[Haven’t tried a “Press This” option before, it seems I can’t reblog Chiefio’s articles. Acknowledgment – https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/admission-that-the-global-warming-scam-is-all-about-the-money/%5D
This is timely as the Australian news has it that Australia is set to sign up the ‘Climate Change’ agreement not far into the future. Little do our leaders know, as shown here and recognized by thinking people, that they are contributing to a scam at the expense of Australian citizens.
Perhaps they do know, in which case it is scaringly close to treasonable behaviour.
Nothing like an admission by the perpetrator that their goal is to steal money from the rest of us to do what the wish to others…
If readers have the time, inclination and patience to look at additional relevant information, check my earlier published page (still in progress), https://tgrule.com/carbon-attack/motivation/
If time is more precious, simply consider this extract from the words of one of the instigator’s, Margaret Mead, ( president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (AAAS), in 1974) Ref http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats [sic].
What we need to invent—as responsible scientists—are ways in which farsightedness can become a habit of the citizenry of the diverse peoples of this planet. This, of course, poses a lot of technical problems for social scientists, but they are helpless without a highly articulate and responsible expression of position on the part of natural scientists. Only if natural scientists can develop ways of making their statements on the present state of danger credible to each other can we hope to make them credible (and understandable) to social scientists, politicians, and the citizenry.
…I have asked a group of atmospheric specialists to meet here to consider how the very real threats to humankind and life on this planet can be stated with credibility and persuasiveness before the present society of nations begins to enact laws of the air, or plan for “international environmental impact statements.”
Throughout her presentation, Mead stressed the need for consensus, an end-product free from any troubling “internal scientific controversies” that might “blur the need for action.”
If this fails to ring warning bells about the official propaganda, I cannot imagine why! Do I need to select bold type?