Category Archives: Global Warming

Here comes global cooling

by Jon Rappoport

June 17, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I wrote this piece on May 10, 2011. It was a look back at 1975 media coverage of global weather:

Inventing media reality

Here comes global cooling

May 10, 2011

I offer this piece, not to dig into the science, but to show how strong the media effect is. Thirty-five years ago, newspapers and magazines were drumming up support for a global cooling scare.

Notice the language in this April 28, 1975, Newsweek article, “The Cooling World,” by Peter Gwynne. It has the same rhythms today’s warming pieces display, the same transitions, the same reliance, of course, on experts.

It’s all about INVENTING REALITY, because the 1975 Newsweek reporter—or today’s highly confident journalists and smirking pundits—have no idea what they’re talking about. They’re simply taking their cues from people they accept as experts. And then fabricating the whole business. Cooling, warming—none of them [journalists] has ever really thought about the state of the science. None of them has even turned a layman’s mind, armed with some degree of logic, to the statements and methods of the climate researchers. They’re personally clueless.

Their editorial meetings should really go this way: “Okay, boys, we’ve got the quotes from the expert researchers, so now we know which way to go. It’s cooling (or warming). From here on out, make it up. Make it sound somber, inject apprehension and fear, you know how it works. We want that dignified tone in our pieces. Of course, we have no idea what the hell we’re doing. Not really. We’re just the messengers. But who cares? Give it your best shot. Invent reality.”

Newsweek, April 28, 1975. The ironies in this piece, knowing what we know now about the warming media campaign, are so thick you’ll need a de-fogger. And if you think the subsequent media shift from cooling to warming was simply a matter of discovering new iron-clad data, I have a villa in the center of the Arctic I’m dying to sell you. Here is the 1975 Newsweek article:

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.”

“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively [!] that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.”

“To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ‘A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,’ warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ‘because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century’.”

“A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.”

“To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ‘little ice age’ conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.”

“Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ‘Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,’ concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ‘Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions’.”

“Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.”

“’The world’s food-producing system,’ warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, ‘is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.’ Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.”

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

That’s Newsweek in 1975. Sounds like science, must BE science, right? What else do you want? You’ve got experts weighing in, plus standard journalistic sentences, plus familiar rhythm and flow. It all adds up to…credibility. And possibly, a few of you who’ve been living in Florida for the past 60 years have parkas, snow shoes, snow plows, and audiocassettes on igloo- building in a shed. You bought these items in 1975. Because reality was what media said it was. Just like now.

So buy extra sunscreen and line up for your COVID shot in the arm, with full confidence.

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.

Biden: naked socialism/technocracy for America; the great land theft

A new chapter in the Energy Wars

by Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

We are living in the middle of a giant scam: “Reduce energy use, in order to cut CO2 emissions and save the planet.”

Here is the next chapter in that scam:

On January 27, 2021, the White House published Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” [1]

Obviously, this document was long in the making, and Biden had no role in composing it.

Buried deep in its mind-numbing text, here is what its opponents are calling “the 30 by 30 plan” [2]:

“The Secretary of the Interior…shall submit a report to the Task Force within 90 days of the date of this order recommending steps that the United States should take, working with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, and other key stakeholders, TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF CONSERVING AT LEAST 30 PERCENT OF OUR LANDS AND WATERS BY 2030.” (emphasis is mine)

Does this mean the federal government would suddenly and illegally OWN 30 percent of all American land? Some people think so. They believe this would be the largest theft of private property in US history.

The key is the meaning of the word “conserving” in the Executive Order.

The context of the Order makes it clear that “conserving” involves imposing massive new regulations on all this private property—conversion to “clean energy use”; employment of workers according to rules of “inclusion” and “social justice,” for example.

Conservation also implies overall reduction in energy usage, because so-called clean energy technologies the government favors—wind, solar—stand absolutely no chance of replacing oil and coal and natural gas.

Whether or not the Executive Order means the government will own 30 percent of all US land, it DOES mean the government would effectively CONTROL all that private property.

You couldn’t ask for a clearer intent to impose socialism, top-down, on America—beyond anything tried in our history.

What’s behind this plan for grand theft? An elite technocratic agenda. The aim is to lower energy production and use on the planet.

It is a means for further CONTROL of the population.

Patrick Wood [3] [3a], in his landmark book, Technocracy Rising [3b], traces the history of the technocracy movement, and its inception in America, early in the 20th century. Engineers wanted to replace politicians and lead civilization into a “scientifically planned” future.

One plank in their misbegotten platform? The longed-for ability to measure, in real time, moment to moment, the amount of energy being produced on the planet, and the amount of energy usage.

The means to accomplish this weren’t available in the 1930s, but they are now.

