Before you begin...
As you’ve probably already heard, Donald Trump has chosen to exit the Paris climate agreement that would commence in the year 2020.
Just to make it clear, Collective Evolution does not deny climate change. We do believe, however, that more factors play into the equation than human activity, and that there is a lot of corrupt science behind the phenomenon. Other factors include solar activity and natural climate cycles, among others. There is more information on that later in the article.
--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.
Regardless, our ways are destroying our environment, damaging our health, and eradicating entire species. This is the biggest issue. There is no excuse not to implement new energy technologies. Fossil fuels are done and have been for a long time.
The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.
Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.
He pointed out that the “Green Climate Fund” made under the accord will cost the United States 100-500 billion dollars per year, while at the same time decreasing millions of jobs, throwing even more people into poverty and forcing them to pay even more taxes.
He cited the National Economic Research Associates’ estimate of approximately 3 million jobs lost by 2025, and 3 trillion dollars lost in GDP.
So, as you can see, he is trying to tell people that the United States, as a result of this agreement, would come closer and closer to an economic collapse. This is reminiscent of the Australian Prime Minister’s Chief Business Adviser’s assertion that climate change is a “ruse” led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency’s control, and pose even more restrictions on the global citizenry — a statement that coincided with a visit from the UN’s top climate negotiator.
Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, claims that the UN is using false models that show sustained temperature increases in order to impose authoritarian rule and end democracy:
It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. . . . The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. (source)
Trump also alluded to this point:
Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.
He then pointed to the fact that China can do whatever they want for 13 years, and are free from the restrictions imposed on the U.S. He also highlighted how other countries’ participation is contingent on receiving billions and billions of foreign aid.
Now, you might be thinking, how can Donald Trump claim to care about the environment when he just slashed so much funding from the EPA? Well, what about the revolving door between the EPA and the corporations they’re connected to? What about the fact that it’s been shown that these government agencies manipulate media and science press?
What about the fact that multiple editors in chiefs of major peer-reviewed scientific journals have been telling us that half of the literature is false? You can read more about that here and examine those sources for yourself.
Agencies like the EPA have been approving products that’ve been known to cause cancer, like glyphosate, cosmetics, and common household products, for decades. This has been done through a lot of fraudulent science. For example, the fact that glyphosate is linked to cancer has been known for decades, and publications revealing this fact have been coming out for years, yet only recently has this issue begun gaining traction.
You can read more about that here and examine the sources.
A great example of scientific fraud regarding GMOs was actually uncovered via a federal lawsuit by lawyer Steven Druker, who also published a book about it.
Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and professor emeritus of genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” piece and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.”
You can read more about that here.
Trump went on to emphasize that, “This agreement is less about the climate, and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.” You can read more about that here.
He also pointed out:
Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.
Trump does not believe he should sacrifice the American economy, jobs, and more money for virtually no gain.
Closer to the end of the speech, he brought up clean energy, promising the citizens that “the United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth. . . . We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work . . . we’re going to grow rapidly.”
He then mentioned that he is willing and able to negotiate with democratic leaders to enter back into the Paris agreement under terms that are fair to the U.S. and don’t harm American citizens and taxpayers.
After this, he again emphasizes the politicization of science:
The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement: It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States.
We saw the same thing in United States with regards to GMO approval, as shown from various sources, including Wikileaks. See here.
“The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.”
Trump is trying to tell the world that this agreement is not about climate change, but about politics and science. And he’s not the only one to do so, as you can see later in the article.
It’s not hard to believe, especially given the fact that for years we’ve watched the elite gather and discuss solutions without any action. Nothing has changed, and now when they do take action, it will have little impact on the problem and benefit the “1 percent” even more.
Again, the Green Climate Fund would require America to send up to half a trillion dollars a year to developing countries.
He also said that “nobody even knows where the money is going to.”
He closed his speech by making reference to the environment again, saying that it’s time for the world to pursue a new deal, one that actually does protect the environment.
Below you can watch the full conference below.
