EARTH CHANGES
Sofia Smallstorm – Marine Life Die-Off: Is It Fukushima or The Navy?
Category: EARTH CHANGES
Tags: Alternative Knowledge Consciousness Conspiracy Geoengineering Nuclear Psychopaths in Power

Sage of Quay Radio Hour

Sofia will discuss how decades of covert US Navy testing in the oceans and on marine life has resulted in significant damage and disruption to ecosystem which Sofia believes is the real reason behind the beaching and death of so many marine mammals and other life forms… and how Fukushima is being leveraged in order to provide cover for the Navy’s stealth and deadly programs under the guise of National Security and military superiority.

Our conversation was wide ranging as we delve deeper in the rabbit hole and come up with yet another example of how the puppet masters have very little regard for life when it comes to implementing their agenda of world wide dominance and control.

Sofia’s websites:
http://www.aboutthesky.com/home
http://www.avatarproducts.com/

Related Links:
* Catastrophic Pacific Ocean Die-Off, The US Military’s All Out Assault On The Web Of Life – http://tinyurl.com/haa5rs4
* Agriculture Defense Coalition – http://tinyurl.com/hmh4q96
* U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleeting Testing & Training Website – http://www.aftteis.com/

Sage of Quay Blog: http://sageofquayradio.blogspot.com/

 

Our Past Was Erased by Catastrophes – Fall of the House of History
Category: EARTH CHANGES
Tags: Alternative Knowledge Disasters Earth Changes Forbidden History

SourceNexus Illuminati 

by Graham Hancock 

“The evidence, decades-old now and not even controversial amongst the comet community, [is] that an exceptionally large, low-inclination, short-period comet has been orbiting in our neighbourhood for about 20,000 years… In such a disintegrating environment there is a reasonable probability of a catastrophic encounter with debris in the comet trail….”

–      Leading astronomer Dr Bill Napier of the Cardiff University Centre for Astrobiology

This is the same comet that broke into multiple large fragments and caused the extinction level event between 12,800 and 11,600 years ago, described in my new book Magicians of the Gods. The comet impacts destroyed an advanced prehistoric civilization and almost completely wiped it from human memory, leaving its traces only in myths and traditions and in carefully buried time-capsules, like Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, where the truth of our past is set to come out.

We are presently passing through the debris stream of the same comet, as indeed the earth does twice every year (in late June/early July and in late October/early November). As I report in Magicians of the Gods, Napier and his colleagues are concerned that several large ‘dark’ fragments of the original giant comet still lurk, shrouded by dust, within the stream — which we know as the Taurid meteor stream The stream is 30 million kilometers wide and it takes the earth 12 days to pass through it on each occasion. I wrote about the implications of this for our future in the final chapter of Magicians of the Gods. Rendering the Taurid meteor stream safe IS within the limits and capacities of our current technology. It could be done — so no need for fear, doom and gloom. No need for ours to become the next lost civilization. The problem, however, is that the human species presently seems to lack the will for rational and responsible action, and to be far too choked up with fear, hatred and suspicion to undertake a grand project for the collective benefit of mankind, preferring instead to devote the big budgets to destructive and dangerous military spending and the insanity of mutually assured nuclear destruction.

 

Acting almost as though it has been tasked to play down threats that don’t require a military solution – and thus might compete for military budgets – NASA consistently seeks to understate dangers to humanity emanating from its specific area of interest, namely our cosmic environment. In particular it frequently reassures us that none of the asteroids or comets it has so far identified will come close enough to impact Earth anytime in the foreseeable future: “All known Potentially Hazardous Asteroids have less than a 0.01 percent chance of impacting Earth in the next 100 years,” (NASA, August 2015).

