"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan" (Proverbs 29:2).
A grand deception of the American people and the world was exposed by Wikileaks when they published what has been termed "Vault 7". The main stream media was relatively silent on the details of it. Instead of people in legitimate government starting an investigation of what is clearly a policy that violates the constitution; they are instead cracking down on freedom of speech and going after Julian Assange for exposing this deep state corruption. And the main stream media has gone to work reinforcing this unconstitutional movement.
It's obvious that the main stream media has become a propaganda machine for these subversives who seek to overthrow the rule of law. Instead of haling Assange and Wikileaks for exposing the lawlessness, the main stream media supports their lawlessness and diabolical political schemes against democratic principles. For those of us who spend time in God's word this is not really all that shocking. Jesus said that before his return, "Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:10-12).
When we think of the word prophet, we tend to think of it in the sense of foretelling the future.
In the Bible the word 'prophet' often includes foretelling of future events, but it actually refers in general to people who inform others of information they need to know, (usually applying scripture to the current circumstances of life). In this sense, the news media is a 'prophet'. Not that they tell the future or apply scripture to current events, but that their job description is to inform, just like a prophet; to make people aware of certain realities and events that may effect them. This is exactly what a prophet normally does. In this case Jesus is talking about pseudo-prophets, or prophets who do not report the truth. This false reporting is causing exactly what Jesus said that the false prophets would produce; divisions among the people. It's this deceptive kind of information that Jesus want's us to be aware of and to discern so that we are not deceived by it (Matthew 24:24). Already we are seeing the beginnings of what Jesus was talking about when he said, "many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another." This betrayal is caused by manipulative false information that causes delusion or deception. Many will believe the delusions created by their images because they have no passion for the truth. They fail to investigate to find out if these things are really true. Like a prophet, the goal is to present a particular view or perception of the world around us. Pseudo-prophets present a false view that leads people astray. False information (propaganda) is released, or the truth withheld in order to create a false perception of a given issue. Most people are not aware of the significance of what has been revealed in the Wikileaks 'Vault 7' government leaks. The media tells us that the release of information is harmful to our security based on information that they cannot verify. They tell us that it was hacked by entities that they cannot verify. I will not be surprised to find out in the future that all of this information was given to Wikileaks by government insiders who are against the violations of U.S. law that are revealed in the leaks. But, the media tends to turn our attention away from that information, when it should be one of the most covered stories of the day. And it would be if not for an apparent hidden agenda. Even if we assume that the intelligence community has the people's best interests in mind, they have failed at their mandate (the reason they were created in the first place) to provide information to our government in order to protect the American people. They knew about software vulnerabilities that put our people and our companies at risk and didn't tell us. John McAfee explains this well in the following video.
Steve Pieczenik is an expert in psychological warfare and served as deputy assistant secretary under the administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He says that the reason this information was leaked was to bring down the CIA and restore the rule of law to America. He says that there is a coupe underway, which he is involved in, as well as others in the intelligence industry (both past and present) to end deep state lawlessness and control of information. He also claims that this is why information about Hillary Clinton and the DNC was leaked, not by Russians, but by patriotic American intelligence workers like himself. His professional life and expertise lend a great deal of credibility to his claims. It's interesting that John McAfee said, "there are no secrets" anywhere in the world today. Our smart TVs, smart phones and other smart appliances, along with corporations like Google, Microsoft and many others have put our private lives on public display. The deep state now has 'profiles' all over the internet on all of us, that we voluntarily provide when we sign up for websites like Facebook and Twitter.
Jesus said that in in the last days, "...whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops" (Luke 12:3). This seems to be coming true, and is another indicator that we are living in the times Jesus called "birth pains" (Matthew 24:8), which are signs of his coming and of the end of our present era (Matthew 24:3). Here is a video of a pastor talking about the prophetic significance of the 'Vault 7' revelations in Bible prophecy. I don't know much about this man, and I've heard him say things that I disagree with before. But, I really find most of this sermon to be relevant to anyone who values freedom of speech, conscience and religion.
I strongly recommend watching these videos if you can. They really help put a lot of things that have been going on in the news recently into perspective. There are many reasons to believe that Christ will be returning in the near future. Many Wikileaks revelations are part of that body of evidence.
Note: After I published this article I learned about Trump firing FBI director James Comey. Here's a video about that issue that I believe illustrates what I'm saying here.
"Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!" says the Lord.
Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel against the shepherds who feed My people: "You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings," says the Lord.
"But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.
I will set up shepherds over them who will feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, nor shall they be lacking," says the Lord
"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
"Therefore, behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "that they shall no longer say, 'As the Lord lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,'
but, 'As the Lord lives who brought up and led the descendants of the house of Israel from the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them.' And they shall dwell in their own land."
My heart within me is broken Because of the prophets; All my bones shake. I am like a drunken man, And like a man whom wine has overcome, Because of the Lord, And because of His holy words (Jeremiah 23:1-9).
