Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

ENERGY NUTRITION

JANUARY 24, 2010.  This is another in a series of articles on the nutritional detective work of Laura Thompson.

My wife, Laura, owns The Southern California Institute of Clinical Nutrition.  She works with many patients by telephone.

Implicit in everything Laura does for patients is ENERGY—increasing it, awakening it, expanding it, making it more available on many levels.  After all, this is what people want—more positive and sustained energy they can rely on as they work toward the objectives that excite them.  They want to feel they have a large and buoyant reservoir of forward-looking energy that will sustain them through thick and thin.    

In order to achieve that, several areas need to be addressed.

Here is a Q&A with Laura on the subject:

Q:  When do nutritional programs fail in providing more energy?

 A:  There are two basic reasons for that.  The energy might be delivered in a form that produces an upsurge and then a let-down.  That would be useless.

 Q:  Give me an example of that.

 A:  A person takes an herb because he’s heard or read that it gives energy.  And it does.  But only for a short time.  The other reason is more interesting. 

 Q:  What’s that?

A:  Underlying situations in the body won’t permit the energy to “take hold.”  It drains away.  It fades.  As quickly as you replenish energy, it dissipates.

 Q:  And these underlying situations are?

 A:  This is where the detective work comes in.  Suppose the person has immune-system weakness.  That would, in a sense, capture energy and try to use it to fight battles it isn’t suited for.  The person would experience this “capture” as fatigue or exhaustion.

 Q:  So you would need to shore up the immune system.

 A:  Yes.  Correct nutrients delivered together can help greatly.  Then there are hormone imbalances.

 Q:  We discussed that in a previous interview.

 A:  Right. You see, if the hormones are not in balance and the levels are insufficient, you are going to run out of energy.  Because hormones are intimately involved with energy production.  The adrenal glands are an obvious example.  You can feed all the fuel you want to, to an engine, but if the engine is firing on two cylinders rather than eight, it’s not going to work.

 Q:  What about brain function?

 A:  We do neurotransmitter tests on patients.  The tests tell us about the levels of these chemicals in the body, and we can then achieve a good neurotransmitter balance with proper nutrients.  Cognitive processes are a key to energy.  If your thoughts are slowed down and become fuzzy, you can’t utilize energy.  With good neurotransmitter levels, your thought processes become sharper.

 Q:  And, of course, there is digestive function.

 A:  This is greatly overlooked.  Everything that happens in the digestive tract has to do with the eventual production of energy.  When necessary, I devote a lot of attention to bringing digestive function into a good range.  It’s absolutely vital.  The body processes food so it can deliver energy.  That has to happen smoothly and effectively.

 Q:  From all of this, I can see why the society runs on stimulants.

 A:  Of course.  You can try to substitute one kind of stimulant after another for the energy you should naturally have, but it won’t work.  You need to deal with and correct the situations that are weakening the foundations.  Good nutrition can do that.  But good nutrition isn’t just walking into a health-food store and grabbing a product off the shelf.  It’s much more sophisticated.  You need to go much deeper.  That’s what I’ve learned in the last 14 years.  You have to explore situations with each patient, and each patient is different and unique in important ways.  I recognize that.

(If you’re interested in becoming a client, contact Laura’s clinic at 800-608-5602.)

JON RAPPOPORT
www.nomorefakenews.com

WHAT BLOCKS CREATIVE POWER?

JANUARY 22, 2010.  This is the third article in a series about my coaching/consulting work with private clients. 

In that work, I find that blocks to creative power are the single most important issue.

There is nothing more important.

As a very rough analogy, consider a painter who goes into his studio, sits in front of the blank canvas, and can’t put paint on it.  He just sits there.

Or, he comes in and he sits down and he starts to paint.

It’s that black and white.  He either paints or he doesn’t. 

After 15 years of working with clients, I’ve come to the following conclusion: ultimately, the person knows what is blocking him.

He may not be able to articulate it at first, and the answer may be buried under pounds of thoughts and ideas, but the answer is there.

