In 1988 came the announcement: now they wanted to solve the mystery of climate change. That was before the IPCC (United Nations Panel on Climate Change) was formed. Natural climate change was and is and will always be crucial to our living conditions, so it was apparently an important step. But when the first reports came out about the agenda, this was already derailed when it was announced that it was going to be about man-made climate change and thus the exclusion of natural climate change.
This surprised many scientists, because the scientific world was becoming aware that a number of crucial and sometimes violent climate changes had taken place in the history of the Earth. Studies in i.a. ice cores, seabed sediments and dendro-chronology had begun to exchange data and confirm each other or play against each other, There was a lively and productive / constructive debate. In the 1980s, however, a completely different and not very scientific agenda came into play and interfered: politics. And this agenda progressed in such an aggressive way that in a decade it completely took over the arena.
It was announced in the decade before and around the turn of the millennium by political parties that the debate was now over, that everything was now clarified, science now completely agreed that there was consensus. But the problem then and today is a very severe problem: that the debate has only just begun, that nothing has been clarified, and that science deeply disagrees with itself. Science had 30 years ago and has today only just begun the study and understand the complex. Science did not deny that humans had some kind of influence on the climate, but the forced and totalitarian consensus that had just suddenly arisen was by no means in question.
The topic is rather unmanageable for people who have not gained a minimal insight into what creates such a big phenomenon as climate. We can well understand that people who are in a small room where there is a smoker sitting in one corner, a person with a bad stomach who is constantly farting in the other, a forehead burning in the third and windows , which can not be opened, in the fourth, can create a bad indoor climate. We can understand the extent of smog and pollution in urban environments, as they are a kind of delimited space, and as we can feel the problem directly. But when it comes to something as gigantic as a global climate, where the actors are the world’s oceans, immense tundra, huge rainforests and unimaginable volcanoes, we lose track. And completely, COMPLETELY wrong it goes when one has to consider the Earth’s climate in a solar or cosmic context.
The Money Men
In the middle of this spooky field of understanding, people arrived with quite a lot of money in their back pockets, people who were certainly not afraid to spend them. Major investments were made. Science was basically bought to produce results and statements that could support a pre-planned conclusion: that it was primarily humans who controlled the cosmos and the climate! A completely incredible statement, if you think about it (you rarely do)! The solar system was parked in an encrypted and thus irrelevant field. The United Nations Convention on Climate Change, which preceded the IPCC, presented their plan: to set up research committees for the study of man-made climate. Exit cosmos, exit nature.
This was a very smart and very inflamed landslide. People who allowed themselves to put forward the then non-politically correct view that perhaps the main responsibility of humans for the global climate could and should be questioned, were now exhibited as environmental pigs. These statements suddenly came out of the mouths of people who had previously condemned all talk of the environment and pollution. A very special and strange kind of confusion arose, where it all flipped 180 degrees around. At the same time, the environment and pollution were washed out by the debate, and now they were talking almost exclusively about: climate. While talking about climate, there was a lot of talk about emotional and moral concepts such as guilt, shame, debt and correctness. The awake listener and reader may notice here a pattern that has been seen quite a few times in history. The ‘control system’ emerged. Science had, with a deft magical magic trick, turned into religion, knowledge had been flushed out through the tub, and faith had been poured in. Faith is a lack of knowledge and devotion to the vacuum of faith.
The content of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.3% of the Earth’s atmosphere. In the period of human industrialization, we have increased concentration by 80-90 millionths. There are then scientists who have allowed themselves to ask whether this is significant or, as claimed, even catastrophic, but their cautious questions were run over with bulldozer force by the IPCC, who also claimed that the C02 content of the atmosphere before industrialization had been stable for 100,000s of years.
Consensus – what a splendid word!
In the matter of facts, science is not about consensus at all. Science is not democratic, it is not majority voting, it is not about eradicating differences and nuances. It is not a matter of negotiation, as when the social partners negotiate a collective agreement or companies negotiate a new contract with each other. It is EXACTLY about full respect for doubts, differences, unresolved issues and nuances, until all doubts have disappeared in favor of unquestionable evidence and proof and theories have been made redundant. Science is about curiosity. The more the better. It is politics and religion that is about negotiating solutions and dogma. Science is about critical thinking, and the word consensus is totally irrelevant in that regard.
