Moneycircus (blog) writes:


‘The real war is economic and it is predicated on restriction and denial. The slogans of sustainable development and zero carbon are barely disguised metaphors for this new world in which the owner-investors intend to profit by by denying everyone else — starting with Russia and ending with the people of this planet.’

Western powers are very keen to expose war crimes while at the same time prosecuting Assange for exposing war crimes.

5 planes just sprayed this message into the evening sky- regards from Hamburg Germany 7. 20 pm!!!

https://t.me/News_3Dto5D

Two videos worth taking the time to watch, about all the trans-prop that’s corrupting society. The first is the documentary 'What is a Woman?' by Matt Walsh, and the next is Matt in a discussion about it at a catholic uni - good to see so many young people not falling for the nonsense.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/g38vxoE3wmbu/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J-5dL0fl5s&ab_channel=YoungAmerica%27sFoundation

Back in the 80's I was convinced that the world was warming, and that the melting polar caps would significantly weaken or even turn-off the Gulfstream. While this would result in colder winters in the UK, the overall temperature of the planet would rise. Rising sea temperatures in turn could lead to the vast reservoirs of frozen methane at the bottom of the oceans becoming volatile and releasing the gas, which would enter the atmosphere, compounding the greenhouse effect, potentially leading ultimately to a thermal runaway.

More recently I was curious to know why many of these predicted events did not appear to be happening, and why some of the warning flags were reversing. The polar caps weren't disappearing, Sea levels were not rising and the Gulfstream still functioned. But crucially Charts showing rising temperature trends appeared to be tampered with compared with earlier charts, or used multiple scales to give the illusion of greater change. Like many in 2006 I watched An Inconvenient Truth, and shortly afterwards I came across a paper that undermined one of the fundamental tenets in the movie. Gore showed a chart linking prehistoric earth temperatures to CO2 levels, and surmised that rising temperatures resulted from increases in CO2 levels. The paper showed that using empirical data the CO2 levels followed the temperature, and therefore CO2 could not be a factor. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/ I had joined Greenpeace around 1980 as I supported their early environmental protest tactics but by the late 80s I had allowed my membership to lapse, though it was much later that I learned of Patrick Moore's break with them. Seeing an interview with him informed my loss of enthusiasm for the organisation, that there were political forces at work changing the remit and intent on using the environmental movement to achieve their own ends. This seems to be what happens with many 'grassroots' organisations, they achieve a certain success, then they get infiltrated and either turned or discredited.

The piece that confirmed a lot of what I was discovering is The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&t=1834s&ab_channel=WisdomLand

Over the years I have spent a fair amount of time investigating what is popularly referred to as 'the science' from a holistic viewpoint, encompassing broad aspects of life and health on Earth, and what has become apparent is there is far more hypothesis than hard evidence for many of the things sent to vex us, not least an impending climate crisis. Predictions are entirely based on computer modelling, and all of the models are over-simplified and suffer from fundamental flaws such as localised flat-earth, (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1908198116), representing solar output as a fixed compensatorially reduced source, denying the effects of fluctuating solar output, ignoring the inversion of the greenhouse effect at the poles, and feeding the model with 'primed' data which always results in overprediction. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/50-year-u-s-summer-temperature-trends-all-36-climate-models-are-too-warm/ The concept that CO2, at a concentration of around 400ppm is a significant greenhouse gas is theoretical and unsubstantiated in practise, the modelling being based on a 19th century laboratory experiment and resulting global warming scenarios postulated by Armenius. These experiments cannot in any way replicate true atmospheric conditions where continuously variable water vapour is by far the dominant greenhouse gas and convection plays a major role, aside from the presence of these gases in the atmosphere preventing the Earth from becoming a frozen wasteland.

When 'The Science' involves selective presentation of data, concealment of key details, and conjecture based on inadequate models I get suspicious. I question to motives of those who would have me believe something without looking too closely at it. Especially if they require me to modify my behaviour and lifestyle as a result.

So this is where I stand now. I contend that climate change is an inevitable and natural occurrence on this planet, ultimately driven by the sun. I also contend that CO2 is an essential life-supporting gas, and the earth would probably benefit from more of it. If by some fluke, any of the measures being proposed result in any significant reduction in CO2 levels, agriculture would be forced to compensate by increased use of fertilisers etc. I believe the greatest environmental damage being done by humans is pollution, primarily from toxic waste and microplastics, which are now ubiquitous, and corporate industry must take the blame for much of this. Since its inception the oil industry has been responsible for a mixed bag of benefits and catastrophes largely steered by greed and corruption, and it is time they paid their dues, but panic closure of entire industrial sectors and penalising the end user are not solutions, Industry has to take responsibility and reverse all its environmental impact, but when corporations are so powerful that they effectively own the government they will always shift the burden onto those least able to bear it. Quite how the environment can be purged of microplastics is a challenge yet to be solved. Perversely these toxins are now being supplemented by the spraying of ozone-depleting chemicals in the upper atmosphere to counteract the presumed effects of climate change. Imagine the scenario that this process results in a drop in global temperatures, and then we get hit with a solar minimum. There is some evidence that the sun is entering a minimal phase which would result in significant global cooling over the next 30 or 40 years which I find no less credible and potentially far more devastating than global warming, as everyone would be looking the wrong way if it occurs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

