The Climate Death Cult's Mask is Slipping
The Climate Death Cult's Mask is Slipping
by James Corbett
Have you heard the latest nonsense from the climate cultists?
No, I'm not talking about recycling human hair to change the weather.
And I'm not talking about the hot new fad of defacing works of art (and the US constitution) to end climate change.
No, I'm talking about the incredible, newly discovered (and peer-reviewed!) scientific fact that the act of breathing in and out is itself an offense against the weather gods. Or, in the slightly higher-falutin' language of the clickbait headline writers:
Humans Are Fueling Global Warming By Just Breathing, Study Claims
Indeed.
But have you actually read the study that generated these headlines? And, more to the point, did you sift through that pseudoscientific propaganda to get to the blood-curdling reality that lies beneath the headlines? When you do drill down, you'll discover that the real utility of a "scientific" study like this one stems not from any perceived scientific merit, but from the role it plays in furthering a very dark agenda. And, armed with that knowledge, you'll be better equipped to confront the cultists' agenda.
Intrigued? Here, let me explain . . .
THE STUDY
Late last year, PLoS One published "Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions," which posits that "[e]xhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming."
Or, in plain English: human breathing contributes to "climate change."
If you follow the link to the paper itself, you'll discover that its authors collected 328 "breath samples" from 104 British volunteers to determine whether or not human beings are guilty of exhaling greenhouse gases—in this case, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
The results? It turns out that, yes, 31% of those sampled were found the be "methane producers" (handily abbreviated "MPs" in the paper) and "[a]ll participants were found to emit N2O in breath."
Zounds! Do you know what this means?!!
Yeah, neither do the researchers. Specifically, they were not able to account for variations in emissions from any of the volunteers based on any of the variables (age, sex, dietary habits, smoking habits) examined.
But there is one thing this crack team of scientists are sure of: that these startling results have revealed human breath to be a significant and hitherto neglected source of climate change.
But wait! That's not all.
We report only emissions in breath in this study, and flatus emissions are likely to increase these values significantly, though no literature characterises these emissions for people in the UK.
That's right, "flatus"! Your farts are really making the weather gods angry, folks! And don't even get me started on cow burps!
Luckily, the King of England has spent years developing state-of-the-art, cutting-edge technology to take on the cow burp threat.
Now if only someone would develop something similar for the human livestock.
Oh, right. Never mind.
Silliness aside, there are a few different responses you might have to the "news" that a "scientific" study has found you guilty of creating bad weather by breathing in and out.
If you're a climate cultist yourself (or someone who has unquestioningly absorbed the propaganda of the climate cultists), you might take this as vindication of your deep-seated hatred of humanity. Confirmed in your suspicion that humans are a cancer on this earth, you might choose to curl yourself in a ball and wait for the sweet release of death (assuming your remains can be composted in an environmentally friendly way, of course!). Perhaps you'll console yourself by throwing some soup on a painting or climbing atop a London Underground car or doing something equally productive.
Or, if you have more than two brain cells to rub together, you could choose to dive even deeper into the study and interrogate its assumptions, methodologies and conclusions.
Are 328 breath samples from 104 volunteers really a basis for drawing conclusions about the UK population (or the global population), for example?
And doesn't the fact that the assessed contribution of human-breathed CH4 and N2O (between 0.05% and 0.1% of total UK emissions) falls below the margin of error of national inventories render these conclusions statistically meaningless?
And, more to the point, did it really take an entire team of well-funded "experts" months of careful study and a peer-reviewed journal article to confirm that humans do, in fact, breathe?
Or, if you're a veteran of this kind of climate change propaganda, you might be tempted to simply roll your eyes, let out a (greenhouse gas-emitting) New World Next Week sigh, and go back to living your life as usual.
But wait. There is something very important happening here. With every story like this, the would-be controllers of humanity are telling you something about who they are and what they have planned for you.
WHAT IT MEANS
As is so often the case with this type of propaganda-masquerading-as-science, it turns out that the real trick to this scientific deception lies not in what is said, but in what is not said.
Specifically, in their conclusion, after acknowledging that they could find no correlation between diet and emissions, the study's authors conclude with a warning against downplaying the importance of this minuscule (and statistically meaningless) human-breathed greenhouse gas contribution and . . . that's it. The question of what is to be done with this information is left completely unaddressed.
Naturally, this is when the establishment mouthpiece "fact checkers" will arrive with their ACKSHUALLY to inform us that "Of course a scientific study isn't going to tell us what to do about the problem. They're simply documenting and quantifying the problem!"
But such a retort assumes that this study is being published in a perfectly objective vacuum. That it is the result of a process of dispassionate scientific inquiry that is only concerned only with measurement and experiment.
But it is not. It is in fact—as viewers of the Fake News Awards will know—the end result of a fundamentally biased and thoroughly corrupted marketplace of ideas in which only those results in line with the Climate Crisis dogma will be published and only those results suggesting a depopulation solution will be promoted.
What other conclusion is possible from these "breathing contributes to climate change" results? As the researchers themselves say: "diet or future diet changes are unlikely to be important when estimating emissions [from human breathing] across the UK as a whole." So, no change in diet is going to reduce this emission scourge. What can reduce the emissions caused by human breathing, then, other than reducing the number of humans who are breathing?
Of course, none of this is ever stated openly. It doesn't have to be. It is the inevitable logic of carbon eugenics, a sick and twisted ideology in which, as I pointed out 15 years ago, "human life is no longer something to be treasured, but something to be measured in carbon and then reduced." Or, in this case, humans are to be categorized as "MPs" and then reduced.