IPCC, og det må man give dem, havde hidkaldt et enormt panel af videnskabsfolk, der beskæftigede sig med et kæmpe felt af emner, der hidrører klima. Men når man læser deres rapporter, er der uhyre lidt konsensus. Konsensus optræder derimod pludselig i de opsummeringer, der præsenteres for politikere og beslutningstagere, og som er tilrettelagt af bureaukrater. Her fremgår der, hvad der bør læses af dette, hvad der bør konkluderes og ekstraheres af dette – og hvad der derfor bør besluttes på baggrund af dette! Her sker det betændte skred. Det viste ovenikøbet, før den seneste rapport, at de havde skrevet deres politiker-synopsis måneder før rapporten kom, og derefter forlangte, at rapporten skulle rettes ind efter den!
This kind of consensus is a prefab Agenda 21 concept. Meanwhile, the agenda for Agenda 2030 has been postponed as it went too slow in twisting the arm around the nations and their institutions. Without a basic piece of homework, it’s actually hard to grasp what’s going on. NGOs play a significant role in this mega-spin. Agenda 21/2030 is a comprehensive and extremely well-prepared + well-funded piece of social-mental-ideological engineering.
Every year, humans send 5.5 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. It sounds like a lot, but it has to be put in relation to the fact that the earth’s surface itself delivers 1,500 gigatons of CO2 every year, that the atmosphere itself is 750 gigatons of CO2, that the plant world produces 610 gigatons of CO2, that the oceans store 38,000 gigatons of CO2 and that the ocean sediments store about 100,000,000 !! gigaton CO2. How did so much CO2 end up there? This is because our age is abnormally cold compared to earlier periods in Earth’s history. The content of CO2 in the air has been 10 times as high in periods (Zenosoic, Mesozoic) where plant life has been overwhelmingly lush on the ground, as studies of plants and their segmented remnants have shown.
Extremely detailed data on the composition of the atmosphere for the last 200 years are available. This data is documented in solid pier-reviewed literature that is fully available. When Al Gore, as the representative of the ‘agenda’, ran his show Inconvenient Truth, ALL this data was excluded. Among other things, this led to to a comprehensive protest and a document, signed by 31,000 scientists, for misuse and falsification of scientific data – another and much more embarrassing inconvenient truth that returned, like a boomerang. But no one discovered it, because the media absorbed and suffocated the story. The media were complicit qua their ownership. The same ones who ‘own’ science, ‘own’ the media.
One of the most out-censored facts about carbon dioxide is, the role it plays in the photo synthesis. Not that agricultural science and biophysics don’t know about this basic phenomenon, but what this science fails to recognize with the emphasis that it should, is that modern mechanized and chemistry’fied agriculture has destroyed the soil, so that the plants refuse to absorb the CO2, that it normally would. Because of the overload of non fermented animal manure, they get far too much nitrogen and ‘believe’ that they don’t need to extract CO2 from the soil. So the CO2 returns to the air, and the soil gets exhausted. A slow desertification sets in.
And the reason, why no one talks about it, is yet another branch of mega-corporatism and its interest in industrialized farming. The climate agenda has been a HUGE distraction from that important problem, the REAL problem.
Then came the whole affair, that is, the big leak, in two rounds consisting of 1000s of emails rooted in a circle of researchers from East Anglia University in England, who confirmed that data was distorted and scientists and research were manipulated. The statement that the temperature had risen over the course of 10 years in a way that was unique in 1000s of years revealed a highly selective use of data that is not compatible with actual science.
Temperature measurements are based on three factors:
The ground-based measurements show an increasing temperature above approx. 30 years. The satellite measurements, which are considered the most accurate, show no increase. In contrast, they show a slight cooling in the last 10 years. The American continent, for example, has had unusually harsh winters in the last few years.
The IPCC, the climate panel, bases its statements on pre-industrial measurements solely on ice core drilling and very little on dendrochronology and seabed sediments, and they also rely for the most part on ground-based measurements. These measurements have the main problem that they are exposed to many types of pollution, especially from the urban sites.
