by Jon Rappoport
December 05, 2016
stuffed $98 million into his
while 'saving' the world
warming fraud needs to be killed once and for all,
but don't think that will deter the UN and the
global elite from rushing ahead with Sustainable
The march to
global Technocracy will proceed at full speed unless
we stop it as well.
Donald Trump, climate change and global warming have
come back into the spotlight. In a different way...
"The science is settled" isn't good enough now.
Neither is the Globalist plan to cut energy production in every
country in the world, in order to "rescue us from frying."
"Donald Trump will be about the only
head of state who does not believe in climate science or the
responsibility of his government to act," said Michael Brune,
executive director of
the Sierra Club…
But all along, there have been
dissenters from the manmade warming mantra; they just haven't been
allowed inside government portals.
Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor
emeritus at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the
Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal,
the Fermi Award:
"What has happened in the past 10
years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models]
between what's observed and what's predicted have become much
It's clear now the models are wrong,
but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago…
I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself,
and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate
change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…"
The Register, October 11, 2015
Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize
winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8,
"Global warming is a non-problem… I
say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong.
Green Guru James Lovelock, who
once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global
"The computer models just weren't
reliable. In fact, I'm not sure the whole thing isn't crazy,
this climate change."
(The Guardian, September 30,
And these are but a tiny fraction of the
statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global
The science is only settled in government circles where leaders have
climbed on board the Globalist plan to undermine economies all over
the world by grossly lowering energy production, as a way to "reduce
One of the major warming hustlers is, of course,
Consider facts laid out in an uncritical Washington Post story
(October 10, 2012, "Al
Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor"):
In 2001, Al was worth less than $2
million. By 2012, it was estimated he'd locked up a nice neat
How did he do it...?
Well, he invested in 14 green companies,
who inhaled - via loans, grants and tax relief - somewhere in the
neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the Federal government to go
Therefore, Gore's investments paid off, because the Federal
government was providing massive cash backup to those companies.
It's nice to have Federal friends in high places.
For example, Gore's investment firm at one point held 4.2 million
shares of an outfit called
Iberdrola Renovables, which was
building 20 wind farms across the United States.
Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government
for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate
financial bacon. Every little bit helps.
Then there was a company called
It made batteries, including those for
electric cars. Gore's investment company, Generation Investment
doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost
as little $9 a share. GIM sold when shares cost $21 to $26 - before
the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.
For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson
Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep
by the administration of
On the side, Gore had been giving
speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as
much as $175,000 a pop. (It isn't really on the side. Gore was
constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet
fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.
So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.
The man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming
catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn't
achieve his new status in the free market. The Federal government
has been helping out with major, major bucks.
This wasn't an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts
and hard work. Far from it.
How many scientists and other PhDs
have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global
A letter to The Wall Street Journal
signed by 16 scientists just said no.
Among the 'luminaries':
William Happer, professor of
physics at Princeton University
Richard Lindzen, professor of
atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of
William Kininmonth, former head
of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
And then there was the Global Warming
Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that just said
Petitionproject.org, the petition
has the signatures of "31,487 American scientists," of which 9,029
stated they had 'Ph.D.s.'
Global warming is one of
the Rockefeller Globalists' chief
Manipulating it entails convincing
populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off
the imminent 'collapse' of all life on Earth. Therefore,
sovereign nations must be eradicated.
Political power and decision-making must
flow from above, from "those who are wiser." Al Gore is one of their
He jets here and he jets there, carrying their messages. He's their
delivery kid. And for his work, he is paid $100 million - a drop in
A final note about the "science" of global warming:
A hypothesis is a provisional
statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments.
Confirmation means making a correct prediction. Not just any
prediction, but a useful one.
Take this hypothesis: The Earth has become warmer by X degrees
over the past 1000 years.
Putting all the chatter aside, have scientists deployed this
hypothesis to make accurate, specific, and useful predictions
So far, the answer is no.
That eliminates, for the time being, the acceptance of
the warming hypothesis. Many
predictions have been made, many alarm bells have been rung,
many dire warnings have been issued, many threats have been
launched… but no correct and useful predictions.
However, scientists will say their (rejected) hypothesis is also
a statement of fact. That is, it is a summary of a warming trend
derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and
in the past, on land, sea, and air...
Scientists will also claim their
investigation reveals humans have directly and
significantly contributed to a recent warming trend.
At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and
predicting, and moving to a debate about the accuracy of all those
temperature measurements and the causes of
any actual climate changes.
Among scientists, there is a great deal of disagreement about the
accuracy of the measurements. Any fair examination of studies and
their critics will reveal that.
In this regard, the science is not settled. Far from it...
useless as a hypothesis, the
assertion of manmade warming, as fact, is wide open to debate.
To say the least.
Yet… based on this non-proof, Globalists
want all national governments on the planet to commit to lowering
energy production by a significant and destructive percentage in the
next 15 years - "to 'save us' from a horrible fate."
Their real agenda is clear:
"The only solution to climate change
is a global energy-management network. We (the
Globalist leaders) are in the
best position to manage such a system.
We will allocate mandated energy-use
levels throughout planet Earth, region by region, nation by
nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen."
Yes, citizen by citizen... This
is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists' Holy Grail.
Slavery imposed through energy...