Manmade warming hypothesis? What’s a hypothesis?

Manmade warming hypothesis? What’s a hypothesis?

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2015

“I used to think people accepted manmade warming because they robotically equated it with ‘helping the planet’, ‘saving the planet’, and ‘hating the corporations’. Then I thought, these equations are intentionally being piped into people’s minds as a form of programming. Then I thought, most people can no longer even recognize a line of reasoning about manmade warming or any other subject. Then I thought, all these things are happening at the same time.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

These days, what passes for logic is the effort to associate one idea with another favored idea. Then the first idea is accepted as fact.

If the first idea were “all Martians wear tuxedos,” and people associated that with “juicy burgers are delicious,” they would conclude that Martians, without doubt, all wear tuxes.

Associating with one idea with another is also, of course, a propaganda/advertising device.

Apparently, schools no longer teach students what a scientific hypothesis is.

If they do, those students disappear and are never heard from again.

First of all, a hypothesis is a provisional statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments.

Confirmation, in this case, means making a correct prediction. Not just any prediction, but a useful one.

Let’s start with a trivial hypothesis:

“If it snows, there are clouds.”

We should be able to use that hypothesis to predict what we’ll see in the sky whenever it’s snowing. Clouds. So we record numerous instances of snow and we find that, yes, there are clouds in the sky every time. We were able to predict clouds.

Is that a useful prediction? This is a matter of opinion. Most people would say no.

Here is another example of a hypothesis.

“If a patient has fungal infection X, he will develop a fever.”

We examine 5000 people and establish that they have fungal infection X. We predict they will all have fevers. We test them, and they do have fevers.

We used our hypothesis to make a prediction, and we were correct. Was the prediction useful? Some people would probably say yes.

Let’s go one step further. The factual truth or falsity of a hypothesis is beside the point. Any hypothesis is acceptable, IF we can deploy it to make a useful prediction.

We could assert, for instance, that the moon is made of green cheese. From that starting point, if we could go on to make a useful prediction that we could then confirm by observation, the “green cheese” hypothesis would be acceptable.

Suppose, against all odds, conventionally speaking, we begin with this hypothesis: the space of the entire universe is filled with an aether.

And suppose we can describe this aether well enough to make a prediction about the positions of two previously unseen black holes. We then discover that, yes, these holes are exactly where we said they’d be.

The aether hypothesis would be acceptable. It’s useful.

And…the question of whether the aether actually exists? Irrelevant.

Something like this occurs in modern physics. These two hypotheses sit side by side: the basic composition of matter is particles; the basic composition is waves. Both hypotheses allow useful (and different) predictions. Therefore, both are accepted, even though they contradict each other.

Now, take this hypothesis: The Earth has become warmer by X degrees over the past 1000 years.

Putting all the chatter aside, have scientists deployed this hypothesis to make accurate, specific, and useful predictions about warming?

So far, the answer is no.

That eliminates, for the time being, the acceptance of the warming hypothesis. Many predictions have been made, many alarm bells have been rung, many dire warnings have been issued, many threats have been launched…but no correct and useful predictions.

The Matrix Revealed

However, scientists will say their (rejected) hypothesis is also a statement of fact. That is, it is a summary derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and in the past, on land, sea, and air.

Not only that, investigation also reveals humans have directly and significantly contributed to the recent warming trend.

At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and predicting, and moving to a question of fact, a debate about the accuracy of all those temperature measurements and the causes creating the observed changes.

Among scientists, there is a great deal of disagreement about the accuracy of the measurements. Any fair examination of studies and their critics will reveal that.

In this regard, the science is not settled. Far from it.

So: useless as a hypothesis, the assertion of manmade warming, as fact, is wide open to debate. To say the least.

Students, starting at, say, the age of 12, should be taught basic facts about hypotheses, how they function in science, and on what basis they should be accepted or rejected.

Then we would have far less ignorance and chaotic “debate” and partisan screaming about science.

Except for the scientists themselves, of course—those who are on someone’s payroll and are expected to falsify everything they touch on behalf of that special interest.

