Covid-19 – Circus or Global Control

‘Like an elephant being attacked by a house cat’

“If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR [virus] tests, the number of total deaths due to ‘influenza-like illness’ would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.”

This was not written by some right-wing crank claiming coronavirus is a conspiracy to deny President Trump a second term, or an excuse to bring down capitalism.

It’s from a sobering and illuminating essay by Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis, co-director of its Meta-Research Innovation Center, published in the life sciences news site STAT.

The coronavirus-driven crackdowns on public life by state and local political leaders are being made in a data vacuum, Ioannidis warns, and extreme government measures to prevent infections may actually lead to more deaths.

“The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic,” he says. “But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco,” with policymakers relying on “meaningless” statistics based on unreliable samples:

Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population. …

Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

The general ignorance of journalists when it comes to reporting scientific research is making the response worse.

Consider the complicating factors when trying to project that one cruise ship’s mortality rate “onto the age structure of the U.S. population”: It’s based on seven deaths, in a population (tourists) that “may have different frequencies of chronic diseases” than the general population.

The “reasonable estimates” for the general population range from 0.05 percent to 1 percent (the elderly tourist cruise line death rate), Ioannidis writes:

A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.

MORE: Student threatened for calling socialism more dangerous than coronavirus

The Stanford scientist notes that “mild” coronaviruses (not COVID-19) have much higher case fatality rates when infecting “elderly people in nursing homes” (the main cluster of cases in the Seattle area), and account for up to a tenth of respiratory hospitalizations.

Ioannidis further notes the difficulty of nailing down what might have killed a person with multiple infections, citing an autopsy series of elderly victims of respiratory viruses: “A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.”

His own “mid-range guess” for the COVID-19 mortality rate – 0.3 percent of the general population – would produce 10,000 deaths, but that would not even register a blip “within the noise” of estimated deaths from “influenza-like illness.”

Without better data (and yes, the Trump administration irredeemably botched the testing), policymakers are using “prepare-for-the-worst reasoning” to impose “extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns”:

Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work. School closures, for example, may reduce transmission rates. But they may also backfire if children socialize anyhow, if school closure leads children to spend more time with susceptible elderly family members, if children at home disrupt their parents ability to work, and more. School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease.

The conventional wisdom to “flatten the curve” – managing the load on the health system through social distancing – could even backfire, Ioannidis writes:

Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity.

He warns policymakers to consider the consequences of “lockdowns of months, if not years, [where] life largely stops.”

If we’re going to risk the “financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric” caused by such extreme measures, “we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.”

Many pixels have been spilled mocking the Trump administration for its indifference to rigorous science, with some criticisms more fair than others.

But Ioannidis’s analysis should be taken the most seriously by state and local leaders, who actually have the power to destroy their economies and civic life, and the scientifically ignorant media who feed them doomsday coverage.

h/t Robby Soave

MORE: ‘Fixing Science’ conference called ‘dangerous’ for airing research problems

Posted in AGENDA 21, Civil Liberties, Financial Crisis, HEALTH, New World Order, World Issues | Tagged , | 6 Comments

A Contribution to the Corona Virus Circus

John W Barnes shared a link.

CONVID-19 background & outcomes goes a lot deeper then many of the comments here. This video explains the back ground to an incompetence in communication (or even a possible darker intervention) by the CCP.

The below video by Dr Paul Cottrell confirms that analysis of the 35 genome strands of the virus that actually caused 35 deaths around the world, were in fact from a specially bio engineered (man made) genome virus.

Nothing to do with Bats & animals etc.

The genome strand contained 4 specific “pastes” of known current virus variations which could not have got there by natural selection (evolution). The Wuhan lab “P4” is apparently less than 500m from the seafood market (but there are many such labs all around the world which have been researching SARS type viruses since 2010).

Whether the outbreak was accidental (or as Dr Cottrell offers the possible “dark road of intervention & release”) one thing is certain, is that it’s man made & our natural immunity will be vulnerable. It ain’t a flu variation.

So yes to call it a Chinese or Wuhan virus isn’t racist rather these are the facts as we know them at present. Please note I worked in China for 3-4 years (& in Wuhan) & I have a G8 affection for the Chinese people 🤔🤗.

