The Deep State Climate Change Agenda [Part 1/2] | Edge of Wonder

The Deep State Climate Change Agenda [Part 1/2] | Edge of Wonder

August 14, 2019 100 By William Hollis


An environmental issue that’s been
attracting a lot of attention around the world for the past 3 decades Something so massive and complex
that it’s changing the way we look at Earth Because our future depends on it Is there an underlying
political agenda? and if so, who’s involved Get ready as Edge of Wonder
discusses the environmental issue we’ve all been wondering about
climate change and global warming The Edge of Wonder Welcome to Edge of Wonder. We are your hosts! I’m Ben! and I’m Rob. if you thought that climate change
was an open and shut case, think again. Stay tuned because in this two
part climate change series we unearth some discoveries
that’ll freeze you in your tracks. In this first part, we’ll break
Climate Change down for you, give you the lay of the land
of the two sides of this debate, discuss the causes of
climate change, expose how climate
models are flawed, and why politicians and the media
push this false narrative. Throughout our research, we were blown away by how much
amazing work is already out there. We just wanted to use this video
to highlight that good work and connect the dots
on recent updates so that this information doesn’t get buried in
all the fake science and fake news out there. Be sure to do some digging on
your own if this topic interests you and feel free to check
our sources. We don’t claim to be
professional scientists, but we are open-minded,
logical individuals. If you find new evidence supporting or refuting
what we’ve surfaced in this video, feel free to comment below. We want to encourage a discussion since we get
this topic is sensitive for some people. One last word from us before
you watch the video, we’re going to drop a lot of names of scientists
and reference some research papers, websites, or videos that we found. If it gets overwhelming,
please feel free to rewind. To kick things off, what’s climate change?
What’s global warming? National Geographic and Wired.com both
define climate change as long term shifts in weather and temperature, as a result of global warming. Other mainstream new sources are calling
attention to climate change and the increase in temperature. Surely, if almost everyone— like this piece saying 97% of climate scientists
from “a 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters agreed that there’s a link between
“global warming” and “global climate change” and that “humans are
causing global warming”, then it must be true. But hold on a second The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change writes ”Climate change refers to a
change in climate state, persisting for decades or longer whether due to natural variability
or as a result of human activity.” So the UN’s IPCC also made up many groups
of scientists came to a different conclusion that it could be human activity or nature. Before we dig deeper, let’s look at
the origin of these terms when did the term global warming
and climate change get coined? Well the term Global Warming came
first before the term “Climate Change”. Global Warming as a term made its
first appearance in a 1975 science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: “Climatic Change: Are we on the
Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming” On NASA’s site, it writes about the
difference between the terms, climate change and global warming. “Industrial emissions of tiny airborne
particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions
would cause warming” People then didn’t come to a common consensus
so it was just called Climate Change as a blanket term. So when did the climate
start drastically changing? Mainstream sources will
say around 1830 to 1850, which is around the time of
the end of the industrial revolution. However, geological history tells us that
the earth has always undergone climate change. There’s been past periods of global
warming in the east and the west. China’s Central Plain under the
Shang Dynasty 3000 years ago was a subtropical region where
people hunted elephants. “The average annual temperature is estimated
to have been around 2 degrees Celsius higher”. Citrus was grown on the grounds of
the imperial palace in Chang’an, situated in Northwest China now. In the 2016 report, “Why Scientists Disagree
About Global Warming,” published by the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), “over recent geological time, Earth’s temperature has fluctuated
naturally between about 4 Celsius and minus 6 Celsius with respect to
twentieth-century temperature.” In the last 2 million years, it alternated between cold and warm
interglacial periods that lasted 15,000 years each. So it hasn’t been this lukewarm
temperature that has stayed the same and just skyrocketed after the
industrial revolution. What are the two opposing views
in the debate of Climate Change? There is the anthropogenic
global warming view which claims man has ruined
the climate by increasing carbon emissions. The other view is a skeptical one, which doesn’t believe that man
can be the sole reason behind climate change. The opposing side calls them skeptics, but we like to call them
climate change truthers. The truthers take a more
holistic approach and think that there are
larger forces at play here like the sun, cosmic rays, water vapor,
