Tag Archives: climate change

Gates Outfit Saw Hemorrhagic Fever As Potential Bioterror Weapon In E. Europe

Posted on by

Since 2018 WHO, as well as its partner organization GAVI [The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations], a Gates Foundation- funded and partnered vaccine group, have been warning of a pandemic far more deadly than Covid-19 in the offing.

A piece on the GAVI website, dated May 4, 2021, by Linda Geddes, is entitled, “The Next Pandemic: Crimean- Congo Haemorrhagic Fever?”

It answers the question in the negative:

The virus is recognised as a possible bioterrorism agent, and was studied as a potential biological weapon in Iraq. However, human-to-human transmission is currently limited, so although there is a high risk of local outbreaks, the risk of a global CCHF pandemic is relatively low.

The operative word is “currently limited”; gain-of- function research would be able to reverse that low transmissibility, as it did with bat viruses.

Bat viruses, including corona viruses, were also being studied in the Ukrainian biolabs:

In a press briefing on Thursday, Russia derided the United States for creating bioagents in Kyiv that would be used to target ethnic groups. It said Washington conducted an R-781 project that involved bats as carriers of potential biological weapons. Other researches included bacterial and viral pathogens that can be transmitted from bats to humans: pathogens of plague, leptospirosis, brucellosis, as well as coronaviruses and filoviruses.”

And so was CCHF, which, as it is at present, could never have threatened a pandemic. But because of its great lethality it is an ideal bioterror or biowar agent.

Russia states that the declassified documents revbs,eal another project  code-named ‘UP-8’, which was aimed at studying the Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever virus and hantaviruses in Ukraine. These documents “clearly refute the US public statement that only Ukrainian scientists work in the Pentagon Biolabs in Ukraine without the intervention of American biologists,” said Russia’s defence ministry

Elsewhere, the GAVI site suggests CCHF as one of the top 10 candidates to trigger the next pandemic: Ebola, Marburg Virus Disease, Lassa Fever, MERS CoV, SARS, Nipah Virus, Zika Virus, Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever, Rift Valley Fever, Monkey Pox.

All ten candidates have mortality rates above 50%.

All do not have vaccines or other medicines that can cure them.

All will be exacerbated, it is claimed, by climate change, urbanization, air travel, and habitat encroachment.

Lila:

You will note that those four elements of the modern world are the very ones that the  globalist cabal around Klaus Schwab cite in their efforts to force a great reset of the world economy.

Ostensibly this is to create a more “sustainable” world, by which they mean one in which the common man is forced to reduce his energy consumption to the minimum, while, various green technologies favored by the oligarchs are given state sanction and tax payer funds in a patronage system based on social credit that will control all finance and employment.

The Covid lockdowns and restrictions have been the dry run for this.

Disease X, from one of the lethal ten, after they have been weaponized, will bring in the fully tweaked and debugged version of the medical police state.

 

BP Oil Spill Aids Expansion Of Regulatory Police State

Posted on by

The New York Times (June 11, 2010) reports on the failure of a republican effort to block the EPA (environmental protection agency) in its efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a health hazard to humans

“Senate Republicans failed yesterday to halt the Obama administration’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases, engulfing the chamber in a sprawling daylong debate that bounced from climate skepticism to posters of dead birds smeared in oil. Continue reading →

Climategate: Indian Environment Minister Says IPCC Wrong On Glaciers Melting

Posted on by

There are some interesting developments on the climate-gate frontier.

Apparently, the Himalayan glaciers aren’t melting, after all.

Or at least, not as fast as the IPCC (the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change , the UN body tasked with climate change) thinks they should. Continue reading →

“Scientific” Academies Need A Taste Of RICO Too

Posted on by

Alan Caruba , a conservative writer and reviewer:

“Consider a letter dated October 21, 2009 and signed by the presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the Association of Ecosystem Research Center, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Society of Agronomy, the American Statistical Association,

And the Botanical Society of America, the Crop Science Society of America, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Soil Science Society of America, the Ecological Society of America, the Organization of Biological Field Stations, the Society of Systematic Biologists, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Together, they asserted that “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” It went on to repeat all the usual scary scenarios of rising sea levels, urban heat weaves, wildfires, and other climate-related events.

In a footnote, the letter to U.S. Senators said, “The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.”

We now know that the “science” being cited by these two entities was, at least in the case of the IPCC, totally rigged, but the presidents of these alleged science-based organizations took it on face value despite ample scientific evidence it was false. The revelations of emails exchanged between the perpetrators of the hoax have demonstrated the deceptions…….

