collective-evolution.com| As you’ve probably already heard, Donald Trump has chosen to exit the Paris climate agreement that would commence in the year 2020.
Just to make it clear, Collective Evolution does not deny climate change. We do believe, however, that more factors play into the equation than human activity, and that there is a lot of corrupt science behind the phenomenon. Other factors include solar activity and natural climate cycles, among others. There is more information on that later in the article.
Regardless, our ways are destroying our environment, damaging our health, and eradicating entire species. This is the biggest issue. There is no excuse not to implement new energy technologies. Fossil fuels are done and have been for a long time.
The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.
Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.
He pointed out that the “Green Climate Fund” made under the accord will cost the United States 100-500 billion dollars per year, while at the same time decreasing millions of jobs, throwing even more people into poverty and forcing them to pay even more taxes.
He cited the National Economic Research Associates’ estimate of approximately 3 million jobs lost by 2025, and 3 trillion dollars lost in GDP.
So, as you can see, he is trying to tell people that the United States, as a result of this agreement, would come closer and closer to an economic collapse. This is reminiscent of the Australian Prime Minister’s Chief Business Adviser’s assertion that climate change is a “ruse” led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency’s control, and pose even more restrictions on the global citizenry — a statement that coincided with a visit from the UN’s top climate negotiator.
Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, claims that the UN is using false models that show sustained temperature increases in order to impose authoritarian rule and end democracy:
It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. . . . The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. (source)
Trump also alluded to this point:
Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.
He then pointed to the fact that China can do whatever they want for 13 years, and are free from the restrictions imposed on the U.S. He also highlighted how other countries’ participation is contingent on receiving billions and billions of foreign aid.
Now, you might be thinking, how can Donald Trump claim to care about the environment when he just slashed so much funding from the EPA? Well, what about the revolving door between the EPA and the corporations they’re connected to? What about the fact that it’s been shown that these government agencies manipulate media and science press?
What about the fact that multiple editors in chiefs of major peer-reviewed scientific journals have been telling us that half of the literature is false? You can read more about that here and examine those sources for yourself.
Agencies like the EPA have been approving products that’ve been known to cause cancer, like glyphosate, cosmetics, and common household products, for decades. This has been done through a lot of fraudulent science. For example, the fact that glyphosate is linked to cancer has been known for decades, and publications revealing this fact have been coming out for years, yet only recently has this issue begun gaining traction.
You can read more about that here and examine the sources.
A great example of scientific fraud regarding GMOs was actually uncovered via a federal lawsuit by lawyer Steven Druker, who also published a book about it.
Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and professor emeritus of genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” piece and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.”
You can read more about that here.
Trump went on to emphasize that, “This agreement is less about the climate, and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.” You can read more about that here.
He also pointed out:
Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.
Trump does not believe he should sacrifice the American economy, jobs, and more money for virtually no gain.
Closer to the end of the speech, he brought up clean energy, promising the citizens that “the United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth. . . . We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work . . . we’re going to grow rapidly.”
He then mentioned that he is willing and able to negotiate with democratic leaders to enter back into the Paris agreement under terms that are fair to the U.S. and don’t harm American citizens and taxpayers.
After this, he again emphasizes the politicization of science:
The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement: It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States.
We saw the same thing in United States with regards to GMO approval, as shown from various sources, including Wikileaks. See here.
“The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.”
Trump is trying to tell the world that this agreement is not about climate change, but about politics and science. And he’s not the only one to do so, as you can see later in the article.
It’s not hard to believe, especially given the fact that for years we’ve watched the elite gather and discuss solutions without any action. Nothing has changed, and now when they do take action, it will have little impact on the problem and benefit the “1 percent” even more.
Again, the Green Climate Fund would require America to send up to half a trillion dollars a year to developing countries.
He also said that “nobody even knows where the money is going to.”
He closed his speech by making reference to the environment again, saying that it’s time for the world to pursue a new deal, one that actually does protect the environment.
Below you can watch the full conference below.
THE POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
Despite the mainstream media narrative continually dishing out the idea that the science is solid, and that 90% of scientists agree, research paints a different picture. There are many who don’t, so why doesn’t mainstream media ever provide a source for that statistic?
Who are these scientists that oppose the politicization of climate science? There are many, and I’ll mention a couple here as I have before in the past.
“The problem we haven now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” (source)
The above quote comes from Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and winner of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction. Bengtsson, along with four of the world’s top climate scientists, recently had his research rejected for suggesting that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC. He was appalled that a paper might not be published based on political grounds alone, stating that “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.” (source)
As expected, he came under fire, despite the fact that many scientists echoed his sentiments in support, including a former senior member of the UN’s climate change advisory board, Mike Hulme. Hulme is currently a professor of climate and culture at King’s College London. (source)
Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, former president of the Royal Meteorological society, and a fellow of the Royal Society, has done the same. (source)
These are just a few of many experts with very impressive backgrounds in the field who have spoken out about this issue.
Senator James Inofhe, chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, provided a list in a congressional hearing of multiple hundreds of scientists bringing this up. (source)
Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.
He brings up the corruption, profit, and political aspect of the problem that has infiltrated science. He also explores how fear is being pushed into the population to justify political measures. It kind of reminds me of false flag terrorism, when governments create events to justify the infiltration and invasion of other countries to establish a new government that serves their own interests.
“How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate, for an understanding of how climate actually works, and instead, devoted itself to supporting a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on.”
“Has anything happened that in fact rendered things like climate science vulnerable to corruption? . . . I won’t even bother dwelling on the specifics, climategate made clear that you had the suppression of different views, the intimidation of editors, the falsification of data, despite claims that the perpetrators have been exonerated. The emails are available for anyone to look at, they will speak for themselves. My personal feeling is that the writers of the emails were more the beneficiaries of the ultimate corruption, and defending their status that arose from their corruption rather than the sources of it.”