and cloud cover, the poles shifting, or other
ways which we will get into soon. Zooming out and looking
at these two views one perspective backs itself into a corner. How can anything be absolute? How can we definitively say that the climate
shift is solely or largely caused by humans. The Corbett Report didn’t need to
take long to dismantle the brittle, flip-flopping evidence
presented by the media. It’s so good—we have to share it. Highly recommend that
you guys check it out. To summarize their point, the Corbett Report basically shows how
the media can’t really seem to put a finger on whether climate change is making the
world hotter or colder, wetter or dryer, malaria-ridden or malaria-free? Both states seem to exist for one geographic
area, which is a contradiction. Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography
at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be
caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds Professor Stott criticized folks who toss around
the term climate change-denier or climate skeptic, when the reverse is true. “Opponents of global warming are often snidely
referred to as ‘climate change deniers’; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global
warming are passionate believers in climate change it is the global warmers who deny
that climate change is the norm.” This guy calls it like he sees it. Climate Change-deniers actually believe
in climate change and that it’s been around forever. Anthropogenic Global Warming believers
think the climate is supposed to be stable. Professor Ian Clark from University of
Ottawa’s department of Earth Sciences said, “You can’t say that CO2 drives climate. It certainly never did in the past. If we look at climate
from a geological perspective, we would never suspect
CO2 as a major climate driver.” So CO2 levels may have spiked most recently, but there’s been warmer spikes
in temperature throughout history that don’t correlate with
lower CO2 levels in the past. But the person who cuts
through all the crap and gets to the heart of it
all is Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, a former member of British Parliament. He said, “There is such intolerance of any
dissenting voice [who opposes climate change]. This is the most politically
incorrect thing possible, to doubt this climate change orthodoxy.” This could not be more true. In part 2 of this series, we’ll cover how the
climate change and environmentalism as a whole has been weaponized by the Deep State to
divide and conquer the unsuspecting populace. To catch the second part of this
series be sure to subscribe, and hit the notification bell so
you know when the next part is ready. Here’s a quick excerpt from
The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on Channel 4 in 2007. The global warming alarm is
dressed up in science But it’s not science, it’s propaganda There’s no direct evidence which links 20th
century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gas We’ve just been told lies, that’s
what it comes down to Who can say that CO2 will drive climate?
It certainly never did in the past If CO2 increases in the atmosphere,
as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up. But the ice core record shows
exactly the opposite. Now what have these two sides concluded
are the main causes of climate change? If you ask the media, the environmentalist
non-profit organizations, or certain extreme political people, you would get the answer
you were expecting. It’s people, the big corporations, and their carbon emissions—hence the
term Anthropogenic Global Warming. That answer seems suspiciously simple. Israeli scientist Nir J. Shaviv has written
papers and done presentations explaining how climate is affected by solar
radiation and cosmic radiation. Some of his clearest examples show how
changes in sea level align with the 11-year solar cycle and his work has been peer-reviewed which
means it should be acceptable for use by the IPCC. But why doesn’t the IPCC use his work? Well Shaviv believes that using his work
would mean that the IPCC would have to “change their conclusions on
what drives climate [change] and in particular how large is climate sensitivity.” Anthropogenic Global Warming only makes
sense if it’s paired with a high climate sensitivity. High climate sensitivity would mean
higher changes in temperature. However, what we observed in the 20th
century only makes sense with a lower climate sensitivity. That means we should expect a small change
in temperature in the 21st century. BAM!! Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor of atomic radiation,
atmospheric scientists, and mountaineer has played a
pretty large role in this debate. In a signed letter to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations in 2007, Jaworowski called global warming
“a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages,” defined carbon dioxide as “a non-polluting
gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis,” He also claimed the IPCC’s reports were
“quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.” This guy does not hold back—
and he has the research to back it up. In his 50 year career, he’s excavated ice
out of 17 glaciers across 6 continents. In an article published
by 21st Century, Jaworowski writes that earth’s climate
has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2
concentration in the atmosphere. When discussing greenhouse gases, he writes that “the most important
