12bytes Mumble meet every Sat. night!
Coronavirus information & resources
Vaccines - What You Need To Know

!!! GLOBAL WARMING !!! GLOBAL WARMING !!! GLOBAL WARMING !!!

"There is No Climate Catastrophe – It’s a Lie." -- Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace (source)

Video: We Need to Eat the Babies!’ Satirical Climate Activist Confronts AOC at New York Town Hall

Man-made global warming; fact, fiction, or something in between? Courtesy of a 2013 post, 10 Climate Myths Debunked (in 60 seconds!), by James Corbett of The Corbett Report:

Myth #1. The earth is warming!

On what time scale? 16 years? 2000 years? 10000 years? 420000 years? 65 million years? (Answer: None of the above)

Myth #2. This year was the hottest year ever!

Was that before or after NASA and the NOAA altered the temperature record to make recent years warmer?

Myth #3. 97% of scientists agree on global warming!

You mean 97% of 77 scientists in an unscientific online poll?

Myth #4. Sea levels are rising!

Yes…at a rate of 7 inches per century.

Myth #5. Hurricanes are increasing!

US landfalling hurricanes are at their lowest intensity in a century. (Bonus fact: Accumulated Cyclone Energy is at a 30 year low!)

Myth #6. But…polar bears!

The polar bear population has quintupled in six decades and the USGS admits their numbers are near “historic highs.”

Myth #7. Climategate was hype and it’s been debunked.

The UK Information Commissioner found the climategate scientists guilty of breaking the law by hiding data from the public.

Myth #8. Models project a temperature increase of over 2 degrees in this century.

And these same models overestimated warming over the past 15 years by 400%.

Myth #9. Weather is not climate.

Actually, yes. And this is true when it’s hot outside, too.

Myth #10. Climate denial is a well-funded conspiracy.

Actually, the reverse. The global warming industry has generated over $140 billion in government grants, a $315 billion carbon market and is expected to generate 10s of trillions more in government-sponsored investment in the coming decades.

Global warming is a pristine example of the 'problem-reaction-solution' (Hegelian dialectic) tactic that is rolled out again and again by governments and the deep state in order to keep the populaces in check and pliable. In this scenario a problem is presented to the public, either real or contrived, for which a solution has already been developed. At the foundation of the problem-solution scenario is an agenda which is concealed from the public and which, on its own merits, is unlikely to be accepted by the public since it often involves interventionist foreign policy, the erosion of civil liberties, the expansion of surveillance and the police state, and/or the continued enrichment of extremely wealthy people. The public reaction to the proposed problem, which has been anticipated, will naturally be to demand that their government take immediate action which in turn allows the real agenda to be carried out.

I recently had a chat with a friend of mine about man-made global warming and his views were quite mainstream and predictable. Not only did he suggest that human induced global warming is a sound and scientifically proven threat that must be addressed immediately, he went so far as to suggest that it was acceptable for authorities to misrepresent the perceived problem as long as it is solved in the end. Disturbingly, such views are not uncommon.

While i appreciate the passion of environmental activists, such views are topical and dangerous. First of all, government isn't the business of solving problems -- quite the opposite -- and secondly, in the case of human impact upon our environment, many of the real problems are not being seriously addressed. The public at large often isn't aware of the real problems because the media doesn't discuss them and most people don't bother to do any serious independent research. Even the most basic questions go unasked. The public's comprehension of whatever problem is at hand is derived from what they are fed by their government and their mouthpiece, the mainstream media. The big tech companies further feed the group-think mentality through their heavily censored and politicized social media platforms. Even a significant portion of the alternative media has fallen victim to the group-think mentality.

The formerly trendy terminology, "global warming", has been swapped out by most of the media in favor of the more arbitrary "climate change", which of course is all the climate has ever done and will ever do. How many people have questioned why the terminology was changed?

Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle – Full Documentary HD

The earths climate has not warmed as the alarmists have predicted. This lack of warming was evidenced at least as far back as 2009 when a massive amount of data was leaked to the public from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (the reader should note the "governmental" component of the name). Phil Jones, former director of the IPCC, was "disappointed" by the apparent lack of warming. Jones, former Professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, went so far as to hide data from the public which may have led to the 'Climategate' and email leak fiasco which seriously jeopardized the credibility of the IPCC, as it should have. In an email dated 16-Nov-1999 Jones wrote the following:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith's to hide the decline.

He was of course referring to the decline in the earths temperature. Does this kind of behavior sound like that of a scientist? Phil Jones stepped down from his position while an inquiry took place.

The University of East Anglia broke the law when dealing with requests for climate data, according to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office.

A statement from the office says emails leaked or stolen from the university's Climatic Research Unit reveal that Freedom of Information requests "were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation".

The vast amount of CO2 in our environment is produced by rotting organic matter and our oceans. What we humans produce is trivial and most creditable climate scientists seem to agree that the tiny amount of CO2 produced by humans is not and cannot affect global temperature to any appreciable degree. Furthermore, when one looks at the historical data, it is apparent that temperature increase precedes the increase of CO2 which, in and of itself, presents a significant problem for the warming alarmists whose genesis was built upon precisely the opposite being true.

"The only place in the world where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase... the only place in the world where that happens is in the IPCC computer models." -- Dr. Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D., in his interview with James Corbett, 15-Dec-2014.

One of the primary drivers of the earths temperature is our star. The distance from the earth to its sun is not static, nor is its solar activity, and this has a significant impact upon the temperature here on earth.