And because technocrats always want to impose their plans on the population, they now want to allocate, precisely, both energy production and usage levels.

And because these technocrats are also Globalists, bent on control and oppression and domination, they want to LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION AND USAGE, WORLDWIDE—thereby blasting apart the lives of the world’s population.

The agenda of so-called climate change, conservation, sustainability—these are all fronts behind which technocrats operate and justify their actions. Their true goal, again, is control, through LOWERING ENERGY PRODUCTION AND USE.

Their number-one target—America.

And by the way, “conserving the land” has nothing to do with punishing corporations who actually damage the environment by grossly polluting it. When was the last time you saw a corporate CEO sent to prison for 40 years, for fouling a river with cancer-causing chemicals? Never? Correct.

We are in an energy war. We’ve been in that war for a long time.

If the federal government actually wanted to solve the energy problem, they would help kick-start—for a tiny fraction of the money they’ve poured into nuclear and oil industries—ACTUAL innovative technologies:

For two example among many, water turbines and hydrogen energy.

These alternatives are clean and abundant. They work. And furthermore, the best way to deploy them widely is through THE FREE MARKET.

Thousands of companies could, if not suppressed, launch sales of turbines and hydrogen (and other technologies) around the world—to anyone who wants to buy them.

THAT would be a genuine revolution. Government would have no need to steal massive amounts of land from private owners.

Nor would governments have to pretend their Swiss-cheese science of “climate change” is valid.

Welcome to the Energy Wars.

There is a personal dimension to this War. The entire fraudulent COVID operation—which I’ve been exposing in over 300 articles spanning the past year—is an effort to diminish and destroy the energy of the people—

—Through fear porn, masks, distancing, lockdowns, closure of businesses, bankruptcies, toxic antiviral drugs, murderous breathing ventilators, and now a toxic injection of RNA, mislabeled a “vaccine.”

Yes, your personal energy is part of this War. If the Globalist powers-that-be can soften up the global population sufficiently, through the COVID op, they believe the resistance to their overall control will be manageable.

Our task is prove them wrong.

Here is a backgrounder I wrote, in 2018, about suppressed energy technologies. It’s a smoking gun:

Five thousand inventions in limbo and under “secrecy orders” at the US Patent Office

For decades, people have been accusing the government of hiding advanced technology. Here we have a serious clue. Something in the record and on the record.

How many patents, if granted, would be game changers for planet Earth?

From FAS (Federation of American Scientists), Secrecy News, Oct. 21, 2010, “Invention Secrecy Still Going Strong,” [4] by Steven Aftergood:

“There were 5,135 inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office told Secrecy News last week. It’s a 1% rise over the year before, and the highest total in more than a decade.”

“Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 [4a], patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders restricting their publication if government agencies believe that disclosure would be ‘detrimental to the national security’.”

“The current list of technology areas that is used to screen patent applications for possible restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act is not publicly available and has been denied under the Freedom of Information Act. (An appeal is pending.)…”

“Most of the listed technology areas are closely related to military applications. But some of them range more widely.”

Thus, the 1971 list [4b] indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction IF THE PHOTOVOLTAICS WERE MORE THAN 20% EFFFICIENT. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction IF THEY OFFERED CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES ‘IN EXCESS OF 70-80%’.” [Emphasis is mine. Read this paragraph again!!]

“One may fairly ask if disclosure of such technologies could really have been ‘detrimental to the national security,’ or whether the opposite would be closer to the truth. One may further ask what comparable advances in technology may be subject to restriction and non-disclosure today. But no answers are forthcoming, and the invention secrecy system persists with no discernible external review.”

If you’re one of those people who maintains that advanced technology is being held away from the public, here is an overall smoking gun that validates your stance.

And you can see that breakthrough energy tech, which would radically lessen the need for oil, would be on the secrecy-do-not-release list.

What else is on the list? Old Tesla patents, for example?

The US Patent Office is an official chokepoint for the “planned society”—or should we say the “restricted society.”

But this is not to say advanced technology is always shelved or scuttled. The patent applications, in suspended animation at the US Patent Office, can be quietly disclosed, for example, to government researchers engaged in black-budget projects, where the data and the research are turned to “other uses.”

Innovative inventors, who can revolutionize society for the good, incur risks if they submit their patent applications to the State. Getting trapped in limbo, while outright theft of their research occurs, is one of those risks.

On the other hand, if a giant corporation has an invention that deploys the genetic engineering of food crops, and adds millions of tons of toxic pesticides to the environment, its patent application sails through review at the Patent Office…

The Planned Civilization absolutely depends on government suppressing breakthrough technologies that would secure energy-abundance for the planet, and would also enable companies within the free market to sell those technologies and devices to all willing customers, at affordable prices.

