Ein TAX ,Ein volk, Ein DOOMSDAY führer lol
LOLOL ridendo castigat more’s –
“esque’ moustache series
“Ridendo castigat mores ”
the climate change Hegelian dialectic theater lol presents REAL UNDERSTANDABLE FACTS
we can’t mention climate change without investigating geoengineering / aka Chemtrails
CO2 is only the scapegoat to prevent people from looking at them.
“Pulling off the largest crime against humanity also requires the largest disinformation campaign in human history. Hundreds of millions are spent to make you think contrails are common or even normal an have been for decades. They will stop at nothing, including revising history – especially revising history. They have done it many times before for much lessor issues”
Most people would like to put their heads in the sand and ignore geoengineering. Others want to learn more
be focused on the weather, specifically with something called geoengineering.”
What is geoengineering? McIntosh explained, “Geoengineering is ‘the intentional manipulation of the environment, involving nuclear, biological, chemical, electromagnetic, and/or other physical-agent activities that effect changes to Earth’s atmosphere and/or surface. There are many types of Geoengineering. For instance, if you build a dam and create a lake, that’s geoengineering! If you inject Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as dry ice, into the atmosphere to create rain, that’s geoengineering too! You’ve seen the results in the sky. The sky looks different than it did 20 years ago. It’s a lot more murky and polluted looking. New, man-made cloud types now exist and are being taught to kids in school.”
The terms “global warming” and “climate change” are part of a broader agenda to justify the ambitions of the global elite who want to openly unleash geoengineering experiments over the Earth’s skies. In order to get support for this Machiavellian endeavor, the public needs to be convinced that a large-scale climate problem is developing — that the Earth’s temperature ”
” One of the greatest scams of the 21st century started with former vice president Al Gore, who influentially introduced the concept of “global warming” to the world. Now, the truth about Gore’s “global warming” scam is documented in a new book by Marc Morano, titled, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change ”
✅Who is Greta and who is behind the Fridays for future movement
This is the most obvious social engeneering operation I’ve seen for quite some time 🌐https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1174822562674741248.html?fbclid=IwAR1lpggMN6IV6WtNgmtGLEd7v0fyVt6mAKCnFEpm98_tk43HRohZPICFiZg
“Wehave reached the Brave New Moment where there is no longer a distinction between our “movements” and the corporate forces that have been created to further our oppression and servitude – all in compliance to economic growth and capitalism for the world’s ruling class. All of this to be achieved on the backs of the most vulnerable – our youth. Hegemonic forces are salivating over the global waves of youth mobilization demanding action on climate change.”🌐http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/24/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-a-decade-of-social-manipulation-for-the-corporate-capture-of-nature-crescendo/#top
Some people may not like this post, you’ll get over it. Truth never has to be validated by ignorance.“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. Gustave Le Bon
.The TV Delusion – Global Warming: A Convenient Lie
Recently, a documentary aired on the UK’s Channel 4, entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth’s temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that’s all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that “the debate is over”, beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?
First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.
Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled.” He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.
For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.”
Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”
Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.
An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack — treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle — and solar output — are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”
In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.” In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they’ve been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.
In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.
With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions”. Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain’s busiest roads”. That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls”, to combat climate change.
The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they’re made from banned toxins and they won’t work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says ‘green’ lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green. Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It’s bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”
I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.
It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.
If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.
Andrew Marshall is a 19 year old political science student at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia (BC). 10 Climate Myths Busted (in 60 seconds!) – YouTube
Vídeo de CORBETt report global warming scam
Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience – YouTube
Vídeo de CORBETt report global warming scam
The Corbett Report: Absurd “Climate Change” Hoax An Insult To …
Vídeo de CORBETt report global warming scam
Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics : The Corbett …
Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink …
climate change : The Corbett Report
How Bad Global Warming Science Hurts the Environmental Movement-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnlcLUbHG2I
Man-made Global Warming: A Convenient Lie As the covert yet blatantly obvious spraying program escalates with each passing week, so too does public awareness that something very wrong is being done to our skies. It’s become a rare and precious treat to get one full day when we don’t get sprayed like bugs. Activists worldwide are now finding it much easier to wake people up to this ecocide. The willfully ignorant are a noisy yet dwindling minority. It can’t be denied forever.
Those responsible for this chemtrail / geoengineering program – let’s just call them “the globalists” – are diligently laying groundwork for the eventual, perhaps imminent, revelation of their crime against all life on Earth. This can be seen in countless books, press articles, “debates” and radio / TV appearances. David Keith was even on the Colbert Report.
