It’s Remarkable How Many New Ways the Elite Have Concocted for Us to Die

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,534
It’s Remarkable How Many New Ways the Elite Have Concocted for Us to Die



https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ed-for-us-to-die-justified-by-climate-change/


Neil Oliver, It’s Remarkable How Many New Ways the Elite Have Concocted for Us to Die, Justified by Climate Change…

December 10, 2022 | sundance | 307 Comments

For his weekly monologue today, U.K pundit Neil Oliver looks at the climate change agenda, energy policy, and the constructs of how the new green agenda manifest to create new ways for people to die.

We aren’t allowed the energy available from a century of gas beneath our feet here in Britain – because it’s not Green. But we’re paying top dollar for nine billion cubic litres – twice as much as last year’s order – of gas fracked out of the ground in the US. WATCH:

[Transcript] -Winter arrived last week – and with it a dose of reality. All that talk about wrapping up warm in the house, putting on an extra jumper, hot water bottles, full-size onesies – it’s dangerous nonsense. It might be fine for a while if you’re a healthy adult – but it’s a tragedy in slow motion for babies, young children, the elderly, the sick.

And it’s only the second week in December. It’s a long time until Spring.

Even if layering up and donning a hat were enough to keep a body going, once cold properly gets a grip of a house, it too starts to die in its own way.

The creep of dampness that takes its own toll on house and health alike. Frozen pipes – followed by burst pipes – and not enough plumbers to go round. People who can’t afford to heat their homes are likely struggling with spiking food bills as well.

All of this in a first world country that was home to the industrial revolution that changed the world for the better and lifted billions out of poverty. Now the grannies saved by locking down the world until its heart stopped beating, are sitting down to die alone of cold and hunger. It’s amazing how inventive the Establishment has proven to be in coming up with ways to invite the elderly to die miserable lonely deaths.

Our so-called leaders tell us all of it is a price worth paying – by which they mean worth paying by us, the little people. All the decisions are being made by those who have no intention whatever of spending so much as five minutes in an unheated home. Turn up the thermostat and fill out the expenses claim – that’s the order of the day for our elected representatives.

All around them are those that can’t afford to heat their own homes but are forced to subsidise the warmth of the sociopaths that put us here with their hubris and eco-vanity.

Regardless of what nonsense they spout about the causes – Putin, climate, whatever – at least know that the misery here now and that lies ahead for millions is entirely the consequence of decades of wilful destruction in the name of saving the world. A Green agenda that absolutely is not green.

Remember a few months back when a few hot days in a row occasioned yet more fear porn about imminent climate catastrophe? Now the temperature is below zero and all we hear is cheery twaddle about clear blue skies and hopes for a white Christmas.

For anyone still concerned, I’m here to tell you the polar bears are doing fine – I’m told numbers are on the up as never before and the ice in Antarctica is getting thicker every day.

And if one more tv presenter waxes lyrical about the joys of one-pot meals and watching telly while wrapped in a duvet …. Where is the outrage on behalf of millions who can’t afford to turn on one radiator in one room? In a country where centuries worth of energy lies beneath our feet.

Putin didn’t order the West to put him in control of the energy required to keep the lights on in Europe. Everyone used to go cap in hand to Russia. Europe’s leaders outsourced energy production so they could crow about cutting emissions at home.

Where we are now is entirely the consequence of politicians competing with one another to see which of them can take the title of world’s most psychopathic hypocrite. We aren’t allowed the energy available from a century of gas beneath our feet here in Britain – because it’s not Green.

But we’re paying top dollar for 9 billion cubic litres – twice as much as last year’s order – of gas fracked out of the ground in the United States. Now we are dependent on Uncle Sam. Say what you like about Sippy Cup Joe Biden but he’s played a blinder there. Well done, the Big Guy.

I wonder about that sabotage of Nord Stream II, I really do …

A report published by Lancet reminded the world that around five million people die every year on account of climate extremes.

Of those deaths, 4.5 million are caused by cold compared to five hundred thousand attributed to heat. In our time on this planet, an interglacial between ice ages, it is always the cold that is far more of a deadly threat to human life – ten or 20 times as deadly.

And yet still the priests of the new religion of climate fear preach that we must cool the world.

You’ve probably heard that 97 per cent of scientists are agreed that humans are the cause of climate change. It comes from research carried out in 2013.

Do you know how that team obtained that number?

They gathered nearly 12,000 scientific papers dealing with global climate change. They didn’t read the papers – heavens no, that would have been proper research – instead they looked at just the summary paragraphs on the front covers.

