Category Archives: Global Warming

UN climate change: 1000 scientists say no

UN climate change: 1000 scientists say no

by Jon Rappoport

September 18, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Read it.

It’s a shocking 321-page report assembled by The Climate Depot:

“More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”

It names names. It lists reasons for the dissent.

Reality is engineered consensus. But when that doesn’t work, “experts” just assert there is a consensus when there isn’t.

“What the hell, let’s just say that ‘everybody agrees’ manmade warming is destroying Earth and we have ten minutes to solve it, and let’s get our friends in the press to shut out the naysayers. You know, media blackout.”

Science is supposed to be about evidence and proof, not consensus. But that idea is now laughed out of court. Science is about PR and who sits on the important thrones.

Which is why the UN is holding Climate Summit 2014 in New York in a few days. Yes, the city that never sleeps will be hosting the gala and also kicking off Climate Week NYC 2014.

And then there is this. The UN Secretary General has appointed Leonardo DiCaprio a “…Messenger of Peace with a special focus on climate change.” Messenger of Peace. Wow. Will Leo appear out of a cloud hovering above the Chrysler Building? Will an angel anoint Leo? Will anybody call the Ghostbusters?

Will Obama show up and read from the teleprompter, “The science is settled, the science is settled…”

Will a CIA drone zoom over Times Square and launch gluten-free electromagnetic love bombs on the adoring crowds?

Will a blimped-out Al Gore waddle into the UN General Assembly hall, trailing fumes from his jet and casting oil leases to a few favored ambassadorial hustlers?

The latest climate science tells us that upcoming freezing weather or boiling hot weather are both reasonable inferences from the basic Climate Change hypothesis. This is, logically speaking, a new brand of tautological “research.” Round and round it goes, inside its bubble.

“Useful predictions? We don’t need no stinkin’ useful predictions. We just need dupes, and we got plenty of them.”

Here are a few excerpts from the boggling Climate Depot report:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.”
— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”
— South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

“In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that ‘the science is NOT settled.’”

“On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’”

power outside the matrix

Consensus on manmade global warming? Are you kidding?

The “consensus” is in favor of something else: staging and maintaining a media blackout to conceal the dissenters, to pretend they don’t exist, to pretend “the science is settled.”

Leo DiCaprio, messenger of peace. We’re living in a cartoon of a cartoon.

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 NoMoreFakeNews.com.

Is there a GMO-chemtrail connection?

Is there a GMO-chemtrail connection?

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

In a groundbreaking article at farmwars.info, Barbara Peterson makes a stunning connection between GMO food crops and chemtrails. (“Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails”)

Peterson has looked into a Monsanto patent that expands the genetic engineering of food crops.

Engineering for what purpose? Overcoming the destructive presence of heavy metals like aluminum and barium in the soil.

These are metals which have often been reported in globally sprayed chemtrails.

So is Monsanto going to offer yet another version of low-nutrient fake frankenfood, as an answer to chemtrails? And if so, was this the plan all along?

As Peterson reports, the Monsanto patent is titled, “Stress tolerant plants and methods thereof.” It has two identifying numbers. The patent application is 11/961962, and the patent number is 7851676. The publication date is 12/14/10.

Here are quotes from relevant sections:

“Described herein are inventions in the field of plant molecular biology and plant genetic engineering…The transgenic [engineered] plants are characterized by improved stress tolerance.”

“Improvement of abiotic stress tolerance in plants would be an agronomic advantage to growers allowing enhanced growth and/or germination in cold, drought, flood, heat, UV stress, ozone increases, acid rain, pollution, salt stress, heavy metals, mineralized soils, and other abiotic stresses.”

The new GMO food-plants are specifically designed to be resistant to heavy metals, which happen to be present in chemtrails. And as well, the plants are clearly envisioned for the purpose of resisting all manner of pollution.

On the surface, this might seem like a good thing. But it really means: corporate designed food is supposed to feed people in a world where the actual removal of toxic pollution can be ignored.

And the new GMO food, if it follows the pattern of what we’ve seen so far, will turn out to be low-nutrient, and will require more spraying of toxic herbicides.

Are we, in fact, looking at a solution that is worse than the problem? Problem: chemtrails. Solution: More GMO food.