An educated public would go a long way toward laughing those professional liars out of court.

Which is why universities (who sell themselves to those liars’ bosses) don’t teach logic or the basic structure of science.

The status of a hypothesis becomes a radically different proposition in the hands of someone who understands how a hypothesis works, when it should be accepted or rejected, and therefore how much irrelevant noise, fabrication, and political nonsense are brought to the table by people with devious motives.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

35 comments on “Manmade warming hypothesis? What’s a hypothesis?

  1. Dan Quixoté says:

    Much agreed – anthropogenic global warming is a proposed hypothesis that has yet to be confirmed by any predicted outcomes.

    Temperature levels are flat. But CO2 levels are going up. 400 ppm finally, and it’s wonderful. Everything is growing so much better. More food for the people and the critters. Only downside is the weeds are growing faster, although a lot of them are edible, so not a problem for a forager.

    I grew up in a rural farm town. For obvious reasons, one of our favorite book series was McBroom’s Wonderful One-Acre Farm, humorous tall tales about a family who could grow things miraculously because their little plot of land had been something of a fish graveyard of an extinct lake, so it was nitrogen-rich. But now it’s coming true, after a fashion. This airborne fertilizer blesses everybody. A couple of thoughts –

    Science, logic and reason tell us that all the hydrocarbon content of fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere. Fossil fuel is ancient atmospheric CO2, H2O, and solar photons, prepped for long term storage, kept for future use in earth’s root cellar. So what’s the hubbub about releasing back into the system that which was taken out and put into storage? Atmospheric CO2 was once 7000ppm, the earth was only a few degrees warmer then (about 4), and the place was a lush paradise.

    I find it ironic that not only are the weather patterns changed to disprove every AGW model predictions, to point them all our as liars, but further that as the elites openly speak and write (and chisel?) about depopulating humans, humanity’s time releasing of CO2 is making the world more fertile, more able to feed the people.

    I do believe God loves his children and provides for them, even if they don’t love him back.

    • MargfromTassie says:

      Is this the same Creator God who designed most female animals to deliver offspring in great pain, who allows women to conceive easily ( including very poor women) and add to the many hungry children of the world, who designed many animals to eat others alive, who allows children to be born with serious disabilities ( Congenital twins etc), who allows natural disasters like earthquakes etc, etc?? He doesn’t seem very loving or compassionate to me….

      • That’s because “God” is not the one who created these famines and the hordes of “poor”, a few men’s greed did!!!

        So how about we quit blaming God, or any other “outside influences” in place of blaming the REAL culprits: Greed, averice, and narcissism on the part of the privileged few?

    • Patricia Tursi says:

      Plants have a window of temperature which allows them optimal and healthy growth and just as too much cold can affect growth, so can too hot. I am not defending anthropological explanations for global warming. I do believe that we are way overdue for cooling, but the other planets in our solar system are reportedly heating up also…is this due to anthropogenic causes on the other planets? My, what news…humans on other planets. The balance that we had on earth was beautiful. We didn’t appreciate it. But there is no doubt in my mind that the fascist controllers are planning mass genocide as suggested in the Georgia Guidestones and use Global Warming to tax us all before they do us in.

  2. jruss45 says:

    The global warming cycles on Earth match the global warming cycles on Mars which match the warming and cooling cycles of our Sun. Studying old records it appears that global warming on Earth is followed by warming of our oceans which then release large amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. Warm sparking water and it to will release CO2. There is much more CO2 in our oceans then in our air. Other major sources of CO2 include volcanoes, large forest fires, insect respiration, animal respiration including man. Also significant is the release of CO2 from farmland sprayed with glyphosate that causes the soil to die. When I moved to San Diego County many years ago, growers would burn diesel fuel to warm greenhouses and provide CO2 to cause flowers to bloom before valentines day.

  3. From Québec says:

    The Global Warming hoax is about creating Carbon taxes to fund the NWO.

