Connect with us

Alternative News

97% of Scientists Don’t Agree On The Cause of Climate Change, But They Do Agree On Some Things

Published

on

unsplash-logoRoxanne Desgagnés

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The notion that the planet is warming at an alarming rate due to an increase in man-made CO2 emissions is not nearly as proven by real science as the politicians, lobbyists, and activists would have you believe.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we recognize the patterns used in consensus-building and perception-building of global issues to help us discern between truth and deception?

I believe that it is now a firmly established fact that Western Industrialization has been harmful to the planet. Ecosystems have been disrupted, species have become extinct, soil has been degraded, and our water and air have become polluted in ways that we know for certain are harmful to human life and to life on the planet in general.

advertisement - learn more

Human beings of conscience have long petitioned our leaders to make changes, and in the obvious absence of any meaningful actions on the part of our governments and industries to stem the tide of pollution and degradation, our planet has continued to suffer.

The impact of Western Industrialization on ‘climate change’ is a bit of a different animal. Since Al Gore’s presentation of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ back in 2006, the argument was made that Western Industrialization through the use of fossil fuels was creating a “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere and, if nothing was done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions–and most importantly CO2 emissions–then the planet would experience cataclysmic disasters threatening all forms of life on the planet.

Naturally, many people of conscience applauded the revelations and vowed to support initiatives that sought to reduce carbon emissions in our society. The only problem–and it still remains today–is that there is no way of proving that increased CO2 levels cause global warming.

With all the proven and clearly demonstrable negative environmental effects of Western Industrialization, we should be looking with a Spockian eyebrow into why it is only CO2 emissions that continues to get the lion’s share of attention from politicians, activists, and lobby groups. It would also be helpful to examine why these groups try to convince us of the virtual certainty that CO2 is the culprit of our climate woes, and dismiss any alternative views as coming from ‘deniers.’

The 97% Line

The famed line that ‘97% of Climate scientists agree that Climate Change is real’ is often bandied about in mainstream discourse by those with an agenda to hit the fossil fuel industry (and as a consequence, the general public) with a carbon tax or a global emissions trading scheme.

advertisement - learn more

Let’s put aside the question as to whether the 97% figure was arrived at by using biased statistical methods, and just focus on the statement itself. Its supreme vagueness makes it difficult to discount–by design. When it speaks of ‘Climate Change’ is it to be taken literally (i.e. that the climate changes over time)? If so, then one could probably not argue the obvious, and expect that 100% of scientists would agree. Climate Change itself is observable and has been recorded throughout our history. There are warming trends and cooling trends over long periods of time.

The phrase that used to be used was ‘Global Warming,’ however in recent years some small but clear signs of a cooling trend have made the term ‘Global Warming’ too easily negated, so the switch was made to ‘Climate Change.’

But what the ‘97% phrase’ literally means is not as important as what proponents of carbon reduction schemes want the public to think it means: They want you to think it means that 97% of scientists believe that the scientific evidence PROVES that CO2 emissions are the MAIN cause of Global Warming (a.k.a. ‘Climate Change’). The honest truth is–scientists DON’T KNOW.

What The Science Really Tells Us

We are led to believe that there are only two groups of scientists, two ‘camps’. One is the group of scientists who believe that CO2 emissions are the MAIN cause of Global Warming, while the other group doesn’t believe that CO2 emissions cause Global Warming. The latter group is labeled ‘Climate Deniers’ (again, a meaningless, pejorative term that literally means that some scientists don’t believe in climate).

In actual fact, the vast majority of climate experts, actual scientists who conduct the studies and analyses, fit somewhere in a very ‘inconvenient’ camp in the middle and see trends, signs, and a host of broad correlations across many variables, but recognize that they don’t have the ability to certify whether or not CO2 or even greenhouse gases as a whole have a significant impact on Global Warming. And we don’t have to cherry-pick our justification for saying this from so-called ‘climate deniers’ either. We can go straight to the documentation of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of scientists which the United Nations brought together to essentially find scientific backing for the idea that mankind and our current dependence on fossil fuels is causing the planet to warm at such an accelerated rate as to threaten human existence.

In the IPCC documents we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, in their findings entitled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

In other words, there is no way of doing ‘experiments’ within this system in which the effects of CO2 are isolated and measured. There is no way to create a simulation of our climate and study the impact of CO2 on climate under laboratory conditions. The suggestion here is that the best that can be done is to create a host of different models based on parameterizing the variables and then creating a probability distribution of projections of the weather going forward. In other words, a weak ‘maybe’ is the best that science can actually produce with the climate system in terms of the effects of rising man-made CO2 levels.

Nonetheless, the models used by the United Nations ALL have the built-in bias that rising CO2 levels have a significant impact on warming. And as a consequence, theses models have  predicted a far greater warming of the planet than is actually occurring year after year.

If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

  1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
  2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
  3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:

  1. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

No evidence was supplied for that conclusion. Nothing in the studies supported that statement. No studies were designed specifically to investigate cause, because this is not possible. Only observational studies showing correlation are available as sources. In other words, when we look into the SCIENCE, there is no direct evidence that CO2 causes global warming. In fact, there are no studies that CAN BE DONE THAT WOULD BE CAPABLE OF ESTABLISHING A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP.

