Climate Change

“Of course he leaves out the part where Ocasio-Cortez based her statement on a United Nations climate report, published in 2018, "that determined the effects of climate change to be irreversible and unavoidable if carbon emissions are not reined in over the next 12 years." ~The Hill

Don’t you remember when Al Gore predicted that we would reach a crisis by 2013? Did anyone consider that there’s profit to be made by expounding the climate crisis? Don’t you think Al Gore probably profited off his fear-mongering as well?

I’ll make a bet with anyone right now that we will not all be dead by 2030 due to climate change. In less than 7 years, you really think the world is gonna end if we don’t do something “LiKe nOw”? Lol…

 

To be perfectly honest, I am somewhat neutral on the climate situation. I’m a believer in Cold Fusion, which would be yet another Conspiracy meant to stifle an ACTUAL solution to the issue of energy due to how cheap and long-lasting it would be, similar to Nikola Tesla’s Free Energy.

So since I believe there’s a Conspiracy there, I think that Agenda 21/30 is not actually about “saving the planet”, but is about something more sinister.

 

NASA tells us that last July 2023 was hotter than any other month in the global temperature record. Antarctica is melting at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, contributing to sea level rise. Human Greenhouse gas emissions have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the eighteenth century). Heat waves, heavy downpours, floods, and sea level rise already are causing problems in parts of the U.S. Wildfires are more of a problem than ever in California, Canada, and most recently, Maui. People are already losing their homes or lives from these events, more will follow, and some of the changes may already be irreversible. It's probably impossible to say if and when we will reach the point of no return, but it's becoming harder to deny that the changes are taking place. Should we close the barn door after old Dobbin is incinerated, or maybe think about taking action now?

Many who believe in Mayan prophecies expected the end to come in December, 2012. NASA predicted it wouldn't happen. Why the World Didn't End Yesterday | Science Mission Directorate Wasn't it you who told it the forces were set in motion at that turning point? "I turned out to be correct, Writer. Do you not see this yet?" So Al and AOC and the Mayas might not have been that far off after all. There is evidence that Mayan civilization collapsed as a result of climate change and environmental neglect.
New clues about how and why the Maya culture collapsed
Why Did the Mayan Civilization Collapse? A New Study Points to Deforestation and Climate Change | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
Humanity, if not the earth, will come to an end sooner or later--probably by a gradual rather than sudden death. In our own individual cases it will probably be sooner than that. But we may have some choice over how soon.

 

You make some interesting points linking the Mayans and the 2012 prophecy into this. But nobody knows exactly how they disappeared. It’s still up for debate.

However, they did get conquered by the Spanish. And they accepted it and surrendered due to the Mayan Calendar. My overall points regarding that are that the calendar has seemed to have been accurate in predicting major shakeups in Consciousness and culture.

However, if the Mayans WERE wiped out by Climate Change, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean that Climate Change is manmade? Or does it mean it’s natural? Did ancient peoples actually have far more advanced technology than we assume, and messed up the climate? Or did it just occur naturally? Because if you do conclude this, that lends an argument to Climate Change happening naturally, potentially.

My overall trajectory on the climate phenomenon is that I used to believe it totally, but now I wonder what is natural and what is manmade. I do also see evidence that it’s quite a convenient excuse for World Domination by an elite few, which I will get to next…

 

Here is the full quote.



Regarding your second question concerning making a profit, it’s all in the eye of the beholder what it is that benefits humanity. I could just as easily say the same thing about David Icke.

 

I am not sure how this quote doesn’t alarm your spidey senses. Let’s break it down. I am putting in Bold the parts that I find alarming.

"The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself—when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing.": 70  "Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised.": 70 

Read these parts slowly. Explain to me what doesn’t disturb you about this.

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.": 115  ~

So basically they are describing out loud a ploy to search for to unite people against a common enemy. And they are concluding that that common enemy is mankind itself.

Again, why does this not disturb you?

Do you not see how easily this could brainwash people into a mass genocide situation, “for the gReAtEr gOoD”?

Have you ever heard of the Georgia Guidestones? Luckily someone brave destroyed them a few years ago, but see picture attached.

Regarding the World Government part, I will need to get my hands on a copy of the book. I’ve known about it for years and have read books that talk about it but admittedly have not read it yet. I intend to. The Club of Rome is directly linked to the UN as far as I understand.

Getting a copy will cost around $200 https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01B1N0HAM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1692056129&sr=8-2

 

I remember the cold fusion uproar from the 1980s….seems like it should have been reported in the tongue in cheek Journal of Irreproduceable Results. Still waiting fo see delivery on the hype of the day. Should data support it, climate scientists are ready to revise their conclusions about climate change. Still waiting for that data too. That’s the neat thing about science….it’s not static but rather is a dynamic entity based on data.

Conspiracy theories….not so much.

 

Outside of Fleischmann, Pons, and the third guy at BYU, look into the work of John Bockris at Texas A&M, along with Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno.

I recommend these three books. I especially recommend the first link. That is the work of Mizuno, which along with Bockris I find to be the most compelling.

https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Transmutation-Reality-Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Fusion-...ng+of+a+scientifuc+controversy,aps,118&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Ice-Sea...92061505&sprefix=fire+from+ice,aps,128&sr=8-1

Regarding “that’s how Science works”, look no further than Tesla to grasp that Science can have political or other agendas that can coverup or stifle the truth. If Free Energy was allowed, it would put many huge businesses out of business overnight.