Solar activity relative to temperature
From the 'Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research', Global Warming Petition Project

If you move an object closer or further from a heat source, does it's temperature not change, just as it has been changing on the moon? Oh, i'm so sorry, i forgot; the change in the temperature of the moon resulted from us walking on it. Yes, one explanation fed to the public is that footprints and rover tracks have caused a temperature increase on the moon. I wonder what it is we humans did in order to affect climate change on Mars and Jupiter as well?

It is the Club of Rome and the Rockefellers who founded and finance the "grassroots" climate change movement. The Club of Rome, founded in 1968 at Rockefeller's estate in Ballagio, Italy, is a hugely important and influential body. The Club is consulted by various governments and it pushes agendas that affect the entire world, yet the public knows little or nothing about it.

Following are a few excerpts from an issue of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), 23-Jun-1981, titled 'The inside story of the Club of Rome' by Nancy Spannaus:

In his speech before 120 diplomats and government officials in Washington, D.C. this last week, EIR founder Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. identified the major policymaking institutions of the advanced sector as the real problem leading the world toward World War III. No one could exemplify this judgement more clearly than Alexander King, cofounder of the Club of Rome, as he described the origins and workings of that institution to EIR in Paris last month.

King's Club of Rome is not a power in its own right. Many in the United States and developing sector would hardly recognize its name. Yet the institutional connections of this elite group, which began with a mere four individuals in 1968, make it one of the central coordinating bodies for the worldwide depopulation policy which ranges from mass sterilizations, to right- and left-wing terrorism, to fomenting of Salvador-like civil wars. It is the policies formulated in the Club of Rome, on behalf of the "black noble" families of Venice and Great Britain, which are then transmitted through leading institutions such as NATO, the OECD, and governments of nations like Canada.

[...]

Gradually the policy profile becomes clearer. "Many of us felt that the nation-states of especially Western Europe were not looking at the long term, but were bound up with short-term electoral cycles, and far too traditional." The meaning of that is directly linked to the views of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose member Lloyd Cutler, then personal counsel to President Carter, wrote an article on future governments last year. Governments will increasingly be absorbed with the business of managing scarcity, Cutler said, and therefore must be cut off from the demands of the constituencies.

[...]

King is interested in promoting zero growth through the rubric of the "technetronic society," as envisioned by such madmen as Zbigniew Brzezinski and the late H. G. Wells. How does this cohere with the so-called concern for the "humanization" of science reflected in the educational reforms and King's discussion of the policy review by the Nobel Foundation in 1968? Merely that an increasingly small group of technocrats will run the increasingly smaller core of industry, manipulate the overall population through the "information" society, and leave the bulk of the world's population without access to the tool of technological development.

[...]

King's description provides the reader with a re­markably clear image of how the Club of Rome func­tions to shape the policy directions of leading institu­tions. The Club of Rome is not at all interested in wielding power as such-that makes it too direct a target of opposition. It prefers to act "as a catalyst," leaving the appearance that the student rebellions, destabilizations, and economic retrenchment programs it is fostering are "just popping up spontaneously."

[...]

The so-called academic institutions are quite reveal­ing. Key among them are IFIAS, the International Federation of Institutes of Advanced Studies, and IIA­ SA, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. These groupings, both technically oriented, are key penetrators of explicitly anti-Club of Rome governments and institutions, including especially the Soviet Union. Acting as impartial experts, their mem­bers are ruining dozens of nations, controlling interna­tional institutions like the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank, and perverting the best of scientific minds looking for a solution to underdevelopment.

As you may recall, former U.S. president Ronald Regan stated several times during his presidency how the people of the world might unite if we were faced with an alien threat. The capacity to manufacture alluring enemies seems to be in the DNA of the Club of Rome.

"Humans only truly unite when faced with a powerful external enemy" -- The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (1991, ISBN067171094X). From page 85 of the same book we find the following:

The common enemy as proposed by the Club of RomeIn searching for a new enemy to unite us, we suggested that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.

For more information about the Club of Rome, the modern environmental movement, and who is behind it, i suggest reading EIR Special Report: ‘CO₂ Reduction’ Is a Mass Murder Policy. From the introduction:

Read this report to learn the dark story of the modern environmentalist movement. Come to understand why the world’s greatest financial powers are eagerly supporting climate hysteria. Encounter data refuting the supposed certainty of a world cataclysm facing us in a dozen years, and gain a fuller appreciation of the complexity of the Earth’s climate, in the context of the mechanisms of the solar system and beyond.

And from the section titled Frontal Assault on Our Living Standard: Multibillionaires Are Financing the ‘Climate Protectors’!:

A closer look at the financing of Greta Thunberg, the Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Fridays for Future reveals that this movement is being funded by the richest people on Earth. Among the founders and periphery of the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), are to be found Rory Kennedy, the daughter of Robert Kennedy; Aileen Getty, daughter of the late John Paul Getty; and the “philanthropist” Trevor Neilson, whose career has included various forms of collaboration with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner. According to the Guardian, the CEF has already transferred 500,000 euros to XR, which will soon be followed by “ten times as much” money. Breitbart has published internal documents from XR, revealing further five- and six-figure donations by Soros, the European Climate Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and Greenpeace Furka Holdings AG, among others.

Article: Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Antarctica Hasn't Warmed In Past 70 Years | Climate Change Dispatch

Cancel all the claims by climate activists that global warming is decimating Antarctica.

