Culture of Fear

the concept that people and governments may incite fear in the general public to achieve political or globalist agendas through emotional bias; it was developed as a sociological framework by Frank Furedi and has been more recently popularized by the American sociologist Barry Glassner. The shadow government has been manufacturing fear through crises, real or imagined, for 100 years or more. Common fear tactics include, war, poverty, pandemics, alien invasion, meteor strike, global warming and terrorism. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign spokesman Gennadi Gerasimov warned the United States, “We have done the most terrible thing to you that we could possibly have done. We have deprived you of an enemy.

Nazi leader Hermann Göring explains how people can be made fearful and to support a war they otherwise would oppose:

The people don’t want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

In her book State and Opposition in Military Brazil, Maria Helena Moreira Alves found a “culture of fear” was implemented as part of political repression since 1964. She used the term to describe methods implemented by the national security apparatus of Brazil in its effort to equate political participation with risk of arrest and torture.

Cassação (English: cassation) is one such mechanism used to punish members of the military by legally declaring them dead. This enhanced the potential for political control through intensifying the culture of fear as a deterrent to opposition.

Alves found the changes of the National Security Law of 1969, as beginning the use of “economic exploitation, physical repression, political control, and strict censorship” to establish a “culture of fear” in Brazil. The three psychological components of the culture of fear included silence through censorship, sense of isolation, and a “generalized belief that all channels of opposition were closed.” A “feeling of complete hopelessness,” prevailed, in addition to “withdrawal from opposition activity.”

Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argues that the use of the term War on Terror was intended to generate a culture of fear deliberately because it “obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue”.

Frank Furedi, a former professor of Sociology and writer for Spiked magazine, says that today’s culture of fear did not begin with the collapse of the World Trade Center. Long before September 11, he argues, public panics were widespread – on everything from GM crops (rightfully so) to mobile phones, from global warming to foot-and-mouth disease. Like Durodié, Furedi argues that perceptions of risk, ideas about safety and controversies over health, the environment and technology have little to do with science or empirical evidence. Rather, they are shaped by cultural assumptions about human vulnerability.

For nearly half a century, the elusive threat posed by the Soviet Union formed the basis of American foreign and domestic policy. Much of the United States’ political and economic development was in fact a product of the government’s exploitation of a supposed Soviet menace. Gerasimov recognized that the fall of communist Russia denied the American government the ability to exploit the fear of Marxism to its own benefit. It was as if the American government had lost its reason for being.

The United States has a long history of exploiting fear for the purpose of legitimizing its growth. The current generations of American citizens are direct witnesses to over eight decades of such exploitation. In the Great Depression, the government used the fear of capitalism to legitimize previously unforeseen growth in the size of the federal bureaucracy. As the Depression wore on, the state’s inability to spend its way into prosperity led to public skepticism. Thus, the government quickly shifted its focus to the threat posed by Japan, Germany, and their allies. Perhaps most relevant to current Americans was the fear of communism perpetuated through the Cold War. No less than two wars were justified by this anticommunism, as were political repression and a radical expansion of bureaucracy and the military-industrial complex.

As Gerasimov suggested, the fall of the Soviet Union left the US government without a justification for its existence. The state no longer enjoyed an overbearing threat with which to distract the masses while it grew in size.

Unfortunately, this situation did not last long. Indeed, the past decade witnessed the development of an overwhelming American fear of terrorism. Americans have apathetically allowed the repression of their freedoms in the name of some greater cause (a cause, ironically, justified as a mission to preserve American freedoms).

While support of American imperialism, otherwise termed “counterterrorism,” has recently waned, the government is now reinforcing its legitimacy by once again intervening on behalf of the common man against the capitalist system. By this means the United States’ bureaucracy continues to grow virtually unhampered, and individual freedom has necessarily decreased.

Our government’s authority is based on the notion that only the state can protect the American people from the vices of greed and opposing ideologies. The state thrives off the creation of a false dichotomy between stateless ruin and state-induced prosperity. The actual relationship is quite clear, however: the state itself is actually the people’s greatest threat.

Impact of Fear and Anxiety

Fear is a human emotion that is triggered by a perceived threat. It is a basic survival mechanism that signals our bodies to respond to danger with a fight or flight response. As such, it is an essential part of keeping us safe. However, when people live in constant fear, whether from physical dangers in their environment or threats they perceive, they can become incapacitated. Fear prepares us to react to danger. Once we sense a potential danger, our body releases hormones that:

  • Slow or shut down functions not needed for survival (such as our digestive system)
  • Sharpen functions that might help us survive (such as eyesight). Our heart rate increases, and blood flows to muscles so we can run faster.

Our body also increases the flow of hormones to an area of the brain known as the amygdala to help us focus on the presenting danger and store it in our memory.

Living under constant threat has serious health consequences.

  1. Physical health.  Fear weakens our immune system and can cause cardiovascular damage, gastrointestinal problems such as ulcers and irritable bowel syndrome, and decreased fertility.  It can lead to accelerated ageing and even premature death.
  2. Memory.  Fear can impair formation of long-term memories and cause damage to certain parts of the brain, such as the hippocampus. This can make it even more difficult to regulate fear and can leave a person anxious most of the time. To someone in chronic fear, the world looks scary and their memories confirm that.
  3. Brain processing and reactivity.  Fear can interrupt processes in our brains that allow us to regulate emotions, read non-verbal cues and other information presented to us, reflect before acting, and act ethically. This impacts our thinking and decision-making in negative ways, leaving us susceptible to intense emotions and impulsive reactions. All of these effects can leave us unable to act appropriately.
  4. Mental health.  Other consequences of long-term fear include fatigue, clinical depression, and PSTD.

So whether threats to our security are real or perceived, they impact our mental and physical wellbeing.1

Dr. Wendy Suzuki, NYU Neuroscientist, professor and author of Healthy Brain Happy Life has famously studied long-term memory, creativity, anxiety, and how exercise affects our brain and overall health. She says:

We have a lot of knowledge about what happens when we are in a constant state of fight-or-flight. And those examples come from syndromes like PTSD, experiencing terrible situations for a long period of time. Here we come to a concept of brain plasticity, which basically means that what you’re experiencing can change your brain. It can make your brain grow so that it’s nice and fluffy and strong or it can shrink it down. So, guess what PTSD does? It can shrink the size of your temporal lobe and increase the size of the amygdala structure that is processing fear information. It also shrinks the size of a key brain area that I’ve studied for the last 25 years called the hippocampus, which is critical for long-term memory. The hippocampus has been more recently implicated in creativity and imagination. Because what imagination is, is taking those things you have in your memory and putting them together in a new way. So just in the way that the hippocampus allows us to think about the past and memory, it also allows us to imagine the future. Long-term stress is literally killing the cells in your hippocampus that contribute to the deterioration of your memory. But it’s also zapping your creativity.

She points out the “antidote is love conditioning. We know that the same circuitry that is so powerful in creating these negative associations – the fear conditioning – also exists for love conditioning. But it’s up to us to create that love conditioning… Find something that you love and find a way to bring that up for you.” In addition she points out the importance of exercise to counter a constant state of fear (such as that perpatrated on the world by the coronavirus fake pandemic). “It stimulates the release of key neurotransmitters associated with good mood – dopamine, serotonin, noradrenaline. All of them go up with exercise.”2

Here’s an excellent video on how fear and love each affects the chemistry and biology of the body:

The Great Depression and World War II

The Great Depression witnessed one of the earliest large-scale increases in federal power in 20th-century American history. The state, looking to find a scapegoat for the disaster, was quick to demonize capitalism and greedy irrationalism as the culprits behind the dramatic depreciation of the general standard of living. The solution was benign government intervention, guaranteeing the laborer a living wage and promising progress and growth through central management. The fear of economic collapse, poverty, and misery led the American people to largely ignore, or even allow and accept, the growth of bureaucracy.

Uninterested in having any opposition, the state either bought off differing politicians or purged those who stood in the system’s way, most through the use of the newly created Internal Revenue Service. While pointing at the ills caused by free and unfettered businessmen, Hoover became the largest peacetime spender in the history of the country; Roosevelt later shamed Hoover with even greater fiscal expenditure. Despite large spending programs and rampant bureaucratic growth, neither president successfully ended the depression.

Failing to stimulate the United States out of the depression, the American government desperately needed a new enemy to distract the country’s attention with. The rise of Adolf Hitler in Europe and the growing threat of Japanese imperialism in the Pacific provided Roosevelt with the perfect target. Intervention in Europe was justified not merely on account of helping the British or opposing German fascism. The government instead built a culture of fear.

Propaganda posters depicting German jackboots crushing small-town American churches, or Germanic invasion forces converging on New York City, were distributed throughout America’s cities. Another such poster depicted the Germans and Japanese looming ominously over the United States, one with a pistol and the other with a bloody dagger, reading, “Our homes are in danger now!” The Roosevelt administration made it clear that the intentions of the Axis powers were to threaten the freedoms of Americans proper.