The inconveniently leaked emails from the University of East Anglia show a conscious effort to hide that the climate did not cooperate with the predictions, namely that the curve would rise catastrophically and that Doomsday was then in sight. The landscape did not behave according to the map. All the predictions and advances well into the 21st century were based on the fact that this curve held. But it did not. However, heavy political decisions had already been made, taxes and duties had been imposed, jobs and careers had been created – others have been lost. The train was running and had its own inertia. It would now be a great loss of prestige to align theories and statements with reality and match the map with the landscape. Yes, even worse than that. It would be a revelation that people in high places with power and influence had lied and manipulated science, which is a serious crime that in all Western societies is considered punishable. In the emails, the group of researchers from East Anglia discussed how they could hide their miscalculations via statistics. Or their predefined results, for it is difficult to say exactly whether it was the egg or the hen that first arrived here.
Suddenly there was the hockey stick. A special computer program was implemented at the University of East Anglia, which sorted out all measured data from weather balloons and satellites as well as those from high altitude areas where it was cooler. After which they feed the UN climate panel with the results.
In particular, a person named Phil Jones, who was one of the leading climate scientists at East Anglia and who provided the IPCC with most of their material, shines through here. Independent researchers who were not under the supervision and control of this Phil Jones had for years called for the raw data, on which he and his circle based their conclusions. But in vain, for they were never presented. The university’s internal email show discussions on how to avoid the Freedom of Information Act and other researchers access to see the raw data. Phil Jones said directly in an interview: ‘Why should I pass on my data to someone who’s just trying to disprove that I’m right?’ Well, is that not what the whole concept of ‘pier review’ and the honor criterion of science is all about?
The whole story is embarrassing to science. People who one moment howl at pier reviewing when it stiffens their authority are, when it comes down to it, terrified of being pier reviewed themselves. And here it gets really embarrassing: when Phil Jones and co. finally had to drop their data, these data lo and behold … had disappeared!
We could go out on a limb with all the endangered scientists, all the heads of climate research departments who were fired for expressing doubt, more about the inflamed mechanisms in academia, but that is simply too sad.
What happened to substance?
However, there is a strange phenomenon throughout the debate that we need to observe. When someone who is seriously concerned about the matter tries to present something that has substance, that is, something that has to do with actual knowledge and facts, something strange happens. The propagandists for man-made climate completely avoid discussing substance. They drive forward all sorts of lost arguments that the critics are ‘paid for by the oil industry’, that there is ‘a conspiracy’, that they are ‘mentally disturbed fantasies’. Al Gore has called them ‘a kind of racists’, he drew the political-correctness card. So, all the classic logical fallacies with ad Hominem as their favorite. See: The 76 Logical Fallacies
Danish intellectual left wing newspaper, Dagbladet Information’s climate propagandist, Jørgen Steen Nielsen, said when the second major leak from East Anglia came out that ‘the opponents are very well organized in their propaganda’. He calls them ‘climate deniers’ and other politically correct insults intended to demean them, but substance is never discussed. A really stupid expression by the way, as the climate is in no way denied, on the contrary. It’s the cause of climate change, that is questioned. And decidedly false, as the mega-financing of the campaign is quite on the globalist agenda. Billions have been spent on running it! One logical fallacy after another flies through the air.
When the well known statistician Bjørn Lomborg presented his careful and comprehensive calculations, no substance was ever discussed, because the politically correct-infected left wing in particular did not dare. They demonized and ridiculed him, just to avoid the substance, for the lefties had neither brains nor balls for anything else. It ended in the most malicious form of populism and backstabbing, where you would be a witness to the Danish intelligentsia firing self-absorbed sarcasm over their expensive red wine. Lomborg became a scapegoat and was even formally accused of ‘scientific irresponsibility’. When the critics had to withdraw the accusation, which in itself was unreliable, they were even so cowardly that they did not give him proper redress, but left a doubt hanging.
The CO2 content of the atmosphere over the last 10,000 years
It is claimed that $ 200 million a year comes from the oil industry in support of climate research. Fair enough, it gives reason to take a closer look at whether the research sticks to the topic. It does not prove anything, but it says that one must keep an eye on any bias. On the other hand, what is not considered bias is that every year 30 billion arrives from governments for climate research (US figures, globally it is much larger) is not considered a reason to look for an agenda!?
16,000 delegates flew to the beautiful city in the small state, where according to Shakespeare something is wrong. They arrived on 1st class and in private jets, emptying the entire nation of limousines and caviar. And as part of the standard in the concept, the asphalt also boiled, and the street parliament including completely random passers-by was run in police vans to the local Guantanamo in Valby, Copenhagen. Very strange. It was a prepared and organized drill in how to crowd manage people in the age of crisis capitalism.