In light of this, who can trust these organizations? And who can trust the “science” produced by NASA and other U.S. agencies that have benefited from billions in grants directed at so-called climate, i.e. global warming research?”

The Creation Of Professional Consensus

Posted on by

An article that illustrates how professional consensus is created in the sciences today:

“To experts such as McIntyre and Pielke, perhaps the most baffling thing has been the near-unanimity over global warming in the world’s mainstream media – a unanimity much greater than that found among scientists.

“For example, last year the BBC environment reporter Roger Harrabin made substantial changes to an article on the corporation website that asked why global warming seemed to have stalled since 1998 – caving in to direct pressure from a climate change activist, Jo Abbess.

“‘Personally, I think it is highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics who continually promote the idea that “global warming finished in 1998” when that is so patently not true,’ she told him in an email.

“After a brief exchange, he complied and sent a final note: ‘Have a look in ten minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more.’

“Afterwards, Abbess boasted on her website: ‘Climate Changers, Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it’s been subject to spin or scepticism. Here’s my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for.’

“Last week, Michael Schlesinger, Professor of Atmospheric Studies at the University of Illinois, sent a still cruder threat to Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, accusing him of ‘gutter reportage’, and warning: ‘The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists … I sense that you are about to experience the “Big Cutoff” from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.’

“But in the wake of Warmergate, such threats – and the readiness to bow to them – may become rarer.

“A year ago, if a reporter called me, all I got was questions about why I’m trying to deny climate change and am threatening the future of the planet,’ said Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University near Toronto, a long-time collaborator with McIntyre.

“‘Now, I’m getting questions about how they did the hockey stick and the problems with the data.

‘Maybe the emails have started to open people’s eyes.’

What´s especially interesting in this report is that the Russian government has confirmed that the emails were uploaded from a Siberian server, but has “strenuously denied” that they were generated by the Russians.
That possibility was one of the reasons why I didn´t initially rush to defend the hackers, as many skeptics did.
But since then, several sources have claimed that the information was illegitimately denied to the public and was probably released by a whistleblower or someone  acting on behalf of the public interest in the matter.

Climate-Gate Is The Work Of A Whistle-blower

Posted on by

Excellent demonstration by Lance Levson, a system and networks administrator with fifteen years experience, that the climate-gate data could not have been the work of a random hacker but was most likely that of a whistle-blower publishing documents previously collected pursuant to a freedom of information act (foia) request- After a lengthy technical analysis of the sources of the email and data, he concludes:

“I suggest that the contents of ./documents didn’t originate from a single monolithic share, but from a compendium of various sources.

For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities. The hacker would have to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents. The hacker would have to map the complete UEA network to find out who was at what station and what services that station offered. S/he would have had to develop or implement exploits for each machine and operating system without knowing beforehand whether there was anything good on the machine worth collecting.

The only reasonable explanation for the archive being in this state is that the FOI Officer at the University was practising due diligence. The UEA was collecting data that couldn’t be sheltered and they created FOIA2009.zip.

It is most likely that the FOI Officer at the University put it on an anonymous ftp server or that it resided on a shared folder that many people had access to and some curious individual looked at it.

If as some say, this was a targeted crack, then the cracker would have had to have back-doors and access to every machine at UEA and not just the CRU. It simply isn’t reasonable for the FOI Officer to have kept the collection on a CRU system where CRU people had access, but rather used a UEA system.

Occam’s razor concludes that “the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one”. The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn’t because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.”

Climategate: Freakonomics Author Says Climate Models Driven By Funding

Posted on by

“Freakonomics” co-author, Stephen J. Dubner weighs in on Climate-gate in The New York Times:

“The current generation of climate-prediction models are, as Lowell Wood puts it, “enormously crude.” … “The climate models are crude in space and they’re crude in time,” he continues. “So there’s an enormous amount of natural phenomena they can’t model. They can’t do even giant storms like hurricanes.”

There are several reasons for this, [Nathan] Myhrvold explains. Today’s models use a grid of cells to map the earth, and those grids are too large to allow for the modeling of actual weather. Smaller and more accurate grids would require better modeling software, which would require more computing power. “We’re trying to predict climate change 20 to 30 years from now,” he says, “but it will take us almost the same amount of time for the computer industry to give us fast enough computers to do the job.”

