I said I would keep my researches for myself but this is too interesting and short to write to refrain from.
I remember Richard Stanley mentioning the motivations behind Al Gore's support to MMGW theory as a monetary drive, having invested in renewable energies.
I also remember myself trying to undestand the global motivations for inventing and supporting MMGW theory despite the evidence against it. I asked here: is it possible that ALL people supporting it are people with investments in green energy? That did not seem much likely.
What other reasons could there be? I did not get an answer.
So far it had been clear to me that data have been altered to provide a false correlation between C02 increases and temperature increases and that simulations have been used to support the catasthophic scenario which has not come true. These are facts and not opinions.
Yet I did not have the
motive. At least not the United Nations' motive. It was clear that they have been altering data, suppressing opposing opinions, and last have used a teenager to manipulate us into thinking what they want us to think. But why?
So, up until now I had been open to the possibility that MMGW could be real, after all. We have strong stakeholders who have an interest to alter the truth in their favor: mine and oil companies.
But the politicians at the UN, the major supporter of the MMGW theory? What strong personal interest could they have?
And that interest became clear looking at the structure of the United Nations, I am surprised you did not notice it. It's so clear. (That's the problem of being too focused on "deep state" maybe).
The United Nations are formed by almost all countries in the World and in their General Assembly, their major deliberating body, they all have ONE vote.
ONE VOTE, it can be the smallest country, it can be the largest, it can be the richest, it can be the poorer.
The United States counts as just one vote. Canada counts as another vote. South Africa another vote. Australia another vote. That makes up the majority of advanced countries with just 4 votes. Europe has more countries, so more votes and is part of the advanced countries. But if you look at the remaining countries, the not advanced countries, the poor countries, the developing ones, it's an amazing number: Africa, Asia, South America, etc:
https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2019/how-has-my-country-voted-at-unga/index.html
Now, what does the UN sais we should do to counterract Climate Change? One thing is reducing fossil fuel consumption and switching to green energy, and the other is
transferring money from developed countries to undeveloped ones for compensation, through buying credits: the countries producing over their quota of CO2 emissions should buy from those who have credit, who have emitted less than their quota.
But not only that:
advanced countries, and especially the US, are being held accountable by UN for every natural disaster occuring, especially those occuring in poor countries, blaiming it on theoretical MMGW. Poor countries are playing the victims.
Advanced and rich countries should pay their (poor countries) costs of adaptation to climate change.
Is it surprising? With the vast majority of poor or developing countries having the vast majority of votes inside the UN?
Poor countries can be as dishonest as rich countries can be and money appeals to everybody. It's not hard to see that they have devised a (dishonest) system to get money from richer countries based on supporting the theory that manmade C02 emissions cause temperature increase and all kinds of ecological disasters.
That finally can explain why the UN is so attached to the climate change story and selling it as true at all costs.
Why their story has gained global support still remains a mistery to me, trying to understand what other interests have been at stake.
Surely Al Gore has profited from it for gaining money from selling his book, his documentary, being highly payed for being invited in conferences and for investing in green energy companies. His wealth has increased enourmously.
Universities get funds if they investigate global warming. They don't get these funds if they deny man made global warming and general worry. As it is always the case when there is a human threat at stake. That would explain why the majority of scientists support MMGW theory, and they are willing to suppress those who dare refute it.
Activists like GreenPeace get funds if there are global threats to the environment as well.
And finally, for democrats it is part of their politics to support the poors, the disanvantaged, they can easily buy the MMGW narrative even if not true.
That is my picture so far, as imprecise as it can be, of the personal motives behind supporting a fake MMGW as opposed to the motives of mine and oil companies to deny it.
There is enough interest from both sides to lie.
The problem if poorer countries get funds from richer countries in this way, is that such money is not likely to go in the hands of those who need it most in the poorer countries, it will be seized by the rich people. I just laugh when I read their commitment to end poverty by 2030, according to the UN resolution they have signed.
For advanced countries the burden is high, besides having to give money to other countries, it reduces production and forces to switch to green energy which is more expensive, making western companies less competitive, and also a burden for households with increased costs for electricity and fuel.
The dishonesty of developing countries is shown also in their attempt to be exonerated from having to prove their respect of fossil fuels consumption reductions and that includes China.
One aggravating fact to this situation is that those who can do something to stop the plans of UN and activists are republicans or other right wing parties. And republicans and others right wing parties have been chosen by Putin to divide the West and weaken it.
So, on one side poor countries are using democrats or other parties of the left to steal wealth to Western countries and make them less competitive, and on the other Russia, with its egemonic ambitions, is using republicans or other parties of the right to divide and weaken the West.
Not a nice situation and hard to chose who to vote for. The best compromize maybe is to have a democratic leader and a republican controlled congress. They will freeze each other and even though they will not make much improvement for the country they will also make not much damage...
In the Climate Change story I think Russia is pretending to support the UN 2030 Agenda, but surreptitiously trying to obstable it, in its own style. Russia bases its economic strenght on fossil fuels exports, and aims to use them also as a lever to bind other countries to its will. It cannot be in real favor of climate change actions.
One fact in support of this is that the thousands of e-mails hacked in 2009 from East Anglia University which further proved the data manipulations on global warming and the oppression of the scientists questioning such data were found initially stored in a Russian server, from which then they were distributed to various websites and blogs.
Even though the authors of the hack have remained unknown it is quite obvious that it was the Russians, in perfect Russian style. That occured just before the Copenaghen summit on climate change and had a consistent minimizing effect on decisions taken there. Global skepticism also arised as a consequence, even though the scientific community managed to make appear the e-mails hacked as nothing bad.