Creating a threat was necessary if Roosevelt was to persuade the noninterventionist doves, many of whom still peppered the bureaucracy. Indeed, after the First World War only a direct threat could justify American involvement in a new European war. To this end, Roosevelt’s administration managed not only to run a considerably large propaganda campaign, but also to coax the Japanese into a clear provocation.

The Roosevelt administration’s campaign of escalation toward war culminated with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and a number of other American territorial assets in the Pacific Ocean. A direct attack on the United States provided all the justification necessary to intervene both in the Pacific and in Europe. The result was a two-theater war, costing the United States nearly 300,000 lives (and many more wounded), and leaving Europe and Japan almost completely shattered. All the while, the American state continued to grow in size, power, and capability.

Anticommunism and the Cold War

After the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union replaced the defeated Axis Powers as the greatest threat to the United States’ freedom. Soviet Russia was no less than the heart and origin of global communism. It infected much of East Asia, including North Korea, China, and Vietnam. The Red Army posed a direct menace to free and capitalist Western Europe and, indeed, to the free world in general. The perceived Soviet threat provided the rationalization for the Cold War, which ensued between 1946 and 1991. In the period between 1946 and 1991 Americans saw quite possibly the greatest expansion of bureaucracy in the US government — ironic for a country purportedly focused on fighting communism.

Fear of communism validated American involvement in two major wars: Korea and Vietnam. Justified or not, both wars held great implications regarding the growth of the state.

The first of these two major wars was fought in Korea, between 1950 and 1953. The Korean War spelled the end of the anti-interventionist movement in the US government. The post–World War demobilization proved excessive for a country intending to challenge global Marxism. The North Korean invasion of southern Korea in mid-1950 caught the United States, in the midst of said demobilization, severely unprepared for a new war. The US government was determined to never be caught off guard again, and the years following the end of the Korean War witnessed the development of the American military-industrial complex and the foundation of a permanent wartime military.

The Korean War confirmed a new age of militarism, where the United States was ready and willing to intervene in the name of anticommunism (or, at least, behind the veil of anticommunism). Forming powerful alliance blocs across the world, both the United States and the Soviet Union prepared for their inevitable confrontation — the “Third World War.”

Fear of inevitable war, and the consequent exploitation of such fear by the state, led to the creation of a soon-sprawling military-industrial complex. A growing military required armaments, encouraging the enlargement of a permanent war-materiel industry. Given the public-private nature of this particular market, it is unsurprising that it soon devolved into a system in which companies would directly lobby government for contracts, and where the company with the most friends in government usually won. The establishment of a network of favoritism led directly to a situation in which politicians readily justified different military programs just to necessitate the continued production of war supplies. As the military-industrial complex grew in size, it became so important that politicians only needed to point to the vast amount of workers it employed in order to justify its existence. This, in fact, is the form in which the military-industrial complex exists to this very day. It is a relic of the Cold War.

The government consistently exploited the fear of communism to meet the needs of individual bureaucrats. Most well known is the case of McCarthyism. Senator Joseph McCarthy ingeniously used the fear of communism to discredit his political opponents and protect himself from criticism. As a method of censorship, he had hundreds of individuals, most related to the entertainment industry, blacklisted. While Senator McCarthy’s purge represented an extreme case, which ended by the late-1950s, fervent state-sponsored anticommunism did not recede.

The roots of the United States’ second major anticommunist war, the Vietnam War, were firmly planted in the mid-1950s, with the dissolution of French Indochina into two independent Vietnams. While the North fell under communist rule, the South consolidated under the brutal leadership of Ngo Dinh Diem. The South, firmly anticommunist, was promptly buttressed by the fiscal and military support of the Eisenhower administration.

The Diem regime’s brutal method of governance, including enslavement and execution, triggered the beginning of the Viet Minh insurgency. The United States responded by declaring unwavering support for the South (lest the United States lose even more face, given the debacle at the Bay of Pigs and the erection of the Berlin Wall in Germany). By 1963, 16,000 American personnel were deployed in Vietnam. This rose to a couple hundred thousand within the next two years.

While the Vietnam War proved to be an absolute disaster, its most lasting legacy was not the cultural antistate revolution that it sparked in the United States. Rather, despite the mounting opposition to the war, it managed to finally solidify the bureaucracy’s ability to wage war without a congressional declaration (despite the War Powers Resolution, which was supposedly meant to reverse the extreme powers granted to the presidency by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). This made future war efforts much easier to organize, leading to a number of military operations during the 1980s, including Grenada and Panama.

In retrospect, especially for those who have no recollection of the era, it is rather difficult to understand the culture of fear imposed by the state. Through the exploitation of the public’s fear of communism, the United States legitimized the military-industrial complex, instigated short anticommunist purges, launched two major wars (and many smaller ones), and supported several brutal dictatorships throughout the world. Ultimately, the Soviet Union fell without a single shot fired in anger between it and the United States. No world war materialized. Communism fell not by the sword, but by its own internal inconsistencies.

Ironically, the Cold War’s losers were the citizens of the “free world,” who, by turning a blind eye to rampant government growth were enslaved by their own “protectors.” Soviet foreign spokesman Gerasimov warned the American government of the great harm the Soviets had inflicted by collapsing. Government-sponsored slavery suddenly lost its principal justification.

Terror

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the new centerpiece of government’s fearmongering soon emerged. A series of minor bombings in the 1990s and finally the ghastly attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, confirmed the Soviet Union’s replacement — global terrorism.

The nation was swept with terror frenzy. Like communism before it, the elusive threat of terrorism justified two wars and numerous infringements on the individual rights of American citizens. The Bush administration launched two military invasions within two years of each other — Afghanistan and Iraq. Both wars were supposedly fought to protect Americans from the suspect threat of global terrorism.

It was argued, and is argued to this day, that terrorism posed a threat to American individual freedoms. Yet, the greatest threat to American freedom proved to be, not the terrorists, but the very government that purportedly protects Americans. Indeed, in the years following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration managed to perpetrate some of the most severe infringements on individual rights since the Roosevelt administration. All the while, Al-Qaeda has yet to seriously threaten the United States.

Furthermore, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan left Al-Qaeda virtually untouched. While Afghanistan supposedly harbored Al-Qaeda figurehead Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda was already widely dispersed throughout other countries. And of course Iraq had no meaningful relationship with Al-Qaeda.

New Tools of Repression

Unsurprisingly, the two wars in the Middle East have taken their toll on the people’s trust in the state. Support for continued interventionism abroad continues to wane, as it becomes clear that neither of the wars has much to do with global terrorism or the protection of American freedoms. However, the state has once again shifted policy to cope with the change in public opinion.

The fear of terrorism has by and large been replaced by the alleged threat of capitalism and animal spirits. The threat once again becomes greed, and as usual, there is only one solution — embracing the state. Naturally, the masses have once again fallen for this appeal to fear. Without government intervention, alleges the regime, the country will fall into a spiral of poverty and misfortune. The people, otherwise free, will find themselves the downtrodden slaves of the free market.

The government thrives on creating these false dichotomies: war or invasion, militant anticommunism or a global communist revolution, war or terrorism, economic interventionism or economic misery. It offers the masses two choices, utopia or hell. The one, it claims, can only be provided by the state, while the other is the product of an unprotected and anarchic society. These illogical fears have tended to win over reason, and the government continues to grow unchecked.

A century of war, corruption, interventionism, and inflation have failed to dissuade the public from apathetically accepting government growth. This phenomenon can perhaps be explained by noting the collective rejection of reason and logic, spread through the system by the ranks of intellectuals and academics who willingly accept this transition to irrationalism. For whatever reason, bureaucratic expansion has been left virtually unopposed.

Fortunately, the recent dismantling, by means of the Internet, of the state’s monopoly on education has allowed for the formation of pockets of resistance. These represent the development of a liberal counterrevolution to the now mainstream culture of statolatry — a return of reason. Before such a movement can set in, however, the culture of fear created by government must be dispelled. Man must not allow himself to fall prey to the state’s exploitation of his emotions. Man must, once again, recognize the fallibility of the state and the availability of other options.