among these “greenhouse gases” is water vapor, which is responsible for about 96 to 99
percent of the greenhouse effect.” “Among the other greenhouse
gases (CO2, CH4, CFCs, N2O, and O3), the most important is CO2, which contributes only 3 percent
to the total greenhouse effect. The man made CO2 contribution
to this effect may be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent.” CO2 is a tiny percentage of
all greenhouse gases, and the manmade portion is
an even tinier fraction of that. Next Jaworowski states that
“the higher level of cosmic radiation in the Earth’s troposphere
causes greater formation of clouds, which reflects the incoming
solar radiation back into space. This results in a cooler climate” Under the Trump Administration,
William Happer, current National Security
Council technology adviser has spearheaded an initiative to
create a presidential committee on climate. He has stated that rising carbon
dioxide emissions help the planet, not hurt it. Why? higher carbon dioxide levels
will benefit plant life, including agricultural crops, which
is way different from the narrative. Obviously, mainstream science and mainstream media has pushed back a lot. Exactly. However, that doesn’t
seem to faze him. “There is no problem
from CO2,” Happer said. “The world has lots
and lots of problems, but increasing CO2 is
not one of the problems.” He continues, “So [the Paris Agreement] dignifies
it by getting all these yahoos who don’t know a damn thing
about climate saying, ‘This is a problem, and we’re
going to solve it.’ All this virtue signaling. You can read about it in the Bible:
Pharisees and hypocrites and phonies” So get this, there’s another connection
between William Happer and President Donald J. Trump. Happer knew Trump’s uncle, John
Trump, a physicist at MIT. And we talked a lot about him in
our previous episodes. There’s proof to back up Happer’s
claim that CO2 is not a problem and is actually helping the
environment… Wait what? That’s right. The Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change based out of Arizona does some really awesome work documenting
all sorts of plants exposed to CO2-enriched environment. They’ve archived thousands of results
from hundreds of peer-reviewed research studies conducted by hundreds of researchers.” The overwhelming evidence that they’ve
collected demonstrates how more CO2 in the air, increases the productivity
of nearly all plants. Plants produce more
branches and tillers, more and thicker leaves, more extensive root
system, and more flowers and fruit. “Atmospheric CO2 enrichment leads
to yield increases of 25% for fruits and melons, 44% for legumes, 48% for roots and
tubers, and 37% for vegetables!! Not only will CO2 enrichment make
plants grow faster, larger, and healthier. Fruits and vegetables may even be
more nutritious and sweeter. One study shows sugar cane exposed to a
CO2 enriched environment had 29% more leaf sugar content than those under ambient or
current concentrations. Another study done on
strawberries concluded that “elevated CO2 increased
the levels of dry matter-content, fructose, glucose, total sugar and
sweetness index per dry matter” Zooming out, NASA has also corroborated
CO2’s positive impact on the environment. Their satellite views show that
the globe has been greening: “From a quarter to half of Earth’s
vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to
rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published
in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” this evidence further
confirms Happer’s statement. How did these scientists
discover this greening? Well, “an international team of 32 authors
from 24 institutions in eight countries used satellite data to calculate leaf
cover over the world’s vegetated regions. They used NASA’s Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer instruments to capture leaf cover or
the leaf area index. Sure, the world is greening but how much
greening is actually happening? Well, they calculated the greening or the
increase in leaves on plants and trees, to be equivalent in area to two times the
continental United States. Two America’s worth of plants and tree
spread all around the globe over 35 years. Next we’ll dig into how scientists have
arrived at their conclusions in the first place whether their in the alarmist camp or
whether they’re in the truther camp. Much of the alarmist mainstream media
articles point to a consensus from a group of scientists that have built a model that suddenly
proves man made carbon is the culprit. There are tons of models out there,
how can we be so sure they’re right? There’s two things to examine here—
the incentives behind these models, and how they’re actually being developed. In the 1990s, countries around the
world invested tens of billions of dollars in global warming-related research. Most of that budget has gone toward
building climate models. Scientists are constantly competing for funds
from the government but from the 1990 onward, it became incredibly easy if not required to
mention global warming in order to be granted funding. So which government agencies
fund research grants? EPA and NOAA are among some
of the organizations that have been funding research
on anthropomorphic global warming: Those research funds come from
taxpayers dollars and according to Capital Research
Center’s Dr. Steven J Allen, “from 1993 to 2014, total US
