New York Times 1989: no global warming trend

NY Times 1989: no global warming trend

by Jon Rappoport

December 29, 2016

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.”

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. 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 that wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.

The Times had no follow-up questions.


The Matrix Revealed

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


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. And those mistakes generate unpleasant results. However, they mean well. They really do.

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.

Is the global-warming hustle finally falling apart?

Is the global-warming hustle finally falling apart?

(Al Gore stuffed $98 million into his lockbox while saving the world)

by Jon Rappoport

December 5, 2016

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

“When you see a problem defined as ‘a threat to all humans’, you can be sure Globalists are using that fake or real problem to impose control on all humans.” (The Underground. Jon Rappoport)

With the election of Donald Trump, climate change and global warming have come back into the spotlight. In a different way.

“The science is settled” isn’t good enough now.

Neither is the Globalist plan to cut energy production in every country in the world, in order to “rescue us from frying.”

LA Times: “Donald Trump will be about the only head of state who does not believe in climate science or the responsibility of his government to act,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club…”

But all along, there have been dissenters from the manmade warming mantra; they just haven’t been allowed inside government 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 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 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.

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 Federal 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 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. (It isn’t really on the side. 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?

A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists just 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 just said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.D.s.

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 all life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”

Al Gore is one of their front men.

He jets here and he jets there, carrying their messages. He’s their delivery kid.

And for his work, he is paid $100 million — a drop in the bucket.

A final note about the “science” of global warming—

A hypothesis is a provisional statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments.

Confirmation means making a correct prediction. Not just any prediction, but a useful one.

Take this hypothesis: The Earth has become warmer by X degrees over the past 1000 years.

Putting all the chatter aside, have scientists deployed this hypothesis to make accurate, specific, and useful predictions about warming?

So far, the answer is no.

That eliminates, for the time being, the acceptance of the warming hypothesis. Many predictions have been made, many alarm bells have been rung, many dire warnings have been issued, many threats have been launched…but no correct and useful predictions.

However, scientists will say their (rejected) hypothesis is also a statement of fact. That is, it is a summary of a warming trend derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and in the past, on land, sea, and air.

Scientists will also claim their investigation reveals humans have directly and significantly contributed to a recent warming trend.

At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and predicting, and moving to a debate about the accuracy of all those temperature measurements and the causes of any actual climate changes.

Among scientists, there is a great deal of disagreement about the accuracy of the measurements. Any fair examination of studies and their critics will reveal that.

In this regard, the science is not settled. Far from it.

So: useless as a hypothesis, the assertion of manmade warming, as fact, is wide open to debate. To say the least.


The Matrix Revealed


Yet…based on this non-proof, 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.”

Yes, citizen by citizen.

This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail.

Slavery imposed through energy.

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.

Scalia murdered? Sealed his fate 4 days before his death?

Scalia murdered? Sealed his fate 4 days before his death?

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2016

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

Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4.

With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.

With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead.

We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.

And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.

If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.

If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”

Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind.

Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.

“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.

Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.

However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.

The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.

The pending TPP, another Globalist trade treaty, contains a section that allows endless changes and additions in the text as years pass. In other words, the passion for cutting energy production for the US, and the rest of the planet, can easily be expressed and ratified by the member nations.

The TPP also reveals a cynical attitude toward the “humanitarian goal of saving the planet from CO2 death.” Major corporations that burn coal and employ other ways of releasing CO2 can relocate to far-off lands (e.g., Vietnam) and spew CO2 to their hearts’ content, without messy environmental controls.

In other words, the true underlying Globalist scheme, vis-à-vis climate change has nothing to do with messianic rescue: it has to do with lowering energy production.

Drive economies further into despair. Move more jobs out of industrialized countries.

Create further poverty and chaos.

And then bring new order in behind that—one planet, under the tight rein of one worldwide political and economic management system.

That’s the true meaning of the climate-change agenda, notwithstanding solemn promises and heraldic pronouncements about replacing lost energy with new renewable technologies.

“I have an idea. Let’s cut our electricity-use in our home by 30%, while we figure out how to replace it with some new source. That’ll work. I’m sure of it.”

On top of all this, the entire manmade-warming hypothesis is riddled with fraud and guesswork dressed up to look like United Nations science. A hypothesis is supposed to be able to make useful and specific predictions. The warming hypothesis is a dud in this regard. It was never meant to be science—it was always a strategy designed to cut energy production on planet Earth, torpedo economies, heighten human suffering, and usher in an elite Globalist triumph.