He can find it.

With enough dialogue, I’ve discovered the answer comes.

And it is surrounded with debris from education, family life, and other indoctrination.  That indoctrination is really a pile of distraction from CREATING WITH POWER.  It’s a diversion, like a candy counter can be a distraction to a person who is seeking to lose weight and eat healthy.

In other words, all our lives we are taught to veer away from creative power and do something else.  The “something else” becomes a habit, a reflex.  We become used to doing all sorts of things, none of which is creating with power.

It would be like this: you are taught to crawl; every time it occurs to you that you might want to stand up and walk, along comes someone with a lesson about crawling—how to crawl better, more effectively, more quickly, with more focus.  And THAT is a distraction, a diversion.

With enough diversions, you begin to believe that walking is a fantasy and it can’t really happen.  It was an aimless dream you once had, and it didn’t mean anything.

But it’s there.  Walking is there.

My work with private clients achieves several objectives.  It tilts the see-saw in the direction of the person’s true and powerful desire to be creative.  And with that desire operating, the person is able to do many things he once thought were beyond his grasp.

Two, my sessions with clients (all of which I do by telephone) teach and practice techniques that separate old mental habits from new imaginative exploration.  In other words, the person is no longer the victim of his old uncreative thought patterns.

Three, these techniques enlist the imagination to work, like a new engine, and turn out energy.  The person feels that energy and realizes he can live on a different and better level.

None of this work is dry and mechanical.  It’s all about being able to understand and sense the level at which the person is operating and bringing new imagination into that arena.  It’s a great adventure.     

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

www.insolutions.info

(To contact me about becoming a private client: jonrappoport@nomorefakenews.com

IMAGINATION WORK WITH PRIVATE CLIENTS

JANUARY 21, 2010.  Many readers know my work as a medical reporter.  This work, which I’ve been engaged in for the past 25 years, dissects and describes fraud at every level of the medical cartel.

However, long before I became a reporter (1982), I was painting, and writing fiction and poetry.  With the great help of Bonnie Lange, head of the Truth Seeker, that work has expanded over the last ten years, and I have written many articles and delivered many lectures on the subject of imagination.

I also work with private clients, doing telephone sessions.  I call this Imagination Work.  It involves expanding creative power and freeing the imagination to improve health, well-being, and to achieve real goals in life. 

Imagination is a subject that fails to interest lots of people, because they think it is a toy that children use to fantasize about what never will be.

Why should anyone spend time talking or writing about imagination?  We live in an age of science, where progress is made by hard-headed researchers who build meticulously on the work of their predecessors.

How could imagination be a secret key to a more abundant and enlightening life?

And if it is, how can people access it?  Where is it?  In what closet does it hide?

How could imagination be a grand solution to the problems we face every day?  Isn’t it actually an escape from reality?

These are a few of the questions I’ve fielded over the years from people who study my work.

Imagination changed my life irrevocably 50 years ago.  I had been a student of philosophy, and after obtaining my degree, I realized that all my major questions remained unsolved.  In fact, studying what great thinkers wrote over the course of nine centuries had made matters worse.

Suddenly, I saw daylight, and I ran toward it.  Everything that had happened to me in my young life appeared as a prelude to making a grand leap…into imagination and the creative life.

I’ve never looked back. 

Since then, I’ve spoken with many people who work in diverse fields—the law, engineering, the arts, healing, teaching, office work, construction—and I’ve seen that those who are successful ALWAYS use imagination as their leading guide.  The rather amazing thing?  Most of them don’t realize it.        

In every field of endeavor, imagination wears the crown.  It throws off old habits and allows the seeker to create realities and solve problems that advance life in new and better directions.

Imagination operates according to abundance, in the sense that it is not limited by “what everyone accepts.”  And imagination expands.  It sees new possibilities where tradition only sees obstructions and roadblocks.

Like everyone else, I have often refused to explore these possibilities, preferring to remain in established channels.  But time and time again, I have been forced to realize that my own problems were being caused by my ingrained acceptance of a status quo. 