  4. ozziethinker says:

    I believe eminent “scientist”, Richard Dawkins, prefers to draft final conclusions before data collection and analysis begins. According to this “logic”, conclusive science is presented a much more “structured” path – a pre-empted map accordant with reason.

    Another version of this style of false reasoning is, “(based on the “assumption”) because it is known Hitler wore red socks, all those that wear red socks must be NAZI agents”.


  5. Ram Ayana says:

    No correct and useful predictions? Only if you’ve paid no attention to three decades of climate science! For instance, those warning us about global warming successfully predicted today’s increasing wind speeds, increasing cyclonic (hurricane) activity, global ocean and atmospheric temperature increases and increased volatility and unpredictability in all the world’s weather systems due to injections of large amounts of energy into the biosphere by human activity – ie fossil fool’s pollution. How about sea level rises – long predicted by global warming proponents. Ask the sinking islanders of the Pacific and those who are losing their land andhouses on our coasts! Ask those dying in the new category superstorms!
    Only the scientifically illiterati who fell for the lies of Big Oil and Big Coal can’t see the bleeding obvious, and most of their crapola seems to emanate from the (surprise surprise) bggest polluter – the good ol’ boys’ US of A.
    I’m surprised at you, John. You’re usually on the side of common sense, not a minion of the lunar right. Why feed the beast? I guess you must be surrounded by morons over there in the States. A pity.
    Only those who’ve failed to follow the detailed scientific studies relating to this will have failed to realise that anthopogenic global warming is a fact, not a theory. (Certainly, CO2 is good for plants – but try breathing it for a few minutes and see what happens. Only the blind would see nothing wrong with DOUBLING the level of an important gas in the atmosphere in only a couple of centuries – as we undoubtedly have – and this is NOT due to natural sources; isotopic examinations reveal that the increased CO2 is from human sources, not, for instance, from volcanism).
    Now it may well be true that solar activity is the main driver of Earth’s climate. It may even be true that the Sun is cooling and we may be in a full blown ice age in less than 50 years. But that doesn’t mean we’re not polluting the planet – and btw, the fact that no-one can safeky eat seafood due to mercury contamination is mainly due to the mercury dumped in the oceans by burning coal. CO2 is justv the canary in the coal mine that’s telling us even WORSE things are happening, thanks to the fossil fool in dust realists.
    Please join the correct team – not politically correct, but FACTUALLY correct.

    • omanuel says:

      100% of the 97% Consensus Science community refuse to consider or discuss overwhelming experimental evidence Earth’s climate is controlled by the Sun: The pulsar remains of the supernova that birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago.

      “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy(submitted 1 Sept 2014) or

      “Solar Energy for school teachers”

      • Ram Ayana says:

        Solar activity has been DECLININg for many years, and yet Earths oceanic and atmospheric temperatures continue to rise; no doubt the Sun is the main driver of Earth’s climate, but it’s certainly not the ONLY one – and certainly not the reason temperatures are rising now!
        The continual search for non-anthropogenic causes is stymied at every turn. Temperatures are rising and the oceans are becoming more acidic, as THOUSANDS of separate studies conducted by researchers in many divergent fields demonstrates. Human pollution is certainly the prime suspect, and we don’t seem to be hearing of any other credible sources being raised in these comments.
        We may enter an Ice Age in another generation, but the fact is that many so-called activists have been bamboozled by multimillion dollar disinformation campaigns operated by ‘think tanks’ funded by the big polluters. Denying the existence and effects of that pollution is not activism, or even an example of common sense. Many choose to ignore the fact that their own personal lifestyles are to blame and seek scapegoats rather than downsize their SUVs
        Journalists need to ask THE relevant question, even if they’re not up to examining thre science – ‘cui bono’ or ‘WHO PROFITS?’
        Could it be those funding the denial campaigns? Please wake up, activists. We need you.

    • omanuel says:

      Correct and useful predictions:

      1. When cosmic rays penetrate air, the ions produced cause nucleation of water vapor into droplets that cause rain.

      2. The Sun’s pulsar core produces cosmic rays.

      3. When solar activity is low, the flux of cosmic striking Earth’s atmosphere is high, like right now when the mean flux is higher than anytime since 1958.