A G8 video to watch (despite the initial technical jargon which I had watch twice to come to grips with), confirming the likely source, & how it impacts various organs & longer term medical & economic impacts 👏


Posted in China, HEALTH, World Issues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is Clear-Thinking being Lost in the current Evolution of Civilization?


Observations and opinions:

So much of the world’s current behaviour clearly exhibits various degrees of insanity.

Insanity discernible as irrationality, often demonstrably psychopathic.

A certain amount of  irrational human behaviour is traditional in our remarkable evolution but it has now become more noticeable and more extensive globally.

Our obtaining possession of, and our ability to use our human intelligence, has been developing steadily but has not followed an intelligent progression towards creating a rational civilization.  More likely a regression, one that is following a self-destructive pattern.

{Not referring specifically to the claimed “climate change” threat to civilization in it’s recognized format. Except that the existence of a threat not supported by a logical basis is one good example of an observed failing in our collective intelligence}.

How does one define rational? Something that makes sense to a rational person? Although true, that is a circular argument without a meaningful answer.

‘Once upon a time’, the ‘survival of the fittest’ was largely a physical process of personally maintaining food/water, shelter and the associated environment, with the result that humans had a degree of justification of killing each other. In the extreme, even cannibalism could be “justified”.

With the evolution of what we call civilization, we have achieved, in general, a much more humane and intelligent way of survival. And yet, the killing goes on. Why?

And the starvation goes on, why?

Taking that the general population’s preference is for peaceful resolutions rather than conflicting situations, yet it does not exist as a force in societies. It does not have the strength nor the means to prevent armies being formed, terrorist groups created and funded, and vast amounts of money diverted from civilized purposes in order to cause enormous destruction of lives and property.

This inhumane, destructive behaviour exists because, in the main, ‘future survival’ does entail ownership, or access to, or control of, essential resources such as energy and water. That this contrasts with humanitarian outcomes is the illogical outcome.

The question is, why is it that the evolution of the most intelligent, universally capable species on our planet has not developed without resorting to selfish, animalistic, unintelligent behaviour?

Why does this basic animal instinct still over-ride our acquired ability to think clearly and act humanely?  Not only has the basic warring instinct not effectively been controlled or weakened, there is no evidence of that ever occurring. Worse still, it seems, it is increasing!

Some thought needs to be given to the demographics(?).  There exists two types of human consciousnesses. One having overpowering desire to achieve end results without concern for other humans, a psychopathic state of mind. The other, a pacifist state of mind where human life and well-being is strongly respected.

Understandably, there are people who range between these two extremes. Most parents, at least mothers, would do all they can to prevent or discourage their sons, and these days, daughters, from going off to war.  Yet, the general public see war as somehow justified and unavoidable, even an acceptable part of civilization.

The current status is basically, never-ending wars.

Is it something to do with our detectable and measurable personal intelligence levels?  Average IQ levels of 100 result from a range roughly from 70 to 140. Is there a correlation of IQ and willingness to go to war? Or even acceptance of war as normal? It would seem likely that such a correlation does exist in people regarding criminal behaviour, at least at the physical level.  In the case of internet, white collar and fraud type crimes, the relationship is possibly inverse.

Is it something to do with male /female characteristics? Female characteristics are predominately pacifist, and exist to various degrees in males. Male characteristics are predominately physical strengths and forcefulness but can be exhibited by some women. In current times there is a great deal of confusion evident in the progress of feminism, whereby there seems to be a desire for women to ‘compete’ for an equality which is counter to their femininity.

Commonsense?  An unmistakable absence of commonsense is ironically becoming common, if that makes sense. This is not gender oriented, but universal. Decision making by governments, authorities and individuals is increasingly devoid of best choices for best future outcomes for societies. Too often decisions are based on biassed assumptions and selfish agendas. On short term goals rather than long term! In the extreme, but nevertheless occurring generally, our ‘civilization’ is proceeding on a self-destructive path. This is across the whole range of individuals through to governments and includes, if not dominated by, non-government powers.