And then, I forged and jumped ahead.  Through imagination, I saw answers where, previously, there appeared to be none.

This, in fact, describes the kind of world we live in.  On one level, we feel we must circle around the same old ideas and practices—but we then recognize the world is full of “empty spaces” where new solutions can be enacted.

The New is always about imagination.

Imagination trumps all other cards.  It revels in new invention, new approach, and unexplored territory.  It enlightens.  In fact, imagination shatters the very notion of a problem and a matching solution.  It moves beyond that.  It elevates actions into innovative places where both the old problems and the old solutions give way to greater life.

It’s common to praise every scientific breakthrough as a structure built on the shoulders of the previous generation of researchers.

There is certainly merit and sense to this claim; however, there is also another factor, because in every breakthrough a person takes a leap.  In other words, the past doesn’t entirely dictate the future.

Edison and Tesla and Einstein weren’t inevitable.  For some people, that may be a hard pill to swallow, but it’s actually a glorious circumstance.

Einstein, in a sense, invented the universe the way he wanted it to be, and then found the mathematics to justify that invention.

Each one of us is standing on the threshold of his own imagination, and by taking the leap, something new is made manifest, where before there was nothing.

It is insufficient to say that the paintings of Cezanne were waiting to be made before the painter was born. I understand the merit of that statement, but in a larger sense, Cezanne made a leap of imagination.

He put something on the blank canvas.  Without his daring and creative action, the canvas would have remained empty, or would have been covered with the threads of the past.

The desire for the New is a kind of trigger that calls us. 

Often, a breakthrough is preceded by a period in which the inventor is grappling with a problem that resists solution.  Around and around he goes.  For a time, it was apparently that way with Tesla, the great physicist.  He was seeking to find new sources of energy, and in doing so, he was squeezing the scientific knowledge of the past like a piece of fruit.  But the juice that came forth was not enough.

So he took his great leap.  He engaged his own imagination and saw ways in which a whole new technology could not merely solve, but go beyond what was known and what was acceptable.

Too often we keep trying to tease out and solidify what we already know, when what we really need to do is invent something we don’t know.

This last may sound like a contradiction, but in fact it is what carries us into territory we’ve always longed for.  Territory we’ve glimpsed.

Imagination opens the gates to that place.

It’s the greatest adventure.  

In my work with private clients, I use techniques, exercises, and dialogue to open up this adventure and make imagination more available, more accessible.  This is a grand undertaking.  It is all about expanding life’s frontiers to explore new dimensions.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com
www.insolutions.info

 (If you’re interested in becoming a private client, email me at jonrappoport@nomorefakenews.com and write “Jon Rappoport consulting” in the subject line.)

Leveraging Global Warming

Leveraging Global Warming

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2009 

I’m offering an experimental hypothesis here, based on how markets work.  I’m talking about trading markets—stocks, commodities.

As you know, the (false) science of climate change is a lever for a new type of market; trading “permits” or “offsets” in carbon.

First a permitted ceiling for the total burning of carbon is set.  Then, people and companies can trade the right to burn it.  Those who burn a great deal can buy permits from those who burn a little, and of course, millions of investors can speculate, as they do in other markets.

However, there is another benefit for investors—as long as the market in carbon lasts.  Holding permits can function as collateral in leveraging loans.

Right now, if I hold stock in corporations, I can use it to borrow money.  It’s the same with carbon permits.

In these times, when loans can be hard to come by, any collateral is good and useful, even if it is based on the most preposterous science.

I believe that is a hidden factor behind the initiating of this carbon-trading scheme.  Private companies, individuals, and most definitely, governments want the juice to float huge loans.

Right now, the US government is borrowing from itself in various ways to pump up the impression that it is solvent.  This scam extends to the Fed, which appears to be part of the government but really isn’t.

The US government is desperately looking for “legitimate” collateral.  Therefore, we can expect, if climate legislation capping carbon emissions passes through Congress, the federal and state governments will jump hard into the carbon-trading markets.  And THEN, they will use their market position to float loans.