The technocratic Planned Civilization relies on the illusion of energy-scarcity.

If that illusion were ripped away, we would see freedom and prosperity explode.

THAT is the new era. NOT the propagandized “global warming” threat; NOT the insistence on using less energy in order to “curtail carbon dioxide emissions and save the planet.”

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/

[2] https://www.thefencepost.com/news/30-x-30/

[3] https://www.technocracy.news/

[3a] https://twitter.com/StopTechnocracy

[3b] https://www.technocracy.news/product/technocracy-rising-the-trojan-horse-of-global-transformation/

[4] https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010/

[4a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act

[4b] https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/pscrl.pdf

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.

Nurse at COVID epicenter hospital: “it’s murder”

Where is Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose District includes the hospital? Is this the shining example of social justice she wants—death by medicine?

by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Her name is Erin Marie Olszewski. She’s a military nurse. She worked at the hospital that’s touted as being at the very center of the global pandemic, in terms of numbers of cases and deaths.

Her video is out there. Infowars has it among their banned videos. David Icke has it. Solari.com has it. The Brighteon platform has it. Others have it. It’s devastating testimony, first-hand, from Erin’s undercover investigation inside the Elmhust Hospital in Queens, New York, “the epicenter of the COVID epicenter.”

But this isn’t about the virus. It’s about murder at the hospital. That’s Erin’s assessment and conclusion, after working at Elmhurst.

I’ll boil down essentials of her findings:

At the hospital, poverty-stricken patients, mostly black and Latino, come in and are tested for COVID-19. When the conventional tests read negative—meaning no COVID—some of these people are nevertheless marked down as COVID-19 cases.

That puts them on a train to death.

For no good reason, they’re placed on breathing ventilators. They’re sedated, to keep them from moving around and feeling the discomfort and pain of the invasive intubation.

But these patients are HEAVILY sedated for long periods. As much as a MONTH.

Completely cut off from the outside world, they never wake up.

This is no mystery. Any medical professional, doctor or nurse, WOULD KNOW DEATH IS THE INEVITABLE OUTCOME. It’s a protocol for killing.

And of course, the patients’ deaths are marked down as “caused by the virus.”

I can think of at least 20 New York and federal agencies who should be swarming all over the Elmhurst Hospital. But there is no action of any kind from them.

Where is the famous Congresswoman from the 14th Congressional District, which includes the Elmhurst Hospital? I’m talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialist who wants a single payer health system for all Americans. Is THIS the kind of healthcare she’s talking about? Why isn’t she storming the hospital with reporters and cameras, demanding answers, brushing past guards, blasting into the office of hospital CEO Israel Rocha and demanding to know why patients are dying on ventilators?

Where is Bill De Blasio, the New York mayor? Where is Cuomo, the New York state governor? Nowhere. They’re too busy with the punishing lockdowns. Too busy destroying the New York economy. Too busy destroying the lives of millions of New Yorkers with their insane economic attack. Too busy playing up to their “liberal” voters, who are loyal to new zombie normal with their utterly useless masks.

Where are New York reporters? Why aren’t they camped out at the Elmhurst Hospital demanding answers and exposing capital crimes?

Where are public protests at the hospital? Inside those doors, many people CAN’T BREATHE anymore. But in this case, it has nothing to do with a cop who has his knee on the neck of a black man. It has to do with a standard of medical care that is pushing patients on the train to death. If local reporters and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez were doing their jobs, you would definitely see those protests, and the whole foul truth would come tumbling out for the world to know.

What about the doctors and nurses inside the Elmhurst Hospital? What do they have to say? Who set up the protocol of death? Why are these health professionals “just following orders?” Who is giving the orders? Labeling patients “COVID-19” brings more insurance money to the hospital. That’s obvious. But what about INDUCED DEATH? Is it just the result of cold indifference? At one point in the video, Erin says that, although she works with some good people, there are others, and apparently for them, patients are “disposable” human beings.

Surely, these Elmhurst doctors and nurses know about Erin’s video by now. Don’t they have anything to say? Wouldn’t you assume they’d be defending themselves? So far, I see and hear nothing from them. Are they under strict orders to keep their mouths shut? If so, why? If they aren’t committing horrendous crimes, why should they stay silent?

And don’t assume Elmhurst is the only hospital where death by medical murder is occurring. Don’t assume New York is the only city where it’s happening.

In a mainstream review I’ve often cited, annual deaths in the US caused by medical mistreatment and errors, in hospitals, is 119,000. And that doesn’t include deaths caused by the administration of FDA approved drugs. THAT number would be 106,000 per year. (Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”)

Go ahead. Add up those figures. That’s 225,000 deaths a year at the hands of doctors. That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths in America, per decade, caused by doctors.