Their message is simple. Yes, geoengineering is unpleasant, but it may be the only way to save us from the catastrophic effects of runaway human caused global warming. They cite CO2, ocean acidification and methane as the deadliest threats – all derivatives of carbon.
For the spraying program to be accepted, we must believe we face an extinction-level threat from man made global warming, and unpleasant steps may have to be taken to save us. Ken Calderia likened it to chemotherapy; you have to take the poison to save the patient. The globalists can’t get us to accept something bad unless we truly believe it will save us from something terrifyingly worse. A textbook example of the Hegelian Dialectic. Fear is an excellent control mechanism.
Without widespread and deeply-ingrained fear of imminent, catastrophic global warming, the globalists can’t explain why they’re spraying us. It’s their only excuse.
But is the science completely settled on human caused global warming? The founders of Greenpeace and the Weather Channel don’t think so – and neither do more than 30,000 US scientists, including 9,000 PhDs.
global warming / carbon
Wikipedia says global warming is “unequivocal” – there is no doubt that it’s happening and it’s caused by carbon released from human activities. (Mind you, it also says chemtrails don’t exist, but let’s leave that to one side.) For brevity, let’s call the Wikipedia definition the “AGW position.” (Anthropogenic Global Warming.)
Our climate changes all the time. Ice Ages come and go, grapes were grown as far north as Scotland and Newfoundland (the vikings named it “Vinland“) during the Medieval Warm Period (950AD to 1250AD), while London’s Thames River froze solid in the 1680s. The sun goes through activity cycles which effect the temperature on all the planets. It’s been relatively quiet of late, hence the admitted 17 year “pause” in global warming. CO2 levels have been ten times higher than todays, yet life still flourished.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas essential to plant growth and has little effect on global temperature. Water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas. (Cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.) What Al Gore’s famous hockey stick graph didn’t tell you is that CO2 levels rise *after* temperatures rise. When ice sheets retreat, plants and animals move in and produce it. Before you dismiss this out of hand, please take the time to watch this excellent presentation, and try to find one factual or scientific error in it.
The message that human produced carbon emissions are causing devastating global warming has been relentlessly pushed for decades and went into overdrive with the release of An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. Every few weeks breathless stories tell us the previous month, year or decade was the the hottest in human history, the poles are melting and coastal cities will soon be underwater.
Children are imprinted with the AGW position before they can read. Ask a random five year old if he or she thinks mom is hurting the planet when she drives her car to the store. How many times since you woke up this morning have you heard, seen or read a message or logo reminding you that CO2 is a terrible thing and that you should feel guilty for adding to it? GW survivalThe hysteria has reached such absurd heights that some consider it “altruistic” to kill yourself to save the planet.
Even the oil companies are on board with the program, including Exxon, BP, Shell, and Chevron.
Scientists are routinely caught faking data to support the AGW position, most famously in the Climategate scandals. Those who disagree are defunded, fired or lose their tenure. Despite this eco-McCarthyism, more than 30,000 US scientists and 9.000 PhDs risked their careers to speak out against the AGW position. The oft-repeated “97% consensus” has some serious holes in it.
Questioning the AGW position will get you branded a “climate denier,” with a clear echoes of “Holocaust denier.” Others go further, proposing the arrest of anyone questioning the official line on global warming. One particularly chilling “green” commercial featured the summary execution of children who wouldn’t tow the AGW line. Obama’s Information Czar, Cass Sunstien considers “climate deniers” dangerous conspiracy theorists and thinks the government should conduct “cognitive infiltration” to prevent their message getting out. In other words, unleash the COINTELPRO shills, trolls and goons.
Chemtrail activists know this first hand. Every time they post evidence of the chemtrail / geoengineering program to a public forum, within minutes they are aggressively attacked by multiple anonymous posters. They are insulted, bombarded with logical fallacies and every tool in the disinfo handbook. Clearly, some things are not to be questioned. You can test this at home: If you post comments casting any doubt on the following positions to a public forum (YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, wherever), you will be attacked.
* Vaccines are safe and effective
* There’s no such thing as chemtrails – those lines in the sky are just water vapor and ice crystals
* GMO food is as safe as non-GMO; long term human studies are unnecessary
* Flouride is safe and good for you
* Office fires brought down the 47-story WTC7 at free fall speed
* Global warming is undeniable – it threatens all life on earth and is caused by carbon emissions from human activity
Conversely, if your comments support theories such as bigfoot, leprechauns, Elvis sightings or that the moon is made of cheese, there are no concerted attacks.
So why is so much time, money and effort spent silencing critics of the AGW position? What makes it sacrosanct?