In my title I put "Climate Change" in quotes for a reason. There is no question that the climate is changing, and has always been in constant flux. But, "Climate Change" in it's present form (the alarmist version) is a pseudoscience, and is easy to disprove, or at least cast doubt upon, based on an honest scientific model. We'll never know what the real average temperature was 150 years ago, 100 years ago and to a lesser degree, even 50 years ago. Today we have better systems in place because we use both NASA satellite measurements and a slightly better system of measuring it here on the surface of the planet. But the surface based system is still seriously flawed. The satellite based system is likely to be the system we use going forward, and if it's capable of using an accurate, even enough set of data points it will serve us well in the future. This is important because CO2 could very well be a problem at some point, and more questions of this kind will certainly arise in the future. But, there is no real evidence that CO2 is causing the many disasters that the, mostly politically motivated, alarmist movement is claiming. And a scientific survey of historical disasters compared with recent disasters bears this out. These propagandists blame almost everything on "Global Warming". This is irrational, but it serves their purposes, populations buy into it because the message is being repeated so much in the media and by opportunist politicians like Al Gore and many others. Even wars and violence are being blamed on 'climate change' these days, which is completely absurd. Neither this article, nor the above video should be construed as a reason to ignore environmental issues. There are other reasons, and types of pollution that are cause for concern. CO2, because of it's proliferation could well be one of them. And climate changes are something that the world should definitely be studying. But, the current alarmism should definitely be subject to scrutiny.
This article by the way is not a rehashing of the above video. I use some of that material, but I am using various other sources, including a Nobel Prize winning Physicist, information I've learned over the years about the subject from various scientists and scientific papers and articles, as well as information from NASA. I have been researching this issue off and on since the 1990's.
The Data is not Reliable Enough
The truth is, we have no way of knowing beyond doubt at this time (and probably never will with certainty) whether or not earth's temperature has trended toward extraordinary warming or cooling over the past 150 years. Chances are, based on the flawed data we have, it has probably warmed slightly in that time. But, the real controversy is whether that change is enough to warrant alarm, and whether that trend is outside of normal cycles. I'm convinced it probably isn't and there is plenty of evidence to support this claim. Many climate scientists and physicists agree. The man who began the first investigation into how or if CO2 effects climate, in the early 70's; later came out in the late 80's and early 90's, and said that there is no reason for panic at this time because there is not yet enough evidence to discern whether or not the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere actually does effect the climate significantly. He is the scientist that Al Gore claims was his "mentor", who's teaching prompted him to write his unscientific books on climate change. The truth is, Al Gore did poorly in science, and didn't even have a minor in it. He got a D in his "mentor's" class. More info on this in the above video. When his "mentor" came out and said that there was not enough evidence to justify the alarmism, Gore said, "He's just getting senile". However, there are plenty of speeches and interviews from that scientist, in that era, that he was very coherent. Gore didn't want his book sales to go down. Acknowledging the new findings would have been self defeating. So he made something up to cover himself and protect his investment. I've observed this behavior in other writers over the years. This is the logical conclusion. Power hungry people have little conscience when it comes to keeping their personal dream of glory alive. People by nature do not like being proven wrong Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, has said recently that it's impossible to accurately gage the average temperature of earth over the past 150 years. If you look at a map of all of the points on earth where the data is collected today, you'll see that the United States and Europe has data collection points everywhere; while places like South America and Africa have very sparse data collection points (places where temperature data is measured and recorded). The arctic and antarctic areas have very few places where the temperature is collected. Antarctica has only 8, while the United States has thousands, maybe into the ten's of thousands. With the data sources so unevenly spaced, it's impossible to really have a reliable measurement of the the true average temperature of the entire globe even now, much less over the past 150 years. It would be interesting to see the temperature changes just in America, since we would probably have one of the more accurate records of temperature change. Europe may well have the best data on how their temperatures have changed there than anywhere in the world. But, you can't base global temperature changes on data that came from only a few regions, especially when most of the data came from the northern hemisphere and specifically Europe. Having good data about only the northern hemisphere cannot possibly produce reliable results. If the temperature changes are global, they must be measured globally to know if they reflect "global warming" or cooling. Temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions can be very far apart in any given time period. In recent years it has been noticably colder in Antarctica than in the Arctic region. The variables caused by other weather factors make it impossible to accurately know the average global temperature based on data collected from only certain regions. Anyone who knows anything about data collection would tell you that the only reliable way to know the changes in average temperature would be to have an evenly spaced grid (of data collecting stations or points) covering the entire planet. The spacing of that grid would have to be close enough together to account for the extreme differences between the various climate regions and weather factors. Also, these temperature measuring points would have to be both on land and in the ocean. While there are now data collection points in the ocean, for most of the past 150 years there was very little information about temperatures in the ocean except for a few islands where records were kept, and more recently a more locations that are actually in the ocean. Also, in order to have a truly scientific model the data collection points need to not only evenly spaced, but also need to consistently stay in the same place. The data collection points have moved from place to place so many times throughout the history of recording the data that the margin of error is probably huge just based on this. I suppose a truly random collection of data from points all over the globe could potentially give a somewhat accurate