It’s time the American people started paying attention to the third (maybe the first) leading cause of death in their country: medical care.

Elmhurst Hospital in Queens New York is the epicenter of something. But it isn’t a virus.

Brushing medical hocus-pocus aside—let’s get down to the core of the death protocol. Who ordered it? Who started it? Who is enforcing it?

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Who’s destroying England and Western Europe?

Who’s destroying England and Western Europe?

by Jon Rappoport

July 10, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

As the “British Exit (Brexit)” stalls in the UK, Italy picks up the torch of resistance…

UK: “What’s Next For Brexit: Charting All The Possible Scenarios”

Paul Joseph Watson: What They’re Not Telling You About the Brexit Sellout

David Knight: “BREXIT Dying, UK an EU Colony. Will the people of Britain stand for this?”

Italy: “[Government] to block naval vessels carrying migrants from docking: Interior Minister Matteo Salvini”

Germany: “[Conservative] AfD [Party] sues Merkel over migrant crisis: The chancellor can’t act like a dictator”

Poland: “[…] Politician Warns Of Europe’s ‘Degenerate Liberalism'”

June 4, 2017

NOTE: Watch Paul Watson’s shocking video, The Truth about ‘Refugees’.

“Here’s a great idea, boys. Gather around. We’re going to build, on top of every national government on the European continent, another government, bigger, more bloated, more corrupt, more powerful. Who’ll notice? Who’ll care?”

“Terrific. Love it. But ultimately we’ll need to destroy all those separate countries and rule the whole continent as one entity. We can do that, yes. We’ll open all borders and let in a massive flow of immigrants and erase national identities. Terror attacks will multiply. We’ll put a lid on talking about immigrants as the cause of the terror. Call it hate speech. We’ll train the population of Europe to accept terrorism as part of the glorious future. It makes no logical sense, but so what? No top-down ideology ever made sense. We’ll preach unlimited tolerance and love. We’ll be a de facto Church of sorts. We’ll hypnotize the whole continent…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

As I was writing this article, multiple terror attacks were launched in London. To say the human destruction “once again raised the question of immigration” would be a vast understatement.

In the run-up to the Brexit vote in 2016, immigration came to the fore as the key issue. But of course, the European Union has a policy of opening borders of all member countries.

The EU wants one continent, no separate countries—and the way to achieve that is by creating a massive flood of migrants. Destroy traditions and cultures that define countries. In the process, accept terrorism as “inevitable.” Don’t talk or write about the actual effects of immigration. That would be “hate speech.” Keep eyes and mouth shut, and march straight ahead into a future of one European continent ruled from above by the EU.

Ever since the UK vote to leave the unelected, terminally corrupt, and rotting edifice known as the European Union, stall tactics and threats have been launched at Brits.

First it was, “It’s going to take a long time to untangle the UK from the EU, it’s very complicated.” Actually, that tactic was predated by Prince Obama traveling to England to warn the population they’d stand at the back of the line in forming separate trade deals with the US, if they left the EU. It’s called interfering in the political affairs of another nation. Now it’s the EU and Queen Merkel beating the UK to the punch by plotting trade deals with India and China, in order to leave the British out in the cold.

But the basic question is, Is Britain a nation? Does it exist? It’s a question citizens are supposed to answer. Not Merkel, Obama, or the EU.

This issue, in case it’s unclear, is all about Globalism. According to that totalitarian political philosophy, of which the EU is a standard bearer, there are no nations. There are only mega-corporations and banks.

As the recently departed guru of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in 1969, “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

This is not only a political and economic statement, it’s a prescriptive piece of psychological advice: Stop thinking of yourself as a citizen of a country; you’re a global citizen; you exist and function at the pleasure of a new collaborative international order.

And the new order will triumph. Bow your heads and accept it.

Unless people get up on their hind legs and say no, which is what happened in the 2016 Brexit vote.

Defection. Decentralization. Independence.

Hideous words to the ears of Globalists.

Their basic strategy, since the end of World War 2, has been to spin a highly complex network of political and economic relationships, from one end of the world to the other—a labyrinth—from which escape is seen as virtually impossible.

Trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT are only part of this system. The EU itself keeps churning out thousands of rules, regulations, and laws.

Build the maze; put national governments and populations in the maze.

Then more or less claim the planet would collapse without the maze.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker just issued a “maze statement” to President Trump after Trump rejected the Globalist Paris Climate (non-) Treaty: “Europe’s duty is to say: it’s not like that. The Americans can’t just leave the climate protection agreement. Mr. Trump believes that [he can] because he doesn’t know the details…We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump [at the G7 Summit] in Taormina [Sicily, Italy] in clear German sentences. It seems that our attempt failed, but the law is the law, and it must be obeyed. Not everything which is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news, and we have to comply with it.”

