- The Facts:
Dr. Patrick Moore is a founding member of Greenpeace and has been a leading environmental activist around the world for a very long time. In the video below he shares his thoughts on the climate change/global warming phenomenon.
- Reflect On:
Why is one side of this debate constantly ridiculed by mainstream media instead of their points being addressed and countered appropriately? Why are so many experts in the field shut down and never given a voice?
Mainstream media outlets and political organizations have been predicting doom and gloom, what seems to be end of the world type of scenarios when they bring up the topic of global warming and climate change. This type of perception is something humanity has been experiencing for decades, just take a look at this press release from 1989, which explained how United Nations officials predicted that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000, it’s just one of many examples.
Furthermore, anybody who seems to question the official narrative of this issue that’s constantly pushed by mainstream media is made out to be a fool, and ridicule shortly ensues. Climate scientists have been ridiculed for even sharing their research and opinions suggesting that a doom and gloom scenario is not real, and that the issue of climate change is quite complex, and that man’s CO2 output is not playing the role that most have been made to believe it plays.
-->FREE Report: Discover the Top 10 Nutrient Deficiencies, including key signs you may be deficient in them and what you can do about it Click here to learn more!
Science itself has become sort of a slight irrelevance….Stories have been promoted over the last 25-30 years and they have completely re-directed the science. But more to the point they’ve also followed Eisenhower’s warning, that fundamentally as the state monopolizes the support of science it calls the shots. And so you have the scientists on the one hand, you know, on both sides, presenting I would say not particularly alarming scenarios, but then you have the body politic presenting something that does not by in large have the support of science about, you know, the end of the planet. But resting assured, the science won’t complain…I don’t think any field survives this degree of corruption without loosing if nothing else its self respect. In terms of climate science…it’s set back the field probably a few generations. I mean, it forced it into a channel that was not describing most of past climate change. So instead of trying to figure out how the Earth behaved, the field was co-opted into a situation where it was supposed to support a paradigm that the government wanted, or that the environmental movement wanted. Hard to disentangle the two, also, because the environmental movement itself has become highly political. – Dr. 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. (source)
Based on my research, there are many academics, researchers and environmental activists who are not buying the official narrative that’s been dished out by politicians for a very long time now. We are told that the majority of climate scientists agree, but that doesn’t seem to be the case as, again, there are many who are emphasizing that C02 is not really a dominant factor, and that there are a myriad of other considerations when it comes to the climate of Earth one must consider. Why are they doing this? Clearly, the ‘science is not settled.’
We Need To Clean Up Our Planet, Big Time
Our planet is no doubt in need of great environmental care. Species extinction, deforestation and pollution are at an all time high. The air quality on planet Earth is embarrassing, and our planet needs a big time clean up/restoration attempt. All of these are not due to CO2, but rather due to industry, the dumping of toxic waste, pesticides, and much more. These are what we should be focusing on, not a carbon tax. What’s even more frustrating is that it’s not a matter of finding solutions, they’re already there, it’s a matter of overcoming elitist agendas, human greed and ego. It seems that a carbon tax is simply being used to put more profit into the hands of the global elite. Imagine if we spent as much time coming up with ways to clean up our oceans, develop new energy technology, stoping deforestation and animal agriculture, passing laws that make packaging without biodegradable substances illegal, and much more rather than simply focusing on C02. A lot more would get done. I go more in depth on C02 and why I believe it should not be the main focus when it comes to environmental awareness.
Again, just to reiterate, we are big time environmental activists, but we simply feel the important issues are not given as much attention as the intention behind C02 reduction is not to benefit the planet, but to benefit rich people who really have no concern for our planet.
Below is a video of Dr. Patrick Moore explaining some of his thoughts on the phenomenon. Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.
People like Patrick are often criticized by the mainstream media. As I do with everyone else, I suggest you listen to what is being said, look it up, and focus on the information instead of character assassination attempts.
