The earth is NOT flat, we never made it to the MOON, and “Climate Change” is NOT caused by CO2

Do you believe we put a man on the moon in the 1960s when we can barely get humans to the space station today? Do you think the world is flat and covered by a dome? You must also believe that CO2, the elixir of life on planet earth, is causing us all to die by making the sun hotter. Get a grip. Now follow the money regarding the Climate Change hoax and you’ll see that even the rich folks pushing the whole “Global Warming” agenda have now put all their money behind fossil fuels. Yes, this is happening.

1. Bank Fossil Fuel Funding Hits $869.4B in 2024
   • Global banks increased investments in fossil fuels by 23% last year, totaling $869.4 billion—equivalent to Switzerland’s GDP.
   • The surge contradicts prior climate pledges, with U.S. banks (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup) leading financing for coal, oil, and gas.
2. U.S. Banks Dominate Fossil Fuel Financing
   • The report (Banking on Climate Chaos) criticizes the lack of binding regulations, calling bank investments a “strategy tanking our planet.”
3. AI & Energy Demand Disrupt Climate Policies
   • The fossil fuel investment surge predated Trump’s 2024 victory, suggesting strong market demand—potentially driven by AI’s soaring energy needs.
   • Analysts argue AI’s growth is undermining green policies, forcing banks to prioritize fossil fuels despite political backlash.
4. Renewables Still Drain Resources
   • Despite poor returns (financial and grid capacity), significant capital continues flowing into renewables—a trend criticized as economically inefficient compared to fossil fuels’ reliability.

Scientists Challenge UN’s Climate Emergency Narrative, Calling CO2 Focus a “Mass Delusion

A growing coalition of over 1,900 scientists worldwide is disputing the United Nations’ assertion that human-produced CO2 emissions are driving a climate catastrophe. Prominent climatologists, including former UN IPCC leaders and MIT researchers, argue that natural climate variability—not anthropogenic activity—explains planetary warming.

Their dissent, outlined in the World Climate Declaration, clashes with mainstream narratives as governments push aggressive decarbonization policies. But why does this debate matter now? With trillions funneled into “green” transitions and livelihoods tethered to energy policies, the dispute raises urgent questions about scientific integrity, economic stability, and the credibility of climate modeling.

The Rebellion Against “Climate Hysteria”

According to the dissenting scientists, the UN’s climate crisis narrative is built on flawed models and cherry-picked data. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, a former IPCC committee chair, accused the panel of “fooling the whole world” by ignoring solar activity’s dominant role in climate shifts. Similarly, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen labeled CO2 fearmongering “the greatest mass delusion in history,” noting that paleoclimate records show no consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

“The models are Mickey Mouse mockeries of the real world,” said Dr. Mototaka Nakamura, a former NASA and JAMSTEC researcher. He criticized pre-1980 temperature data as “untrustworthy,” echoing others who argue that extreme weather trends—like hurricanes and droughts—haven’t intensified statistically.

A core grievance centers on the IPCC’s reliance on implausible climate scenarios. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. (University of Colorado) dissected the IPCC’s AR6 report, revealing that its high-emission “RCP 8.5” scenario—often cited as “business as usual”—is a “fantasy” detached from real-world trends. “Climate science has a scientific integrity crisis,” he said, noting the panel’s admission that its predictions carry “no likelihood.”

Critics also highlight contradictions in green policies. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, condemned the movement’s shift from science to “fear-mongering,” noting that abandoning fossil fuels without scalable alternatives risks famine. “You can’t feed 8 billion people without them,” he argued. Meanwhile, rare-earth mining for renewables generates heavy pollution—an irony rarely addressed by policymakers.

Skeptics allege the climate narrative serves political and financial agendas. Princeton’s Professor William Happer accused elites of using “simplified, incorrect science” to justify energy sector control. Lindzen added: “It’s a dream for bureaucratic mentality”—a lever to regulate behavior “from exhalation to driving.”

The financialization of “net-zero” policies, critics warn, could destabilize economies while failing to curb real pollution (e.g., industrial toxins, nanoplastics). “The problem isn’t CO2—it’s thousands of unregulated chemicals,” said a former UN Environment officer.

As COP summits and green mandates advance, this scientific dissent underscores a pivotal clash: Is CO2 reduction—with its trillion-dollar costs—a vital lifeline or a misdirected crusade? With livelihoods, geopolitics, and scientific credibility at stake, the debate demands rigorous scrutiny. For now, one thing is clear: the climate conversation is far from settled.

The earth is NOT flat, we never made it to the MOON, and “Climate Change” is NOT caused by CO2. Check out ClimateAlarmism.news for updates on psychotic billionaires trying to steal everyone’s hard earned money and take control of everyone’s resources all for a fake cause.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

BezoEarthFund.org

ZeroHedge.com