Author: Contact Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan for Mises.org

In order to perceptively comprehend the psychological basis of such absurd and fabricated threats which instill existential fears:

  • whose import to enabling “imperial mobilization” was clearly envisaged by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1996 in The Grand Chessboard:

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (pgs. 35-36);

  • whose raison d’être as the primary method for advancing “the “national interest” by means of organized violence”, was taken as axiomatic in the 1963-64 secret study reported in the 1967 book The Report From Iron Mountain:

“It must be emphasized that the precedence of a society’s war-making potential over its other characteristics is not the result of the “threat” presumed to exist at any one time from other societies. This is the reverse of the basic situation; “threats” against the “national interest” are usually created or accelerated to meet the changing needs of the war system. … The military, or ostensible function of the war system requires no elaboration; it serves simply to defend or advance the “national interest” by means of organized violence. It is often necessary for a national military establishment to create a need for its unique powers—to maintain the franchise, so to speak. And a healthy military apparatus requires “exercise,” by whatever rationale seems expedient, to prevent its atrophy.” (pgs. 31,33);

  • whose utility for effectively embarking on the “military transformation” required to achieve “full spectrum dominance” that wasn’t “stillborn”, was openly declared in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses:

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. … Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn” (pgs. 51,58) ;

  • and whose necessity for rapidly transforming an entire society, nation, or the whole world, in the direction desired by the controlling oligarchy, was even discovered in the 1908 minute books of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace by the Congressional Reece Committee investigator Norman Dodd in 1954, and related by him in an interview before his death in 1982, The Hidden Agenda of Tax Exempt Foundations for World Government:

“We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity. So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: ‘How do we involve the United States in a war?’” ;

please see social engineering principles in Further Study of Operation GladioEdward Bernays and Human Resources.

Also see Myth of the Cave in Plato’s 2500 years old classic The Republic, Book VII, page 300 (book PDF).

Global Warming

Global warming is a theory with four components: (1) The Earth’s surface temperature is rising because of human activity, particularly industrial production and personal consumption; (2) Weather extremes we now experience are more destructive than in the past because of this warming effect; (3) If this trend is not stopped, the planet will soon be unable to sustain human life as we have known it; and (4) The solution is government management of all human activity, including the elimination of private property and personal freedom. The theory is based on junk science and fraud. In other words, it does not exist. The driving force behind this theory comes from politicians, bureaucrats, and those employed by institutions that depend on government funding. All of these benefit from the alleged solution to the alleged problem. The proposed solution requires crushing taxation, confiscation of private property, and denial of freedom-of-choice. The threat of global warming is the bedrock foundation of almost all programs on behalf of totalitarian government based on collectivism.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a theory that suggests that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. The theory posits that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, trap solar warmth on the planet. Globalists use this theory as a basis to propose cuts in energy production and consumption, a global UN tax on every person, and to promote de-industrialization.

The Beginning of the Hoax

The Club of Rome is a global think tank that develops strategies meant to influence the world’s most powerful elites. They represent the intellectual avant-garde of globalist thinking and have developed much of the geopolitical doctrine shaping our world today. The end of the first half of a report written in 1991, by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, for the Club of Rome, titled: “The First Global Revolution” concludes:

In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for cause. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changing attitudes and behaviors that they can be overcome.  The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Before the Club of Rome think tank was another think tank that was likely commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. G. Edward Griffin devoted a section of his popular book, The Creature From Jekkyl Island, regarding the report named ‘The Report from Iron Mountain‘. “It is clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power.

The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” These are the report’s exact words:

The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer…. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. (2)

The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition which will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, … implies total and general disarmament.” (3)

Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations, and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.

The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.

The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.

On the subject of compulsory service, the Report explains that one of the advantages of standing armies is that they provide a place for the government to put antisocial and dissident elements of society. In the absence of war, these forced-labor battalions would be told they are fighting poverty or cleaning up the planet or bolstering the economy or serving the common good in some other fashion. Every teenager would be required to serve – especially during those years in which young people are most rebellious against authority. Older people, too, would be drafted as a means of working off tax payments and fines. Dissidents would face heavy fines for “hate crimes” and politically incorrect attitudes so, eventually, they would all be in the forced-labor battalions.

The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. The public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility would be more important than truth.

Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life. An [lightbox full=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwubPWt_lrE”]invasion by aliens from outer space[/lightbox] was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not “credible.” Obviously, they have decided to prepare and build it up as a backup plan or to test it as can be ascertained from the warnings of Dr. Steven Greer.

The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.” A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollution possibly could replace war as justification for social control.

End-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or no studies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR controlled media; radical environmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions. Obviously, global warming has taken the forefront as the biggest global environmental threat to mankind, although no proof can be made of the hoax. Pollution has also been heavily propagandized and is also being used, although a real concern, as a means of advancing their agenda. The War on Terror, born on 9/11 has been the biggest cause of fear throughout the world although it can be shown to also be a creation of the deep state.

As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s what people can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality. All that is required is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. People of the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries, dramas, feature films, ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches, seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians are now elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressed concern for the environment and a promise to combat the threat of global warming. Not one in a thousand will question that underlying premise. How could it be false? Look at all the movie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.

The Club of Rome’s propaganda man and main proponent Of global warming, Maurice Strong said the following on global warming:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“

Like Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve all been dancing down the Yellow Brick Road of “settled science” in search of answers from the Emerald City, only to find that what we suspected all along — the Wizard has been telling us fibs. But who exactly is the Wizard? And where did this seeming-madness all begin? Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.

Maurice Strong

Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”.

Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few.His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.

In 1972 he organized for U Thant the first Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of UN Environment Program with Maurice Strong at its head. Later, as the UNEP boss he organized the first international expert group meeting on climate change.

This led to exotic UN sponsored organizations such at Earth Council and Earth Charter, The World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and later The Commission for World Governance and the UN’s University for Peace. Strong was the driving force behind the idea of world governance by the United Nations when he dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion. About equal then to the income of the USA. The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running.

In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II in Rio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates:

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.

There goes the Sunday roast, a house to live in, the car, the occasional hamburger and generally, life on earth as we know it. But what Strong didn’t tell the delegates was that he was involved in the purchase of the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, which he bought from Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family.

This 200,000 acre cattle property, called the Baca had two hidden secrets. One was that it sat above vast underground water systems, which Strong wanted to remove. He formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by the locals as they feared it would destroy the delicate environment.

The second secret was that Maurice Strong had been told by a mystic that:

The Baca would become the centre for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.

As a result of these revelations Strong created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age institution located at the Baca ranch — above the sacred waters that Strong had been denied permission to pump out. This hocus-pocus continued with the foundation of The Conservation Fund (with financial help of Laurance Rockefeller) to study the mystical properties of the Manitou Mountain. At the Baca ranch there is a circular temple devoted to the world’s mystical and religious movements.

The valley in which the Baca establishment is located is also traditional home for various Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground here by “Ant People” and according to Navajo tradition they were warned of a coming cataclysm by “sky katchinas” (sky spirits). No wonder Strong wanted to buy the Baca.

Meanwhile Maurice was also busy founding the Earth Council Institute in 1992 and recruiting world luminaries such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In 2000 Earth Charter was formed as a further push by Strong to create a world governing body.

Unfortunately, in 2005, the most powerful man in the push to save of humanity — by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till.

Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.

Strong is believed to have sanctuary in China because of his cousin, Anne Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for two years, and when she died in 1970, her funeral was arranged by Premier Chou En-Lai. Anne Louise Strong was a Comintern member — an organization formed in 1919 as the Third International, with one of its aims to use “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie…”

Maurice Strong, as an 18-year-old Canadian from Manitoba, started work at the United Nations in 1947 as a junior officer in the UN Security Section, living with the UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honors he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman. The exposure and downfall of climate change’s most powerful wizard? Dorothy and Toto would have loved it! (Source)

Climategate

On November 19, 2009, a scandal labeled ‘Climategate‘ erupted when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory. The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists. The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU’s apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.

The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did. NASA’s two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, “systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.”

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a criminal intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a cap and trade scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOIA request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university.

Iain Murray at Pajamas Media pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.[2]

  1. First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.
  2. Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
  3. Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

Read more on Climategate…

Sustainable Development & Agenda 21

Sustainable development has been the catchphrase of the environmental movement for over 20 years and rarely are underlying motives questioned. After all, a majority of people want a healthy future, free of pollutants and global warming where the earth is protected for ourselves and subsequent generations. There is a catch, however. The underpinnings of sustainable development are rooted in Agenda 21, a body of regulations inspired by the United Nations “Earth Summit” conference in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. At first glance, the agenda looks beneficial and harmless — except for the fact that it sets forth a policy which strips individuals of freedom and controls private land unconstitutionally.

The number one issue identified at the meeting of globalists was that of global warming, or climate change as it is now referred to as colder temperature trends have squashed the warming hoax.

The scientific establishment use great energy to attack any scientist who does dare ask questions or finds data contrary to the “official” line. The U.S. Justice Department even considered legal action against climate “deniers.” Why is it so vitally important that they continue to promote something that clearly is, to say the least, questionable? It’s because all of Agenda 21 policy is built on the premise that man is destroying the Earth. Climate change is their “proof.” To eliminate that premise is to remove all credibility and purpose for their entire agenda. They are willing to go to any length, even lies, to keep the climate-change foot on our throats.