picture of temperature trends, but it would take many decades and a lot of regularly collected data to have enough to make an accurate enough assessment in any case. It's kind of like thinking that if you could take accurate temperature readings in your back yard every hour for a million years you could see trends of the cooling and warming of the entire planet within a few degrees during that that time. You would certainly see trends, but the only thing that data would be useful for is predicting temperature change in my region of the world. Even then, it wouldn't be all that accurate. Temperature trends would almost certainly be different in one region from those in another. Possibly even extremely different. Another issue that has to be considered is the question of how accurate the measurements have been over the period of 150 years of record keeping. Numerous variables, potential problems and defects in the instruments used, as well as a wealth of geological variables and man made structures near the measuring devices also must be considered. For example, I have a thermometer placed on my fence so I can see it from my kitchen window. I also have one on my garage that i can see from my back door window. When the sun is shining directly on the thermometer on the fence it reads quite a bit higher than the one on the garage. The one on the garage is effected by radiated temperatures inside the garage. Mass stores heat, and the mass inside my garage effects the reading of the thermometer on the garage based on how much heat or cold that mass has stored up in it. Even if I had the most accurate thermometers in the world, it would still be impossible for me to get an accurate reading of what the average temperature in my town actually is, or even the temperature on my property. This has to do with the structures on my property as well as the position of the thermometer relative to the sun/shade and any number of other variables. If I were to place thermometers in a grid throughout my property, I would have a much better idea of the actual average temperature, as well as any variations. Even this would probably not tell me the temperature of the surface unless I placed temperature probes into the surface of the ground. But, if I collected the data at even intervals (say every hour), it would definitely give me a good indication of the changes throughout the day, the year, eventually decades and so on. While that might give me the most accurate record of temperatures in my town, it still wouldn't accurately reflect the actual average temperatures of my town or my region. There are too many variables. If this is true on a local level, it is certainly true on a much larger scale globally. If my property was in a big city, my data would be much higher than nearby rural areas. The old adage, "garbage in, garbage out" applies just as much to statistics as it does to computer programming. The numbers that we currently have of the overall change in the past 150 years show that the temperature has risen an average of 0.8 degrees. Based on the above mentioned potential defects in the way the temperature data was collected over those years, 0.8 degrees probably would fall within the margin of error you would expect from such a defective data collection system. This article from NASA may shed some light on the importance of improving how we measure fluctuations and changes in earth's temperature. The article is from the late 90's, but that doesn't effect it's relevance all that much. Here's a quote from the article: "Improving our understanding of the potential magnitude and extent of any man-made global warming will require a significant amount of critical scientific investigation, both in space and on Earth, using both observational and computational analysis techniques. It is clear that if we've learned anything in the past two decades, it's that the response and dynamics of the Earth as a complex, interconnected machine are far more detailed, intricate, and complicated than we first envisioned. Through NASA's Earth Observing System, researchers will continue to improve our ability to monitor the Earth system so that we may understand the subtleties of variations in the global atmosphere. NASA's continued direct observations of the Earth will help enable us to sort out the complicated issues of climate variability and change that affect the planet." The temperature on earth has increased about 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, and between 0.3 and 0.5 degrees C in the past 100 years, based on the records that are used to calculate. This would mean that the global temperature increased more between 100 and 150 years ago than it has in the past 100 years. This is hardly a feverish number since earth's temperature has fluctuated by much greater numbers just since man and civilization has existed, and by some relatively extreme numbers throughout the ages, without the amount of CO2 being released by human activity today.
How the Data is Presented
If you look at a good graph of temperatures over just the last thousand years you see a pattern that shows that; where we are now is in no way unusual or different from previous increases in temperature, nor is there any significant difference in the pattern of temperature change. Not all such graphs are equal though. I've seen graphs that show current trends much higher than they could possibly be, based on what NASA says about the change in the last 100 years. These charts are created and propagated by alarmists and do not reflect the real data available. Based on the actual data we have, there is no real reason for the kind of alarm we are hearing from politicians. I'll get into some reasons for the propaganda. Below is a set of charts from the University of California. The top chart represents the last 1 million years, represented by the number 1000 for a thousand times a thousand years (1,000,000 yrs). The bottom two charts are the most relevant to the subject of global temperature change as it relates to human beings and civilization. Obviously, we had no network of thermometers in place a million years ago or even two hundred years ago. So, we have no idea how the accuracy of the methods used to calculate temperatures prior to 150 or so years ago would actually compare with data from thermometers used since then. Presumably the thermometer data would be more accurate. The charts prior to 150 years are based on models of various kinds of geological and plant life testing and can be easily adjusted based on numerous variables to reflect whatever hypothesis it's creator may have about climate change. The 150 year graph (bottom) shows a rise of less than one degree. The 16 thousand year graph (second to bottom) shows that temperatures have fluctuated, but were relatively stable for that period, with fluctuations of nearly five degrees. According to accepted science, man has been here through all of those 16 thousand years, and survived - even thrived. Earth was probably quite a bit colder for the first few thousand years, but the temperature of the last ten thousand years has been relatively consistent, and higher at times than it is now according to a visual analysis of the chart, even since the beginning of civilization as we know it (about the last 6,000 years). Clear patterns of temperature fluctuation can be observed in this data.
