This question is about Climate Change… She’s asking: “Why do “They” continue to double-down on the Climate Catastrophe angle?“
There’s so many ways to answer this question. So first of all, who are “they”? The powers-that-be – there are local powers-that-be, there are regional powers-that-be, there are global powers-that-be, so I believe that the most honest way to answer this question “Why are they doubling-down on the Climate Catastrophe angle?” is coming within the context of what you and I are living through right now.
It is an attempt for what is called “The Great Reset” – and I know many of you have heard that, you’ve heard me speak about it, the coin was termed by the World Economic Forum – they produced a book – it’s no secret that they would like to re-make the world and in that re-making they are seeing the pandemic as an opportunity to re-make the world.
What does that mean? It means a new economic system, a new financial system, a new industrial system, a new social order, new governmental systems, new relationships between new nations, and they talk about this very, very clearly – there’s a goal that they have to accomplish this by the year 2030.
In the year 2019, the World Economic Forum signed an agreement with the United Nations for the UN to help to implement the vision of the WEF.
There’s a lot of information out there about those goals and it’s a delicate conversation and it’s a hard conversation, and I think it’s important to have an honest conversation.
I have worked in some capacity with organizations that are in one way or another supporting those goals. I’m no longer working with those organizations, and one of the reasons is, when you look at the goals themselves, they are truly beautiful goals.
Who wouldn’t want food security? Who wouldn’t want to eradicate disease on the planet? Who wouldn’t want, you know – equality? Economic equality and things like that. Beautiful goals.
And then you read the fine-print of what the plan is to accomplish those goals, and in my opinion, to get to those goals, the way that is being proposed, I think there are other ways to achieve those goals with much less suffering in the world.
So, I think the goals are beautiful and the method to get to the goals are concerning.
So the question, why are they doubling-down? They’re doubling-down on the climate-narrative to push and further the thinking that we need to reset the world to achieve those goals.
Climate is a tricky one – because it has been politicized.
Climate Change is a fact. We know that – I began discovering that as a geologist in the industry in the 1970s. I’ve been talking about it publicly since 1986 – we need to prepare for Climate Change because Climate Change is part of a natural dynamic of our planet.
We can see in the geological records, you can see in the ocean sediment records, you can see in the Ice Cores of Greenland and Antarctica. If there are no humans on earth, Climate Change is still happening. The Antarctic ice cores go back 420,000 years BP “before present time”. There were no humans as we know it, living at that time, yet we were going through the warming and the cooling cycles.
Have we contributed to Climate Change? I have to say absolutely. I have to say that because we are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Is this the Warmest our planet has ever been? Absolutely Not.
Is this the most CO2 that has ever been in the atmosphere? Absolutely Not.
Does the planet die when the CO2 levels are high? Absolutely Not.
And this isn’t political. I’m just sharing information.
So let me give you a couple of examples here:
So first of all carbon dioxide is being demonized in our world today in a very sad and a little bit of a frightening way. Young people are being taught to ‘hate & fear it’, but the truth is we cannot live without it.
When the carbon dioxide levels of our planet drop below 180 ppm (parts per million) our planet’s in trouble because the plants need it – carbon dioxide to a planet is like oxygen is to you and me – if there’s not enough CO2 – those plants can’t live and when the plants and the forest begin to die off, we are in trouble because you know that the forests are called the “lungs of the planet” keeping all of the ecological balances in place.
So we don’t want the CO2 levels to drop below 180 ppm, and the last time we saw those levels was 2.6 million years before present.
The earth was much cooler at that time because there was not CO2 to create the warmth. Plants died. It was a very interesting time in the history of our world.
Now, we’re right now over 400 ppm according to the readings taken from the Hawaiian station. It’s at the highest we’ve ever seen. And I’m not saying we want to go back to this but I just want you to know there have been times where we have been in a Cretaceous Period – a long period in history.
As a geologist I enjoyed it because there was so much life and so many fossils that changed over this period of time, it ranges from 66-145 million years before present. During The Cretaceous, the CO2 levels reached 4,000 ppm and earth was probably the greenest – one of the greenest times we’ve ever seen, because life flourishes in the presence of that high CO2.
Temperatures were much warmer: 5-10 ºC warmer than right now – we’re not the warmest that’s ever been.
I’m not saying we want to go there but what I want say to you is that it’s not like everything dies. It’s not like the planet ends when there’s higher levels of CO2. Most of the ice-melted during The Cretaceous and if the ice is not on the poles, you know where it is – that means sea-levels were really high. They obliterated much of what we now know as sea-shores. They obliterate much of the coast.