CO2 trading became a derivatives industry. It was deeply linked to the subprime interest rate industry. Global warming is a financial industrial enterprise, an investment. They spit out a portion of their infinite billions in trade and reap the multiple. Did we forget to say that, by the way, they themselves are printing their billions (quantized equalization)? The day they are revealed, they have disappeared from the face of the Earth and are in the process of fabricating a new trick. Lack of water, for example, and it is already on its way. They know they will not be punished because they are ‘too big to be prosecuted’, just as the banks are ‘too big to fail’. The CO2 predators have created a market where you have if you hit a certain ceiling. They have positioned themselves as a giant middleman pulling green taxes out of this artificially inflicted trading field. So, the financial industry and the banks’ main income: money transfer. For every little transfer, something is poured into the bucket, which in a short while will become an ocean.
Al Gore and co. has, like the sub-prime mortgage industry, created a milking machine that, like this industry, does not produce anything other than what an experienced magician produces on stage: illusion and amazement. The concept is parasitic. The financial industry produces nothing, but feeds on everyone else who produces something. It’s a cunning industrial cancer, a parasite, a vampire. These people are getting incredibly rich, but the climate change they are talking about is not happening, because – and this is one of the never-discussed facts – CO2 does not create climate change. Climate change and rising temperatures as a side effect create higher CO2 content in the air. Al Gore deliberately swapped curves, without which the guilt complex would not be established. That was the reason for the 31.000 signed protests from scientists, that got swept under the carpet by the corrupt corporatist media.
The ‘stable’ climate
The statement that the climate has been constant, but then all of a sudden has changed – due to humans – can very easily be rejected, completely categorically! If one would like to see an example of natural global warming, we would suggest people study the abrupt shift that happened when the last ice age ended. Here one can really talk about global warming! In the early Middle Ages it is even so hot in Europe that one can grow wine all the way up to the Scottish border. A few hundred years later we see reminiscences of the ice age called ‘the little ice age’, where people stroll across the English Channel. The giant CO2 fart that was spit out of Hekla a few years ago and which stopped air traffic throughout Northern Europe delivered more CO2 than the entire globe’s total industry does in 10 years! Seen in the light of these hard-hitting facts, it must be stated that the concept of ‘climate denial’, which the propagandists sprinkle with, acquires a rather self-objective meaning.
The end of the ice age shows violent fluctuations in temperature. It could rise by as much as 15 degrees in just three years, then fall again, and rise again, and fall, etc. And it was hardly because there was a stack of cavemen down in central Italy frying wild boar over an open fire, while they farted and barked. Nature is fierce. The arrival of the ice ages has been just as abrupt. The ice core drillings in Greenland show that all ice ages in the past 250,000 years have arrived in a minimum of 20 years, and sometimes in the course of three years! There are even examples of large animals, such as mammoths, being frozen. Their bodies are trapped in motion, they have not just fallen over from old age. Some of them are still standing up, with food in their mouths! If you freeze slowly, cell changes and spoilage occur, but these bodies are so fresh that even the dogs eat them if they are fed with them. They were simply surprised by a sudden flood combined with intense volcanic activity * 2. Heat and cold are closely related. The science of paleo-climatology shows over and over again that the Earth’s climate has been extremely dynamic. In the last 2.5 million years, the Earth has shifted from an almost full flood to a habitable climate about 40 times. We just repeat: 40 times!
Volcanic activity on Earth is recognized by science to its full extent. There are a number, approx. 20 so-called ‘super-volcanoes’ scattered on the globe. If only one of these went off, a great ice age would occur in a few months. Thus, volcanic activity, dust, lava, warming would cover the Sun, and an ice age would occur immediately. Another reason to shake your head at these commercial fantasies about CO2 and global warming. It is 100% the exact opposite!
The activity of sunspots today is extremely low. To say that the Sun has no bearing on the Earth’s climate is so nonsensical and junk-scientific that we would simply disregard it. There is a close link to activities on the Sun and what is happening on Earth. An ice age scenario is far more likely than a warm period. And none of these have anything to do with human activities. That should be the sum of the geo-engineering projects, weather modification, which the same clique that has trumpeted the climate lie is going on, and which draws strange stripes across the sky these days filled with barium, strontium and aluminum. The organizers of this particular kind of deliberate man-made climate speak very reluctantly about it.
