Climate Change: The Government’s Best Revenue Stream Since War and Taxes

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


No one knows how to profit from scaring the pants off of people quite like the government. And they don’t even need an actual threat to make it happen.

Take “climate change” and “global warming” for example.

These are both naturally occurring, cyclical events that have been happening since the dawn of the Earth. It’s only recently, though, that governments and their wealthy cronies figured out a way to monetize it with the added bonus of being able to exert even more control over the people of the world.

Many things can cause the climate to change.

The thing about climate change is that it happens all the time, it has always happened all the time, and it will continue to happen all the time. It’s just the way it is because the earth isn’t a static lump of rock floating in space. It’s a dynamic, evolving, changing lump of rock floating in space and there are many, many things both on the planet and off-world that can affect the climate.

  • Sunspots: Evidence is increasing that sunspots, or rather a lack of them, can affect temperatures on Earth with zero or low sunspot numbers now having an effect on the weather in the future. As far back as 2009 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) via GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) revealed that the sun had an effect on climate.
  • Vulcanism: The massive amount of debris thrown into the atmosphere during a major volcanic eruption can alter the climate for months or even years. When Tambora blew in 1815 so massive was the eruption that the following year, 1816, was called “the year without a summer.” It’s estimated that more than 100,000 people in Europe died from the effects of famine within two years of the eruption. Can you imagine what would happen if Yellowstone blew? That would make the conditions after Tambora seem like a walk in the park.
  • Natural Earth Cycles: Did you know that long before humans were present in sufficient numbers to make a difference the Earth was actually warmer than it is now? We are talking thousands of years ago, long before industrialization. Factories weren’t even a distant dream of our ancestors at that time.

So what about this fanatical fear of climate change?

Back when Al Gore freaked out the world with his pseudodocumentary, An Inconvenient Truth, climate change began to be called “global warming.” Scientifically called anthropogenic global warming (AGW), this “fact” states that man, and the industrialization we have come to rely on, has caused the current spike in greenhouse gasses.

It started during the Industrial Revolution with the massive amount of fossil fuels burned to keep the factories running. It continues today because of the number of cars on the road. It also continues because of our love of meat, which means more livestock burping, farting, pooping, and increasing the methane in the atmosphere.

Of course, AGW exists. I’m not saying that there is no such thing as global warming or climate change.

It’s a provable fact that every action has an effect. We, as a species, add to the amount of greenhouse gasses produced.

But it is how much we add that is debatable.

Here’s why.

The temperatures would have been on the rise anyway. We are at that part of the cycle.

After this period of warming, the planet will cool again. In fact, it will get so cold we will have an ice age. Then it will start to warm up again to a period called an interglacial – like the one we are in now.

The earth is essentially a cold place that warms periodically, allowing life to flourish – then it cools again.

This is a natural cycle of events that man cannot stop, regardless of how many people become vegetarians or how many people walk to work instead of driving.

So why would governments blame humans for the global warming that is occurring?



This sums it up:

A data set of figures, however long you compile them for remains just a set of figures unless you correlate them to something to prove a link. So, these ‘how much of a grant did you say I’d get?’ scientists were told what needed to be proven and they said okay, the industrial revolution happened and carbon dioxide rose…it’s all our fault. They either didn’t look back far enough or chose not to include certain rather important chunks of information.

More and more people are putting two and two together and coming up with the undeniable truth that climate change is a hell of a good way of raising money. Think Cap and Trade and fines for companies who pump out too many gases. (source)

Quite a few scientists believe that rather than warming up, the planet is going to be cooling down in the not too distant future.

Of course, that doesn’t help the government spread fear that the globe is going to erupt into a ball of flames, so you don’t hear much about it.


The Maunder and Dalton Minimums were periods in history where the winters in Europe were bitterly cold for months on end and the summers were cooler and wetter than they are now. both periods, but more so the Maunder Minimum brought many hardships to the period known as The little ice Age.