Temperature charts of the last 1 million, 150 thousand, 16 thousand and 150 years
Articles and research papers that want to promote alarmism will always focus on this bottom 150 year graph, which is at least based on actual measurments. They then usually give you a graph based on a model of the older estimated data that is skewed to make it look like this 0.8 degree change over 150 years is abnormal. Because of the margin of error in both the projections of what was happening prior to 150 years ago, as well as the flaws in the way data has been collected throughout that 150 years, it is impossible to conclude that this 0.8 degree change is abnormally high or even accurate. The most recent data would logically be more accurate, and the satellite data, (newer yet) would presumably be the most accurate, if the satellite is actually collecting global data that is uniformly taken from points all over the entire earth, or through some other proven method of statistical data collection. I would think that would be the case. If not, then mankind is still in need of a reliable way of measuring and assessing temperature changes planet wide. I'm not sure how comprehensive the NASA satellite system is, but one would have to assume it's better than what we had in the 60's and prior. The climate scientist in the above video says that the U.S. should stop spending over 4 billion dollars a year on this pseudo science. There are many very good scientists in climatology and physics (as well as other disciplines) who agree. One problem with the scientific community is that while they claim that any hypothesis must be backed by empirical, testable, physical evidence; many of their accepted theories, like climate change and it's impact, are based on evidence that is sketchy and/or can be interpreted in different ways to reach different conclusions. With that kind of evidence, almost any hypothesis could theoretically be accepted as fact simply by using a different model to interpret the data, and based on whether or not the more influential scientists are willing to accept the outcome. Real science would never accept anything as proven fact that was not based on testable and repeatable evidence. In a good scientific method, competing hypothesis would be welcomed if they were within some very limited parameters of reality. This would not guarantee funding for research, which in most cases would rely on things like marketability and the priority of the kinds of problems the results might solve. A real scientist would readily accept the failure of a hypothesis at some point and move on to better projects. They would never use fraud to advance agendas or careers no matter how tempting. But, of course, we don't live in my idealist world. I will go into some of the flaws in the 'consensus' on climate change' below. I'm sure all climatologists and earth scientists would agree that climate study should continue. But, I would think the more honest ones would agree that the way the question has been dealt with politically has been wasteful of valuable tax dollars and even socially, economically disruptive and harmful to populations and economies that rely on fossil fuels for survival. Some such disruption would almost necessarily be justifiable if it was a theory that had more accurate data or if the data showed a much greater trend toward abnormal global warming. At this point even the manipulated data only shows more of a yellow alert than a red alert. That's assuming the data hasn't been manipulated to overstate the facts.
Fraudulent Data
Even if the data of the past 150 years was reliable enough to justify the alarm; manipulations of that data in recent years make the climate change alarmism even less credible. There are many documented cases where the temperature data has been manipulated by people who stand to gain (follow the money), to make it appear that temperatures in recent years have risen more than they actually have. Sixty years of data in Paraguay and one way adjustments in Arctic data are one example. Even NASA's records have been fraudulently adjusted to show warming that is not supported by the original data, particularly data collected since the 1950's. Here is a quote:
"Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase. • Reducing the high values in the first warming phase. • Increasing individual values during the second warming phase. • Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995. • Shortening the early decades of the datasets. • With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened."
In Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming. In 2012, alterations of the data were made in March, August and December, each causing it to appear that temperature trends were warmer and warmer. If the data is regularly adjusted to fit the hypothesis, then in this sense, global warming is man made. There was a definite cooling trend from 1940 to 2010, but you would never know it by the datasets used by the alarmists. Several very credible scientists have made these discoveries of data manipulation and investigated and reported on them. But climate change has become a trillion dollar industry, so the chances of a formal, unbiased investigation is probably not in the forecast; even though the datasets are all available to the public.
The following article by Thomas Karl, former director of NOAA (now a famous proponent of climate alarmisim) in 1989, illustrates the difference between what the data said then, and what the new manipulated data says.