I have watched the extraordinary growth of the climate industry, fuelled by enormous multi-government and corporate investments - what's in it for them? The concept of the 'carbon footprint' was created by BP's marketing agents to shift the sense of accountability away from the company that had recently been responsible for a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and on to the individual. It was so successful it is fast becoming the basis for a global system of personal taxation. It struck me that in recent years the biggest scares foisted on the world were those that required more than simple observation to conclusively verify. And by laying responsibility firmly at the door of the common people rather than corporate management, they would become enormous cash cows. In order to determine whether what we are being told is real or not, you have to do some extensive sleuthing in scientific archives and evaluate whether empirical evidence breaks or proves the model - something we are increasingly discouraged from doing. In short todays climate movements owe far more to political belief systems than science.

Net-zero is a fantasy, the technology to entirely support an emission-free society does not exist, and short of a global high-speed program of building thousands of nuclear power stations, is unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future. Lithium extraction is highly polluting and there is not enough of it in the planet to electrify even half of all road vehicles, while current low-emission conventional vehicles actually have less environmental impact from construction to end-of-life than electric vehicles.

Anthropogenic climate change is an assumption, and whether it is great, slight or non-existant, the inescapable conclusion I have come to is that the allegory attributing personal liability for climate change through a carbon footprint is now exposed as the preferred option of control and oppression by governments across the world, something I am wholeheartedly against. The emergency in the phrase 'climate emergency' is there to limit discussion and coerce political and social change, the word 'climate' is there simply to guilt-trip the coerced.

I won't say I can't be convinced that I'm wrong, but I have yet to find genuine non-theoretical evidence that proves anthropogenic CO2-based climate change exists, or is at least in any way significant. I concede it's possible that humanity could impact the climate in a small way; the cloud seeding programs prove it is possible in a localised form. Another possible factor is the production of waste heat which is known to cause localised meteorological changes, and there has always been a good case for better insulation, though whether heat-loss is of any significance to the climate is another unlikely unknown.

The arguments will and should continue indefinitely precisely because this is science and science is never settled. It is the job of a scientist to disprove the theory. I recommend the amusing TED talk by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis on curiosity and good science https://www.ted.com/talks/kary_mullis_play_experiment_discover

The focus on CO2 is a pathway to total control of every individual. Just as in the case of the overhyped respiratory virus, the strategies being proposed to fix the problem by the powerful, (who under any circumstances should not be trusted), are entirely wrong, and I believe they are a cover for a global corporatist takeover, and all the supra-statist fascism that implies. It is this that we should all be afraid of and aim to prevent. This to me is far worse than any contrived climate emergency being used as a pretext to usher it in.

“We are being trolled by the best in the business.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb2cBF-STPA&ab_channel=GBNews

14/09/1952 - Roman Catholic Pope Pius XII presented speech On the Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment to First International Congress on Histopathology of the Nervous System. “Insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society. On the contrary, the community exists for man.”

Left: the toxic mess big pharma gets the world into, Centre: the dis-ease Right: the Holistic ways out.

You don't need any particularly unique qualities to recognise that killing is wrong, and the killing of innocents evil. The mindset of those who resort to violence over other means demonstrates they are morally, politically and intellectually bankrupt, as are those that support them. Those who kill for ideology are the tools of evil.
All differences can be resolved by reasonable people, but we are governed by the unreasonable and unconscionable. Far from being reasonable and honourable, most of todays governments are criminally psychopathic by default. Their tendency to violence panders to evil. It also provides a paycheque for those who manufacture the hardware and those that invest in and profit from them - usually the same unconscionable players.

People are not their leaders. In fact in most counties you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that fully supports their government. Yet in times of war all people are expected to rally behind their various heads-of-state – the ones that took them to war. War being something nobody in their right mind would want.

Governments across Europe are trying to put farmers out of business in order to satisfy the ludicrous WEF fake 'green' agenda, that is anything but green. In the UK the government pays farmers your hard-earned tax money to NOT farm. This has nothing to do with the environment or climate, and everything to do with corporate control and takeover of the economy. Even if CO2 was a real problem, over the course of a year more CO2 than that produced by livestock in is absorbed by foliage and grass for next years grazing. I understand many UK farmers have now had enough of the bullcrap and are about to protest here as well.