There is a clear parallel in modern pharmaceutical medicine. Problem: illness (which is often misdiagnosed for self-serving purposes). Solution: prescribe toxic drugs.

The Matrix Revealed

Here, we could be seeing the same sort of pattern. First chemtrails; then new herbicide-drenched low-nutrient food that is supposed to resist the effects of heavy metals. Then, new levels of crop failure and human illness.

Ask yourself this. What food crop could possibly be engineered to withstand the effects of increasing heavy metals in the soil?

The kind of natural healthy food you want to eat? Or some kind of chimera of food, a plant that looks like the real thing but is merely an outer envelope with no real substance? A shadow of its former self.

Talk about staged events.

“Yes, well, with all this chemtrail activity, and other industrial pollution of the soil and water with heavy metals, we need to create new food crops that won’t fold up and die. We need to stage what looks like, but isn’t, good food. It has to look like a beautiful healthy crop, but of course it’ll be delivering very little nutritive value. Because the heavy metals are very poisonous—and there is no way a real food crop can survive in their presence. So we’ll design fake food. It’ll be like a Christmas party where all the pretty boxes wrapped in colored paper and ribbons are empty inside…”

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

UN admits it has no clue on climate!

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2012

The much-awaited SREX report is out from the IPCC.

What?

The UN’s very official key group (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that touts manmade global warming is the IPCC. It’s the scientific spear that lances the boil called “sociologically diseased global-warming skeptics.”

The IPCC’s SREX report is a tome on the subject of extreme climate changes.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

(SREX is shorthand for “Special Report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation”)

Media outlets, falling into line with the Globalist agenda of go-green decimate-industry drive-us-all-into-underground-enclaves-to-escape-the-warming-disaster, have spun this SREX report as a further warning to the people of Earth.

But at omnologos.com, they actually read the SREX, and they found a fascinating FAQ. Question 3.1 asks: Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme?

And after perhaps a 1000 words of hemming and hawing about various interpretations of that question and what would be needed to answer it, in terms of actual measuring instruments, the authors—220 authors from 62 countries—concluded:

“…NONE OF THE ABOVE INSTRUMENTS HAS YET BEEN DEVELOPED SUFFICIENTLY AS TO ALLOW US TO CONFIDENTLY ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED HERE.”

Pause.

See, this is called cognitive dissonance.

You KNOW all the experts have been telling us we’re doomed unless we go back to the forests and start eating roots and tubers.

You know this.

And yet…here are those very same experts now saying they have no clue about whether the weather is doing bad things to us.

And on top of that, the major media outlets haven’t pointed out the contradiction.

It’s a three-part piece of lunacy.

Fortunately, as a reporter who studied logic, I’ve learned to live with these contradictions for years and I’ve brought them to your attention. Of course, I throw bricks at walls and crush cars and buildings with my hands to let off a little steam. But I recover.

Here is the takeaway on this climate story:

“We, who are in charge of your destiny because we have the money and the power and the force to back it up, don’t know what hell we’re doing when it comes to global warming. But we don’t need to know. All we have to do is tell the manmade warming story and keep telling it. We have the requisite number of media androids and sold-out scum journalists to make that happen. And on that basis and that basis alone, we will tax carbon and reduce industry and destroy populations in order to save the world. And you will go along with it, mainly because you’re too stupid to see through the story. Are we clear?”

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.

Manmade global frying with 2 eggs

Manmade global frying with 2 eggs

Who is professor Kari Norgaard?

“This is 21st century book burning.” — Alex Jones, April 5, 2012

And, who is professor Karen Seto?

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2012.

www.nomorefakenews.com

YouTube has taken down an Alex Jones video in which he parodies the professor who recently said warming critics have a mental disorder and should be treated.

Well, Professor Kari Norgaard was right about one thing. Anything can be called a psychiatric disorder. Dream up a disorder, name it, and the drug companies will give you a wink and a nod, because they cook up the expensive chemical solutions.

But I digress.

YouTube apparently believes official science can’t be messed with, and also that parody is a crime. In case you hadn’t noticed, criticizing science and government policy is beginning to merge with “politically incorrect speech.” The two streams are coming together, and it isn’t an accident.

Global warming is a key issue, because it’s the premise on which destruction of economies and green everything and cap and trade are based.

