Big Questions, Big Lies

Note on the imagery: The graphs are from NOAA’s (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) ‘Sea Level Trends’ website, which, on its own, proves that ‘Climate Change’ (AGW, or man-caused) is a fraud. As far as I know, I’m the only source who quote NASA’s own numbers (NOAA is part of NASA) to expose their deceit. This will be explained below.

#

I finally got through the rest of Brief Answers to the Big Questions and in the end what jumps out at me is how often ‘Hawking’ repeats the climate change spiel, and how in many different ways he makes it clear that we are to blame, just for… being on the planet.

I’d bet that a lot of you are familiar with Report From Iron Mountain, a ‘think tank’ white paper (short book length) from the early 1960s, and which analyzes the possible repercussions of ‘world peace.’ This was at the time of JFK’s push to end the cold war and in fact to bring on a permanent peace, so it’s logical that such a study was actually commissioned. I phrase it thusly because if you go to a MS source it will tell you that the little book was a hoax. Read the thing (and I highly recommend you do) and you’ll immediately understand why the PTB would attempt to discredit it. It’s a real howler, in the Doctor Strangelovian sense. [Here is a download pdf of Report From Iron Mountain]

Although I’m quite sure it’s genuine, I’ll not burn your time arguing the point, for this reason: The true provenance

almost doesn’t matter, given that all that is said is based on (now) declassified government documents and think tank studies (a lot from the good old Rand Corporation), mostly from the ’50s and 60s, plus a few historical references. So what Report amounts to is a summation of information/observations/agendas that were already on the record.

The real meat of Report comes from its observation that social cohesion is ‘war based’ and if, for whatever reason, ‘peace should break out’, one of the results would be ‘social disintegration’  — this aside from the obvious economic catastrophe to the ‘war machine’ or ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ Eisenhower warned us about. Point being, peace would be a disaster for the PTB.

The Report authors go on to postulate what sorts of ‘threats’ could be used to replace outright war, in order to politically ‘stabilize’ us peasants. In the following Report passage we can clearly see the seed of the ‘climate change’ agenda…

‘Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last, best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat [Orson Wells’s ‘War of the Worlds’ radio broadcast was probably this sort of op.]; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a “need” for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking. [Keep in mind that the Report was from the early 1960s, before revolutionary advances in special effects, holograms in particular, likely were developed. I would also ask the reader to keep in mind my videos showing the likelihood that the Spacex launches have been fraudulent, ‘from the ground up’]

Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.

[Given the timing, and reading between the lines here, we can plainly see whence the ‘climate change threat’ arose: What better ‘pollution’ could they come up with than CO2, given that – aside from the ‘carbon tax’ scam used as economic control – we exhale it with each breath, underscoring how ‘we’ are the cause of the ‘problem’]

It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner. [Again, Climate Change, or AGW (anthropocentric global warming via CO2), solves the ‘politically acceptable’ problem perfectly] 

However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probably, in our judgement, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. [If there ever was an ‘invented’ threat, climate change is it!] [end quote]

For more background on the provenance of the Climate Change Fraud, look into the Club of Rome.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….” – Club Of Rome 

Click the above link for the details of the ‘elite’ Club of Rome’s mid-1970s addition to the Report From Iron Mountain’s agenda.

But enough background. Let’s return to the matter of ‘Stephen Hawking’ and his Big Questions book. Listening to it, how he kept slipping in ‘climate change’ as the threat to the planet and its population, I found myself thinking about the sort of readership the book would get. Considering the USA and worldwide, I don’t know

how many advanced level physicists the Universities have put out, but I would assume a book on ‘the Big Questions’ of physics and cosmology, (supposedly) written by Stephen Hawking would be a best seller amongst this demographic.

Thing is, truly, you have to read (or listen to) the book to really understand the absurd hyperbole Hawking uses to throw a scare into the reader, the ‘sulphuric acid rain’ and Venusian temperatures we’re bringing on ourselves is just one example among many. Coming from anyone else, this would be so over the top and so absurd that it would be counter-productive — and likely to evoke a belly laugh — especially with scientists. But as I say, ‘Hawking’ has been groomed as the ultimate authority figure in matters scientific.

Addendum (written at the last minute): It occurs to me that my primary interest of late is figuring out how really smart people (physicists, say) could believe utterly transparent falsehoods. No, not the PTB or their minions, but the ‘man on the street’, who also happens to be highly educated and, theoretically, brilliantly-minded. How could I know so much more than he? 

This is why I took the time with this particular book, and would subject you to two posts on it… the PTB are dead serious in their promotion of the climate change fraud. And as transparent a fraud as it is, try to find even one ‘pundit’ — no matter his/her area of expertise — who isn’t on their bandwagon. True, many are no more than useful idiots who know how the game is played, but still, this one is coming from the very top.