A peer-reviewed study recently published in one of the most prominent science journals destroys one of the most frequently asserted claims by climate activists – that climate change is warming Antarctica and melting the Antarctic ice sheet.

This recent study confirms Antarctica has not warmed in the past 70 years and Antarctic ice cover is expanding rather than shrinking.

Writing in the journal Nature, scientists at Columbia University and the University of Victoria, British Columbia report, "The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases."

The scientists also observe that over the past several decades, "Antarctic sea ice area has modestly expanded."

The scientists report that the topography of Antarctica, and particularly the size and distribution of Antarctic mountain ranges, play a large role in Antarctica's stable (actually modestly cooling) environment.

The scientists published the image below, which shows how temperatures have changed during the past 30 years, compared to temperatures recorded between 1950 and 1980.
Clearly, the vast majority of Antarctica is cooling, with warming occurring over just a small portion of the continent that juts out into the Southern Ocean.

Antarctic temps

Article and video: Tony Heller on the insanity of global warming alarmism - Jerm Warfare

Tony Heller is a scientist and software engineer, and runs RealClimateScience.com, in which he analyses climate change claims and debunks propaganda and alarmism using historical data and trends.

I’ve spoken to a few great minds, such as solar physicist Valentina Zharkova and Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, and the reality is that, as Tony reiterates,

  • humans do not influence Earth’s climate in any meaningful way;
  • climate change has occurred for millennia;
  • there is no evidence of significant sea-level rise;
  • extreme weather has not been all that extreme over the last century;
  • the Arctic and Antarctic are doing fine; and
  • the climate change narrative has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with fear and control and taxation.

more...

Video: Extinction Rebellion: ‎£400 A Week To Protest, Bourgeoisie Climate Alarmism

Regarding the Rockefellers, the following quotes are from the Executive Summary of a report titled The Rockefeller Way which was prepared by The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016:

The Rockefellers are arguably the wealthiest and most powerful family in the history of the United States. For more than 100 years, they have shaped and directed America’s economic, financial, political, and public policy while simultaneously amassing one of the largest family empires in the modern era.

Most Americans hold the billionaire philanthropists in high esteem, associating the Rockefeller name with “oil” and “capitalism.” In reality, the Rockefellers are intent on controlling nearly every major institution in America, using philanthropy as a means of increasing their influence on the world stage under the guise of advancing various social causes.

[...]

Through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities, they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment.

[...]

As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21. With the immeasurable influence that accompanies mass wealth and power, the Rockefeller empire has proven an effective puppeteer of advancing its main objective: the destruction of the fossil fuel industry to increase its clout over the energy sector.

To understand why the Rockefellers, who founded Standard Oil, would divest from the fossil fuel industry, i highly suggest watching the documentaries, How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World by James Corbett.

Video: How Big Oil Conquered The World

Video: Why Big Oil Conquered The World

There is an excellent paper titled Report From Iron Mountain which i suggest reading. While its authenticity is debatable, like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, whether it is a fiction or not is irrelevant since it presents a disturbingly accurate picture of the world we live in today and why governments, economies and societies are operated as they are.

The primary purpose of the report was to answer the question of what would happen in the absence of war. The answer included the statement that a states ability to rule over its people is directly proportionate to its war-making capability. How many of those in power do you think are willing to give up that power? Do we not have a war economy?

The "man-made global warming" nonsense was fabricated as a distraction for the masses. Those with deficient analytical abilities will never see the Big Picture which includes Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, globalization, smart cities, technocracy, trans-humanism, eugenics, and think tanks like the Club of Rome and people like Bill Gates, George Soros and the Rockefellers. When you hear world leaders talking about a "New World Order", who do you think the beneficiaries will be?

Video: UN Agenda 21 Exposed - Rosa Koire

Video: Carbon Eugenics

The solutions to the problems the world is facing, whether manufactured or genuine, are foisted upon the public under the guise of impending doom, or as an improvement in the convenience in their lives. The true reasons however are so diametrically opposed to the propaganda that they can hardly be imagined by the masses, or are dismissed out of hand as "conspiracy theories" regardless of the fact that institutions like the Club of Rome publish their motives in black and white for all to see should they care to look.

Is starvation, disease and the lack of basic resources in third world countries not solvable in a matter of a few months or years? Do we not already posses the technology to virtually eliminate our use of fossil fuels in a way the benefits the human family instead of a few elitists? Do you think it's an accident that the quality of the education system in the U.S. ranks near the lowest among developed nations? Why is life expectancy falling in the U.S.? These questions have very clear answers but those answers are not shared with the public by governments or their mouthpieces in the mainstream media. Even the majority of the alternative media gets it wrong.

Instead of addressing the welfare of the planet and realizing the potential of the human species, governments happily spend billions and trillions on war and environmentally destructive industry as dictated by their masters, collectively known as the deep state.

If governments or the hypnotized masses wanted to address a real and pressing environmental threat, they might focus instead upon the environmental impact of manufactured wars financed by the international banking cartel or radiation produced from nuclear bomb testing or catastrophic disasters resulting from nuclear power plants like Fukushima and Chernobyl. Why doesn't the media report in depth about the ongoing disaster at the Daiichi nuclear power plant and the millions of gallons of radioactive water that's been dumped in the ocean since the accident? Why aren't these topics trending on Facebook instead of useless memes like "storm Area 51"?

