Quick, flock to your authority figure before you learn something!
Youtube is continuing its purge of the public consciousness. This time they’ve taken down Mike Rupperts’ essential analysis of 9/11. Ruppert was an LA narcotics detective who refused offers of joining the CIA’s illegal domestic intelligence apparatus, specifically its domestic drug running operation. He went public with this in a famous public hearing in LA which aborted the imminent confirmation of a new DOD director. It’s amazing he wasn’t killed outright.
Anyway, YT deleted his speech under their “community standards” regarding “hate speech”, two orwellian terms that are increasingly strung together in our bipartisan march toward the fascist death squad model that the CIA has already foisted on latin america and numerous other places.
Shouldn’t the CIA be classified as a hostile foreign agency? Or is that too obvious to mention?
Here’s another copy of the video. You should download it while you can.
Note, youtube has updated their algorithms to disable the usual firefox video download plugins, but the command-line program at https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl works fine.
The safety and effectiveness of electric fans in heatwaves depend on the climate and basing public health advice on common weather metrics could be misleading, according to a new study from the University of Sydney.
The research calls into question current guidelines from most public health authorities, including the World Health Organization, that suggest fans may not be beneficial when the temperature rises above 35 degrees Celsius (95°F), as well as recommendations based on heat index caps.
Researchers from the University’s Thermal Ergonomics Laboratory simulated heatwave conditions to examine the effect of electric fan use on an individual’s core temperature, cardiovascular strain, risk of dehydration and comfort levels.
The results, published today in Annals of Internal Medicine, show that in a hot, humid condition with a heat index of 56 °C (133°F) fans lowered core temperature and cardiovascular strain, and improved thermal comfort.
However, fans were detrimental for all measures in very hot, dry conditions despite a lower heat index of 46 °C (115°F).
Heat index is a commonly used weather metric that expresses both air temperature and relative humidity. It was designed to help convey how hot weather conditions feel to the average person.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) states that fan use above a heat index of 37.2°C (99°F) “actually increases the heat stress the body must respond to.”
Senior author Associate Professor Ollie Jay of the Faculty of Health Sciences and Charles Perkins Centre said recent conditions in Europe and the United States reinforce the urgent need for evidence-based health advice to help protect people against heat-related illness.
“Our results suggest that under environmental conditions that represent the vast majority of peak heatwaves in the United States and Europe fans should be recommended and the guidelines issued by most public health authorities are unnecessarily conservative,” said Associate Professor Jay.
“It is only when the air temperature is very high and humidity is very low that fans are detrimental, which can be seen in arid conditions such as Phoenix or Las Vegas in the US, or Adelaide in South Australia.”…
God help us.
Scientists have sequenced the avocado genome, shedding light on the ancient origins of this buttery fruit and laying the groundwork for future improvements to farming.
With regard to modern affairs, the study reveals for the first time that the popular Hass avocado inherited about 61 percent of its DNA from Mexican varieties and about 39 percent from Guatemalan ones. (Avocados come in many types, but Hass — first planted in the 1920s — comprises the bulk of avocados grown around the world.)
The research also provides vital reference material for learning about the function of individual avocado genes, and for using genetic engineering to boost productivity of avocado trees, improve disease resistance and create fruit with new tastes and textures….
Like the taste of human flesh perhaps?
Save your seeds.
Everyone’s seen them: friends posting pictures of themselves now, and years in the future.
Viral app FaceApp has been giving people the power to change their facial expressions, looks, and now age for several years. But at the same time, people have been giving FaceApp the power to use their pictures — and names — for any purpose it wishes, for as long as it desires….
Revealing new insights into the animals’ high-risk lifestyle, a study released Monday by zoologists at Colorado State University found that the average squirrel lives through the human equivalent of seven action films every day…
An “Onion” article:
… 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…
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….
Univision anchor Jorge Ramos wants an America filled with gun control.
During a segment of Real America with Jorge Ramos, the journalist played a number of clips featuring 2020 presidential hopeful Cory Booker’s plan to tackle America’s alleged gun violence “epidemic.”
In this video, Booker proclaimed that “It is time for us as a nation not to normalize the violence and the carnage of gun violence. It is time that we come together and stand together and take the fight to the NRA and the corporate gun lobby like we have never seen before!”
Ramos sees the Booker campaign as a viable avenue to bring gun control into the national conversation. He asserted that “Booker wants to be the Gun Control President. He’s even introduced a sweeping gun violence prevention package that would close loopholes for gun sales, crack down on gun manufacturers, and invest in communities impacted by gun violence.”
What Ramos is referring to is Booker’s gun control package which has become a staple of his presidential run. The New Jersey Senator’s affinity for gun control make sense based on how he represents New Jersey, a state with some of the strictest gun laws on the books. New Jersey finds itself ranked 50th according to Guns & Ammo magazine for states most friendly towards gun owners.
It’s rather ironic that Jorge Ramos is calling for gun control when taking into account his Mexican origin. For a journalist like Ramos, who claims to be the voice of Latin American interests in American media, it would behoove him to recognize Latin America’s crime problems. Violence is especially pronounced in countries like Mexico, and how gun control has played a role in keeping crime rates high.
Instead of turning to cliché solutions such as more education, foreign aid, and accountability, Ramos and his ilk should consider alternatives such as gun rights which empower Latin American citizens to confront criminal threats.
By just glancing at Latin America’s current gun policies, we see a region that is in desperate need of more pro-gun laws. Countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela offer lurid accounts of what happens when most of the population is effectively disarmed when facing real criminal threats….
It seems latin america and the “deep state” are in agreement about the need to disarm the peasants. Not surprising given the history of the region. Don’t want to move to Guatemala? What if Guatemala moved up here? That’s the agenda.
Unfortunately more heads keep popping out. But of course the heads are just sock puppets of the festering malignancy beneath.
If you have doubts about the official story of chemical weapons use in the US war on Syria, you’ve come to the right place. Here are a few samples from this blog. Naturally the agenda has nothing to do with any pretense of concern for human rights by this genocidal media/intelligence/political establishment. It’s all about propping up the petrodollar. It’s a pipeline war.
I found these quickly by doing text searches with various keywords on the TCR site index linked above.