The Yale research states:

“We show that the possibility of a collapsed AMOC under global warming is hugely underestimated,” said Wei Liu, a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale University and lead author of the study.

“In current models, AMOC is systematically biased to be in a stable regime,” Liu said. “A bias-corrected model predicts a future AMOC collapse with prominent cooling over the northern North Atlantic and neighboring areas. This has enormous implications for regional and global climate change.” (source)

This isn’t the only evidence that we could be heading into a major cooling period in the near future. As far back as 2008 Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, Don Easterbrook made the case for a period of deep cold in the coming decades.

The bottom line?

They’ll force gigantic carbon taxes and fees on average people while selling waivers and exemptions to the companies that are the biggest culprits of in the first place, allowing them to spew pollutants and greenhouse gasses unchecked.

We will continue to pay more for everything to cover the costs of a perfectly natural phenomenon that has been going on since before mankind even existed.

Despite this, the cycle will proceed because that is just how the Earth works.

Even if an overnight ban on all forms of fossil fuel use came into force tonight, the climate would continue to change.

If all factories immediately ceased operations and closed their doors, climate change would not stop.

The climate, just like the Earth itself, never stands still. It’s dynamic and ever evolving. That will continue just as it always has.

Meanwhile, we’ll all get carbon-taxed into poverty as the government and a few cronies bask in the wealth acquired from the fear of extinction they have created.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Daisy Luther of

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Phil_Ossifer

    If you want something to have a lifespan close to immortality have the U.S. Government declare “war” on it. War on drugs? Poverty? Terrorism? Climate Change? All open-ended and unwinnable by any reasonable standard. But that open-endedness translates to a blank check for all those who are busy supplying the equipment, manpower and infrastructure for these “wars.” As the old saying goes, war is good business, so several simultaneous “wars” should be REALLY good business, right?

    • Caseymbass

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ur234c:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash524MarketCoolGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ur234c:….,…….

    • Virginiajrosati

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ue317c:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash607NetworkGeosGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ue317c:….,…….

      • Jimmy Yost

        Seeing as how you’re obviously all about the money, you could make a lot more money as a sexual prostitute than you are as a Google prostitute, so why not do that and quit crapping up these comments sections with your worthless advertisements.

  • breakawaymotorsports .

    Same thing happened with the “ozone” layer. WE were killing it,with propellents and refrigerants.A cry went out to ban R12 (Freon) in vehicles. The new refrigerant would ‘save” us all..instead R134a stopped the photosynthesis process of plants..SO they are coming up with a “solution” to R134a….called 1234yf…and the industries that manufacture these refrigerants Dupont etc..make trillions of dollars all for the sake of saving the planet. yea…right…

  • jim_robert

    Australian Joanne Nova had the temerity to follow the money, and found that trail led to – surprise! – the warmers. Brobdignagian Big Government and its horde of public cash, along with their buddies, Big Finance (who, also have a stake in global warming) which utterly dwarfs relatively tiny Big Oil. Nova notes at deep-pocketed Greenpeace searched high and wide for Big Oil money, and found $23 mm paid by Exxon over 10 years, which has stopped. They found nothing more.

    Moreover, Nova’s article points out that while Big Oil may not prefer emissions to be traded, it’s not the end of the world if they are, as any taxing of Big Oil will just be passed on to the consumers, and past experience shows that even with higher prices, consumers still have to use fuel, so profits will not be impacted. In contrast to Exxon’s $23 mm, consider the carbon-mongers’ budgets, such as Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project for $100mm. Meanwhile, the co-opted government has spent $79 billion on climate initiatives since 1989, and this figure is only the U.S. alone, and also does not include private concerns. Even Australia put out one quick advertising campaign at $13.9 mm recently. And what is England’s BBC, if not one big, publicly funded advertising arm for the warmers? In sum, Nova notes “There is no question that there are vastly more financial rewards for people who promote a carbon-made catastrophe than for those who point out the flaws in the theory.”