This is what Justice Scalia was going up against.

If he was murdered, there was sufficient reason.

The FBI can do two kinds of investigations, depending on the orders of the Attorney General: heavy or lite.

Heavy means leaving no stone unturned. It means taking control of the Scalia’s body now and doing whatever can be done with it, in its embalmed state, to determine cause of death. It means raking wackaloon Judge Guevara over the coals, along with US marshals, to find out exactly how the verdict of “natural causes” was reached. It means extensive interviews with everyone at Poindexter’s ranch. Wall to wall forensic analysis of rooms and spaces at the ranch. And so forth and so on.

Lite means a brush-off, meant to avoid any disruption in the present scenario.

So far, from what I see, the FBI is doing Lite. Scalia’s body should already be on an autopsy table.

There continues to be no uproar inside the Beltway about the absurd, insane, useless declaration of death by “natural causes.”

And there is something else going on. It’s the convenient mind-control program that says, “Mustn’t disturb the dead. Don’t interrupt the expressions of sadness at his passing. Don’t dishonor the man by raising questions about his possible murder. Give the family their privacy during this period of grief.”

It’s the passivity of the obedient mind. Whatever induced mood, fabrication, lie, omission can feed and expand that passivity…is deployed:

“We need to be more accepting. He was an old man in ill-heath. He passed away. Natural causes. The great cycle of life. Be gentle. Nothing to see. Move along, slowly.”

“Possible murder of a US Supreme Court Justice? Please, not at this time. It’s a discordant idea. Unharmonious. Let the man go gently into that good night.”


power outside the matrix


Truth be told, this whole country has been subject to a “no-disturb” sign for a long, long time. Don’t think; agree. Don’t investigate; obey.

The “don’t-disturb-the-dead” program is really about the whole population. The implication is: “we’re all dead already; don’t disturb us.”

The lesson? Just because other people are mired in a hypnotic state, you aren’t obliged to pander to them. Their trance is their own.

Whether you’re alive and awake and alert and have power is a choice. Yours.

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.

Save-planet George Soros invests in coal

Save-planet George Soros invests in coal

by Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2015

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

Breitbart reporter Steve Milloy has the story (“The New King Coal: George Soros”, 8/17/2015):

“I predicted…that the left wasn’t going to kill off the coal industry so much as it was going to steal it. That prediction is already becoming true courtesy of billionaire George Soros.”

“U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s ‘war on coal’ and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.”

“Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as ‘stranded assets’ that were losing value as they were no longer needed…What a difference a few months makes, especially when those months have seen coal company stocks fall to fire sale prices…”

Instead of the ever-popular pump and dump strategy for making money, this is dump and then pump. Make coal look worthless, then buy it up. Then take the stock price up.

The Climate Change tap dance features all sorts of $$ deals, and as yet the really huge ones are lurking behind the curtain. In the meantime, we can see a few of the out-front hustles.


There is the case of Tom Steyer, hedge-fund billionaire. Alatheia Larsen of newsbusters has that story (“Green Billionaire Tom Steyer, Squeezing Climate Panic for Profit”, 7/10/15):

“Tom Steyer’s concern for the environment and almost religious devotion to promoting green energy appear to be targeting another kind of green…Alternative Energy wasn’t always Steyer’s focus. He only began attacking coal power in 2011…Meanwhile in Australia, the hedge fund that Steyer started and ran until at least 2013, Farallon Capital Management, was busy finalizing a transaction to create what is on track to become one of Australia’s largest coal mining operations. This deal increased coal production in Australia by a staggering 70 million tons…Steyer divested from Farallon in 2014 after saying that he could not reconcile it with his current personal beliefs about climate change. Also, conveniently after he had made a fortune.”

Nice work if he could get it, and he could.


Several years ago, I wrote a piece about Al Gore’s good fortune as a climate-change god.

Here is an excerpt:

In 2001, Al Gore was worth less than $2 million. Now, in 2012, it’s estimated he’s 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 government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have federal 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 makes batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM) (twitter search), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM 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 has been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (It isn’t really on the side. Gore is constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

—end excerpt—


the matrix revealed


The save-the-planet cash registers are ringing. And you can bet that the future configuration of cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and “reparations” paid out from developed to undeveloped countries will funnel endless cash into elite hands—while cutting energy production for the planet and putting more people into a state of poverty.

We’re just seeing the tip of the $$ iceberg.