This excercise in ‘Thoughts’ is simply a matter of putting thoughts in writing. It is offered published for possible reactions. No gain for anyone is envisaged.

Posted in AGENDA 21, Conspiracies, Corruption, Globalism, Human Behaviour, Human Folly, Inhumanity, New World Order, Psychology, Warfare | Tagged | 6 Comments

Ulterior Motives regarding Vaccines

Much has been “said”, here and mostly elsewhere, about the vast vaccination topic.

Starting with whether it is true, or false, to claim “vaccines are ‘safe’ and ‘effective'”.

It is logical to label the claim as ‘false’ on the basis of indisputable evidence that vaccines are not always safe, a clear admission by pharmaceutical personnel and recorded awards for vaccine damages in court rulings. ‘Effectiveness’, is a little less definable, but professional vaccine promoters are usually honest enough to include covers such as “generally”, “mostly”, or similar language.

It is usually the likes of politicians and pedantic public supporters who are prepared to make bald, incorrect statements and expect the listener to accept their arguments.

Accepting that “vaccines are generally safe and usually effective”, then raises the questions “to what extent are they safe and effective”?  Answers are in the realm of  “how long is a piece of string”, because the variables are many and varied.

It is also reasonable to pose the questions, “How necessary are the vaccines, in what circumstances do they become justified and in what circumstances can mandatory, indiscriminate and forced applications be justified?”

These, and many other valid questions exist. In an intelligent community they deserve to be listened to, in a civilized community they deserve to be answered. Only in the social media are these issues addressed. There they are met with fierce opposition by authorities and thus their motivation becomes also questionable.

A number of motivations exist for this opposition. Public health, Company profits, Shareholder incomes, Practitioner benefits, Political lobbying rewards, cover most.

There is however, another possible reason which, although unbelievable in an ideal world, would explain the fervour of a), promoting questionable practices and b), opposing logical and commonsense responses. That is the theme of this post and video.

Readers comments are invited.


Of particular interest in the light of the current “epidemic”.

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak – Wikipedia–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak

The 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak is an ongoing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, which started in December 2019.It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei province, China.Initially it was spread from heretofore unknown animals to humans; it has subsequently spread between people. The virus propagating the outbreak has an estimated time of exposure …

Posted in AGENDA 21, drugs & medication, HEALTH, New World Order, vaccines | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Promotion of 5G Networking in Australia – Thoughts

TV media is currently championing the introduction of the 5G communication network in Australia.

One does not have to look far to discover that the new radiation frequencies and strengths involved  are not without a great degree of controversy.

Claims of associated, potentially serious health issues are there to be considered.

This USA post is a comprehensive introduction to the topic. Comprehensive and therefore lengthy and somewhat involved. It is considered a serious health issue which justifies readers’ time and patience to absorb its significance.  Click to access the main post.

One of its papers:

By Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

This message describes, as briefly as I can, the answers to the questions below.  Kindly read what interests you.  I present these comments as a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D. in Applied Physics, Harvard University).

  • Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?
  • Why are both HB654/SB937 and HB1020/SP713 fatally flawed?
  • What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?
  • What is Maryland’s implicit policy on exposure to radiofrequency radiation?
  • Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?
  • What is the evidence of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G?
  • What should our telecommunications goals be?
  • Who am I?
Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?

Control by local government of the deployment of 5G’s small cell towers is, indeed, an important goal, because local governments are closer to the people and can better reflect their wishes.  That makes HB1020/SP713 the better approach, as intended by its authors, compared to HB654/SB937 which forfeits local control entirely.

But there is an even more important goal:  STOPPING the deployment of 5G altogether.  The reason, as shown throughout this message, is that there is NO SAFE WAY to implement 5G in our communities; rather, there are only “bad ways” and “worse ways”.  So local control means that local governments can have a say in the choice among the “bad ways”.

Why are both HB654/SB937 and HB1020/SP713 fatally flawed?

Both bills reaffirm the worst aspect of Federal policy:  a prohibition against stopping all deployment.  For example, HB1020/SP713 makes statements like these:



Statements like these write into Maryland law the principal provision of Federal policy that so many efforts are now trying to overturn.  For this reason, in my view, neither HB654/SB937 nor HB1020/SP713 should be made law.

