Quote:On that page are links to organizations who have roadmaps to mitigate climate change, IEA, IPCC, U.N., MIT, and IRENA. These are long comprehensive reports, written by experts who take the subject seriously.
No, the long comprehensive BIASED reports are by "experts" who take their kickbacks seriously.
Do you know what IPCC "peer review" looks like? It's a small clique of "scientists" - with an emphasis on "small" and and emphasis on "clique" and the quotations around "scientists" who are all similarly vested in the scam. What scientific fraud is it? How about Mikey Mann's centered principal components which automatically produces hockey sticks from red noise? Or Hansen's/Gavin's/NASA's unsupported manipulation of data to amplify warming or to create warming where none exists? [for that matter, why does NASA use land based station data and ignore satellite data if not because they can't manipulate satellite data the way the can land-based station data, and manipulate they do!] Have you looked at the USHCN raw minus adjusted dataset? Do you even know what that means? These are just the most obvious. Dig into the IPCC, and the rabbit hole is deeper than you can imagine. If it smells like the stuff from the south end of a north facing bull, it's even worse than it sounds. THIS IS PURE FRAUD!
Do you not recognize the interests of the UN to redistribute wealth? Or the interest of our politicians in the ability to regulate EVERYTHING that comes with the the regulation of carbon? This whole fraud is a politicians wet dream. If you can regulate carbon, you can regulate [and tax] everything. The derivative of this is, of course, is the lobbyist/corporation wet dream. The more potential for regulation, the more money buys more access. It's the ultimate unholy trinity against common sense and reality.
Wake up and see it for what it is - not the nonsense you have been spoonfed by people who have an agenda that is 180 degrees contrary to what is best for you and every other common sense American. NOTHING the alarmists have forecast has come to pass. All their predictions have proven WRONG yet they still claim 95% or 99% certainty. In any other field of science that's called "snake oil" to put it politely, and they are laughed/shamed out of the room, yet here with "climate science" we give them credibility? If you want to be part of the fraud, fine, but at least be honest about it. There is exactly zero empirical evidence to support your contention.
If I'm wrong, I look forward to your specific examples. I won't won't hold my breath.