On the local level, this translates into planning policy that controls energy use and the efforts to cut down on the use of cars, enforcement of the building of expensive light rail train systems, and bike paths and installation of smart meters, etc.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let them speak for themselves:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” — Timothy Wirth, president, UN Foundation

“It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.” — Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

Follow the money

Most truth seekers are familiar with the fact that an unfathomably wealthy banking and oil dynasty has been hijacking governments, media organs, universities, non-profits, and other power centers. Would anyone be surprised to find that the same culprits seek to expand its control over the economy and the energy sector in particular, according to a recently released investigation by a watchdog group? That dynasty, of course, is the Rockefeller family. In essence, they have largely created, bankrolled, and weaponized what is known as the “green” movement “as a means to expand their empire over the past three decades,” the report found.

Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism propaganda efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.

Continued on next page…

Scientism

The ideology that science tells us everything there is to know concerning truth and reality. Only theoretical scientific claims are thought to be meaningful. It is the belief that ‘science’ has no (or few) limits and can successfully be applied to almost all aspects of life, and provides an explanation for everything. It is essentially a religion where its followers (Scientists) worship science its rituals, and its results, and it’s quite easy to see how this belief system can lead its adherents to be dismissive of any other truth claims. It is unrelated to true science where observations can be tested, measured, and duplicated because there are no ways to validate the claims and far-fetched theories of scientism. Scientism has generally had a close relationship with atheism, as atheism and scientism ideologically support each other. Followers of scientism do not believe in God and therefore use atheism as the base of their religion, and atheists use pseudoscience to support their claims, as well as evidence against God and the Bible. Strict scientism as a worldview is self-refuting since the scientism cannot be proven to be true through science.

Since Scientists have an agenda to use “science” to support their denial of God, their techniques usually rely on pseudoscience. For example, the claim to know that God exists, despite the fact that it is technically scientifically impossible to disprove anything (i.e. negative proofs are impossible). Despite this, they continue to deny the existence of God without any real scientific proof. Worshipers of Scientism also believe that science should replace traditional morality, so that they can do whatever they want as long as it is dictated by “science”. (Conservapedia)

C.S. Lewis was skeptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to reduce everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes. He argued that scientism has the dehumanizing impact on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself.

In his review of “Enlightenment Now,” philosopher John Gray called Pinker “an evangelist for science – or, to be more exact, an ideology of scientism.” Scientism, according to historian T.J. Jackson Lears, is the “faith” that “science has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life.” Or, as one leading proponent of scientism—the late Stephen Hawking—put it: “The scientific account is complete. Theology is unnecessary.

The problem is that, as Gray writes, “science cannot dictate human values.” He points out what Pinker obscures, ignores, and tries to explain away: a great deal of evil has been committed by those claiming to act in accordance with the dictates of science.

Scientism has given us “Marxism-Leninism, Nazism,” and what historian Thomas Leonard called the “illiberal reformers” of early 20th century America most responsible for eugenics. “Science” wasn’t enough to prevent one of the darkest moments in American history: the Tuskegee Experiment, in which 400 Black men with syphilis were purposely left untreated to study the effects of the disease. (Source)

Scientism is in essence a gnostic culture applied onto realms of science hence scientism can be often debunked by pointing to the gnostic traits. As such it also exhibits many characteristics of moral relativism. For example, moral relativism doesn’t follow its own rules, the rules it judges everyone else by. Neither does scientism. Gnostic works are marked by manipulative vagueness, word-spinning and tedium, so is scientism. On top of that, it usurps the right to be labeled as “modern,” yet it is in many respects expressing merely modernized pagan beliefs under the fig leaf of “science,” it is often meticulous in detail and yet bristling with contradictions and tendentious arguments, boldly imaginative and yet often already outdated.

A common trait that weaves its way through every topic of “Scientism” is corporate profits. Any time something is being pushed with aggressive demands of “SCIENCE!” that also happens to enrich wealthy corporations, it’s probably based on fraud, not real science. Perpetrators of fraudulent scientism include Paul Offit, Dr. David Gorski, Monsanto pal Bill Nye, discredited biotech shill and former Forbes.com writer Jon Entine and too many others to even name.

In this HealthRangerReport.com podcast below, Mike Adams explains the truth about the Cult of Scientism, sometimes called the “Church of Scientific Mysticism.” This cult currently dominates the “official” dogma concerning vaccines, GMOs, fluoride, cancer, diabetes, pharmaceuticals, biosludge and more.

Bill Nye and Scientism

In his 2016 article “Why I Choose to Challenge Climate Change Deniers,” Mr. Bill Nye (the Scientism Guy) is found to issue a firm challenge to all those who do not accept his CO2-based religion by claiming that “The science of global warming is long settled, and one may wonder why the United States, nominally the most technologically advanced country in the world, is not the world leader in addressing the threats.”

This is so true that when the Australian government recently decided to shift their funding from studying climate change to preparing to address the threats assumed to originate from it, the very scientists who claimed that the science of global warming is settled started howling that this was not so and that their words have been misunderstood. They argued that climate is a very complex phenomenon (true) and that much work is needed to understand it in order to be able to provide any future global temperature evolution scenarios. This incidence can best be remembered as the return of the boomerang.

Maybe Mr. Nye should discuss things with these Australian scientists. He may have yet other revelations: That climate science is young and everything except settled, that we understand little of it, and that the predictions made by the climate models are akin to computer-assisted divinations.

First of all, we know that the relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last thirty years has not produced any large and significant global warming, just a meager ~0.2°C. This compares favorably with the ~1°C increase in the temperature anomaly registered since the past 150 years, indicating an absence of acceleration in temperature rise. In fact, in nearly 19 years, a plateau has been observed, which has been acknowledged even by the IPCC (the so-called hiatus). Therefore, one is left to wonder what the words “enormous effect” mean in this particular case.

By now, the proper scientific conclusion regarding the greenhouse effect role of the rising atmospheric CO2 is clear: It plays a very minor role on the measurable “planetary” temperature, if any. For readers — and Mr. Nye — who may not be familiar with this latest experimental result, we suggest reading a recent article, “What we know about CO2 and global atmospheric temperatures?” on Breitbart News.

For all objective readers, and even Mr. Nye himself, we wish to remind everyone of the independent investigation led by Mr. Anthony Watts and many serious scientists who reached the conclusion that the greenhouse effect produced by CO2 molecules is, of course, real but that the “science-is-easy” type of experiment produced by Mr. Nye in Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project has been found to be a product of “video fakery.” That experiment “could never work” as advertised. So much for Bill, the science guy, who simply confuses “scientism” — i.e. a belief — with experimental sciences. The only question left for everyone is when will Bill Nye or Al Gore stop pedaling their brand of Hollywood special effects?

Let us now have a look at the inter-planetary science argument put forth by Mr. Nye. Haven’t we been told repeatedly by the popular media, and in this case again by Mr. Nye himself, that if we do not stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, planet Earth may soon be doomed and became another Venus, an over-heated, barren, rocky, lifeless planet?

To get a clear understanding that the last point is utter nonsense, we only need to read the recent exchange between Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Study and his colleague Professor Will Happer:

Thank you [Will] for this very clear account of the reason why Earth and Venus are different. This is something that every school-child should learn.

Another interesting fact is that if we put a sunshade shielding Venus from sunlight, it would only take 500 years for the surface of Venus to be cool and the atmosphere to condense into a carbon dioxide ocean. It is the lack of water rather than the high temperature that makes Venus permanently unfriendly to life.

We can also add that the popular and erroneous over-use of Venus as a doomed Earth is highlighted by the fact that, like Venus, the atmosphere of Mars is also significantly enriched in CO2 (about 95 percent by volume). However, because of its relatively farther orbital position from the Sun, the average temperature of Mars is only about minus 60 degrees Celsius (or minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit). For comparison, the atmosphere of Venus contains about 97 percent CO2 by volume while the Earth’s atmosphere comprises a mere 0.04 percent.

So what did Professor Will Happer say about the effects of CO2 on planet Earth and Venus? Again, we will quote him in full in order for any interested readers to follow the precise scientific arguments and reasoning on why equating Earth to Venus is such a wrong analogy:

For most of the past 550 million years of the Phanerozoic, when multicellular life left a good fossil record, the earth’s CO2 levels were much higher than now, four times, even ten times. Yet life flourished on land and in the oceans.

During the Phanerozoic, the Earth never came close to the conditions of Venus. I would hope that [any scientist] realizes the radius of Venus’s orbit is only 72% of the radius of Earth’s orbit. Since the solar flux scales inversely as the square of the radius, Venus receives about twice as much solar flux, 2637 W/m2 than the Earth’s 1367  W/m2. According to the IPCC, doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, would be the equivalent of about 15 W/m2 additional solar flux, nearly 100 times less than the addition Venus gets from being closer to the Sun.

