UN admits it has no clue on climate!

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2012.

The much-awaited SREX report is out from the IPCC.


The UN’s very official key group that touts manmade global warming is the IPCC. It’s the scientific spear that lances the boil called “sociologically diseased global-warming skeptics.”

The IPCC’s SREX report is a tome on the subject of extreme climate changes.

Media outlets, falling into line with the Globalist agenda of go-green decimate-industry drive-us-all-into-underground-enclaves-to-escape-the-warming-disaster, have spun this SREX report as a further warning to the people of Earth.

But at omnologos.com, they actually read the SREX, and they found a fascinating FAQ. Question 3.1 asks: Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme?

And after perhaps a 1000 words of hemming and hawing about various interpretations of that question and what would be needed to answer it, in terms of actual measuring instruments, the authors—220 authors from 62 countries—concluded:



See, this is called cognitive dissonance.

You KNOW all the experts have been telling us we’re doomed unless we go back to the forests and start eating roots and tubers.

You know this.

And yet…here are those very same experts now saying they have no clue about whether the weather is doing bad things to us.

And on top of that, the major media outlets haven’t pointed out the contradiction.

It’s a three-part piece of lunacy.

Fortunately, as a reporter who studied logic, I’ve learned to live with these contradictions for years and I’ve brought them to your attention. Of course, I throw bricks at walls and crush cars and buildings with my hands to let off a little steam. But I recover.

Here is the takeaway on this climate story:

We, who are in charge of your destiny because we have the money and the power and the force to back it up, don’t know what hell we’re doing when it comes to global warming. But we don’t need to know. All we have to do is tell the manmade warming story and keep telling it. We have the requisite number of media androids and sold-out scum journalists to make that happen. And on that basis and that basis alone, we will tax carbon and reduce industry and destroy populations in order to save the world. And you will go along with it, mainly because you’re too stupid to see through the story. Are we clear?”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 www.nomorefakenews.com





“This is 21st century book burning.” — Alex Jones, April 5, 2012



by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2012.



YouTube has taken down an Alex Jones video in which he parodies the professor who recently said warming critics have a mental disorder and should be treated.


Well, Professor Kari Norgaard was right about one thing. Anything can be called a psychiatric disorder. Dream up a disorder, name it, and the drug companies will give you a wink and a nod, because they cook up the expensive chemical solutions.


But I digress.


YouTube apparently believes official science can’t be messed with, and also that parody is a crime. In case you hadn’t noticed, criticizing science and government policy is beginning to merge with “politically incorrect speech.” The two streams are coming together, and it isn’t an accident.


Global warming is a key issue, because it’s the premise on which destruction of economies and green everything and cap and trade are based.


As Al Gore’s TV network, run out of the back of a pickup, heads into oblivion, and as the internet flushes one traditional media business after another down the toilet, as the manmade warming hypothesis takes one hit after another, as the science is exposed, the powers-that-be are getting nervous.


They want consensus, and they don’t care how they get it.


When PR dressed up as science doesn’t work, when gaping holes in the manmade warming hypothesis are exposed again and again, when scandals inside the corrupt warming club explode, the Plan B people try to shut down is the truth.


They cite “community standards” on speech, they suddenly interpret the 1st Amendment to mean “inoffensive comments,” they show “concern for potential victims,” they take sides.


It’s quite all right for scientists and government employees to call those who question the manmade warming hypothesis insane, or racist, or dangerous or mentally incompetent, but when the attacks run the other way, it’s impolite and offensive and insensitive. Boo-hoo.


O poor little professor who wrote a paper calling global warming critics sociologically diseased, and in need of treatment. Poor little professor needs defending, poor little professor of sociology who probably knows less climate science than a TV weather android. Poor little professor who wants to debate science by calling the other side demented.


You see, she’s a professor, and she was operating under the delusion that, from her protected perch, she could make sensational pronouncements and cut herself a nice little piece of academic pie and graduate into the land of the famous.


Well, she’s famous now, and I don’t think she likes it. A dose of her own medicine wasn’t what she had in mind. She thought she was inventing a new category of mental disorder.


Students actually put themselves into hock for decades, to come to your college and sit in your classes? Astonishing.


See, Professor Norgaard, let me take you to school for a second:

Science is supposed to work this way. Someone makes a claim based on evidence, and then other scientists use that evidence and decide whether the claim has merit. I know, that’s Pure science, and we rarely see it anymore in many areas of research. But that’s the template. That’s the way it’s supposed to operate.

If you play that game under the cover of academic pretension, based on NOTHING, it’s a giveaway. You’re just quack-quacking. And even some of your colleagues can see it. Your bosses at the college have already said your use of the word “treatment,” as in “needs treatment,” was a mistake. So they’re backing down. They’re running away and hiding. From you.


That must have been a bit of a shocker. There you were, quack-quacking, thinking your superiors would back you up, and they fled into the night. Cowards. They couldn’t take heat. See, they’re fakers, too. When the PR turns against them, they cut you loose in a second and leave you with your wings flapping in the breeze.


Welcome to the real world of academia.


By the way, I just read a letter you wrote to President Obama posted on the Whitman College website—the letter that will probably be scrubbed out in the next 30 seconds. Let me quote you:


At this juncture, we need science more than ever. Fortunately, you have made an excellent choice in commissioning Harvard physicist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient John Holdren as your science adviser.”


Kari? Holdren didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize. At least not in this galaxy. You didn’t know that? I know some people who’d like to smoke what you’re smoking.


I really shouldn’t leave this piece without saying a word or two about another professor, not from the wilds of Oregon, but from Yale, who might be smoking with Skull and Bones types. That would be Karen Seto. The Daily UK Mail mentioned she recently told MSNBC: “We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely (together).”


My, my. Nothing elitist or arrogant to see here, move along.


This is about “urban land use” and “natural preservation” and “the warming threat” and “environmental stewardship.” All of which mean CENTRAL PLANNING for the planet.


Pack people into the cities (one item on the UN Agenda 21 list), leave the wilds to nature, with a few golf courses for the upper caste, and delegate farming to giant GMO corporations because, well, somebody has to grow food, unless the urban billions are going to be chomping Soylent Green. Or unless, to make this criminal enterprise work, some heavy depopulation must take place.


Quite a vision of the future, and it’s only right that Yale is in the vanguard.


Who’s insane?


But ha-ha, these professors are just fringe jokers and we all know there is no threat to our freedom.


Yeah? Go to Karen Seto’s CV at the Yale site and read the brain-cracking list of organizations she’s connected to. They’re all involved in this Central Planning for the Planet to Save Our Skins op. And you’ve never heard of any of them. They’re networked. And there are many more. They’re working globally, they’re working locally, and I wish I could say they’re all suffering from a sociological disease. But they aren’t. They’re little mad egos and big mad egos who are gathering together to create a future for the rest of us. A future decimation.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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, and creativity to audiences around the world.