As Al Gore’s TV network, run out of the back of a pickup, heads into oblivion, and as the internet flushes one traditional media business after another down the toilet, as the manmade warming hypothesis takes one hit after another, as the science is exposed, the powers-that-be are getting nervous.

They want consensus, and they don’t care how they get it.

When PR dressed up as science doesn’t work, when gaping holes in the manmade warming hypothesis are exposed again and again, when scandals inside the corrupt warming club explode, the Plan B people try to shut down is the truth.

They cite “community standards” on speech, they suddenly interpret the 1st Amendment to mean “inoffensive comments,” they show “concern for potential victims,” they take sides.

It’s quite all right for scientists and government employees to call those who question the manmade warming hypothesis insane, or racist, or dangerous or mentally incompetent, but when the attacks run the other way, it’s impolite and offensive and insensitive. Boo-hoo.

O poor little professor who wrote a paper calling global warming critics sociologically diseased, and in need of treatment. Poor little professor needs defending, poor little professor of sociology who probably knows less climate science than a TV weather android. Poor little professor who wants to debate science by calling the other side demented.

You see, she’s a professor, and she was operating under the delusion that, from her protected perch, she could make sensational pronouncements and cut herself a nice little piece of academic pie and graduate into the land of the famous.

Well, she’s famous now, and I don’t think she likes it. A dose of her own medicine wasn’t what she had in mind. She thought she was inventing a new category of mental disorder.

Students actually put themselves into hock for decades, to come to your college and sit in your classes? Astonishing.

See, Professor Norgaard, let me take you to school for a second:

Science is supposed to work this way. Someone makes a claim based on evidence, and then other scientists use that evidence and decide whether the claim has merit. I know, that’s Pure science, and we rarely see it anymore in many areas of research. But that’s the template. That’s the way it’s supposed to operate.

If you play that game under the cover of academic pretension, based on NOTHING, it’s a giveaway. You’re just quack-quacking. And even some of your colleagues can see it. Your bosses at the college have already said your use of the word “treatment,” as in “needs treatment,” was a mistake. So they’re backing down. They’re running away and hiding. From you.

That must have been a bit of a shocker. There you were, quack-quacking, thinking your superiors would back you up, and they fled into the night. Cowards. They couldn’t take heat. See, they’re fakers, too. When the PR turns against them, they cut you loose in a second and leave you with your wings flapping in the breeze.

Welcome to the real world of academia.

By the way, I just read a letter you wrote to President Obama posted on the Whitman College website—the letter that will probably be scrubbed out in the next 30 seconds. Let me quote you:

“At this juncture, we need science more than ever. Fortunately, you have made an excellent choice in commissioning Harvard physicist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient John Holdren as your science adviser.”

Kari? Holdren didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize. At least not in this galaxy. You didn’t know that? I know some people who’d like to smoke what you’re smoking.

power outside the matrix

I really shouldn’t leave this piece without saying a word or two about another professor, not from the wilds of Oregon, but from Yale, who might be smoking with Skull and Bones types. That would be Karen Seto. The Daily UK Mail mentioned she recently told MSNBC: “We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely (together).”

My, my. Nothing elitist or arrogant to see here, move along.

This is about “urban land use” and “natural preservation” and “the warming threat” and “environmental stewardship.” All of which mean CENTRAL PLANNING for the planet.

Pack people into the cities (one item on the UN Agenda 21 list), leave the wilds to nature, with a few golf courses for the upper caste, and delegate farming to giant GMO corporations because, well, somebody has to grow food, unless the urban billions are going to be chomping Soylent Green. Or unless, to make this criminal enterprise work, some heavy depopulation must take place.

Quite a vision of the future, and it’s only right that Yale is in the vanguard.

Who’s insane?

But ha-ha, these professors are just fringe jokers and we all know there is no threat to our freedom.

Yeah? Go to Karen Seto’s CV at the Yale site and read the brain-cracking list of organizations she’s connected to. They’re all involved in this Central Planning for the Planet to Save Our Skins op. And you’ve never heard of any of them. They’re networked. And there are many more. They’re working globally, they’re working locally, and I wish I could say they’re all suffering from a sociological disease. But they aren’t. They’re little mad egos and big mad egos who are gathering together to create a future for the rest of us. A future decimation.