Supremely arrogant, Juncker was winging it and writing his own script, because, in fact, the US didn’t sign on to a treaty in Paris. Obama tried to unilaterally bind the US to the climate pact, when a two-third’s vote by the US Senate is actually required for such international agreements. And no Senate vote was taken.

But this is the EU’s preemptive attitude toward defection, decentralization, and independence.

In the case of Brexit, climate change wasn’t the issue. Immigration was. The EU tried its best to chastise England for daring to insist unlimited numbers of migrants might be too many. “You’re in the maze, stay in the maze.”

And there is another vector of attack being launched at England: reminders the nation is evil for its colonial practices, which can never, ever be erased. But the covert leaders in that propaganda effort, the EU and its Globalist bosses, feel entitled in their own attempt to colonize the whole planet. “Your colonizing was bad, ours is good.”

With an annual budget in the vicinity of $100 billion, the EU is intractably corrupt and incompetent. It’s estimated that $5 billion a year is stolen from that budget. As for the other $95 billion, what is it for? Nations can govern themselves. The EU could disappear tomorrow and no one would catch a cold. The entire bloated structure, employing between 30 and 50 thousand people (depending on how far the count is extended) is a vast boondoggle.

It’s astonishing that anyone in the UK would feel a sense of loyalty to the EU.

There is nothing strange about Brexit at all. It’s a natural reaction: One day, a house pet goes outside and wanders off into the woods and never comes back. Who is really surprised?

The “system” called the EU insists that terrorism is somehow a price the British people must pay for entering “a better future for all.” Don’t ask what that future looks like. Don’t think about it. The UK doesn’t have the right to set its own immigration policy.

The chaos and destruction that result from open borders are simply an “adjustment period,” after which things will settle down. A new and better England and Europe will emerge. Diversity will triumph. How? Don’t worry about that, be happy.

You see, diversity is a high-minded principle, and by definition it implies a more humane society. Therefore, there is no counter-evidence. Facts are unimportant.

The latest London attacks are a message to the British people: You may have exited from the EU, but the EU policy on immigration still stands.

No it doesn’t. Britain is free to set its own policy.

To do so, politically correct speech will have to be jettisoned. Facts will have to be widely expressed. Lies will have to be widely exposed.

The EU will need to be named as a driving force in immigration, and the results of migration will need to be laid at its door.

The EU sees immigrant terrorism as its ticket to greater control over Europe.

The London attacks are a challenge thrown in Britain’s face. Bow down and accept; or rebel.

Leaving the EU means LEAVING the EU.

How many times must British citizens witness these attacks and watch police come in after the fact? How long before leaving means LEAVING?

How long before the British people realize that the flood of migrants is not simply “a refugee crisis” created by the US and its allies, whose imperialist policies of Empire and wars in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, initiate “blowback?”

How long before they see numbers of these “refugees” are just military-age young men who arrive with destruction on their minds?

How long before they see England is riddled with EU agents who are “forwarding a humane immigration policy,” come hell or high water?

One continent, under no liberty and no justice, with suffering and slavery for all.

How long before they leave THAT?

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.

Australia “weather-experts” falsify climate change

Australia “weather-experts” falsify climate change

by Jon Rappoport

August 2, 2017

“Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.” (Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-Prize winner in physics)

“The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming)

I’ve written a number of articles proving the global warming science is far from “settled.” I’ve also written about the political agenda behind climate change. It is stark:

All nations will be ordered (if treaties are signed) to REDUCE THEIR OVERALL ENERGY PRODUCTION BY A DISASTROUS AMOUNT.

Therefore, the output of carbon dioxide would be cut, and, we are told, “the planet could be saved.”

But no replacement of carbon-based fuels with solar, wind, and other popular alternative sources could possibly, given present technology, make up the difference and stave off the catastrophe stemming from a major cut in planetary energy production.

National economies would falter, poverty would deepen, chaos would expand, and in the ensuing crisis, the (Globalist) forces of order would move in and “solve the problem.” Also known as: a takeover of all major institutions of government, worldwide.

Now have a new scandal erupting, on top of a whole pile of prior scientific frauds. As The Daily Caller reports:

“Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.”

“Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.”

Let’s be clear. The missing and altered temperature readings actually indicated lower-than-normal temperatures which, if reported, would weaken the assertion that Australia is getting hotter.

The Daily Caller continues: “BOM [Australian Bureau of Meteorology] has been put under the microscope before for similar manipulations. The agency was accused in 2014 of tampering with the country’s temperature record to make it appear as if temperatures had warmed over the decades, according to reports in August 2014.”

