WEF admits COVID restrictions preliminary compliance test for upcoming carbon emissions restrictions - Analysis

“The world is ending in 12 years!”

“Manhattan Island will be under water by 2015!”

“According to the report if there is not a 40 to 50 percent reduction in [carbon] emissions by 2030—a mere 12 years from now—and a completely carbon-neutral world by 2050, the planet is in for ‘extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty’.”

The first quote above is from a left-wing progressive politician based on a report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The panel which includes some scientists is primarily a political organization that comprises politicians from many UN member states.  There are good political reasons the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the UN want to scare us into believing that the world as we know it will end if we don’t take upon ourselves some very drastic life-style changes and right straight.

The second quote is based on a “documentary” (I use the term loosely) called, “An Inconvenient Truth” starring former Vice President Al Gore.  In 2006, while promoting his movie, he said that humanity had only 10 years left before the world would reach a point of no return.

In 1989, the Associated Press relayed a warning from a U.N. official, "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

The official was Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.  Brown added, "Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands.”

Instead, since 1989 U.S. and global farm production rose, and more than 1 billion people worldwide rose out of extreme poverty due to economic growth.

Why do climate alarmists go out on a limb and make predictions that in all likelihood will not happen?

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have,” Stephen Schneider, a professor of Biology at Stanford University, said to Discover magazine in 1989. “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

And now to the point of this essay.

The Word Economic Forum published an article a few weeks ago written by Kunal Kumar, Mission Director, Smart Cities Mission, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs of India.

The WEF’s starting point is that high levels of carbon in the atmosphere are driving global warming.  Humans are causing these high levels of carbon.  Global warming will cause a global catastrophe which will manifest in extreme heat, drought, severe weather events, poverty, and rising sea levels putting coastal areas under water. 

The only way to avert this terrible disaster is to reduce carbon emissions to net-zero.  Nothing else will do it.  Only this will work.

Reducing carbon emissions to net-zero is very difficult.  Almost all human (and animal) activity involves taking carbon from the environment and spewing it into the atmosphere. 

Let’s consider one example which is in the news - raising livestock. Western governments are trying to force cattle farmers to cull their cattle because cattle produce methane, a greenhouse gas.  The methane molecule is CH4.  This means that it contains one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms.  Cows are adding carbon to the atmosphere thus driving global warming.  There’s only one solution: kill the cows. That’s the theory.  But this theory is wrong and it’s important to understand why it’s wrong.

Livestock don’t generate carbon.  They imbibe it in the form of plants.  It takes about 10 years for atmospheric methane to convert into familiar CO2.  Carbon dioxide is then absorbed by plants in a process known as photosynthesis thus completing carbon’s roundtrip from plant to animal to atmosphere and back to plant.  This roundtrip is known as the biogenic carbon cycle about which you can read more here.

Animals do not add “new” carbon into the atmosphere.

But according to various governments who bought into the climate change crisis, farmers must cull millions of cattle.  This will not be easy. Farmers will not accept loss of their livelihood and for many, their farms are intergenerational inheritances.  In the Netherlands, there have been ongoing protests for months over this issue with farmers blocking major traffic arteries bringing the country to a standstill.  In Sri Lanka, where the government banned anything but organic fertilizer to fight climate change, the president had to flee the country when starving citizens overran the government.

But what about fossil fuels? Burning fossil fuels releases carbon that’s been buried for millennia.  The cycle here is truly very long.  

The assumption is that carbon in the atmosphere is driving global warming.  This assumption is simply untrue.  As Jay Lehr and Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition write, “Over billions of years, the geologic record shows there is no long-term correlation between atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and Earth’s climate. There are periods in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide concentrations were many times higher than they are today, yet temperatures were identical to, or even colder than, modern times. The claim that fossil-fuel emissions control atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations is also invalid, as atmospheric concentrations have gone up and down in the geological record, even without human influence.”

Another untruth is that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

This reminds me of the old television commercial, “4 out 5 physicians prefer Camels.”  Which makes you wonder what the nebbish 5th physician prefers.  There is an off-color answer to this question.  I won’t go there.

And what about those remaining 3% of scientists?  What do they think and why? And who are these 97% of scientists?  Where did that number come from?

The truth is, there is no consensus.  The Oregon Petition signed by more than 31,000 scientists and experts declare that,

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

So, from whence 97% of scientists.  Larry Bell reported in Forbes way back in 2012, that the source is a 2009 American Geophysical Union survey comprising two questions.

The first: ‘When compared with pre-1800s levels,do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this. . . . the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Of the 10,257 earth scientists who received the survey about 3,000 responded.  Of these, "77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals were considered in the survey statistic. That ‘98% all scientists’ referred to . . . 75 of those 77 who answered ‘yes’.”

This is the basis for turning our world topsy turvy. And you can see why this reminds me of the cigarette commercial.  They are both misleading propaganda.

Western governments want to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy.  Let’s be clear about what that means.  Fossil fuels means oil, natural gas and coal.  All are cheap, effective, and reliable.  Renewable energy mean energy generated by wind power and solar power.  These are expensive, ineffective, and unreliable.  When there is no wind and no sun, there is no energy.  

Energy costs across Europe which has bought into the climate change crisis lock stock and barrel are skyrocketing.  There are currently rolling blackouts in Europe’s wealthiest nation Germany.  The Swiss government recently passed a law prohibiting citizens from raising thermostats above 19 degrees C or lowering A/C thermostats to below 27 degrees C.

Notwithstanding the utter disaster being wreaked on all economies that are “transitioning” to solar and wind energy, Western governments are insistent that the best way to “save” the planet is to force their citizens to accept draconian restrictions to reduce carbon emissions to “net-zero” within a few decades.  

But governments have been largely unsuccessful.  According to the WEF article, “There have been numerous examples of personal carbon allowance programs in discussions for the last two decades, however they had limited success due to a lack of social acceptance, political resistance, and a lack of awareness and fair mechanism for tracking ‘My Carbon’ emissions.”

How, then, do the elites and globalists expect people to accept drastic lifestyle changes to get to “net-zero”?  The simple answer is by intensive fearmongering.  This is how governments across the globe got people to accept COVID restrictions that were absolutely unimaginable before they were deployed. In fact, the article lists COVID restrictions as the trial balloon for “net-zero” restrictions. Successful implementation of COVID restrictions showed that it can be done.  All that is needed is fear.

This is not a new concept.  It was used successfully by the Nazis to enact euthanasia programs, discrimination against Jews and ultimately the Final Solution.

During the Nuremberg trials after WWII, top Nazi Hermann Goering told American psychologist Gustave Gilbert, “. . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

We need to reject fear.  We need to understand that our “leaders” do not have our best interests in mind.  Their actions and policies have been consistent.  Everything the globalists do has one penultimate goal - to take away our liberties and give them more control.  To the extent that we allow them, they will succeed.  To the extent that we reject them, they will fail.  It is in our hands.