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

Four-foot Human with Cat’s Eyes

by Jon Rappoport

March 15, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

I saw one in a dream once, but this is a little different. My dream was probably brought on by tequila plus an active imagination, but here we have the vision of a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, S. Matthew Liao. He’d like to see it happen in the waking world.

Catch The Atlantic article by Ross Andersen, published March 12, 2012, and, Paul Watson’s excellent coverage at PrisonPlanet.com.

Prof. Liao announced his new paper (with co-authors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache, both of Oxford), entitled Human Engineering and Climate Change, on his blog on March 9th, 2012. You can access the paper via his blog post.

The Atlantic interviewed Prof. Liao, who is so concerned about global warming (not a flicker of doubt about the science behind it, it’s settled, move along) that he wants to engineer humans so they’ll have a diminished impact on the environment.

Don’t worry, the professor wants to save you and me and everyone, and it’s all good.

Here are his recommendations:

A drug that will make humans hate meat because the sight of it brings on nausea. (Reduce the cow population, cut down on warming.)

Implant pre-screened embryos in wombs that will develop into significantly smaller-than-average adults. (Diminished carbon footprint.)

Drug-induced enhancement of empathy and altruism. (Enlightened people will “serve the Earth.”)

Engineering humans with cat’s eyes! (See in the dark, cut down on (those new mercury-laden) light bulbs.)

I’d be interested in knowing what drugs Professor Liao is on. I fear, however, he’s completely sober.

According to Liao, at least one pharmaceutical rep is quite interested in his suggestions. I’m sure he’s right.

In the last few years, academics have been writing and speaking much more boldly about plans to experiment on the human race. The other day I described a recent paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics that advocates the right to kill babies (for any reason), since they aren’t fully formed persons yet. It’s called “after birth abortion.” I’m quite serious. Then we have the wonderful proposal, backed by Japanese research, to dump lithium in water supplies as a mood-stabilizer.

At any rate, the real story here is the lack of outrage in the press, academia, and the public. Apparently, people are now conditioned to so much vicarious horror and bizarreness they just shrug.

And the massive increase in various kinds of plastic surgery has opened the floodgates to “whatever you can get away with.”

If the means were available to replace the usual brand of eyes with cat’s eyes, do you get the feeling thousands of people would step up and sign on the dotted line?

“I used to be afraid to drive at night, but now I don’t even turn my headlights on.”

Professor Liao, when prompted by the interviewer to compare an anticipated new “empathy drug” with the effects of Prozac, blithely admires the analogy. Somehow, he doesn’t seem to know about the horrendous adverse effects of Prozac (such as suicide and homicide). (See Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac, by Dr. Peter Breggin.)

Look for a great deal more of this academic clap-trap to emerge from our great centers of learning. The hustlers are on the move. They may be trying to get their faces in magazines and earn promotions, but they’re really serving the explicit elite agenda of population control.

They’re softening up the masses for greater and greater biological, chemical, and genetic mandates—characterized as genuine breakthroughs and logical extensions of what is already being practiced.

In their smooth fashion, they’re implying that those who are against such programs are merely phobic about science and technology; throwbacks and Luddites who just can’t stand progress, who don’t want to rescue the human species.

Movies spin endless scenarios about humans merged with machines. What’s a little thing like cat’s eyes?

Especially, if like birth control, government insurance plans would cover it.

Professor Liao has prepared another paper for publication, in the journal Bioethics. It’s titled, “Parental Love Pills: Some Ethical Considerations.”

He imagines a pill could be devised that would enable a parent to love his/her child more. Liao concludes that this pill would allow the parent to give “authentic” love (as as opposed to a mere drug-induced or “narcissistic” substitute.)

Having dubiously cleared that hurdle, Liao goes on to write the following: “It may even be morally incumbent on us to do so [take the pill] if no other means of inducing parental love are effective.”

Staggering. “Morally incumbent.” In the long run, that’s one layer away from “enforceable.”

But Liao, in the present-day drug culture, would find many, many adherents. They already take drugs because they want to go to sleep, wake up, feel happy, avoid the necessity of thinking, dampen their anger and outrage, become more aggressive. Why not, therefore, take a drug so they love their children? Even if, contrary to Liao’s assurances, that emotion is a function of a chemical.