“[Biologist and former director of the environmental unit at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, Jennifer] Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are ‘propaganda’ and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.”

“Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of ‘dramatic warming’ over the past century.”

But don’t worry.

The science is settled.

There must be no reasoned debate about the subject. Just start lowering the energy outputs of all countries on the planet.

Certainly don’t listen to a man like Freeman Dyson, who has no mainstream credentials—except for the following: 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. Dyson states:

“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…”

Pay no attention to that.

Shut your eyes, close your mouth, and wait for the lights to dim.

The people in charge are the people in charge, and if they don’t want debate, they must be right.

Censoring debate is always a sign that truth and justice are winning.

Right?

Several unhinged commentators have gone so far as to suggest jail time for scientists who deny the existence of manmade warming. Marc Morano, narrator and co-writer of the documentary, Climate Hustle, asked the popular American TV host, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” whether he thought such jail threats against scientists would have “a chilling effect” on dissent.

Nye answered, “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change — I think is good.”

In other words, love censorship when it silences your opponents.

Bill Nye understands the proper method of science and research (experiment, replication, rejection, debate, questioning) the way a cockroach understands Aristotle’s treatises on logic.

Make no mistake about it, we are looking at fake climate science. The purveyors don’t care about truth. They only care about owning the bully pulpit and keeping dissenters away from that pulpit.

This is how official science is done. In the case of climate change, claim the planet is warming and claim the debate about the subject must be cooled until it is frozen and stored in a locker out of view.

In my investigations of official science and medicine over the past 35 years, I’ve seen this strategy deployed time and time again:

“The science is settled…” “The evidence is overwhelming…” “Credible researchers all agree…”

This is how the press creates a fake impression of consensus.

News outlets issue identical stories, inventing an echo chamber.

Don’t buy in.

Crack the illusion.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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.

Break out the CO2 bubbly; Al Gore is crying in his beer

Break out the CO2 bubbly; Al Gore is crying in his beer

by Jon Rappoport

June 2, 2017

“All right, contestants, listen carefully. Here’s the final question. The winner will be awarded three years living in a hut with no electricity or heat and he’ll dig for tubers and roots so he can eat—thus contributing to a decrease in global warming. All right, here is the question: Whose private jet spews more CO2? Al Gore’s or Leo DiCaprio’s?”

With Trump’s historic rejection of the Paris climate treaty, Al Gore is deep in a funk.

But don’t weep for Al. He can still amuse himself counting his money. Yes, Al’s done very well for himself hustling the “settled science” all these years, shilling for an energy-depleted Globalist utopia.

Al knows actual science the way a June bug knows how to pilot a spaceship.

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 piled up a nice neat $100 million in his lock box.

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. Gore sold when shares cost $21 to $26—before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.

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 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 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 helped 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. 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 the world, 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.

Al Gore has done admirable work for his bosses. And for himself. As a past politician with large name recognition, he’s promoted fake science, tried to scare the population of Earth, and financially leveraged himself to the hilt in the fear-crevice he helped create.

Ask not for whom the bells toll. They toll with delight. They’re attached to cash registers. And Al has stuck his hands in and removed the cash.

He might be crying in his beer today, after Trump rejected the Paris climate treaty, but Al’s also thinking about how he can play to the Left that’s so outraged at Trump’s decision. More speeches, more “inconvenient truth” films, maybe a summit with Leo DiCaprio and Obama.

Yes, there’s still money in those hills…quite possibly more money than ever.

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.

Historic: Trump rejects Paris climate treaty

by Jon Rappoport

June 1, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

June 1, 2017, a day that will live in infamy for the liars, thieves, and killers of the new international economic order. They will see it as infamy, because their plan to sink the economy of America into a final death rattle has been rejected by Trump.

Fake climate science has been the lynch pin, justifying orders to cut CO2 emissions—but make no mistake about it, cutting emissions means cutting energy production in almost all countries of the world. THAT’S THE GLOBALIST TARGET. ENERGY PRODUCTION.

Get that one straight. The Globalist “utopia” isn’t a trillion solar collectors or a trillion windmills—it’s lights going out all over the world.

It’s LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION.

That’s the monster hiding in the closet. That’s the outcome arch-Globalists are determined to foist on the planet, because that’s the society they want to control—poverty-stricken, abject, shuffling along a bleak path to nowhere.

Trump just stuck a knife in that scheme.

Yes, I fully understand the devil is in the details, but it is up to people everywhere, who have active brain cells and can see through the climate hoax, to take this opportunity to reject, publicly, the whole climate agenda.

CO2 is not the enemy.

Do the research yourself and see if there is any way these so-called scientists can assess, now or in the past, THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WHOLE PLANET.

The science is settled? There is no room for argument?

