That "97% of Scientists" claim is total fabrication.
In 2009 Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois in Chicago sent out a survey to 10,257 scientists. Only 3,146 bothered to answer the stupid thing. 79 Scientists who answered the survey claimed to be "Climate Scientists". The 97% is based on these 79 "Scientists" answers throwing out the other 3049 responses. 76 of those 79 "Climate Scientists" agreed that there is climate change, there is Global Warming and Man is the cause. 76 of 79 is 97% when in actuality it's 76 of 10,257 (.0094%) or 76 of 3,146 (.03%). So either .0094% or .03% of "Scientists" actually believe in man-made Global Warming according to the oft quoted survey.
Sorry, I don't know how else I can send you this message, but your positive feedback is always most valuable to me, especially after we had a disagreement, but were kind and intelligent enough to retain respect for each other. We are also reading each other, which seems to indicate that you and I belong to the minority that is still not compromised!
I appreciate your work!
I offer only bonuses to paid subscribers, but having to spend 10-14 hours a day on reading, writing, and housekeeping is not exactly easy to do for free and the return are pennies on the hours. I never intended to do this for money and never lock anyone out of anything for not paying, but I am still grateful for the support of those, who realize this.
.....honestly, been immersed in HOURS of revisiting myriad 9-11, Sandy Hook inconsistencies, sacred geometry these past few days - will share a link below to what's INARGUABLY, the most comprehensive associated video ever produced, by Scott.....Onsott (?) called, 'Secrets Hiding In Plain Sight' (agree with about 95% of his conclusions) and I admittedly DON'T have the patience to review Happer's arguments - greenhouse gases are certainly NOT a PRIMARY concern as to ecosystemic deterioration and existential threat; will ONLY say that IF he's also dismissive (like TOO many identifying as 'conservative', I'm increasingly finding) of what is CLEARLY cause for CONSIDERABLE, clear evidence of DEVASTATING global-scale cataclysms (6-8 of 'em) in the past 100,000 years it's a incredibly UNiformed, oblivious stance - we've got a RUNAWAY pair of geomagnetic poles even NOW and AS someone with SOUND physics instincts, can assert it's just SANE to at least provide SOME sort of RESPONSIVE contingency to which I've spoken and identified; that SAID, Herndon & Whiteside's indictment of DELIBERATELY-deposited 'coal fly ash' (RATHER than 'CFCs') for a significantly-eviscerated ozone layer, confirms what I came to suspect last month is the REAL reason/s why elites been SO hellbent upon eliminating INCANDESCENT light bulbs: they aren't stable enough to allow for encapsulated TRACKING sensors (while LED illumination can't fully approximate natural illumination, such as by the Sun; may lessen effectiveness of certain biological functions, and those SCARY-looking, toxic CFL spiraled tubes, were just a BIG ol' SCAM.....) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhgLnIvuAs
Natural climate change is obvious. Accusations of anthropological climate change are the stupid results of believing that humanity is capable of changing the climate when we obviously are not. Neither can we make any impact to reverse natural climate change. Geo-engineering projects are designed to make it APPEAR that climate change is happening when it is actually weather warfare which is being used to depopulate.
You really should have, at least either read my article in full or simply listened to Dr Happer before commenting here. That would have been the polite response rather than assuming you know what is being said!
Had no practical way of FURTHER linking the video / reference to sacred geometry; figure you'd (and other interested) MOST immediately see it in THIS thread; hence its inclusion....
.....didn't suggest I knew what was being said by Happer, Frances - and YES, with considerably more clarification as to those contingencies which might ALREADY exist, DO believe there is a GOOD chance of INDEED minimizing such profound biospheric change through RE-PURPOSING ionospheric heating arrays PRECISELY synchronized (while sufficient density potential to produce artificialized effects of yet-to-be-determined sustenance, compromised by a understandably-thinned magnetic field is AUGMENTED through a HIGHER greenhouse-gas index; only again, SANE to TRY; I'm NOT gonna sit around WAITING and be literally FATALISTIC, naive about it as SO many New Ageists (including MORE than a FEW environmentally-conscious evangelicals) are, presumptively awaiting their effective existential transcendence - as you yourself qualify, these ARE natural changes, cycles (I've been able to identify ALL causes, contributing factors; for one thing, the Milky Way's densities aren't evenly distributed) - but that DOESN'T mean we HAVE to experience ANOTHER cataclysmic / widescale extinction event, either.....
Thank you, Frances, for addressing the big fat elephant in the room, geo-engineering. It's mind-blowing how ignorant most people are of this issue. I'm sure you've probably seen it already, but FrankenSkies is a good documentary for people to start with. Along with The Dimming, of course. While people are all jazzed up about their electric cars, they won't even question what all those big fat white stripes in the sky are. Or where that deep blue sky went. Thanks for all of your digging. You are amazing!