There are many misconceptions about what an ice age is and what creates that kind. Most people think it’s something that it’s just fucking cold. That’s not true. It should only be about five degrees colder on average before spring gets longer and autumn shorter and ice builds up. There will be more rainfall in the winter, and it will eventually remain. The catastrophic will i.a. consist in the fact that agriculture can not get seeds in the ground in the spring and that the cold sets in before they can have time to harvest.
Looking back at the history of civilization, these mini-ice ages, which last lasted approx. 125 years, has been tantamount to the downfall of a civilization. The Roman Empire fell at such a mini-ice age. Genghis Khan moved loose at such a time. Sumer collapsed at such a time. What exactly is an empire collapsing this time?
What happened to environment?
Simultaneously with this strange smokescreen, the world is flooded with serious environmental problems. The rivers flow with poison and shit. The air is crowded with irrelevant stuff. The wars in the Middle East that the great powers are waging lead to large areas of land flowing with enriched uranium (and no, you can’t hear that on television …). The food we eat contains tons of irrelevant products from the petrochemical industry. And what is being talked about? Climate, CO2 poisoning, global warming, guilt, shame, debt, taxes, ‘carbon-trade’. It has become a huge diversionary maneuver. You don’t put a spin project into action without a multi-stranded maneuver. And the environmental movements did not discover that they were seduced. They immediately re-prioritized climate change as their first priority. How smart was it not? How convenient was it not? The environmental movements willingly allowed themselves to be corrupted and disarmed. Exit environmental debate.
What is extremely sad is that the subject of natural climate change, which throughout human history has meant … EVERYTHING! for our lives as humans on Earth, have now completely disappeared from view and we become totally helpless when and if it occurs. Or rather: not if, but when. One suggestion would be that if the trend goes a whole different way and a new ice age starts, then the industrialists will start waffling that it is due to ‘global warming’ and the sickest pseudo logics will emerge to explain it away. In fact, they are already started, take a deep breath.
If one is to describe a reversal of the living conditions of people in Northern Europe, North America, most of northern Asia to 13,000 years ago, then the closest comparison is: Antarctica around the South Pole. So, take the earth surface you see today, with cities, trees, streams, forests and fields covered by a layer of ice of one and a half kilometers! During approx. 1,000 years, which is like nothing in geological history, this layer of ice in the northern hemisphere had completely disappeared. Please talk about global warming here!
There are almost no limits to the contradictions.EcoWatchwrites in an article: CO2 emissions will delay the next ice age by 50,000 years. Sorry I ask: SO WHAT’S YOUR PROBLEM THEN ?!
Science in no way, as politicians stupidly claim, agrees on what created these violent climate changes. Challenge: if you or someone belongs to the group that professes the climate religion, then take a few hours a day for 2-3 weeks out of your life to seriously and open-mindedly study what science has found out in the last 30 years about Earth’s climate, and then let’s hear how confident and dogmatic you or yours are. It will turn out that the issue is far more complex than the mainstream media has presented it. A rather unrealistic suggestion, I know, as this segment never studies anything but forms their opinions via TV dinners of pre-digested sound and image bites.
As a multimedia designer, I had a two-year professional collaboration with the Center for Ice & Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute, where I have programmed and visualized the comprehensive knowledge site isarkiv.dk in collaboration with especially a younger researcher and center coordinator at the department and in collaboration with the then Danish Polar Center, which was closed down by the government because they did too good a job. When the global warming agenda arrived big time after the Cold War and escalated in the 22rd century, I directly asked what the position of the Niels Bohr Institute was and they replied: ‘We do not want to comment. We are doing research, not politics, and we do not want our statements to be abused ‘.
The timing of the campaign is interesting. After the Cold War, the big enemy picture had disappeared. One could no longer refer to the fact that the Soviets came and invaded us. Then in from the cold came the postulated threat of the climate. When, a decade later, it did not prove to have the same frightening effect, the threat of terrorism arrived. It is pretty much as Hermann von Braun stated decades ago (to his assistant Carol Rosin): first it is communism we must be afraid of, then it is the environment, then it is terror, and finally it will be invasion from outer space. Have we seen it all arrive? Decide – except for the invasion from space. What are we seeing under construction right now? Militarization of space – as Carol Rosin has warned against – capitalization and imperialization of space and the formation of a space-based world economy. So The Venetians might still have a new refuge, after Venice, Amsterdam, the City of London and Wall Street.