That being said, Moore also claimed that Glyphosate was completely safe and not harmful to humans. This is something we completely disagree with, he also seems to be a supporter of Genetically Modified Foods, something we do not support either. In fact, it was surprising to me to look into what he’s said about these two topics, and quite a head scratcher. In fact, we wrote about his ,what now clearly appear to be false/misinformed, comments on Glyphosate when he made them. You can read that article here.
We clearly do not agree with Moore on many topics, like the ones listed above, but that doesn’t mean he is working for corporations, or is completely misinformed. There is a division of opinion on a myriad of topics today, and again, it’s best to look at what’s being said and fact checking it ourselves instead of simply reverting to character assassination. When we looked and examined his comments on Glyphosate and GMO foods, we found them to be false. When we look at his comments regarding climate change, we find them to be valid or at least worthy of consideration. We completely disregard judgement and simply examine the claims being made, something we encourage more people to do. One thing is for certain, our right to explore and examine information openly and freely should not be taken away and censored.
Thoughts About Greta Thunberg
I took a lot of information that I compiled in a recent article I wrote regarding Greta Thunberg, titled Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make A Killing off It, and pasted it below. But I didn’t go into Greta, who seems to be a good hearted young activist who really cares about the planet. If you want to go more in-depth, I suggest you read the article linked above as the information below is already in it, and a little more.
My Thoughts About CO2
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural and beneficial constituent of the atmosphere. By volume percentage, 99% of dry air is nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Most of the rest is argon (0.93%), with carbon dioxide amounting to only 0.04%, but slowly increasing. Even smaller amounts of other gases, neon, helium, methane etc., make up the remainder.
Atmospheric CO2 is a key to life on earth, this is because plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.
Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to less than 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2 and about 6% H2O.Water vapor,
Water vapor, clouds and carbon dioxide hinder the escape of thermal radiation to space and allow the earth’s surface to be warm enough for life. Without this “greenhouse warming,” most of the oceans would be frozen. Increasing levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 from fuel combustion will slightly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Observations indicate that every doubling of the CO2 concentration will increase the earth’s surface temperature by 1 to 2 C, and perhaps less. The warming is so small that the resulting longer growing seasons and increased plant productivity from additional CO2 will be of great benefit to life on earth. (source)
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.
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 C02 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 the thousands of 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 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:
n 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.
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)
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)
Climate Change Is Big Business
In 1988, 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, 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. (source)
The ‘Green New Deal (The Sunrise Movement) is already being adopted in the US, 104 members of Congress, and three of the four frontrunners for the Democratic nomination next year have endorsed it. The legislation promises to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050 and gives the government large amounts of control over healthcare, wealth redistribution, transport, food production and housing. This movement has it’s roots in the financial elite, a bunch of neoliberal think-tanks and financiers.
Formed by French President Emanuel Macron and investment corporation BlackRock capital last year, the Climate Finance Partnership sees government-funded carbon reduction as a “flagship blended capital investment vehicle.” Salivating at potential profits in the world’s “developing and emerging markets,” the partnership calls for the “unlocking” of pension funds and government money to finance green industry in the developing world. Only instead of calling our planet’s situation a “climate emergency,” they call it “the climate opportunity.”
The Blended Finance Action Taskforce – comprised of 50 financial giants including HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and Citi – is even more explicit, calling for a “layer of government and philanthropic capital,” as there are “profits to be had” in “climate-related sectors…across three regions including Latin America, Asia, and Africa.”
Put simply, financial giants want your pensions and your taxes to support their investments half a world away. Greta Thunberg and The Climate Emergency Movement are paralyzing you with fear, and knowingly or unknowingly aiding the interests of the world’s mega-rich. (source)
This isn’t about the planet, it’s about money, period. Climate change is no different than using ‘the war on terror’ to create patriotism and to drive the population into accepting measures that hurt them, not benefit them. These ‘fear’ narratives are completely fake. We saw the same thing with Al-Qaeda:
“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” (source)
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 (source)
You can access the full report here. It was published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.
What About 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.’
But is this true? Do “97 percent of scientists” really agree as is so often promoted by the mainstream media?
“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.