    Worse, there is no group or government funding designed to check flaws in the warmers’ work, and the very logic of government funding steers the researchers to do what they were mandated to do – look in one direction for warming, as their grant applications ask them to. As Nova states in her article, “It’s possible that honest scientists have dutifully followed their grant applications, always looking for one thing in one direction, and when they have made flawed assumptions or errors, or just exaggerations, no one has pointed it out simply because everyone who could have, had a job doing something else. In the end the auditors who volunteered—like Steve McIntyre and AnthonyWatts—are retired scientists, because they are the only ones who have the time and the expertise to do the hard work.” While there are massive numbers of heavily funded organizations looking for global warming, I have yet to hear of even one “National Institute for Natural Climate Change.”

    Need another example? Mr. Hockey Stick himself, Michael Mann, while at Virginia State Univ. received almost a half million dollars in funding prior to his departure to Penn State. And while people like Peter Gleick talk about Heartland Inst. receiving $7 million in annual funding (with only a very small fraction coming from corporations having anything to do with the global warming, James Taylor points out, in contrast, :the Natural Resources Defense Council receives close to $100 million in annual funding, Greenpeace receives close to $200 million in annual funding, the World Wildlife Fund receives approximately $600 million in annual funding, etc., etc., etc. Which groups, indeed, are the “well-funded” entities “focused on protecting narrow financial interests?”

    Meanwhile, Nova stated that according to the World Bank, carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008, and PointCarbon at one point estimated $130 billion in 2009. (It’s only got a thousand times worse than back then) If warmers whine about involvement of “Big Oil,” what about the involvement of Big Finance, who stand to make money when carbon is bought or sold? Could it be that those shouting at skeptics are in the employ of Big Finance? Nova writes “Banks are keen to be seen as good corporate citizens (look, there’s an environmental banker!), but somehow they don’t find the idea of a non-tradable carbon tax as appealing as a trading scheme where financial middlemen can take a cut. (For banks that believe in the carbon crisis, taxes may well “help the planet,” but they don’t pay dividends.)” So, in sum, is seems there are some generally unpaid skeptics who are taking on massive business interests and groups of warmers who have a vested interest to continue getting their grants and trips to exotic locales for meetings (anyone wonder why the don’t row there?). No one seems to mention they also have to fight “Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and every other financial institution or corporation that stands to profit like the Chicago Climate Exchange (before it imploded from its own poison gas emissions, see ), European Climate Exchange), PointCarbon, IdeaCarbon (and the list goes on… ) as well as against government bureaucracies like the IPCC and multiple departments of Climate Change.”

    CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton even stated in the near future he could “ see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market… the largest commodity market in the world” while Richard L. Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of Climate Exchange Plc, who received $1.1 million in grants from the leffist Joyce Foundation to launch the CCX, agreed and predicted trades eventually would total $10 trillion a year – that is, until Cap and Trade blew up – at which point, Mr. Sandor received $98.5 million for his 16.5% stake in the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) when it was sold. Not too shabby for a failed enterprise that somebody else financed.

    And Mr. Sandor isn’t the only one making off with big bucks. There’s good ol’ billionaire greenie Nat Simons. Brian McNicoll notes “He’s in the energy business, and he’s not afraid to throw money around to get government policies that help his bottom line. He buys scientists to crank out favorable research. He pays think tanks to formulate policies that fatten his wallet. He contributes vast sums to politics – both in direct support of candidates and in advocacy. He doles out tens of millions of dollars per year to groups to forward his energy views, and the source of much of this money is the darkest of secrets. And to top it off, he rides to work on a yacht – a 54-foot, 1,550-horsepower craft with a 550-gallon fuel tank (which I think is around the same size as John Kerry’s yacht). McNicoll goes on to note that Simons Sea Change Foundation doled out more than $100 million in 2011 and 2012 to groups such as the Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters and the Center for American Progress. Just more, you know, of the BIG GREEN MONEY cabal. And it is all funded by some secretive, Bermuda based organization called Klein, which gave Simons Sea Change $23 million recently. And where does Klein get its money from? Why, from ““executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving member of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.” States Lachlan Markey of the Washington Free Beacon. And of course the Russians want something for this dough – namely a carbon tax in the US, which would drive US energy costs higher, and help… well, you get it.