If Cold Fusion were validated, it would put Hot Fusion out of business overnight (millions if not billions dollars have been invested in Hot Fusion). It would put many energy sectors out of business overnight. Sometimes Science isn’t just Science. Sometimes it’s Politics.

The main argument that Cold Fusion “isn’t reproducible, and Science is reproducible” I find to be a bad take. Look no further than Quantum Mechanics to know that Science isn’t always Deterministic, but instead based on Probabilities. Funnily enough, Fusion involves Quantum Tunneling in order to work.

 

Geographer Professor Jared Diamond of UCLA concluded that drought resulting from man-made environmental change was responsible (Collapse, 2005) , a theory that was confirmed by a research team from Arizona State University headed by geographer Profs. B.L. Turner and archaeologist J.A. Sabloff, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences https//www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1210106109. They attribute the problem partly to nature but also in large part to overpopulation and deforestation from excessive logging. Of course, fossil fuels weren't the culprit, as they are in our own society.

As for the predictive power of the Mayan calendar, that's New Age pseudoscience that has to have been debunked by scholars expert on the Maya.
End of World in 2012? Maya "Doomsday" Calendar Explained
The Great 2012 Doomsday Scare
Neither the Maya Calendar--nor the World--Ends on December 21, 2012
In fact, archaeologists have discovered an older Mayan calendar that doesn't end in 2012.New Mayan Calendar Discovered That Doesn't End in 2012
Your idea about the excuse for world domination by an elite is consistent with your embrace of conspiracy theorists like Ecke.

 

Excessive logging? Really? So we aren’t even the first society to create Global Warming in history, and all it took was excessive logging in the ancient past?

I won’t even bother to get into the 2012 stuff with you.

Let’s stick with the fact that Logging created Global Warming in ancient times, lol…

So it’s not Capitalism’s fault?

 

With the Maya, we aren't talking about Global Warming. We're talking about local climate modification.

Once again, no global warming, but overpopulation and deforestation creating a local drought.

What isn't? The Maya. No capitalism there. Did you think only capitalists are capable of environmental destruction? For further explanation, see
maya environmental collapse - Yahoo Video Search Results
maya environmental collapse - Yahoo Video Search Results
Changing Climate and the Maya
maya environmental collapse - Yahoo Video Search Results

 

Of course much of science is probabilistic. Everyday any of us take medicines based on the probability of a positive outcome….hopefully not on some outlier that profits the few. Casinos don’t operate that way and neither does legitimate science. Casinos that would face such odds as the few disputing human caused global warming would be out of business before the day shift was over.

Politically motivated science is not science, it’s just plain old self serving garbage. There have been mistakes in science but things like peer review cutdown on those. Fusion, cold or hot is an elusive goal. People I met at the University of Wisconsin’s fusion research facility freely admit it.

 

“Why would a statement of a basic fact of human motivation alarm you?”

Because you shouldn’t go finding and/or creating enemies just for the sake of uniting against them. Duh. I shouldn’t go shooting people from my porch just for the sake of defending my property.

Scapegoat definition:

a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.

Expediency definition:

the quality of being convenient and practical despite possibly being improper or immoral; convenience.

“Now they go on to explain that as the need for a common enemy will be filled by some type of common enemy, in the past different religious groups, foreigners, immigrates, different races, etc., why not harness that basic physiological need for the good of mankind by pointing out that combating the destruction of the environmental could fill the need for a common enemy?”

Because they admitted that it’s a ploy and may not be an actual but possibly fabricated sense of danger. Ever heard of Hitler? He used the same tactics. He called them the Jews, among other groups and scapegoats.

In fact, it was also the Nazis who were the first modern radical Environmentalists.

Nazi Germany and Environment

That’s not to say one shouldn’t care about Nature. But when you combine this concern with collectivist political philosophy, stifling Individualism for the “gReAtEr gOoD”, it’s very akin to Nazi Germany, actually.

“Indoctrination is conducted by all types of school systems, sports organizations, religious groups, etc.”

Did the Nazis indoctrinate or brainwash?

“Why do you think educating people to to the dangers, real or perceived, of environmental damage would necessarily lead to genocide?”

Because if enough people firmly believe, via propaganda and indoctrination, from a ploy, that humanity is the enemy, then it’s not a stretch to conclude that the enemy must be destroyed.

“Couldn't the argument be made that ignoring environment damage could lead to genocide as groups of humans fight over dwindling resources?“

I wouldn’t call that genocide per se.

“No never heard of them. What is your problem with them?”

Did you read the part that says “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with Nature”?

There are 8.1 billion people on Earth. That would mean that 94% of all humans would need to get wiped out. That’s my problem with it. THAT is Genocide. Global Genocide.

Do you or would you support this in the name of “saving the environment”?

 

Was it ice free in that time period? Was Al Gore correct or not?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

What about trees?

The World Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago

 

"couldn't the argument be made that ignoring environmental damage could lead to genocide as groups of humans fight over dwindling resources"? Could be called genocide, but more rightly called chaos, which I believe is surely coming. Too many people, too much consumption of limited resources, too many poor and neglected that at some point will tire of such, land becoming unable to support the raising of crops, diseases that were for eons confined to southern ( northern from below the equator) climes manifesting farther away from the equator causing mass infections that cannot be contained----you know---just a few inconveniences for those that have the wherewithal to maintain armed enclaves against the hordes.