Finally, here is a quote from Princeton physicist, William Happer (Climate Depot, 1/22/15, mirrored here: “A Noted Physicist Speaks Out”):

“…the jihad against atmospheric carbon dioxide. Like its predecessors, this cause has generated plenty of sanctimonious slogans: ‘intergenerational justice’, ‘saving the planet’, ‘sustainability’, ‘negligible carbon footprints’. In reality, the cause has brought ugly, bird-killing windmills, which have replaced the psalmist’s ‘cattle on a thousand hills’; hapless native peoples have been expelled from their from ancestral lands, sometimes at gunpoint, so wealthy corporations and foundations could claim to be saving the planet, at no small profit to themselves; fraud in the trading of carbon credits has cheated honest taxpayers. But for this cause, as for most of its predecessors, the end justifies the means. Policies to ‘stop climate change’ are based on climate models that completely failed to predict the lack of warming for the past two decades. Observational data show clearly that the predictions of unacceptable warming by more carbon dioxide are wrong…policies designed to save the planet from more carbon dioxide are based on failed computer models.”

Profits for “the right people,” however, aren’t failing.

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.

Paris attacks, Missouri U protests

Paris attacks, Missouri U protests

The uses of propaganda

by Jon Rappoport

November 17, 2015

(Jon has a new work of fiction at his other blog, Outside The Reality Machine. If you want to take a wild ride, read it.)

“After catastrophic events, the propaganda machines start rolling. Opportunities abound. The goal is: use the disaster to boost a current agenda, when there really is no connection at all. It’s called a non-sequitur. It’s perfect food for dim minds.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Let’s look at how propaganda arising out of the Paris attacks will be deployed in the upcoming Climate Summit.

File this under: how much hay will global elites make from the Paris attacks?

Also file it under: the use of complete non-sequiturs as propaganda, to achieve desired results.

Let’s consider the Paris Climate Summit (COP21), scheduled to start on November 30 in Paris. No less than 120 nations will be represented by their heads of state, including Obama. Somewhere between 20 and 40 thousand credentialed representatives are going to attend.

That gives you some idea of the importance of the event. This is a big deal. Very big. As the Scientific American states in “Paris Attack Will Not Halt Global Climate Talks”:

“The two weeks of talks begin Nov. 30 and will take place at Le Bourget airfield on the outskirts of Paris. They are expected to culminate in a new international agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions and possibly put in place a system by which nearly 200 countries can regularly enact new and stronger climate targets.”

The Paris summit is the most ambitious effort yet to impose the pseudoscience of global warming on the planet. Lower CO2 emissions, carbon taxes, cap and trade, the whole works. Result? Reduce energy output and supplies for all nations, deepening poverty, increasing chaos.

Now, to sample the flavor of comments on the Climate Summit, in the wake of the Paris attacks, here are statements reported, again, by the Scientific American:

“Diplomats from New Zealand to the Maldives said they believe the vicious assaults on ordinary citizens are precisely the reason the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the U.N. climate convention must still convene as planned. U.S. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry will be among nearly 120 heads of state attending.”

“’COP 21 has to take place; otherwise, it would mean being weak and scared by terrorism, which would be for them an additional victory,’ Pascal Canfin, France’s former minister of development, told ClimateWire.”

“Agreed Jeffrey Waheed, deputy permanent representative of the Maldives to the United Nations, ‘We cannot acquiesce to brutality. It is important that terror attacks don’t dissuade us from what’s most important to the international community.’”

Getting the picture?

Here comes the non-sequitur: “solidarity in the face of terrorism” among nations equals: “we must all agree on deeper enforcement of climate rules.” That’s the pitch, that’s the propaganda.

Logically, it makes no sense, it’s an idiot’s dance, but whoever said propaganda relies on logic?

You’re going to hear this kind of thing: “If we convene in Paris and can’t come up with hard agreements on climate enforcement, we’ll be dishonoring all those who died in the attacks…”

And this: “We have one chance now to show how determined we are to forge a global community, not just for climate agreements, but for all that is good, against the brutal killers who assaulted this great city…”

Connecting two ideas that don’t go together is one of the prime strategies of propagandists—and you can see it’s already being used in this case. Again, we’re not talking about some small attempt to forge climate rules. This is a huge piece of the Globalist agenda, because it drives all nations deeper into poverty and energy deficits, under the guise of “saving the planet.”


power outside the matrix


In the case of the University of Missouri student protests, where the accusations of horrendous racism on campus have, so far, proven to be largely a hoax, the propaganda was all about the “power of students to force change.” The president of the University, Tim Wolfe, was targeted, and he quickly resigned.