Expenditures on climate change amounted to more than $166
billion dollars in 2012. That is just insane. That’s comparable to what the US government
has spent on the Apollo Program. It might make more sense for some scientists
to just spend some time on global warming research than on subjects that they might find
more critical to the environment. Dr Roy Spencer, the Weather Satellite
Team Leader at NASA, says climate models are as good as the
assumptions that go into them and they have hundreds of assumptions. All it takes is one assumption to be
wrong to be way off.” Take this with a grain of salt and no
offense to people in the meteorology field, but if our local weatherman can’t even
get our own weather reports 100% accurate 100% of the time. How can we be so confident that the
climate will be disastrous a decade from now? Professor Ian Clark hits the
nail on the head. Claiming that one small factor affects the
climate in a huge way, is actually illogical. It shows that these scientists have failed to
understand the “climate system… the cosmic rays, the solar (rays), the CO2, the water vapor,
the clouds… if your model doesn’t have that, it’s not worth anything” Judith Curry, American climatologist from
the Georgia Institute of Technology detailed in her report “Climate Models for Laymen” how climate
models are useful to understand the climate system but not “fit for.. attributing the causes of recent warming
or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales
of decades to centuries” Curry provided many solid concerns
that refute the accuracy of these models and chief among them is how the climate
models failed to provide a consistent explanation of the warming and cooling
during the early 20th century. As we understand it, it’s intellectually
dishonest of the climate models to use the same observations to
tune the climate model. Next, we’ll look at which organizations are
behind this huge climate change push? First—the UN plays a huge
role in all of this. In 1988, Margaret Thatcher
told the Dr John Houghton, head of UK Met Office at the time, to set up a climate modeling unit called
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. They came up with the first big report
in 1990 that claimed that CO2, a greenhouse gas contributed to more
than 50% of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Professor Philip Stott plainly states that
“the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are
politically driven.” In 2015, the Obama administration
introduced the Clean Power Plan to combat anthropogenic climate
change and global warming. One interesting thing to note is the
Obama administration approved press releases related to climate change within days and why does it take more than six
months under the Trump Administration? It also doesn’t take long to see which
environmental lobbying groups fund political campaigns. The “top 10 recipients of environmental
special-interest cash from 2000-2004 include John Kerry,
Al Gore, and Barack Obama.” The Paris Agreement builds upon the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate In Change (UNFCCC) and was signed by
195 countries in 2015. Its goal is to “strengthen the global response
to the threat of climate change” by minimizing global temperature rise. Again, this agreement comes
from an approach that humans are the cause of climate
change and we can fix it. In a 2017 climate science hearing, Judith Curry lays it bare
for congress to witness. Climate science has not
progressed due to domestic and international institutions
stifling any debate or disagreement. Curry noted how the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change “ elevated a scientific hypothesis on
human-caused climate change to a ruling theory through claims of a consensus.” This scientific debate around climate
change had turned into a political battle. Instead of debate, you have scientists
silencing anyone going against the “ruling theory” And it’s further perpetuated by
the news which zealously and overtly side with the “ruling theory”
of anthropogenic global warming. Many media outlets simply interviewed
politicians like Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsing a
view where human-caused global warming was a threat, while publicly dismissing scientists
whose findings don’t fit within the consensus and still claiming to be unbiased. They also parrot the same climate
change myths like thawing ice caps, malaria spreading mosquitoes not
thriving in the cold, rising sea levels, and carbon’s negative
effects on the planet. This political and social climate has allowed
media to sacrifice their journalistic integrity and bow down to environmental
lobbyists and alarmist politicians To summarize, we have this 30 year old
movement born out of a hypothesis from the UN, really it’s been disproven by so many
scientists as evidenced in this episode and beyond, it’s a shell of a movement. It’s propped up by politicians
all around the globe, backed up environmental non-profits,
and lobbying groups, which in turn push policies that use
taxpayer money to fund research to build a falsified consensus. Mainstream media finds it profitable
and convenient to further the alarmist, anthropogenic global warming theory
and not upset a pre-wired populace. But what for? Tune in next episode
where we uncover the dark agenda behind it all. And with that we’ll see
you out on the edge…