“Daddy, do you really love me or is it just that pill you keep taking? Why do you have to take the pill? I don’t like it.”

And once more, Liao displays his ignorance of the reality of pharmaceutical damage. Every year, in the US, FDA-approved medicines kill 106,000 people, like clockwork. (Source: Dr. Barbara Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”) This love drug of his would have no adverse effects?

“Mr. Smith, it’s good that you ‘love’ your son now, but I have to tell you the tests show your liver is coming to resemble an old shoe.”

At BigThink.com, Max Miller writes: “In 2009, Dutch researchers at the University of Amsterdam tested the effects of beta-blockers…on minimizing fear responses. They artificially created fearful memories in subjects by showing them unnerving pictures of spiders coupled with small electric shocks. A day later, half of the subjects were given beta-blockers and again shown the pictures of the spiders. The fear response they had exhibited a day before was gone…”

Putting aside concerns such as adverse effects of the drugs, the potential usefulness of bad memories, the unintended deletion of other memories, and the use of these drugs as sheer mind control, the core question is: is chemical deletion a good thing? Does it help and strengthen the individual, or does it weaken him?

And if we dig deeper still and consider all the experiments mentioned in this article, what view of the individual does it represent? I’ll tell you. It represents the individual as a mechanical object to be manipulated.

And if this view is accepted, then anything is possible, any experiment can be carried out. There are no moral or even legal repercussions. We’re back in Nazi Germany, albeit with “a softer touch.” (See Scott Nobel’s film Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century)

Softer, in part, because people are stepping forward to volunteer. People, for example, want their memories deleted. And their handlers are acting in a kindly fashion.

And the human race is being CHANGED, step by step.

This is the hidden fact. This is what all this experimentation is obscuring and covering over with its invasive “science.”

And above the scorched plain of experimentation and mind control is the INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS, AT THE CORE, FREE, POWERFUL, POSESSED OF UMLIMITED IMAGINATION AND THE ABILITY TO CREATE FUTURES.

FORGETTING THIS is the real amnesia besetting the human race. It is the trance that is the Matrix.

Waking up is the task. Using his power to the fullest is the work of the individual.

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.

How madmen think

How madmen think

JUNE 22, 2011. From 1 to 4 this afternoon, all politically correct statements are bullshit.

For instance:

“The scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every professional scientific society in the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged ‘unequivocal.’”

This is the sad man, Al Gore, writing in Rolling Stone.

I could start off picking at his remarks. How does he know 98% of climate scientists in the world endorse the notion of manmade dangerous warming? He has a slide rule in his shirt pocket? He gets hourly updates from the Thought Police?

And the category “climate scientist” doesn’t exist as a discipline in most universities.

How does he personally know this latest and greatest study was conducted by 3000 of the “very best scientific experts in the world?” In fact, how can a study be conducted by 3000 scientists? Did its publication list all of them? Alert to Guinness Book of World Records.

But these aren’t the core issues. The core mind-boggle is that a human of supposed intelligence can think that consensus is the way science is done.

When a researcher does an experiment, his work and methods are supposed to be tested by many other independent researchers, who perform his experiment for themselves. This is called replication.

But even if they agree the first scientist is right, the buck doesn’t stop there. Because replication has a reason and purpose: arriving at the the truth.

That’s the standard.

And truth requires open and honest and extensive debate in professional journals. A back and forth explication of issues and questions and shortcomings.

In the area of climate science, this has never happened. As in: never.

So whether it’s Al Gore, or Jon Stewart, or Bill Maher, or other such important scientists, we must reserve judgment, despite the confirming applause that thunders from their college audiences.

Even when I was in college, I knew students massed in a hall were lunatics.

Gore is a champion of consensus. He lives by it. He builds it, profits from it, and then turns around and cites it.

Using consensus is the last refuge of democracy.

The scientific merits of global warming or any other hypothesis are not about a vote.

As a medical reporter, I’ve heard the consensus argument many times. And in each case, I’ve discovered the consensus was wrong. Often it was promoted as a strategy for making profit or protecting it.

And when I write about imagination, consensus is also a factor, because it is the very essence of surrender to a reality without imagination. Consensus is what you get when imagination does not play a featured role. It’s the default and leftover structure of society.