But the truth is, the University football team forced Wolfe out, and his instant capitulation had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with money. Thirty football players were ready to boycott the team’s next game with BYU, and if they refused to take the field, Missouri would have to pay BYU a million dollars. But that was only the beginning of the $$ problem.

Since 2012, the U of Missouri has been part of the vaunted SEC (Southeastern Conference), the most powerful college football consortium of teams in America. The SEC has 14 member teams in 10 states. In 2014-15, the SEC paid its members $455 million.

If the Missouri football boycott spread to other SEC teams, the whole system could collapse, and this would have repercussions far beyond the SEC. We’re talking television contracts, advertisers, student bodies addicted to football. We’re talking about a “national pastime,” future Bowl games, the whole national playoff system.

Tim Wolfe took about five minutes to decide to resign, once he realized what was at stake. You can bet a few heavy hitters from the television networks and the SEC were on the phone to him, pronto.

Forget Wolfe’s public mea culpa. He was protecting the financial football establishment. He literally took one for the team.

The propaganda, and the ensuing college copycat protests at other schools, like Amherst, “showing solidarity” with the U of Missouri, all lead back to money. To football. To the billion-dollar bonanza industry that must not be derailed. As soon as Wolfe resigned, the Missouri student who was on a protest hunger strike (his father reportedly makes $8 million a year) started eating again. The football players went back on the field and got ready for their next game.

All the hoopla and propaganda about a moral victory against racism is a sham. It was a victory for football.

And you have to wonder: If the Missouri team was undefeated, on the verge of securing a spot in the national playoffs, instead of sporting a mediocre 5-4 record at the time, would 30 players have threatened to boycott their next game and risked taking themselves out of the championship picture? I doubt it.

Propaganda: it can be used in the aftermath of a disaster to promote an ongoing agenda, or it can be used to explain (wrongly) why something happened, in order to promote an ongoing agenda.

It works like magic when the target audience is uninformed and incurious.

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.

Manmade warming hypothesis? What’s a hypothesis?

Manmade warming hypothesis? What’s a hypothesis?

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“I used to think people accepted manmade warming because they robotically equated it with ‘helping the planet’, ‘saving the planet’, and ‘hating the corporations’. Then I thought, these equations are intentionally being piped into people’s minds as a form of programming. Then I thought, most people can no longer even recognize a line of reasoning about manmade warming or any other subject. Then I thought, all these things are happening at the same time.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

These days, what passes for logic is the effort to associate one idea with another favored idea. Then the first idea is accepted as fact.

If the first idea were “all Martians wear tuxedos,” and people associated that with “juicy burgers are delicious,” they would conclude that Martians, without doubt, all wear tuxes.

Associating with one idea with another is also, of course, a propaganda/advertising device.

Apparently, schools no longer teach students what a scientific hypothesis is.

If they do, those students disappear and are never heard from again.

First of all, a hypothesis is a provisional statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments.

Confirmation, in this case, means making a correct prediction. Not just any prediction, but a useful one.

Let’s start with a trivial hypothesis:

“If it snows, there are clouds.”

We should be able to use that hypothesis to predict what we’ll see in the sky whenever it’s snowing. Clouds. So we record numerous instances of snow and we find that, yes, there are clouds in the sky every time. We were able to predict clouds.

Is that a useful prediction? This is a matter of opinion. Most people would say no.

Here is another example of a hypothesis.

“If a patient has fungal infection X, he will develop a fever.”

We examine 5000 people and establish that they have fungal infection X. We predict they will all have fevers. We test them, and they do have fevers.

We used our hypothesis to make a prediction, and we were correct. Was the prediction useful? Some people would probably say yes.

Let’s go one step further. The factual truth or falsity of a hypothesis is beside the point. Any hypothesis is acceptable, IF we can deploy it to make a useful prediction.

We could assert, for instance, that the moon is made of green cheese. From that starting point, if we could go on to make a useful prediction that we could then confirm by observation, the “green cheese” hypothesis would be acceptable.

Suppose, against all odds, conventionally speaking, we begin with this hypothesis: the space of the entire universe is filled with an aether.

And suppose we can describe this aether well enough to make a prediction about the positions of two previously unseen black holes. We then discover that, yes, these holes are exactly where we said they’d be.