In addition, the surface pressure on Venus is about 90 times that of the Earth, and there is plenty of convection so there is intense compressional heating of the surface air, not unlike the heating during the compression stroke of a Diesel engine. It is the much larger solar flux, convection and high surface pressure that make the surface of Venus so hot.

Little solar flux reaches the surface of Venus and most solar heating occurs above 50 km, in the sulfuric-acid clouds, and above, where the pressures and temperatures are about the same as those above the Earth’s surface. Venus actually absorbs a smaller fraction of sunlight than Earth, and scatters more from its clouds. That is one of the reasons that Venus is such a lovely morning or evening “star.”

But none of these nerdy details about Earth/Venus differences matter since the Earth has already experimented with much more CO2 than now, and the biosphere loved it. Burning all the economically available fossil fuel is unlikely to increase the current atmospheric CO2 levels by even a factor of 2. This is much less than the levels that the Earth has already tested. And a doubled level of CO2 would get us away from the near-famine levels for plants that have prevailed for the past tens of millions of years.

We can only agree with Professors Dyson and Happer upon our own independent research by reporting that our garden plants tell us every morning that they want more CO2, not less. All the other C3 and C4 types of plants in the world are saying the same thing: “We want more, We want more, We want more CO2!” The increased greening of the Earth during the past 30 years is a testimony to the desperate need of plants for their very basic foodstuff.

CO2 is vital for plants survival as well as for humans and animals. We should never forget that more than 70 percent of the oxygen present in the atmosphere — and without which we could never live — originates from phytoplanktons “eating” CO2 and releasing oxygen. This biological truism rings particularly relevant when considering the climatological fact that the role of atmospheric CO2 in all matters related to the weather and climate on our planetary home is minimal at best.

The software engineer, William A. Wilson, recently noted that:

If science was unprepared for the influx of careerists, it was even less prepared for the blossoming of the Cult of Science. The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”…

Some of the Cult’s leaders like to play dress-up as scientists — Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are two particularly prominent examples — but hardly any of them have contributed any research results of note. Rather, Cult leadership trends heavily in the direction of educators, popularizers, and journalists.

Indeed, for far too long now, Science has been driven by popular scientism and official science — these are not Science. Popular personalities like Mr. Bill Nye have had all the attention of the microphones, loudspeakers, and print media, and he has dangerously misled the whole generation of unsuspected readers and younger minds. As scientists, it is our duty to denounce such an attitude, to stop scientism and to warn everyone that personalities like Mr. Nye are plainly anti-science and, therefore, will harm us all.

Scientist Essay on ‘Scientism’

Here’s a long, rewarding 2012 essay about scientism from The New Atlantis by Austin L. Hughes, the Carolina Distinguished Professor of the Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina. Excerpts:

When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners. The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived. But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion. This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable.

The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science. Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth. And this attitude is becoming more widespread among scientists themselves. All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.

Of course, from the very beginning of the modern scientific enterprise, there have been scientists and philosophers who have been so impressed with the ability of the natural sciences to advance knowledge that they have asserted that these sciences are the only valid way of seeking knowledge in any field. A forthright expression of this viewpoint has been made by the chemist Peter Atkins, who in his 1995 essay “Science as Truth” asserts the “universal competence” of science. This position has been called scientism — a term that was originally intended to be pejorative but has been claimed as a badge of honor by some of its most vocal proponents. In their 2007 book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, for example, philosophers James Ladyman, Don Ross, and David Spurrett go so far as to entitle a chapter “In Defense of Scientism.”

More:

Modern science is often described as having emerged from philosophy; many of the early modern scientists were engaged in what they called “natural philosophy.” Later, philosophy came to be seen as an activity distinct from but integral to natural science, with each addressing separate but complementary questions — supporting, correcting, and supplying knowledge to one another. But the status of philosophy has fallen quite a bit in recent times. Central to scientism is the grabbing of nearly the entire territory of what were once considered questions that properly belong to philosophy. Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them. For most of those who dabble in scientism, this shift is unacknowledged, and may not even be recognized. But for others, it is explicit. Atkins, for example, is scathing in his dismissal of the entire field: “I consider it to be a defensible proposition that no philosopher has helped to elucidate nature; philosophy is but the refinement of hindrance.”

Is scientism defensible? Is it really true that natural science provides a satisfying and reasonably complete account of everything we see, experience, and seek to understand — of every phenomenon in the universe? And is it true that science is more capable, even singularly capable, of answering the questions that once were addressed by philosophy? This subject is too large to tackle all at once. But by looking briefly at the modern understandings of science and philosophy on which scientism rests, and examining a few case studies of the attempt to supplant philosophy entirely with science, we might get a sense of how the reach of scientism exceeds its grasp.

Read the whole thing.  It’s a very, very rich and lucid commentary on the issues involved in the discussion, from a scientist himself. Hughes says that scientists and others who fall into scientism do so because they make “philosophical errors,” and tend to think that anything scientists say must be “scientific” because they were said by scientists. It’s also the case that in popular culture, many things can be said to be “scientific” if they appear to conform to a scientific theory. Hughes, who is an evolutionary biologist, writes about the dangers of scientism:

Advocates of scientism today claim the sole mantle of rationality, frequently equating science with reason itself. Yet it seems the very antithesis of reason to insist that science can do what it cannot, or even that it has done what it demonstrably has not. As a scientist, I would never deny that scientific discoveries can have important implications for metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and that everyone interested in these topics needs to be scientifically literate. But the claim that science and science alone can answer longstanding questions in these fields gives rise to countless problems.

In contrast to reason, a defining characteristic of superstition is the stubborn insistence that something — a fetish, an amulet, a pack of Tarot cards — has powers which no evidence supports. From this perspective, scientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research. Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer.

The Truth about Science

Definition:

science [ˈsī-ən(t)s] – knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

Many Christians today hold science in awe. Many seem to have more respect for what scientists tell us than what God tells us in the Bible. How did this situation arise and how justifiable is such an attitude? In order to answer these questions we need to look at the nature and history of science and at the trustworthiness of scientists and reporters of science. Firstly it is worth noting Douglas Jones’ comment:

“Nothing can take the puff out of the scientific chest more than a study of its history. Perhaps that’s why it’s so rare to find science departments requiring courses in the history of science. The history of science provides great strength to the inductive inference that, at any point in its history, that day’s science will almost certainly be deemed false, if not laughable, within a century (often in much less time).” [ Jones Douglas. A Rating System for Science, Credenda Agenda Vol 9 no 1. ]

For many centuries science was a mixture of philosophy, mathematics and observation largely practiced for interest and enjoyment. Where hypotheses were put forward to explain observations they were accepted largely on their appeal to reason and aesthetics, rather than on their ability to stand experimental testing. Aristotle’s physics was thus able to reign supreme for close to two thousand years. When Roger Bacon, who is widely regarded as the “Father of Modern Science” proposed the “scientific method” he faced opposition and even imprisonment from the established Catholic Church, which accepted philosophy as the way to truth. But Bacon pointed out that nature carries “the stamp of the Creator Himself”, whereas our reason carries “the stamp of our own image”, and that “we will have it that all things are as we in our folly think they should be”. He therefore stressed the importance of experiment, observation and exact measurement. (source)

Francis Bacon received his education at Trinity College, Cambridge, and went on to practice law. During his lifetime, Bacon achieved high-ranking political positions. He became Solicitor-General in 1607, Attorney-General in 1613, Lord Keeper of the Seal in 1617 and, finally Lord Chancellor in 1618, after which he fell victim to the charges of corruption. Francis Bacon was, in a sense, a breath of fresh air for philosophy and a pioneer for a new system which discarded two major schools of thought at that time.

  1. Firstly, he regarded the rationalists as flawed because they believed that language, the meaning and content of words, were the path to knowledge. In “Sir Francis Bacon,” Jeremy Harwood quotes Bacon’s description of the rationalist who were, he claimed: “spiders which make cobwebs out of their own substance.”
  2. Secondly, he had no approving words for Aristotelians, who, he believed, “ran around like ants to amass raw data.” The trouble was, they had no meaningful way of interpreting that information.

He encouraged proving a hypothesis through the means of experiment, but he also advocated not being afraid to disprove such a hypothesis. A negative result could be as useful as a positive one. Jeremy Harwood in “Sir Francis Bacon” explains: “If a definition is correct, it cannot contain any negative instances. Therefore, a negative result is the only way of knowing for certain that an assumption is false.” “He believed that science,” says Harwood, “if properly understood, offered humanity its best possibility of understanding the natural world and, by so doing, becoming master of it.”

Disagree with him on some things as you may, Bacon was the ultimate Philosopher of Science, always maintaining that truth could not be reached through mere argument, and that only his new, revolutionary scientific method could advance scientific knowledge and truth. (Source)

In the video above, Dr. Phillip Stott breaks down Bacon’s scientific method as:

The Scientific Method:

The search for knowledge about any phenomenon or process involves:

  1. Observation and measurement
  2. A search for patterns in the observations and measurements
  3. Proposal of a hypothesis to explain these patterns
  4. Design of critical experiments to test the hypothesis
  5. If experimental results do not support the hypothesis, then search for a hypothesis that explains both the old and the new observations and measurements
  6. If much experimental evidence supports a hypothesis, and none contradicts it, then it is considered a “Law of Science”
  7. If any observation contradicts a hypothesis, it must be abandoned and a new hypothesis sought

As Albert Einstein said: “What can be measured is science, everything else is speculation.” Dr. Stott also points out how the Greek philosophers who studied science and astronomy and many other things took measurements, but did not experiment and test their conclusions. Once Bacon’s scientific method was introduced during the Renaissance period, many philosophies that were previous believed had to be abandoned because they could be tested and proven right or wrong.

Tyco Brahe had spent most of his life building mechanisms to measure the movement of the sun, moon, and stars and recorded the most precise measurements of anyone up to well beyond his own years. Johannes Kepler, his assistant, dedicated his life to studying these measurements and looking for patterns in those observations and measurements. Eventually he found the pattern in those measurements and deduced that the planets orbit the sun with an elliptical orbit. When he discovered it, he rejoiced, “Isn’t it wonderful that God made such a wonderful planet!” Kepler is famous for his statement, “The privilege of a scientist is to think God’s thoughts.”

Dr. Stott explains how science was only possible in the beginning in the Judaeo-Christian societies that believed in an orderly, single Creator of all things. Those societies that believed in multiple gods, or no God, did not accept science until it was shown to work and advance understanding, technologies, etc. based on the scientific work of Christian scientists such as Euler, Maxwell, and Newton, and others. He explains:

Science and Christianity have an intertwined history. Even atheist historians of science find themselves having to admit that it was only under the Christian worldview that one could expect nature to behave in a way that would make science a reasonable pursuit. In spite of the fact that some steps towards a beginning in science had been taken by other cultures, it was only in the Christian culture of Europe, and in particular that of Reformation Europe, that science came to fruition.

The great pioneers of science, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin and many others professed Christianity and accepted the Bible as God’s revelation to mankind. Many spent much time studying the Scriptures. Newton claimed the most important aspect of his work was in showing the greatness of God. Maxwell noted that his great pioneering work in field theory was inspired by the Scriptural revelation of the way God himself is and works.

But during the twentieth century science was taken over to a very large extent by secular humanists. Such a world-view actually has no rational basis for expecting science to succeed. Yet secular humanists have cultivated the idea that science is essentially an atheistic domain which is at loggerheads with Christianity.

Continued on next page…

Gore, Al

American politician, crony capitalist, and environmental charlatan who served his globalist puppet masters as the 45th VP of the US from 1993 to 2001. Gore was Bill Clinton’s running mate in their successful campaign in 1992, and the pair was re-elected in 1996. Near the end of Clinton’s second term, Gore was selected as the Democratic nominee for the 2000 presidential election but lost the election in a very close race after a Florida recount. After his term as VP ended in 2001, Gore would later receive a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for falsely claiming that humans cause global warming. Twelve plus years after the release of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, none of the film’s dire climate change predictions have come to pass. However, in the decade since the documentary was produced, its creator has raked in millions of dollars from the entire “global warming” scam, and is now poised to become “our first carbon billionaire.”

The Inconvenient Truth about Al Gore

As VP, it was Gore that pushed Clinton to pass the NAFTA bill that has been a disaster for America, but a Godsend to the Military Industrial Complex. It was Gore who led the crusade against the Sovereignty of third world nations like Malaysia. He has taken outrageous actions which led to an increase in the death rates of mostly non-white populations which he believes were increasing too rapidly. He did this by sabotaging inexpensive life-saving treatments of AIDS in Africa to protect his Big Pharma political backers. He fully endorsed Kissinger’s plan for Third World genocide in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance.

His father was the protege of the American traitor and communist infiltrator Armand Hammer and politically backed by Rothschild agent Bernard Baruch. His uncle and confidant, retired judge Whit LaFon, was targeted as an alleged drug trafficker by federal and state law enforcement officials in Tennessee. The allegations arose out of a year-long investigation that included elements of the FBI, the inspector general’s office at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 24th Judicial District Drug Task Force and the Tennessee Highway Patrol. According to federal agents, LaFon’s alleged connection may stretch from providing protection to narcotics traffickers to the use of his Tennessee River cabin in southern Decatur County, a place often visited by the vice president and his family.

Furthermore, Gore routinely relied on his longtime friend and supporter Larry Wallace, director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, to “take care” of criminal matters involving Gore’s family and friends – including Uncle Whit. The fact that Wallace was helping Gore and his uncle was well-known among a number of TBI higher-ups, according to many former agents, as well as three past directors of the TBI. During Wallace’s tenure, the once highly respected TBI was laid low by ever-increasing charges of institutional corruption, causing wholesale defections.

Back to Gore Jr., who was linked to the solicitation of a $100,000 bribe in 1995 in exchange for a presidential veto. Gore’s carefully cultivated “squeaky-clean” image began to fade, as memories of campaign finance violations — the Buddhist Temple, the “iced tea” defense, FBI assertions that the vice president was lying — threatened to flood back into the public mind.

Con-artist Film maker gets Oscar

In the 2006 film, Gore made a number of wild claims regarding what we could expect to see happening over the next few years due to global warming, but virtually all of his alarmist prognostications have turned out to be false. For instance, the film predicted that that the Arctic could become ice-free within the next decades, and that polar bears would begin drowning. Both claims were untrue. As reported by Investor’s Business Daily:

“In the mid- to late-2000s, Gore repeatedly predicted that an ice-free Arctic Ocean was coming soon. But as usual, his fortune-telling was wrong. By 2014, Arctic ice had grown thicker and covered a greater area than it did when he made his prediction.”

And the polar bears? The Daily Caller reports:

“A new study by Canadian scientists once again debunks the notion polar bears are currently being harmed by global warming. Researchers with Canada’s Lakehead University found ‘no evidence’ polar bears are currently threatened by warming.”

Another prediction made in the film was that Mt. Kilimanjaro would be snow-free “within the decade.” But in fact:

“In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.”

In Inconvenient Truth, Gore also forecasted that storms would begin occurring more often and at higher intensities. Wrong again, Al:

“Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim.

“The IPCC found in 2013 there ‘is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.’ The IPCC also found ‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century’ and ‘[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.’

“Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.”

The former VP began telling his climate disciples that God told him to fight global warming and commands us to go forth and fight global warming. Gore equated the fight against global warming to a religious-based, moral crusade similar to the civil rights fight, women’s suffrage, and the abolitionist movement during the Civil War era.

The Hypocrite

It was exposed that the environmental alarmist’s personal home consumes 21 times more energy than the average American home. He owns 2 other homes as well that are not included in that number.

Despite false claims, Gore grows richer from climate change myth

Although Gore’s claims have been thoroughly debunked by a number of experts, he has been quietly amassing a huge fortune based on the climate change scam.

Mad World News reports:

“Gore’s wealth went from $700,000 in 2000 to an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015 thanks to his environmentalist activism. Gore and the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management made nearly $218 million in profits between 2008 and 2011 from a carbon trading company they co-founded. By 2008, Gore was able to put a whopping $35 million into hedge funds and other investments.”

Gore accused of massive fraud

There is a growing consensus that Al Gore has perpetrated a massive fraud against the American public, and many believe that he should be held accountable. From Conservative Base:

“It has been reported that 30,000 scientists, including a top-tier leader of the science community as well as the founder of The Weather Channel, have come forward to sue Al Gore for fraud. Al Gore has made massive profits in the promotion of the global warming mythology, and he played a key role in getting the ‘Cap and Trade’ legislation passed. …

A dozen plus years later, Al Gore needs to finally be exposed for the lies that have made him a very rich man.

Liberal billionaire globalist George Soros gave former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental group millions of dollars over three years to create a “political space for aggressive U.S. action” on global warming, according to leaked documents. A document published by DC Leaks shows Soros, a Hungarian-born liberal financier, wanted his nonprofit Open Society Institute (OSI) to do more to support global warming policies in the U.S. That included budgeting $10 million in annual support to Gore’s climate group over three years.

It’s unclear what year the memo was sent, but the Gore co-founded Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP) was established in 2006 and lasted until it became The Climate Reality Project in July 2011. In 2008, the Alliance launched a $300 million campaign to encourage “Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,The Washington Post reported.

ACP got $10 million from the Open Society Institute (OSI) in 2008, according to the nonprofit’s tax filings. OSI handed over another $5 million to ACP in 2009, according to tax filings. The investigative reporting group ProPublica keeps a database that has OSI tax returns from 2000 to 2013. The DCNF could not find other years where OSI gave money to ACP, but funds are often funneled through multiple organizations to cover the trail and escape scrutiny.

Joe Kernen, co-host of  “Squawk Box” called the inclusion of Former Vice President Al Gore on CNBC’s list of “Top Leaders, Icons and Rebels” both “stupid” and “ludicrous.” His Feb. 11, comments came after fellow co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin suggested that CNBC ought to include Gore on their “First 25” list for his contribution to global warming awareness. Kernen went even further, suggesting that Gore would be included only if the list allowed for “charlatans and villains on there” and “as long as we put Ken Lay and some of the others.” (source)

Chronological History of Events Involving Al Gore

United Nations COP24 “Climate Change” Summit in Katowice, Poland (December 3-14)

United Nations COP24 “Climate Change” Summit in Katowice, Poland (December 3-14)

The major U.S. media was missing in action at the United Nations COP24 "climate" summit in Poland, reported The New American's foreign correspondent Alex Newman. Newman also reported on the significance of this conference, which is working to restructure all of human civilization under the guise of saving the climate. Finally, Newman addresses the real agenda behind the summit, which is to centralize power over humanity ...
Read More
Climategate: Leaked Emails Reveal Scientific Fraud & Data Manipulation for Global Warming

Climategate: Leaked Emails Reveal Scientific Fraud & Data Manipulation for Global Warming

The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory. The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, ...
Read More
Al Gore's Propaganda Movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Released

Al Gore’s Propaganda Movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Released

In 2018, twelve years after the release of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, none of the film's dire climate change predictions have come to pass. However, since the documentary was produced, its creator has raked in millions of dollars from the entire "global warming" scam, and is now poised to become "our first carbon billionaire." In the 2006 film, Gore made a number of wild claims regarding ...
Read More
Vice President Al Gore told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

Vice President Al Gore told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Hindsight shows that this may have been a Freudian slip since Gore was in on the planning of the Deep State shadow government's plan for a rogue element within the C.I.A. to take over the Internet. Since Clinton came to power in 1993, this global surveillance grid was not accountable ...
Read More
Mother Teresa Gives Address at the National Prayer Breakfast: "If a Mother Can Kill Her Own Child, How Can We Tell Other People Not to Kill?"

Mother Teresa Gives Address at the National Prayer Breakfast: “If a Mother Can Kill Her Own Child, How Can We Tell Other People Not to Kill?”

In February 1994, at a National Prayer Breakfast attended by the pro-abortion President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton, as well as Vice President Al Gore and his then-wife, Tipper Gore, the Catholic nun Mother Teresa spoke about the evil of abortion, explaining how it is “the greatest destroyer of peace today.” Abortion “is really a war against the child, a direct killing of the ...
Read More

Carbon Dioxide

The essential molecule for all plant life that without, the entire web of life on our planet would instantly collapse. Misinformed environmentalists have been exhaustively convinced that carbon dioxide is somehow a “death” molecule for the planet, when exactly the opposite is true: The planet would die without it… and humans would have no vegetables, no fruits, and no herbs if it wasn’t for carbon dioxide as revealed in an in-depth report on the benefits of CO2. In his paper, independent scholar and author Indur Goklany explains how CO2 benefits both the biosphere and humanity by stimulating the growth and flourishing of plant life. Further, increased concentrations of CO2 directly contribute to more rainfall, which means more food for both animals and people. Contrary to what the global warming fanatics often claim, rising CO2 levels have been helping our planet, not hurting it. So, ironically, reducing the carbon footprint is not green at all!

Scientists have lots of evidence demonstrating that increased carbon dioxide levels leads to healthier plants. A team of scientists in Nevada conducted a five-year experiment in which they grew one group of ponderosa pine trees at the current carbon dioxide atmospheric level of about 360 parts per million (ppm) and another group of pines at 700 ppm. The doubled carbon dioxide level increased tree height by 43 percent and diameter by 24 percent. Similarly, a team of scientists from Virginia Tech University reported that growing loblolly pine trees in a greenhouse with a carbon dioxide concentration of 700 ppm increased average tree height 9 percent, diameter by 7 percent, needle biomass by 16 percent and root biomass by 33 percent.2

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn’t just make a plant bigger. Carbon dioxide also makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions. In a study discussed in the journal Plant Ecology, a team of scientists subjected the Mojave Desert evergreen shrub to three different concentrations of carbon dioxide – the current level of 360 ppm and at 550 ppm and 700 ppm. The plants, which were being grown in simulated drought conditions, responded more favorably in the carbon dioxide-rich environments. Photosynthetic activity doubled in the 550 ppm environment and tripled at 700 ppm. Increased photosynthetic activity enables plants to withstand drought better.3

Likewise, a team of biologists grew seedlings of three yucca plants in cooler greenhouse environments at the 360 ppm and 700 ppm concentrations. The yucca plants exposed to the enhanced carbon dioxide concentration showed a greater resistance to the colder temperatures. Dr. Robert Balling, a climatologist at Arizona State University, notes that by making plants healthier and more resistant to extreme weather conditions, higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide expands the habitat of many plants, improves rangeland in semi-arid areas and enhances agricultural productivity in arid areas.4

Another benefit of enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide is that it helps the tropical rainforests. Scientists from Venezuela and the United Kingdom grew several species of tropical trees and other plants in greenhouse conditions at carbon dioxide concentrations double the current level. The plants responded favorably, showing an increase in photosynthetic activity. The scientists concluded that, “In a future atmosphere with a higher carbon dioxide concentration, these species should be able to show a higher productivity than today.”5

Another team of British and New Zealand researchers grew tropical trees for 119 days at elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. They found that the enriched carbon dioxide environment stimulated the trees’ root growth by 23 percent. Expanded root systems help tropical trees by increasing their ability to absorb water and nutrients.6

Bigger trees, increased resistance to bad weather, improved agricultural productivity and a boon to rainforests are just some of the many benefits that carbon dioxide bestows on the environment. With little evidence that carbon dioxide triggers dangerous global warming but lots of evidence showing how carbon dioxide helps the environment, environmentalists should be extolling the virtues of this benign greenhouse gas.

Rising CO2 levels have actually boosted the productivity of the biosphere by some 14 percent since 1982. Crops are growing more easily as a result of this, and the overall amount of farmable land throughout the world has similarly increased by as much as 17 percent. “Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types,” Goklany’s eye-opening report explains.

“Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems.”

As agricultural yields have progressively increased as a result of more CO2, food prices have progressively decreased. That’s right: global warming, so-called, has been a powerful weapon against hunger, making food more plentiful and readily available at cheaper costs. Beyond this, global warming has improved the viability of forests and other natural habitats, not only by contributing to their re-growth, but also saving many of them from being destroyed to make way for more agriculture and farming.

“Had it not been for the increase in yields of 9–15%, global cropland would have had to be increased by a similar amount to produce the same amount of food, all else being equal,” the report explains. “That figure means that an area equivalent to the combined area of Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia has been saved from the plough.”

Many animal species have also been saved from extinction as a result of increased levels of CO2. According to the paper, were it not for carbon dioxide “fertilization” of the planet, there would have been a “significant increase” in the number of animal species at risk of disappearing.

Rising CO2 levels have also provided more water, specifically to areas that need it most. The reason for this is that CO2 increases water evaporation and subsequent rainfall, acting as nature’s watering bucket to ensure not only that crops stay hydrated, but also that droughts are avoided.

“Regardless of whether, how and under what conditions carbon uptake and water-use efficiency are related, global ecosystem productivity increased by 14% from 1982–2011 (Figure 1), 8 while vegetation cover increased by 11% in arid areas from 1982– 2010,” the report explains.

“And with regard to agricultural productivity, global crop yields have increased,” it adds. “For instance, from 1961 to 2013, cereal yields per hectare increased by 85% in the least developed countries and 185% worldwide. These yield increases show no sustained sign of decelerating.”

Be sure to read Goklany’s full report on the benefits of CO2, entitled, “Carbon Dioxide: The Good News,” at this link.

You can also read the latest news about global warming at GlobalWarming.fetch.news.

Sources for this article include:

For decades, enviro-terrorists have been blaming the world’s ailments on carbon dioxide (CO2). Yet, this humble molecule is actually essential for plant life to exist. While proponents of climate change are loath to admit it, CO2 is a key part of photosynthesis – the way plants make energy. CO2 is essentially food for plants. Without CO2, water and sunshine, plants can’t grow. And when plants can’t grow, people starve. It is highly concerning that alleged environmentalists are promoting drastic reductions in CO2 as the only solution to climate change (a heavily fabricated theory to begin with). Without photosynthesis, there can be no life on Earth.

Recent research confirms that carbon dioxide has contributed to global “regreening.” Estimates suggest that increasing CO2 levels has led to a substantial increase in farmable land worldwide. Experts say farmable land has risen by 17 percent, and that overall biosphere productivity has gone up 14 percent since 1982.