Yes, it’s musical chairs, and it’s bubble making, and the crash would be as severe as what happened in the housing-mortgage market, but the government doesn’t care.  Their sand castles are crumbling in the waves, and they’re doing whatever they can, right now, to shore them up.

“Oh, you’re flush in the carbon market?  Wow, that’s very hip and very now. Everybody wants to reduce global warming.  What?  You want to borrow money against your emission permits?  Sure, we can do that for you.  Terrific.”

Yes, terrific, for a little while.

One might say the whole global warming scam was projected, so that a carbon market would emerge AND become a source for obtaining loans.  Because, after all, the credit game (the loan game) is the biggest money game in the world, and has been for some time.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

False Science: The Parallels

False Science: The Parallels

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2009

www.nomorefakenews.com

I want to point out the common factors in certain disease research and global warming research.

First of all, global warming is based on the notion of a single cause: CO2.  Although pro-AGW (anthropogenic global warming) scientists readily admit there are other factors, they all say it is manmade CO2 which has pushed us over the brink.

In the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, the culprit has been announced: H1N1.  It is the cause of the illness.

CO2 has been absurdly isolated from a whole host of other relevant factors, in a highly complex weather system, as the single entity that has “taken the planet to the edge of disaster.”

H1N1 has been absurdly isolated from a whole host of other relevant factors (immune function, horrendous conditions at the La Gloria, Mexico, Smithfield pig farm, where Swine Flu supposedly originated, etc.) as the single entity causing Swine Flu.

When researchers attempt to explain how CO2 creates excessive warming, they run into contrary evidence and unsolved questions.  Ditto for H1N1.  For example, no standard diagnostic tests measure the concentration of the virus in the body—and it is the level of concentration (titer) which differentiates actual illness from mere passenger-viral status.

Swine Flu cases numbers and deaths don’t even begin to approach the figures on seasonal, conventional, run-of-the-mill flu.  In other words, the effect of H1N1 is relatively slight.  In the same way, when models and massaged temperature data are exposed as fraudulent, the picture of planetary warming becomes modest or even trivial.  The effect of CO2 is slight.

In the case of Swine Flu and global warming, alarmist propaganda has propelled these phenomena into money juggernauts.  Furthermore, in both cases, UN agencies have emerged as power players: WHO and IPCC.  Both agencies have globalist goals—central control of populations through over-hyped threats.

This last fact is more apparent in the matter of AGW.  But a wave of phony epidemics has placed WHO in a cardinal position to call shots on national economies and exert pressure to make governments fall into line and surrender aspects of their sovereignty.

The SARS “epidemic,” in which fewer than 1000 deaths have been reported, globally, since 2003, cost Asian economies $40 billion.  Toronto, shut down by WHO travel advisories, lost several billion dollars—and a budding effort to mount a suit against WHO faded away, as residents of the city bit the bullet.

WHO aims to become a vast and permanent international medical infra-structure that will govern all future epidemics, and in the process allocate resources from various governments to poorer nations.  Wealth distribution.

Of course, ceiling caps on carbon emissions and a “kinder, gentler” USSR-type allocation of natural resources, globally, is the goal of IPCC.

At the bottom of all this?  False science.  That is the engine. 

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

A Reporter Responds: Arianna Huffington’s Dec. 26 Blog

A Reporter Responds: Arianna Huffington’s Dec. 26 Blog

by Jon Rappoport

December 28, 2009

Arianna Huffington points out that the president hasn’t yet broken the stranglehold insurance and drug companies have over the US healthcare market.

That was one of his promises, but now—“Christmas came a day early for health insurance and drug companies when the Senate passed a health care bill crammed with more industry-friendly gifts than Santa’s sleigh.”

Ms. Huffington’s right, of course, but the situation is a lot worse than money and goodies can make it. I refer to the suppressed statistics on medically caused deaths in the US.

