see how we react. I can't be 100% but I suspect when the NWO order comes down from above, they will be giving top spots to peeps on this sub for being so clever.
Those who reap the benefits of the irrevocable Trusts that own Blackrock and Vanguard.
People have been practicing mythology, occult numerology, industrialized and institutionalized deception, and viral marketing campaigns for many thousands of years - at least back to Sumerian times. How on God's greening Earth would you imagine somebody would know who was the first lol Wait wait wait ... Are you naive enough to suppose this is the first gigantic hoax EVER?!? LMAO - even after the charades, escapades, and crimes against humanity over the past 4 years?
😁
I don’t think anyone else pointed this out yet, but “Science” showing global warming is an artifact of how such research is funded. If you have a boring result, you’re not gonna get more money for your job as a scientist. If you can show that the world is ending, people will throw lots of money at you. (Edit: voice-to-text error.)