AWESOME series. I have been lecturing and educated on this lie for a long time. It is all part of UN Agenda 21/Global Biodiversity Assessment/Wildlands Project.
Dear Frances 100% agree without any hesitation. I have been talking to people, "inspiring" critical thinking for years now . I honestly think Green Energy has become like a religion to most. There is no scientific debate- absolutely none. It has become like a Cult - Religion. It is based on irrational beliefs, on thinking fallacies and it is fuelled by manipulators. It feels to me the objective is not really "green' energy but total destruction. Otherwise, we would actually have some real conversations about how we could become more "green" what being "green" actually means and how it really looks like in the context of us, our planet, future... What is being pushed as "green" is total bullshit. It is a cult. You can't argue with cult followers.
.....there are FAR more preferable - and GENUINELY-'sustainable', inexpensive-to-QUICKLY-implement technologies available right NOW (such as 'TABLETOP' fusion / microimplosive devices adaptable for vehicle propulsion; recycling HYDROLYTIC systems) which would DESTROY these rapacious, corpulent swine - FREE us from their clutches; I'm CERTAIN though from even just a LITTLE evidence produced, that ANY kind of subterranean extraction - not JUST 'fossil fuels' - significantly altering environmental topologies has a PROFOUND impact upon evolutionary organic morphogenesis, for reasons that are admittedly DIFFICULT to articulate - but can be SUMMARILY explained as, changes to values of comparatively-LOW-strength resonant informational effects.....
agree......the issue is Green energy is a cult. There is basic lack of capacity and openess to think critically. Lack of maturity, capacities for scientific and political dialogue, lack of openess to approach a real conversation about what is it that we can realistically achieve and how we can "think" about what is it that we talk about when we talk about "green " energy. In context of us as humans, our planet, resources, scientific thought, mental capacities, political maturity etc...People think green energy = wind= nuclear=wars =solar = electric (just look at stocks that are surging as we type this. All Market is going down solar energy sector surging). Norway pushing Nuclear but war with Russia continuing. Russia has high quality Uranium. Not to mention you need steal for wind turbines. Where is the steal gonna come from? Total madness, ignorance, criminal negligence. The current concept of Green is unsustainable because it is not based in reality. Therefore they will keep elevating it to a Cult, a Religion and sooner or later it will be resolved in the way those matters get resolved....imho.
.....I see the question of metals value considerations as twofold: resilience / durability and relative strength; secondarily, how conductive or resistant they are, Bibi - it's KNOWN that 'hempcrete' is stronger than steel (if NOT titanium; no) a NON-extracted raw material with polymeric potentials (still need to figure out BEST catalyzer for same, though) - so, what material/s can be added to produce optimized conductivity as WELL, then? My issue with wind vanes is OBVIOUSLY, their RIDICULOUS (and ecosystemically-devastating) SIZE, sprawling scope - FAR smaller versions of these behemoths are at LEAST as efficient - while do recognize a VERY viable place for solar-radiation harvesting, conversion technologies.....long-term effects of geothermal systems, have yet to be determined - but, as I note above, SEVERAL more preferable alternatives presently exist.....
Of course Agree. I was referencing wind energy in contex how ridiculous it is ...to think they are green considering what and how they are made of and what output they produce. This medium not appropriate for this discussion. I agree with you.
Yes, that is why I created the meme "Nature is being murdered because it is the enemy of totalitarianism"..... so many years ago.... at least a decade! You are right, we are arguing with cult followers who plug their ears and blind their eyes rather than question their indoctrination.
Yes and they just do not want to consider the facts. Like observable undisputable facts like physics, geological facts, reserves, metals available on Earth, geophysics just to name a few (it pisses me off to even write about the dickheads). That is why I think it is about the destruction. Otherwise, they would engage in a dialogue and look at what is realistically possible, achievable within timeframes and what needs to be put in place to enable global cooperation. There is no political security without energy security. Adhering to politics of wars by expanding NATO beyond the agreed lines, working on bioweapons and the development and deployment of Human Cyborgs in Ukraine and further escalating the suicidal concepts marketed as "Green Energy" serves one aim only: destruction of humans and this planet as we know it.
There will never be the predominant energy of peaceful coexistence required for higher functioning and further development of our species until we stop what is being pushed at us via psychopathic, corrupted mindsets which are in power right now. I'll just end here. Sorry for the rant.
Report finds 'no evidence of a climate emergency" ~ Italian study reported by Sky Australia.
https://youtu.be/k7P4zyxM8zc
Climate change denial now a 'mental condition'!
https://youtu.be/vsafxsxY-fU
So is defying "authority"! :)
REMEMBER!
That "97% of Scientists" claim is total fabrication.
