There Are Two Vastly Different Ways to Look at “Climate Change.” There is the IPCC, and then there is the NIPCC…
The IPCC plots to kill “Western Civilization,” the NIPCC does not…
From Germany By Karma Singh
You may well have heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) initiated under auspices of the United Nations. Before we attach too much significance to this body it would serve us well to take a quick look into its antecedents.
In the 1930’s and 40’s in Germany, IG Farbenindustrie was an all-powerful chemical combine controlled by a board of directors who called themselves “The Council of the Gods” because they considered themselves to be above both law and custom. They were also a major financier of Adolf Hitler, gave orders to him and, themselves, built and managed Auschwitz where the experiments on humans were carried out which form the basis of modern medicine. At the Nürnberg war crimes trials, several IGF directors were given long prison sentences. Amongst these was Fritz te Mer.
Under pressure from, probably, Rockefeller and/or friends, Fritz te Mer was released from prison and brought to New York where he was instrumental in founding the United Nations.
The public image of the UN is VERY different to what really goes on there.
Probably 90% of the activities in that enormous office block go on behind closed doors.
I give you all this so that you can begin to understand what sort of organisation the IPCC really is.
Let us start with the head of this organisation, a world figure in climatology, obviously? Well, actually no. He’s a railway engineer of Indian origin by the name of Rajendra Pachauri. He ran the organisation for the first 13 years until he was arrested in India and charged with child sexual abuse.
Well then, those writing the IPCC reports must be top calibre climate scientists? Again, no. Some are students and then there are psychologists, bureaucrats and a whole heap of other people having zero expertise in the discipline. The IPCC has even had the nerve to add the names of top climate scientists to its report although they have categorically refused to have anything to do with this politically motivated hodge-podge. Let the investigative journalist Donna Laframboise tell you more about it in her article – “3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC…”
So, what are all the REAL climate scientists doing?
Quite a few of them have got together to offer a more balanced view on the world climate. They work together under the banner of NIPCC, i.e. the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change. As you can tell from the black propaganda about them on Wikipedia and other similarly controlled publications, the NIPCC is the real deal.
Amongst many other interesting things brought to light by the NIPCC is how one senior IPCC “scientist”, Michael Mann fudged data to create his notorious “hockey stick” rapid temperature rise and the complete disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period which has become the main tool of the climate mafia. This temperature rise has never actually happened yet all computer models of climate change projections (other than the Russian) continue to include it. Mr. Mann is suing both the National Review (an American newspaper or magazine) which first published these findings and many of the scientists who have exposed his dishonesty. The basis of his claim appears to be that because he is “so special,” criticising his work is libel, irrespective of whether the criticism is true or false. The First Amendment to the US constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and “fair comment” in the press does not, according to Mann, apply to him or his publications.
For seven years now, this case has been languishing in the D.C. Court of Appeals which has evinced no inclination to bring the case to a conclusion. The Supreme Court has, therefore, been asked to take charge of it.
The attitude of the NIPCC scientists, possibly because they ARE scientists is, “Here is my evidence. Study it and make up your own mind”: A very refreshing change from those promoting the IPCC who have, on many occasions, stated that it should be a criminal act to even question their findings.
Which is more likely to be truthful? You must make up your own mind but I always add the magic “N” to IPCC when I want unadulterated facts.
We should also not lose sight of the way in which Soros and friends are being allowed, in direct contravention of the United Nations’ Charter on Childrens’ Rights, to politically indoctrinate our children with their climate change propaganda and exclude their access to scientific facts. This again speaks volumes about the lack of veracity in the IPCC reports.
A further good source of reliable science is Dr. Roy Spencer PhD. and his monthly blog – http://www.drroyspencer.com/
From Germany By Karma Singh
The above article is from the highly recommended The Bolen Report. Visit the Bolen Report for more great articles.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.