Consensus, in this regard, is a movie called The Creation of the Drones.

Prior to any important, shattering scientific breakthrough, if you had polled “the best experts” and asked them whether or not the substance of that breakthrough might be true, the majority would have said no. That should tell you something.

It tells you that humanity at large wants to huddle in its bunker of assumed and traditional reality and protect against the incursion of the New.

Then much later, humanity says, of the breakthrough, “Oh, of course. Everybody knows that.”

Everyone knows it because everyone agrees.

So much for consensus.

Yesterday, on my radio show on prn.fm —I interviewed Mary Holland, co-author of the book, VACCINE EPIDEMIC. One of the upshots of that conversation was: the official consensus about vaccines is artificially constructed. It is sustained through fear, peer pressure, media close-mindedness, and government intervention.

Which is to say, frankly, that no one in his right mind would accept the pronouncements of the pro-vaccine “community” at face value.

A drone would, though. A drone would automatically assume that all vaccines are necessary and wonderful, because he had heard it voiced so many times, from so many towers of authority, with so much assurance. A drone would slip right into the consensus, thinking he was a first cousin to a “real scientist.”

On July 27, I’ll be interviewing Andrew Wakefield on my radio show. Don’t miss that one. Andy knows a great deal, first hand, about how the consensus works. He was bulldozed by its architects.

And now, here’s your definition for today:

“Politically correct”: A statement, idea, or position based on, and backed up by, the engineering of a false consensus.

Boom, you’re a PhD.

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

Back-door cap and trade

November 21, 2010.  Over at Front Page Magazine, Rich Trzupek has published an alarming piece on the latest EPA move to attack American industry.

After the manmade global-warming hypothesis took crushing body blows, and after the proposed cap and trade bill was placed on the back burner, many people thought the battle was over.  They were wrong.

We’re not talking about pollution here.  The subject is CO2 emissions and their purported role in dangerously heating up the planet—a premise which has been mercilessly and correctly discredited by rational skeptics.

Because the Obama White House now has limited options in its war against industrial production, it has come up with a new strategy:

Not a law, and not a massive set of EPA regulations that would come under public scrutiny before approval.  No, this is more devious.

Lisa Jackson, EPA chief, has issued a “guideline” to state EPA administrators.  The message will urge deep agency inspections of factories that go far beyond measuring emissions at the smokestack.

Plant equipment and manufacturing processes will be investigated to see how more efficient methods and purchases can be accomplished to reduce CO2 output.

The amount of EPA meddling and interference in the private sector would be potentially enormous.

The Jackson guideline, legally speaking, is just an opinion offered by the EPA.  It carries no legal force, and therefore, there is no need for oversight or the usual sort of approval process.  It slips in under the radar.

However, as Trzupek notes in his article, state EPA administrators treat opinions from their Washington chief as “holy writ.”  They will make every attempt to act on them.

Will legal challenges be mounted against this back-door approach to controlling industry in the US?  I don’t know.

I recently interviewed attorney Jonathan Emord on another matter.  In the course of the conversation, he stated that federal agencies have long been overstepping their constitutional powers by both enforcing law and making it.  Such actions breach the fundamental separation-of-powers principle.

Emord pointed out that this criminal activity is carried out by twisting the meaning of laws passed by Congress.  Agencies compose a set of regulations that will enable them to oversee a new law—and sometimes these regulations intentionally depart from the meaning of the legislation to suit an agency agenda.

In this case, however, the EPA has decided to forego regulations in favor of a “guideline,” an opinion.  It adds another strategy to the playbook.  And it, too, is surely unconstitutional, to the degree that state administrators fall in line with it.

Common sense makes it clear that, if the White House and Congress are shrinking away from putting a cap and trade bill on the table and debating it—because the odds of it passing are very long—then such a law shouldn’t be permitted to sneak into practice by other means.

It has become fashionable to blame industry for anything and everything.  However, instead of rigorously enforcing existing laws to punish corporations for polluting and endangering lives, what we are looking at here is a wholesale, across-the-board attack.  An attack that could take society back to a more primitive time and dim the lights.

It’s easy to rail against industry while standing on the platform it has created.

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

False Science: The Parallels

False Science: The Parallels

by Jon Rappoport

June 29, 2010

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 re-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

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