By Enza Ferreri
The cat’s out of the bag: I dislike this expression, nobody should put a cat or any other animal in a bag as far as I’m concerned, but I couldn’t find anything as effective as that to convey how a possible truth of an ideological game being played on people’s lives has now been revealed and is in the open.
The image above the article is the screenshot of the webpage in the British socialist newspaper The Guardian with the previous headline, “Global lockdown every two years needed to meet Paris CO2 goals – study”, which the paper later changed into “Equivalent of Covid emissions drop needed every two years – study”, possibly realizing that it had gone too far, but if you click on the above link you can see from the slug in the browser’s address bar that the original title was “global-lockdown-every-two-years-needed-to-meet-paris-co2-goals-study”, as many articles referring and linking to it also prove: see, as an example, this piece in Forbes.
** FIRST UPDATE November 2021:
Forbes has also removed its original article which was entitled “Report: World Needs Equivalent Of Pandemic Lockdown Every Two Years To Meet Paris Carbon Emission Goals”, but the title is still visible in the slug if you click on the link above. Not only that, you can clearly see the article’s presence through a website search, which shows that it was published on Mar 3, 2021.
24 November 2021:
Checking a few days after I wrote the above update, I saw that Forbes has re-instated its original article. Don’t ask me what has caused this “dance”.
** END FIRST UPDATE
The Guardian used the alarmist (now modified) headline “Global lockdown every two years needed to meet Paris Agreement targets – according to study.”
The piece referred to a study published in the journal Nature by a team of researchers at the University of East Anglia, which concluded that CO2 emissions must decrease by the same amount recorded during recent lockdowns “about every two years” to offset global warming.
The study did not mention global lockdowns to achieve this goal, despite The Guardian’s misleading headline. In fact, it called for “completely different methods.”
The article in Nature, titled “Fossil CO2 emissions in the post-COVID-19” era and published on the same day as The Guardian’s one, says:
Five years after the adoption of the Paris Climate Agreement, growth in global CO2 emissions has begun to falter. The pervasive disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic have radically altered the trajectory of global CO2 emissions. Contradictory effects of the post-COVID-19 investments in fossil fuel-based infrastructure and the recent strengthening of climate targets must be addressed with new policy choices to sustain a decline in global emissions in the post-COVID-19 era.
Catastrophic Predictions that Never Materialize
If you look at what the same far-left newspaper published back in 2004, regarding climate change destroying us, and Britain being “Siberian” by 2020 while the world will see an eruption of nuclear conflict, famine and mega-droughts, you get an idea of The Guardian’s reliability in publishing predictions and suggestions:
The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) scare has no sound scientific foundation. I’ve covered this in another article so, rather than repeating my arguments here, it’s simpler for you to click on the just-above link.
World Economic Forum, Great Reset, New Normal and Never-Ending Lockdowns
I’m not saying that there is a necessary connection between those who would like to impose a global lockdown every two years to save the planet and the orchestration of a pandemic to terrorize people into submission and acceptance of being locked up without being proven guilty.
But this is one of those things that make it much easier to understand why people have been locked up for over a year under the pretext of a virus which is no more deadly than a bad influenza: in fact the victims of Covid-19 have predominantly been patients with serious comorbidities, each of which could have been sufficient to kill them, although perhaps precipitated by this intervening illness.
And who are the people who want a “new normal” or, as they themselves call it, a “Great Reset”, so that we will all be subservient and obsequious to a new social and economic system that few will dictate and impose from above?
The same people who want to get to “net zero emissions” against global warming, like the World Economic Forum, that’s who they are. Here is what they were already planning in 2016:
Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city”. I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes…
Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now…
Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.
** SECOND UPDATE November 2021:
The World Economic Forum has – you’ve guessed it – also joined the list of sites removing their articles about this horror-movie proposal of eternal lockdown, so if you click on the above link you’ll find an error message.
However, the article is now on Forbes, duly credited to the World Economic Forum from which it was taken.
There are two considerations here: one is that the distinct possibility exists that there are people who want other people, let’s say the general public, to do something and, since the public wouldn’t want to act that way, have recourse to devious ways such as telling only part of the truth. But their methods are tentative and sometimes they are afraid of overdoing it with the consequence that it may backfire. So, if they think they’ve overstepped the mark or been more open than they should have, they back down a bit.
It’s too much of a coincidence that so many publications have dropped articles that were displaying an extreme, unpalatable agenda too openly.
The other consideration is that none of those who denounced these publications has apparently retracted anything.
The news, here, becomes the subject of the news.
This is clearly a story that doesn’t go away.
** END SECOND UPDATE