AGW – Calamity or Strategy?

There are those who believe that ‘global warming’ is a consequence of natural forces, there are those who believe that ‘global warming’ is man-made, and there are some who don’t believe it is happening at all.

Most reputable scientists seem to agree that there was a warming trend noticed in the mid-eighties (when satellite data became ‘de rigueur’) which lasted until 1998. Most would also agree that this warming has plateau’d and that the average global temperature has been steady for the last two decades. Many say that CO2 is to blame, many don’t.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, put all that aside for the moment. It really doesn’t matter, anyhow. What does matter in the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) debate is whether or not there are some people who have been trying to get the earth to warm up. Dane Wiggington is of the opinion that the earth is warming and that the result will be catastrophic. He also believes that geo-engineering is (partly) to blame. The implications are surreal.

There are three reasons for which this scenario is plausible: derivatives; market share; and commodities.

Derivatives (without getting too technical) are insurance. They are side bets made by financiers in order to protect themselves against investments gone bad. A farmers’ crops may be worth a million dollars, but if a natural disaster strikes, the failed crop might be worth two million through the derivatives market. This is the basis for ‘disaster capitalism.’ The derivatives market is said to be worth hundreds of trillions. Profits depend on failures in more traditional enterprises.

Market share is what drives corporations to monopoly. The more market share, the more customers, the more sales. Companies such as Monsanto have been developing techniques which would assure them almost complete market dominance. They, along with their partners, have been researching seed technology which could grow in almost any condition such as drought, flood, and even radiation.

Commodities are everything the world uses. They are raw materials. They are food. They are mineral resources such as gold (debatable,) oil, uranium, and coal. Some say that they are running out, or at least, that the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. There could be a new source of commodities, though. There could be an entire ocean of virgin ground awaiting exploration.

This would satisfy all three conditions.

If the world was warming, the polar ice caps would melt. This would wreak havoc with the global economy and the derivatives market would prove very profitable for the psychopaths praying for (and betting on) plague conditions. Environmental devastation would also prove very profitable for large conglomerates that could supply (very expensive) food which could not be grown anywhere else anymore. Thirdly, if the poles did melt, great swaths of new land would be exposed and exploited immediately.

This doomsday scenario begs the question, are there those who would sabotage the world for their own gain? If history is any indication, the answer is a resounding, “Yes!” If these people do exist, are they presently putting their resources to work in trying to achieve this goal? Is geo-engineering being used to warm the planet further and faster?

Whether or not this is being implemented, the people in Davos have just put together a plan to ensure that whatever happens, they will control the outcome. “Scott Minerd (who before Guggenheim worked at Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley) …joined a World Economic Forum advisory council. Its task? Develop guidelines for those nations looking to do business at the top of the world. That framework is to be released Thursday, in Davos.”

“The Arctic guidelines are voluntary, like many other sustainable investment initiatives, including the Principles for Responsible Investment or even the WEF’s own work on “sustainable competitiveness.” How does anyone expect to protect the Arctic environment in such a gold rush? The project is designed to complement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and while the green earth is littered with do-good business pledges, the notion received a shot in the arm recently. In December, almost 200 nations agreed in Paris to adhere to the first-ever universal climate goals. How nations contribute to progress toward them is their call, since there are no binding demands to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

The above taken from Bloomberg’s “The World Has Discovered a $1 Trillion Ocean.”

So cui bono? Who are the people who would benefit from a world destroyed, what tools would they employ to see such a strategy implemented, and just how far would they go to dominate and control the earth and its resources?

One would expect to find the answer just north of 66 degrees.

Advertisements

Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Do You Know the Difference?

Probably not, and that is exactly what they’re counting on.

CO (carbon monoxide – lighter than air) is formed as a result of oxygen-poor combustion (as in combustion engines,) it is used as a coloring agent in US meat production (illegal in EU and Japan,) and has potential in the medical field as a biological regulator. It is widely used in chemical manufacturing. It may even be used, one day, as a fuel source on Mars. CO is toxic to humans in very low concentrations (35ppm.) Atmospheric concentrations are approximately 0.1ppm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

CO2 (carbon dioxide – heavier than air) “is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth.” Plants use it to photosynthesize sugars from CO2 and water (with oxygen produced as a byproduct.) CO2 is produced by the respiration of animals and fish, organic decay, fermentation, and combustion of wood and fossil fuels. It is used throughout many industries for decaffeinating coffee, adding sparkle to carbonated beverages (soda, beer, champagne) and when frozen becomes ‘dry ice’. CO2 is only toxic in extremely high concentrations (>70,000ppm.) Atmospheric concentrations are between 360 – 410ppm depending on location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

The above article contradicts itself in several places and also claims that CO2 is directly responsible for ‘global warming’, but more on that later.

In a sentence, CO is poison and CO2 is plant food necessary for all life on Earth. Both are so-called greenhouse gases (GHG.) CO2 is truly a greenhouse gas in the sense that farmers enrich their greenhouse environments with it in order to stimulate plant growth and increase yield.

Without CO2, breads wouldn’t rise, sparkling wine wouldn’t sparkle, beer would be flat, and compressed-air tools (not actually air, but CO2) would cost a lot more to run. Oh and by the way, all green plants (on land and in the seas) would die causing mass starvation for herbivores and humans alike.

Continue reading “Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Do You Know the Difference?”

Conspi-Racist

People with wealth, power, and influence say many things. Of those things, some seem to come up more often than others, namely:

1- Overpopulation is our biggest problem

2- CO2 is pollution, and climate change is bad

3- GMO’s are safe and can feed more people

4- Vaccines will make you healthy

5- Wireless radiation isn’t harmful

6- Nuclear energy is green energy

7- There are no conspiracies

8- Did I mention overpopulation?

Based on the initial premise that there are too many people on the planet; do you think that the powers that be would suggest doing anything which would make that problem worse? Why implement plans that make the biggest problem bigger? So the rest of the things on that list should not help increase the population, should they? In fact, all of those things will actually reduce the population, as they should; given that over-population is such a problem.

It would be akin to saying that despite the fact that nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to mankind and must be eradicated, we need more nuclear weapons to keep us safe. No, wait, that’s a bad example. It would be like saying that we must find a cure for cancer, and then spend most of the money to research treatment options. Scratch that, another bad example. Like self-regulating financial industries… no. Like we need more debt to pay our debts… no. Oh, like more security means less freedom… no, no, no. Ok, so these aren’t the best examples; but you get the gist, right?

Well, the truth of the matter is that the narratives are becoming hopelessly intertwined.

Continue reading “Conspi-Racist”

From Death Comes Life (And Other Justifications)

Let’s begin by assuming two things, (1) that you can influence massive amounts of capital flow (and have friends in many industries who can do the same) and, (2) that you genuinely think there are far too many people on Earth. In the immortal words of Keanu Reeves, “What do you do?” There are three courses of action you could take: decrease the birth rate; increase the death rate; or both. Let’s break this down.

In order to decrease the birth rate, there are several options available, namely: reduce the amount of available food; sterilize a certain segment of the population; convince people to stop reproducing (by ‘education’ or by mandate.)

Reducing food supplies in a global way would necessitate impeding the forces of nature from supplying energy to plants. Decreasing CO2 concentrations, preventing sunlight from reaching the earth, acidification of soil, make private ownership of seed illegal, environmental manipulation (more/less rain, hail, pesticide resistance,) re-zoning agricultural land (Bundy ranch.)

Sterilization in humans can occur through several mechanisms. Some known causes: ELF, VLF, LF radiation (microwaves, cell-phones, wi-fi, Bluetooth, SMART meters, RFID;) other radiation (depleted uranium, Fukushima, x-ray, chemo-therapy;) GMOs (which also cause allergies;) certain vaccines; certain reproductive diseases and conditions, STDs; mercury and other neurotoxin contamination; castration (enforced up until 1967 in Britain for ‘treatment’ of homosexuality.) There are many other ways in which humans can be sterilized; these will be examined in future posts.

As an added bonus, if you can reduce the ability of people to think, there would be far less resistance to your movement, should the ‘truth’ or parts of it begin to leak out. So distractions (sports, celebrities, activities, make the important stuff boring,) lowering the level of education (teach by wrote not by reason, don’t teach about money,) and drug-induced dementia could be useful tools, as well.

Another tack is to promote the gay agenda (gay people don’t reproduce,) and yet another is to limit births to a certain number per family by mandate (as was done in China.) A less overt way might be to indoctrinate people in school that less people is a good thing (read a modern social studies textbook.)

Increasing the death rate could be brought about by killing lots of people outright either through war or starvation or disease.