The Politicization of Climate Science
Despite the mainstream media narrative continually dishing out the idea that the science is solid, and that 90% of scientists agree, research paints a different picture. There are many who don’t, so why doesn’t mainstream media ever provide a source for that statistic?
Who are these scientists that oppose the politicization of climate science? There are many, and I’ll mention a couple here as I have before in the past.
“The problem we haven now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” (source)
The above quote comes from Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and winner of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction. Bengtsson, along with four of the world’s top climate scientists, recently had his research rejected for suggesting that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC. He was appalled that a paper might not be published based on political grounds alone, stating that “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.” (source)
As expected, he came under fire, despite the fact that many scientists echoed his sentiments in support, including a former senior member of the UN’s climate change advisory board, Mike Hulme. Hulme is currently a professor of climate and culture at King’s College London. (source)
Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, former president of the Royal Meteorological society, and a fellow of the Royal Society, has done the same. (source)
These are just a few of many experts with very impressive backgrounds in the field who have spoken out about this issue.
Senator James Inofhe, chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, provided a list in a congressional hearing of multiple hundreds of scientists bringing this up. (source)
Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.
The quotes below are from the video of Lindzen.
He brings up the corruption, profit, and political aspect of the problem that has infiltrated science. He also explores how fear is being pushed into the population to justify political measures. It kind of reminds me of false flag terrorism, when governments create events to justify the infiltration and invasion of other countries to establish a new government that serves their own interests.
“How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate, for an understanding of how climate actually works, and instead, devoted itself to supporting a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on.”
“Has anything happened that in fact rendered things like climate science vulnerable to corruption? . . . I won’t even bother dwelling on the specifics, climategate made clear that you had the suppression of different views, the intimidation of editors, the falsification of data, despite claims that the perpetrators have been exonerated. The emails are available for anyone to look at, they will speak for themselves. My personal feeling is that the writers of the emails were more the beneficiaries of the ultimate corruption, and defending their status that arose from their corruption rather than the sources of it.”
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
3 Million Masks a Minute: The Next Plastic Problem?
- The Facts:
Studies estimate worldwide humans are using 129 billion face masks each month. Most masks are disposable, made from plastic microfibers that are not biodegradable and may fragment into smaller plastic particles polluting ecosystems.
- Reflect On:
What's the solution to the words plastic pollution problems? Why do we even use it when there are so many other biodegradable substances we can use? Why has plastic not been banned worldwide?
Before you begin...
The high demand for face masks since the coronavirus pandemic began has resulted in the production of billions of disposable masks — with no way to properly dispose of them.
Recent studies estimate that worldwide, humans are using 129 billion face masks each month — about 3 million a minute. Most of them are disposable face masks made from plastic, non-biodegradable microfibers that break down into smaller plastic particles — micro- and nanoplastics — that become widespread in ecosystems.
The World Health Organization says an estimated 89 million medical masks are required for the COVID response each month, a trend likely to persist for some time.
At the start of the outbreak, U.S. officials estimated the country would need 300 million face masks to cope with the pandemic in 2020. U.S. manufacturer 3M made 550 million masks in 2019 and plans to produce 2 billion this year as long as the pandemic lasts.
“The enormous production of disposable masks is on a similar scale as plastic bottles, which is estimated to be 43 billion per month,”said environmental toxicologist Elvis Genbo Xu from the University of Southern Denmark, and professor Zhiyong Jason Ren, an expert in civil and environmental engineering at Princeton University. “But unlike plastic bottles, there is no way to recycle face masks, making them more likely to be disposed of in inappropriate ways.”
Common surgical masks have three layers: an outer layer with non-absorbent fibrous material (like polyester) that protects against liquid splashes, a middle layer with non-woven fabrics (like polypropylene and polystyrene) created using a meltblown process which prevents droplets and aerosols via an electrostatic effect, and an inner layer made of absorbent material like cotton to absorb vapor.
