Important documentary on the historical background of the engineering of the climate takeover

MUST WATCH: https://youtu.be/ySnk-f2ThpE

This 2015 video may be the single most important documentary to understand the social-economic engineering and capture of institutions, government and the mind. Bravo The Corbett Report.

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=16888

One cannot fully appreciate the climate scam in the absence of this historical background.

In light of this context, I would suggest/guess: It appears that present organized resistance against the engineered climate takeover is a (temporary?) historical accident that has arisen from (is largely financed by) USA shale-oil enterprise that has mushroomed and has not yet been consumed by the established oil-banking-everything global monopolies.

And read my related:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332182416_GEO-ECONOMICS_AND_GEO-POLITICS_DRIVE_SUCCESSIVE_ERAS_OF_PREDATORY_GLOBALIZATION_AND_SOCIAL_ENGINEERING_Historical_emergence_of_climate_change_gender_equity_and_anti-racism_as_State_doctrines

It's top-down and it's much more than just media propaganda

Global-finance elites are feeling that their trillions-to-be-captured carbon-economy campaign is being threatened by "populism". 

The answer: More of the same: Get collaborating governments to spend public money entrenching the lie, while building their partizan base of planet-saving voters.

(Who could be against clean and safe environments?)

<< For immediate release

Twelve organizations selected to help municipalities across the country adapt to the impacts of climate change

March 20, 2018 – The Government of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) are proud to announce the not-for-profit organizations chosen to help 72 municipalities across Canada strengthen their resilience to the effects of climate change.

Each of FCM’s climate adaptation partners will provide expertise and guidance to a network of at least five municipalities that face similar geographic or climate conditions. They will design peer learning networks focused on climate change resilience activities and deliver training specific to their participating municipalities.

Municipalities are on the front lines of climate change, making this work critical. With this guidance and support, participating municipalities will work with their peers toward similar goals using innovative approaches and solutions to the challenges they face. They will learn how to integrate climate change adaptation into new or existing plans and systems. The result will be a range of products including climate vulnerability assessments, adaptation plans for coastal communities, risk assessment for energy utilities, and cost-analyses of the benefits of integrating natural asset management.

For example, the Institut national de recherche scientifique (INRS)will work with six communities in the Outaouais region to develop stormwater management and flood intervention plans that respond to both regional and specific municipal concerns. Conservation Corps in Newfoundland and Labrador will work with the Miawpukek First Nation Reserve and five other communities to develop vulnerability assessments and/or response plans, as well as tools and case studies for future sharing.

Read the backgrounder for information on all initiatives.

Quotes

“Protecting the environment and growing the economy go hand in hand. The Government of Canada is committed to invest in sustainable infrastructure that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, contributes to a clean growth economy and strengthens the middle class by ensuring communities are healthy and productive places to live. Thanks to the Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program, we continue to engage with municipalities across Canada to help build 21st century communities that will provide a high quality of life for generations to come.”
- The Honourable Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

“FCM is proud to help communities lead the way on environmental, social and economic sustainability. After all, municipalities are on the front lines of climate change. This initiative will empower local leaders with skills and tools to build more climate-resilient communities — in ways that can guide and inspire other municipalities across Canada.”
- Jenny Gerbasi, FCM President

Funding for these initiatives comes from FCM’s climate adaptation partner grants. These grants are available through the Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program (MCIP) delivered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and funded by the Government of Canada. MCIP is a five-year, $75-million program designed to support and encourage Canadian municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.

Related information

Climate adaptation partner grants
FCM’s Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program

Contacts

FCM Media Relations
T. 613-907-6395
media@fcm.ca
Brook Simpson
Press Secretary

Office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities
T. 613-219-0149
brook.simpson@canada.ca
Infrastructure Canada
T. 613-960-9251
Toll free: 1-877-250-7154
media@infc.gc.ca
Twitter: @INFC_eng
Web: Infrastructure Canada >>

Geopolitics of CO2 alarmism

By Denis Rancourt (PhD)


My guess at the underlying big-picture forces that determine the CO2-alignment of Western institutions (science, education, media, congress, finance...).

