Beware bankers’ climate swindle

The man behind bail-in, former G20-BIS Financial Stability Board Chairman Mark Carney, is now active in another swindle in his current role as United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As the world has suffered extended coronavirus lockdowns devastating an already sick economy, leading bankers are escalating the push for net zero “carbon” emissions by 2050, which would effectively lock down the economy indefinitely in a long-planned controlled disintegration. The Anglo-American financial oligarchy, its banks, the Big Four global auditing firms and the military/intelligence establishment are behind the push.

On 28 October the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements Report was released by Mark Binskin, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force who led the Royal Commission. “Extreme weather has already become more frequent and intense because of climate change”, states the report. It warns Australia must prepare for more intense tropical cyclones, floods and bushfires which “are expected to become more complex, more unpredictable, and more difficult to manage”. On 29 October ANZ released its new climate change policy to support the Paris Agreement’s goal of transitioning to net zero emissions by 2050.

A few days later, in seemingly coordinated fashion with media fanfare, Deloitte Access Economics released its November 2020 report, “A new choice: Australia’s climate for growth”, with dire warnings that Australia will lose $3.4 trillion in GDP and 880,000 jobs in the next 50 years if we and the world do nothing to “mitigate the worst effects of climate change”. Deloitte claims the “unprecedented global health crisis” of COVID-19 brings an unprecedented opportunity which “must be used to accelerate Australia’s inevitable shift to a low emission economic structure”.

The Group of Thirty’s October 2020 report, Mainstreaming the Transition to a Net-Zero Economy, gives a picture of the bankers’ plans for a net zero carbon dictatorship. Carney is Co-Chair of the Steering Committee of the Working Group on Climate Change and Finance along with Janet Yellen, former Chair of the US Federal Reserve. Working Group Members include Jacob Frenkel, former Chairman of JPMorgan Chase, and William Rhodes, former Chairman and CEO of Citibank. The bankers demand “all countries need to price carbon…. We must push forward; we have no alternative.” The report refers to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) which was initiated to establish a framework for companies to disclose “climate-related financial risks”. Currently it is voluntary, but this latest report demands “a timetable for making TCFD-compliant disclosure mandatory by 2023”.

Despotic regimes rely on a fear-induced psychosis in the population to maintain power. Crises whether manipulated, exaggerated or fabricated are employed to convince a gullible public to surrender freedom. States of emergencies are declared even when no objective emergency exists! The so-call “climate emergency” is a clear case in point. In December 2012 the US National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2030 report warned of a potential “black swan” event of much more rapid climate change and monsoons that could sharply disrupt Asia’s ability to feed its population. And the intelligence chiefs forecast a grim outlook in any case: “Recent weather has been characterised by an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events—floods, droughts, tornadoes, glacial lake outbreaks, extreme coastal high-water levels, heat waves, etc.—and this pattern almost certainly will continue during the next 20 years.”

Such alarmist forecasts embolden the bankers’ carbon dictatorship. The above-referenced Group of Thirty report compared “climate change” with COVID-19, in response to which “countries had to impose painful restrictions early on to avoid catastrophic outcomes weeks later”. The report states, “transition to a net-zero carbon economy requires enormous efforts…. Shutting down the world economy for several months to slow the spread of COVID-19 is expected to reduce annual emissions by less than 8 per cent, and did not stop the world from continuing to deplete its remaining carbon budget.” Clearly the “net-zero economy” would be much more painful again.

Many thousands of scientists have rejected climate alarmism, but the establishment media attempts to suppress their message. Here are just a few views from eminent scientists:

Dr John R. Christy, State Climatologist, Alabama, USA: “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, and that humans are causing catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.”

Dr Charles Wax, former president, American Association of State Climatologists: “First off, there isn’t a consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is.”

Stanley B. Goldenberg, Meteorologist, NOAA: “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

William Kininmonth, former head of National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology: “Climate science is not settled. Four decades of observations highlight that computer models have exaggerated the influence of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. The Paris Agreement has been negotiated from faulty premises.”

Dr David Evans, former consultant to Australian Greenhouse Office: “Yes, CO₂ has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO₂ is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr John T. Everett, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer: “I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even with the IPCC’s warming, than the next ice age that will likely last over 100,000 years and bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO₂ levels were two to four times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated.”

Dr Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT: “What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays.”

Dr Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics: “I am a sceptic … global warming has become a new religion.”

Dr Robert Laughlin, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics: “You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the Earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

Dr Judith A. Curry, climatologist, former chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology: “There are a lot of natural forces in play here that determine the climate and thinking that we can really control the climate by dialling down the CO₂ emissions is really misguided hubris.”

Dr Madhav Khandekar, meteorologist, Expert Reviewer for UN IPCC 2007 Climate Change Report: “Finding global warming in Canada and elsewhere is like the proverbial ‘finding a needle in haystack’. I am sorry to say that there is no global warming anywhere in the world today [19 April 2018].”

Dr Patrick J. Michaels, former president, American Association of State Climatologists: “It is nowhere near as warm as it’s supposed to be. The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors over the entire tropics which is 40 per cent of the earth, and it’s where all our moisture comes from or almost all of it.”

Dr Roy Spencer, climatologist, former NASA scientist: “This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign), and even violate the law. As long as you can say you are doing it for the children.”