On that basis they grouped them into four piles. 3,896 papers agreed humans were to blame for climate change; 7,930 took no position either way; 78 rejected the idea of it being humanity’s fault and 40 were uncertain altogether.

That initial pass gave a figure of just 32 percent blaming humans for climate change. Obviously, that wasn’t nearly scary enough. So then came the gross and clumsy cheat: the 7,930 papers that took no position on whether humans are to blame were removed from the final analysis.

With them gone, the figure of 32 percent went up to 97 per cent. And the likes of Barack Obama and Al Gore have been quoting it ever since.

If my interpretation is correct, this is the kind of deliberate tampering with evidence that underpins the Net Zero madness that is being pursued by the zealots running our countries, or rather ruining our countries.

In a book published in 1997, physicist Carl Sagan wrote the following:

“We’ve arranged a global civilisation in which most crucial elements – transportation, communications, and all other industries, agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment, and even the key democratic institution of voting – profoundly depend on science and technology.

“We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

In this context, it’s our leaders who either fail to understand science and just parrot whatever propaganda lands in their inbox each day – or they do understand and they’re lying. Either way, it’s the prescription for disaster predicted by Sagan.

Agenda 2030 – Net Zero – is a second Titanic – and this time the whole world’s being herded aboard like cattle. The passengers on the original Titanic had no way of knowing what lay ahead for them in the North Atlantic.

This time around though, millions of people who could and should know better – who have no excuse now for not knowing – who could and should have realised long ago that they were being lured and lied towards disaster – are actually buying tickets for the ride on Agenda 2030 … a ship of fools. 1,500 people were lost when Titanic went to the bottom. This time it’s the lives of billions.

I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. What lies beneath all the madness that is keeping so many millions of people perpetually on edge … knowing … just knowing that something, somewhere has gone very badly wrong … is an attack on humanity itself. This fact above all others must be understood.

We are described as useless people; we need to accept smaller, colder, hungrier lives; we should swap beef and chicken for beetles and worms.

And if you’re white you’re the product of original sin – bad from birth and owing creation itself an apology just for being here.

Last year in Canada, 10,000 people died by euthanasia – three per cent of all deaths in the country.

A disabled veteran and former Paralympian – retired corporal Christine Gauthier, says she was offered euthanasia instead of waiting any longer to have a stairlift fitted in her home. After years of asking, Gauthier was told by a health worker:

“Madam, if you’re really so desperate, we can give you medical assistance in dying now.”

She only wanted a stairlift! Canada’s euthanasia programmed is soon to grow wider. Next year there are plans to offer death to people who are mentally ill – which hardly bodes well for the clinically depressed. Plans are underway to help under-18s die too, if they want to.

Human life is being devalued as easily as our currencies.

Last week there was yet another variation on the theme of stripping us of more of what it has meant to be human and alive. Also lurking under the darkening umbrella of Agenda 2030 is climate lockdown. It’s here already in the form of the 15-minute city.

In Britain the scam-scheme is being rolled out first in Oxford. Everyone will be confined to one of six ghettos inside which they might live out their lives on foot, or perhaps by bike. The Labour/Liberal/Green council responsible says it will go ahead whether people like it or not.

Every resident must register their car with the council, which will use number recognition cameras to monitor their movements around the clock.

Anyone driving out of their designated ghetto more than 100 times a year will be fined. This is about one agenda and one agenda only – keeping people apart … increasing the atomisation of society, the deliberate division of people into smaller and smaller dependent units.

This outrage proposed in Oxford is the tip of an iceberg. Because we humans, we useless people, we hackable animals, are so sub-optimal, so contemptible in the eyes of our self-appointed superiors, we must be watched at all times. It’s not just in Oxford.

In every city there are cameras monitoring everyone’s every move. Forget the nonsense of the 15-minute city, it is simply and plainly the bars of the cage of climate lockdown. Covid ran out of steam and so the next excuse for total control is the weather.

Here in Britain, it starts in Oxford, but the 15-minute-city nonsense is already all over the word. Plans are in place for London, for Paris, for Milan, for Krakow in Poland and in scores more places besides. In Melbourne, Zero Covid zealot Dan Andrews, the premier recently re-elected by those in favor of seeing fellow citizens brutalized in the street by black-clad storm troopers, waxes lyrical about a 20-minute-city.

Don’t bother with the details, just remember the word: lockdown. A word that came from prison parlance is now all around us. The excuse keeps changing … but lockdown remains the same.

What should we do? For a start we can stay awake – and not be distracted by bread and circuses. Ignore the self-pitying of Royal narcissists, for a start, and pay attention instead to better examples by far.