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.

But regardless, never lose sight of agenda based on this “settled science.”

VASTLY LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION FOR PLANET EARTH.

And at the same time, truly viable forms of energy production (e.g., water turbines, hydrogen), that could be brought online with but a fraction of previously chiseled government subsidies for oil and nuclear, are sitting on the shelf gathering dust—BECAUSE THE MODEL OF SCARCITY FOR THE PLANET IS WHAT THE GLOBALIST EMPIRE DESIRES.

Until such time as that model is destroyed, Earth needs energy, all the energy it can produce.

The climate criminals, working for Globalism Central, staged their Paris “Treaty” to try to torpedo that production. Obama signed on in Paris, knowing full well he was committing a criminally unconstitutional act by disregarding the vote of the US senate, a vote that was needed to confer legitimacy to the agreement.

There is nothing binding about the Paris “Treaty.” Nothing.

And today, Trump squashed it.

Might he re-enter negotiations and give away some of what he’s just taken back for America? Anything’s possible. But for now, the Paris Accord is a dead duck here in the US.

Trump is going to catch a new version of Hell for what he’s just done. But if enough Americans, and people around the world, realize the true implication of this historic day, and proclaim it, they’ll win. We’ll win. Each one of us.

Don’t give up. Don’t give in.

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.

Brand new elite whistleblower smashes global warming science

Brand new elite whistleblower smashes global warming science

Awarded climate medal by Obama—now he finds enormous fraud and exposes it

Memo to President Trump and Steve Bannon: Here it is. Set the table, put the napkins in your lap and feast on this revelation.

by Jon Rappoport

February 6, 2017

A highly respected, medal-winning climate scientist just wound up and threw a giant monkey wrench into global warming science.

His name? John Bates. His target? A recent fraudulent study that claimed the uncomfortable “pause” in warming was really no pause at all. That study, pretending warming had never stopped, was timed to help negotiating nations at the Climate Summit in Paris. It was timed to help them enact draconian economic measures to reduce warming.

But, Bates reveals, that study was cooked on several counts. It was such a mess no self-respecting scientist would sign on to it. However, scientists did sign on to it. And a prestigious journal, Science, published it. Apparently, the brains at Science were on vacation. Or they were determined to play ball and assist the Globalist plan to drastically reduce CO2-producing energy production in nations across the globe, thus escalating poverty, in order to “save us” all from frying.

Here are choice quotes from David Rose’s exclusive Daily Mail article that exposes the far-reaching deception:

“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.”

“A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed [fraudulent] report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

“The [fraudulent] report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.”

“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

“It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.”

“His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper.”

“His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.”

“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation…in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”

“Both datasets [used in the fraudulent study] were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.”

“The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.”

“The paper [fraudulent study] relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.”

“None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.”

“Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”

“Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.”

“The [fraudulent] paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported [warming] ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.”

“But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.”

“Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer’.”

“Moreover, the…software [used in the fraudulent study] was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.”

“Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure’.”

“The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Get it? Fraud all the way along the line. And a cover-up, to make an examination of the fraud-details impossible.

The perfect worst-case scenario.

Can we now, at last, have a few criminal indictments?

Even a prosecuting attorney fresh out of law school, wet behind the ears, with zero courtroom experience, would be able to secure a proper verdict.

Guilty on all counts.

Guilty of fraud, and aiding and abetting a far-reaching scheme to reduce energy production in America (and other nations), on the premise that warming is rising and must be stopped.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, imagine this. The powers-that-be want to cut the production of energy in this country. Anyone can see the result of such a plan. We all become strapped. We all become poorer. But we’re told this is necessary to save us from the destruction of life on Earth. We’re told we have to go along with the plan, because producing energy releases carbon dioxide, which in turn keeps raising the temperature of the planet. Recently, a key scientific study was published, and this study bolsters the whole idea that global warming is on the rise. But a key expert insider will show that this study was false and a fraud and a lie, and the people who wrote it are guilty of deceiving you and me and everyone. Find these people guilty, once and for all, and send them to prison, where they belong…”

I could try this case in court. You could try this case in court. Three guys in a bar could try this case. And win.

Are you ready, Mr. Trump? Send out the hounds from the Department of Justice and put these liars under arrest.

And let’s see their trial in open court, every minute of it, on camera, on television, online.

Let’s see it in New York and Chicago and Los Angeles and Toronto and London and Paris and Rome and Kabul and Tehran and Sydney and Tokyo and Rio and Durban and Nuuk and Tierra del Fuego…

At long last, put official science and its enablers in the dock.