What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?

Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of electricity have already been forced on virtually every home and business in Maryland.  These meters bring the source of radiation up close and personal to the residents, even to the walls against which children sleep.  They transmit pulses of radiofrequency throughout the day and the night, every day of the year.  To escape the radiation from your own meter, you must pay the electric power company a monthly Opt-Out fee, forever, for a non-radiating meter.  At last report, about 44,000 Maryland homeowners have made this choice.  But there is NO way to escape the radiation from your neighbors’ wireless meters.

Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of natural gas and water are either already implemented in parts of the State, or are contemplated (WSSC), and will worsen the problem already created by the Wireless Smart Meters for electricity.

WiFi is implemented widely in Maryland’s schools and bathes the children and teachers in radiofrequency radiation every school day for all their school years.  Parents who don’t want their children exposed to such radiation MUST forfeit a public school education for their children.  All this has occurred even though the Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council, which reports to the Governor, recommended phasing WiFi out of the schools in favor of much safer wired technology.  (Wifi Radiation in Schools in Maryland, Final Report, December 13, 2016, page 8,

The addition of the radiation from 5G’s small cell towers, located up close and personal to Maryland residents, and operating 24 hours per day throughout the year, will complete this assault on the health of the public.

What is Maryland’s implicit policy on radiofrequency radiation?

The State’s implicit policy appears to be this:

“No resident of Maryland shall be permitted to escape 24-hour exposure to radiofrequency radiation, at ever higher levels, even though such radiation has already been shown to be harmful to human health.”

“All biomedical research from any source, including the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, and the international biomedical research community more broadly, that shows that exposure to radiofrequency radiation is harmful to human health, will be categorically denied.”

Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?

In the simplest terms, human beings are bioelectrical in nature.  That is why electrocardiograms work when they monitor a beating heart.  And that is why electroencephalograms work when they monitor the activities in the brain.  Humans evolved in levels of radiofrequency radiation far below those produced by human technology today.  We humans are simply not designed to tolerate today’s high levels of radiofrequency radiation.

When the radiofrequency radiation from cell towers, including 5G’s small cell towers, and other wireless sources, hits the body, that radiation disrupts the bioelectrical workings of the body.  This disruption occurs at levels of radiation far below those set as the FCC’s Maximum Permitted Exposure limits.  In response, the body must fight back constantly to regain control.  This battle can lead to a wide range of symptoms.  Here is just a partial list:  sleep disruption, headaches, irritability, ringing in the ears, fatigue, loss of concentration and memory, nerve pain, dizziness, eye problems, nausea, heart palpitations, depression, and cancer.

No one is immune to harm, but vulnerability varies widely with the individual.  That vulnerability does appear to be greatest for pregnant mothers, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, seniors, the disabled, and those with chronic health conditions.  A host of major medical conditions are now under study by the international biomedical research community to determine what role exposure to radiofrequency radiation may play in causing, or aggravating, them.  Examples include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autoimmune diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease, among so many others.

The effects of radiofrequency radiation appear to be cumulative; so the longer that exposure continues, the greater the chance that an individual will be overtly affected.  Some individuals will develop a devastating condition called Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, with a host of symptoms, including extreme pain from exposure to even very low levels of radiofrequency radiation.  Just to survive, such individuals must often leave their homes and jobs, where exposure levels were too high, and move to rare locations away from radiation sources.  Such individuals regularly contact scientists (including me), doctors, and other aware individuals for advice on what to do.

What is the evidence of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?

There are thousands of archival biomedical research papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, that have shown that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to the body in one way or another.  These have been collected and reviewed in a number of summary documents.  Here are just two examples:  (1) BioInitiative 2012, draws on about 1800 publications (; (2) EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF-Related Health Problems and Illnesses, draws on 308 references ( (“EMF” stands for electromagnetic fields, a term inclusive of radiofrequency radiation.)

