Ivanka Trump to Review Climate Change as US Considers Paris Pullout

Ivanka Trump to Review Climate Change as US Considers Paris Pullout

Ivanka Trump to Review Climate Change as US Considers Paris Pullout

Though US President Trump’s inclination has been to leave the agreement, he has asked his daughter, White House adviser Ivanka Trump, to set up an extensive review process

Don’t you hate being called a ‘denier?”

Me neither. In fact, I view this appellation as an affirmation of my own independent skepticism, a divergent path from that taken by the herd. In today’s” legacy media” every weather phenomenon is seen as an indication of climate change, or global warming, as it was once called until facts rendered that term inoperative.

Recently I noticed a story on the Weather Network about an enormous crack in Greenland’s Peterman glacier seen by a NASA satellite, possibly caused by wait for it… warmer ocean waters. In addition, Canada’s National Post carried a front-page piece a few weeks ago on how “A team of scientists… documented what they’re describing as the first case of large-scale river reorganization as a result of human-caused climate change.”

I don’t doubt that these phenomena are happening. What I question is their ascription to anthropogenic causes.

Rush Limbaugh famously maintains that arguing the science of climate change with leftists is pointless, as the left’s definition of science is somewhat like Humpty Dumpty’s, in that a word “…means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more nor less.”

It’s long been an article of faith among western progressives, who never tire of looking for reasons to condemn western culture, that climate change is the result of capitalist exploitation of the planet. And progressives are well known for believing that any problem, no, all problems, are soluble if we just give the experts appointed by government free reign.

What they do not seem to understand is that sometimes the people who run governments have a larger agenda, a plan that utilizes a supposed crisis to achieve a legislative consensus that would otherwise have little chance of seeing the light of day. You may recall Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff and current mayor of that exemplary metropolis, Chicago, saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” meaning crises become great vehicles for advancing a particular agenda.

I recently read James Rickards’ book, The Road to Ruin, which predicts a catastrophic collapse of the global financial system sometime within the next two years. In just 300 pages he makes a very strong case that the financial crises of 1998 and 2008 were not adequately resolved by the elites because the underlying causes of these crises were left untouched. His view is that the next crisis will forever change global financial systems and money will essentially disappear. He sees climate change as the straw dog to herald this radical change:

“Climate change is a convenient horse for elites to ride in the implementation of a new world order. Debating the science of climate change is beside the point. There are heated views on both sides; some science is settled, some not. Global elites treat the debate as settled to mask a larger project. For elites the global problem once defined conjures a global solution. Climate change is the perfect platform for implementing a hidden agenda of world money and world taxation.”

For over 30 years elites have seen global warming [climate change] as a way to take from those who produce to give to those who don’t. Former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart told the Calgary Herald’s editorial board in 1988, “…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” The German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, who is also co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, put it a little more succinctly in 2010 when he told the Neue Züricher Zeitung that “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth.”

So global elites with the help of their media sock puppets have managed to sell this pig in a poke to a large segment of the civilized world all in the name of a ‘scientific consensus.’ Just one problem: science isn’t about consensus and few people understand it enough to push back.

By Klaus Rohrich, CFP

Editor’s Note: Klaus Rohrich is senior columnist for Canada Free Press.His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, among others. He lives and works in a small town outside of Toronto.

Paul Ebeling, Editor

 

The following two tabs change content below.

Paul Ebeling

Paul A. Ebeling, polymath, excels in diverse fields of knowledge. Pattern Recognition Analyst in Equities, Commodities and Foreign Exchange and author of “The Red Roadmaster’s Technical Report” on the US Major Market Indices™, a highly regarded, weekly financial market letter, he is also a philosopher, issuing insights on a wide range of subjects to a following of over 250,000 cohorts. An international audience of opinion makers, business leaders, and global organizations recognizes Ebeling as an expert.

Latest posts by Paul Ebeling (see all)

You must be logged in to post comments :  
CONNECT WITH