The Scientific Consensus
Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on the scientific consensus. Most of the surveys sited have the consensus above 90%. However, the surveys that include higher numbers of scientists, and those where more questions are asked about specific details of the question of climate change, show very different results. They still show that the majority of scientists believe that global warming is happening, but much smaller percentages agree that it is mostly man made or about the significance of it's impact in the future. The polls that produce the 90 percent plus numbers are much more restrictive as to who can participate in the polls. In those studies one had to not only have researched and published on the subject, but they had to have published a minimum number of papers and the majority of the papers they published had to be exclusively about climate change. In this type of survey the consensus numbers gradually went up over time until almost no one (the 97% figure) questioned the legitimacy of any of the claims about global warming, that it is caused by human activity or that it is cause for alarm. This could be attributed to the culture; the fact that as consensus rises in the scientific community on virtually anything, less and less papers submitted to peer review are accepted, and less and less scientists are willing to even try to publish critical views for fear of their reputations and careers. This is true in many areas that are considered 'accepted science'. Early on, the claims of scientific 'consensus' were not based on polling of scientists, but rather on an arbitrarily selected peer reviewed papers that were arbitrarily selected to show a consensus (without an actual poll), skewed toward the view that climate change was real, caused by humans and dangerous to the future of the planet. Again, once something is viewed as 'accepted science', skepticism is not published, critics are ridiculed and shunned and careers can be at stake. Another factor that is often overlooked is the fact that the majority of those asked to take a survey don't respond. The question is, did they not respond because they were too busy or because they thought the issue wasn't important enough to warrant their input? Of course there could be any number of reasons why a scientist would fail to answer the polls, but the fact remains that we don't know how they would have responded. This is actually one of the biggest flaws in all polling. An example would be political voting polls. I doubt that many would disagree that most elections would probably go very differently if a high enough percentage of eligible voters actually went to he polls and voted. And the most recent presidential election shows that when large numbers of people show up at the polls who normally wouldn't it can have a profound effect on the outcome. In my little town I was amazed at how many people showed up to vote compared to previous years. The difference was 'yuge' (sinc). Another problem with the polling of the scientific community also has to do with peer pressure and fear of being found out. Since the polls would almost necessarily have been mailed to the scientists and mailed back, real and certain anonymity would almost be impossible because in many cases just the postmark would be enough to identify the responder if someone wanted to. Even online forms wouldn't necessarily prevent this because it's very easy for an online form to record the I.P. address of the person submitting it. I suspect that most online forms do record that information, which can easily be traced to the person who submitted the form. There is a way around that through proxies, but from my own experience, one doesn't always think of it or even know how to do it. Being a scientists doesn't necessarily make one internet savy. If someone was afraid that a view opposing what they see as 'expected' of them could harm their careers they might be tempted to either answer the survey based on conformity rather than honest opinion, or just disregard the poll and throw it in the trash. I consider these factors, but I don't think they necessarily prove anything in and of themselves. The consensus seems to be overwhelming that at least those scientists who publish most of their papers about climate change, and who respond to the polls, constitute at least a 90 percent consensus that climate change is real. A smaller, but still majority percentage believe that it is at least partly caused by human activity. And most of those respondents believe that it will cause problems in the future with varying degrees of belief about how serious those problems are (will be) and how urgent addressing the issue is.
Follow the Money
In recent decades the idea of a world without war, joined together by mutual respect and love for the human family has become quite popular. John Lennon's song "Imagine" has become a sort of unofficial world anthem.
John Lennon was one of my favorite musicians back in the 60's, 70's and into the 80's. And Imagine was one of his greatest songs. It's about imagining a world without the many wars we've seen throughout history, caused mostly by the greed and power, often disguised as ideology, of an elite few. I think John would roll over in his grave if he knew that his song was being used to promote an undemocratic vision of a New World Order being pushed by powerful elites bent on seeking even greater power. While many of these power seekers dress their rhetoric in language that appeals to the 'imagine no possessions' crowd; their actions show that they believe they have a right to change cultures by force instead of truly believing that 'all you need is love'.
I'm sure Lennon would be all for a global government that actually created a genuine environment of world peace, as long as it was a system that gave "Power to the People" and was based on the concepts of freedom and individual liberty. But, just a little bit of research reveals that this is not the goal of these greedy and powerful elite. A look at their policies also shows that they have no interest in peace.
It is mainly this elite cabal that has an interest in people believing that global temperatures are climbing at an alarming rate. And it is mainly this aspiration that has created this trillion dollar industry, financed partly by multi-billionaires who aspire to greatness in taking part in the creation of a new order, but mostly from people's tax dollars; not just in the United States but throughout the world. The climate science industry itself, much like the Military Industrial Complex have a vested interest also, but without these globalist elitists, most of them would have to find a job that actually produces something of value.
There are growing occult movements based on pagan worship of the earth and nature. And in a very real way the leaders of these movements have something to gain because it helps them recruit new believers. But these people have little or nothing to do with the manipulation of the data. And I'm sure most of these these religious people are not trying to take over the world. They're just taking advantage of that data to promote their religion, just as most religions do with information that is favorable to their world view.
Many who read these words will say at this point that I'm talking about a diabolical secret conspiracy. But, even though it could be considered diabolical depending on your belief system, it's no secret. And I would use the word political movement rather than conspiracy because, at least in the past few decades it has been promoted quite openly and has become popular, though most elite organizations founded around this idea hold meetings that are closed to the public.