What this statement disguises, however, is that NASA actually has no idea how many Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHA’s) exist. It can only report the number it has spotted so far, presently totalling 1,635 (of which 877 have diameters of a kilometre or more). It’s true there’s very little likelihood of any of these KNOWN objects hitting Earth in the next 100 years (see the linked video here which shows all asteroids — including a great many non-hazardous asteroids — so far discovered (up to September 2015):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKKg4lZ_o-Y&sns=em). However, it’s the as-yet unidentified and UNKNOWN objects on earth-crossing orbits that should really concern us. According to some estimates, NASA has so far located barely 1 per cent of the total population of PHA’s, with 99 per cent , i.e. more than 100,000, still awaiting discovery.

It therefore comes as a timely wake-up call from the universe that on 31 October a previously undiscovered PHA, thought to be of cometary origin, had a relatively close encounter with the earth. This object was not located until 10 October. It was travelling blisteringly fast and it had a diameter in the range of half a kilometre. See here:https://www.nasa.gov/feature/halloween-skies-to-include-dead-comet-flyby
In this way, past, present and future are interlinked and what Magicians of the Gods is really all about are the implications of the comet impacts between 12,800 and 11,600 years ago for our understanding of history. It’s my contention that this new scientific information means that the house of history is built on foundations of sand.

Scientists find link between comet and asteroid showers & mass extinctions

When Magicians of the Gods was published in the UK on 10 September, I was mocked in the national media because the book references the serious suggestions of a number of astronomers that our planet is in real and present danger of an encounter with the fragments of a giant comet. I have no wish to invoke doom and gloom but I felt it would be irresponsible of me NOT to report this, because the evidence is that the Taurid meteor stream is the debris trail of a giant comet that was thrown into the inner solar system by gravitational disturbances some 20,000 years ago and that broke into multiple fragments some of which hit the earth 12,800 years ago, with further impacts 11,600 years ago. The result was a sustained global cataclysm (known to geologists as the Younger Dryas) that was accompanied by worldwide extinctions of animal species, and I suggest, by the almost complete destruction of an advanced human civilization that had flourished during the Ice Age.

In recent days, the media (including some of the same newspapers that mocked me in September) have been reporting new science which appears to confirm that we are indeed in a cosmic danger zone, just as I warn in Magicians of the Gods. See here for example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-could-be-at-risk-of-meteor-impacts-and-we-might-wrongly-have-assumed-we-are-in-a-safe-era-a6702501.html

And here for further details of the scientific paper on which the press reports are based:
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2729-scientists-find-link-between-comet-and-asteroid-showers-mass-extinctions

And more of the recent press reports here:

None of this, in my view, is a matter for gloom and doom. Instead I see it as a matter for action. The technology already exists to sweep our cosmic environment clean of potential threats and to ensure that we do not become the next lost civilization. The problem, however, is that the human species presently seems to lack the will for rational and responsible action, and to be far too choked up with fear, hatred and suspicion to undertake a grand project for the collective benefit of mankind, preferring instead to devote the big budgets to destructive and dangerous military spending and the insanity of mutually assured nuclear destruction.

The big media have done their best to mis-represent Magicians of the Gods, but I remain encouraged by the level of intelligent support for the book so far shown by the general public. Publication in the United States is on 10 November, just two weeks from today. Background on the book here: http://grahamhancock.com/magicians/.

My forthcoming events: http://grahamhancock.com/events/

Important interview here with leading astronomer Dr Bill Napier of the Cardiff University Centre for Astrobiology: http://bit.ly/1KSKMAt:

Cosmic Tusk Interview: Bill Napier

 

The Tusk has been interested for some time in conducting an occasional interview with players in fields related to cosmic catastrophes in human times. So much of the coverage of our subject is “ drive-by” journalism, with uninformed reporters on deadline asking shallow, often misinformed, questions of key scientists and then writing a story which barely informs. The subject deserves something at least a little better. So, in a modest effort to add more depth to the popular record than is commonly provided, I nominated our blog to try out a few interviews.