Masks contain many polymers, including fabric polypropylene. Polypropylene is one of the most commonly produced plastics and does not easily break down. Weathering from solar radiation and heat cause polypropylene to generate a large number of micro-sized polypropylene particles and nanoplastics.
Disposable face masks are made directly from microsized plastic fibers, which release plastic particles easier and faster than bulk plastics like plastic bags. A newer generation of masks, called nanomasks, releases even smaller particles creating a new source of nanoplastic pollution, according to the University of Southern Denmark.
Like other plastic debris, “disposable masks may accumulate and release harmful chemical and biological substances, such as bisphenol A, heavy metals and pathogenic microorganisms,” according to Xu and Ren. Some of the toxic chemicals released during degradation of plastic polymers include phthalates, organotin, nonylphenol, polybrominated biphenyl ether and triclosan.
The impacts of plastic as a solid waste and microplastics contamination in the environment have been investigated, validated and demonstrated by different researchers in various publications, according to a study in Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Face masks get into the environment when disposed in landfills and dumpsites or littered in public spaces. They then make their way into lakes, rivers and oceans, breaking down into plastic particles within a few weeks.
In the years prior to the pandemic, environmentalists warned about skyrocketing plastic pollution and its threat to oceans and marine life. As much as 13 million tons of plastic ends up in our oceans every year, according to a 2018 estimate by UN Environment.
According to a report by OceanAsia, roughly 52 billion face masks were manufactured in 2020 to meet the demand of the coronavirus pandemic and 1.56 billion were estimated to have entered the ocean, resulting in 4,680 to 6,240 metric tonnes of face masks. These masks take as long as 450 years to completely break down –– slowly turning into microplastics that negatively affect marine wildlife and ecosystems.
The environmental research community needs to move faster to understand and mitigate these risks, said researchers Xu and Ren. They proposed the following for dealing with the problem:
- Set up mask-only trash cans for collection and disposal. Do not put masks in the recycling.
- Consider standardization, guidelines and strict implementation of waste management for mask wastes.
- Replace disposable masks with reusable face masks like cotton masks.
- Develop biodegradable disposal masks with materials that are safe.
Article written by Megan Redshaw, a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Zimbabwe Man Invents An Electric System That Charges Itself
- The Facts:
Sangulani (Maxwell) Chikumbutso has invented an electric system that runs off a battery. The unique thing is the battery charges itself with electromagnetic radiation that's present naturally in the environment. It can run forever.
- Reflect On:
Why do these technologies never see the light of day? Why are they usually ridiculed and brushed off as fake? What would the implications be if this technology was released to the world?
Before you begin...
A few years ago multiple media outlets began to report a new development designed by a man from Zimbabwe named Sangulani (Maxwell) Chikumbutso, who claimed to have successfully created an electric powered vehicle and system which runs on a battery that has the ability to charge itself, making it the first ever electric vehicle that never needs charging.
According to Maxwell’s claims, the energy to power the battery is taken from electromagnetic waves that exist all around us and are naturally present in our environment. The vehicle had 5 normal gel batteries which were sufficient enough to start the vehicle and charge the batteries, and from there on in, the batteries are constantly charging.
His story and developments began to make noise. For example, SABC News, a major news station owned by the South African Broadcasting Corporation picked up the story and relayed it to their viewers.
According to the Zambian Observer,
“The United States government has given Zimbabwe’s prolific inventor Maxwell Chikumbutso a new home in its populous state of California. Chikumbutso is the founder of Saith Holdings Inc. under which he made headlines for his serial innovations which include the world’s first ever green power generator which can produce electricity using radio frequencies, an electric powered car which doesn’t consume fuel, a fuelled helicopter and many more.”
When this story broke, a number of “fact-checkers” simply labelled it as false without any investigation. When I first saw this I thought to myself, why would multiple media outlets cover the story, film it and present it to the entire country if it was fake? And why did fact checkers simply label the story as false from the armchairs of their offices without providing any evidence showing that it was?
Despite fact-checkers labelling this information as false without any investigation, new energy enthusiasts and makers of one of the most viewed documentaries in human history, THRIVE: What on Earth Will It Take, Foster Gamble and Kimberly Carter Gamble decided to actually go to Zimbabwe and vet the technology for themselves. Since Foster has been looking into and studying new energy technologies for more than 30 years, this was both an exciting moment but one filled with careful consideration, as the vast majority of claims like this are in fact false.
The Thrive team met Maxwell when they landed, and quickly sensed that Maxwell was a good hearted soul who has the desire the change the world. But did his technology truly work? The next morning, Maxwell took them to see a device, which uses the same technology behind the electric car mentioned above. The unit shown in the video clip below is ample enough to power 300 homes, continuously, forever. Likely with maintenance of course. Think about the implications of that…
The full story and more is covered in their new film, Thrive II: This Is What It Takes. You can see a brief clip from THRIVE II below and Foster and Kimberly’s interaction with Maxwell.
In the film, Chikumbutso explains:
One of the painful realities I have seen in energy is this is a very dangerous game all together. Yeah, especially free energy, because you know they can try to kill it – using professional people and that has happened to me…I went through a lot, poisons, like I’m saying right now, I’m fighting it. They come to you then they say, No, you mustn’t do this.” When they see you’re not giving up, then they can just frame you, then they can so no, you’ve done ABC.” My prayer is this thing must see the light of day.
As far as those “fact checkers” go. As I mentioned above they simply labelled this development as false. For example, PolitiFact explained that “Three years ago, a man at a one-day event touted “inventions,” including a car that defies the laws of physics. Since 2015, his story has only found a home on false news blogs and conspiracy sites.”
Snopes did the same, also mentioning our article that was publishing covering the story:
On 25 April 2018, the conspiracy oriented, reality-adjacent website Collective Evolution picked up the story once again, this time citing the aforementioned Zambian Observer story and the 2015 video of that same event from South African television. As is often the case with Collective Evolution articles, the claims made there have been cloned and regurgitated ad infinitum by other dubious clickbait sites.
Again, there is absolutely no evidence or investigation by these fact checkers to vet the technology, and the common theme used to try and debunk Chikumbutso is that his invention breaks the laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics to be exact, because it produces more energy than is put into the device. They also use ridicule to support their narrative.
We here at Collective Evolution would argue that the device does not at all break the laws of physics, and that the law is not well understood, or needs to be revised. Furthermore, if there’s one thing constant about physics it’s change.
Take, for example, prominent physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in the year 1900 that, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
It wasn’t long after this statement when Einstein published his paper on special relativity. Einstein’s theories challenged the accepted framework of knowledge at the time, and forced the scientific community to open up to an alternate view of reality.
It serves as a great example of how concepts that are taken to be absolute truth are susceptible to change. It’s also important to mention that if these fact-checkers actually did some investigation into this case, they would have a different opinion. How come fact checkers have the ability to label something as false without any actual investigation?
That’s why people like Foster and Kimberly are so important.
In fact, there are multiple inventions out there that appear to break the second law of thermodynamics which have received absolutely no attention. For example, renowned inventor and engineer Paramahamsa Tewari developed an electrical generator that put out more power than it takes in, achieving over-unity efficiency. He published a paper in Physics Essays titled “Structural relation between the vacuum space and the electron” in 2018 before he passed. The paper explains the concepts behind the make-up of what we perceive to be our physical material world, the concepts in there explain the the thoughts behind his generator. You can view a video of the generator here, and read more about it in an article I dive deeper about it, here.
Concluding Remarks: The fact that these technologies, and similar technologies that can provide “free energy” to the planet exist is very exciting. We here at Collective Evolution have also had the privilege of seeing some of these technologies with our own eyes, and it’s quite unfortunate that they always come under such a harsh resistance. What does that tell you about our world and the underlying stories that navigate our current thinking? The fact is, new energy technologies like the one mentioned in this article have the ability to completely collapse the biggest energy companies in the world. Just because this is true, does not mean we should not approach the conversation and determine how we can implement them and perhaps create further adjustments in our society along the way.