That said, most current climate models tend to produce similar predictions. This might lead one to reasonably conclude that climate scientists have a pretty good handle on the future.

Not so, says Wood.

“Everybody turns their knobs” — that is, adjusts the control parameters and coefficients of their models — “so they aren’t the outlier, because the outlying model is going to have difficulty getting funded.” In other words, the economic reality of research funding, rather than a disinterested and uncoordinated scientific consensus, leads the models to approximately match one another. It isn’t that current climate models should be ignored, Wood says — but, when considering the fate of the planet, one should properly appreciate their limited nature.”

Dubner´s piece reads Climate-gate as a kind of Rorscharch test for pundits. If you´re pro AGW, then all this is a tempest in a tea-cup (Paul Krugman). If you´re anti AGW, (James Delingpole), then it´s the greatest scientific scandal of the century.

Krugman:

“All those e-mails — people have never seen what academic discussion looks like. There’s not a single smoking gun in there. There’s nothing in there. And the travesty is that people are not able to explain why the fact that 1988 was a very warm year doesn’t actually mean that global warming has stopped. I mean, that’s loose wording. Right? Everything is about — we’re really in the same situation as if there was one extremely warm day in April. And then people are saying, well, you see, May is cooler than April, there’s no trend here. And that’s what — the travesty is how hard it has been to explain…”

Delingpole:

“If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.”

Well, I think of myself as a critic, but I don´t see the scandal right now as definitively one or the other — either game, set and match…..or a fizzle. It´s obviously a well-timed and massive hit to AGW, but I can think of worse things done in the name of science….from experiments in mind-control on unsuspecting patients… to Lysenko…..

As for its impact on AGW, I´m afraid the spin-machine will quickly rewrite the significance of some of the language used by the rogue scientists.

Still, at the end of the day, it all helps to erode people´s trust in expert authority..and that is always a good thing.

Pollution, Not Global Warming, Is Biggest Environmental Threat

Posted on by

Mark Sircus. from Globalresearch, via Lew Rockwell:

“Meanwhile despite the international financial crisis pollution is still increasing as we continue to blanket the planet with mercury from coal fired electrical plants around the world. Mercury and thousands of other chemicals continue to be released in staggering tonnages and this is the real threat that we and our children face. Again they had most people worrying about the wrong thing – our old friend CO2.

Should we count the huge tonnage of Coke and Pepsi into our calculations of poisons released on earth directly into peoples’ guts?

Things are quite a bit different today than in 1918 when the last pandemic (first large experimental vaccine program) happened. Today people and our children are walking chemical time bombs. Diseases are accidents only waiting to happen and the triggers that will set us off get more fine-haired every year. The global catastrophe with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart and neurological diseases has more to do with chemical poisoning running head on into nutritional deficiencies; and the fact that too many have lost their souls and don’t know truth from untruth anymore than anything else.”

The Political Ideology Behind Swine-Flu Hysteria

Posted on by

A new piece about swine-flu that I’m still working on:

The President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, the creators of the swine-flu scenario, has three co-chairs:

1. John Holdren (Director, White House Office of Science & Technology, Obama’s “science czar”)

2. Eric Lander, (head of the Broad Institute, MIT)

3. Harold Varmus (CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Center, NY)

A little digging fills in the details.

1. Holdren:

Holdren isn’t just any old bureaucrat. He’s a climate change expert who holds the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government

(The ‘Teresa’ is, of course, John Kerry’s wife when she was spouse of Ketchup king, John Heinz)

The support for climate change policies goes hand in hand with support for nuclear technology that Holdren believes is needed for those policies. He also believes all nuclear energy should be under the monitoring of the International Atomic Energy.

Climate change and “peaceful nukes” have been the beneficiaries of a huge PR effort over the last 15-20 years, largely stemming from the Pentagon, specifically, from Andrew Marshall, a charismatic theorist of American dominance whose Office of Net Assessments is the most influential outfit you never heard of. This PR typically derides any dissent from climate orthodoxy and downplays the enormous costs and risks involved in the global move to nuclear energy.

There’s more. As early as 1969 Holdren teamed up with neo-Malthusian doomsdayer Paul Ehrlich to advocate population control to “fend off the misery to come.” In 1977, he and Ehrlich, as well as Anne H. Ehrlich, co-authored a textbook (“Ecoscience”) in which they discussed “a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls…..”

Check out this site for some truly mind-boggling quotes:

Toward a Planetary Regime
…
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.