    • You have fallen for the bureaucratic garbage and PSEUDO-SCIENCE!

      I’ll pray for your deliverance.

      @ 400 ppm, CO2-levels are still far from optimal for our green plants. Plus, the facts be as they may, a rise in CO2-levels has been scientifically found (through many ice-core samples, tree-ring data, and other geologic strata) to be lagging any warming period by almost 800 years. In other words, the reality is the other way around: Warming always precedes CO2 increases, by about 800 or so years.

      Nice try!

      • Ram Ayana says:

        Nice try, but prayer and belief are the problems, not solutions; belief blinds one to the vast plethora of available facts, narrowing one’s perspective to a pinpoint. Actually, that so-called lag was discredited by further research around 3 years ago; the opposite is true. And to find a time when CO2 levels have been this high you have to look at an era BEFORE HUMANS EXISTED. Plants have grown quite well without anthropogenic carbon for quite some time, thanks. We can do without such unplanned geoengineering.

        • They ARE “first-steps” for some, and sometimes only mere time-wasters for others.

          BTW: With CO2-levels hanging around 350 ppm, this day, are actually STARVATION-LEVELS for our green plants.

          Back around 800-1000 CE,

          CO2-levels were more around about 1500 ppm. – This just also happen to be about the time that agriculture was producing at its highest yields for humanity, that is – until the happening of the “mini-Ice Age” close to about 1000 CE.

          So yeah,

          I DO, in fact know EXACTLY what I am talking about! ! !

          This AGW – B—S— is nothing more than excuses for more political control over every aspect of humanity (like as if they were the “gods” of humanity), and more excuse to bilk all of us out of BILLIONS in whatever currency we trade in – from us!


          Our plants need MORE CO2 – because that is the main means by which they produce the necessary energy to grow and to heal themselves! – THAT does NOT all come from the soil!!! – Just like your own body needs the sugars and carbohydrates as fuel for energy – for growth, healing, and general well-being.


          I will keep PRAYING – AND . . . – keep teaching!

          If you wish to continue believing in a politically-motivated, well-conceived, but self-destructive lie – – that is YOUR business! – The lives and livelihood of the rest of us – is OURS, and ours alone!

    • jacobite2015 says:

      So which hypothesis is correct – is the sun cooling or is it getting hotter? Is the earth facing an ice age or an overheated planet with a Venus’s like atmosphere? Should I stay or should I go? Lol.

      I’ve heard climate scientists passionately, emotionally, compellingly, etc., argue ad nauseam both sides of the issue. Perhaps, Jon’s piece is correct – the “science” is unsettled.

    • @Margie
      Were is tassie Margie…
      Yeah you missed it dear, completely…right over your head like a lead balloon.

      • MargfromTassie says:

        Tasmania is the southern island state of Australia.
        Michael, of course the sun, in its many phases of solar activity, has an effect on the Earth’s climate, just as the moon affects Earth’s tides.
        Climate change on Earth has always happened in the past.
        The argument is that the current increased (undisputed) rate of co2 in the atmosphere precisely parallels the age of industrialisation and mass clearing of forests etc.
        Natural factors such as sun activity, volcanoes etc may be contributing to climate change as they have always done, but this is being greatly accelerated by human factors.
        Do you honestly think that the huge swathes of pollution across areas of the industrialised world in the 20th century, ( including Asia today) motor vehicle and other emissions etc would not have caused things like acid rain, increased melt rate of ice, effects on the jet streams etc? – especially when combined with other co2 increases such as mass removal of age old forests etc. In the central midland area of Tasmania, for example, land clearing of most trees and vegetation in the 1900’s caused the drying out of soil and subsequent drought conditions which persist to this day….

        • Mass deforestation, smog, and pollution and toxic waste from oil is one thing. The toxic chemicals that are spread on farmland is bad. It is not good. Air pollution is not good on many levels…health…Asthma, and respiratory. Degradation of environments…
          But humans in their activities causing global warming is another thing.
          A global mind control program into what?
          More millions for the likes of the IPCC Science consensus and Corporatized Science cronism.
          CO2 is evidence only of fuel consumption and it can be identified through its isotopes to find out were exactly it came from, whither that be gasoline, oil or coal, natural gas or wood burning. Or for that matter a human breath. What is important is that it will gives grounds for new carbon taxes. Do you wish to be taxed for breathing out the evil co2.
          There will be a tax on breathing…and you heard it from me. And you helped bring it in.
          This hoax become draconian laws that will eventually push the lower economic bracket out of fuel consumption, driving, warming their homes, and electricity. It will become too expensive for them. Ya see the war is about resources, and the rich are worried they are running out…they are running out.
          The rich can always afford it. They always have. The corporation can always afford it.
          It will be built into the price of doing business.
          But the real price ; pollution, smog, toxic waste will be ignored. Totally ignored, and this is what is wanted, distraction from the real.
          But you and I won’t be able to afford a carbon ticket. Only the coporation or the rich. That the whole point of this pumped up hoax Marg. CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. There is no AGW. We are cooling.
          There is only well managed geo-engineering, SRM. Population management.

          …’Operation Popeye’ was only one operation, technology has gotten very high tech now.

          • Ram Ayana says:

            There is only one reason we still use oil and coal – and that’s because big, nasty corporations have ruthlessly suppressed all alternatives for decades. Thus the combined fuel efficiency of the entire US fleet of fossil fuelled vehicles is almost identical to what it was 100 years ago!
            I have watched a car driven for 1,000 miles on 1 quart of water – because one quart of water produces more than 1200 quarts of usable gas – and I’ve seen what happened to the inventor…
            There’s only one reason our planet is so toxic that 1 in 2 Amerikans are now likely to get cancer – human pollution. There is only one reason we still have uncontrolled human pollution – because every time someone seriously tries to do something about it they’re shot, jailed, silence and/or removed from office.
            And every time someone tries to tell you the truth about human (anthopogenic) pollution some rabid god botherer quotes some noxious old tome, some semiliterate, ill-educated goon yells “conspiracy” and “troll’ in the precisely the wrong direction, and another corporate executive looks on, smiling, while the guntoting vigilantes tear the whistleblower limb from llimb.
            Those fond of appealing to their imaginary god need to wake up and smell the brimstone – nasty, vicious, rich, powerful humans are creating hell on Earth, and ignorant bleaters are decrying well intentioned attempts by scientists and activists to stop them and mistaking their friends for the enemy and vice versa.
            Glad I inhabit a remote forest, well away from most people. Reading most of these comments helps me remember why I prefer honest spiders and snakes to the two legged kind.

    • @Rammie
      Well sport you had my attention until this…

      “Now it may well be true that solar activity is the main driver of Earth’s climate.”
      Ram Ayana

      The evidence is in, the sun is the main driver of climate on earth…imagine no sun….brrrr…and fucking dark.

      The most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor….an awesome 40,000 ppmv.