From an article by Professor Michel Chossudovsky titled, Global Warming and the Ozone Layer: What’s More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?:

The Impact of Radioactivity on Climate

Are increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuel the only cause of climate change and environmental degradation?

In this article, we focus briefly on the impacts on the Ozone Layer resulting from the explosion of nuclear bombs, an issue which has not been addressed by the New Green Deal, as well as radiation from nuclear power plants.

Radiation from Nuclear Power Plants (Fukushima)

The dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination.

In this regard, since 2011, amply documented, marine life as well as species loss has been affected by the release of radioactive plutonium into the Pacific Ocean following the Fukushima-Daichi disaster.

Radioactive elements have not only been detected in the food chain in Japan, radioactive rain water has been recorded in California.

Nuclear Testing and Radioactive Fallout

The testing of nuclear weapons has been ongoing throughout the post WWII era. Among the more than 2000 tests, a large number of these tests are “not underground” or “underwater”, i.e the testing in the atmosphere.

[...]

The nitric oxides produced by the weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere by as much as 30 to 70 percent. Such a depletion might produce changes in the Earth’s climate, and would allow more ultraviolet radiation from the sun through the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth, where it could produce dangerous burns and a variety of potentially dangerous ecological effects.

It has been estimated that as much as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear explosive power. [...]

The 2008 Simulation of Nuclear Conflict. Impacts on Ozone Layer

In a major 2008 study by Michael Mills et al entitled Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict (Academy of Sciences of the United States) a simulation was conducted (largely based on the concepts outlined in the TTPS 1983 study) of a nuclear conflict involving 100 Hiroshima sized bombs. The simulation confirmed that the nuclear explosions “could produce long-term damage to the ozone layer, enabling higher than “extreme” levels of ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth’s surface, (see GSN, March 16, 2010).

[...]

Those concerns have largely been excluded from the Climate Debate and the Extinction Rebellion.

The Extinction Rebellion Protest Movement has its eyes riveted on the rising emissions of Carbon Dioxide (from fossil fuel), heralded as “the most dangerous and prevalent greenhouse gas”.

All other variables are excluded. Scientific lies by omission.

Children are being exploited and turned into unwitting political whores for the uneducated masses to dote over while the Big Picture remains well outside the narrow field of view projected by our televisions and radios and governments and corporate controlled social media platforms.

Pedophrasty: "Argument involving children to prop up a rationalization and make the opponent look like an asshole, as people are defenseless and suspend all skepticism in front of suffering children: nobody has the heart to question the authenticity or source of the reporting. Often done with the aid of pictures."

Video: Top 10 Reasons Why Greta Thunberg Is a Fraud - Red Ice TV

Video: Greta "i see carbon dioxide" Thunberg without a script: stumped when asked what her message is

From an article on Vigilant Citizen, The Elite Machine Behind Greta Thunberg:

In the matter of a few months, Greta Thunberg went from a lone girl protesting in front of the Swedish parliament to an international phenomenon. Although mass media is making it seem as if this meteoric rise to prominence happened organically, this is simply not true.

Behind Greta is a major machine, one that is controlled by major international actors and backed by major funds. This PR machine has allowed Greta to make the covers of magazines, become the subject of thousands of news articles while meeting with world leaders and giving speeches at elite places such as the United Nations.

[...]

In short, Greta is the face of a major marketing scheme – a tightly coordinated international effort to sell global warming under a specific lense: Through fear, panic, and urgency.

The perfect timing between Greta’s strike and the book release was not a coincidence. And Greta’s strike certainly did not go unnoticed.

On the very same day of the first strike, a picture of Greta was published on the Facebook page of We Don’t Have Time, a “social network for climate change”. The page is managed by Ingmar Rentzhog – a specialist in financial marketing.

Rentzhog is also a chairman of the Global Utmaning Board, a think tank that “promotes sustainable development within social, economic and environmental dimensions”. The Global Utmaning Board was founded by the Swedish politician and economist Kristina Persson, who is the daughter of the billionaire politician and entrepreneur Sven O. Persson.

Backed by this machine, Greta’s story garnered intense and immediate media attention in Sweden and, soon after, around the world. After a few months of weekly strikes, Greta took a year off from school to focus solely on climate change and began a tour of European cities.

During these events, a woman was often spotted “advising” Greta: Luisa-Marie Neubauer.

Neubauer is a member of ONE Campaign, an organization managed by Bill Gates and Bono, which is heavily funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Through these powerful connections, Greta skyrocketed on the world stage. She gave speeches at Ted X talks, the European Parliament, the United Nations and she was even nominated for a Nobel Prize. She also met world leaders and celebrities across the world, including the Pope.

[...]

Although Greta might be genuinely concerned about climate change, those behind her have a much darker agenda: To create a generation of children riddled with anxiety and depression, giving the elite carte blanche for drastic measures, ranging from tax hikes to loss of personal liberty. And let’s not forget the main goal of it all (which is also the main goal of the elite organizations behind Greta): The creation of a single world government, ruled by the world elite.

From an article on the Collective Evolution website, Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make a Killing off It:

In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises, we’ve seen it over and over again with war.

"What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

"Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?

"There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?” – Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa

Exploiting uneducated, indoctrinated and, in the case of 16 year old Greta Thunberg, a mentally ill, co-opted actress born into a family of actors and actresses, is not only patently unethical, it is pure psychological warfare designed specifically to tug on the heart strings of the gullible masses and politicians who, even if bright enough to question such lunacy, are not going to be the ones opening themselves up to attack by challenging the claims of a passionate child. It is child abuse. This kind of deceitful and despicable propaganda utilizes animals to the same effect.