Some of these organizations, like the Biblerberg Group, are more secretive than open, but they don't hide their existence. The reason they give for keeping the meetings out of the public eye is that it might inhibit the free flow of ideas. I'm sure there are elitist groups that are more secretive yet, but they pale in contrast to organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is the American version of a larger world wide circle of groups with the same vision of World Dominance through Imperialism. These groups hold many meetings that are not open to the public, but they do not hide their identity. I read articles and watch videos on the CFR's website every now and then. They don't seem to be trying to hide the fact that their goals are globalist in nature and involve global governance.
Many of the members of these organizations do not disclose their membership when they are running for office or otherwise seeking power. This video of Dick Cheyne speaking at a CFR illustrates this well.
But, someone might ask, "what does climate change have to do with these global elitists"? What do they gain by it? The globalist imperialists have often gone on record saying that various crisis were good for their agenda. They see crisis as opportunities to move forward their agenda of "world order". This video of Henry Kissenger is one example. There are many examples of this, not just from Kissinger, who is a leader among these political groups. He is a close family friend of, and is admired by the Clintons; who often ask his advice.
Someone might say that Henry Kissinger is old news and that his views don't matter. But, even entities like Google seek his advice on how they can contribute to the formation of this New World Order. There is an interview that you can find on Youtube that's about an hour long where the CEO of google asks him several times what their industry can do to help. Bill Gates is a huge proponent of global government. My problem is that many people consider Henry Kissenger a war criminal. And his history bears this out. I won't go into the details, but I ask myself, what kind of world order would he and others who share his vision implement? And what lengths would they go to in order to achieve it? I see mass deception, using an issue that it's perceived that, only scientists can understand. It's the perfect tool to begin the process of convincing the masses that a global system is the only answer. Climate change is one of the first issues that has brought to the forefront the idea of implementing a world taxation system, something globalists have long coveted. This would be a major step toward global government. Another example that shows the influence of this New World order is something George Walker Bush said several times when he was president. Other presidents, as well as other world leaders have also used the term New World Order increasingly in recent decades. Especially in the last few years. It's something they talked about only in secret conversation and secret conferences in the past, but is gaining momentum. The most powerful people in the world in recent decades have seen their greatest mission to be the establishment of a new world order under the United Nations as the following video shows. You will notice that many of these quotes were associated with crisis that were of global concern. If they want to bring the world together under global governance, they need a common enemy. Many see climate change as that common enemy that they can use to establish a world government.
If you watched this new world order, you should have noticed that one of the speakers said in one breath that global governance is not a world government, and in the next breath started to say the word government, and then changed it to 'governance'. But the word governance means government. I guess they figure if enough people don't understand this, then they will get enough converts to their agenda. The semantics is a trick in an attempt to try to make the idea more palletable to those who are skeptical of creating a new global government for fear it will be another imperialistic empire, which recent history (what they actually do as opposed to what they say) proves that it is imperialism.
Some will by now be thinking I'm a nationalist. There is a difference between a patriot and a nationalist. Nationalists typically believe their leaders are right most, if not all of the time. Patriots love their country, and when they see it's leaders doing things that they believe are damaging to the image of their country, they speak out against it. I am a patriot, but I'm also something of an internationalist. I believe that all should respect the rights and sovereignty of every country as far as that is possible. I believe in free trade as long as so-called "free trade" doesn't involve empowering global (over national) sovereignty; or trade agreements that go by the name of free trade agreements, but are not fair to all the nations involved in the agreement. Free trade means no one is going to place tariffs on one another's imports. If one nation is charging tariffs and the other isn't, that's not free trade. I believe in a relatively easy path to citizenship, but I believe immigration should be done legally. And if a country wants to exclude certain groups or types of people, that is their sovereign right. I don't want exclusion in my country's immigration policy except where there is evidence of a potential threat to the country. Please do not accuse me of being a nationalist. I also have no problem whatsoever with having a league of united nations that gather together to try to solve global problems. But, I will oppose that organization when it starts forming it's own army and setting agendas for my country without proper representation of the will of the people. And even then, if the organization is made up of too many nations that hold to undemocratic and oppressive ideologies, I still will oppose it and even go so far as to join a fight in war against it, if it tries to impose that oppression on my country. This is where the idea breaks down, because I just described the current state of the United Nations organization. They have a human rights council that is headed up by oppressor nations. Giving them governmental power over the world is completely unacceptable.
This doesn't mean that I wouldn't support or join in a war against a nation that was genocidal or that was trying to overpower an ally. And whether the United Nations supported such a fight would be virtually irrelevant to me. It would be great to have their help and support in such a fight, but not necessary in my opinion. It's these globalists, many of the same people who promote the global climate scare, who also are deeply involved in stirring up trouble in places like the Middle East in order to attempt to recreate other nations in their own image. And I strongly oppose it. If we are in a "New World Order" then the agenda should not be for one nation (or group of nations) to impose their ideology upon another nation (or group of nations). If there's to be a global agenda for the Middle East, it should be to negotiate with them and trying to help them redefine the borders that were imposed on them by European nations so that maybe they would be able to get along better. That wouldn't be an easy task, and it shouldn't be forced upon them, but that's the kind of goals a good international order would have. Not the setting up of a global "governance" that imposes it's will on sovereign nations and ethic groups.