It was an easy call whom to approach first, Bill Napier. He is a digital acquaintance of mine, a cool guy and a wiseman. Astronomer, best-selling popular novelist, frequent contributor to a 40 year canon of astronomical justification for end times in the peopled past — Bill Napier is simply a Tusk-kind-of-guy.

Napier and his collaborators in the old country are even credited with their own handle, “British Neo-Catastrophists.” Post-Newton and Whiston, Post-Velikovsky, concurrent with Alvarez but Pre-Firestone — shunned by NASA and employed by the Queen — they are contributors to a cogent set of astronomical facts termed “Coherent Catastrophism,” a body of evidence indicating that quite horrible cosmic encounters have occurred in the human past.

Here goes:

Astronomer and author Bill Napier
CT: Dr. Napier, thanks for joining the Cosmic Tusk for our inaugural interview! How’s the weather over there on the Emerald Isle?

A. Sunny at the moment, but I’m not too far from the Atlantic and I can see clouds coming our way. It’ll be wet and windy by the evening. Good whisky weather.

CT: My kind of island, Bill. As many Tusk readers are aware, you and your many collaborators, particularly Victor Clube, are known for maintaining in publications since the 1970’s that a large comet entered our solar system ~20,000 years in the past, began to progressively disintegrate, and left behind increasingly diffuse streams of cometary material which periodically wreaked havoc on our ancient ancestors. What first got you and Clube interested in the disintegrating giant comet theory?

BN: My own interest in impacts as having a catastrophic potential for life goes back to about 1970, almost back to my student days. Victor Clube joined the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh, where I worked, in the early 70s. He was interested in the possibility that violent Galactic events might from time to time have terrestrial consequences. It was very natural that we should put our heads together on these topics, and we did so from the mid-70s onwards. We soon realised that the Oort cloud is liable to disruption during the Sun’s orbit around the Galaxy, flooding the planetary system with comets, and that there are some really big ones out there. We had a primitive but working theory of catastrophism by the late 70s (e.g. Napier & Clube, Nature 282, 455, 1979 and more, wherein we remarked that “historical records are a potential source of data for testing our hypothesis.”). It was actually Fred Whipple at Harvard University who first took the view that Comet Encke was the remnant of a much larger body, and we picked up that idea and ran with it. The big puzzle for us was why the Comet Encke progenitor went unrecorded in the historical record. Even at a diameter of 20 km it would have been almost as bright as the full moon.

CT: Interesting you say you were puzzled that a giant comet went unrecorded, Bill. You must have later come to believe that these events were indeed “recorded,” but in religious traditions and mythology, as you maintain in your books Cosmic Winter and Cosmic Serpent. Was that realization subsequent to your astronomical conclusions? Tell us how myth began to play a role in your studies.

BN: No question, the astronomy came first. There were two components to this. The likely impact rate of Tunguskas and super-Tunguskas made us wonder where these things were in the historical record, and of course the disintegration products, plainly visible in the sky, of a large progenitor comet provided another where-is-it-in-the-record paradox. Victor had some ancient book by Bellamy who had some strange ideas about disintegrating moons recorded in ancient tales; all I could find in our local library was a book by Fontenrose on Delphic myth. We started from there. It wasn’t long before we learned that astronomical motifs of a catastrophist nature are to be found scattered throughout ancient tales. And of course others had been there before us throughout the centuries, all the way back to the classical authors.

CT: Fontenrose and Bellamy? That’s obscure stuff the Tusk will have to follow up on! I noticed that you provided Chapter 11 in respected science author Nick Bostrom’s book, Global Catastrophic Risks, and referred to evidence from myth as obviously “qualitative,” and that “one man’s unifying hypothesis is another’s Velikovskian fantasy.” Great quote. So let’s turn to the quantitative evidence of a recent catastrophe. Outside the work of the YDB team, where do think “traditional” evidence for determining the frequency of impacts has gone wrong? Where do find quantitative evidence for more frequent impacts that NASA, for instance, does not?