I think the entire climate "debate" is underpinned by competing forces in the failing USA-based global-dominance structure.

On the pro-carbon-economy side are the USA globalists (global finance, America-first globalization). These guys and their USA finance-military-dominance-complex partners want three things: (1) strengthen and anchor the USA-dollar-based global economy using an embedded global carbon-economy scheme, (2) use the carbon-economy scheme to control/limit the increasing easy access of petro-energy to developing and competing economies (China, BRICS...), and (3) use the carbon-economy scheme to control/limit energy revenues to competitors (Russia, Venezuela...).

On the anti-carbon-economy side are the USA global profiteers (militarily-protected corporations given access via intimidated and sold-out local elites) who are frustrated by the global-financier gang and who could maximize their operations without global-finance-management interference.

The reason that the balance of influence appears to be shifting towards the anti-carbon-economy side is because the carbon-economy scheme is too far fetched to actually work. The driving force of the impetus for national and continental development, in Eurasia in particular, is simply too strong, and energy too accessible, for any USA globalization scheme to hope to be on top.

Geopolitical reality is sinking in. The USA is forced to abandon the carbon-economy toddler and turn to the usual crass blow by blow approach.

Recent USA energy-market sanctions against Russia are a good example. These sanctions are the opposite of "globalization" and are a major geopolitical gamble. They are intended (1) to open Europe to expensive USA boat-shipped liquified natural gas, and (2) to deprive Russia of vital gas revenues.

Both intended consequences are harmful to Europe. Therefore, the unavoidable risk to is that Europe will fragment its economic interests and align more with Eurasia, thus accelerating the loss of USA supremacy.

Geopolitical reality is such that the carbon-economy experiment will die, and the world will be increasingly multipolar rather than overwhelmingly USA-led.

Why do BP and Shell serve the strategic policy and propaganda initiatives of global finance?

Q: 
(published with permission)

Dr Rancourt:

I find your writings and your interviews to have a unique perspective with regard to the global warming/climate change mania that seems to have gripped the country (and certainly Europe). Especially so with regard to your taking a very broad based view----like this global warming craziness is part of something much larger. (I share this sentiment.)

I have a question and possibly in your busy schedule you can find the time to answer or point me in the right direction for some clarity with regard to this:

I have been perplexed and frustrated by the seemingly counterintuitive reaction that many large petroleum companies (BP, Shell, etc) seem to have.  They appear (in their PR, web sites, position statements) to be going along with/agreeing with the premise that fossil fuels are
1)immoral and
2)we need to transition away from them asap, etc etc.

You would think they would champion (and in fact scream form the rooftops!) many of the ideas expressed by Alex Epstein in his book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”. (I just read your very interesting review.)

Can you point me in the direction of any articles which might explain this reaction on the part of the large petroleum companies? (Might they actually benefit from excessive regulation/taxation/expenses of litigation, in the sense that they can absorb such costs more effectively than their smaller competitors, thereby excessive regulation/taxation/litigation in their industry actually benefits them by elimination of many of their smaller competitors?)

Thank you for your time.  Please feel free to call me if more convenient for you.

Most sincerely,
Peter Guske PT

A:

Hi Peter,

My sense is that the energy mega-corporations are an integrated and inseparable part of the US-based system of global finance, which is itself integrated with the US industrial-military apparatus. The military is the real physical threat that keeps most countries in line and subservient to global financial and corporate predation and to the obligatory use of the US dollar in trade. (The US prints the dollar at will.) Likewise, military sales to client "allies" is a major wealth transfer mechanism, such as from Saudi oil revenues, while the energy mega-corporations play their role and have on-site knowledge and control.

This structure implies that the said energy mega-corporations will always support the strategic policy and propaganda initiatives of the overall US-based energy-finance-military system of global occupation. Clearly, the said strategic initiatives includes legitimizing and installing a global so-called carbon economy.

This global carbon economy, including its national and sub-national carbon tax implementations (all management layers are to be integrated), is a bold new model for global coercion and taxation; which will be controlled by the same finance elite that has so effectively prevented national economic liberations, under the guise of "free-trade" efficiency and development.

