Greta Thunberg to world leaders: ‘How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood’

Climate Change That Ignores History

Climate has ALWAYS changed from decade to decade.  There were major swings (volatility) during the 1930s. You had the dust bowl during the summer and in 1936 you had record cold. The 1936 North American cold wave, which also hit Japan and China, still rank among the most intense cold waves in the recorded history of North America. You cannot blame this on soccer moms driving the kids around town burning fossil fuels. Cars were a luxury in the 1930s still.

There is just no evidence of human-induced climate change. There is nobody willing to call them out on this nonsense with just showing the dramatic swings in temperature over the centuries.

Here is a piece that appeared in the Weekend Australian on the covert issues behind the curtain.

It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.

We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)

And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.

Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.

Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.

There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.

Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough

Scott Pelley Leads 60 Minutes Impeachment Coverage With Lie: “Whistleblower Under Federal Protection”…

CBS Reporter Scott Pelley led the broadcast of 60-Minutes presentation of the House impeachment of Donald Trump with a stunning claim:

“Tonight, “60 Minutes” has obtained a letter that indicates the government whistleblower who set off the impeachment inquiry of President Trump is under federal protection, because he or she fears for their safety.”

(Video and Transcript)

The claim is quite something.  A CIA operative that needs to be put under federal protection?  Wow. Immediately CNN and the media pounced on the opportunity to promote the “whistleblower” as a victim.

Except, they encountered one problem…. it’s not true.   Scott Pelley made it up.

Even one of the lawyers for the CIA whistleblower, Mark S. Zaid, had to try and clean up CBS’s false narrative:  “60 Minutes completely misinterpreted the contents of our letter.”

(Here’s the Link To The Letter)

Heck, if this is the propaganda within the pre-impeachment coverage, can you even imagine how much false media propaganda is yet to come….

UPDATE:  In a rather remarkable turn-of-events, CBS says they stand by their reporting and their sources…..  However, their sources are the ‘whistleblower’s’ lawyers.  The lawyers, aka the “CBS sources”, say CBS is fake news:

(Link to Tweet)

(Enclosure ↓ )




Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins Now Recognizes Pelosi Impeachment Scheme…

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins explains to Maria Bartiromo that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has subverted the formal impeachment initiation process in favor of a decree that blocks his republican minority from participating.

Righteously Angered – Mark Levin Discusses The Sneaky Construct of Pelosi’s Impeachment Plan…

Thankfully word is getting out; people are starting to recognize the construct behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s highly political impeachment plan.  [CTH will have more on the plan details soon because key democrats are leaving distinct fingerprints.]

In the first four minutes of this interview Mark Levin outlines how Speaker Pelosi is throwing out customs, traditions, processes and protocols within the House impeachment scheme. This is not a flaw of their plan, this is a key feature.  As CTH has outlined, a concerted group of like-minded ideologues – that also consists of Lawfare allies,  are following a plan developed soon after, if not before, the 2018 mid-term election.

Additionally, Mr. Levin accurately calls-out Fox reporter Ed Henry for promoting the false narrative, containing Democrat talking points, about the Trump-Ukraine phone call.  President Trump also tweeted this full broadcast from this morning. Quite a segment:


Levin notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should refuse to accept the articles of impeachment when delivered by the House Impeachment Managers, unless a bipartisan process is followed.  However, Speaker Pelosi (via Lawfare) already has a plan for that angle…. more to follow.

Donald J. Trump


Embedded video

17.6K people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump


Embedded video

18.8K people are talking about this

President Trump Tweets About The Pelosi/Schiff Anonymous Complaint Impeachment Plan…

The reason why Nancy Pelosi didn’t hold a Full House vote to initiate an ‘Articles of Impeachment’ inquiry is simple: if she did follow the formal process, the minority party (republicans) would have rights in the process; so too would the executive branch.

By subverting the process, and just arbitrarily decreeing the opening of “an official impeachment inquiry”, Pelosi allows the committees to proceed without any representation by the minority in the investigative process.  This approach, in combination with the 2018 rule changes, is a feature of the impeachment plan – not a flaw.

Against that backdrop, this set of tweets by President Trump have much more meaning:

The House of Representatives cannot construct articles of impeachment through the utilization of anonymous accusations (ie. ‘whistleblower), and hearsay.  These tweets are not just POTUS lashing out; these tweets have a very material purpose…

MORE HERE and more to follow.

“Quid-Pro-Joe” Pressures American Media to Shut Down Investigating Truth Just Like He did With Ukrainian Prosecutor…

The tone-deafness here is so stunning you have to ask yourself if someone in the Biden campaign did this intentionally to destroy the Joe Biden campaign.

Previously Joe Biden demanded the Ukraine government shut down the investigation of his son and fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.  Today Joe Biden duplicates this behavior by demanding American media shut down any discussion about his corrupt Ukrainian influence campaign.

(Demand Letter Sent to U.S. Media Outlets)

Good grief, you just can’t make this stuff up folks…

He Continues – Rudy Giuliani Wrecks ABC’s Narrative Engineer George Stephanopoulos…

Remember, in the deep & factional political weeds George Stephanopoulos is ‘team Cinton’.  Team Obama are exposed in the Biden-Ukraine pay-to-play scandal.  The aspect that exposes Team Clinton is the FBI false construct of the vast Russian conspiracy with Crowdstrike, DNC server hacking and the Ukraine dirt-digging participation for 2016.

As a result, Stephanopoulos is more concerned with defending Team Clinton (DNC hack via Crowstrike) than defending Team Obama (Joe Biden selling influence).

Giuliani knows the factional nuance; and as a result he immediately side-steps the part of the Ukraine narrative that Stephanopoulos is prepared to defend (Clinton).  Instead, Giuliani goes to the part of the Ukraine narrative that surrounds Team Obama (via Biden), where Stephanopoulos is less invested.  Smart move.

Rudy Giuliani, having avoided the Clinton trap, then rips the legs out from under the Biden-Ukraine defense and beats Stephanopoulos over the head with the truth hammer.


Following these interviews today, Team Biden (aka Team Obama) recognize that Rudy Giuliani has the facts to expose their corruption and begin demanding that media executives stop allowing Giuliani to tell the truth.