USA Today has the story (1/26): “American scientists worried about climate change and skeptical of President Donald Trump are planning a protest march in Washington, D.C.”
“March organizers, on the event’s website, said it serves as ‘a starting point to take a stand for science in politics’.”
“…The group’s mission statement is set to come out on Monday.”
“‘There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives’, the statement said. ‘The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action…’”
Well, all right, that’s that. No alternatives.
Debate would be subversive.
Official science is the only science.
But oops; all along, there have been dissenters from the manmade warming mantra; they just haven’t been allowed inside government and media portals.
Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)
Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8, 2015: “Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”
Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)
And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.
The science is only settled in government/media circles, where leaders have climbed on board the Globalist plan to undermine economies all over the world by grossly lowering energy production, as a way to “reduce warming.”
One of the major warming hustlers is, of course, Al Gore. Every movement needs such men.
Consider facts laid out in an uncritical Washington Post story (October 10, 2012, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor”):
In 2001, Al was worth less than $2 million. By 2012, it was estimated he’d locked up a nice neat $100 million.
How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled—via loans, grants and tax relief—somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the federal government to go greener.
Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.
Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.
Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It made batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM and Gore sold when shares cost $21 to $26—before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.
For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the administration of President Barack Obama.
On the side, Gore had been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (Gore was constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.
So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.
The man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The federal government has been helping out with major, major bucks.
This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.
—How many scientists and other PhDs have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?
2012: A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists said no (see here and here). Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.Ds.
Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”
Globalists want all national governments on the planet to commit to lowering energy production by a significant and destructive percentage in the next 15 years—“to save us from a horrible fate.”
Their real agenda is clear: “The only solution to climate change is a global energy-management network. We (the Globalist leaders) are in the best position to manage such a system. We will allocate mandated energy-use levels throughout planet Earth, region by region, nation by nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen.”
This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail.
Slavery imposed through energy.
To learn more about this big con and swindle, I encourage you to read the book “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation”, by Patrick Wood.
In closing, I’ll leave you with this:
The New York Times, the “paper of record,” published a very interesting piece on January 26, 1989. The headline read: “US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.” (An earlier article of mine on it here.)
Here are a few key paragraphs:
“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”
“While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.”
“The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”
Then comes the revisionist stepping-back from the explosive finding:
“Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ‘cast doubt’ on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures…He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.”
That’s a beauty, isn’t it? The US, with its massive spewing industrial/automotive output of CO2 is—owing to a mysterious force—not warming. Why not? It’s angels, of course. Angels scrubbing the sky.
Actually, later in the Times article, “Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan” offers this gem: “Another possibility, he [Hansen] said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”
But I suppose, through a REVERSE miracle, the droplets do allow heat generated at ground level to escape upward. If the droplets did trap heat at ground level, temperatures would rise—and the study showed the rise wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.
The Times had no follow-up questions.
But don’t worry, be happy. It’s all good. Yes, the warming hypothesis leads to carbon taxes, lowering energy output in order to keep us all from frying, and the consequent decimation of the economy—but look, people make mistakes. However, they mean well. They really do. And that’s what counts.
THEY’RE NOT USING A BOGUS WARMING HYPOTHESIS TO TORPEDO AMERICA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, AS PART OF A GLOBALIST MACHINATION OF CONTROL. THEY DON’T WANT TO DECIMATE THE ECONOMY AND REDUCE US TO A HELPLESS STATE OF POVERTY.
They would never do that.
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 atNoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.