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 are not denying climate change, we are simply presenting the evidence showing that climate change has been happening for a long time, and that human CO2 output doesn’t seem to play a significant role at all, and that this is simply being used for profit, control, and to take more ‘power’ away from the people and put it into the hands of politicians and the global financial elite.
This is not about 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.
Judge Orders The Dakota Access Pipeline To Be Shut Down
- The Facts:
On Monday, A U.S. District Court ordered Energy Transfer LP to shut down and empty their pipeline, known as the Dakota Access Pipeline.
- Reflect On:
Why do we continue to use outdated and unnecessary means for energy production. Why is our economy an oil based economy when it doesn't have to be? Why do we have solutions that never see the light of day?
What Happened: On Monday, A U.S. District Court ordered Energy Transfer LP to shut down and empty their pipeline, known as the Dakota Access Pipeline. It just so happens to be their largest one, and it also represents a big win for Native American’s and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, as well as citizens from all over the world who have fought the line’s route access through a critical water supply.
It’s amazing how many years have already passed since there was a mass gathering in North Dakota to stop this pipeline. Corporate America brought in the police to try and disperse the gathering. One night, a small plane spraying unknown substances flew over the gathering at night, I know this because I was there, along with CE founder Joe Martino. There were SWAT teams everywhere. All of this for a peaceful gathering? We spent days covering the story, and all we saw was intimidation, violence, and psychological warfare tactics in order to disperse the crowd so that the company could continue building their pipeline.
This always seems to happen to peaceful protestors.
Corporate America eventually got what they wanted. Many people were thrown in jail, people were injured, all resulting from a peaceful protest. The gathering was shut down and the fight to stop the pipeline went to court, during which time the pipeline was in full operation.
Bloomberg is reporting that the pipeline must be shut down by August 5th.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said a crucial federal permit for Dakota Access fell too far short of National Environmental Policy Act requirements to allow the pipeline to continue operating while regulators conduct a broader analysis the court ordered in a previous decision. The ruling scraps a critical permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, and requires the pipeline to end its three-year run of delivering oil from North Dakota shale fields to an Illinois oil hub. Judge James E. Boasberg said Dakota Access must shut down the pipeline and empty it of oil by Aug. 5.(source)
We will have to wait and see if The Army Corps and Justice Department intends to appeal the decision.
Why This Matters
This goes to show what we can do when we come together. Despite the fact that it’s taken years, and damage has been done, look what’s happened, it’s been halted once again. That being said, at the time the pipeline was being built and during the period it was moving oil, it was quite clear that citizens around the entire planet were against this. So I ask you, do we live in a democracy? Do citizens really have any influence at all on decision making, or is our consciousness manipulated to accept certain measures, like pipelines, as necessary? Why doesn’t planet Earth come first? Why does it take cutting through so much red ape, and so much time to try and stop such measures? What kind of system have we created for ourselves? One that protects the corporations and punishes the citizenry and mother Earth?
We don’t have to accept this.
The coronavirus is another great example of what we are capable of. Despite the fact that we were forced into lockdown by governments, billions of people, together, still collectively did it. The point is, we can accomplish great things together, as one. Imagine if billions of people around the world decided the world should shut down for one week in order to, clean up our oceans for example.
Why don’t our governments do that?
We can do anything, we have unlimited potential. We are in a time where we are being asked to wake up, come together, re-imagine our reality, discuss it, explore it, build it and use our potential to create a human experience where everybody can thrive, including mother Earth. And yes, it’s possible, we have the solutions and they’ve been available for years. The only issue is human consciousness, and the barriers we’ve built that prevent these solutions from manifesting.
Bill Gates: ‘Certificates For The Vaccinated Will Be Created To Help Facilitate Global Travel’
- The Facts:
A few months ago, Bill Gates hinted to the idea that those who aren't vaccinated may not be able to travel.
- Reflect On:
Do we really live in a democracy when so many decisions are made without the consent of the majority of the citizenry?