BN: The “traditional” route was set in the 1970s and later, when it was generally assumed that Earth crossers were perturbed out of the main asteroid belt. There was little inkling of the big populations on the fringes of the planetary system, feeding into unstable orbits between the giant planets. Impact hazard assessments based on this model may still be fine for short timescales. Imagine, however, taking a snapshot of a railway station. Depending on the time and date, you might see a handful of cleaning staff, a rush hour crowd, or holiday time congestion. If you use this single snapshot to predict tomorrow’s throughput, you could get it spectacularly wrong. To get a reliable assessment you need to look at the bigger picture, and the trouble with current impact estimates is that they don’t. They assume statistical completeness, i.e. that the current situation is typical. Chapman and Morrison, for example, estimate the probability of a globally destructive impact over the next 10,000 years to be about 1%. I have no idea what the real figure is, but I do know that on a timescale 30,000 or so years, there’s an expectation that a comet with at least 100 times the mass of the entire near-Earth asteroid system will enter a short-period orbit and disintegrate in our neighbourhood. Comets break up by a variety of routes, hierarchic fragmentation being a major one. Brief, strong surges of impact are then a distinct possibility, rendering the Chapman/Morrison/Harris model more or less irrelevant when it comes to assessing the hazard to civilisation. Whereas this traditional route will tell us to expect a few hundred megaton impact, yielding regional damage, the real encounter mechanics may be quite different and may have global consequences. The good news is that we would probably get plenty of warning. Dark comets emerging from the Halley system are a different matter, but that hazard is unquantified.

As to when this might have happened in the past, it’s long been known that the zodiacal cloud is substantially overmassive in relation to the available supply of dust, with David Hughes for example concluding that `at some time in the last 1000 to 100,000 years, the cloud has benefited from a large and unusual mass enhancement’. A massive radar survey of meteors undertaken by Peter Brown’s Canadian group in recent years, coupled with their dynamical modelling, has strengthened the result that much of the zodiacal cloud came from the progenitor of Encke’s comet and that it was an unusually large object. The destruction time of the zodiacal cloud is something between 10,000 and 20,000 years, straddling the Younger Dryas boundary.

Another way. Consider the impact cratering record as recorded in the Earth Impact Database. The impact record is dominated by episodes of multiple bombardment. I’ve labelled these in the diagram, which plots only the best dated craters. We’ve demonstrated in the refereed literature that (a) fragments from main belt asteroid collisions fail by an order of magnitude to reproduce these episodes; (b) comet showers from Oort cloud disturbances likewise; and (c) the known population, size distribution and orbital flow of centaurs can account for the record. (Most of the episodes coincide in time with major extinction events, and the asterisks mark a couple of singlets that also coincide with big extinctions. These impacts are generally too small individually to have caused the mass extinctions and can only be proxies for some other astronomical process, such as stratospheric dusting.) Considering all 184 impact structures in the database, it turns out there is only one in the range 5–35 million years (the Ries crater 24 km across). Using the traditional estimates, we expect something like 17 land impacts to have made craters >20 km across over this interval. Most of these should have been discovered, this being a relatively recent era. It’s hardly credible that we have missed 16 out of 17 of them; the dearth is real. Conversely, there seems to have been a surge of impact cratering in the recent past relative to the long-term average. All this makes sense if the prime impactors are derived from the breakup of large comets, since their mass distribution is top-heavy and their input is erratic and episodic. I think the Galactic environment also plays a role through disturbing the Oort comet cloud, for example when we pass through spiral arms.

The statistics don’t reveal any significant difference between the temporal behaviour of large and small craters in this respect. The asteroid belt may well be okay as a supplier of small impactors, incoming comets for larger ones, but it’s not clear to me where the breakeven point lies. All three major 20th-century impacts (TunguskaBritish GuyanaCuruca River and here) coincided with our passage through major meteor streams, and the odds of this are about 1000 to one against. Peter Brown and colleagues, in a letter to Nature published last year, suggest that the number of impactors up to Tunguska-sized is up to ten times higher than previous estimates based on long-term lunar counts. Again, we’re looking at a flickering system.

