Juan Zaragoza. They are simulating a new scenario with one target: children.
3 March, 2023
Secrets of the United Nations
22 March, 2023
9 March, 2023
Catastrophism and terrifying speeches of climate change meet head-on with the teachings of many experts. In the face of eco-anxiety and phantom threats: common sense and information.
The unrelenting catastrophist discourse on climate change never wears down, reactivating every time a new season begins. “Summer instantly turns into winter, we’re still wearing short sleeves, the beaches are full…” Messages are repeated, and the Taliban of meteorology are very fond of cherry picking, with the support of the mass media making it very easy for them by publishing news articles that highlight a graph taken out of context and turn it into a "news bomb". Recent headlines such as: "Autumn is consumed by the heat" (El Periódico, 10/17/22), “October's heat map. Here are the towns where temperatures are highest" (El Confidencial, 10/20/22) or "Unusual heat persists beyond summer" (El Español, 10/20/22) are very similar to those read any other year, like "Extreme weather challenges the world" (El País, 07/25/22) or "2021 said goodbye with unusual temperatures" (Cambio 16, 02/22/22). “What is the cause of the infernal heatwave sweeping Europe?” (BBC. June 2019). One heat scare is followed by a cold one, “Unusual cold en Yakustk” (Euronews. January 2023) and thus the manipulation is served and supported by "science".
We could keep digging through the newspapers of previous periods and find exactly the same patterns. The insistent cycle in which authority envelops us to sell renewables, makes us dependent and curtails our individual freedom.
In recent decades, the fabricated message has been moving in two directions. The first is that there is a progressive and abnormal increase in temperature that causes, among other things, natural disasters to be more frequent and menacing. The second is that human beings, due to the CO2 produced by their activities and released into the atmosphere, are the cause of such damage. To sustain these grounds, it has been necessary to tie up the argument of scientific consensus around the anthropogenic factor of these changes and to give dogma status to everything the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says. The IPCC is a group of experts supported by the UN who publishes deliberately ambiguous reports that end up in the press, crushed and misinterpreted, for the sake of an easy headline.
In August, a large group of Italian scientists and university professors signed a manifesto that draws strong conclusions about the role of humans in global warming and the destruction of the environment. Some of these names are Paolo Budetta, professor of applied geology at the University of Naples, Monia Calista, researcher in applied geology at D'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Giovanni Carboni, professor of physics from Tor Vergata University in Rome, and Franco Casali, professor of physics at the University of Bologna and at the Academy of Sciences of Bologna. The rest of those responsible for the document are personalities with equally contrasted and valuable backgrounds. The data supported manifesto speaks of an increase of 0.9 degrees Celsius globally since 1850, a date since when rigorous records have been kept. This warming would have nothing to do with human action, since the computer versions used to reach such a conclusion are nothing more than speculations. Throughout history, if we look at a broad time span, there have been periods of extreme heat approximately every 1000 years (the medieval warm period, the Roman warm period, etc.). Since 1770 there have also been fluctuations between cold and warm periods, and we are now in a heat cycle which, in any case, is not as pronounced as predicted. The manifesto urges politicians to adopt environmental protection measures that are well supported by data and, most importantly, compatible with scientific knowledge.
It isn’t the first time that global warming hypotheses have aroused suspicions. In the face of the rotten IPCC reports, a non-governmental organization emerged in Milan in 2003 that works to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) offers independent studies and issues its own publications. In its extensive series of volumes devoted to climate change under the title Climate change reconsidered, it draws the lines between ecological awareness and scaremongering. The organization insists that subtle increases in global temperature do not imply the onset of a climate crisis. The temperature fluctuates and self-regulates, but it cannot be said that these oscillations are significant and are not natural environmental responses. There is no close correlation between temperature variation over the last 150 years and human CO2 emissions. The parallelism between the increase in temperature and CO2 during the period 1980-2000, when this awareness of the allegedly dangerous production of gases was heightened, could be due to chance and does not necessarily indicate connection.
The case of Stuart Kirk still resonates. Finance expert and former head of responsible investment at HSBC, who simply doubted that weather fluctuations would have a bearing on the financial market, lost his job. Kirk sought to highlight the resilience of an industry he knows all too well. Most people just got caught up in the headline without hearing what he was saying, which was an ode to hope and against unfounded fears.
While big businesses do not assume their true responsibilities, radical globalist eco-ethical authorities victimize the middle class; constricting their lives with austerity measures and punishing them, almost religiously, for not adhering to recycling or to tourism that counts the maximum flight miles per year.
We will continue like this until ordinary citizens open their eyes. Climate change is a globalist invention, as false as the theory that tells us that by reducing the population we will achieve a sustainable balance, that man is the greatest evil in our society or that women will achieve freedom and empowerment through abortion.
Well people, that’s not the way it is. The climate does not change, men are as good (or bad) as women, and we come into this world to be mothers.