Even if I thought that the global warming scare was legitimate, it would still suck that it is being used as justification for another step in boosting the power of the United Nations (and others bent on pursuing global rule), where we don't have any elected representation, or bill of rights that guarantees free speech, free exercise of religion, the right to be prepared to rebel if tyrants take over the system, rights to a due process when accused of a crime, the right to petition for, and the power to implement change when we see rights being violated and the right to secede if we have irreconcilable differences with that government. These basic rights of human beings to secure their, lives, liberty and property for themselves and their posterity are essential to anything seeks to justify itself as government. In some areas of the world, like the United States, they would have to commit a major act of genocide to implement their unjust thieving system of government.
The Role of Markets
We should be encouraging innovation in energy technologies because fossil fuels, nuclear energy other polluting energy sources carry with them various health and environmental problems. But, we must allow free markets to work on these problems. Lowering restrictions on that innovation will speed up the process of solving these problems. We already have some technologies that were created by free market innovators that can be expanded upon, and new technologies developed. There are some very simple technologies that reduce the emissions of wood burning to almost nothing. The wheels of environmental technology are already turning in the markets. The problem is, governments prop up failing technologies instead, because it puts money in their coffers. This kind of government is not justifiable. Without the innovation of free markets the survival of the human race will soon be endangered. Crony capitalism and crony socialism greatly inhibit innovation.
The Role of Government
Most of the government efforts in America to push for faster implementation of these technologies have been failures. The 750,000,000 dollar stimulus package implemented during Obama's administration was spent in large part trying to sponsor green technologies and it was a fail. If you do the math, the temporary work that the stimulus package did produce cost over a million dollars per job. Trial and error in a free market is what fosters that kind of innovation, not government. Some government pressure might be helpful or even necessary in a very few instances, but not in the form of crony government choosing who to invest in to achieve the goals. That kind of stimulus package is almost always largely ineffective. Government has a role in promoting education about environmental responsibility, and certain free market environmental behaviors should be outlawed and punished when violated. And all of us as individuals have a responsibility to be environmentally conscious.
It's government intervention and their power to pick winners and losers in the markets that have caused problems for progress, because they force out innovative competition virtually every time they subsidize an industry or pass laws and regulations that favor them. This has been true from hemp prohibition to Obamacare and virtually everything in between. Now imagine a global government where the power is in the hands of even fewer people who are not even elected by the people. Would it be any different? Would global government somehow magically produce leaders who don't engage in cronyism? Since they would have even more power and less accountability, they would without question be even worse.
The solution does not lie in more and bigger government. Global government can't solve the issue any more than national governments can. The answer is innovation which thrives when the markets are truly free of government tinkering. At least more free than they are now, and easier for innovators to enter than they are now. New innovators would emerge with better ideas because the pool of talent would be widened to include those who don't have the money that huge and inefficient corporations do. You can thank undemocratic regulation systems for creating regulations that favor those huge corporations over less financially endowed innovators.
Beaurocracy
Laws are necessary to help prevent excessive and reckless pollution, and goals may need to be outlined in some form by government to help innovators know what kinds of technologies are in demand; but regulatory agencies and international committees are largely ineffective by their very nature. We may need agencies to enforce pollution laws, but they have no right to create those laws unless they are officials that were elected to represent the people and the states involved.
In a way, allowing unelected people the power to create laws (that's what a regulation is) is akin to giving a running chain saw to a little child. Not that there aren't intelligent people in those agencies with expertise in some of the areas they regulate; but because they only see part of the picture, and because they tend to have cronies in the industries they are supposed to be regulating; they are often clueless of some of the devastating long and short term effects their regulations will have on the overall economy. Their priorities do not include new innovators because they usually have vested interests and relationships in the existing, inefficient, giant corporations. Because they don't have to answer to the people, there's no incentive for change.
It could be that some of those same people should be involved in research groups that present information to the elected officials, but there is no place in the constitution for unelected officials to make laws (regulations). In order to have a system that serves the people it's necessary that the people who make their laws (all their laws including regulations) are elected representatives rather than (crony) appointed regulators. Maybe that will make the job of congress harder, but they're being paid well, and the job comes with a lot of powerful perks. Maybe such a system might have prevented all these laws that violate the constitution. They would be too busy working on laws that actually protect the public to have time to pass laws that violate their rights. Maybe they just passed them because they were trying to look busy. Well, most employers want their employees to look busy, but they don't want them to be busy bodies.
