“Heat is no longer a silent killer,” Health and Human services Secretary Xavier Becerra said. “From coast-to-coast, communities are battling to keep people cool, safe and alive due to the growing impacts of the climate crisis.”
Biden is under “increasing pressure” from supporters to tackle the climate emergency as he campaigns for reelection.
“I’ve already done that,” Biden said when asked whether he intends to declare a climate emergency. “We’re moving. It is the existential threat to humanity.”
As usual, Biden was confused, since he hasn’t done anything of the sort—yet. But just like with Covid, we’re heading in that direction fast.
Rep. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ] has introduced H.R.3965 – Extreme Heat Emergency Act of 2023:
If this all sounds too familiar, it is. We’ve been through this scenario with 9/11. We’ve been through it with Covid. The minute the government starts talking about a state of emergency is the minute we can expect to start losing more of our freedoms. The amount of tracking and surveillance we are under is becoming absurd. One wonders how much worse it can get. A lot worse. As the disasters multiply, the closer we get to the 2024 presidential election, the harder the governmental boot will push down upon our heads.
Apparently, July 4 was the hottest day on Earth in as many as 125,000 years, breaking a record that was set the day before. Wow.
We are being told that extreme heat is far deadlier than other natural disasters, killing on average more than twice as many people each year as hurricanes and tornadoes combined, according to data tracked by the National Weather Service.
How many people are we talking about?
A whopping six hundred people are killed by extreme heat each year. That’s the terrible emergency we are facing—the “worst existential threat to humanity”.
The solution lies in more of our tax dollars being handed out to companies that in turn kickback money to politicians, to be spent on research and development to track humans, dim the sun, grow synthetic food in giant vats instead of on farms, and manufacture wearable devices to monitor our body temperatures and other biometric data.
The NIH is researching tracking devices, as reported in the National Library of Medicine: Wearable Sensor Technology to Predict Core Body Temperature:
A new term we can all start obsessing about is “core body temperature” or CBT.
Just as we saw how the military and first responders were used as guinea pigs during Covid, forced to take the mRNA “vaccine”, the NIH has developed this chart to show who will no doubt first be required to wear these devices:
We have all been conditioned for many years now to allow our bodies to become “the product” where elites can siphon off our biometric data for their own use.
Just for fun, look up biometric data on Amazon. People spend millions of dollars on “cool” biometric devices, mostly scanning fingerprints to do things like open doors and unlock phones.
Nothing primed people better to accept this kind of invasion of their bodies than Covid. We may think Covid is over. We may think that we have all moved on from its restrictions. The vaccines are all but dead in the water now. But all we have done has been to move deeper into the trap of accepting tracking and surveillance for our health, safety and convenience.
Back in 2020, the media was busily implanting these thoughts in our heads. The World Economic Forum reported that:
Therefore, the need for a global One Digital Health (ODH) framework. And along with it, justification for more restrictions on ordinary citizens.
A Frontiers paper relates that the “‘Code Red’ warning of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an unequivocal message that unless drastic changes are made to a range of human activities, escalating global temperature will exert a heavy toll on biodiversity, human and animal health, and geopolitics, in quite conceivably detrimental ways”.
We have all been well-informed by now as to what those “human activities” are—things like travel or eating meat or heating our homes or anything that increases our “carbon footprint”. We can anticipate a near future when ordinary citizens will be held responsible for their personal carbon footprint, enforced by either law or social convention while elitist climate evangelists such as Jeff Bezos or “climate czar” John Kerry will receive “special dispensations for their carbon use”.
All of this ties in with the World Health Organization’s Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord.
On June 23, “Member States of the World Health Organization agreed to a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. I wrote about this in The WHO’s Gates of Hell. We shouldn’t be surprised by this since the New World Order has been marching unimpeded in this direction for years.
Earlier this month, the 2022 Nobel Physics Laureate Dr. John Clauser slammed the ‘climate emergency’ narrative as a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people”. Inevitably, the punishments have begun. A talk that Dr. Clauser was due to give to the International Monetary Fund on climate models has been abruptly cancelled, and the page announcing the event removed from the IMF site.
Dr. Clauser was due to speak to the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office this Thursday under the title: “Let’s talk – How much can we trust IPCC climate predictions?” It would appear that “not a lot” isn’t the politically correct answer. Clauser is a longstanding critic of climate models and criticised the award of the Physics Nobel in 2021 for work on them. He is not alone, since many feel that climate models are primarily based on mathematics, and a history of failed opinionated climate predictions leave them undeserving of recognition at the highest level of pure science. Not that this opinion is shared by the green activist National Geographic magazine, which ran an article: “How climate models got so accurate they won a Nobel.”
Last week, Clauser observed that misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”. This pseudoscience, he continued, has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other related ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies and environmentalists. “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis,” he added.
Clauser is the latest Nobel physics laureate to dismiss the notion of a climate crisis. Professor Ivar Giaever, a fellow laureate, is the lead signatory of the World Climate Declaration that states there is no climate emergency. It further argues that climate models are “not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. The 1998 winner Professor Robert Laughlin has expressed the view that the climate is “beyond our power to control” and humanity cannot and should not do anything to respond to climate change.
The same team that tells us that we must ‘listen to the experts’ won’t listen to any experts they don’t like. They rave about ‘UN Experts’ that hide the decline, but run a mile to avoid the giants of science. They’ll ask high-school dropouts about climate change on prime-time TV before they interview Nobel Prize winners. It’s a lie by omission. It’s active deception. And the whole climate movement is built on it.
Attempts to model the chaotic and non-linear atmosphere suffer on many fronts. They fail to predict future temperatures with mostly laughably degrees of inaccuracy, and in the process do little more than guess the effect of natural forces such as volcanoes and clouds. In Clauser’s view, climate models greatly underestimate the effect of the clouds that cover half the Earth and provide a powerful – and dominant – thermostatic control of global temperatures. More recently, Clauser also told the Korea Quantum Conference that he didn’t believe there was a climate crisis, noting: “Key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.”
The cynical might add that this degree of exaggerated inaccuracy might be fine in the land of economics, but more robust standards should be encouraged in the world of science.
No comments:
Post a Comment