The big plus is that Western populations and the Western state service intellectuals (including scientists) have enthusiastically invested in what can only by called The Carbon Religion. All humanitarian and environmental good will has been reduced to atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the impending fireball earth. Incidental (on the global scale) incentives for "green technologies" are part of the propaganda (see this).

Of course there are somewhat-competing US blocks. Exxon Mobil has more of an interest in developing US continental energy resources and may want to monopolize shale. It also probably has a different array of mega-finance connections. This reflects the competing Democratic and Republican corporate alliances: The former is more "globalist" while the latter is more traditionally "empirist". You only need to follow how continental pipeline routes change with Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative (Canadian satellite state) election results...  Exxon appears not to like the idea of submitting to global carbon rules that are overly controlled by competitors?

Furthermore, it should also be said that BP and Shell may be attempting to reduce consumer guilt at the gas tank. It's easier to buy "green" gasoline, and from a company that is committed to "going green". The consumer effect may be less in Exxon territory.

Just my tentative thoughts.

See the list of links to my articles about climate HERE.

Cheers,
--Denis

Suggested links from Climate Change LIES:

How Big Oil Benefits From Global Warming Alarmism
http://www.forbes.com/…/how-big-oil-benefits-from-global-w…/

Rockefeller's (Standard Oil) fund 350.org:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/…/rockefellers-behind-scr…/

WWF vast pool of oil money:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/…/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil…/

BP, Greenpeace, and the big oil jackpot:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.ca/…/bp-greenpeace-big-…

Gulf of Mexico spill BP is largely invested in Wind Energy:
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do…

Solar Manufacturers Owned by Oil Companies
http://www.ehow.com/list_7358409_solar-manufacturers-owned-…

Chevron sinking $300 million a year into alternative energy:
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/oil-companies-prom…/

Top ten big oil initiatives in clean tech:
http://www.globe-net.com/…/top-ten-big-oil-company-green-i…/
(alternate link)

Watts exposes Dana Nuccitelli as having a "big oil" vested interest:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/…/dana-nuccitellis-vested-inter…/

The BBC, Greenpeace, and BP http://bit.ly/1HBjl02

CO2 activists have powerful allies

Don't worry CO2 activists, the global financiers and the dominant US hegemony want exactly the same thing you do. They want a multi-trillion dollar global carbon economy that they manipulate, and they want to use it to confine and tax the emerging competing economies (BRICS), enforceable by military intervention if needed "to save the planet".

Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming

Be habitat, democracy, environmental and justice activists and decouple that from CO2 activism, please!

They have been building a new paradigm for global survival by war. After, bringing us a century of "democracy by war", next is "sustainability by war". Global paradigms don't just happen.

I have been writing about that activists must decouple activism from CO2 for a decade now. The way to stop destroying habitat and communities is to stop destroying habitat and communities (e.g.).

It's about the geopolitics stupid!

By Denis Rancourt

CO2-alarmism is fabricated by the Empire for domestic consumption. Service intellectuals dutifully gobble it up and adopt and project it.

The global legislative instruments of carbon control that are being implemented at breakneck speed in Empire-controlled jurisdictions have nothing to do with "saving the planet" and everything to do with global dominance and predation, in the same way that the World Bank has nothing to do with altruist "development".

"Peak oil" theorists and CO2-alarmists tend to disregard that the Earth is a "planet", not a fragile organism in a precarious micro-habitat, but a "planet".

As a recent example, which allows a view of the underlying geopolitical driving forces, THIS ARTICLE (reading between the lines) explains part of the mechanism whereby oil/gas are a viable USA geopolitical weapon against Russia, and China by extension. Briefly, new-era US production capacity allows the Empire to crash oil prices, using subservient Saudi Arabia, in order to bring Russia down, without itself suffering anything much.

Another consequence is that the Empire's ongoing implementation of "carbon economy" global instruments of coercion and control must deal with resistance from a new array of "small" domestic shale-oil producers, until these are monopolized and fully integrated.


Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, in the areas of spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, and environmental science. He has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

David Evans on the financial driver of AGW

Well said!



Renowned historian David F. Noble made this point most powerfully in his 2007 essay "The Corporate Climate Coup".