The Role of the Consumer
The people themselves are actually the ones who have to drive the transition to a more environmentally friendly economy and society. When they first came out with those pretty plastic packages. If we had been properly educated, we would have been more likely to buy the package that is more environmentally friendly, and actually at the same time cheaper, especially if we were to return to more hemp based products. But here again, the government stepped in and promoted the agenda of the oil and paper companies, who wanted to dominate these industries. The paper companies had already invested in the lumber and hemp was a formidable competitor because it's safer environmentally, cheaper and higher quality all around for both paper and plastic products and possibly even as fuel. Innovation in a free market is the only thing that is solving, and will solve, any of the environmental challenges we face. So the people of the world have a major difficult task in front of them. Pressuring governments to free up market systems so that new innovators have the same opportunities that huge corporations have to solve these problems. As long as they are suppressed by a failing system of crony 'control', the task of moving past a fossil fuel dependent economy will take much longer, if it ever gets done at all. Eliminating these barriers should be a high political priority for everyone who cares about the future of the world, not just for the environment, but for quality of life in general. Another task that can only be done by the people is making better choices in what we purchase. Look! if everyone stopped buying oil and products that require oil in their production or operation, most (if not all) of the problem of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels would be solved. I say this almost facetiously, but the truth is, if enough people walked into the neighborhood big box store and said, "I want to buy that product, but I'll only buy it if it's in a more environmentally friendly package"; change would happen quickly. We all need to be aware that most of us make choices every day that contribute to the destruction of the earth's environment. More so in the industrial world, but to a lesser degree also in the third world. Some of us do it and then go out and carry signs saying, "Save the Earth". Or fly private jets all over the world on a propaganda mission to convince people that an undemocratic global empire is the solution. That isn't hypocrisy?
What if My Hypothesis is Wrong
Let's suppose that my logic (not to imply that this logic originated with me) about global warming is seriously flawed, or that even if the logic isn't flawed; what if my personal research is based on bad information? What if the reality is that global warming is something that is an immediate threat, that must be dealt with in order to save the planet. This is not likely in my mind, but i concede that it is entirely possible. Even with all the flaws in the "consensus" data, and the manipulation of the data that is being provided to the UN's commission on climate change, and the world; it is still possible that even lacking reliable data, global warming is an alarming reality. If all the nations of the world get together and create an international tax on carbon emissions (the proposed solution) it won't solve the problem. In fact the very scientists who support the so-called "consensus" agree that the UN's proposed plans will hardly put a dent in the CO2 problem. If you've paid attention, you've noticed that the solutions being proposed aren't for the nation to do this or that, but to give taxing power to an international organization. So now the world has brought the UN (or whatever entity they give that tax power to) one step closer to world domination, with no evidence that this governance will be based in any kind of democratic representation. And it doesn't solved the problem that it was empowered to solve, climate change. Unless they abruptly ban most industrial sources of carbon emissions, they will not be able to reduce enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make a real difference. The majority of the human race then spends the few decades it's got left, before the crisis destroys the planet, as slaves to an undemocratic world empire. If the world is so concerned about this perceived crisis, would they object if the United States (or any other country) began to foster the innovation it would take to move the transition away from fossil fuels faster? To say that the only way our country can do anything to fix the problem is through world governance is a logical fallacy. Rather, if we took the lead and fostered the innovation, it wouldn't take the rest of the world to get on board because there would be money to be made. In many ways it seems like China, by necessity may end up being the world leader in this area because so many of our politicians are more interested in their new world order than doing what it takes to be the leaders in alternative technologies. This may qualify me as a 'conspiracy theorist', but I find this suspicious. No government, no matter their ideology is going to immediately ban all use of fossil fuels unless they don't care about how many citizens die in the transition, and the devastating damage it does to the economies of the world. Because that's what would happen if they moved too fast. They were trying to move too fast with world trade and now we have the "populist movements" that are growing fast all over the western world. The people still have some power over tyranny. At the very least some form of energy for heat and cooking is necessary for the survival and health of huge populations of the earth. While there are some alternatives to wood and fossil fuels, most of them are extremely expensive, and most people won't be able to afford it (freer markets could help here if we had them). Unless they intend to somehow herd everyone into the tropical regions of the earth to save the planet. How achievable would that goal be? In spite of the fact that pollution is harmful to our health and environment, fossil fuels are essential to the world's economy and for most citizens of the world, survival itself. They along with other polluting fuels such as wood and camel dung are essential to the survival of billions of people throughout the world. We all have to live with that reality whether we like it or not.
What Good Can Come from the Climate Change Question?
Science has a vital role to play, but creating a crisis for politicians and rulers to exploit for more power is not it. They are the ones who should be paving the road to progress in moving the world past the age of fossil fuel dominance in energy, instead of fudging data to help greedy politicians and corporations gain more global power. The main issue that the question of climate change should be addressing is how well we can improve our weather data collection systems in the future. Because it is possible that CO2, or maybe something else may be cause for alarm at some time in the future, based on more reliable data, and having an accurate measuring system (real, accurate data as opposed to flawed models and fraudulent data), which could help to prevent mankind from destroying the planet through pollution both naturally occurring and man made, now and into the future. ThoughtProbe