Breaking Down The Agenda

In our latest episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, Joe and I dig deep into the science and break down the agenda behind the carbon tax and the related carbon emissions trading scheme. What becomes clear in our overall discussion is that the conclusions of scientists are not really getting out to the general public. All efforts are geared to try to make people believe that human activity through the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming, and that the science behind this is solid and well-established, even though it isn’t. If you haven’t signed up already for CETV, go here so you can get access to the full discussion.

The Takeaway

This article does not take sides on the issue of Climate Change as such. I personally don’t know if CO2 has an effect on Climate Change, and if it does, what the extent of that effect is. When we really look into the science, we observe that it can give us an approximation at best, with probabilistic computer models based on observations of the past which, so far, have proven to be wildly inaccurate due to an undue expectation of the impact of CO2 on Climate Change.

What the article does point out, though, is a familiar pattern that we see again and again in global economic policy: Where there is money to be made by powerful people and groups, there will be extreme pressure brought to bear on a certain conclusion about what’s scientifically true and what actions need to be taken, where science is used as a pawn in these geopolitical and global economic power moves. Coming to recognize these patterns is an important part of discerning truth from deception, which empowers us to create real solutions for the world’s problems.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Al Sharpton Cancels NYC ‘Vaccine Forum’ Amid Pressure From Physicians – But It’s Happening Anyway

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Amid pressure from scientists and physicians, Al Sharpton cancels vaccine forum event aimed at educating the public about potential vaccine dangers. But the event is still on in a new location!

  • Reflect On:

    Why such a concerted effort from the establishment to shut down public events aimed at educating people about safety concerns regarding vaccines? If there was nothing to hide, why shut them down so aggressively?

The Rev. Al Sharpton and the National Action Network were set to host a “vaccine forum” on Oct 19th, 2019 in Harlem that would feature speakers focused on raising awareness about vaccine injuries and lack of vaccine safety.

The event was going to take place at National Action Network’s headquarters on 145th Street, and Sharpton was slated to welcome guests, alongside Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is currently suing New York State for removing the option for parents to exercise religious exemptions to vaccines.

After the event was shut down at NAN due to pressure from prominent vaccine supporters, the location was moved to an Assembly Hall at Riverside Church. (More details below.)

Dr. Peter Hotez, who has refused to publicly debate Robert F Kennedy Jr on the matters of vaccine safety, was one of the individuals trying to shut down the event. When speaking of Sharpton he stated:

“His organization should not be hosting this event,” he said. “He should not be appearing at this event. This is an event which is intended to deliberately work towards depriving kids in Harlem of their life-saving vaccines and to make parents question the safety of those vaccines.”

Not all share Hotez’s opinion that vaccines are a safe, one size fits all pharmaceutical. And there is much evidence to support those doubts. Hence why the vaccine awareness movement is rapidly growing, it’s evidence based and that’s becoming more obvious as each day goes by.

advertisement - learn more

If there was no evidence vaccines come with serious dangers, this argument would have died out years ago. Take for example the resurgence of topics like flat earth, it had celebrity backing and was an internet phenomenon, but it died off quickly as there simply is no evidence to support the idea. With vaccines, it’s much different. More and more prominent, credible and credentialed individuals are joining the movement because the evidence continues to mount. Their goal is to assess vaccine safety and stop government from trying to force vaccines on everyone due to pharmaceutical pressures.

Dr. Sean O’Leary with the American Academy of Pediatrics also outspoken about the event:

“Just when we get done with the measles outbreak, actions like this threaten the public’s health by starting another measles outbreak, […] Here, in another part of New York City, we have folks ready to go into a community and spread more misinformation and pseudoscience.”

Again, more misinformed and opinionated statements from individuals that perhaps are simply not attempting to see the truth or who are pressured not to speak the truth. The body of evidence that expresses the lack of vaccine safety is vast. For example, a pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in 39 kids are injured by vaccines in some way, contrary to the estimate put forth by the CDC that suggests 1 in a million are injured –  that’s quite the gap.

It brings up the question, if there is nothing to hide in the actions of pharmaceutical companies, why are they protected by laws from ever being sued for vaccine injuries and harm? Why are public debates on the issue always cancelled? Why does the media work so hard to turn people to question things into ‘antivaxxers?’ Why do we (CE) had our reach limited on Facebook and receive ‘fake news’ strikes every time we report on vaccines? – even when the information is completely fact based…

Because there is something to hide here. If there was nothing to hide, big pharma and their control over congress, government, media, some scientists and doctors would not be working so hard to shut down people who have figured out the truth.

“It is a grave warning sign for American democracy that the pharmaceutical industry is now so powerful that it can silence debate, even in the traditional heart of civil rights activism” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

If you are in the New York area, you can attend this free public event to understand more about vaccines safety on October 19th,  2019.