      The main fact that set the benchmark for co2 on earth was obtained from the Vostok station, Antarctic. Coring has been ongoing since the mid nineties. The core samples are taken down to 3000 meter below Vostok station, the surface core hole is of 4 inches in diameter…let me say that again, 4 inches in diameter. So form a four inch diameter hole taken from the basement of the world we get a global co2 benchmark record of planet earth for the last 400,000 years. Great idea but there flaws. To say the least.
      It a four inch hole as compare to the rest of the planet.
      Vostok Station is 3500 meters, or 11,400 ft above sea level in an oxygen depleted environment. Vostok ice is in a constant albedo…its the south polar. There are great long period of clear blue sky. In the southern summer it is daylight for nearly six months. The area has always been in ice, at least for 420,000 years, and has the coldest temperatures on earth. In fact the record cold measured on planet Hollywood was recorded at Vostok station. Correct if I am wrong but it somewhere around -129 degree F. I wonder what the freezing temperature of co2….hmmm. Dry ice. How about -84 F. The average summer temperature is -25 F, the average winter temperature is -90F. Are you feeling it yet Rammie. What do you think the effect is on earth gases.
      Precipitation is 2.6 mm per year.
      Ionization is extremely high.
      There is no vegetation on the ice surface. There is no plant matter in the core samples down to lake Vostok. Has any plant vegetation been found…no! Vostok is one of the driest region on planet earth, in fact you could call it a type of desert. There is really no moisture in the air. But still it is used as a global benchmark to disparage a grossly under valued 400 ppmv. Whither there really is 400 ppmv in the atmosphere.
      When one looks at the last three geological time periods. We have co2 levels registering mainly in the 1100’s ppm. And in some cases as high as 1800 ppm of co2.
      Venus has a 78% co2 atmosphere with no run away greenhouse effect. And it’s a dynamo. Do you know what a dynamo is?

      – Composition of earth atmosphere: Nitrogen 78.084%, Oxygen 20.95%, Argon 0.93%,
      CO2, Neon, Hydrogen, methane and other various gases trace gases amount to total of 1%..

      – Water Vapor 4.0% =40,000 ppmv Carbon Dioxide 0.0345% =345 (400)ppmv…which is the greater greenhouse gas?

       – Atmospheric rivers are typically several thousand kilometers long and only a few hundred kilometers wide, and a single one can carry a greater flux of water than the Earth’s largest river, the Amazon River.[2] There are typically 3–5 of these narrow plumes present within a hemisphere at any given time. Wikipedia

      Recent research has now shown there to be closer to ten atmospheric rivers running the global.
      Do you know how much of an effect these atmospheric rivers have on weather/climate. They are capable of carrying vast amounts of water, heat, electricity and carbon around the globe. With climate altering technology, they can be moved and opened up at will, deluging any chosen area.
      But Co2, amounts less than half a percent of atmosphere, amounts of 400 PARTS PER 1,000,000 are warming things up…isn’t it Ram man?

      Cosmic rays are coming in from outer space Ramster, affecting weather. From changing the nature of carbon, to causing chemical reactions between other gases.
      Coronal mas ejections from the sun bombard the atmosphere bringing all sorts of charged particles. On average 3600 watts of solar radiation hits every square meter of the surface of the atmosphere constantly every day. But less than half a percentage point of a breathable gas is causing global warming… is this right Raminator.
      You’re an intellectual mouse who has not learn to critically think as yet. I hate to be so rude…no I don’t, I lied. I am tire of people like you bantering on with the fundamental religion of AGW.
      Not even the grace of an open mind. You are brainwash…an android.

      • Ram Ayana says:

        I would debate you point by point, but not if you call me ‘Rammie’ and misrepresent what I’ve written. It means your disrespect is blinding, unnecessary and tells me all i need to know about your attitude to those who disagree with you; the mentality of a footbrawler, not a scientist. Suffice to say that all your points, while appearing to be well reasoned, are flawed distractions to the central issue. You should probably get a job with one of Big Coal’s ‘climate research instititutes’ and be paid to misinform people rather than do it for free!

        • @Ram Ayana

          It would seem you are micro-aggressed already… besides the fact still remains, CO2 lags global average temperature increase. It does not lead it.

          And presently global temperature has dropped one degree. Time to wake up from the hoax, AGW is a hoax

  6. MargfromTassie says:

    Sorry, did I miss something? Despite your ‘qualifications’, I can’t see the link you’re making to Climate Change….

    • omanuel says:

      The Church still has a problem accepting the same reality it has fought for 400 years:

      In 1543, Copernicus found the Sun is:

      1. The center of the solar system instead of Earth

      2. A fountain of energy that rules the solar system

      3. Orbited by (dominates) Earth and other planets

      The Church charged Galileo with heresy when he told folks of Copernicus finding. Galileo defended himself at trail in 1633 saying a heliocentric solar system is the DIVINE ORDER any other persistent observer could decipher for themselves.