I started to examine the breakthrough solutions, and much to my surprise, these concepts have been proven in hundreds of laboratories throughout the world, and yet they have not really seen the light of day. If the new energy technologies were to be set free worldwide, the change be profound, it would affect everybody, it would be applicable everywhere. These technologies are absolutely the most important thing that’s happened in the history of the world. – Dr Brian O’Leary, Former NASA Astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor
Professor Emeritus at the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire. He outlined the importance of these concepts in his paper titled Space and Terrestrial Transportation and Energy Technologies For The 21st Century.
There is significant evidence that scientists since Tesla have known about this energy, but that its existence and potential use has been discouraged and indeed suppressed over the past half century or more. – Dr. Theodor C. Loder, III (source)
Imagine a planet where we live in transparency and all developments are made public. Why does something that threatens power have to be kept a secret? Why is the excuse always to protect “national security.” Why is our planet like this, and why are we accepting and choosing to live the way we do when we have the potential to do so much better?
Of course, energy is a huge part of our existing economy, and thus it’s easy to see how disrupting energy is disrupting the entire economy. We would lose jobs, industries etc. Our progress as a species is held back by our love affair with our current ways of thinking and economy, even when it creates a world that is slowly destroying itself. So what’s the solution then? Transparent discussion ad a new conversation. We must begin realizing what it is that truly holds back these technologies, and it isn’t as simple as saying ‘the elite’ or ‘the deep state.’ It’s our ways of thinking and being, our collective story.
We talk about this in great detail in an interview with someone who has been working in the ‘new energy’ space for many years. Dive into this important conversation on CETV here.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Half a Million Sharks Could Be Killed to Make COVID-19 Vaccine
Before you begin...
Drug maker GlaxoSmithKline may need to slaughter half a million sharks to harvest squalene, an oil made in shark livers, to make a new line of COVID jabs. Glaxo mixes squalene with a witches’ brew of proprietary surfactants to produce its controversial AS03 vaccine adjuvant. Adjuvants are compounds that amplify immune response to hyperstimulate the immune system. They are associated with a variety of autoimmune diseases.
Scientific studies have linked squalene adjuvants to Gulf War syndrome and to a wave of debilitating neurological disorders including epidemics of narcolepsy caused by Glaxo’s H1N1 Pandemrix vaccine during the 2009 swine flu “pandemic.” One study showed a 13-fold increased risk of narcolepsy in children who received Pandemrix.
The devastating cascade of brain injuries to children and health care workers forced the termination of that Glaxo vaccine after European governments used only a small fraction of the jabs they had purchased from Glaxo. A recent study links squalene to carcinomas. In a bizarre and reckless twist, Glaxo has revived the dangerous adjuvant as its hall pass to the COVID-19 money orgy.
The company said it would manufacture a billion doses of this adjuvant for potential use in coronavirus vaccines. Around 3,000 sharks are needed to extract one ton of squalene.
Shark Allies, a California-based group, said Glaxo will kill around 250,000 sharks to make enough AS03 for the world’s population to receive one dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. If, as expected, two doses are needed, half a million sharks must die.
Glaxo declared that it would be producing 1 billion doses of AS03 “to support the development of multiple adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine candidates.”
Glaxo has developed partnerships with multiple companies, including its behemoth rival Sanofi, China’s Clover Biopharmaceuticals and Innovax Biotech in the city of Xiamen. Glaxo has also agreed to make the technology available to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations for COVID vaccines in Australia and elsewhere. Glaxo said it is focusing on what it considers a “proven technology” that will give the company “several shots on goal.”
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Water Fluoridation Chemicals Now Officially Linked To Brain Harm & Cognitive Deficits
A few weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was served with a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) petition, from...
How Some of the World’s Elite Use Black Magic Rituals To Conjure Up Entities For More Power
“The underlying, primary psychic reality is so inconceivably complex that it can be grasped only at the farthest reach of...