Dr Meryl Nass – WEF twists the meaning of words to make austerity sound desirable

I start the conversation about climate change

56 min ago

The term Climate Change lacks meaning. It is always hotter or colder, wetter or drier than the last season. The term used to be Global Warming, but when the warming slowed down, the PTB segued smoothly and without explanation to Climate Change, and somehow managed to make everyone think it meant the same thing. As it became clear that temperatures were starting to go down, the PTB made another pivot to atmospheric carbon dioxide as ‘the Problem.’ But we don’t actually know whether high levels of CO2 are a problem. The elevated CO2 does help plants more easily trap carbon and grow larger. James Corbett has been on this scam for awhile. He is a wonderful teacher about what is really happening.

The heating of the planet from about 1960 to 2000 occurred reasonably fast, as if it was starting up from the low point on a sine wave, as 1970 was relatively cold. There is some confirmation of this in a Royal Society publication of 1966. It noted that there was a warming in the early part of the 20th century, followed by a distinct cold weather trend around 1960, expected to last at least till the turn of the century. It did.

Now we expect cooling due to decreased sun spot activity over the next ten years, so the focus will be on CO2 rather than planetary cooling.

Creating a fake global threat of planetary annihilation from a natural cycle’s vicissitudes was bold and brazen. Meteorologists who did not drink and expel the Koolaid lost their jobs. USG weather statistics were corrupted, which it seems is very easy to accomplish nowadays. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which Maurice Strong formed, took care of getting out a single cohesive message. I currently rely on the Australian Academy of Science for my facts, but how long will they last?

James Corbett took a peek behind the curtain to identify Maurice Strong as the main inventor of the Global Warming scam and most of the world’s environmental movement. Strong ran the UN’s first 1972 Conference on the Environment and its 1992 Rio Earth Summit. As James Corbett develops the history:

David Rockefeller was there with Strong in Colorado in 1987 for the “Fourth World Wilderness Congress,” a meeting of world-historical importance that almost no one has even heard of. Attended by the likes of Rockefeller, Strong, James Baker and Edmund de Rothschild himself, the conference ultimately revolved around the question of financing for the burgeoning environmental movement that Strong had shaped from the ground up through his work at the United Nations Environment Program.

It was at that conference (recordings of which are available online, thanks to whistleblower George Hunt) that Rothschild called for a World Conservation Bank, which he envisioned as the funding mechanism for a “second Marshall Plan” that would be used for third world “debt relief” and that favourite globalist dog whistle “sustainable development.”

Rothschild’s dream came true when Strong presided over another high-level UN environment summit: the 1992 Rio “Earth Summit.” Although perhaps best known as the conference that birthed Agenda 21, much less well known is that it was the Earth Summit that allowed the World Conservation Bank to become a reality.

Do read all that James Corbett has to say on the matter. But I now want to shift to the WEF and its website, where its current plans are laid out.


“3. Raised awareness and ownership for nature and environment – In the last few years, there is an increased awareness and public concern on climate change and specially among youth. The UNDP’s “Peoples’ Climate Vote” reflects that over 64% of people believe climate change is a global emergency. A new Pew Research Center survey in 17 advanced economies found widespread concern about the personal impact of global climate change: 80% of citizens say they are willing to change how they live and work to combat the effects of climate change. Young adults, who have been at the forefront of some of the most prominent climate change protests in recent years, are more concerned than their older counterparts about the personal impact of a warming planet in many public surveys.

* Note the intense concern with what people believe, rather than with what is actually taking place.—Nass

“What next? Sustainable cities enabled through smart communities

The three trends provide strong evidence towards enabling a social movementfor “My Carbon” initiatives by enabling public-private partnerships to help curate this program. It is suggested to drive a three-way approach to shape this movement.

See the buzzwords (I have bolded them) that don’t mean much? What I think Klaus is saying, between the lines, is that they have snowed enough people, especially the youth, to now move forward with rationing, justifying it with “public-private partnerships” to make the rationing appear to be a charitable endeavor and not government-imposed reduction in living standard.

See below for what comes next. Increased costs, induced guilt, and a new definition of your ‘fair share’—Nass

The three trends provide strong evidence towards enabling a social movement for “My Carbon” initiatives for sustainable cities…

Finally, it is significant that all stakeholders across the value chain come together and contribute towards achieving a net-zero future by leaving no one behind.

Who will be today’s Maurice Strong to push the “My Carbon” (we get to ‘own’ the austerity, it seems) initiatives and the sustainable cities? I don’t know what stakeholders across the value chain means, nor a net-zero future. But I do know that in this context, ‘“leaving no one behind” means corralling every last (powerless) human into a life of want.

The idea is to insert false beliefs into us and then use them to peacefully have us give away our possessions. And then, disarmed by poverty, we will give away, or have taken, the rest of our rights. If any still exist.

UPDATE: The Sept. 24 WSJ shows how the system works to enforce the single narrative. The head of the World Bank, David Malpass, appointed by Trump, apparently failed to reinforce the climate narrative during a Q and A.

The World Bank chief has been under criticism since Tuesday over his response to questions regarding whether burning of fossil fuels has led to rapid and dangerous global warming. At a New York climate event hosted by the New York Times he declined to directly answer, saying, “I am not a scientist.”

Since then, unspecified climate activists have called for his resignation. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said “Treasury will hold him accountable to this position.” Malpass has since corrected himself, stated that the World Bank is taking a forceful leadership position on climate change, and said he won’t resign.