      The Church’s current support for dogmatic but unscientific claim CO2 controls Earth’s climate reflects a continued unwillingness to admit reality:

      The Sun rules the solar system, including the climate of every planet orbiting the Sun.

      • MargfromTassie says:

        Ok I agree about the pre-eminent role of the sun, also earth’s big oceans. But don’t you think other factors also play a role re climate? For example – deforestation?
        What is your opinion about the theory of global dimming, ie particulates in the air reducing the amount of sunshine falling on the surface. The most notable revelation of this was in the 3 days following 9/11/2001, when all planes across the U.S. were grounded, and the level of direct solar radiation reaching the ground increased notably. ( it is estimated that 3000 planes are in the air on a typical day in the U.S.)
        – Margaret K

  7. MargfromTassie says:

    Some sense at last. Thank you Ram!

  8. MoreThanYou says:

    So you seem to conclude that all scientists have been paid by someone to say something that favors the person they work for. And of course your scientists can back that up with unbiased facts 🙂 Best of luck getting anyone with a brain not controlled by the people you work for to not laugh at your rant. The people will not sit by and let corporations simply pollute the World at their whim and for their enhanced profit. We have looked behind the curtain and your master has been unmasked. Bernie Sanders 2016

  9. Adam Engle says:

    how did a troll fin jon’s webpage? this is sad. go back to trolling reddit you slugs!

  10. Terry says:

    If global warming is a problem, then let’s turn off the 500 global nuclear heaters. Nothing heats like a nuclear steam-powered electrical plant! Ask any glider pilot.

    I suspect Lucifer knew full well that we’d poison our selves with radiation as he tempted us with uranium or plutonium bomb technology. These plants were never cost-justified for electrical output! The Grid, with the help of all the SmartMeters and a colossal Qantuum computer center, will allow Lucifer’s rise of Machine over Mankind by direct interfacing with our brains electrical patterns and thoughts. Yet, by adding a cubic foot size box bought for a couple of hundred dollars under our home electrical panel so we could get off the grid, would stop Luci’s immediate takeover of our minds at night, shutdown all nuke plants and end all their global warming effect, and improve the lives of more Chinese than if we gave all of America’s wealth to China.

    And with unlimited low-cost energy, I could travel in my Jetson Mobile ufo and the roads can be planted with crops. More plants gives more carbon dioxide which gives us more oxygen all with no heat so it’s a win-win for all except Luci and his global takeover and his Rockefeller energy cartel and his Rothschild world-dominating banking empire.

    At a time when mankind’s civilization is becoming technologically-dependant, we certainly must free technology for mankind – else we’re all enslaved into a past paradigm. He who controls technology assumes God-like powers over the masses, so Luci has taken it on himself.

    Technology can’t be stopped!!! But, it doesn’t have to be shared. Enjoy your expensive Iphone spy device and thought tracker, along with your Samsung entertainment center. You may find your household is part of next year’s candid reality show America’s Idiots!

    As for replacing the 19th century hemp-based civilization for the petroleum-based 20th century lifestyle, all I got was cancer for it, not cheap gas. Think about it! Nothing grows in a tar pit! Why would we want to wrap our bodies and food in it, fertilize our farm fields with it, make medicines out of it, drink our water out of it, pollute our air with it by burning for energy or fuel? Another Luciferian trick against all mankind!!! God wants us to understand Lucifer and stand up to him by accelerating our humanity over our civilizations – using our gene-expressions before Luci starts to attack our very DNA that was God-sanctioned. Whever two or more men gathered to take on authority over others, Luci has wanted to insert his influence for his eventual global take over – if allowed! Technology, like any tool, can serve or enslave, create or destroy, depending on who’s controlling it. Don’t let your mind be left behind floating in space in a tin can while technology has advanced beyond UFO technology for the more powerful wormhole connnecting stargates.

  11. Shandra Fraile says:

    Perfectly pent written content, Really enjoyed looking at.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *