- The Facts:
In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the authority of global warming. Why would they do this? Are these people really concerned about our planet or simply profiting and justifying heightened states of security for ulterior motives?
- Reflect On:
Why are there so many brilliant scientists publishing papers and making points but are never given any attention? Why are they ridiculed and character assassinated by the mainstream? What is going on here?
Before you begin...
New Related Article: Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make a Killing off it.
The climate is changing, and it has been changing for a very long time. In fact, the climate has always been changing, and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more. If you’re not educated on climate science, it’s easy to adopt the “doomsday” perspective that’s often dished out by mainstream media. However, when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying, it doesn’t seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media’s “climate hysteria” narrative.
--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!
The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been since we started to record them, currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million (ppm). It’s not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that CO2 causes some warming of our atmosphere, that seems to be a fact that’s firmly established in scientific literature. But what’s never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now; in fact, CO2 levels have been in thousands ppm and Earth’s temperature has been much warmer than it is now. The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in the climate is not scientifically valid, yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward, putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.
“Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.” – Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State (source)
CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument, but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase, or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?
“The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?” – Dr. Tim Ball, (source) former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg
William Happer, American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:
In every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that. (source)
He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth’s past when C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now, and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is “not all that good.”
In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999), they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years, but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other, but offer no explanation. The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts. At the onset of glaciations, temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall, suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.
In 1988, the NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels. Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.
The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector. One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were also involved as early as the 1970s. – Dr. Richard Lindzen (source)
Since 1999, this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers, but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes ‘extreme warming.’
Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all. Lindzen (source)
Another quote stressing this point:
Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control. Lindzen (source)
The quotes above comes from Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change (the organization that’s pushing the global warming and climate change agenda).
A number of times, Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians, not scientists. There will be more on that later in the article.
According to Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist:
The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causing ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…(source)
In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, specifically in their findings titled ‘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.
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:
- “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.”
- “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
- “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:
- “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
Here’s another great point made by Lindzen:
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 itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on. (source)
Below are some more comments by him regarding the politics of climate science. It’s something I compare to the politicization of medical science and the corporate takeover of medical science by big pharma. Medicine is another area where we see brilliant minds creating awareness and publishing papers that, for some reason, get ridiculed and the authors are subjected to character assassination.
The 97 Percent Claim
The mainstream media and people who support the idea that humans are warming the planet often quote the fact that ’97 percent of scientists agree with them.’ First of all, this is not true, and again, we don’t know if humans are warming the planet.
“This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons.” – Richard Lindzen, from his paper “Straight Talk About Climate Change,” where he goes into greater detail.
This is a deep topic and there are many points to make. Here’s a great video by Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University, explaining the 97 percent myth and where it came from.
Below is a video from Lindzen that sums up the issue quite well.
The Other Side of The Coin
A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters claimed that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the ‘humans changing the climate’ narrative in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Not long ago, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics (as Lindzen mentions above, many of these papers are being published by scientists outside of climate physics), according to the authors.
A recent article that presents more scientific studies was published in the Guardian, titled ‘No Doubt Left About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, say experts.’
Why So Much Conflicting Information?
Obviously, there is an ongoing debate surrounding climate change, and many people still think something fishy is going on here. It’s similar to the vaccines argument, or a host of other issues that never receive any attention from the mainstream media. Instead of presenting the concerns of scientists from the other side, or the side often labelled ‘skeptics,’ these scientists are often heavily ridiculed by mainstream media.
A great example is this dialogue, which is quite old now, between Lindzen and Bill Nye. It’s not hard to see that Nye has no idea what he is talking about, and he’s simply being used because, at that time, he had a large following.
The reason why so many people are unaware of the arguments made by climate ‘skeptics’ is because their points are never presented by mainstream media in the same way the other side’s are. The media controls the minds of the masses, but thankfully this is changing.
We Here At CE Care Deeply For The Planet
We here at CE care deeply about our planet and creating harmony on it. Since we were founded in 2009, we’ve been creating massive amounts of awareness regarding clean energy technologies and the harmful industries polluting and destroying our planet. The issue is not with finding solutions, we already have those for the most part, the issue is with the systems we have that prevent these solutions from ever seeing the light of day. In fact, we have been heavily involved with multiple clean energy projects and assisting them in coming into fruition.
Opposing the ‘doom and gloom’ global warming narrative does not mean we do not care for our environment; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We feel that politicians meeting every single year for the past few decades have done absolutely nothing to clean up our planet, and instead have been coming up with ways to simply make money off of green technology that cuts CO2 emissions.
If the people in power, with all of their resources, really wanted to change the planet, it would have happened by now.