The political correctness associated with the climate campaign is in itself a form of terror based on political correctness. Political correctness works like a poisonous soup brewed on equal parts guilt, shame and fear – and if you do not think and talk and act like us, then …
Geo-ingeering / weather modification
So there is no man-made climate? That, to a very high degree, does. But here a whole new bucketful of poisonous snakes opens up. Simultaneously with the climate campaign of feeling guilty about the climate, a phenomenon escalated that had already been introduced back in the 50s, but had meanwhile been put into system. At that time, it was under the auspices of the military, where they had sought ways to use the air for warfare. The phenomenon is known today under different names and in different forms as in the headline above.
One of the forms was a new kind of cloudless sky that was not cloudless anyway. The clouds simply did not resemble the usual cumulus, cirrostratus or what metrologists call the various cloud formations. Nor what ordinary people call peaceful lamb clouds on a hot summer day. The new clouds were streaks in the tail of planes.
Well, there have not always been condensation streaks as long as we have had jets? It has there, but the new stripes were not condensation stripes. When we see a condensation trail consisting of condensed water droplets after a flight, it is the length of the distance between the thumb and little finger when you spread them and hold them out in outstretched arm. And they fade quite naturally after this, because the water droplets are dissolved. A modern turbine is so efficient that it pushes the air through almost without heating it. Something else is it with military aircraft intended for high speed. Here the stripes are longer because greater warming has taken place.
The new stripes hang across the sky, gradually spreading like a transparent film of non-blue sky. Measurements on the stripes, which are called aerosol spraying or chemtrails, chemical traces, show that there is precisely chemistry in them and in no way chemistry that is compatible with the health of either plants, animals or humans. For example, what makes large amounts of aluminum in the sky? In areas such as California, where the program has been particularly intense, extensive forest deaths have been found. This may give rise to speculation as to why it chose to hit the United States’ largest producer of vegetables and fruits. Most recently, a wave of forest fires that seem strongly arranged / inflicted has ravaged the state. And we just have to promise that these fires have produced some CO2, but that does not worry the globalist arsonists. Again, timing is important to observe, that is, what happens at the same time and who benefits from it.
The topic is extensive and difficult to access, as the program is highly classified. It has been introduced and escalated over decades, and we have slowly gotten used to it. Our memory is obviously not very long lasting and we look down at our cell phone instead of looking up at the sky.
So there is a very extensive man-made climate change, but it is of a very different nature than the man-made global warming due to CO2, which the media has pumped us full of, and which appears as a well-organized diversionary maneuver in relation to the actual climate change, if purpose is not clear. Is it warfare, is it eugenics = war against nature and man with a view to mass extinction? Or is it just that a stack of sick and irresponsible scientists has caused the very long line to experiment with humanity as a giant rat experiment. The probability of all parts together is unfortunately present. Politicians are silent because they have been intimidated by globalists and branded as irresponsible if they do not promote climate fraud. The media is silent, science is silent, and people are apathetically-stunningly indifferent-silent, because that’s probably just how the sky should look.
So who originally devised this draconian agenda, where climate and environment were used as a weapon and a means of repression? Possibly it goes even further back, but it emerged under an elitist-globalist regime called the Club of Rome. Weather modification as a weapon – and I mean we need to see the climate agenda and militarized weather as two wheels on the same wagon – is also described by the globalist spin doctor par excellence, the geopolitical chess player, Zbigniev Brzezinski in his book Between Two Ages – Americas Role in the Technocratic Era, where he presents the plan of technocracy for a global totalitarian society. Here, both militarized environment, chemtrails and the use of mobile masts for mind control are described – completely ice cold and without scruples. The elite thus flatly admit what they are doing and that they think it’s all right.
A stray thought: While all are derived from the idea of man-made global warming and CO2 as a toxin, there is actually a new ice age on the stairs. What does that kind of mean for the earnings of the oil companies? Unfortunately, it is for these, like the man who peed in his pants to keep warm in the winter: first it got nice and warm, and then it got pretty cold.
As it became clearer that it was getting colder, the politicians and scientists who had submitted to the politicization had to root out particular theological excuses such as: The cold is precisely a side effect of man-made global warming, as we have long predicted!