Now That World Government Has Been Achieved The Planet Can Start Cooling

By Elmer Beauregard

Obama has done it, he has fulfilled his promise to  “fundamentally transform the United States” making it part of a UN World Government by signing the Paris Climate Treaty last December without Congressional approval. In one month the US will lose its sovereignty and will have to answer to the UN when it comes to its energy use.

Now that Obama and the UN have achieved World Government with the fake threat of Global Warming I wonder if the Globe will magically start cooling off. They have fudged the data about as far as they can go to build the narrative that every year is the hottest ever. I predict they will start fudging the data the other way so they can say that World Government saved the planet. Especially with statements like this “The Paris Agreement’s credibility test starts today”, wink, wink.


Reuters

A sweeping global agreement to combat climate change by shifting the world economy away from fossil fuels will take force next month after passing a threshold for ratification on Wednesday with support from European nations.

Support for the Paris Agreement has widened to nations representing 56.75 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, above the 55 percent needed for implementation, a U.N. website showed. The deal will formally start in 30 days.

European Union countries including Germany, France and Slovakia, which have completed domestic ratification, helped trigger the formal entry into force after a green light from the European Parliament on Tuesday.

The agreement, reached in December 2015, already has support from other major emitters led by China, the United States and India. In total, 72 countries out of 195 have ratified the agreement, according to the U.N. website.

Several nations hailed the rapid ratification of an agreement meant to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, to limit floods, droughts, more powerful storms and rising ocean levels.

It took eight years for the previous U.N. climate deal, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that obliged only rich nations to cut emissions, to gain enough backing to take effect.

Entry into force “demonstrates unprecedented political momentum for climate action and bodes well for us moving forward”, said Thoriq Ibrahim, Environment Minister for the Maldives and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.

But he urged stronger action against global warming, saying “it is no exaggeration to say we are in a race against time”.

The Paris Agreement will take force just before the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 8. Republican Donald Trump opposes the accord while Democrat Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter.

Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, said ratification showed that a shift to a low-carbon economy is “urgent, inevitable, and accelerating faster than we ever believed possible”.

But current national pledges for cuts in emissions are insufficient to achieve a Paris goal of limiting a rise in world temperatures to “well below” two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

U.N. studies project that average world temperatures are set to rise by 3 degrees (5.4 Fahrenheit) or more by 2100, based on current trends. And this year is expected to prove the warmest since records began in the 19th century, beating 2015.

“The Paris Agreement’s credibility test starts today,” said Tracy Carty of the charity Oxfam, adding that governments should raise their ambitions.

  • Henrytt

    When I hear the same old crap about ” 98% of all scientists say it’s real”…….. I say, okay, fantastic …. give me the list of scientists…. all of their names, where they were educated, who they work for…. do they get government grants from any country and does their livelihoods depend on it for a pay check……. what is their accuracy rate….. are they using actual data or mere computer models and then who writes the algorithms ????? You will hear crickets !!!

    • boardmanric

      Since when does a computer model become scientific proof? The state of science today is a disgrace.

      “A theory needs to make predictions that can be tested, so that the theory itself can, in principle, be rejected. And for the theory to be sound there needs to be a genuine commitment to reject the theory of the tests fail to support it. It isn’t really a theory if, for example, there is either the intent or the logical possibility of interpreting evidence both ways. ”

      A terrific description of what a theory must have is also contained in the early chapters of Hawkins “A brief history of time”

      AGW IS A POLITICAL MOVEMENT CONTAINING A MODICUM OF SCIENCE AND A PLENITUDE OF POLITICS

    • Steve Witherell

      That figure is derived from a questionaire sent to 77 scientist .the original intent was to survey over 10,000.These 77 were selected because they support man made climate change as pertaining to co2 .Wondervwhat percentage would be if all 10,000 plus responded?

      • Mark

        I believe you’re absolutely correct. However, the questionnaire was originally sent to all 10,000+ attendees at the conference via the web (I think in late 2008). There were 4 questions, but less than half responded by only answering the first question only. Because of the poor response rate, the organizers then selected 79 of the answers they liked the best, and out of those chose 77 who answered the 2nd question, that humans are the sole cause of global warming…and from that they then declared to the world that 97% agree that human CO2 is the cause of whatever warming we had experienced. And to think that this person (Maggie Kendall Zimmerman) got her MSc from this work (it was a part of her thesis). Needless to say, this survey has been repeatedly discredited for a few years now.

      • My real name

        No offense but I really don´t know what kind of survey you´re talking about, can you provide a link to this info? The consensus project I know (97%) works as a peer review. In case your not familiar with this term, it means that there was no survey, instead the authors looked at work published in scientific journals and which stance they took. In this case they took about 12.000 articles into account out of which only 0,7% rejected anthropogenic global warming. IN ADDITION they also asked the authors to rate their work and out of the 1189 responses (which is a pretty good rate I can tell you out of my own experience) only 28 rejected global warming.
        Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=2D115A375E3517173D21AB29BFAD6BD2.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org

    • My real name

      Quick googling resulted in this: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annexessannex-ii.html all contributors to the 4th IPCC report. Answer your questions yourself I have absolutely no time for that.
      Further ask yourself those who reject climate change who pays them? Fossil industries?

  • Zachary Hecke

    I need to make a presentation on the truth behind the climate change and i was wondering if anyone knows where would be a good place to look for real factual articles. Google seems biased towards the left and i cannot find anything about the scam except this website.

    • Truth928

      google IS incredibly BIASED.

    • My real name

      Please, before you trust pages like this one (instead of sources like the IPCC) check out https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and check their arguments against the arguments you found. And I have to ask do you really believe what he says about the world government and “I wonder if the Globe will magically start cooling off” ?? It´s not a world government because (unfortunately) the treaty includes no punishment if governments don´t act accordingly, they can still do whatever they like. About the cooling thing, here you can see that this guy doesn´t even know what the “paid scientists” say. Scientists don´t expect the climate to cool down again, it´s all about by how much it will heat up. (Except of in the short term, due to the end of El Nino)

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.