Climate Change – a Hypothesis

On Saturday 14 April France and the UK joined with the United States to carry out airstrikes on Syria, supposedly as punishment for carrying out a chemical attack.  It seems that at least 118 missiles were used Tomahawks or the equivalent would each explode a 1,000-lb warhead. If all missiles had found their mark, that would be a lot of TNT for a night’s work of disputed value.

Macron is now visiting Washington, where Macron, who has frequently criticized the U.S. president for not making climate change a priority, hopes to discuss the Paris accord.

Nobody is talking about the contradiction in Macron’s two positions

The earth has heated and cooled numerous times over its history. However, recent increases in temperature are attributed to a rise in greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.  It follows that global warming in theory at least can be reduced or eliminated by changes in human activity. The scientific consensus, we are told, is that global warming is real and anthropogenic.

There are dissenters who question whether the world is actually warming up, and/or whether any change is anthropogenic, see e.g John Everett, Climate Realists or Piers Corbyn.

This map from Nasa shows temperature data from four international science institutions, showing rapid warming in the past few decades.

The striking thing about this chart is the big spike around World War II. Global warming reached its highest point in recent history, dropping away sharply after the war.  It did not reach the WWII level again until 40 years later, despite the massive recovery and development in the industrial sphere in countries like Germany and Japan.  Since then the temperature has continued to rise, but then wars have continued as well.

Based on Nasa’s data, wars cause global warming

The effect of wars on global warming and climate change could be due to  the effect of explosions, fires, the increased activity of munitions factories.

There has been little or no discussion of how man-made explosions affect world temperatures, but it is assumed that explosions caused by meteorites hitting Earth would cause global warming. It has also been argued that nuclear testing causes global warming.

There were immense conflagrations in WWII, e.g. Gdansk and Dresden.  But then fire is a feature of other wars, e.g. the burning of oil-fields in Libya, Iraq and Syria.

A wider issue is the huge use of petroleum by military in general: the US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world.

Nobody talks about wars causing global warming

There is little or no acknowledgement of the role of warmongering in the global warming debate. While there is condemnation of, for example, the production of greenhouse gases from Indonesia’s palm oil fires, or from controlled burning of wasted natural gas or oil (flaring), there is little concern over the deliberate burning of oilfields.

In 2016  ‘responsible scientists‘, academics from the world’s most distinguished universities, including Stephen Hawking,  wrote in an open letter begging for action on climate change

‘Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.’

 So no reference to war.

In 2017 the New Scientist condemned Trump’s priorities of defence over addressing climate change,  though it did acknowledge, ‘Such nostalgia is not entirely unjustified. Whatever you think of the ethics of the military-industrial approach, it delivered’.  The article goes on to compare Trump’s moves with ‘Barack Obama’s final priorities for R&D, which included climate change, Earth observation and Arctic science’  – there is no suggestion that  Obama’s wars on Afghanistan and Libya could have had a negative affect on the state of the planet.  Nor was there by the Guardian when it reported that Obama had dropped 26171 bombs in 2016.

The 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), described by George Monbiot as ‘perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history’ makes no mention of the effects or war or military activity on global warming, and nor do subsequent report’.

The Club of Rome

The Club of Rome describes itself as ‘an organisation of individuals who share a common concern for the future of humanity and strive to make a difference. Our members are notable scientists, economists, businessmen and businesswomen, high level civil servants and former heads of state from around the world’.

The Club of Rome has been described as being at the apex of the New World Order pyramid. While it has a lot in common with groups like Bilderberg, the Council for  Foreign Relations and other organisations dedicated to global governance, the Club of Rome focuses on issues to do with ‘global health’ such as climate change and overpopulation. The members have included people like Al Gore, Maurice Strong (co-author of the Kyoto Protocol), David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Bill Gates and George Soros (see The Green Agenda).  Many of these people are involved in the Bilderberg Group – the Dutch Royal Family and Rockefeller have been prominent Bilderbergers from inception.

In 1991 the Club of Rome released a report called The First Global Revolution (archived here) , which openly admits the contrived nature of the global warming scare.

‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill […]’  p. 75

‘So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity […]’ (The Green Agenda)

The climate change scare fulfills a function of diverting attention from other global issues, from war to banking bailouts, but has also proved to be a source of enrichment.  Among the leading proponents of the climate change narrative are those making money out of the carbon credit scheme – many of these also promote war.

Al Gore, who was given a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in climate change activism has made a great deal of money from carbon trading (see Obama’s Involvement in the Chicago Climate Change).

George Soros, who funds propaganda for wars on countries like Syria, is also heavily involved in carbon trading, while at the same time having  $811 million of his own money invested in a Brazilian oil company – see Paul Joseph Watson, Globalists Race To Enforce Criminal Carbon Tax, (subtitled ‘$100 Billion A Year Levy Is About Bankrolling Global Government And Lining The Pockets Of Con Artist Oil Men’ Soros, Strong and Gore, Has Nothing To Do With Saving The Environment’).

The Rothschild family have also seen the opportunities, here and here.

Conclusion

The alleged concern of politicians and scientists with regard to global warming is fraudulent, and is used as a strategy for enrichment and diversion.

The Hypothesis:

Assuming that global temperatures are in fact affected by human activity, and the graphs commonly used to show global warming are correct:

• Wars are the only sure cause of anthropogenic global warming.
• Climate change activists and politicians deliberately conceal the role of wars in global warming, in order to prevent opposition to war on those grounds.
• Therefore the function of the global warming scare is nothing to do with concern for the planet, but serves different purposes, such as self-enrichment and diversion from other global problems.

 

Disclaimer: this article is based on  the assumption that the data provided by Nasa etc is correct.  Piers Corbyn argues that much of the data concerned with climate change is falsified: if so the findings here of a relation between war and climate change are invalid.