As per Beck (2007), 'CO2 concentration' has 'fluctuated exhibiting three…maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942', with 'the latter showing more than 400 ppm'
I looks to me it started out as science-for-hire (Keeling, Callendar), soon turned into a kind of income-generating stream (only one way to do these things), which was subsequently weaponised by the UN, the WEF, and the 'usual suspects'.
There is, apart from 'Climategate', no more reason to engage in these kinds of concoctions as most people in the West are so brain-washed by now that they'll believe anything 'an expert' tells them.
To tell you the truth, much like with 'the vaccines', I've presupposed that things are working, albeit at a snail's pace and possibly slightly corrupted. 'Before Covid', I wouldn't have thought about reading the literature myself, but I'm very glad I began. It seems to be comparable with 'Climate Change': Keeling, Callendar are quite open about how they 'selected' the data, i.e., the dismissed everything that didn't fit their hypothesis, which isn't how one applies the scientific method. On top of it, they did so at a time (1950s, 60s) when trust in gov't and science was very high in the West, i.e., before that infamous Trilateral Commission Report from the 1970s deplored that people would be getting a bit too independent-minded.
I also doubted that one could pull off such a feat these days, esp. as it has global implications. Then again, looking back at the past three years, I was wrong about this assumption, wasn't I?
This is quite explosive stuff. It deserves a wide Audience. If you’re not above it, would you consider approaching off-guardian or some relatively reputable alt-news site with a little more traffic to host your article?
There needs be a crisis so that crisis-measures are justified.
A climate crisis is safer and more profitabe than perpetuating the cycle of greater and greater wars, started in Napoleon's day.
Therefore, we have a climate crisis; we have always had a climate cisis.
It's not even conscious fraud at this point, it is Frankensteinian creation run amok under its own power.
I looks to me it started out as science-for-hire (Keeling, Callendar), soon turned into a kind of income-generating stream (only one way to do these things), which was subsequently weaponised by the UN, the WEF, and the 'usual suspects'.
There is, apart from 'Climategate', no more reason to engage in these kinds of concoctions as most people in the West are so brain-washed by now that they'll believe anything 'an expert' tells them.
To tell you the truth, much like with 'the vaccines', I've presupposed that things are working, albeit at a snail's pace and possibly slightly corrupted. 'Before Covid', I wouldn't have thought about reading the literature myself, but I'm very glad I began. It seems to be comparable with 'Climate Change': Keeling, Callendar are quite open about how they 'selected' the data, i.e., the dismissed everything that didn't fit their hypothesis, which isn't how one applies the scientific method. On top of it, they did so at a time (1950s, 60s) when trust in gov't and science was very high in the West, i.e., before that infamous Trilateral Commission Report from the 1970s deplored that people would be getting a bit too independent-minded.
I also doubted that one could pull off such a feat these days, esp. as it has global implications. Then again, looking back at the past three years, I was wrong about this assumption, wasn't I?
There is more profit via “green energy” than “pollution correction.”
This is quite explosive stuff. It deserves a wide Audience. If you’re not above it, would you consider approaching off-guardian or some relatively reputable alt-news site with a little more traffic to host your article?
Cool stuff, thanks for posting! (I meant the linked part, not the modRNA contamination of the food supply.)