While our focus is on CO2, not nearly enough attention and resources are going into re-planting our planet, cleaning up our fresh water lakes and oceans, and changing our manufacturing habits to cause less waste and less pollution. If anything, this should be our main focus, especially when it’s not really clear that C02 is an issue.
Environmental and species protection should be our first priority, but it’s not. I believe this green revolution is a distraction and, in many ways, further harms our environment by taking our focus off of what’s really important and putting it on something that is not impacting our planet in a negative way.
The Rockefeller Report
In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises, we’ve seen it over and over again with war.
What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.
Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?
There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?” – Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa
You can access the full report here. It was published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.
An Example of Other Factors Influencing The Climate – A Coming Ice Age?
Nils-Axel Mörner from the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Institute states,
By about 2030-2040, the Sun will experience a new grand solar minimum. This is evident from multiple studies of quite different characteristics: the phasing of sunspot cycles, the cyclic observations of North Atlantic behaviour over the past millennium, the cyclic pattern of cosmogenic ra-dionuclides in natural terrestrial archives, the motions of the Sun with respect to the centre of mass, the planetary spin-orbit coupling, the planetary conjunction history and the general planetary solar terrestrial interaction. During the previous grand solar minima—i.e. the Spörer Minimum (ca 1440-1460), the Maunder Minimum (ca 1687-1703) and the Dalton Minimum (ca 1809-1821)—the climatic conditions deteriorated into Little Ice Age periods.
The idea that solar activity is not affecting Earth’s climate is extremely fishy and doesn’t make much sense when you go through the literature, but it seems to be brushed off within mainstream academia, and hardly studied. It definitely made me scratch my head when IFL Science, for example, put out a statement saying “The Sun simply does not have that large an effect on our climate compared to human activity.” This is a very ridiculous and irresponsible statement. It’s also important that readers recognize there isn’t even any course to back up such a false claim.
Don’t believe what is written, research what is written. What’s worse is the ridicule factor, the way mainstream publications attack any narrative that presents an explanation for climate change that is not human induced. Something is very wrong with this picture, regardless of your stance on the ‘global warming’ phenomenon. There is more on this later in the article.
The paper by Morner goes on to make some very important points:
So as you can see, the comment from IFL science quoted above, again, is simply not true. I’ve provided one of many sources available here, and I encourage other writers to do the same.
The author goes on to conclude:
During the last three grand solar minima…global climate experienced Little Ice Age conditions. Arctic water penetrated to the south all the way down to Mid-Portugal, and Europe experienced severe climatic conditions…The Arctic ice over expanded significantly…By 2030-2040, we will be in a New Grand Solar Minimum, which by analogy to past minima must be assumed to lead to significant climatic deterioration with ice expansion in the Artctic..We now seem to be in possession of quite convergent data…This precludes a continual warming as claimed by the IPCC project, instead of this, we are likely to face a new Little Ice Age.
According to the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS,
A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. (source)
A few years ago, the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales was held, where Valentina Zharkova, a mathematics professor from Northumbria University (UK), presented a model that can predict what solar cycles will look like far more accurately than was previously possible. She states that the model can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent, and says it is showing that Earth is heading for a “mini ice age” in approximately fifteen years.
Zharkova and her team came up with the model using a method called “principal component analysis” of the magnetic field observations, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. Looking forward to the next few solar cycles, her model predicts that from 2030 to 2040 there will be cause for a significant reduction in solar activity, which again, will lead to a mini ice age. According to Zharkova. You can read more about that here.
Again, these are just a few examples of multiple scientists pointing to these facts.
Is There An Agenda At Play Here?
In a recent episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, Joe and CE team member Richard Enos 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.
CETV is a platform we created to combat internet censorship, which is another topic. Why are they silencing and ridiculing certain narratives? Why not just oppose them with information and evidence?
Many things in our world, including science, have become extremely corrupted. We see it with medical science and the influence from big pharma, and we see it with regards to federal health regulatory agencies like the CDC and FDA being compromised by corporations. Climate science is no different, which is why we see the mass ridicule of those who oppose the agenda by mainstream media.
Our Earth needs help, it needs to be cleaned up, and deforestation must halt as we are experiencing massive species extinction. None of this has anything, in my opinion, to do with human CO2 output.
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!
Pfizer & Moderna Fail To Respond To British Medical Journal About COVID Vaccine Safety Concerns
An article published in the British Medical Journal by Dr. Peter Doshi titled “Covid-19 Vaccines: In The Rush for Regulatory...
Study Finds Many Uninfected Adults Still Have Strong Pre-Existing Antibody Protection Against COVID
A study published in March 2021 suggested that the majority of healthy Adults in British Columbia have evidence of pre-existing...