Knowing the types of people who are likely to read this blog — I refer to not only state moles/shills but also those who have been taken in by the disinformation, again, obvious as it is — and who will come up with ‘graphs’ and ‘peer reviewed’ crapola up the wazoo, I wouldn’t be saying these things with this sort of surety if I couldn’t prove my point. i.e., the fraudulence of the climate change agenda.

You have noticed that the imagery I’ve spread across this text is all graphs from various harbors and coastal cities worldwide. As I say up top, this information is from NOAA/NASA, so you’d think I’d be wary of it. But I’m not, because the stations that report these figures are independent, usually local harbormasters and such. There are too many to compromise them all, so the PTB didn’t bother.

They just don’t talk about this information. (Neither does anyone else. As far as I know, I’m the only person to expose the fraud in this way, i.e., inarguably, and from their own data.)

Think about it. What is the number one ‘catastrophe’ they say we are in for with climate change?

Rising sea level. (The graphs were selected at random, with preference to the stations with historical data going back the farthest.)

Have you ever wondered why they so rarely talk specifically about how much sea level has already risen? They’ll show you glaciers calving and ice floes at sea and they will even ‘predict’ how much sea level will rise, but why not tell us the current trends? They don’t tell us because the truth of it, the actual numbers, would expose the grand deceit.

And it’s all right there on NOAA’s website.

When ice melts the sea level response should be almost instantaneous, shouldn’t it? Throw something massive in a swimming pool and the water rises immediately, doesn’t it? Since, according to the ‘paradigm’, humans have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for well over 100 years, and since (they claim) the temperature has been skyrocketing for that long, shouldn’t we notice the rising sea level?

Addendum: Here is how I came across the website — the NOAA/NASA website — you see reproduced here:

In the summer of 2006 I was back at Montauk from some adventures in Costa Rica (see my memoir, Can’t You Get Along With Anyone; A Writer’s Memoir and a Tale of a Lost Surfer’s Paradise) and had just seen Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth at a theatre in Manhattan. Although by this time I had figured out that the PTB had perpetrated 9/11, I had not yet dived deeply into HTWRW, and although virtually everything Gore says in his film is a deceit, I tended to believe his over all premise.

However, the next time I went surfing at Montauk I noticed that the very same rock I had to look out for at low water (spring tides)  in 1964, the year I started surfing, was awash in the same exact way now, in 2006.

If the ice has been melting for half a century, why is the Montauk shoreline the same? I went home and looked up the Montauk Sea Level Trends on the NOAA website… and the rest is ‘history’… or rather the lies of history.     

‘The Maldives are sinking!’ they tell us. Okay, let’s look at the ‘Sea Level Trends’ for the Maldives (see the above graph). I almost didn’t include it because the station has only been sending data since 1987. I picked these at random but tried to stick to stations that give us 50 to 150 years of data. I let the Maldives slide since it’s been ‘in the news’ as in grave peril. I did the math. In the last 30 years, sea level has risen (or the land has sunk) 4.13 inches. As I say, this is the most extreme of my sampling.

Addendum: The two adjacent images say it all. They are faking temperature data, as ‘Climategate’ proved. With sea level rise, they hope you don’t notice the data. 

As you will see if you examine the graphs, sea level has on average been rising — we have been exiting an ice age for the past 12,000 years — but the rate has been rock steady; in other words, CO2 cannot have been a factor.

And the average — counting stations who report dropping sea level — is less than half a foot (six inches) per century. Go to the site and do your own math.

Look at Lisbon. The trend says in 100 years the rise will be well under 6 inches. This is NASA speaking! No wonder they don’t tell us about this website.

I ran out of room so i piled a few at the bottom. But I think you get my point. If you know someone who believes The Fraud, please send him/her this post and ask for an explanation. (Again: I did an average of 22 random stations and found worldwide sea level rise over the next 100 years will be less than six inches. But the main point is that the graph lines are all straight as a ruler. No change in rate of rise.)

What we currently have is ‘The Smartest Man in the World’ furthering the Big Fraud. Too bad we can’t ask him for an explanation.

Allan

Wait. One more note on ‘Hawking.’ Remember the ‘time travel party’ bit at the end of my last post? Let’s look at it again:

When asked ‘If you had a party for time travelers, would anyone show up?’

‘Hawking’s’ answer: ‘In 2009 at my college I held a party for time travelers. To make sure only real time travelers would show up I didn’t send out invitations until the after the party. On the day of the party I sat hoping but no one came.’

As I pointed out in my Open Letter to Miles Mathis, English speakers from Great Britain rarely if ever use the word ‘college’ in describing seats of higher learning. It’s virtually always ‘university.’ So what? So the above implies that an American English speaker wrote the passage, not an Englishman. This is further evidence that the real Stephen Hawking has been long gone. 

Enough! (Except you might read the caption to the graph below, then click it.)