Leading Global Warming Advocate Recants! … ‘Models Fail Dramatically …’ (Green rapidly fading to yellow)
Leading Global Warming Advocate Recants! … 'Models Fail Dramatically …'
Globalists Switching Gears: Royal Society Lecturer Says CO2 Not Affecting Earth’s Temperature … Fritz Vahrenholt, a German green energy investor, says he has reassessed his position on man-made climate change. Vahrenholt has been a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg since 2009. He served as a senator for the environment in Hamburg, Germany between 1991 and 1997, and was a member of the “sustainability advisory board” to chancellor Schröder and Merkel in 2001 to 2007. Speaking at the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society in London, Vahrenholt was representing RWE Innogy, one of Europe’s largest renewable energy corporations. The IPCC’s current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future? … Perhaps Vahrenholt’s appearance at the globalist think-tank, the Royal Society, is some proof that they are beginning to alter their tactics. If fear fearmongering the public by decrying global catastrophes due to man-made global warming is no longer effective, then it might be that the global Elites are shifting their public agenda, inventing more subversive propaganda that appears to support renewable energy. – Activist Post
Dominant Social Theme: Global warming is real. Get used to it.
Free-Market Analysis: This is a great article that Susanne Posel has written over at the Activist Post website. It’s really an analysis of the potential failure of one of the power elite’s main dominant social theme, global warming.
As you can see from the excerpt above, a noted Green theorist Fritz Vahrenholt has recanted regarding global warming. As Vahrenholt is intimately connected with many others in the movement, this is notable occurrence.
Part of Vahrenholt’s ire is directed at the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which he has now concluded falsified information regarding the threat of global warming. If the IPCC’s current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years, how can they help predict the future he asks.
What else should be asked? How about questions regarding why the IPCC took dubious newspaper articles and treated them as scientific studies. The least amount of research would have shown that a “prestigious” UN facility such as the IPCC should base its research on scientific evidence, not questionable journalism.
When one takes the time to read about the IPCC’s actions it becomes evident that a kind of willful blindness was operative. There is almost no way that the IPCC’s blindness was simply the result of a series of unfortunate coincidences. Here’s some more from the article:
Vahrenholt, who reviewed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most recent report on renewable energy, noticed that there was an obvious lack of scientific data to support their assertions. A prominent member of Greenpeace, a UN propaganda arm disguised as a proponent of environmental concern, edited the final version of the IPCC’s report. The IPCC’s report, according to Vahrenholt, is littered with falsities and a complete disregard for natural factors that would be considered in a fluctuating climate such as Earth.
Vahrenholt states that: Real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonized and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2 …
The infamous computer models used by the IPCC to justify their claims that CO2 levelsare a direct causation of anthropogenic impact and regard solar influence as negligible. The IPCC inserts an “unknown amplifying mechanism” to explain away observed solar activity and its effect on the Earth’s overall temperature …
While exposures like Climategate and the advent of skeptics to man’s direct causation to the ups and downs in the Earth’s temperature, the global Elite and their front for one world government, the UN, have hit a roadblock: scientific proof of their assertions.
This analysis’s last statement assuming the viability of a global elite and characterizing the UN as a “front” for world government is especially significant. While Vahrenholt doesn’t apparently characterize the UN in any specific way (beyond willful incompetence), the article’s perspective is deadly accurate and illustrates how far the larger conversation has come in the alternative media.
Posel even hypothesizes that Vahrenholt – as a putative agent of elites trying to create world government – is presenting a new tact of some sort that marks the end of the elite effort to promote global warming and the beginning of a new promotion of some sort.
The article compounds the gravity of the Vahrenholt’s statement by correctly laying out the real triggers surrounding the global warming hoax. It is in fact what we call an elite dominant social theme, designed to frighten Western middle classes into giving up power and wealth to globalist solutions.
These sorts of incidents (assuming it is genuine) combined with furious recantations among erstwhile allies should be of the utmost concern to top elites that have created and implemented meme mechanisms over the past century.
It is actually business in which huge enterprises such as Tavistock were created to manufacture fear-based themes that would then be disseminated to the public at large. First, the memes would be proposed to academic institutions and scientists. Eventually, manufactured studies would be reported in newspapers, picked up by globalist institutions and finally acted upon in political settings.
At each stage, it only took a very few individuals at the top of an enterprise to actuate the meme. Control media, control universities and control the political process – as the elites do via their central banking trillions – and you can propagandize (and control) the world.
We have spent many years predicting that what we call the Internet Reformation would result in this sort of enlightenment. The danger to the elites that want world government and have organized an incredible, sustained system of promotions to gain it, is that the information disseminated by the Internet will have a sustained impact on elite manipulations.
Indeed, the Internet is a process, not an episode. The old ways of defusing challenges simply cannot work in this new environment. One watches the elites utilize all the tools at their disposal – war, economic depression and authoritarian rule making – and wonders if it will be enough. It didn’t apparently prove so in the era of the Gutenberg Press.
Then it took hundreds of years for the elites to fully regain control – as they did finally in the 20th century. But now with the Internet, the elites are faced with the wearying challenge of renewing their control once again in the face of generalized exposure.
Is the belated recognition of his own manipulation what lies behind Vahrenholt’s evident and obvious anger? Assuming he is not a cold-blooded agent of the elites, it is certainly possible. In any event, the article itself is well written, factual and dissects elite manipulations in a mercilessly matter-of-fact way.
Conclusion: Such incidents, repeated the world over, should be of the utmost concern to elites that counted on secrecy and intimidation as main resources in the campaign to create global governance. This greatest of all “open” conspiracies is failing frankly now.
Comments are closed.