CT: Bill, you labeled the current understanding the “Chapman/Harris/Morrison” model, referring respectively of course to Clark ChapmanAlan Harris, and David Morrison. These elderly gentlemen are US scientists and well known to the Tusk as catastrophe deniers. You addressed some of Morrison’s objections to your understanding of the situation a few years back, comments which can be found here in the Tusk for those interested. What fascinates me is how these three have built careers (See also: Plait, Phil and Boslough, Mark) based on conflicting public contentions. To wit: The cosmic threat is dangerous enough for them to write books and give speeches about, but not so dangerous the public should be genuinely concerned. And it’s awkward companion message: The impact threat is so well constrained there is no room for scholarly disagreement, yet their field desperately needs further funding because…there is still “so much we don’t know!” Are these guys scientists — or intellectual contortionists?

BN: My guess would be that they want to steer a course between alarmism and complacency (the giggle factor), and that different aspects of the celestial hazard issue are emphasised depending on the audience and the context. However, more to the point, their model fails to predict the YDB phenomena. If the YDB teams are right, the CMH model is up against a real problem. It also fails to account for (and the protagonists continue to ignore):

1) Not just the whole array of YDB evidence, but also that of Marie Agnes Courty, indicating that major cosmic disturbances of some sort took place 12,800 BP and 2350 BC, the latter collapsing the earliest civilisations.

2) The evidence, decades-old now and not even controversial amongst the comet community, that an exceptionally large, low-inclination, short-period comet has been orbiting in our neighbourhood for about 20,000 years. The massive Canadian meteor survey of Peter Brown and colleagues, for example, confirming this, has been simply ignored by the CMH group. And yet in such a disintegrating environment there is a reasonable probability of a catastrophic encounter with debris in the comet trail. In this connection my colleagues have further material upcoming.

3) The finding that large bodies leak inwards from beyond the edge of the planetary system, entering unstable orbits which yield large Earth-crossing comets at a calculable rate, and that the inner interplanetary environment is thus subject to substantial mass enhancements (factor of 100 or more) at intervals comparable with the timescale of civilisation to date.

4) Impact cratering statistics, using the best extant data, demonstrating the existence of bombardment episodes throughout geological history, most easily explained as giant comet breakup and specifically not explicable by asteroid breakup or Oort cloud disturbance. For example the 24 km Boltysh crater in the Ukraine crater in the Ukraine was formed within 2000-3000 years of the Chicxulub impact crater; the odds of this synchronicity being down to chance are 2500 to one against for this pair alone, 1000 to one against for the Popigai/Chesapeake pair and so on.

If the silence on these points is like something out of Kafka, such counter-arguments as we have heard are like something out of Mickey Mouse [emphasis CT]. The “it’s impossible” argument continues to be presented years after its deficiencies have been pointed out and a working model described in the peer-reviewed literature; one protagonist’s answer to a journalist’s question about the evidence for bombardment episodes (a Bayesian analysis which survived tough refereeing) was that he could draw dinosaurs in the sky by joining up stars; and another’s objection to our long-running Taurid complex studies was that “colleagues who do dynamics” find them unreasonable. Anonymous colleagues giving unspecified reasons: maybe more Kafka than Mouse.

CT: Outside astronomical evidence what do you personally find most convincing of catastrophe in human times, given the array of evidence you have reviewed over the decades?

BN: It’s always hard to evaluate evidence in fields outside one’s own, but to me the continuing accumulation of impact proxies by independent groups – melt glass, nanodiamonds, Greenland platinum spike and so on – provides compelling evidence that a cosmic input of some sort occurred at the onset of the YD cooling. And the finding by the Belmont group of a second nanodiamond peak a few thousand years in the past is exciting: it strengthens Marie Agnes Courty’s long-running contention that of a more recent event at 2350 BC, again coincident with a widespread cooling, and drought, sufficient to bring about the collapse of the earliest civilisations.

CT: I understand you have several writing projects underway. What can we expect to see from you in the future?

BN: A review article Centaurs as a hazard to civilisation by a bunch of us is due for publication in the December 2015 issue of Astronomy & Geophysics, an in-house journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. We have things to say, inter alia, about the Chapman/Harris/Morrison model. Once published, I anticipate it will become widely available.

I have a popular science manuscript, provisionally entitled Cosmic Roulette, which covers the issue of humanity’s vulnerability in the cosmic environment. Tusk-like material is, of course, a conspicuous feature of the book. I still have a chapter or so to finish off.

I’ve also resumed my fiction writing after a long layoff due to research commitments, and have completed two thriller manuscripts. The Younger Dryas boundary issue plays an important part in The Doomsday Vault (the fictional scientists therein have no connection to any real ones!), and Meltdown is partially set in the Syrian desert.

All three manuscripts have now gone to an agency, and I’m awaiting their response.

CT: Bill, thank you so very much. I am a horrible novel reader but certainly will be reading The Doomsday Vault. And pimping it here on the Tusk!

BN: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to have my say.
_________


Source:

http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/2015/12/fall-of-house-of-history-our-past-was.html

 

NASA Admits Antarctica Gaining Land Ice (But good news is bad news to climate alarmists) | Corbett Report
Category: EARTH CHANGES
Tags: Global Warming UN

NASA Admits Antarctica Gaining Land Ice (But good news is bad news to climate alarmists)

by James Corbett
TheInternationalForecaster.com
November 3, 2015

Do you spend sleepless nights worrying about the sea level rise caused by the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet? Well enjoy your slumbers, my friend, NASA has just given you reason to sleep easier.

A new study–entitled “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses” and published in the Journal of Glaciology–overturns previous assessments (including that relayed in the latest IPCC report) that Antarctica is losing land ice and thus contributing to sea level rise. As NASA states in a press release, previous assessments had falsely assumed that increasing surface height of the ice sheets was due to snow accumulation, but the new study shows that the rise in elevation is in fact due to ice gain.

The upshot is that previous assessments, including the IPCC’s, got the Antarctic contribution to sea level rise–previously pegged at 0.27 millimeters per year–precisely wrong. “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away.” Well, they were only off by 185%, I suppose, and got the change in the wrong direction. It could be worse…I mean better.

But don’t worry, things are still bad. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

You see, the same researchers who can’t even accurately say whether the Antarctic ice sheets are gaining or losing mass (let alone how much mass) are able to determine global sea level rise to within hundredths of a millimeter. No accuracy issues there, of course. So you can continue worrying, I suppose. (Except for that pesky little Stanford study from September showing that previous models vastly overestimated future sea level rise.)

If this seems like deja vu all over again, then congratulations; you’re paying attention.

Remember when “NASA satellites detect[ed] unexpected ice loss in East Antarctica” in 2009? The results were “unexpected” because East Antarctica was previously considered stable, with the continent’s ice loss (well, net gain) supposedly taking place in West Antarctica. It took a science-hating-denier-skeptic-heathenbeast to point out that the numbers were derived from gravity measurements which were picking up on isostatic adjustment, i.e. changes taking place beneath the surface of the ice, not changes in the ice levels themselves. And lo and behold a few months later a team led by another NASA JPL researcher found that the gravity measurements had in fact been measuring…wait for it…isostatic adjustment.

But somehow “Unexpected ice loss in East Antarctica” generated more headlines than “Ooops, Sorry About That, We Were Measuring Something Else Entirely.” Go figure.

This is not an isolated phenomenon, of course.