Remember those who stood up against totalitarians, against those who despised fellow human beings and would take away their rights and their lives.

Last week we lost squadron leader George “Johnny Johnson”, last surviving member of the Dambusters raid.

He was born into relative poverty. He lost his mum when he was three. His dad was less than kind to him, to put it mildly. He was mostly raised by his big sister.

He volunteered for service in the second world war and eventually made his way into 617 squadron, the Dambusters.

He was married and raised three children. After the war he was a teacher, in primary schools and then helping patients at Rampton Psychiatric Hospital. He served as a local councilor.

He was a warrior, a teacher, and a public servant – in that order. He was a husband and father.

Given a choice between multi-millionaire self-obsessed, self-publicists and self-serving politicians and a selfless man like Squadron Leader George Johnny Johnson, MBE, Distinguished Flying Medal. I know who I’d stand beside.

Here’s the thing: we’re being constantly goaded to see our own species, this human race, as the source of all ills. I say we are not. The technocrats and authoritarians want to treat us like lab rats. It is time we all got up on our hind legs and remembered what we are truly capable of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You’ve probably heard that 97 per cent of scientists are agreed that humans are the cause of climate change. It comes from research carried out in 2013.

Do you know how that team obtained that number?

They gathered nearly 12,000 scientific papers dealing with global climate change. They didn’t read the papers – heavens no, that would have been proper research – instead they looked at just the summary paragraphs on the front covers.

On that basis they grouped them into four piles. 3,896 papers agreed humans were to blame for climate change; 7,930 took no position either way; 78 rejected the idea of it being humanity’s fault and 40 were uncertain altogether.

That initial pass gave a figure of just 32 percent blaming humans for climate change. Obviously, that wasn’t nearly scary enough. So then came the gross and clumsy cheat: the 7,930 papers that took no position on whether humans are to blame were removed from the final analysis.

With them gone, the figure of 32 percent went up to 97 per cent. And the likes of Barack Obama and Al Gore have been quoting it ever since.

If my interpretation is correct, this is the kind of deliberate tampering with evidence that underpins the Net Zero madness that is being pursued by the zealots running our countries, or rather ruining our countries.

His interpretation is indeed correct, and it is indeed exactly the kind of intentionally deceitful shenanigans in which climate-hysteria frauds and liars must necessarily indulge - because that is the only way they can maintain the pretense that The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] embodies any kind of "consensus" (and just never you mind that science - real, actual science - hasn't got anything to do with "consensus", anyway):
I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

If you are looking for "good flat earther numbers", then you should definitely avoid the place where you found the claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [anthropogenic global warming]".

The claim that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) comes from a paper titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". That paper reviewed the abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific articles - not the articles themselves, but just the abstracts of those articles (an abstract is a brief one-paragraph summary of an article). In fact, if you read the abstract of the paper itself (i.e., the one used to support claims that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming), it says the following (bold emphasis added):

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

So it turns out that 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent explicitly rejected it, and 0.3 percent explicitly expressed uncertainty - while 66.4 percent expressed no position on AGW at all.

IOW: Two-thirds of the abstracts examined had no opinion on the matter.

So where does that 97 percent figure come from? They calculated it by counting only the abstracts that explicitly expressed a position (either acceptance, rejection or uncertainty). If you add up 32.6 + 0.7 + 0.3, you get 33.6. And 32.6 is 97 percent of 33.6.

IOW: In order to arrive at that 97 percent figure, they completely ignored the 66.4 percent that took no position at all

THIS is how you lie with statistics. THIS deceitful bullshit is how you turn 32.6 percent (less than one-third) into 97 percent. THIS is how you dupe useful idiots into thinking that you have some kind of overwhelming "consensus" when you don't actually have any such thing.

And look at that statement I bolded in the abstract I quoted above. Notice how it doesn't say that AGW is the "consensus" position because 97 percent of abstracts endorse AGW. Rather, it says that AGW just is the "consensus" position - and that 97 percent of abstracts happen to endorse that supposedly already-existing "consensus". So now they're adding mealy-mouth weasel words to their mealy-math weasel numbers.

But what's really ironic here is the fact that your claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [AGW]" could instead be stated as "less than 1 percent" - since according to the study your claim is based on, only 0.7 percent explicitly rejected AGW, But of course, putting it that way would leave you stuck with having to admit that only 32.6 percent explicitly accepted AGW - instead of the much more impressive-sounding 97 percent. And 32.6 percent (less than one-third) just doesn't sound like that much of a "consensus", now does it?