The landmark study was done by Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health) and published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Association: “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Dr. Starfield’s staggering findings confirmed what some insiders already knew, but were afraid to report. Every year in the US there are:

* 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

* 7000 deaths from medication error in hospitals;

* 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

* 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

* 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

In a recent interview I did with Dr. Starfield, she stated that no federal agency has contacted her, for purposes of consultation, in the nine years since her study was published.

Under a new national health plan, with millions more Americans covered and receiving across-the-board care, medically-caused deaths will soar to new heights.

This is the secret, and this is the crime.

A study, written by an author with impeccable credentials, and published by one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world—and the government has remained silent.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Explosive Conflict of Interest: Who Profits from the National Health Plan?

Explosive Conflict of Interest: Who Profits from the National Health Plan?

And from Other Investments…

by Jon Rappoport

December 24, 2009 

I have to begin by saying you need to know about Walter Burien.  CAFR1.com

Walter curls people’s hair.  For many years, he has been investigating the investments made by governments.  The what?  I know.  This sounds like a non-sequitur.  Governments aren’t businesses, are they?

It turns out they are.  Well, when you think about it, it’s obvious.  They run, for example, retirement funds for their employees, and those funds make investments, they don’t just store money in shoe boxes.

 Recently, Walter provided a link to the New York State Retirement Fund Asset Listing (March 31, 2006).  You can find it at: http://cafr1.com/STATES/NEWYORK/RETIREMENT/NYRINV2006.PDF

This document shows the investments this fund makes, and the value of each stock holding.  The implications are enormous.  For example, when you pinpoint the many pharmaceutical stocks, you realize New York State government will be a primary beneficiary of any national health plan.  Why?  Because drug companies, under such a plan, will be selling far more drugs as millions of new, previously uninsured people come under the federal umbrella.

Any piece of news that makes the pharma landscape glow tends to shoot up stock values.

From a financial point of view, it would be ridiculous to assume New York State government would oppose national health insurance.  It’s good for business.  The business of, yes, New York State government.

And by the way, to the extent that some of these drug companies manufacture vaccines (and they do), the New York State government would be a big-time supporter of the mass vaccinations that accompany each new phony epidemic, such as Swine Flu.  Again, for business reasons.  In fact, we may now understand a new reason why, until huge protests derailed it, New York tried to make the H1N1 vaccine mandatory for all state health workers.    

Here are some of the pharmaceutical listings in the New York Retirement Fund.  The value of each stock holding is as of Mar.31, 2006.

Schering-Plough: $138,013,129

Barr: $39,152, 525

Baxter: $105,606, 745

Gilead: $127,348,101

Roche: $87,762,875

MedImmune: $46,942, 968

Sanofi-Aventis:$153,887,891

Bayer: $39,318,918

Bristol-Myers Squibb: $195,807,422

GlaxoSmithKline: $137,729,350

Pfizer: $834,756,329

Novartis: $131,221,033

Merck: $344,768,742

Eli Lilly: $249,409,636

Vertex: $17,947,395

Drug companies.  $2.5 billion and change.  One retirement fund in one state.

Walter Burien goes much further—and here you would have to consult his site for supporting evidence.  He states that, when you look at the various investment funds of the 50 state governments, and when you consider the possibility that many of these funds act (invest) in concert, governments turn out to be controlling stockholders in some of the biggest corporations in America.

Turn that thought over in your mind a few times.

Here’s another explosion:  To what degree did the federal bailout bail out the New York State government?  Well, among the 2006 NY Retirement Fund listings, we have:

Goldman Sachs: $268,770,613

Bank of America: $896,993,638

Citigroup: $1,036,682,080.

This gives another perspective on what a fed bailout means.  It functions as profit protection.  For a state government.

Imagine state legislators and other state officials consulting THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO of their state government before they vote for or against legislation. 

The hits keep coming.