    In fact, in 2000-1, Discoverthenetworks noted in a Dec. 1, 2015 article that the Joyce Foundation – on whose board Obama sat at the time – had made a tidy little $1.1 mm grant to get the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) off the ground, which was to be “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” As they said in the Depression (the 1930s one, not Obama’s one), “nice work if you can get it.”
    Total money given by Sea Change from 2007 to 2012 to push carbon tax or cap and trade totaled a cool $173 million, reports McNicoll which help both the Russians as well as Simons green energy scams. Nice work if you can get it. And, concludes McNicoll, Simons’ “green groups thrive on a panoply of government grants, low- or no-interest loans and breaks from bureaucrats who save their regulatory zeal for fossil-fuel projects.” And the left has the lying temerity to accuse others of being in the back pocket of big oil! In fact, the back pockets are in the BIG GREEN MONEY pants: in 2014, New England started down the green path – and saw energy prices rise 40% (see Forbes 12/12/14). Somebody is making a bundle off that increase. I’ll leave you to do the research on that one.

    Statistician S. Stanley Young of the Bioinformaticis National Inst. of Statistical Sciences examined the issue of mortality as it related to the Clean Power Plan (see for more). For the billions of dollars diverted into the pockets of global warming scammers like Soyndra, Al Gore and James Hansen, there is a cost in lives. Young states a cost of $900/person annually, which would reduce life expectancy by two months (Ezekiel Emanuel, who advocates we all die early, should be pleased, at least!) In fact, Hans Rosling has a video at where you can explore the relationship between income and longevity. See also Roslings site at, where you can choose from over 100 axes, including CO2 emissions.
    As a matter of fact, there is so much fraud behind the BIG GREEN MONEY scam that Larry Bell (whom I’m sure Attorney General Lynch will have lynched, or sent to one of her climate Lysenko-style gulags – what? You don’t know what Lysenkoism, the granddaddy of socialist science scams. is? – wrote a whole book on the topic, entitled Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. Bell deals why and how are some well knowns institutions are cashing in big time financially with the scam, and reveals who is benefitting most by promoting climate change alarmism Curioous what the political and BIG GREEN MONEY purposes are served by the vilification of carbon dioxide, including the whole gambit of global wealth redistribution – which BIG GREEN MONEY leaders have made no bones about.

    Fuel subsidies is another area for BIG GREEN MONEY, and why the warmers are so vociferous when you threaten their money train. In 2015, subsidies per billion BTUs for coal, oil and gas was $68.32; for renewables, a whopping $1,724. You do the math. In Europe, excluding feeds for grid connections and upgrades, the cost of only the infrastructure – as of 2012 – the cost of green energy infrastructure came to 600 billion Euros – above the cost of the Irish and Greek bailouts combined.

  • jim_robert

    Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records.

    Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.”

    Indeed, when I was visiting Iceland at Skaftafell Nat’l Park two years ago, Icelandic historians know from extant deeds – and have put in the displays at the park – that somewhere around FORTY old Viking era farms are currently buried under the Vatnajokull glacier system (the largest in the world outside of Greenland and Antarctica). In other words, it was simply much warmer in the Icelandic settlement era than it is today. We are routinely informed of the melting of Greenland glaciers today at lower altitudes, but demonstrably there are at bare minimum low altitude glaciers in roughly the same geographic area that had seen more melting and more pronounced glacial recession one thousand years ago than we see today. Al Gore may want to visit Skaftafell National Park in Iceland on one of his many jet-setting, carbon burning trips to check the facts himself. More evidence: There are records of grape growing occurring in places in northern Europe back during this optimum where they can’t grow today. Gregory McNamee, in the Weather Guide Calendar (Accord Publishing, 2002) noted that wine connoisseurs might have gone to England for fine vintages (can’t grow fine vintage grapes there today!), that heat loving trees like beeches carpeted Europe far into Scandinavia, and Viking ships crossed iceberg free oceans to ice free harbors in Iceland…”. Art Horn writes that “In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? “