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Human Carcinogen (“possibly carcinogenic”), naming explicitly “wireless phone” radiation (cellular radiation), based on the increased risk for glioma.  Glioma is a malignant type of brain cancer that is usually fatal.  It most recently took the life of Senator John McCain and Beau Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden.  (

In 2018, a massive study by the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to cancer of the nerves of the heart (schwannomas), to cancer of the brain (glioma), and to multiple other health effects in test animals.  (

In 2015 and continuing, 247 scientists from 42 nations signed an appeal to the United Nations, described below.  These scientists have “published peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields” (which are inclusive of radiofrequency radiation).

“Address the global public health concerns related to exposure to cell phones, power lines, electrical appliances, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in residential homes, schools, communities and businesses.”  (

For more information on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation, please see the website of the Environmental Health Trust, especially the Science tab.  (

“read more”


What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G?

5G has some true advantages.  5G is expected to employ higher radiofrequencies than those currently in use in cellular systems in the United States.  Those higher frequencies will permit more rapid rates of data transfer compared to current WIRELESS technology.  And, as a wireless technology, 5G will support mobility.

But wired technology, especially fiber-optic technology, is superior to 5G in so many other ways.  Fiber-optic technology produces NO radiofrequency radiation, so it poses NO health hazard.  Fiber-optic technology is safer, faster, more reliable, more cyber secure, and more private than any wireless technology, including 5G.  (See for a detailed description of the limitations of 5G.)

So users of wireless technology, including 5G, will have to decide if mobility ALONE is more important for their particular application than any other factor, including their own health and the health of their families and colleagues.

When listening to the hype about 5G, consider the following:
Is the hype coming more from potential providers of 5G, who hope to profit from 5G, or from potential users, who will have to pay for 5G?

Is the RUSH to implement 5G more about staking out claims to small cell sites in right-of-ways than about providing services that customers really need?

Is the RUSH to implement 5G driven by the growing awareness of the public and its representatives that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to health, and thus the providers feel that they must act quickly before resistance builds further?

What scientific studies, from impartial sources, can the providers of 5G identify that prove that 5G has NO adverse health effects on humans?  The burden of proof is on the providers.

When questioned by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal in a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (February, 7, 2019), the representatives of industry could name no existing studies and none in progress.  (Story:; Video:

What should our telecommunications goals be?

Let me suggest the following:

Promote the expansion of fiber-optic technology as widely as possible, instead of degrading our environment with more harmful radiofrequency radiation, this time from 5G.

Require that the safety of 5G be proven by impartial studies before 5G can be installed in Maryland, instead of facilitating the use of Maryland residents to be the guinea pigs to test that safety.

Join forces with other state governments, and with local governments, to fight back against Federal laws and regulations that force any potentially harmful technology on the states without adequate PRIOR proof of safety.  Any technology with the potential to harm, and even take, life should not be mandated by the U.S. Government or encouraged by the states.

It will be difficult to stop 5G, but it will be easier to stop it NOW than to get it removed later after huge numbers of Maryland residents have become ill.

Who am I?

I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University).  I worked for the Executive Office of the President, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  For those organizations, respectively, I addressed Federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community.  I currently interact with other scientists, with physicians, and with aware individuals around the world on the impact of radiofrequency radiation on human health.

I have been a resident of Montgomery County since 1979.


Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

Continue reading

Posted in AUSTRALIA, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, radiation | Tagged , | 1 Comment

BBC’s Climate Check

One doesn’t need to look far to see the fraudulent presentation of climate data.
Accepting that, there is only one interpretation possible – The public are being gypped with lies that “climate change” is a result of atmospheric CO2 emissions.
There is no valid science to support the alarmists.
If readers cannot understand this, what is their basis for believing the propaganda?


View original post 562 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hiding 230 Years Of Global Heatwaves

U-Tube video by Tony Heller, presented below.

“If government climate scientists were actual scientists, they would want to understand history – rather than trying to make it disappear.”

Setting the records straight.

It is not just that the facts are being adulterated by the “official” climate scientists.
It is the fact that there is a reason for this unjustified behaviour.

There is an agenda behind this totally unacceptable, Orwellian rewriting of history by the current “Department(s) of Truth”.
What is this agenda?
It should be obvious to any thinking person that these activities are being carried out to support the beliefs that
a), unprecedented catastrophic climate changes are now occurring,
b), that these changes are due mainly to the burning of fossil fuels for our energy requirements, and
c), that the resulting rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the actual cause.