In 2009 Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois in Chicago sent out a survey to 10,257 scientists. Only 3,146 bothered to answer the stupid thing. 79 Scientists who answered the survey claimed to be "Climate Scientists". The 97% is based on these 79 "Scientists" answers throwing out the other 3049 responses. 76 of those 79 "Climate Scientists" agreed that there is climate change, there is Global Warming and Man is the cause. 76 of 79 is 97% when in actuality it's 76 of 10,257 (.0094%) or 76 of 3,146 (.03%). So either .0094% or .03% of "Scientists" actually believe in man-made Global Warming according to the oft quoted survey.
Sorry, I don't know how else I can send you this message, but your positive feedback is always most valuable to me, especially after we had a disagreement, but were kind and intelligent enough to retain respect for each other. We are also reading each other, which seems to indicate that you and I belong to the minority that is still not compromised!
I appreciate your work!
I offer only bonuses to paid subscribers, but having to spend 10-14 hours a day on reading, writing, and housekeeping is not exactly easy to do for free and the return are pennies on the hours. I never intended to do this for money and never lock anyone out of anything for not paying, but I am still grateful for the support of those, who realize this.
.....honestly, been immersed in HOURS of revisiting myriad 9-11, Sandy Hook inconsistencies, sacred geometry these past few days - will share a link below to what's INARGUABLY, the most comprehensive associated video ever produced, by Scott.....Onsott (?) called, 'Secrets Hiding In Plain Sight' (agree with about 95% of his conclusions) and I admittedly DON'T have the patience to review Happer's arguments - greenhouse gases are certainly NOT a PRIMARY concern as to ecosystemic deterioration and existential threat; will ONLY say that IF he's also dismissive (like TOO many identifying as 'conservative', I'm increasingly finding) of what is CLEARLY cause for CONSIDERABLE, clear evidence of DEVASTATING global-scale cataclysms (6-8 of 'em) in the past 100,000 years it's a incredibly UNiformed, oblivious stance - we've got a RUNAWAY pair of geomagnetic poles even NOW and AS someone with SOUND physics instincts, can assert it's just SANE to at least provide SOME sort of RESPONSIVE contingency to which I've spoken and identified; that SAID, Herndon & Whiteside's indictment of DELIBERATELY-deposited 'coal fly ash' (RATHER than 'CFCs') for a significantly-eviscerated ozone layer, confirms what I came to suspect last month is the REAL reason/s why elites been SO hellbent upon eliminating INCANDESCENT light bulbs: they aren't stable enough to allow for encapsulated TRACKING sensors (while LED illumination can't fully approximate natural illumination, such as by the Sun; may lessen effectiveness of certain biological functions, and those SCARY-looking, toxic CFL spiraled tubes, were just a BIG ol' SCAM.....) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhgLnIvuAs
Natural climate change is obvious. Accusations of anthropological climate change are the stupid results of believing that humanity is capable of changing the climate when we obviously are not. Neither can we make any impact to reverse natural climate change. Geo-engineering projects are designed to make it APPEAR that climate change is happening when it is actually weather warfare which is being used to depopulate.
You really should have, at least either read my article in full or simply listened to Dr Happer before commenting here. That would have been the polite response rather than assuming you know what is being said!
ps
Are you sure the YouTube link is the one you intended to share? It does not seem to relate to Climate Change but rather to other posts I have written recently, such as: https://francesleader.substack.com/p/from-parocelcus-to-the-hermeticists
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/what-does-the-rule-of-law-mean
Had no practical way of FURTHER linking the video / reference to sacred geometry; figure you'd (and other interested) MOST immediately see it in THIS thread; hence its inclusion....
.....didn't suggest I knew what was being said by Happer, Frances - and YES, with considerably more clarification as to those contingencies which might ALREADY exist, DO believe there is a GOOD chance of INDEED minimizing such profound biospheric change through RE-PURPOSING ionospheric heating arrays PRECISELY synchronized (while sufficient density potential to produce artificialized effects of yet-to-be-determined sustenance, compromised by a understandably-thinned magnetic field is AUGMENTED through a HIGHER greenhouse-gas index; only again, SANE to TRY; I'm NOT gonna sit around WAITING and be literally FATALISTIC, naive about it as SO many New Ageists (including MORE than a FEW environmentally-conscious evangelicals) are, presumptively awaiting their effective existential transcendence - as you yourself qualify, these ARE natural changes, cycles (I've been able to identify ALL causes, contributing factors; for one thing, the Milky Way's densities aren't evenly distributed) - but that DOESN'T mean we HAVE to experience ANOTHER cataclysmic / widescale extinction event, either.....