The aether hypothesis would be acceptable. It’s useful.

And…the question of whether the aether actually exists? Irrelevant.

Something like this occurs in modern physics. These two hypotheses sit side by side: the basic composition of matter is particles; the basic composition is waves. Both hypotheses allow useful (and different) predictions. Therefore, both are accepted, even though they contradict each other.

Now, take this hypothesis: The Earth has become warmer by X degrees over the past 1000 years.

Putting all the chatter aside, have scientists deployed this hypothesis to make accurate, specific, and useful predictions about warming?

So far, the answer is no.

That eliminates, for the time being, the acceptance of the warming hypothesis. Many predictions have been made, many alarm bells have been rung, many dire warnings have been issued, many threats have been launched…but no correct and useful predictions.


The Matrix Revealed


However, scientists will say their (rejected) hypothesis is also a statement of fact. That is, it is a summary derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and in the past, on land, sea, and air.

Not only that, investigation also reveals humans have directly and significantly contributed to the recent warming trend.

At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and predicting, and moving to a question of fact, a debate about the accuracy of all those temperature measurements and the causes creating the observed changes.

Among scientists, there is a great deal of disagreement about the accuracy of the measurements. Any fair examination of studies and their critics will reveal that.

In this regard, the science is not settled. Far from it.

So: useless as a hypothesis, the assertion of manmade warming, as fact, is wide open to debate. To say the least.

Students, starting at, say, the age of 12, should be taught basic facts about hypotheses, how they function in science, and on what basis they should be accepted or rejected.

Then we would have far less ignorance and chaotic “debate” and partisan screaming about science.

Except for the scientists themselves, of course—those who are on someone’s payroll and are expected to falsify everything they touch on behalf of that special interest.

An educated public would go a long way toward laughing those professional liars out of court.

Which is why universities (who sell themselves to those liars’ bosses) don’t teach logic or the basic structure of science.

The status of a hypothesis becomes a radically different proposition in the hands of someone who understands how a hypothesis works, when it should be accepted or rejected, and therefore how much irrelevant noise, fabrication, and political nonsense are brought to the table by people with devious motives.

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.

UN climate change: 1000 scientists say no

UN climate change: 1000 scientists say no

by Jon Rappoport

September 18, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Read it.

It’s a shocking 321-page report assembled by The Climate Depot:

“More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”

It names names. It lists reasons for the dissent.

Reality is engineered consensus. But when that doesn’t work, “experts” just assert there is a consensus when there isn’t.

“What the hell, let’s just say that ‘everybody agrees’ manmade warming is destroying Earth and we have ten minutes to solve it, and let’s get our friends in the press to shut out the naysayers. You know, media blackout.”

Science is supposed to be about evidence and proof, not consensus. But that idea is now laughed out of court. Science is about PR and who sits on the important thrones.

Which is why the UN is holding Climate Summit 2014 in New York in a few days. Yes, the city that never sleeps will be hosting the gala and also kicking off Climate Week NYC 2014.

And then there is this. The UN Secretary General has appointed Leonardo DiCaprio a “…Messenger of Peace with a special focus on climate change.” Messenger of Peace. Wow. Will Leo appear out of a cloud hovering above the Chrysler Building? Will an angel anoint Leo? Will anybody call the Ghostbusters?

Will Obama show up and read from the teleprompter, “The science is settled, the science is settled…”

Will a CIA drone zoom over Times Square and launch gluten-free electromagnetic love bombs on the adoring crowds?

Will a blimped-out Al Gore waddle into the UN General Assembly hall, trailing fumes from his jet and casting oil leases to a few favored ambassadorial hustlers?

The latest climate science tells us that upcoming freezing weather or boiling hot weather are both reasonable inferences from the basic Climate Change hypothesis. This is, logically speaking, a new brand of tautological “research.” Round and round it goes, inside its bubble.

“Useful predictions? We don’t need no stinkin’ useful predictions. We just need dupes, and we got plenty of them.”


Here are a few excerpts from the boggling Climate Depot report:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.”
— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”
— South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

“In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that ‘the science is NOT settled.’”

“On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’”


power outside the matrix


Consensus on manmade global warming? Are you kidding?

The “consensus” is in favor of something else: staging and maintaining a media blackout to conceal the dissenters, to pretend they don’t exist, to pretend “the science is settled.”

Leo DiCaprio, messenger of peace. We’re living in a cartoon of a cartoon.

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.