Only if all three factors are scientifically valid is this agenda realistic.
In reality, not only is just one of them incorrect, they all are.

Who is behind this agenda? The United Nations Climate Commission.

Books are being published that cover all these issues. It suffices to state here that one can see the agenda clearly exhibited in this groups title and mission statement. Their agenda is to convince the public that all three above “beliefs” are valid, NOT to investigate what are the various causes of our climate changes.

This video offers some of the proofs that this conclusion is valid.

So, we try to educate the “proles”.

Posted in AGENDA 21, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Planet Earth, Science, World Issues | Leave a comment


All the Vaccine science you need in one place…..
Easy reference and easy to use.

WELL DONE to those that have put this together!

The science is in – Vaccines cause death, disability, disease and harm – Our Government is Lying to us….. Vaccines are NOT safe and effective NOR is the Science Settled!!


Posted in drugs & medication, HEALTH, Vaccination Dangers, vaccines | Leave a comment

Discussion on “climate change” based on Scientific Data.

Having just posted information revealing the political agenda aspects of the climate alarmism that fraudulently scares the public into relinquishing control of their country’s financial and industrial well-being, [The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam] , here is a 13 minute video which should convince readers that the “science is settled” is a blatant lie.

It is a mistake to believe the “settled science” just as it is to believe the claim that 97% of climate scientists believe that human generated carbon emissions are causing dangerous climate changes. (A little bit of internet searching will enlighten readers). Also mentioned in this video!

There is no significant proof that any type of science, other than “tainted”, supports alarmist claims of real and impending “doom”.

Please listen to this and consider!

Heat waves – not currently abnormal – misinformation being promoted.

Arctic Sea ice declining – as above

Wild-fires increasing – as above

Sea level rising – as above

Hopefully, this will trigger some increased brain activity, some real data and information understanding. Children can be easily taken in, because they are still learning how to think and learn, or supposed to be. (Unfortunately they are also at risk of “learning” propaganda rather than reality,  if the ‘teachers’ are just as easily fooled).

Adults, on the other hand, have experience and wisdom, with a greater capability of distinguishing facts from propaganda. In theory, at least!

So, both the “why” and the “how” of the “climate change” fraud are sensibly explained.

Thanks to Tony Heller, whose presentation demonstrates real science.


My Gift To Climate Alarmists, by Tony Heller.

Posted in AGENDA 21, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Planet Earth, Science, United Nations | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

This blog has been contributing pages and posts, generally a collection of published technical information and authored posts together with some original thoughts and theories on this topic originally named “Global Warming”, for many years.

For me, there are numerous reasons for strongly supporting the so-called “climate change deniers”, itself ironic because the alarmists have been shown to be far more into denial about absolute facts, than any of ‘us’.  This article contains much of the basis for my initial mind-shift and confidence in being correct in my beliefs. Could be categorized as incontrovertible.

To me it is an “elephant in the room” factor.

I have taken the liberty of copying the article complete, bold emphasis added, my comments in BLUE.

Posted: Sep 16, 2010 12:31 PM MST
Updated: Mar 12, 2012 5:07 PM MST
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global  warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities.
But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps   Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle coauthored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies.
Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Back in the 1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon
dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement.
Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 (0.41 ?) hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.
Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.
Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.
At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of  hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle.
He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming.” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the antifossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

[A book that has been challenged for inaccuracies and not approved for schools]

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling.”  The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to
rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article.
However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man.
The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.
As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly
magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models.  (NO PROOF AT ALL!) By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.
That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline.
Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.
Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is highjacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

[ I can imagine some who will argue – “But it is the “Climate changing” that is the issue!” Well even if the climate is changing, it has always changed and doubtlessly always will, the cause cannot be “global warming” because that has basically ceased, in danger of actual cooling in fact.  CO2 emissions are an unproven contributor to warming and certainly cannot cause climate changes by itself!]


Related articles:

The Climate Crisis Hoax   (  )

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism  )


Posted in AGW, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, New World Order, Science | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment