The climate apocalypse is here!! Or it it? According to Extinction Rebellion, the Guardian, and Greta Thunberg, the climate apocalypse is here and will probably lead the end of life on Earth. Exciting times! According to the vast majority of climate scientists,
You might want to look at my substack posts on climate for a view that you don't consider — that climate change is real and probably anthropogenic but that it has both good and bad effects of uncertain size, making it unclear whether the net effect is good or bad.
The right wing are correct to laugh it off. All claims of climate change being a problem (and human caused) trace back to pseudo-scientific methodologies. It's presented as science but it's not; the scientific method has gone AWOL and what's left is wishful thinking by academics who wouldn't matter at all if it weren't for their theory of climate-related doom. Far from being absurd, the points the right make tend to be very firmly rooted in science, which is why you have to take some Twitter rando instead of someone more famous like Tony Heller, who has spent years showing the ways in which climate academics mislead people. The latter's tweets are not so easy to mock though.
I am aware of Tony. Having browsed his website several times, however, I find his presentation of arguments and data to be all over the place and ultimately not convincing. I think we are in agreement that the literal crisis element is likely overblown, but I similarly find his position that all scientists everywhere are fraudsters on the basic observations to be unsupported both by the data and in my own personal experience of the relevant people. Ultimately, it is inarguable that humans have increased pCO2 and it is difficult to envisage this being totally irrelevant. If that can be shown, Tony's website does not do a good job of demonstrating it.
That's fine, but I think if you want to depict the anti-climate-crisis right fairly you should steelman the case and pick someone stronger than the apparently random tweeter in the article. You may not find Heller convincing but other people do. I've fact checked him in the past by replicating his analysis using my own software (he passed) and find a lot of what he posts to be inarguable - it's often just "scientist says X, here is the raw data from the government itself showing the opposite of X".
I imagine you have reproduced his claims that many forms of extreme weather and so on are not noticeably trending up? Could you give further examples? I have seen pretty much nothing from him to plausibly argue that CO2 has played no role in warming / that there is literally no warming at all. But, I am always happy to change my mind and heretics in science are most valuable to make sure confirmation bias does not set in.
I would also just say that I picked the random tweeter because of their statement that no evidence would change their mind. This is the same energy as the 'climate apocalypse is certain' left. Perhaps I could have picked someone more relevant who has this approach on the right, but the point is valid I think.
Finally, I think it is clear from the article that I agree with Heller and many others that evidence for a full blown climate 'crisis' is a bit lacking. However, the weight of evidence that I have seen nonetheless is quite consistent with CO2 being pretty important for climate over all of Earth's history and an anthropogenic doubling of CO2 is hard to simply wave away.
I reproduced a claim about weather station data being interpolated. This was years ago. It involved downloading some raw data files from either NASA or NOAA, I forget which, and then writing some software to parse the files and re-render the graphs. Heller had claimed that the agency was making up data and passing it off as genuine observations, which surprised me so much I decided I had to check it for myself. He was correct.
> I have seen pretty much nothing from him to plausibly argue that CO2 has played no role in warming / that there is literally no warming at all.
I don't know anyone who argues there's been literally no warming (since the 70s). The opposing position to climate doom isn't that the climate is perfectly stable, or that CO2 has zero effect. It's that the climate constantly changes in small ways for natural reasons, sometimes warming and sometimes cooling, that human emitted CO2 doesn't seem to be having much negative effect (if any), that climatology is fundamentally pseudo-scientific and that overall there's no reason to panic.
One of the ironic things about this debate is that it's actually the climatologists who are the climate change deniers. Their models all assume the climate would be perfectly stable if not for human activity, despite the wealth of archaeological and historical evidence that this isn't true. The mismatches between the evidence-based historical record and the model based claims by climatologists about the past is one of the many reasons I decided to join the skeptics.
> their statement that no evidence would change their mind
In a very ironic twist, our fear of climate change leads to our having far fewer children, and that will hasten our demise. Why? Because when our demography tanks, globalization goes away, which means the complex supply chains for green tech go away, which means we go back to burning fossil fuels., which makes climate change even worse, which leads us to having no children at all. Then why worry about our climate change demise in the first place, since the result is the same as the demise because of our fear of it?
I like this hypothesis simply for its ability to cause a person to think from a new angle about climate change. One of the problems around the climate debate is that the framing of the situation is often one-sided and narrow: "We're all going to die" or "There is no climate change" seem to be the popular frames. We need more innovation and creative thinking when it comes to how we frame this problem/opportunity of climate change.
Nadia: There’s simply no reason that a smaller population should lead to more use of fossil fuels. When I was born there were only 2 billion people on the planet and we were at the dawn of the nuclear age with an array of brilliant physicists and mathematicians that the world has not seen since. A rebirth of nuclear power generation will help solve your energy concerns. Smaller populations will help humanity win the battle against life threatening climate change however severe it turns out to be and help save the other species we share the planet with by protecting their shrinking habitat.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food. Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable. Last year Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.
Agree with you if we dramatically increase our use of nuclear power while minimizing our risk for a nuclear holocaust. But only developed countries with favorable geography, (no earthquakes) can afford that, since in declining population conditions and a dearth of talent (the most educated have the fewest children), this will be even more expensive. The demographic crunch with the worst consequences will happen in the developing world, and that is where you will see everyone burning lignite (if they have it).
Nadia: Most of the developing world is located where there’s lots of potential for solar energy if we can figure out inexpensive ways to store it for overnight use, but I get your point. I don’t see how rapid population growth in those areas does anything but increase the risk of famine which is already stalking Africa.
Of course, most scientists realize that the climate has always been changing. And it will continue to change, regardless of what humans might or might not do, at least for the foreseeable future (not counting any massive geoengineering projects which might have unpredictable consequences).
The trick is to detect the human contribution to this change on a global scale, in something more than the localized urban heat island effects. And this is nontrivial. I know, since I worked on it for years. I think with better tools and better data, we might be able to do this. So far, to my knowledge, we have not yet achieved this , in spite of a lot of sturm und drang about the topic.
Our climate models so far are pretty pathetic. We do not understand the nonlinear feedback mechanisms well enough to incorporate them. We probably cannot even enumerate them all. And then, there is the issue of nonlinear dynamics to contend with, on both the modeling front and in actuality. We need concerted efforts by people with real skills, instead of what I have observed so far.
I have some concerns that the politicians are pushing technologies which are not quite ready for primetime yet, like electric vehicles and solar panels. I suspect many of them are doing this to pad their bank accounts and those of their "friends". Nevertheless, we do need to develop a diversity of sustainable technologies, because sooner or later, cheap easily accessible fossil fuels will disappear. I am not sure when we will reach "peak oil" and "peak natural gas". Will it be decades? Centuries? No one really knows. But we better be ready for it when it comes, that is for sure. And these technologies have a long lead time.
The ranting and raving about overpopulation is a bit overblown. The population will naturally collapse as infant mortality rates continue to fall and as more women become educated. We should be worrying about making the best use of the human capital we have available. So far, we have wasted most of it.
I have found Bjorn Lomborg to be a singular voice of reason on this topic, even though he's an economist and, thus, not really a scientist in the usual sense of the word (although his thinking is quite scientific). Humans will do just fine, almost regardless of what happens. We're as adaptable as cockroaches and rats. Actually, we're more adaptable. They've done so well only because they are exceptionally good at taking advantage of the diversity of environments WE create (think basements and subway tunnels). Heck, we're thinking about colonizing Mars, which is a pretty hostile environment, and we'll probably succeed someday.
The methane from melting permafrost …it is just mammoths 🦣 trying to get back at humans for hunting them to extinction. Or did they die off due to climate change? Maybe we can clone them and see if they can go extinct again without hunting, so we will know the true reason for their demise - too many SUVs at the end of the last ice age. On a serious note, hope the scientists can continue to do real science, with politicians and social activists staying out of the way and instead working on making sure nobody presses any red buttons that activate man-made release of enriched uranium from Siberian permafrost.
all those are factors, yet none of them are new. The politicization of science, the almost complete reliance on government funding, those factors are relatively new.
My primary position on this is that The Blob (national governments, international institutions such as UN, NGOs, academics, etc. etc.) should be disallowed from doing anything about it by any means necessary, as the COVID fiasco gave us definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the more power these actors are given, the more harm they do, regardless of the facts or their supposed good intentions.
Other than that, I consider the issue overhyped and find it likely that nothing much will come of it in the end. 50 years from now I would be surprised if people still use the term "climate crisis."
In the book that is entitled "The psychology of Totalitarianism," the clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet identifies for us the source of belief in the narrative of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as mistaking the example of a "complex" physical system that is Earth's climate system for a "non-complex physical system in the construction of the model of this system that is used for regulatory purposes, where a "complex" physical system exhibits one or more "emergent properties" each of which is a property of the whole system and not of the separate parts of this system whereas a "non-complex" physical system exhibits no such properties.
There is definitely a man-made Climate Crisis, but it has nothing to do with so-called greenhouse gases, and everything to do with satellites, balloons and ground stations causing artificial drought by dissolving clouds with EMFs, and of course, other geoengineering techs such as chem-trails, so even if some would not agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming, everyone should be against Carbon Climate Action!:
Climategate - Leaked E-mails Expose the Scam of "Climate Change"
1. Pray MAGA: Make America God’s again. Pray “Thy Kingdom come”. Make the world His Kingdom of love. “God is love”.
The US national motto is “in God we trust”1, the Oath of Allegiance sums up in “so help me God”2, and the Pledge of Allegiance is “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
“Under God”, not only means under God’s protection/providence, but also under God's will/authority and Commandments.
Separation of church and State means "freedom of conscience", i.e. that a Government should not impose any particular religion. It doesn't mean that public officials can't show and live their faith in public, and it means that the State must always put all actions "under God", definitely not “over” or against God’s Will. Lincoln: “the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.” 3
SSS = Satanic Secret Societies like freemasons, who in their documents worship Lucifer as their “Great Architect”.
Freemasonry is the church of Satan. “Separation of church and State” requires eliminating the freemasonic demono-cracy over Government (theocracy comes from “theo”, God, “cratos”, power, but this has nothing to do with God, but Satan and his demons, so it’s a demono-cracy).
Get the murderers out of government: force masons to self-identify by law under severe penalty (their oath doesn't forbid self-identification, also, evil oaths are void).
1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of (the masonic) religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of other religions, like they did with lockdowns); or abridging the freedom of speech (like the massive masonic censorship since 2020), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (lockdowns), and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (like the wrongful COVID response).”
----------------
2. MAGA (Make Assets Great Again): money should be 100% backed with gold and real assets. This makes masonic counterfeiting harder. They are buying everything with trillions of fake money: listed corporations, media, medical system, political parties, prosti-ticians, universities… !
Satanic secret societies like the masons are increasing the financial supply through:
- Forging dollars using the Federal Reserve they fully control
- Money creation through bank loans without reserves
- Financial “wealth” creation out of thin air through financial instruments such as derivatives
- Government debt
It's what I call finflation: inflation of financial instruments
The way out of this mess:
If you really understand what your enemies are doing, you'd prioritize other things essential for survival:
4. 100%-deposits-backed bank credit: so they don't create money out of thin air
5. Kill the Federal Reserve
Force all social networks and media to kill algorithmic moderation (shadow banning, etc.) and reinstate all closed accounts. Only messages selling things can be blocked IF it comes from outside one's network. Let people decide who's in their social network and that's it.
Replace the internet with a new peer to peer protocol, not government controlled, not centralized.
Get out of the UN organizations (including WHO), get out of the IMF, WorldBank, OAS, IADB, etc. All have been weaponized. Create alternative cooperative organizations.
------------------
3. The full plan exposed and 16 laws we need to exit Extermination Planet
Government spends 2x per student in public schools with respect to private ones and 3x at university level, with worse outcomes in all levels of education.
Time for a 100% voucher system, where parents can choose schools or earn the voucher money themselves if they homeschool (and their kids pass the exams), or through grand/parent/teacher coops.
This would allow many mothers to leave a work they hate and stay home with their babies and children, especially in the most important years of childhood until 6 years old. It would have a deep impact on society.
How to save the life from the COVID vaxxed in 10 easy fast steps?
Appeal to authority (that’s the only thing they listen to):
1. Show that, while it is still given in the USA, all countries in Northern Europe banned Moderna due to the severe after-effects (let’s not call them side effects, but deliberate effects).
2. Show them Florida’s declaration not recommending COVID vaccines to most of the population.
3. Show Texas suing Pfizer for lying about vaccine efficacy.
4. Show Health Canada’ statement about finding DNA in mRNA shots, proving they hacked the cell nucleus. Show the Swedish study proving that the cell nucleus is hacked by mRNA vaccines.
5. Show that Health Canada also says that Pfizer inserted a sequence of the SV40 monkey virus. Show the studies proving that SV40 is carcinogenic.
6. Show that the Republican Party declared COVID “vaccines” a “biological and technical biopeapon” and instructed the authorities to seize vials and run a forensic analysis.
Appeal to science:
7. Show the studies proving that the injected are still producing spike protein.
8. Show the studies proving that the spike protein was engineered to kill in Wuhan by adding HIV sequence and a Moderna cancer-related patent.
9. Convince them to labtest the amount of spike protein in their blood, which is still produced by their hacked cells, and if the can’t afford it:
10. Convince them to lower the spike protein in blood by trying any of the spike detox protocols based mostly on cheap medicines. They have nothing to lose, by trying it for a week, if their health improves, then they know that the bio-weapon caused their health problems:
You might want to look at my substack posts on climate for a view that you don't consider — that climate change is real and probably anthropogenic but that it has both good and bad effects of uncertain size, making it unclear whether the net effect is good or bad.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Sorted_Posts.html#Climate
Been looking for perspective to consider that is just like this. Subscribed and thanks!
So did I.
The right wing are correct to laugh it off. All claims of climate change being a problem (and human caused) trace back to pseudo-scientific methodologies. It's presented as science but it's not; the scientific method has gone AWOL and what's left is wishful thinking by academics who wouldn't matter at all if it weren't for their theory of climate-related doom. Far from being absurd, the points the right make tend to be very firmly rooted in science, which is why you have to take some Twitter rando instead of someone more famous like Tony Heller, who has spent years showing the ways in which climate academics mislead people. The latter's tweets are not so easy to mock though.
I am aware of Tony. Having browsed his website several times, however, I find his presentation of arguments and data to be all over the place and ultimately not convincing. I think we are in agreement that the literal crisis element is likely overblown, but I similarly find his position that all scientists everywhere are fraudsters on the basic observations to be unsupported both by the data and in my own personal experience of the relevant people. Ultimately, it is inarguable that humans have increased pCO2 and it is difficult to envisage this being totally irrelevant. If that can be shown, Tony's website does not do a good job of demonstrating it.
That's fine, but I think if you want to depict the anti-climate-crisis right fairly you should steelman the case and pick someone stronger than the apparently random tweeter in the article. You may not find Heller convincing but other people do. I've fact checked him in the past by replicating his analysis using my own software (he passed) and find a lot of what he posts to be inarguable - it's often just "scientist says X, here is the raw data from the government itself showing the opposite of X".
I imagine you have reproduced his claims that many forms of extreme weather and so on are not noticeably trending up? Could you give further examples? I have seen pretty much nothing from him to plausibly argue that CO2 has played no role in warming / that there is literally no warming at all. But, I am always happy to change my mind and heretics in science are most valuable to make sure confirmation bias does not set in.
I would also just say that I picked the random tweeter because of their statement that no evidence would change their mind. This is the same energy as the 'climate apocalypse is certain' left. Perhaps I could have picked someone more relevant who has this approach on the right, but the point is valid I think.
Finally, I think it is clear from the article that I agree with Heller and many others that evidence for a full blown climate 'crisis' is a bit lacking. However, the weight of evidence that I have seen nonetheless is quite consistent with CO2 being pretty important for climate over all of Earth's history and an anthropogenic doubling of CO2 is hard to simply wave away.
I reproduced a claim about weather station data being interpolated. This was years ago. It involved downloading some raw data files from either NASA or NOAA, I forget which, and then writing some software to parse the files and re-render the graphs. Heller had claimed that the agency was making up data and passing it off as genuine observations, which surprised me so much I decided I had to check it for myself. He was correct.
> I have seen pretty much nothing from him to plausibly argue that CO2 has played no role in warming / that there is literally no warming at all.
I don't know anyone who argues there's been literally no warming (since the 70s). The opposing position to climate doom isn't that the climate is perfectly stable, or that CO2 has zero effect. It's that the climate constantly changes in small ways for natural reasons, sometimes warming and sometimes cooling, that human emitted CO2 doesn't seem to be having much negative effect (if any), that climatology is fundamentally pseudo-scientific and that overall there's no reason to panic.
One of the ironic things about this debate is that it's actually the climatologists who are the climate change deniers. Their models all assume the climate would be perfectly stable if not for human activity, despite the wealth of archaeological and historical evidence that this isn't true. The mismatches between the evidence-based historical record and the model based claims by climatologists about the past is one of the many reasons I decided to join the skeptics.
> their statement that no evidence would change their mind
Ah, I see. OK then.
In a very ironic twist, our fear of climate change leads to our having far fewer children, and that will hasten our demise. Why? Because when our demography tanks, globalization goes away, which means the complex supply chains for green tech go away, which means we go back to burning fossil fuels., which makes climate change even worse, which leads us to having no children at all. Then why worry about our climate change demise in the first place, since the result is the same as the demise because of our fear of it?
I like this hypothesis simply for its ability to cause a person to think from a new angle about climate change. One of the problems around the climate debate is that the framing of the situation is often one-sided and narrow: "We're all going to die" or "There is no climate change" seem to be the popular frames. We need more innovation and creative thinking when it comes to how we frame this problem/opportunity of climate change.
Nadia: There’s simply no reason that a smaller population should lead to more use of fossil fuels. When I was born there were only 2 billion people on the planet and we were at the dawn of the nuclear age with an array of brilliant physicists and mathematicians that the world has not seen since. A rebirth of nuclear power generation will help solve your energy concerns. Smaller populations will help humanity win the battle against life threatening climate change however severe it turns out to be and help save the other species we share the planet with by protecting their shrinking habitat.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food. Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable. Last year Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.
Agree with you if we dramatically increase our use of nuclear power while minimizing our risk for a nuclear holocaust. But only developed countries with favorable geography, (no earthquakes) can afford that, since in declining population conditions and a dearth of talent (the most educated have the fewest children), this will be even more expensive. The demographic crunch with the worst consequences will happen in the developing world, and that is where you will see everyone burning lignite (if they have it).
Nadia: Most of the developing world is located where there’s lots of potential for solar energy if we can figure out inexpensive ways to store it for overnight use, but I get your point. I don’t see how rapid population growth in those areas does anything but increase the risk of famine which is already stalking Africa.
Of course, most scientists realize that the climate has always been changing. And it will continue to change, regardless of what humans might or might not do, at least for the foreseeable future (not counting any massive geoengineering projects which might have unpredictable consequences).
The trick is to detect the human contribution to this change on a global scale, in something more than the localized urban heat island effects. And this is nontrivial. I know, since I worked on it for years. I think with better tools and better data, we might be able to do this. So far, to my knowledge, we have not yet achieved this , in spite of a lot of sturm und drang about the topic.
Our climate models so far are pretty pathetic. We do not understand the nonlinear feedback mechanisms well enough to incorporate them. We probably cannot even enumerate them all. And then, there is the issue of nonlinear dynamics to contend with, on both the modeling front and in actuality. We need concerted efforts by people with real skills, instead of what I have observed so far.
I have some concerns that the politicians are pushing technologies which are not quite ready for primetime yet, like electric vehicles and solar panels. I suspect many of them are doing this to pad their bank accounts and those of their "friends". Nevertheless, we do need to develop a diversity of sustainable technologies, because sooner or later, cheap easily accessible fossil fuels will disappear. I am not sure when we will reach "peak oil" and "peak natural gas". Will it be decades? Centuries? No one really knows. But we better be ready for it when it comes, that is for sure. And these technologies have a long lead time.
The ranting and raving about overpopulation is a bit overblown. The population will naturally collapse as infant mortality rates continue to fall and as more women become educated. We should be worrying about making the best use of the human capital we have available. So far, we have wasted most of it.
I have found Bjorn Lomborg to be a singular voice of reason on this topic, even though he's an economist and, thus, not really a scientist in the usual sense of the word (although his thinking is quite scientific). Humans will do just fine, almost regardless of what happens. We're as adaptable as cockroaches and rats. Actually, we're more adaptable. They've done so well only because they are exceptionally good at taking advantage of the diversity of environments WE create (think basements and subway tunnels). Heck, we're thinking about colonizing Mars, which is a pretty hostile environment, and we'll probably succeed someday.
The methane from melting permafrost …it is just mammoths 🦣 trying to get back at humans for hunting them to extinction. Or did they die off due to climate change? Maybe we can clone them and see if they can go extinct again without hunting, so we will know the true reason for their demise - too many SUVs at the end of the last ice age. On a serious note, hope the scientists can continue to do real science, with politicians and social activists staying out of the way and instead working on making sure nobody presses any red buttons that activate man-made release of enriched uranium from Siberian permafrost.
If only science still sought truth instead of further funding, we might know who is correct.
Poor science has been pushed to the sidelines by blind ambition, chasing tenure and self-aggrandizement.
all those are factors, yet none of them are new. The politicization of science, the almost complete reliance on government funding, those factors are relatively new.
Point well taken.
My primary position on this is that The Blob (national governments, international institutions such as UN, NGOs, academics, etc. etc.) should be disallowed from doing anything about it by any means necessary, as the COVID fiasco gave us definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the more power these actors are given, the more harm they do, regardless of the facts or their supposed good intentions.
Other than that, I consider the issue overhyped and find it likely that nothing much will come of it in the end. 50 years from now I would be surprised if people still use the term "climate crisis."
In the book that is entitled "The psychology of Totalitarianism," the clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet identifies for us the source of belief in the narrative of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as mistaking the example of a "complex" physical system that is Earth's climate system for a "non-complex physical system in the construction of the model of this system that is used for regulatory purposes, where a "complex" physical system exhibits one or more "emergent properties" each of which is a property of the whole system and not of the separate parts of this system whereas a "non-complex" physical system exhibits no such properties.
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, California
1-650-518-6636 (mobile)
It is crucial that we better study human-triggered climate change. I have the impression that we have a fairly deficient understanding of it...
How about the third position: realism.
There is definitely a man-made Climate Crisis, but it has nothing to do with so-called greenhouse gases, and everything to do with satellites, balloons and ground stations causing artificial drought by dissolving clouds with EMFs, and of course, other geoengineering techs such as chem-trails, so even if some would not agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming, everyone should be against Carbon Climate Action!:
Climategate - Leaked E-mails Expose the Scam of "Climate Change"
https://odysee.com/@ArtOfLiberty:7/climategate-leaked-e-mails-expose-the:d
Changing the climate through satellites and huge radar weather stations:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/satattack
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/balloon-attack
Best scientific sources to debunk carbon climate action:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/best-scientific-sources-to-debunk
Killing me softly with green songs:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/killing-me-softly-with-green-songs
Carbon reparations:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/carbon-reparations
Climate deaths:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/climate-deaths
We won’t be able to find real solutions unless we identify “the powers that be” and their goals:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
Is there any proof that they really want to murder all of us?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/criminal-intent
How to get out of this political genocidal mess?
SIMPLE SOLUTION in 3 steps:
1. Pray MAGA: Make America God’s again. Pray “Thy Kingdom come”. Make the world His Kingdom of love. “God is love”.
The US national motto is “in God we trust”1, the Oath of Allegiance sums up in “so help me God”2, and the Pledge of Allegiance is “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
“Under God”, not only means under God’s protection/providence, but also under God's will/authority and Commandments.
Separation of church and State means "freedom of conscience", i.e. that a Government should not impose any particular religion. It doesn't mean that public officials can't show and live their faith in public, and it means that the State must always put all actions "under God", definitely not “over” or against God’s Will. Lincoln: “the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.” 3
SSS = Satanic Secret Societies like freemasons, who in their documents worship Lucifer as their “Great Architect”.
Freemasonry is the church of Satan. “Separation of church and State” requires eliminating the freemasonic demono-cracy over Government (theocracy comes from “theo”, God, “cratos”, power, but this has nothing to do with God, but Satan and his demons, so it’s a demono-cracy).
Get the murderers out of government: force masons to self-identify by law under severe penalty (their oath doesn't forbid self-identification, also, evil oaths are void).
1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of (the masonic) religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of other religions, like they did with lockdowns); or abridging the freedom of speech (like the massive masonic censorship since 2020), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (lockdowns), and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (like the wrongful COVID response).”
----------------
2. MAGA (Make Assets Great Again): money should be 100% backed with gold and real assets. This makes masonic counterfeiting harder. They are buying everything with trillions of fake money: listed corporations, media, medical system, political parties, prosti-ticians, universities… !
Satanic secret societies like the masons are increasing the financial supply through:
- Forging dollars using the Federal Reserve they fully control
- Money creation through bank loans without reserves
- Financial “wealth” creation out of thin air through financial instruments such as derivatives
- Government debt
It's what I call finflation: inflation of financial instruments
The way out of this mess:
If you really understand what your enemies are doing, you'd prioritize other things essential for survival:
1. Issue asset-backed money: gold, silver, flour, gasoline, whatever tokenizable
2. Ban money not backed by assets
3. No legal tender: let markets decide
4. 100%-deposits-backed bank credit: so they don't create money out of thin air
5. Kill the Federal Reserve
Force all social networks and media to kill algorithmic moderation (shadow banning, etc.) and reinstate all closed accounts. Only messages selling things can be blocked IF it comes from outside one's network. Let people decide who's in their social network and that's it.
Replace the internet with a new peer to peer protocol, not government controlled, not centralized.
Get out of the UN organizations (including WHO), get out of the IMF, WorldBank, OAS, IADB, etc. All have been weaponized. Create alternative cooperative organizations.
------------------
3. The full plan exposed and 16 laws we need to exit Extermination Planet
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/laws-to-exit-planet-prison
No Free Speech without Reach. We need a #FreeReach laws urgently!
http://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/no-free-speech-without-reach
Why is food poisoning legal?
How Rumsfeld forced the approval of lethal Aspartame.
Artificial sweeteners, MSG, PFAS, Glyphosate ... go organic!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/why-is-food-poisoning-legal
How about REAL democracy: townhall republican democracy?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/reinventing-democracy
Minimize the Federal Government. Repeal 16th amendment (income tax)
Rethinking science
Sciencing the rigged and corrupt scientific system for an overdue turnaround
Unless we change it, we’re doomed to the next PLANdemic. And yet, nothing has changed, only got worse!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/rethinking-science
Government spends 2x per student in public schools with respect to private ones and 3x at university level, with worse outcomes in all levels of education.
Time for a 100% voucher system, where parents can choose schools or earn the voucher money themselves if they homeschool (and their kids pass the exams), or through grand/parent/teacher coops.
This would allow many mothers to leave a work they hate and stay home with their babies and children, especially in the most important years of childhood until 6 years old. It would have a deep impact on society.
How to save the life from the COVID vaxxed in 10 easy fast steps?
Appeal to authority (that’s the only thing they listen to):
1. Show that, while it is still given in the USA, all countries in Northern Europe banned Moderna due to the severe after-effects (let’s not call them side effects, but deliberate effects).
2. Show them Florida’s declaration not recommending COVID vaccines to most of the population.
3. Show Texas suing Pfizer for lying about vaccine efficacy.
4. Show Health Canada’ statement about finding DNA in mRNA shots, proving they hacked the cell nucleus. Show the Swedish study proving that the cell nucleus is hacked by mRNA vaccines.
5. Show that Health Canada also says that Pfizer inserted a sequence of the SV40 monkey virus. Show the studies proving that SV40 is carcinogenic.
6. Show that the Republican Party declared COVID “vaccines” a “biological and technical biopeapon” and instructed the authorities to seize vials and run a forensic analysis.
Appeal to science:
7. Show the studies proving that the injected are still producing spike protein.
8. Show the studies proving that the spike protein was engineered to kill in Wuhan by adding HIV sequence and a Moderna cancer-related patent.
9. Convince them to labtest the amount of spike protein in their blood, which is still produced by their hacked cells, and if the can’t afford it:
10. Convince them to lower the spike protein in blood by trying any of the spike detox protocols based mostly on cheap medicines. They have nothing to lose, by trying it for a week, if their health improves, then they know that the bio-weapon caused their health problems:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/protocol/i-recover-post-vaccine-treatment/
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/spike-protein-detox-guide/
https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/lipid-nanoparticle-associated-inflammation/
https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/methylene-blue-prevents-and-reverses/
https://www.earthclinic.com/remedies/methylene-blue.html
God willingly, I’ll soon post that with all the references.
fyi: The Report of Iron Mountain, and Behold a pale horse by W. Cooper, may is shed some light, kind regards!