Some of the many ways to start a war (civil or otherwise*) are: political movements can be subverted (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine;) economies can be crashed (Greece, EU, US, Japan;) food could be made scarce (California drought, honey-bee die-off, lower nutrition content, increased price of oil;) access to water could be limited (privatization of resources, pollution of natural sources;) increase poverty (wealth gap;) invade foreign sovereign states (the post-WWII list is prohibitively long;) start wars by proxy and religious belligerence – bring about ‘Armageddon’; and limit access to energy (by quashing new technologies.)

*(For the purposes of this article, war and revolt are considered synonymous.)

Starvation could be achieved by reducing plant size thereby reducing crop yields (decreasing plant nutrients like CO2, limiting solar radiation needed for photosynthesis by increasing the earth’s albedo,) limiting the nutrition in foods (fast foods, GMOs, poor soil conditions/pH balance,) regulating nutrients (codex alimentarius,) increasing the cost of producing food (regulations, seed cost, oil price,) killing pollinating insects (like honey-bees,) and by introducing droughts and floods and hail (geo-engineering projects in Calgary started by the insurance companies transport bad weather [hail] from the metropolitan area over to the prairies. Better to destroy a crop than dent some luxury automobiles. Through derivatives trading espoused by ‘disaster capitalists,’ a profit can be gleaned by crop failure, but insurance claims divert cash in the wrong direction in the economy: downwards.)

Disease is easy enough to spread. Many diseases could be custom-made in a lab to target certain segments of the population (weaponized anthrax, mad-cow disease, ebola, AIDS) and could be spread either by injection through vaccination programs or other medical interventions (gonorrhoea in South America, sterilization in Kenya, MKUltra in Canada) or by giving them an infectious component such that they can spread on their own (HIV/AIDS.) Blood and vaccines can easily be infected (Bayer.) Birth defects can also be introduced (thalidomide,) the environment can be polluted (cancers,) and voluntary disease can be cultivated (lung cancers through smoking, liver disease from drinking, heart disease through inactivity.)

So far, so good. Through these measures, we have effectively reduced the world’s population by fifty percent and have lowered the birth rate into negative territory. The projected population by the year 2050 is now two billion people. This number can still be tweaked, but we now have the time to be more selective about who to keep and who to discard. Eugenics is back!

The only thing one needs in order to be considered a VIP is money. You don’t even need to be important, just rich. But let’s just assume that these two words (rich and important) are synonymous. Now, who are you going to save? Are you going to allow masses of uneducated labourers to run the world as they see fit, or are you going to save the important people? The question answers itself, doesn’t it?

Now all you need is an excuse to go about doing all these things. “Pollution caused by man-made CO2 emissions is destroying the planet and we need to put an end to it before it is too late.” Whether or not the basic premise is flawed, and if this is what you believe, then your course of action becomes limited to lowering the global population or facing death (real or imagined.) The CO2 issue is central to the question of depopulation. Now, to re-state, “What do you do?”

There you have it. CO2, vaccines, GMOs, and the rush towards global depopulation; that, in a nutshell (or in a nuthouse) is all you need to know about the New World Order. Oh… that, and that there are actually a large number of VIPs who are in just that position and who really do believe it.

Sleep tight.

*UPDATE*

As if it weren’t already obvious enough, Mother Jones just published this article which states in black and white, and as clear as day that “Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming.” Well, if humans are to blame for global warming, then vaccines are our best weapons against people?!?

From the article:

“A child weakened by measles is more likely to die from the malnutrition caused by climate change.”

This goes to show just how intertwined these narratives have become. The unwind is going to be a lot of fun to watch. This MJ article is full of nonsense, but it does show to what extent these political pseudo-pundits will go to drive their drivel home.

And consider this article from the Toronto Star.

“While this study evaluates climate, social and economic data and consequently its impact on Syria, it is not the first to suggest that extreme weather events — especially droughts, water scarcity and consequently food insecurity — could lead to violence.”

Turkey’s control on the flow of the Euphrates is doing just that. That’s anthropogenic, I guess.

“In 2013, the Centre for American Progress and the Centre for Climate and Security in Washington released a series of essays that argued climate change played a significant role in the Arab Spring.”

Another stunningly short-sighted article by Raveena Aulakh.

More twisted logic, more non-sequitur arguments, and a complete lack of any science in these articles go to show just how important these themes have become to the ‘de-population is more urgent now than ever’ crowd.