Thank you, Frances, for addressing the big fat elephant in the room, geo-engineering. It's mind-blowing how ignorant most people are of this issue. I'm sure you've probably seen it already, but FrankenSkies is a good documentary for people to start with. Along with The Dimming, of course. While people are all jazzed up about their electric cars, they won't even question what all those big fat white stripes in the sky are. Or where that deep blue sky went. Thanks for all of your digging. You are amazing!
HELIOS has arrived:
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/lockheed-martin-laser-us-navy
AWESOME series. I have been lecturing and educated on this lie for a long time. It is all part of UN Agenda 21/Global Biodiversity Assessment/Wildlands Project.
Dear Frances 100% agree without any hesitation. I have been talking to people, "inspiring" critical thinking for years now . I honestly think Green Energy has become like a religion to most. There is no scientific debate- absolutely none. It has become like a Cult - Religion. It is based on irrational beliefs, on thinking fallacies and it is fuelled by manipulators. It feels to me the objective is not really "green' energy but total destruction. Otherwise, we would actually have some real conversations about how we could become more "green" what being "green" actually means and how it really looks like in the context of us, our planet, future... What is being pushed as "green" is total bullshit. It is a cult. You can't argue with cult followers.
.....there are FAR more preferable - and GENUINELY-'sustainable', inexpensive-to-QUICKLY-implement technologies available right NOW (such as 'TABLETOP' fusion / microimplosive devices adaptable for vehicle propulsion; recycling HYDROLYTIC systems) which would DESTROY these rapacious, corpulent swine - FREE us from their clutches; I'm CERTAIN though from even just a LITTLE evidence produced, that ANY kind of subterranean extraction - not JUST 'fossil fuels' - significantly altering environmental topologies has a PROFOUND impact upon evolutionary organic morphogenesis, for reasons that are admittedly DIFFICULT to articulate - but can be SUMMARILY explained as, changes to values of comparatively-LOW-strength resonant informational effects.....
agree......the issue is Green energy is a cult. There is basic lack of capacity and openess to think critically. Lack of maturity, capacities for scientific and political dialogue, lack of openess to approach a real conversation about what is it that we can realistically achieve and how we can "think" about what is it that we talk about when we talk about "green " energy. In context of us as humans, our planet, resources, scientific thought, mental capacities, political maturity etc...People think green energy = wind= nuclear=wars =solar = electric (just look at stocks that are surging as we type this. All Market is going down solar energy sector surging). Norway pushing Nuclear but war with Russia continuing. Russia has high quality Uranium. Not to mention you need steal for wind turbines. Where is the steal gonna come from? Total madness, ignorance, criminal negligence. The current concept of Green is unsustainable because it is not based in reality. Therefore they will keep elevating it to a Cult, a Religion and sooner or later it will be resolved in the way those matters get resolved....imho.
.....I see the question of metals value considerations as twofold: resilience / durability and relative strength; secondarily, how conductive or resistant they are, Bibi - it's KNOWN that 'hempcrete' is stronger than steel (if NOT titanium; no) a NON-extracted raw material with polymeric potentials (still need to figure out BEST catalyzer for same, though) - so, what material/s can be added to produce optimized conductivity as WELL, then? My issue with wind vanes is OBVIOUSLY, their RIDICULOUS (and ecosystemically-devastating) SIZE, sprawling scope - FAR smaller versions of these behemoths are at LEAST as efficient - while do recognize a VERY viable place for solar-radiation harvesting, conversion technologies.....long-term effects of geothermal systems, have yet to be determined - but, as I note above, SEVERAL more preferable alternatives presently exist.....
Of course Agree. I was referencing wind energy in contex how ridiculous it is ...to think they are green considering what and how they are made of and what output they produce. This medium not appropriate for this discussion. I agree with you.
Yes, that is why I created the meme "Nature is being murdered because it is the enemy of totalitarianism"..... so many years ago.... at least a decade! You are right, we are arguing with cult followers who plug their ears and blind their eyes rather than question their indoctrination.
Yes and they just do not want to consider the facts. Like observable undisputable facts like physics, geological facts, reserves, metals available on Earth, geophysics just to name a few (it pisses me off to even write about the dickheads). That is why I think it is about the destruction. Otherwise, they would engage in a dialogue and look at what is realistically possible, achievable within timeframes and what needs to be put in place to enable global cooperation. There is no political security without energy security. Adhering to politics of wars by expanding NATO beyond the agreed lines, working on bioweapons and the development and deployment of Human Cyborgs in Ukraine and further escalating the suicidal concepts marketed as "Green Energy" serves one aim only: destruction of humans and this planet as we know it.
There will never be the predominant energy of peaceful coexistence required for higher functioning and further development of our species until we stop what is being pushed at us via psychopathic, corrupted mindsets which are in power right now. I'll just end here. Sorry for the rant.
A eloquent so called rant that reveals the cold hard truth of what kind of extreme evil that humanity is facing at the present time.