Do you remember when NASA released this dramatic image of the temperature trends in Antarctica showing a clear positive warming trend of between 0.05C and 0.1C throughout most of the continent?

antarctica_avhrr_81-07

Did you notice the fine print at the end of the third paragraph where it’s casually admitted that the level of uncertainty in the measurements the map was based on was between 2 and 3 degrees C, or 40-60 times the increment they claimed to be measuring? This type of utterly meaningless exercise in map coloring would get you an “F” in any undergrad science course, but it’s good enough for NASA.

So perhaps it should come as no surprise that the authors of the new paper showing that the Antarctic is in fact detracting from sea level rise, not adding to it, are being treated with derision and hostility by their colleagues. “Please don’t publicize this study” one University of Colorado researcher pleaded with Al Jazeera. After all, it can’t be right; it “contradicts 13 years of satellite measurements of Antarctica’s ice by NASA’s GRACE mission.”

And that’s the point. You would think this would be treated as wonderful news by people who were genuinely concerned about the supposed disastrous effects of climate change. Any sane person would be delighted to find out they were horribly wrong about their dire predictions of doom and gloom. But not the other researchers whose $1.5 trillion climate change gravy train are threatened by a cooling off of global warming hysteria.

Unfortunately, however, the unfalsifiable, goalpost-shifting global warming climate change global weirding pseudoscience is not just about business interests. It’s about a much larger agenda, one first mapped out by the Club of Rome in their 1991 publication The First Global Revolution, which stated:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

Yes, this is the same Club of Rome that predicted the complete exhaustion of over a dozen resources in its 1972 “Limits to Growth” publication, every single one of which failed to come true. And yes, this is the same Club of Rome that then celebrated their “Limits to Growth” fearmongering failure by doubling down with a giant 40th anniversary “celebration” of…40 years of considerable growth?

Failed predictions from

Failed predictions from “Limits to Growth” (predictions already falsified in red)

And yes, this is the same Club of Rome whose members include the Al Gores and Mikhail Gorbachevs and Tim Wirths and Paul Ehrlichs of the world with the means, motive and opportunity to indeed ‘make humanity the enemy.’

And now we’re on the verge of the latest United Nations climate conference, the COP21 summit scheduled to take place in Paris from November 30 – December 11. Just like in Copenhagen in 2009, this conference is threatening a slate of new global governmental institutions, regulations and mechanisms to combat the (non-existent) climate change threat. On the table in the draft text of the new climate treaty: a new UN Tribunal to adjudicate on non-compliance with climate commitments.

Given the fact that eugenecist Bilderberger Bill Gates is now piling on UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres’ admission earlier this year that the conference will intentionally “change the economic development model” of the world by admitting that only big government can save the world from global warming, coupled with China being drawn into the global warming fold as part of its five year plan bid to become more involved in international institutions and tripled with Obama threatening to do an end run around the Senate to get the treaty passed, I think it’s safe to say that big things are afoot in this global technocratic power grab.

Stay tuned to these pages for ongoing coverage as we approach COP21.

 

RSS
Search a Blog

May 2016 (55)
April 2016 (313)
March 2016 (340)
February 2016 (297)
January 2016 (314)
December 2015 (309)
November 2015 (326)
October 2015 (325)
September 2015 (323)
August 2015 (336)
July 2015 (314)
June 2015 (305)
May 2015 (297)

WHO IS ONLINE
Your Support Makes It Possible

Thank you for supporting the BOLE

The B.O.L.E. is completely funded by community, managed and maintained by volunteers. Please consider making a contribution so more stories of awakening and alternative views can be shared!

 

You also can support us via PATREON HERE >>>

 

Focusing On Real Values

A great way to a new standard.

Gold in small units, also one gram at time

Products for your Wellness

Important: For all products chose at the top of the page the  language (English or German) and currency!

 click HERE to reach all products

TATWellness deliver worldwide.

In Your Service

B.O.L.E.

SiNeh~

This website is powered by Spruz

Live Support