Video: Won't Someone Think of the Polar Bears?!? - Corbett Report

There are 31,000+ actual scientists with backgrounds and/or interests in climatology that have signed the following petition on the Global Warming Petition Project website. Why are they ignored?

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

I would encourage readers to review the Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research on the Global Warming Petition Project website.

More recently, 500 scientists have written to the UN to tell the body that "there is no climate emergency".

A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

If you want to understand why the data that the IPCC and other corporate and government funded institutions uses is heavily biased and outright wrong, visit the Real Climate Science and The Corbett Report websites.

In the following video, Tony Heller of Real Climate Science breaks down how climate data has been manipulated in order to fit a predetermined result.

Video: Data Tampering Complete : Mission Accomplished!

The latest version of NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network, is the crowning achievement of a decades long effort to rewrite Earth's history and hide the heat of the past.

"Man-made global warming" is a huge cash cow for the people pushing it. From the article, Al Gore Made Nearly $200 Million from the Global Warming Scam -- Likely to Become the World's First 'Carbon Billionaire':

Ten years after the release of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, none of the film's dire climate change predictions have come to pass.

However, in the decade since the documentary was produced, its creator has raked in millions of dollars from the entire "global warming" scam, and is now poised to become "our first carbon billionaire."

In the 2006 film, Gore made a number of wild claims regarding what we could expect to see happening over the next few years due to global warming, but virtually all of his alarmist prognostications have turned out to be false.

[...]

"Gore's wealth went from $700,000 in 2000 to an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015 thanks to his environmentalist activism. Gore and the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management made nearly $218 million in profits between 2008 and 2011 from a carbon trading company they co-founded. By 2008, Gore was able to put a whopping $35 million into hedge funds and other investments."

Yes, we are facing serious environmental problems and yes, these problems must be addressed sooner rather than later, but the think tanks and governments and billionaires that are founding, funding and pushing many of the the "solutions" are not serious people and are not interested in solving them. They have other plans. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it".

Video: George Carlin - The big club

"Man-made global warming" is a politicized, fictionalized and monetized side show tossed into the invisibly barred cages for the masses to debate. It keeps them occupied while the real agendas are played out unnoticed except by those few who are willing research beyond the clickbait headlines and who are endowed with an attention span which exceeds that of a goldfish.

Article: Green Policy Expert Admits: 'Sorry, But I Cried Wolf on Climate Change' - 21st Century Wire

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

[...]

Here are some facts few people know:

  • Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
  • The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
  • Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
  • Fires have declined 25 per cent around the world since 2003
  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
  • Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s
  • The Netherlands became rich, not poor, while adapting to life below sea level
  • We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels, and
  • Preventing future pandemics requires more, not less, “industrial” agriculture.

Article: U.N. Warns of Devastating Environmental Side Effects of Electric Car Boom

While the shift to electric cars reflects ongoing efforts to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels, the UN warns that the raw materials used to produce electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries and their extraction and refinement pose a serious threat to the environment.

Article: Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling

In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.

Article: Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed. Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong. This was certainly the case with the alarmist predictions of the 1960s and ’70s that man’s activities on Earth were causing a catastrophic cooling trend that would bring on another ice age. And it is also the case with the more recent claims about catastrophic global warming.

Video: Climate Hustle

Scorching temperatures. Melting ice caps. Killer hurricanes and tornadoes. Disappearing polar bears.

The end of civilization as we know it!

Are emissions from our cars, factories, and farms causing catastrophic climate change? Is there a genuine scientific consensus? Or is man-made “global warming” an overheated environmental con job being used to push for increased government regulations and a new “Green” energy agenda?

CLIMATE HUSTLE, reveals the history of climate scares including global cooling, debunks outrageous claims about temperatures, extreme weather, and the so-called “consensus;” exposes the increasingly shrill calls to “act immediately before it’s too late,” and in perhaps the film’s most important section, profiles key scientists who used to believe in climate alarm but have since converted to skepticism.

Video: An Inconsistent Truth (2012)

Interviewing multiple scientists on climate change, not only does this film cover the science and the facts, it explores the culture of the global warming movement and its motivation, and who stands to make millions.

Video: How Green Finance is Monopolizing the Planet with Whitney Webb

Whitney Webb returns to the program to discuss her recent work on the "green" transformation of the global financial system. From NACs to GFANZ, Webb and Corbett break down the latest attempt to monopolize the world's natural resources and how this financial scam represents the next step along the path to the Great Reset, Agenda 2030 and the 4th Industrial Revolution.

Video: Arctic Report Card

Further reading:

Videos:

Climate Disruption: It’s Not Due to CO2 - Global Research

Climate Disruption: It's Not Due to CO2 - Global Research

The IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, the Rockefellers, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. And they found, I think it was an analysis by William Engdahl, who said they found or invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined which is humanity itself.

 

The climate non-crisis crisis

The catalyst for this post was the article, The 97% consensus on global warming on Skeptical Science.

We are told that human produced greenhouse gasses will inevitably lead to climate catastrophe; that we are doomed unless change our ways immediately; that there is a consensus among the worlds climate scientists.

Except it's all bullshit. Or at least much of it is.

As anyone who has studied government and politics knows, there is almost always a hidden agenda behind the rhetoric and fear is often the emotion that is played upon in order to achieve the goal. It's the ol' 'problem reaction solution' tactic that is employed again and again where the problem is invented, the reaction is anticipated, and the solution was contrived long before the problem was. The so-called war on terror is an excellent example.