I’m going to say this another way:
It’s relatively rare to have some of the land-mass exposed in history of earth that we have exposed today.
It’s relatively rare to have parts of Southern California, parts of Florida, parts of the Gulf states.
They had typically been under-water.
That’s why they have the kind of geology they have, that’s why they are fertile in being able to grow crops and things like that.
So during The Cretaceous, most of the ice had melted, the sea-levels were high. Almost all of the flowering-species that we know, emerged during that time. A lot of the new forms of life emerged during that time.
The earth did anything but die.
The last time we saw 400 ppm CO2, which is what we’re seeing right now, was during what’s called the Pliocene period and the temperatures were a little warmer, they were about 3 ºC above the average, and I know we’re trying to keep those temperatures down.
So I just want to be very honest with you, because we’re being led to believe that we’re in this “extreme” that was created “by humans”, when the truth is – if humans weren’t here, we would still have climate change, and when the climate has changed, and the CO2 levels have kicked-up – not from Industry but from Nature – the earth did not die during those times.
I just want to be very honest with you about that.
What’s causing that Climate Change? As a geologist what I can say to you, the primary driver is earth’s location in space with relation to the sun. Earth does a dance, a tilt, an angle, and a wobble, called the Milankovitch Cycle – it’s very well-known in the circles that study this – and those cycles are always driving this dynamic.
The problem is that humans began to build society and civilization without knowing that, assuming that climate was static, and we built right on the edge. Right on the edge of the shorelines, we built in flood planes assuming that would never change. It is changing, and now rather than adapting to the change, we’re being told that we need to “change the planet to fit our lifestyles”. That’s literally what’s happening. The evidence doesn’t support that narrative. At all.
Now, the other side of this – we ARE contributing to CO2, and we need to stop. We need to stop burning fossil fuels.
We’ve had the technology as you’ve heard me say for over sixty years to produce clean, green, sustainable energy / electricity with zero greenhouse gases, with materials that are abundant in the earth’s crust, that are inexpensive, everybody has them, nobody can hoard them, they don’t cost a lot to create. In a way that cannot melt down like a Fukushima reactor. It cannot be weaponized the way Uranium or Plutonium is. The waste can be recycled into the new fuel.
It’s not perfect – but it’s a stepping-stone toward a more perfect form of energy when we finally reach vacuum energy from empty space – and we will.
If “they” were serious about climate change, I personally believe – this is one man’s opinion – that they would’ve allowed this technology to emerge and become prolific when it was developed back in the 1960s.
We had these Thorium reactors up and running – they were shut down in the 80’s. We had some in the US, India’s had some, China’s had some, Russia’s had some. China’s developing new Thorium reactors, element number 90 – Russia is as well.
So when you read that they are not proven – it’s not true – because we already built them and already used them. So if they were serious about cutting back on greenhouse gases, I think we would’ve eliminated those greenhouse gases.
So I guess I’m answering your question in a couple of different ways:
) Climate Change is not Human-Caused
) Humans are contributing to it
) We are not the warmest that’s ever been
) This is not the highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere that’s ever existed
We can look back in geologic history and we can see what happened to the oceans, to the ice-caps, to the green life and the flourishing of life that emerged when the CO2 levels were higher.
I’m not saying we need to do this right now, I just don’t want you to be afraid and this is the whole thing:
Why are “they” doing this now? This is my opinion: If the powers-that-be would come to the people of the earth and honestly say to us that what we have done in the past served us because we’re here now and it is unsustainable and we now have the technology to move into a new era and a new way of living our lives, new ways of generating electricity, new forms of finance and economies, “let’s work together and build this“.
If they would say something like that to us, I think people would probably be more willing to go along with the plan. The thinking is, done from research and studies, back in the 1960s, that the people are reluctant for that kind of change so the only way to get people to adopt that change is to frighten them. So climate is being used to frighten people into a narrative supporting it, and into a way of thinking that will embrace the alternatives that are being touted as the saviours.
In my opinion it’s unnecessary. I understand the thinking – I just don’t think that thinking is necessary. I think the people of the earth are ready for change and we can work together and build a new world but minimize the suffering. The changes that are being implemented now, that are being offered, those changes are causing suffering because they’re abrupt, they’re disruptive, and they’re being done from a place of fear – rather than for the love of our global family, and our love for this planet, and there’s a lot of anger and hurt based on the misunderstandings around the science. It’s sad, it’s unfortunate and it’s unnecessary.
