Watchman: After 50 Years of Chicken-Little Predictions, the Eco-Apocalypse Keeps Rebooting Itself. Climate Change Dictates Are One BIG Con Game!


HNewsWire: Since the 1960s, modern doomsayers have predicted climatic and environmental disasters. They are still doing so today. As of today, none of the catastrophic prophecies with due dates have come true.

What follows is a collection of outlandish forecasts from prominent figures in government and science.

More than just highlighting failed forecasts, this collection demonstrates that the creators of botched apocalyptic prophecies are often persons in recognized positions in government and research.

While such forecasts have been and continue to be avidly covered by a media hungry for dramatic headlines, their failings are seldom addressed.

'Dire hunger by 1975,' predicted in 1967.

For many years, we have been expecting the imposition of far-reaching and transformational limitations on business and agriculture in the name of "climate change" programs, and it seems that the struggle has now begun. The first big fight is definitely Europe, as individual states obey the centralized EU government's carbon mandates, hurting their own economies while in the middle of a self-inflicted energy crisis. It seems to be insane, yet there is a larger plan at work here.

Today, a farmer's revolt is sweeping Europe, with the real producers of the food that keeps the people alive being maligned for refusing to labor under circumstances that would effectively bankrupt them. Although carbon is a major focus of European emissions regulations, they are not the only factor. Rather, the regulations encompass other natural gases, such as methane and nitrogen, which are byproducts of big agricultural activities. The nitrogen limitations alone are projected to ruin the majority of farming enterprises in the Netherlands, one of the EU's greatest agricultural countries. In the near future, Germany is expected to follow the Netherlands in enacting its own emissions regulations.

First and first, it is critical to question "why now?" There are several explanations for this. To begin with, the EU climate agenda closely corresponds with the UN climate guidelines for 2030, which call for a 55 percent decrease in emissions in less than a decade (and net zero by 2050). If you believe that these choices are decided by individual countries, you are incorrect; the 2030 plan was developed by globalist organizations such as the United Nations and the Club of Rome - member nations are merely following instructions. The timetable for stringent environmental regulations was most likely established in 1992 at the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro (also known as Agenda 21).

Why is the year 2030 chosen? It's difficult to say. The chronology has no scientific foundation. There is little indication that climate warming will have any notable environmental effect by 2030. They just want carbon curbs and other measures in place by 2030 and will not provide a solid basis for doing so.

For decades, climate apocalypse forecasts have been made by establishment-funded scientists and activist extremists, and not a single one of them has come true. For example, climate experts projected a "new ice age" by the year 2000 in the 1970s, and this false scenario was extensively disseminated by the media. Then they stated that in the 1980s, "acid rain" would wipe out life in freshwater lakes, but this never occurred. Following that, the climate cult shifted to the global warming story, claiming that by the year 2000, the ice caps would melt and rising oceans would "obliterate countries." Obviously, this did not occur.

Snowfall was a "thing of the past" in the year 2000, according to experts at the Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom, and the following generation would not know what it was. NASA scientists predicted in 2008 that the Arctic will be "ice free" by 2018. The list goes on and on, and it would be funny if the individuals who made all of these incorrect forecasts weren't still influencing government decisions, but they are.

The following comment from the Club of Rome, a UN-affiliated organization, should explain why the public has been hammered with climate doomsday predictions for decades. The phrase is from a book called "The First Global Revolution," which was released in 1992. They expressly advocate utilizing global warming as a vehicle in that document:

'While looking for a common adversary against whom we might unify, we came up with the concept that pollution, the danger of global warming, water scarcity, starvation, and other such issues would fit the bill. These events, in their whole and interrelation, create a single danger that must be tackled by everyone jointly. However, by labeling these threats as the adversary, we fall into the trap that we have already cautioned readers about: mistaking symptoms for causes. All of these threats are the result of human meddling in natural systems, and they can only be resolved by changing attitudes and behavior. The true foe, therefore, is mankind itself.'

The quote is from Chapter 5 - The Vacuum, which discusses their stance on the necessity for global governance. The remark is plain; a common adversary must be imagined in order to fool humanity into joining behind a single flag, and the elites consider environmental disaster, generated by mankind itself, as the finest motivator available.

Except there is no environmental crisis, at least not according to the establishment's story. It just doesn't exist. There is no evidence to back up the notion of anthropogenic climate change. None. Global temperatures have increased by just 1 degree Celsius over the last century, and there is no substantial evidence that this single degree was driven by human activity.

Climate scientists' core argument is one of exclusion: They claim that since all other putative reasons (including the sun) have been demonstrated to be ineffective, the cause "must" be human industry and pollutants. However, this is a deception.

Interestingly, according to a 2006 research, the rise in temperatures mentioned by NOAA and NASA corresponds exactly with an increase in solar activity over the previous 100 years. Furthermore, scientists have revealed that solar activity in 2022 will BEYOND PREDICTIONS. Imagine that, overall solar activity has been growing at the same time that the planet has been warming.

Climate experts continue to dismiss the sun as a factor, claiming that there is insufficient evidence to support the theory. Of course, there is insufficient evidence since all financing goes to scientists who accept the man-made explanation; there is no funding available for scientists who give other views.

Because the official temperature record used by climate scientists only extends back to the 1880s, it is impossible to tell how often these warming trends occur and how many times the globe has warmed by one degree Celsius over millennia. But it doesn't matter since climate science is about providing an excuse to control every area of human output and consequently human civilization.

For emissions objectives to be fulfilled by 2030, substantial societal changes must occur during the next eight years. Our existing trading system and global supply network will have to be ripped up and replaced with a very constrained manufacturing model. Furthermore, the human population would have to be lowered by billions. This model will be artificially constrained by arbitrary climate standards established by unelected governmental organizations in the name of halting environmental changes that have not been demonstrated to be caused by humans at all. It achieves the construction of an authoritarian framework, which globalists will claim is "environmentally justifiable."

According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, it is critical to combat climate change with "far higher ambition."

It's worth noting how the word "climate change" has surpassed "global warming" as the catchphrase of environmentalists. Some scientists/climatologists believe that human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, has an effect on the environment. What they are unsure about is the exact magnitude of the effect. A few decades ago, the dominant scare tactic was "global cooling," with threats of a new ice age. While most scientists/climatologists now accept that global warming is the fundamental concern, ambiguity has led to the usage of "climate change" as a more general warning. Essentially, the climate change message is this: greenhouse gas emissions are harming the environment, and although we don't know what the consequences will be, we know they will be disastrous.

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman calls global warming scare a hoax. He claims the manufacture of this claim has wasted millions of dollars and was nothing more than a publicity stunt. And that those who started it knew what they were doing. Calls Al Gore a fraud.

Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years.”

Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.

Al Gore’s dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.

Debunking the “97 percent” lie

On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.

From the National Review:

“A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”

Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.

And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.

Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity.

Al Gore and cronies continue getting richer from the global warming hoax

But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you’re still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 – largely due to investments in fake “green tech” companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.

You might want to take all of this information into serious consideration before casting your vote in the November election.


Leave a Comment