Nothing has changed from all past advertised “global warming” mitigation measures. The Paris Climate Change fanatics adopt, after “intense negotiations,” a partly legally binding and partly voluntary agreement which, when ratified by all parties, will require the reduction of carbon emissions such that only a maximum of “below 2 degree Celsius” of global warming will be allowed.
The measures in the agreement included:
- To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century;
- To keep global temperature increase “well below” 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C;
- To review progress every five years;
- $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.
As idiotic as the whole exercise really is, the document itself is also replete with Illuminati symbolism, like so:
According to Article 21 of said agreement,
“This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.”
You can download your own copy of the adopted “climate change” document from this site.
Reading through all the 32-page document will surely put you to sleep because all you see are adjectives and abstract descriptions on how to achieve its advertised goals and objectives. The adopted document lacks precise details of actual methods to reach its goals.
There are only two general solutions they have arrived at, i.e. the use of renewable energy resources and the controlled, or reduction of deforestation, or the preservation of existing forests serving as absorbers of carbon, like so:
On page 2,
Acknowledging the need to promote universal access to sustainable energy in developing countries, in particular in Africa, through the enhanced deployment of renewable energy,
On page 8,
“55. Recognizes the importance of adequate and predictable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, for the implementation of policy approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; encouraging the coordination of support from, inter alia, public and private, bilateral and multilateral sources, such as the Green Climate Fund, and alternative sources in accordance with relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties;”
On page 23,
- Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests.
- Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.”
Are the words “renewable energy” and “forest conservation” be considered new approaches to climate change mitigations?
Or, aren’t they always the buzzwords being used over and over again without ever resolving the problems that they themselves have supposedly identified but cannot prove?
Yes, until today, all of them cannot prove that the real cause of global warming is carbon emission and not the sun itself. In fact, at least 30 thousand climate scientists have formally filed a protest to the whole global warming scam years ago.
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever:
‘Global warming is a non-problem’
‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’
‘Global warming really has become a new religion.’
“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November…I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.’
‘We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.’
Those words are from Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist who endorsed Obama now says the president is ‘ridiculous’ & ‘dead wrong’ on ‘global warming’.
Its the mining corporations that are ruining the environment, and golf courses that are giving way to trees everywhere., the continued use of fossil fuel for government agencies to collect taxes from — these are the root causes of the problem with global pollution.
They know the ultimate solution, but they could not make so much money out of it.
The fact of the matter is, they want commercial solutions to the non-problem they have identified, e.g. expensive solar panels and wind farms.
The whole thing is nothing different from two nations going to war because of political intrigue and requesting increased military budget from congress.
Problem. Reaction. Expensive Solution. The same formula that works every time.
On another note, are there not any other method aside from being physically present in one conference room, like VoIP teleconferencing, for example, so that we the people can peek through what they are exactly doing? After all, this is a global issue and that full transparency is all the more important?
So, now we ask, how much did the writing of this 32-page document cost for all the taxpayers of each nation sending their respective leaders to the Paris conference this year, just to be able to craft that document. Is it really worth it?
The cost of providing security to these undignified dignitaries, travel costs, boarding allowances and the additional carbon emissions produced during those trips, are all these factors being considered to the overall cost and benefit analysis for such high profile conference?
Lest be accuse of all talk and no action, we do know the exact solution, not just to “climate change” or “global warming,” but to all forms of environmental pollution, because that is a real problem, not “global warming.”
This solution has been suppressed just like free energy itself. It’s the radio wave transmission of a specific frequency.
A simple radio wave transmission of specific frequency can neutralize any oil spill contamination, carbon monoxide air pollution, etc. What this means is that all radio broadcast transmitters today, AM or FM, can be used to send a specific frequency that could clean the air, ocean, even the human body, from all forms of pollution.
Yes, you only need to turn a knob, or two, to do it. No conference needed. No “$100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries” needed. Just a simple twist of the tuner and modulator knobs will do.
The whole Paris Conference is one big swindle. All radio stations can solve the pollution problem right now!
The problem is: each radio station is required by law to broadcast only one specific frequency that is allowed for a specific franchise. Not to mention that they have assimilated into their fold the broadcast media itself.
Also, think what HAARP can do when used with good intentions.
For further details, kindly read Environmental Pollution Can Be Eliminated Right Now by Tuning Radio Transmitters to the Right Frequency on our healthcare site.
Now, imagine how much we might have saved for poverty alleviation instead if we have not sent those assholes to Paris.
