What Climate Change Is Really All About

climate change is about redistribution of wealth

Earlier this month the UK’s Telegraph reported yet another instance of climate scientists pushing ethical limits in an attempt to breathe new life into climate change and global warming.

Also during the last month, temperatures have been colder than normal across much of Canada, the eastern U.S. and Europe. The world’s ocean temperatures are basically normal, and Antarctic ice is at record levels.

The key here? Global warming is nowhere in sight.

But instead of rolling with the fact global warming is not living up to the hype, scientists are manipulating weather records so that it looks like the planet is still warming.

The reason is because climate change — also known as global warming — has to be kept alive since it is the long-term tool governments are using to redistribute wealth. If global warming isn’t real, then all of the plans hinging on people buying into climate change panic will have to be redone … which is exactly what we’re seeing.

During President Obama’s State of the Union address in January, he claimed, “Climate change poses immediate risks to our national security … that’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change.”

728x170_PRL_IOT_50B-Products-article
728x170_2-in-1-trillion-howto-smallstake_updated-article
728x170_small-stake-net98470_article
728x170_savetheworld-article
728x170_DowCracks23k_article
728X170PRL-IOT_Article_3AdsIn1_article
728x170_CanYouIdentifyRock_article

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma released a prompt response to the president’s agenda, citing it would cost Americans $479 billion, with the effect of reducing CO2 emissions by half a percent … global temperatures by two one-hundredths … and sea levels by one one-hundredth of an inch.

Do not be mistaken. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, this is a wealth redistribution scheme.

Obama’s climate change agenda involves one of the biggest tax increases in the history of America. To cover up that fact, there have been several “world” treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol and a recent Geneva conference, to fight climate change and send relief to underdeveloped nations.

Don’t get me wrong — there’s nothing the matter with helping other countries. It’s just that in this case it is being done under the guise of addressing climate change.

But what if global warming isn’t real? As I mentioned, a recent article in the UK’s Telegraph publicized that weather data is being manipulated just to keep climate change money flowing. So even if it’s not real, there’s too much riding on it now.

It is impossible to know how much money is spent on climate change. I’ve read that anywhere between $20 billion and $70 billion are spent on research each year. Much more is spent on relief aid to these underdeveloped nations to fight rising sea levels, droughts, floods and hurricanes.

And the fact that the aid is given through government agencies and programs of the United Nations makes it that much more difficult to figure out how much money is actually being redistributed.

It is, of course, your money that’s being redistributed through taxes you pay.

The flow of money depends on the idea that weather data shows inconclusively that global temperatures are warming — warming, as the theory suggests, at an alarming rate because of man-made pollution.

The February 7 Telegraph article publicized the work of a blogger who compared original temperature observations with revised data. The blogger, Paul Homewood — who has been uncovering these statistical discrepancies for about two years — found the data for Paraguay and part of the Arctic was massaged to make it look like temperatures have been warming by making temperature records from the middle part of the 1900s cooler than they actually were.

WeatherBELL meteorologist Joe Bastardi notes in his blog posts that NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) decided to adjust actual temperatures recorded years ago to make them more “accurate.” If that sounds a little weird to you, it should.

The most egregious assumption is that temperatures recorded decades ago were too warm and need to be adjusted downward. For example, temperatures across the Great Plains during the Dust Bowl era have been adjusted to appear cooler.

That’s similar to what Mr. Homewood, the blogger, found for Paraguay and part of the Arctic region. By shaving a degree or two off temperatures recorded decades ago, it appears temperatures have been trending sharply upward during the last century.

The data manipulation — performed so the global warming theory is validated — is problematic because it wasn’t well publicized.

But even then, that’s not the point. Never mind the fact that science needs to be changed so the theory fits the data. It’s not about science.

The point is, the premise of climate change policy relies on any means necessary to redistribute wealth.

There’s no lofty goal to save humanity.

If people live in an area plagued by drought, they need to move. If sea levels are rising, move inland. It’s not rocket science. Money is not going to make the oceans recede and the rain fall from clear skies.

Climate change proponents know the “theory” is crumbling, or else the data would not need to be manipulated. However, they cannot pull the plug on climate change until they have another wealth redistribution scheme to take its place.

You and I — and the rest of the world — respond to fear, so whatever the next scheme is, it is going to have to be scary. And it is going to have to be scary in a big way — far more than the climate apocalypse — to dupe people into thinking wealth redistribution is a good thing.

Regards,
Chris Orr Sovereign Investor
Chris Orr
Certified Consulting Meteorologist