As of this writing, 31,487 scientists in the U.S. have signed the following petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

James Corbett has done much research into the global warming/climate change subject and in his work you will find a plethora of resources from which he has derived his opinions and conclusions. Much of his work on the subject can be found on his website, The Corbett Report. Here are a few examples:

10 Climate Myths Debunked (in 60 seconds!)

Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink

Geoengineering: The real climate change threat

Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics

Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change

Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

The Global Warming Pause Explained

Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed

Why Would People Lie About Climate Change? – Questions For Corbett #033

Won’t Someone Think of the Polar Bears?!?

BREAKING: MAINSTREAM MEDIA LINKS ANTIDEPRESSANTS TO MASS SHOOTINGS!

Just kidding.

Go ahead and call me a sensationalist clickbait artist if you wish, but i chose the title because there seems to be an obvious link between SSRI drugs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and mass shootings. As a matter of fact, SSRI drugs (aka antidepressants) have been the common thread in nearly every mass shooting since and including Columbine. One of the very few exceptions has been the Paddock-Vegas shooting where Stephen Paddock had been prescribed Valium (diazepam) which is not an SSRI drug, but which shares many of the same side effects.

In the interest of not biting the hand that feeds you, the mainstream media, which receives a massive amount of money from the pharmaceutical industry, will not properly investigate the obvious link between SSRI drugs and ultra-violent outbursts such as mass shootings.

As of 2014 the number of Americans on SSRI drugs was approximately 1 in 8 and that number is growing rapidly since doctors are pushing these immensely dangerous drugs like candy to treat a variety of issues that have little or nothing to do with depression.

You can read more about the Paddock-Vegas shooting in the article, Las Vegas Shooting 1-Oct-2017 – An acoustic analysis and personal impressions, here on 12bytes.org.

The real reason for this post is this:

Eli Lilly Paid Mass Shooting Victims Hush Money in Prozac Lawsuit - AHRP

The "norm and practice" of Pharmaceutical companies is to vehemently deny the most serious adverse side effects of their products. This industry’s success in concealing the truth about the serious harm caused by their drugs and vaccines has been aided and abetted by government officials in the FDA and the CDC.

In the case of Prozac, and the other drugs in the SSRI antidepressant family of drugs, the worst adverse effects include uncharacteristic violent outbursts in the form of suicide and homicide — including mass shooting sprees. Manufacturers of these drugs have committed multiple serious crimes to cover-up the deadly side-effects of these drugs.

Please click the headline to read the rest.

Possible problems with the UAF WTC 7 collapse study

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) commissioned the Institute of Northern Engineering at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF), to preform a study in order to determine the real reason for the global collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 11 September, 2001. The four year study was completed in December of 2019 at a cost of $316,153. AE911 didn't agree with the findings of the NIST study which concluded that the collapse of building 7 was due primarily to fire and thermal expansion of key structural steel beams.

During the terrorist attack upon the United States on 9/11, brought to us with the assistance of the Israeli Mossad, the Saudis, the CIA and other actors, a plane was flown into each of the iconic twin towers in Manhattan, both of which collapsed shortly thereafter. Many people are not aware however that a third building, World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7), also collapsed that day and did so in a way that appeared virtually identical to a controlled demolition, both to the untrained eye and demolition experts alike.

Video title: (HD) Building 7 Collapse / WTC7 Collapse / World Trade Center Building 7

Anyone who has investigated the events of 9/11 beyond the untenable conspiracy theory proposed by the U.S. government and its mainstream media mouthpieces, knows very well that the fairy tails disseminated by these criminally corrupt institutions are largely garbage, plain and simple, and this has prompted a plethora of internet sleuths, collectively known as the 9/11 truth movement, to perform their own investigation. Unfortunately many internet researchers suffer from handicapped analytical abilities and confirmation bias however. While many are intimately aware that it is often bullshit that spills out whenever the mainstream media or the government opens its mouth, they make the mistake of assuming that everything the government and media says is a lie.

Such lies, disinformation and misinformation rightfully prompt the curious to look elsewhere for the truth, which is understandable and commendable, except they too often look to the wrong places and people, such as Alex Jones, Judy Wood, Albert Stubblebine, Jesse Ventura and the Loose Change loonies, and then spread this sensationalist, untenable crap all over social media without ever bothering to vet it. Their cognitive bias seems to be largely based on the principle that as long as the information contradicts the official narrative, then it is more likely to be factual and therefore no further investigative effort need be expended. Suddenly the ludicrous becomes evidence and proof in their minds as well as the minds of their followers and this has crippled the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement in the eyes of much of the public.

For example, Dr. Judy Wood tells us that the planes the world and first-hand witnesses saw, heard, felt and tracked flying into the twin towers, and the parts thereof that were recovered, didn't exist at all and that it was a "Hutchison effect" energy space beam weapon that "vaporized" the buildings.

Alex "Bullhorn" Jones, the fear-mongering Zionist bullshit artist he is, readily blasts over the airwaves any ridiculous nonsense that entertains his cult-like audience as long as it sells more of whatever it is he's selling and it generates more clicks and "likes". Israel's involvement in the attack is never seriously considered. Promoting the nonsense that nobody died at Sandy Hook is quality investigative journalism in his warped mind, but discussing the well documented Israeli/Mossad connection to the 9/11 attacks is taboo. Alex Jones is largely responsible for the damage done to serious 9/11 research, but he isn't the only one.

Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas and Matthew Brown, the four dingbats who produced the fact deficient Loose Change series of cartoons on the subject at hand which they call documentaries, are also responsible. These videos have been viewed by many millions of people. Unfortunately for the film makers, many of the most crucial points they made regarding 9/11 have been proven to be false by serious researchers whose content is far less popular and so the damage these clowns have done remains.

Jim "crisis actor" Fetzer, the ego-laden PhD possessing moron who was sued by the families of the Sandy Hook mass shooting because he insists the event was staged by crises actors and therefore "nobody died at Sandy Hook", also tells us that the planes that hit the towers were actually holograms and that mini-nukes were used to "vaporize" the core steel framing.

There is no shortage of lunatics proposing fantasies regarding the attacks, including Gorden Duff, the senior editor of Veterans Today, Jesse Ventura, Abby Martin, and even James Corbett to an extent, a guy i have a great deal of respect for but who doesn't always get it right (none of us do).

Much of the information and evidence provided by those mentioned is easily debunked and tossed in the stupid bin where it belongs, however organizations like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) are viewed by the public as deserving of more credibility because they are professionals in structural engineering. The problem is that AE911, headed by architect Richard Gage, has made mammoth blunders that seriously jeopardize that credibility.

One of these blunders occurred when Gage attached himself to the "no planers" crowd who insist that a plane could not have caused the damage inflicted upon the Pentagon, one reason being that it could not have have penetrated six reinforced concrete walls of the rings and leave a hole on the other side. Gage promoted this theory for years. The problem is that Gage, an architect of some 30 years, apparently never bothered to look at the architecture of the building. Had he done so he might have realized that the section of ground floor where the plane penetrated had two exterior walls, not six.

The ringed portion of the Pentagon sits on top of the ground floor, labeled as "general offices" in the image below.

Pentagon cross section drawing

The point is that no one is infallible, regardless of their field of study field, not even veteran professionals with college degrees. No researcher should ever blindly depend on information from a sole source without vetting it regardless of the source. That Richard Gage promoted such a grossly incorrect theory for years is nearly beyond comprehension. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that there were lots of plane parts recovered from both inside and outside of the Pentagon and that the DNA for nearly every passenger was accounted for and the location of their remains mapped.

Recovered body locations, Pentagon, 9/11

The obvious nail in the coffin in the "no plane" theory doesn't require anything as complex as analyzing debris and documents and DNA and evidentiary chains of custody however. The simple fact is that many eye witnesses saw a plane flying very low and crashing into, or heading toward the Pentagon, and/or heard the explosion and/or saw the smoke rising and none of these witnesses saw the plane fly away. This however doesn't dissuade a large segment of the 9/11 truth movement who continue to ignore such blatantly obvious facts by simply shifting the goal post every time one of their claims is debunked. "A plane can't fit in a 30 ft. hole!" It didn't, it fit in a 75 ft. hole. "But there were no plane parts found!" But there were and here's the photographs. "But there were no bodies!" And on and on and on.

There are key facts that a portion of the 9/11 truther community go to extremes to ignore because they destroy their narrative. For example, the morons that made the Loose Change videos correctly point out that a 757 could not have fit through the 30 ft. hole in the Pentagon. This of course is true, but what they hide from their audience is the fact that the hole shown in their videos was a hole in the second floor of the building, not the approximately 75 foot hole in first floor where the bulk of the plane impacted.

Yes, there are potential problems with some of the Pentagon witnesses and yes, there are arguments regarding the precise flight path of Flight 77, and yes, we know for a fact that the government and mainstream media lie, but this does not mean that every aspect of the official story is always fabricated.

Until one can explain why Flight 77 headed toward the Pentagon and never went further, it is only logical (and sane) to conclude that it struck the building, the one with the huge 75+ ft. hole in it with smoke billowing out of it. Any alternative explanation that fails to account for this simple fact is not worth considering.

This brings us to WTC 7 and its collapse. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tells us that the global and nearly symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center building 7 was due largely to fire and thermal expansion, a new phenomena apparently. NIST's conclusion is admittedly easy to dismiss by virtually anyone who has seen what a controlled demolition looks like, but watching a video isn't proof that the building was brought down by intentional demolition, nor does it make one a demolition expert.

Many of the architects and engineers who have stated that the collapse of WTC 7 looks like, or was in fact a controlled demolition, did so without any previous knowledge of the building's collapse and immediately after having been shown a video of the collapse. In other words their reaction was impulsive. They had not yet read the NIST report nor had they any time to contemplate other possible scenarios before their opinions were solicited and plastered all over the web. Some of these architects had later changed their opinion but their names remained on the AE911 roster.

Again, we know there's serious problems with the official story. We know Larry Silverstein said "pull it". We know that several mainstream media outlets announced that WTC 7 collapsed before it actually collapsed. We know about the testimony of Barry Jennings. We know who the tenants of the building were. We have a good idea of what a controlled demolition looks like. In all this, there is certainly evidence to suggest that the collapse of building 7 was not simply due to fire and thermal expansion as NIST posits, but the misconception regarding the extent of the fire is where the embarrassment begins for the authors of the University of Alaska study.

As those who produced Loose Change did with the Pentagon, those promoting the demolition hypothesis for WTC 7 are also hiding and/or ignoring crucial evidence. Anyone who researches building 7 will undoubtedly come across many claims that the fires in the building were small and isolated and therefore could not have led to its collapse, however this claim is absurd.