Research also demonstrates that global crop yields have increased by 185 percent worldwide – and scientists say these increases show no signs of slowing. Indeed, it would seem that so-called “global warming” has actually been good for the planet. And as Mike Adams, founder of Natural News and Brighteon.com, contends, warring against CO2 is a war against life itself.

As Adams explains, burning fossil fuels actually provides plants with more fuel:

Burning fossil fuels, by the way, means combusting hydrocarbons to release energy. One of the byproducts of burning fossil fuels is the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, providing fresh CO2 that plants are starving to harvest from the air. CO2 levels in the atmosphere right now are at near-emergency low levels of barely above 400 ppm. Forests, food crops and indigenous plants across the globe would flourish at double or triple the current level of CO2. If we had, for example, 1200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere,the Earth would be greener and more lush.

The leftist call to eliminate carbon from the atmosphere is a suicide mission. In 2017, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chief Scott Pruitt even stated that he did not believe CO2 was a primary contributor to climate change. There is no shortage of reasons to be skeptical of climate change in and of itself, given the numerous instances of fraud and faulty data. Ultimately, the idea that CO2 is a vehicle of climate change is a hypothesis – and a poorly thought out one, at that.

It is no wonder that skeptics now believe that climate change fear-mongering and the GND have nothing to do with environmental concerns – and everything to do with ushering in a New World Order. The GND even spells it out for us, with AOC and her minions promising “a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.”

The GND is further described as a “10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all.”

If that’s not a dog whistle for a new socialist regime, I don’t know what is. The Green New Deal would kill the U.S. economy, American freedom and the environment in one fell swoop – and this is what the Left wants people to think progress looks like.

Climate change fanatics repeatedly cite “science” as their domain from which they might demand absolute compliance and obedience to their delusions. “Science,” they say, is why they never have to provide any real evidence that would support the bizarre notion that carbon dioxide is somehow bad for the planet. No debate is allowed, either, because they claim a monopoly over “science” by asserting all debates are “already settled.” Therefore, no further discussion may be tolerated. (This is the twisted, Left-wing version of science totalitarianism, courtesy of sociopathic, power hungry science overlords like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.)

In reality, every real scientist knows that carbon dioxide is essential for all plant life across the planet. As the following science diagram shows, carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to breathe. Without it, they would suffocate in minutes:

Plants use carbon dioxide to create CBD, THC, vitamin C and anti-cancer nutrients like curcumin

Not only is carbon dioxide necessary for all plant respiration via photosynthesis, it’s also the key ingredient used by plants to synthesize nearly every medicinal molecule that’s loved by herbalists, natural medicine practitioners and even medical cannabis advocates.

All cannabinoids are made out of carbon dioxide, for example. This includes CBD and THC. For those of you who aren’t chemists, every line segment in the molecular maps shown below represents a carbon bond. Double lines are double carbon bonds. Carbon atoms have four available bonds in their outer shell, and those bonds may be occupied by Oxygen (often a double bond), Hydrogen (a single bond) or other Carbon atoms. (Related: Learn more about chemistry by reading Chemistry.news.)

There are 21 carbons, for example, in a molecule of cannabidiol. Guess where the hemp plant gets this carbon? From carbon dioxide, of course, which all the hemp-smoking Leftists are convinced is an evil molecule.

Despite the fact that cannabidiol comes from carbon dioxide, climate change cultists are simultaneously “pro hemp” and “anti carbon dioxide.” How can this be the case? Because they are science idiots who have been brainwashed by the liberal establishment to despise the very molecule that creates nearly all the natural medicines in the world.

Anyone who hates carbon dioxide must, by definition, hate CBD, THC and all plants. Yet, astonishingly, climate change cultists think they support “green lifestyles” by opposing the very molecule necessary for all plant life on our planet. That’s how gullible and brainwashed they are: They’ll believe anything if it is claimed to “save the planet” (even if it murders the planet).

Curcumin from turmeric root is also made out of carbon dioxide

Curcumin, a powerful anti-cancer nutrient found in turmeric, is also made from carbon dioxide. As you can see in this molecular diagram, it’s made from 21 carbons. Where do you suppose the turmeric plant acquires the carbon it needs to manufacture this molecule? From atmospheric carbon dioxide, of course, the very molecule that delusional climate change fanatics have said they want to eliminate from the planet because it’s a “pollutant.”

In fact, nearly every medicinal molecule in all of botany is made out of carbon dioxide. CO2 is the key source of carbon used by plants to synthesize everything from chlorophyll to resveratrol. Every healing nutrient in basil, oregano, cinnamon, cilantro, garlic and pomegranate fruit is made out of carbon dioxide. The entire world of natural medicine owes its very basis to CO2.

This is why every herbalist, naturopath and medicinal arts practitioner should be in favor of carbon dioxide. Without this molecule, they would all be out of business (and dead, technically, since all life on the planet would collapse).

The real SCIENCE of carbon dioxide proves this molecule is the answer to a greener planet

Every person who argues that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet is a science idiot. Neil Tyson is a science idiot. Bill Nye is a science idiot. Elon Musk is a science idiot. And Al Gore is a science idiot, too. They all have one laughably stupid thing in common: They think carbon dioxide is bad for plant life on Earth. This makes them total morons who couldn’t even pass a high school science class.

Seriously, they would all earn “F” grades in a high school science class because they can’t even get the answer correct on which molecules are involved in photosynthesis.

I remember studying photosynthesis in the tenth grade. I was 16 years old, and my science teacher was an awesome, liberty-loving gun owner who later taught us genetics and microbiology. Photosynthesis was simple stuff then, and it’s simple now. Yet the global warming lunatics are trying to memory hole all science education that covers carbon dioxide or genetics because they have to push their delusional narratives of global warming and transgenderism. Somehow, they ridiculously claim to have a monopoly over “science,” even when their stupid narratives are so full of junk science quackery that real scientists are laughing their heads off everywhere.

The bottom line in all this? Any person who insists that carbon dioxide is “bad” for the planet is a scientifically illiterate moron. These are often the very same people drinking green juice smoothies who don’t even know that plants are green precisely because chlorophyll harnesses carbon dioxide and sunlight to create plant energy. If any molecule is a “green” molecule on our planet, it’s CO2!

Sources:

Chronological History of Events Related to Carbon Dioxide

Rockefeller Foundation Releases 'Reset the Table' Report, part of “The Great Reset” Describing Radical Transformation of Our Food System

Rockefeller Foundation Releases ‘Reset the Table’ Report, part of “The Great Reset” Describing Radical Transformation of Our Food System

The Rockefeller Foundation has released a new report, “Reset The Table” — an implied part of “The Great Reset” — describing a radical transformation of our food system in the face of the most significant disruption to our food supply in history. The report calls to provide food to all (like UBI), use schools as community nutrition distribution anchors, de-fund farms/ranches via “true cost accounting” that ...
Read More
Democrats Block Critical Coronavirus Relief Bill as Markets Plummet

Democrats Block Critical Coronavirus Relief Bill as Markets Plummet

In a 47-47 vote, Senate Democrats blocked a critical $2 trillion coronavirus economic relief package on Sunday. The move sent futures markets plummeting by over 5%. According to the Washington Examiner, the Democrats have stalled the plan to pass the bill by Monday and send it to the House for a vote. President Donald Trump and congressional leaders hoped the measure would send a signal that would help stabilize ...
Read More
Paper: Empty Gestures on Climate Change

Paper: Empty Gestures on Climate Change

In a paper he recently published, Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, deconstructs the myth that lugging around reusable grocery bags and using paper straws instead of plastic have any meaningful impact on our planet’s climate. As it turns out, all of the messaging about how to individually fight “global warming” by reducing one’s personal “carbon footprint” is a gaggle of lies and propaganda – and this from ...
Read More
11,000 Scientists Sign Order Demanding Globalists Eliminate Billions of Humans

11,000 Scientists Sign Order Demanding Globalists Eliminate Billions of Humans

Rush Limbaugh explained: "NBC News … described a 'study' produced by an 'international consortium of more than 11,000 scientists'.'' He cited NBC, CNN, Guardian, Al-Jazeera headlines and more. But, he said, "There was no study, there was just a press release. And it wasn’t 11,000 scientists, it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a web page. This was a total managed lie. There ...
Read More
STUDY: Explosion In Antarctic Sea Ice Levels May Cause Another Ice Age, Not Warming

STUDY: Explosion In Antarctic Sea Ice Levels May Cause Another Ice Age, Not Warming

We’ve known for years that Earth’s climate is like a giant Rube Goldberg machine: Pull one lever, and a massive chain of events starts into motion. Yet many of the steps that drive these changes have remained shrouded in uncertainty. “One key question in the field is still what caused the Earth to periodically cycle in and out of ice ages,” said Asst. Prof. Malte Jansen, ...
Read More