Does all this give you crippling anxiety? Does it make you question whether you should have children? Does it make you feel guilty for having been born yourself?
Of course it does. Story after story after story in the establishment media hammers home the point that more and more children and adolescents are now suffering from "climate anxiety"—a "chronic fear of environmental doom," as the American Psychiatric Association defines it. A recent study in The Journal of Climate Change and Health, for example, finds that 78% of young Canadians now say that concerns about climate change impact their mental health. One need look no further than the (synthetically created) poster child of the green youth activist movement, Greta Thunberg, to see what such a mental health crisis actually looks like.
Now, here's the rub. You—as a healthy, loving, non-psychopathic human being—might expect that psychologists, psychiatrists and others in the mental health space would be interested in healing these poor children. In assuaging them of their guilt at having been born. In helping them realize that as sovereign individuals they have the power to change the world. In protecting them from the non-stop doom porn propaganda of the climate cultists.
But if you think that, you'd be wrong. No, the weaponized psychologists of the Dissent Into Madness crew are not helping youngsters to overcome their climate anxiety. They're actively nurturing it.
Take, for example, Britt Wray, a Stanford researcher who specializes in "climate grief" and mental health. In her estimation, climate anxiety isn't something to be treated, but something to be encouraged.
"Climate anxiety is not in itself a problem. [. . .] It’s actually a very healthy and normal response to have when one understands the escalating civilizational threat that we’re dealing with when it comes to the climate crisis."
Yes, the would-be social engineers are fully aware of the impact that decades of "the-world-is-ending" claptrap has had on the population. That's the entire point. As I observed last year in my editorial on the insane "carbon pawprint" propaganda being pushed in the name of saving the planet:
If you were a rich and powerful oligarch with eugenicist beliefs and a desire to cull the population, you would have a hard time devising a more effective plan for implementing your depopulation agenda than the one that is being rolled out before us.
First, you convince the public that their “emissions” are a threat to the long-term survival of humanity, and indeed of the planet itself.
Then, you habituate the masses into constantly calculating the “carbon footprint” of their daily activities and train them to accept ever-greater sacrifices in the name of reducing that “footprint.”
Finally, you convince the credulous commoners that the real problem lies not in their actions but in their very existence. You make them believe that life itself is the original sin against nature and that they would be less of a burden if they didn’t keep that pet. Or if they didn’t have that baby. Or if they themselves had never been born.
So, here's the real question:
WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THIS?
First, the bad news: you undoubtedly know someone—or, more likely, more than one someone—who feels guilty about existing and who believes that vast swaths of the human population must be killed in order to save the planet.
These are not necessarily bad people. Many of them have simply proven more susceptible to a lifetime of indoctrination, which has taught them that humans are a cancer on this planet. These unfortunately trusting sheeple have been led along by the nose, believing that "the population bomb is about to explode!" and that they have to "do their part to save the earth" simply because they have heard these lies all their life.
But what does that mean, exactly? "Doing your part"?
At first, doing your part was easy. Trivial, even. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!" we were told as schoolchildren . . . only to find out years later that recycling is a scam and was known to be useless from its very inception.
Then, we were told to take more drastic action. We must start rationing. We must cut back! We must measure our carbon footprints and begin reducing them.
Next, things took a dark turn. We'd better start measuring our pets' carbon pawprints and reducing those, too! We must "eat ze bugs" to appease the weather gods! And we can't bring more children into the world, can we? Think of their carbon footprint!
And now, those unquestioning types who've obeyed every diktat of the climate cult have found themselves in the inevitable final chapter of this macabre narrative, in which our very breath is revealed to be a poison that is killing the earth! We must find a way to reduce human breathing!
Here we are, stumbling around like one of the characters in an old Twilight Zone episode. The entire world has gone mad and only a few of us can see it. What can we do to shake some sense into our fellow humans who are heading, like cattle, to the slaughterhouse?
Yes, we could engage in a calm, measured analysis of this "human breathing" study.
We could take it at face value as an earnest (if flawed) attempt to quantify one contribution to atmospheric emissions and simply point out the statistical flaws and analytical errors it contains.
But to do that is to miss the point. This is not just another flawed scientific study. This is part of a sinister agenda. We can't just pick around its edges . We have to confront the lies at the very root. Life is not the problem. Life is sacred.
Yes, there are plenty of problems in what governments, militaries and corporations are doing to the environment. No one is denying that there are many things that must be changed if we are to preserve this world for future generations. But humans are the answer, not the problem. Culling the population is not a solution. It is a false template that has been inculcated in us by the inbred eugenicists who desire to get rid of us.
Unless and until people rediscover the timeless truth that human life is sacred, they will willingly march themselves into the slaughter pen and happily wait for the butcher's blade to descend. That is the most horrifying thought of all.
But finally, the good news: if you don't feel guilty about existing and if you don't believe that vast numbers of people must die in order to save the planet, then congratulations! You have managed to retain your intellectual sovereignty in the face of the largest, longest, most well-funded and well-coordinated propaganda campaign in human history. That fact alone is truly remarkable, and it's a testament to your resilience and to the unstoppable power of the dynamic human spirit.
Now, it's time to confront the propaganda head-on and rekindle our love of life. It is the only true antidote to the poisonous propaganda of the death cult.
Source: The Corbett Report
Comments
Post a Comment