According to Bill Gates,
“Eventually what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person, who’s a vaccinated person […] Because you don’t want people moving around the world where you’ll have some countries that won’t have it under control, sadly. You don’t want to completely block off the ability for people to go there and come back and move around. So eventually there will be this digital immunity proof that will help facilitate the global reopening up.” (source)
He expressed his predictions in an interview (linked above) that took place a couple of months ago. In the interview he also suggested that people should have some sort of digital identification that shows their vaccination status, and that people without this type of “proof” wouldn’t be able to travel.
Whether these intentions are for the coronavirus vaccine or perhaps some other medication down the road, this pandemic is a great example of how close we can come and are coming to mandating ‘medicine.’
It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is at all all time high right now, there is a growing hesitancy among scientists and physicians as well, which is why some of them are coming together to support informed consent in a world that continues to grow full of vaccine mandates. This was a sentiment recently expressed at the World Health Organization’s vaccine safety summit. You can read more about that here and access a link to the full conference if interested.
Vaccine hesitancy will no doubt result in a large portion of many populations that do not receive the vaccine. To me, it’s quite clear that for these reasons governments will not, and cannot fully, mandate the vaccine, but when it comes to travel and perhaps other public activities, they may do so if we continue to allow it.
Or perhaps they are still warming people up to the idea of a mandated vaccine? Are mandatory masks in public settings a precursor to a mandatory vaccine in a public setting?
Why This Matters
It’s important to recognize and acknowledge what happens when we give our power away to government health authorities. Decisions are made for us that are not always agreeable to a large minority, and in some cases sometimes it seems like a majority of the population. When it comes to vaccines, despite the fact that there are many injuries and many safety concerns, many of them are required for children to go to school.
This is why the so many people have been questioning vaccines so deeply. Regardless of what government and media say, it’s not about “pro-vax” or “anti-vax,” it’s simply about looking at the science and acknowledging the fact that vaccines are not a one size fits all product.
For example, according to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine-injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
That’s just one of many examples.
Why don’t our federal health regulatory agencies acknowledge the concerns people are having about vaccines instead of simply using ridicule and character assassination? Why is there a campaign to paint those who question vaccine safety as conspiracy theorists?
For example, The Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), a group of doctors and scientists from around the world who have come together to support informed consent when it comes to mandatory vaccine measures put out some excellent downloadable PDF’s with regards to the MMR vaccine. One of them deals with “what parents need to know about the measles vaccine” and another one presents the information that has them questioning if the MMR vaccine is safer than the measles. They point out that the chances of dying from measles and make many comparisons to the vaccine. You can can read more about that here.
Are these doctors and scientists truly just “conspiracy theorists?”
There will be a in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it. – Aldous Huxley
Not only is the comment above coming true, many of us seem to enjoy it because our consciousness is suppressed to the point where we feel it’s necessary. With vaccines, and now masks, many people feel that one has a responsibility to follow mandates because we are made to believe that it protects other people. The idea that an unvaccinated child is a danger to a vaccinated child is also very flawed. Sure, if we had vaccines that were 100 percent safe and 100 percent effective we could perhaps achieve herd immunity through a vaccine, but vaccines have been around for decades and we have not yet we still have achieved herd immunity through them.
At the end of the day, people are made to feel like they are uninformed and mistaken for questioning the status quo. Is this the type of world we want to live in? One that seems to be guarded by the ‘ministry of truth’ or, in this case, a digital authoritarian Orwellian ‘fact-checker’ that’s patrolling the internet silencing some of the world’s foremost experts on this topic? One where a view that opposes our government regulatory agencies, one that is backed by evidence, is punished and ridiculed?
What’s really going on here, and why, as a collective, do we accept it? If billions of us can come together and agree to a lockdown, or at least comply to it, then why can’t we come together for all of the other important issues that need our attention? Why do we only do what we are told to do by our governments? Why do we continue to give our power away and hand over our trust to entities that seem to be lacking connection and care? Why do we constantly rely on these entities to take care of our problems for us and make decisions for us?