“As governor of your state, my friends, I am taking every action I can to assure the profits of this administration continue to rise.  As taxpayers, you are the stakeholders.  What you pay us, we invest.  Of course, we never show you the balance sheet, and we never indicate whether we need your taxes, or whether our profits alone are sufficient for running the state.  But that’s the way the game works.  You stay in the dark.  When we raise your taxes, we give you reasons—which may be accurate or sheer nonsense.  The point is, we keep taking your money and investing it…” 

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The science of global warming

December 23, 2009.  In science, theories are supposed to do two things: explain past observable facts, and predict future observations before they come to pass.

If a theory does both, you have something valuable.  If not, you go back to the drawing board.

In the case of the manmade global warming theory (anthropogenic global warming or AGW), there is a problem right away.  The range of past facts is huge and involves temperature measurements made at different tracking stations around the world.  As has been shown (and I’m paraphrasing here from a pithy comment made at The Air Vent blog), many of these measurements are dubious, because the stations are monitored by volunteers, the instruments are error prone, there are historical gaps in the record, and, all in all, there is a lack of control.  In other words, measurements may be wrong.

So how can you construct a theory to explain data whose reliability is in doubt?

It would be like saying you want to build a theory to explain the worldwide appearance of ghosts over the last six hundred years.

Former meteorologist, Anthony Watts, and his band of volunteers have looked at US stations that measure temperature.  Here is the summary of his now-famous report title “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”:

“We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

”In fact, we found that 89 percent of the [US] stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.

”In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited. It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

”The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7° C (about 1.2° F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be ‘the best in the world,’ it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”

In the case of global temperature theory, the problem would be of little concern if the whole field were merely of academic interest; but this research is being used to launch drastic political and economic action that would affect every nation in the world.

The Watts report has its critics, and there has been a great deal of back-and-forth on it, but it appears that he has punched a huge hole in the reliability of US temperature measurements.

What about satellite data on temperature?

Claims that surface measurements aren’t really needed to see that AGW is real—we can go to satellites and weather balloons—well, it turns out that these atmospheric methods have their own problems and turn out questionable data.  Again, there is debate on both sides of the satellite-data issue…but I see no conclusive evidence that these instruments show a warming trend.  And satellites for measuring Earth’s temperature have only been in use since 1979.

AGW science is admittedly not precise enough to predict temperatures in the next year, five years, or ten years.  The projections are of the “possible” “maybe” “could-be” variety.

Therefore, there is no real science of manmade warming.  There is certainly not enough to say, “The world is ending unless we wreck industrial economies from one end of the planet to the other.”

However, this uncertainty has not stopped the researchers.  They have constructed models that purport to fill in temperature-record gaps and avoid the problem of varying dependability of station measurements.  These models, we are to believe, solve issues like replacement of instruments at stations, physically moving stations, and the emergence of (warmer) urban construction at stations located in once-remote regions.  These models also purport to overcome questions about the usefulness of atmospheric measurements.

These models are not theories.  They’re complex and hard-to-access systems for summarizing reams of data.  They spit out conclusions about warming based on cryptic assumptions that are largely unstated.

“Trust us.  We’re the experts.”

The propaganda spewed by such warming front men as Al Gore doesn’t even begin to touch on the very serious problems in the “science.”

Issues have arisen that throw this science into further doubt.  For example, the so-called Medieval Warming Period (MWP).  MWP contradicts the notion that warming is now greater than it has ever been.  But researchers have built graphs that smooth out and flatten the MWP and make it seem inconsequential.

With the recent release of emails from the CRU at East Anglia University, we have seen that key researchers there have been scheming to avoid releasing their raw data to people making FOIA requests.

In fact, the Harry-Read-Me emails show the enormous frustration of a technician brought to the CRU to clarify the raw data.  He could make no sense of it.  It was a complete mess.

How do you build a theory using that data as a prime reference point?

Still, the massive propaganda campaign on behalf AGW presses on.  The train has left the station, and there is no way the proactive scientists will stop it or turn it around.  If they did, they would be admitting to fraud and incompetence on a gargantuan level.