When the twins fell, approximately 343 firefighters died as a result, leaving far fewer to combat other fires. Furthermore, there was a massive area of damage and chaos for emergency personnel to deal with and limited resources available with which to do so, including decreased or no water pressure in the vicinity of building 7 as a result of a fractured main. As such, the remaining firefighters never made a serious attempt, if any at all, to extinguish the blazes that raged throughout the building much of the day.

The fires which ignited as a result of debris from the north tower striking and severely damaging building 7, had been burning unabated for roughly eight hours prior to its collapse and were far more extensive than those promoting the demolition theory are willing to admit. As evidence to support their claims of small, isolated fires, they show us photographs of the north side of the structure, the side opposite of where the north tower (WTC 1) struck the building and opposite of where the fires started. Following is the south side of building 7, and no, this is not dust from the collapse of the twins.

WTC 7 fires, 9/11

Video title: 9/11 World Trade Center WTC 7 South Side Fires

Video title: WTC part1 clip26

A few more images are available on the 911 Myths website.

Inexplicably, the south side images are also absent from the UAF study which states that they ignored fire above floor 13. The report shows only the north side of building 7 and they downplay the extent and impact of the fires. The report states the following:

Furthermore, the probability that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 at the upper floors was caused by fires is virtually zero, since there were no documented fires above Floor 30, and the fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were of relatively short duration.

The above statement is false. In the following video smoke can be seen pouring from the upper floors of this 47 story building and what may be the light of a fire can be seen from the window of the second floor from the top. Several other bright areas which seem to be fires can be seen in this vicinity also.

Video title: WTC 7 part1 clip48

The UAF study concludes that the hypothesis presented by NIST and other studies is not possible:

Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse.

The problem with that statement is that the core columns did not fail simultaneously. Watching the video that the UAF used in their study, it can be seen that the left side of the penthouse on top of building 7 is the first part to collapse. Only after its collapse into the lower part of the structure does the rest of the penthouse collapse, followed by the remainder of the building.

Video title: Figure 4.24a Video of WTC 7 Collapse, Perspective 1 — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report

Following is an enhanced version of the same video which makes it easier to see where windows are breaking as a probable result of the core columns collapsing.

Video title: Steven Bikofsky's WTC7 9/11 Footage (Enhanced Video/Audio & Doubled FPS)

Since the left/east side of the penthouse collapses first in the video, it would seem that the core columns under this section of the penthouse have given way while the columns supporting the remainder of the penthouse are still intact.

After the east side of the penthouse collapses there is a noticeable delay followed by the collapse of the remainder of it which indicates that the rest of the core columns have failed. The expelling of debris through the windows can be seen on the right/west side of the building at this time. While a delay during the collapse is not entirely inconsistent with a controlled demolition, i believe it constitutes a valid opposing argument.

The explanation given in the study for the delay between the collapsing of the sections of the penthouse, while still allowing for a near simultaneous collapse of all core columns, is that the east side of the penthouse fell into the building and then stopped falling as shown in the model labeled figure 42b.

Video title: Figure 4.24b Near-Simultaneous Failure of All Columns Persp. 2 — UAF WTC 7 Draft Report

The problem with this hypothesis is that their model seems to contradict what we actually see in the earlier video where a pattern of debris shooting out of the windows below the eastern part of the penthouse can be seen cascading down the building well below where it stops falling in their model. This expelling of debris can clearly be seen in the first video in this article, though it focuses on building 7 only after the penthouse collapse has initiated.

What prompted this article was a video in which Ryan Dawson of ANC Report interviewed Mick West who, although not an architect or engineer, has an interesting take on the University of Alaska study.

Video title: New WTC 7 Alaska study Debunked

In this next video, Mick West interviews engineer Donald Friedman.

Video title: TFTRH #21 Donald Friedman - After 9-11: An Engineer’s Work at the World Trade Center

While working in New York, i had access to a veteran FDNY fireman who had been in the immediate vicinity of WTC 7 prior to its collapse. When i questioned him about the intensity of the fires in building 7, without hesitation he stated that the fire was indeed extensive and that he was surprised that it had not collapsed sooner.

To propose that the fires raging in WTC 7 for approximately eight hours could not have had an impact on its collapse is wilful ignorance to an extreme in my opinion. This is not science, nor even serious research, and it this kind of nonsense that has, and continues to infect and discredit real 9/11 researchers. This is not to say that fire and thermal expansion of the steel beams was in fact the cause of the collapse of the building as NIST proposes, but evidence should never be ignored simply because it contradicts a preferred conclusion.

At this time i don't have a hard opinion regarding the cause of the collapse of WTC 7. There is indeed evidence to suggest that its collapse was the result of a controlled demolition and some of that evidence is difficult to dismiss. On the other hand, there is also evidence in the form of three studies to suggest that fire was the catalyst for the collapse, plus testimony from first responders, including what was stated to me personally by an FDNY fireman near building 7 prior to its collapse. The UAF study seems to have some serious problems, particularly with regard to the extent of the fires and the floors on which fires were located and therefore this evidence was ignored. This is not science!

The most obvious challenge to the demolition theory is the question of how possibly hundreds of explosive charges and detonators, along with their wiring, could have withstood an extensive eight hour fire and remain intact until someone decided to push the big red button, but nevertheless i cannot discount it with any authority.