Today, it’s not about executing the will of the people, it’s about controlling the will of the people and convincing them your actions are justified. This is what Bill Gates, among other very powerful people, seem to be doing right now.
The US Prosecutor Wants Prince Andrew To Speak With The FBI After Ghislaine Maxwell’s Arrest
- The Facts:
U.S. attorney Audrey Strauss, who is involved in working Ghislane Maxwell's case, welcomes Prince Andrew's co-operation with the FBI.
- Reflect On:
Will Prince Andrew be the only high profile person to go down? Could this be a dam that breaks to truly has the majority of the population questioning the character of many people in positions of power? Will this spur conscious self-governance?
What Happened: Jeffrey Epstein’s right hand person, Ghislaine Maxwell was recently arrested on charges connected to Jeffrey Epstein with regards to child sex trafficking and abuse. Now, the acting U.S. attorney Audrey Strauss, said U.S. prosecutors would “welcome Prince Andrew coming in to talk to us” during a press conference announcing the charges against Maxwell on Thursday, as many media outlets are now reporting.
“We would like to have the benefit of his statement,” Strauss told reporters. Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a survivor of Epstein’s abuse, has claimed he and Maxwell trafficked her to have sex with Prince Andrew three times when she was 17 in 2001.
This isn’t the first time the Royal Family has been implicated in such activity. A member of the Royal family was claimed to be part of a suspected pedophile ring under investigation by the police in the late 1980s, a former Metropolitan police officer has said. The officer was told by a detective sergeant that the investigation into the ring, which was also claimed to include an MP, was shut down for national security reasons. “I was in a car with two other vice squad officers … The detective sergeant said he had just had a major child abuse investigation shut down by the CPS regarding a royal and an MP,” he told the Sunday Mirror newspaper. “He did not mention names, but he said the CPS had said it was not in the public’s interest because it ‘could destabilise national security’.”
In fact, there are many examples from many different countries within Europe that correlate with elite level pedophilia and not only sexual abuse of children, but physical abuse as well as the murder of them. Multiple Royal Families have been implicated, as well as Vatican Personnel, high ranking global leaders, politicians and more.
This is not to say all are involved, but from the outside looking in, it seems a significant amount are.
If you want to dive deeper into the topic and see more examples, you can refer to this article I published a few months ago.
We have also interviewed a survivor of elite pedophile rings like the one Epstein and Maxwell ran. Her name is Anneke Lucas and you can watch her full testimony here on CETV.
You can also watch a recent documentary called Out of Shadows that explores this topic in detail on CETV as well.
If you want to read more about Epstein ad Maxwell, you can do that here.
Why This Is Important
Could Maxwell’s arrest bring down more high profile people? It could, and that’s why it’s important. With this, the collective would really see how far this goes and we would have the opportunity to ask ourselves why high profile people are involved, and why there is such a big cover up. Further, we could explore why we support these people making major decisions for the human race with regards to political policy that governs all aspects of life, from health, to education and more.
If politicians ad high profile individuals are in fact involved in this, which survivors of their rings commonly claim, we are giving our power over to people who are in a state where they lack empathy and connection, and are capable to doing thigs the general public would never dream of doing to others. This is why more people are starting to really explore this topic, because it changes how we go about giving our power to people like this.
Humanity is in a process of ‘Breaking the Illusion’ we have come to accept about our reality. We have been living from a collective story that states we elect good people into government, and they act in our best interest. This categorically is not the case, and part of our collective awakening to creating solutions that can make our world thrive is waking up from this illusion we have chosen to accept.
People are beginning to learn en masse that high profile figures are involved in such acts like extreme occult rituals, sex trafficking and pedophilia, and they are beginning to wonder why.
Dr. Fauci Says “Individual Institutions” May Make The Coronavirus Vaccine Mandatory
What Happened: Dr. Anthony Fauci recently explained that the US “could see individual institutions mandating a vaccine.” As of now, it...
Bill Gates: ‘Certificates For The Vaccinated Will Be Created To Help Facilitate Global Travel’
According to Bill Gates, “Eventually what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person, who’s a vaccinated...