* 1991: The Rockefeller-founded Club of Rome writes: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
* 1992: The Rio Earth Summit issues the Framework Convention on Climate Change and UN Agenda 21 calling for drastic reduction in carbon emissions.
* 1997: Al Gore works with Enron’s Ken Lay to develop the first carbon tax.
* 2000: The Climate Research Unit (who were later busted for “hiding the decline” in the 2009 Climategate scandal) says snowfall will soon become “a very rare and exciting event.”
* 2006: Gore releases “An Inconvenient Truth,” while remaining a major shareholder in Occidental Petroleum. He wins an Oscar, Grammy and Nobel Peace Prize for it.
* 2007: The British High Court rules it factually incorrect and bans it from being shown in UK schools without a disclaimer.
* 2007: David de Rothschild releases “The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook.”
* 2007: The BBC airs “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” <—- WATCH THIS DOCUMENTARY!!
* 2009: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unilaterally declares CO2 a dangerous pollutant without congressional input. Plant life, depending on it as an essential part of photosynthesis, silently disagrees.
* 2010 Al Gore buys an $8.8 million ocean front mansion, despite shrill warnings about rising sea levels.
* 2011: Newly elected Australian premier Julia Gillard breaks her campaign promise and imposes a carbon tax on an outraged public. Although sacked by her own party and thrown out of office two years later, carbon taxes were imposed on many other countries throughout the world, and several US states, including California.
* 2013: IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri and the UK’s Met Office admit global warming stopped in 1998. Egypt gets its first snow in 112 years and Europe suffers it’s coldest winter in a century.
* 2014: The world endures it’s fourth consecutive record breaking cold winter, despite CO2 surpassing 400 parts per billion. Meanwhile Antarctic sea ice keeps growing, and of late May snow is still falling across the US and Lake Superior remains icebound.
technocracy / agenda 21
The 1930’s saw the brief emergence of a crackpot group called the Technocracy movement. They believed self government, as outlined in the US Constitution, was messy and inefficient. It would be so much better to do away with all governments – and national borders. The entire world should instead be run by bankers, corporations, and other “experts.” This was effectively a retread of the “philosopher kings” in Plato’s Republic. Apparently we’re all too dumb and stupid to decide what’s in our own best interests.
But what’s more germane to this discussion was their proposal to abolish the free market / supply and demand economy (“I’ll trade you these eggs for that bale of hay”) with a new economy based on units of energy. Instead of money, we would trade “energy units” for goods and services. But for this to work, a comprehensive, instantly accessible and constantly updated inventory of all human activity and resources would have to be known, an impossible feat before high speed computing and the Internet. Needless to say, they were heckled off the public stage.
Fast forward to 1970. Zbignew Brzezinski publishes: “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era.” This book was pretty much a direct copy of the Technocracy agenda, complete with a world government of, by and for the bankers, replacement of the monetary system and total surveillance of all human activity. David Rockefeller loved this book so much – especially the part about bankers ruling the world – that he used it as the basis of the Trilateral Commission which he formed in 1973 with Brzezinski, war criminal Henry Kissinger and himself as founding members.trilateral
In 1976 a previously obscure governor of Georgia (and Trilateralist), Jimmy Carter, was sworn in as 39th president of the United States. His administration was stacked with 31 fellow Trilateralists, including Brzezinski as National Security Adviser. (In this role, Brzezinski installed Pol “Killing Fields” Pot in Cambodia and set up Bin Laden / Al Quada in Afghanistan. He later became Obama’s foreign policy advisor.) Trilateralists comprised a hefty chunk of every administration since then, alongside members of its sister round table group, the Council on Foreign Relations, which like the Club of Rome was also set up by the Rockefellers.
The Trilateral Commission is no toothless drinking club; its plans and agendas tend to get carried out. Nor is David Rockefeller a harmless old coot. Here’s a quote from his autobiography:-
“For more than a century ideological extremists … (have) attack(ed) the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
(Incidentally, the Rockefeller family has always been dedicated to massive depopulation and to that end funded the Eugenics movement in both the United States and Nazi Germany. They also funded mega-murderers Mao, Lenin and Stalin.)