As a final capper, consider this recent message from the UK Met Office, a repository for absolutely vital underpinning temperature-measurement data used by East Anglia climate scientists.  The message explains why these underlying data sets are not available for inspection:

“The data set of temperatures, which are provided as a gridded product back to 1850 was largely compiled in the 1980s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database.

“For IT infrastructure of the time this was an exceedingly large database and multiple copies could not be kept at a reasonable cost. There is no question that anything untoward or unacceptable in terms of best practices at the time occurred.”

In other words, they threw all that data out.  They couldn’t have kept the paper files stashed in a storage locker.  No.  They had to throw it out.  (Or they still have ONE complete copy and they won’t release it or copy it now.)

This is like saying, “We’re completely insane, and insane is better than admitting we’re criminals.”

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Is this the secret behind climate science?

DECEMBER 23, 2009.  What I’m offering here is not meant to be a single theory that accounts for all factors in a massive global power struggle.  Far from it.  But perhaps there are important clues… 

In 1945, Europe was devastated.  It was lying on its back, looking up.  Over the next 50 years, it followed a step-by-step plan to become a super-state, the EU.  It became a player.  In fact, it waged an economic war against the US.  That war, on both sides, is ongoing. 

From the EU’s point of view, the notion of freedom has to be punctured.  The US has to be made into something politically resembling Europe: a socialist operation.  A top-down society where “allocation of resources” and its deployment from a central point of control is the preferred and stifling method of “humanitarian economics.”

114 nations in the world produce oil.  The Western European nations, starting at #12 (Norway), and dropping down to #101 (Sweden), produce about five million barrels a day, for a population of roughly 416 million.

The US produces 8.5 million barrels a day for a population of 300 million. 

And the price of a gallon of gasoline, computed as a percentage of daily individual wealth, takes a much greater slice in Europe than in the US.  According to the admittedly rough figures provided by The Oil Drum, the cost of a gallon of gasoline, as a % of the wealth available daily, per individual, is: Europe—7.53%; US—2.54%.  

On this basis alone, it would be wise for Europe to find a way to level the oil playing field. 

Yes, the EU can obtain foreign oil, but in order to support its socialist state-run enterprises and governments, the taxes it lays on oil make gasoline a very troublesome commodity.  The citizens of Europe are not altogether happy about the price at the pump.

How about a daring end run around the problem?  Suppose the entire global oil industry could be put under the gun.  Would that work?  Suppose the very notion of oil as energy could be discredited through a remarkable propaganda campaign.  Suppose, somehow, science could be co-opted into this plan.

After all, scientists are famously pliable.  With a pittance in research grants, they can be trained like messianic monkeys to support a particular outcome—and they will actually believe in that outcome.

THE EARTH IS WARMING.

THE PRIMARY CAUSE IS HUMANS.

THE PRIMARY HUMAN CAUSE IS OIL PRODUCTION.

THE PRIMARY CULPRIT IS CO2.

Absurd.  That would never fly.

Oh…but it has.

Instead of trying to block the competitor’s access to the resource, in the traditional manner, why not discredit the whole resource?  Why not call it a poison?

Why not try to level the playing field that way?

“Manmade CO2 is warming the world and the world as we know it will end soon, unless we all find new energies that will sustain us.” 

“Let’s set up a primary research facility in England, and let’s begin to turn out studies that alarm the populace.  Let’s find allies and use them to support our work.”

“If we can bamboozle the world into accepting this threat-to-the-planet scenario, we can level the field: we will all have to find non-oil energies to run on.”

This program ties in nicely with the overall environmental agenda, for which there is already much support and funding.  In fact, at the elite levels of the movement (Rockefeller, Prince Charles, to a lesser degree Maurice Strong, etc.) the vision of a green planet involves far fewer people inhabiting it and far lower needs for energy. 

Now—concerning the question of Peak Oil—do the oil companies believe in the concept?  Do they think the world is running out of oil?  If so, it’ll be easy to convince them to play along.  Manmade CO2 at the root of devastating warming: it would even be a winner for them, if they muscle their way into the vanguard of corporations ready to supply the planet with alternative energies.  And during the transition, they can clean up on carbon transfers and trading and make new fortunes. 

