Planetary hoaxes

Anyone reading Daily Pickings regularly will be aware of the symbiotic relationship between banking and national intelligence services - bankers' spies have been at the heart of geopolitics for centuries. You will also be aware of the Rothschilds' role in drawing together the levers of power to exert their will over humanity.

Major planetary hoaxes were conducted during the 20th century: the accepted history of the first and second world wars, in which Germany was scapegoated, obscures the role of the banksters in fomenting both. The "good versus evil" narrative was perpetuated long after both wars ended and dominate popular perception, in spite of contrary evidence, now widely available, that Germans were manipulated victims of both wars. In this world of doublespeak, the victims become the aggressors and vice versa. The holocaust narrative was constructed to divert attention from the real culprits, the banksters.

The Bolshevik revolution was similarly orchestrated to cement Rothschilds' power over land and resources and Wall Street funded Trotsky, Lenin et al to bring down another obstacle to global dominance, the Romanov dynasty. Again the role of true aggressors and manipulators of violence has been obscured. But now the evidence is out there for all to see.

The wars of the 21st century have similarly been characterised as good versus evil, whereas, like all wars, they are primarily for the benefit of the banksters.

Finally, when you've divided people, how do you convince them that they are a virus on the planet? That by the act of living and breathing, they are "killing the planet" - global warming, another hoax to hide the real agenda: one world government and two tiered humanity: the ruling and the ruled. But first we need to be persuaded that man-made "climate change" is real.

Orwell's Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change - The Corbett Report
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

The science is settled? Not according to evidence - there is no "consensus" among real climate scientists.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton

We now have access to information which reveals real agendas at play and how we can decentralise power for the benefit of all.


0 #4 Clive Menzies 2017-07-20 13:19
Quoting James Walter:
Thank you, Clive, for ...not shunning me for disagreeing with you on those rare occasions we do disagree!

Dialogue to resolve differences are essential to resolve problems - otherwise we're just talking to those with whom we agree.

Belief and ego close our minds to the “other’s” point of view and we are wont to dismiss their views as wrong or unimportant. If we can suspend our beliefs and suppress our egos sufficiently to engage fully with others and their ideas, we’re on the way to true resonance. Unsurprisingly, truth is the foundation of true resonance; nothing less will do. We need to shed ideology to be able to explore and learn the truth.

Critical Thinking is the synthesis of many voices and yours is one of them. Thank you :-)
0 #3 James Walter 2017-07-18 15:35
Thank you, Clive, for all you do and not shunning me for disagreeing with you on those rare occasions we do disagree!
0 #2 Clive Menzies 2017-07-18 14:12
Quoting James Walter:
You probably have already posted this,

Thanks Jimmy, evidence is always worth repeating, particularly in the face of overwhelming propaganda for the enslavement of humanity.
0 #1 James Walter 2017-07-18 13:57
You probably have already posted this, but: "The "97%" Myth is based on two publications—th e first by Doran and Zimmerman (2000) and a later one by Cook et al. (2013"). The Doran and Zimmerman paper was a University of Illinois master's thesis by Maggie Zimmerman and her thesis advisor, Peter Doran, who claimed that "97% of climate scientists agree" that global warming is caused by rising C02. They sent an Internet survey to 10,257 people working at universities and government agencies and received 3146 replies. Of these, only 5% identified themselves as "climate scientists." Only two questions were asked: (1) "When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remain relatively
constant?" and (2) "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?" Of the 3146 replies, Doran and Zimmerman arbitrarily selected 79 responses, of whom 77 replied "yes." They divided 77 by 79 to get 97%, which was then elevated to "97% of all scientists" by various proponents of C02. The proper number should have been 77 divided by 3146, which equals 2%.
The Cook et al. (2013) paper was based on counting abstracts of climate papers. The authors contended that "Among [4014] abstracts expressing a position of AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 97% endorsed the consensus position humans are causing global warming." However, Legates et al. (2013*) point out that "the author's own analysis shows that only 0.5% of all 11,944 abstracts, and 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts expressing a position, endorsed anthropogenic warming as they had defined it."
Every day, the news media, activists, politicians, and some climate scientists proclaim that 97% of all scientists agree that atmospheric C02 causes global warming and rising C02 will lead to global catastrophes. This claim has been echoed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), various scientific organizations, governments, President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry*, and many others.

(2013") and Bast and Spencer (2014*) conclude "The 97.1% consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon inspection to be not 97.1% but 0.3%. Their claim of 97.1% consensus, therefore, is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation in history."
Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming, Don Easterbrook
Thus, the contention that "97% of all scientists agree that global warming is caused by C02" is simply not true, and those who continue to assert this are either uniformed or perpetuating a false statement. Legates et al.

Please register to post comments