So I hope this helps to understand why they’re doubling-down. They’ve identified the year 2030 as the year they would like to accomplish a lot of the “Great Reset” – you and I are seeing that play out on the world stage by the rapidity of change – the magnitude of the change that is being pushed – the economics systems, borders are being re-drawn, industries are being re-made.
I’m just going to go back – one last thing – you know as a scientist I’ve studied nature a lot. My primary degree is in geology but I have a strong background in earth and marine science. I was an ocean science major and marine geology before I went into terrestrial geology. So i have a strong background in life sciences, and I’m an amateur archaeologist as well as anthropologist and spent a lot of time with indigenous people throughout the world, and what I can say to you is this:
The most sustainable form of living, at any time, and especially in times of extremes, is “Localized Living”.
So localized sources of energy, food, economies, finances, education, all of that.
And the reason is because “Centralized” living puts a population at risk when those Centralized support systems break down everybody suffers. Whereas when it’s localized, things might breakdown here, but over there they’re not and those people can help and we can work together, and you see this in nature – in the animal kingdom, you see it with ants, birds, indigenous traditions – this has always been the model.
This is precisely the opposite of the model that’s being pushed in the great reset. They are pushing for “Centralization”.
Discouraging Rural living to force people into large centralized population centres which in my opinion, especially after the pandemic, I think you can see the downside of that – not just the pandemic, just in terms of how people live.
So what I am seeing as this great reset intuitively flies directly in the face of what nature shows us is the most sustainable way of living.
The World Economic Forum that wrote the book – this is where it came from, what I’m saying to you is not a secret – they believe that this is a good change, they believe that it can be done in a relatively short period of time and that we’ll have a better world for it.
The “ideas” originating from the World Economic Forum were not able to be implemented until the year 2019. In 2019, they signed the agreement – it was televised, you can see videos of the handshake between the WEF and the United Nations to implement the ideas for the Great Reset, and you’re seeing that play out through the UN, implementation of what is called the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030.
The goals themselves are beautiful. If you look at those 17 goals – who doesn’t want food security, equality in finance and for women, to eradicate disease on children all over the world – who doesn’t want those things?
Then you read the fine-print of the plan on how to accomplish those goals and I have to tell you what that fine-print says for me is difficult to see because it has the potential to cause a lot of suffering for a lot of people in the world in the way that the things are being implemented.
You’ve heard the term “The Devil’s in the Details” so if people don’t read the fine-print everybody says “man, I’m on board with this – who wouldn’t want that?“
Who wouldn’t want food security? But then if you look at how that food security is being accomplished – with large corporate farms for example using a lot of Genetically-modified organism based-seeds and the pesticides are being used, which are ‘needed” if you’re going to have a huge corporate farm – that’s the way those things are run.
In my opinion, that is probably not the way to go, and I’m hesitating a little bit… I had the opportunity and have worked with a NGO (non-governmental organization) sharing ideas for the SD2030, and I was excited to do that. What I found was that “the thinking” is so strong that we need these goals and that we need to support these goals, that I could no longer support those in good conscience, so I’m no longer supporting those goals.
I am supporting the things that we’re talking about here.
Localized living in all the ways that I’ve talked about.
The transition of energy – if they’re serious about it – it’s already available to us.
You’ve heard me talk about blockchain technologies and how that can revolutionize personal finance and global economies in a way that’s not tied to a government. In a way that’s not tied to a nation. And I know for some people it sounds frightening and for other people it sounds like utopia. I think there’s something in-between.
I think what it all comes down to for me, it’s about being honest. How can we solve the problems of the world if we’re not honest about the problems we face?
We cannot solve a Climate Change problem if we’re not honest about what the data is telling us, and if we keep cherry-picking the data, and if we keep using legacy-media to perpetuate frightening narratives without talking about the big picture and the full picture.
So I know that we can build a beautiful world because we have everything we need to do that, and I know the people of the world are ready for that – they’re ready for more than the war, certainly, for more than the suffering, and we love our planet. We want to preserve our planet.
So my prayer, my invitation – I wish those powers-that-be – I know they’re doing what they think is best in their minds, and if we all work together and looked at this from a little bit different perspective, I think we can accomplish great and beautiful things.
I personally believe it’s possible to raise the standard of living for every human on the planet using the technologies that are now available and what we now understand, rather than elevating those standards of living for a relatively few, at the expense of many that are working and suffering to support that.
Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.