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 or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Scientists march to support global-warming censorship: the New Ridiculous

Scientists march to support global-warming censorship: the New Ridiculous

A primary principle of fake news: “scientists agree”

by Jon Rappoport

January 29, 2017

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.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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 at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Why fake news matters

Why fake news matters

Notes on major media blowing away in the wind

by Jon Rappoport

January 12, 2017

For the past 34 years, I’ve been working as a reporter, in order to expose fake news. My target: major media. Right from the beginning; and always.

The premise is simple: these liars are in the business of putting people into a false reality and keeping them there. How does that audience move out into truth if they’re basing their own ideas on a synthetically created artifact called The News?

Now we have a president-elect who, as I write this, is holding a press conference and calling CNN fake news. Regardless of who Trump is, that is a moment people should understand as a wild departure from what happens in politics. It never happens. But it is happening.

This is shaking the egg until it cracks.

It’s called an opportunity.

—An opportunity for all of us to keep shaking the egg and exposing the liars, until there is no more egg.

Some of my joy comes from knowing reporters and editors in the mainstream who have been parading around, for decades, believing they are untouchable and vital and necessary and beyond reproach. They never thought this day would come. But it is here.

And they know it now. That’s what makes them so crazy.

Out of view, “their children” (audience) have grown up, and aren’t buying what “the adults” are selling. Trump has simply brought all that to a head. He went over the edge with it. He didn’t care. You tell me that some other candidate, who presented himself as more balanced, more measured, more mature, could have pulled this off, and I’ll tell you you’re wrong. A wild cowboy was necessary, and he showed up. Hate him, love him, he showed up.

Don’t let this moment be wasted.

Part of the reason the major media are pulling out all the stops in attacking Trump and blasting him? They want to paint a portrait of a man who isn’t really president. “See, the guy who has been defaming us isn’t a president at all. He’s just a nut. Therefore, don’t take his assault on us seriously. It means nothing.”

Good luck with that strategy. It’s another fail. It’s another goof in a long history of media goofs. The media are saying: “Don’t look at us. We’re fine. We’ve always been fine. Instead, look at Trump. He’s the villain. He’s the loon.”

Yesterday, he was a Russian agent. Today, he’s a John with hookers he paid to desecrate a hotel bed Obama slept in. Tomorrow, he’ll be an alien from the Orion Belt who arrived in a space ship.

“His flying saucer landed on the US-Mexico border. Why wasn’t he vetted by Customs&Immigration? Why was he allowed into the US?”

Well, why is the NY Times in such bad shape that Carlos Slim has to be its largest investor? And why is Jeff Bezos, whose parent company, Amazon, has a $600 million contract with CIA to provide computing services, the sole owner of the Washington Post?

Because those two venerable papers were going down the toilet.

For that matter, why does David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, have a brother, Ben Rhodes, who is Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication?

Almost without exception, major media are liberal. This means, among other things, they are staunch (covert) supporters of Globalism, which means: a new planetary economic and political order, in which sovereign nations cease to exist—having being supplanted by mega-corporations and mega-banks.

The stories that major media spin have two basic aims: conceal the advances of Globalism, and support those advances under different names.

Working for these media outlets is a snap: aid in the cause and pick up a paycheck, while selling your soul.

No one will ever know what you’re really doing.

But that has changed. The operation has been exposed.

The egg has cracked.

And as in one of those remarkable Hieronymus Bosch paintings, all manner of strange and grotesque creatures are spilling out of the egg and showing their true colors.

Here is a quick quiz. All the following items are part and parcel of the Globalist agenda, because they imply far-reaching measures that help install planetary governance. On which item are major media most insistent and supportive? On which item do outside critics sustain the most virulent media attacks?

A. The green economy
B. Sustainable growth
C. The Smart Grid
D. Climate change

Yes, of course: D. Climate change.

It is the lynch pin for the radical plan forcing all nations to reduce their energy production, in order to “restrain global warming.” It is the most direct tactic for undermining and torpedoing economies.

Induce more drastic worldwide poverty and suffering; release a necessary plan for solving the crisis; make the plan embrace the whole world; quite naturally form an international body of “representatives” (elite Globalist partners) to put the plan into effect. You have a global management system.

The Matrix Revealed

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

So major media double down on global warming. Only morons, evildoers, fake scientists, and the selfishly rich would deny that “the science is settled.” The campaign is relentless. Even Hollywood stars are brought into the mix. They personally know as much about climate as ants know about building BMWs, but they’re given generous space in which to bloviate and signal their virtuous concern.

Whatever Trump is or isn’t, whatever he is going to do or not do, big media are now more vulnerable and exposed than they’ve ever been—and this is the moment.

Exposing their fake news operations is taking the blinders from the eyes of millions of people who never dreamed they would doubt the Egg.

Let us double down and triple down.

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 or OutsideTheRealityMachine.