Speakers include: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; Sheila Ealey; John Gilmore; Dr. Phil Valentine; Curtis Cost; Dr. Lawrence Palevsky; Reverend Walter Sotelo; Mary Holland; Gary Null; Mitchel Cohen; and many more.

The event time and location is as follows:

Saturday, October 19th, 1:00-4:0 p.m.
Assembly Hall at Riverside Church
91 Claremont Avenue, New York, NY

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Tulsi Gabbard Just Called Hillary Clinton The “Embodiment Of Corruption” And Much More

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Hillary Clinton just referred to Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset in an interview. Tulsi comes back at her on Twitter, exposing the true face of Clinton.

  • Reflect On:

    Is it not important we have more public conversations about the true nature of the politicians we vote for?

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently suggested that she thinks Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, is being “groomed” by Russia to run as a third-party candidate in 2020. Of course, she supplied no evidence of this, but using “Russia” in any sentence in the US is a sure-fire way of striking fear in people about someone.

In an interview with David Plouff, Obama’s former campaign manager, Clinton said:

“They’re also going to do third-party again, “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

Again, step out of part politics for a second, are we really going to pretend this is about parties and not the global elite being upset at someone who’s ruining their show? Think about it, Clinton used Facebook, Google, YouTube and almost every media outlet in the US to manipulate the public into thinking she was a viable candidate. Trump was keen to use social media, and played the role of causing drama, but at least he was transparent about it. Clinton on the other hand, is precisely what Gabbard stated about her in a follow-up Tweet to Clinton’s remarks.

When it comes to the US’ involvement in war, which Gabbard has been rightly critical about, she has also said that Trump “has the blood of the Kurds on his hands” but explained that she holds both parties responsible for supporting what she described as a “regime-change war.” Accurately seeing that this is not about parties but about deep state agendas.

The Takeaway

As we often say in step 1 of The CE Protocol, we have to break the illusion of the world around us. Events like this indicate that there is a greater desire for people to speak up and expose what many people have known for a long time but has never received the attention it deserves. Gabbard in this case is helping the American public see more clearly the true nature of some of the politicians at play and the actions they take.

When we learn to see these actions more clearly we can call into question whether or not our voting processes or systems are truly representative of what people want or whether they are just there to tell a story to the people – one that isn’t true – so money and power can be made and maintained at the elite level.

Needing to have open and public conversations about this type of stuff, moving beyond the mainstream media created celebrity status of various candidates, is important so that people can begin to see the truth – see the person behind the mask. This is partly what people see with Trump, the truth of what politicians look like, act like and where their agendas lie. It’s all laid bare. Whether or not you agree or disagree with it is up to you to decide, because at least now it can be seen clearly. Especially if you avoid mainstream media’s coverage of it.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

This is Not A Movie, It’s October 1st, 2019 In Hong Kong

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Protests in Hong Kong rose to many tense moments over the past few months. This video footage shows clashes between riot police and protesters on Kowloon’s Nathan Road.

  • Reflect On:

    Have people reached a breaking point when it comes to how often they are not heard by governments?

In the video below, what looks like a Hollywood movie is the reality just a couple of weeks ago in Hong Kong. Riot police and protesters have been clashing for months as the streets become filled with hundreds of tear gas canisters and Molotov cocktails. Having covered the G20 summit in Toronto, these scenes appear much more tense than what I saw during those protests, and even those were filled with vandalism, pepper spray, burning cars and rubber bullets.

We’ve covered the Hong Kong protests a couple of times here on CE, including a full segment on CETV here.

There are obviously two perspectives as to what is going on, the Mainland China perspective and that of the Hong Kong protesters who feel Mainland China is acting wrongly. From the perspective of Mainland China, the protests in Hong Kong are fundamentally the result of Western interference and attempts at a ‘soft recolonization’ of Hong Kong. Their arguments have some merit.

From the Hongkongers perspective,  tensions rose after the introduction of an extradition bill that threatened residents’ freedoms. Protesters are demanding Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam resigns. They are also calling for:

  • The complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill
  • The government to withdraw the use of the word “riot” in relation to protests
  • The unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped
  • An independent inquiry into police behaviour
  • Implementation of genuine universal suffrage

As with many things people are feeling at the moment, big government has been overreaching for quite some time, and freedoms continue to be cut while quality of life in our fast-paced modern society diminishes. What we must remember when viewing these issues is we can’t singularly look at each one and determine whether it’s right or wrong so easily. People are exposed to ‘hits’ from every direction to their wallets, freedom, health, lifestyle and psyche and our world is reflecting the feeling that ‘enough is enough.’

Since much of the time we aren’t sure what else to do, people fight back, they do what they think will lead them to being heard and having a solution brought forth. is this the best way forward? Perhaps not, but when it becomes clear to people that their governments and the voting process do not work in their benefit nor favor, this is sometimes what they revert to.

advertisement - learn more

Video credit: Tom Grundy/HKFP

More at http://www.hongkongfp.com – Hong Kong’s only not-for-profit, independent English-language news source.

H/T: Twisted Sifter

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!