Anyway, once you account for the two-thirds of abstracts they simply ignored because it didn't suit their purposes to count them, the only thing you can say about the "scientific consensus" on this issue is that it simply does not exist - 66.7 percent either take no position or express uncertainty. There's your only "consensus".
 
Interesting that he toned down his usual manic delivery style for this message. This vid is a good wake-up call for those intelligent enough to keep up, and/or anyone who tends to be swayed by a British Isles accent.
 
There's a movie quote from High Heels and Low Lifes that keeps going through my mind.

"We've been doing this all wrong. They're trying to kill us. Why aren't we trying to kill them?"
 
I saw nothing in the article about abortion, promoting homosexuality, sterilizing children, crime, etc..

So I guess you can add those to the list.
 
Agenda 2030 – Net Zero – is a second Titanic – and this time the whole world’s being herded aboard like cattle. The passengers on the original Titanic had no way of knowing what lay ahead for them in the North Atlantic.

This time around though, millions of people who could and should know better – who have no excuse now for not knowing – who could and should have realised long ago that they were being lured and lied towards disaster – are actually buying tickets for the ride on Agenda 2030 … a ship of fools. 1,500 people were lost when Titanic went to the bottom. This time it’s the lives of billions.

I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. What lies beneath all the madness that is keeping so many millions of people perpetually on edge … knowing … just knowing that something, somewhere has gone very badly wrong … is an attack on humanity itself. This fact above all others must be understood.

We are described as useless people; we need to accept smaller, colder, hungrier lives; we should swap beef and chicken for beetles and worms.

LjFBYcN.jpg
 
Last week there was yet another variation on the theme of stripping us of more of what it has meant to be human and alive. Also lurking under the darkening umbrella of Agenda 2030 is climate lockdown. It’s here already in the form of the 15-minute city.

In Britain the scam-scheme is being rolled out first in Oxford. Everyone will be confined to one of six ghettos inside which they might live out their lives on foot, or perhaps by bike. The Labour/Liberal/Green council responsible says it will go ahead whether people like it or not.

Every resident must register their car with the council, which will use number recognition cameras to monitor their movements around the clock.

Anyone driving out of their designated ghetto more than 100 times a year will be fined. This is about one agenda and one agenda only – keeping people apart … increasing the atomisation of society, the deliberate division of people into smaller and smaller dependent units.

This outrage proposed in Oxford is the tip of an iceberg. Because we humans, we useless people, we hackable animals, are so sub-optimal, so contemptible in the eyes of our self-appointed superiors, we must be watched at all times. It’s not just in Oxford.

In every city there are cameras monitoring everyone’s every move. Forget the nonsense of the 15-minute city, it is simply and plainly the bars of the cage of climate lockdown. Covid ran out of steam and so the next excuse for total control is the weather.

Here in Britain, it starts in Oxford, but the 15-minute-city nonsense is already all over the word. Plans are in place for London, for Paris, for Milan, for Krakow in Poland and in scores more places besides. In Melbourne, Zero Covid zealot Dan Andrews, the premier recently re-elected by those in favor of seeing fellow citizens brutalized in the street by black-clad storm troopers, waxes lyrical about a 20-minute-city.

Don’t bother with the details, just remember the word: lockdown. A word that came from prison parlance is now all around us. The excuse keeps changing … but lockdown remains the same.

6heAnX3.jpg
 
Bicycle lanes. "Right turn yield to bicycles".

They steal traffic lanes, making traffic more congested, then designate that bikes and motor vehicles cross paths. Continually.

I've been known to bicycle. I know through routes all across town using residential streets. They could simply be marked as bike routes with signs.
 
The Malthusians are at it again: "Death or dictatorship - you can only have one or the other".

(And if you don't want dictatorship, perhaps they can arrange for your death to "occur in a civil way". Isn't that nice of them?)

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1669664427300233217
Prominent Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of Planet Earth, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today's population—can "occur in a civil way".

"The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg

For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com

#ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
 
Last edited:
What they want, from the writings of Azimov:

[Planet] Aurora at its height had a population of 200 million humans, and 10 billion robots. The head of its planetary government was called the "Chairman."
 
The Malthusians are at it again: "Death or dictatorship - you can only have one or the other".

(And if you don't want dictatorship, perhaps they can arrange for your death to "occur in a civil way". Isn't that nice of them?)

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1669664427300233217
Prominent Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of Planet Earth, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today's population—can "occur in a civil way".

"The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg

For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com

#ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda

Believe them when they tell you.

https://twitter.com/lilian37458552/status/1686073219294380043
 
Back
Top