Which brings us to UN Agenda 21, which was signed by President (and Trilateralist) George HW Bush at the Earth Summit in 1992. (For those unfamiliar with Agenda 21, here’s an excellent primer.) It’s basically a continuation of the Technotronic ideal and states we should be ruled by “experts,” not elected representatives, and that our current economic system and lifestyle is “unsustainable.” Any time you hear the term “smart” or “sustainable,” know it’s most likely code for Agenda 21. Smart Meters are a good example, minutely tracking and reporting on every electrical activity in homes and businesses across the planet, all connected to the global Smart Grid. Ask yourself how much time you spend out of range of high resolution cameras and microphones with a 24/7 connection to the ubiquitous network. Count how many cameras are on the next bus you board. Agenda 21’s total surveillance grid arrived while we were playing Flappy Bird on our smart phones. It was never about terrorism.
But the central core of Agenda 21 is the assumption that we as a human race are using too much energy – that it’s “unsustainable” and must be closely monitored, controlled and reduced. Which brings us back to carbon.
Agenda 21 ushers in control mechanisms to measure, tax and limit your carbon “footprint.” We’re already beginning to see this in the form of “green” house inspections, carbon credits, smart meters and more.
All human activity – breathing, traveling, cooking, sleeping, farming, and having babies – uses carbon. Stop to consider what zero carbon output really means. The carbon cycle is the life cycle. Carbon taxes and the increasing cost of “sustainable” energy already kill tens of thousands every winter. And since the link between carbon emissions and supposed “catastrophic global warming” is far from certain, do we really want unelected committees and bankers mandating hard limits on our carbon “allowances?” If you think that’s far fetched, just look at China’s one child policy.
If we let avowed eugenicists monitor and set limits to our carbon allowances, we are willfully agreeing to the most nightmarish scientific dictatorship imaginable. Don’t agree to it based on questionable science.
back to chemtrails
Activists studying chemtrails know there are several varieties which each behave quite distinctly. Some rapidly expand, others hold their shape for hours, others drip, others are wispy, and others leave slowly fading distinct squiggly lines. Some are dark, brown or fade within minutes. Others remain in place, with long tendrils stretching out laterally. These differing physical properties prove many different substances are being sprayed – and it’s doubtful that they’re all designed for Solar Radiation Management – reflecting sunlight out into space (the albedo effect) to prevent the surface of the earth heating up.
Moreover, it is not uncommon to see large areas covered with creepy white monofilaments, thinner than spiderwebs. Thousands suffer from Morgellons Disease, thought to be caused by nanotechnology dispersed by aircraft. Red and white blood cells have been found in sub micron airborne fibers. Geoengineer Ken Calderia admitted he discussed “adding pathogens to the clouds . . . to do chemical and biological warfare” when he worked at Lawrence Livermore weapons lab. The US Air Force has admitted spraying toxins on civilian populations without their knowledge or consent.
So why presume the spraying is solely for climate mitigation? Is it beyond the realms of possibility to consider there is a biological component? This is why we still call the spraying chemtrails – they’re trails of chemicals and the US Air Force Academy calls them that. We also tell people to search for geoengineering and solar radiation management because that’s how they can find the most damning patents, white papers, government and foundation literature on the subject.
Because the spraying program is a covert, black budget program, we can’t conclusively know exactly what they are spraying (besides the aluminum, strontium and barium showing up in rainfall). But since it is at least partly funded and advocated by foundations with a storied history of eugenics and population control (Carnegie, Gates and Rockefeller), we’d be naive to assume it’s simply to cool a warming planet.
The globalists call it geoengineering, claiming it’s purpose is to save the planet – but why believe proven liars and avowed eugenicists? Do they want to frame the debate so only the meteorological effects are discussed?
Chemtrails / geoengineering / climate engineering / solar radiation management / weather warfare – whatever it’s called – is poisoning the planet and must be stopped.
Is the earth warming up? Not according to raw data. Does carbon have more effect on our climate than, say, the sun? Doubtful. Do the globalists say demonization of carbon is the keystone of their ongoing transformation of society into a scientific dictatorship in which they will control, surveil and limit every aspect of our lives? Absolutely.
When the globalists finally admit they’ve been spraying us for The Greater Good™, we don’t want the argument to be: “Since everyone agrees the planet’s in meltdown, what balance of limited geoengineering and massive reductions of personal carbon allowances can save us all from extinction?”
Instead, the only question we need ask is whether those found guilty of conducting and/or concealing weather, chemical and biological warfare on civilian populations should serve their mandatory life sentences in solitary, gen pop or forced labor camps. Since we care about their wellbeing, we’ll make sure they get *all* their shots and have all the GMO food they can eat.
By supporting the questionable AGW position – that our carbon emissions are causing catastrophic global warming – we’re handing the globalists their only excuse to spray us. And blindly accepting carbon as the boogeyman could deliver us into a total scientific enslavement beyond the dreams of every tyrant that drew breat