11/25/2024 / By Ethan Huff
All these years of fearmongering over a “melting” planet and “boiling” oceans were for naught now that the so-called “climate emergency” has been discarded as junk science.
The Czech division of the International Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) held a two-day climate conference in Prague earlier this month at the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic. There, climate scientists declared and affirmed “that the imagined and imaginary ‘climate emergency’ is at an end.”
Several of the world’s leading scientists and researchers spoke at the event, making it clear to everyone there that just about everything the world has been told about climate change and global warming is highly exaggerated at best, and flat-out false in reality.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled,” it was further stated at the conference.
(Related: According to climate professor Bill McGuire, the only way to prevent a climate breakdown involves “culling” the human population – but not himself, of course.)
One of the most impactful declarations at the conference had to do with carbon dioxide (CO2), the boogeyman molecule of the climate cult. The world’s most diehard climate cultists fear CO2 more than just about anything else because they believe it is causing planetary temperatures to increase.
The reality, of course, is that CO2 is simply plant food. Plants produce oxygen for humans to breathe, and humans exhale CO2 that plants use to grow and thrive. It really is as simple as that.
To climate cultists, however, CO2 is basically poison and must be stopped. The climate conference in Prague debunked this myth once and for all, exposing the entire climate narrative as a scam.
Even if every nation on earth successfully reached “net zero” emissions by the 2050 target date, global temperatures would only be about 0.1 C cooler, maybe, with no actual emissions reductions.
“So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas,” reports Watts Up With That.
“The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.”
A call was made at the conference for the entire global scientific community to take a step back from climate crusading and instead reflect on the matter from a different perspective.
The scientists at the event uniformly called upon “the entire scientific community to cease and desist from its persecution of scientists and researchers who disagree with the current official narrative on climate change and instead to encourage once again the long and noble tradition of free, open and uncensored scientific research, investigation, publication and discussion.”
In their letter to “the entire scientific community,” those in attendance at the conference made out several key points about the climate that deserve repeating:
1) The sun, not greenhouse gases, is primarily responsible for global temperature patterns.
2) The industrial era did nothing of any significance to impact the climate.
3) There is zero evidence to suggest that extreme weather events are in any way increasing, even if they get more media coverage due to technological advancements.
4) Despite having spent trillions upon trillions of dollars trying to stop emissions, global temperatures have still risen, albeit modestly, since 1990.
More related news coverage can be found at Climate.news.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under:
cancel Democrats, Censored Science, Climate, climate change, climate emergency, climate science, global warming, honest, insanity, progress, Trump, truth, weather
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author