    On the other side of the world, research by Panin and Nefedov in 2010, where they analyzed rivers and lakes in the Upper Volga and Upper Zapadnaya Dvina areas in Russia, also found evidence of a Medieval climatic optimum in that part of the world Even worse for the warmers, recent research has found evidence for the Medieval Climatic Optimum in the central Peruvian Andes – see, southern South America, see, China, see,, where the author XJ Zhou notes “temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are comparable to those in the current warm period over China,” and Antarctica, Li, Y., Cole-Dai, J. and Zhou, L. 2009. Glaciochemical evidence in an East Antarctica ice core of a recent (AD 1450-1850) neoglacial episode. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011091 (summarized at Amazingly, there is even clear evidence of the LIA and MWP in Antarctica- see as well as Western Canada, as illustrated by the picture of a picea gllauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra,
    some *****100km north of the current treeline.**** Photo by Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP), and was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future. See for this picture, as well as other AGW info.

    Similarly, two recent papers, reported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, one in Earth-Science Reviews and the other is in Chinese Science Bulletin, reported studies of “key chemical contents in micro-drilled giant clams shells and coral samples to demonstrate that in the South China Sea the warm period of the Middle Ages was warmer than the present. The scientists examined surveys of the ratio of strontium to calcium content and heavy oxygen isotopes, both are sensitive recorders of sea surface temperatures past and present. The aragonite bicarbonate of the Tridacna gigas clam-shell is so fine-grained that daily growth-lines are exposed by micro-drilling with an exceptionally fine drill-bit, allowing an exceptionally detailed time-series of sea-temperature changes to be compiled – a feat of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself. By using overlaps between successive generations of giant clams and corals, the three scientists – Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Yuhong Wang of Fudan University, Shanghai – reconstructed a record of sea-surface temperature changes going back 2500 years. The Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods both showed up prominently in the western Pacific and East Asia. Sea surface temperatures varied considerably over the 2500-year period.” Dr. Soon concludes :” “The UN’s climate panel should never have trusted the claim that the medieval warm period was mainly a European phenomenon. It was clearly warm in South China Sea, too.”

    Another study, by earth sciences professor Zunli Lu (formerly of Oxford, now at Syracuse Univ.), studied samples of crystal called ikaite, which forms in cold water, and will melt at room temperature. Samples were taken by Lu and colleagues, examined for variation caused by temperature fluctuations during formation, and dated. The result? Lu writes: “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.” What does this mean? It means that the MWP was not simply a localized event in northern Europe, or even the northern hemisphere. And if it was as warm 1,000 years ago as now all over the world, Al Gore is simply wrong. Study summary by the UK Register at

    • Right to the Point

      Somebody has been paying attention.

      • jim_robert

        Funny, RTP, I am just a regular guy (I work in the heathcare space, tho my brother did his grad work in meteorology). But I saw this was the thin edge of the wedge in terms of implementing the fascist left agenda, so educated myself. The above is from a 400 p, 700 footnote paper I did for my own edification on the topic.

        I have a throw away email at If you email me there, subject “GLOBAL WARMING,” I will respond from my real email address if you want to communicate further on the topic

        • Right to the Point

          Wrote down the address. I have a degree in Enviro Sci/ RP with Policy emphasis and minor in Biology. It’s easy to spot when someone actually knows the material. You have went above and beyond the call my friend. Believe this, I didn’t get that degree without a lot of pain, but I would like to think that I planted some seeds as well….

  • mirageseekr

    How can we properly have this discussion without discussing what shit they are dumping on us in the chemtrails? Certainly easier to convince the masses when you can control the weather.

  • TrevorD

    “A criminal is someone who breaks the law. If you’re a murderer, thief, or TAX cheat, you’re a criminal”. (
    Yes Trump, Keep Guantanamo open, we may need it soon IF you do your job properly.