The EU hopes that, in the end, the US will be brought down.  It, as the sole threat to a controlled Earth, will have to sacrifice its notion of individual freedom.  It will adapt to the plan for an organized society of Everyone.  It will go along. 

And then the EU, as the primary regional government now existing, will take its rightful premier place among other such organized regional power structures, and there will be de facto world government.

All right, I’ll stop here.

Yes, I know this sounds quite extreme.  And yes, I know there are holes in this argument.  I know there are unanswered questions.  But I believe we have some clues here.

Several European nations once had far-flung empires.  In modern times, they faltered and faded.  Their star was trampled in two 20th-century wars.  At the end of WW2, they were seething under the utter defeat of their long held ambitions.  They were brought back from ruin by the US and its Marshall Plan. 

Never again would their dreams of conquest be expressed through military conquest. 

From 1945 on, they would have to proceed in a more clandestine fashion.  For example, through financial manipulation.  Upper echelons of European society were already aligned with internationalists in the US, and the globalist agenda was already a work in progress. 

However, in terms of sheer industrial and military might, the US was in a class of its own. 

The military/industrial world runs on energy, and that energy is oil.

Given the superior strength and operating power flowing from individual freedom and the capitalist system, America was more than formidable.  It was nearly untouchable.

Perhaps, at some point, the target became oil.

Weaken that, and you weaken the US.  You bring it closer to the level of the other players.  If everyone suffers in the process, so be it.

Of course, there are real environmental problems. Industrial pollution, where it is severe, causes lung disease.  Chemical spills, oil spills—these are not negligible events.  Ongoing dumping in rivers kills life.  And so forth and so on.  But that is not enough to hook up the people of Earth to a doomsday scenario.

For that, you need science.  You need a provocative theory about the end of all civilization.  You need government agencies to feed stories to the compliant press.  You need the United Nations, a stepchild of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the important globalist think tanks on the planet.  You need to coordinate many non-profit humanitarian groups.  You need major PR.  With time, with hard work, you can get it.

What we are now witnessing is the “kinder, gentler” rebirth of the Soviet Union, on a planetary scale.  Not only the stifling of enterprise through complex forced interfaces with bureaucratic carbon red tape; not only that.  The whole idea is to corral the entire productive capacity of the world under the umbrella of Resource Allocation.

This concept flows from the notion of Central Planning, where researchers determine what the world can produce and how many people it must distribute this largesse to.  And how it will be done, on a “fair” basis.

It’s the Jesus Christ of industrial calculations.  “We will bring Christmas on Earth to you.  Just be patient.  We’re figuring out the system.  Nations will wage war no more.  Swords will be turned into plowshares.  We’re building the model.”

Part of my argument rests on the fact that, expressed nakedly, this sounds so absurd no one with a shred of intelligence would buy it.  But, you see, we are already stepping out on that road, because Science has told us we must; it’s the only way to save ourselves.  There is a thing called CO2, and it’s killing us, and it’s the Alien that was hiding under the surface of our hubris.  It’s our recompense for all we did to attack Mother Nature, and it fits everything we’re taught to believe about ultimate justice and payback. 

Oil must go down.  Industry must go down.  We must bring natural green back to every corner of the Earth.  It’s not just a pretty idea anymore.  No, we must do it because we have brought the planet to the brink.

Our only chance, and it is a long shot, is to place our future into the hands of wizards, who can determine how to allocate the riches of the world.  Planning.  From above.

The experiment with freedom is over.  We proved how destructive we could become with it.  Therefore, now we must put the house in order and bind up our reckless ways. 

Burn your pride on the altar of Collectivist Realization.  Humble yourselves.  Await messages from the Planners. 

CO2 was just one insight.  The whole unruly world must be organized, so we can escape other threats.

It will be a beautiful thing.

They say.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com