the climate change scam

[kinglear]

One theme that we see constantly pushed by very powerful people is the concept of manmade climate change

Their argument is that mankinds actions are causing the climate to change

Now i'm not particularly happy about mankinds behaviour myself and i have no doubts in my mind that mankind is polluting the environment and toxifying the biosphere and i absolutely want to see some changes in how we go about things so i see this in a nuanced way

But what i want to explore in this thread is this idea pushed by the elites that new globalised laws and regulations need to be imposed on every man, woman and child on the planet in order to cut down carbon emissions which the elites tell us are the thing causing the climate change

First of all the climate has always changed so we then have to consider if mans activities is what is causing any changes and if so whether that manmade impact is what we are being told it is: the burning of fossil fuels

This thread is going to explore the idea that the 'climate agenda' of the elites is really just a way to shoehorn us all into their long planned for technocracy

 

[kinglear]

Pay Up or the Earth Gets It! - #PropagandaWatch

 

[kinglear]

UN official actually ADMITS that ‘global warming’ is a scam designed to ‘change world’s economic model’
Posted on February 3, 2017 in Activism, corruption, Environment

There are few true ah-ha! moments in socioeconomics and global politics, but one of them just occurred and boy, was it a doozy.

As reported by Investors Business Daily, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, frankly admitted that the overarching goal of the “global warming/climate change” hoax is to reorient the world’s economic model away from capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

IBD noted further:

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

The publication goes on to remind us that capitalism is the only economic model that has successfully lifted entire populations out of chronic poverty:

The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

There’s more, as noted by Armstrong Economics. The reason why these global warming hoaxers want to destroy capitalism is so they can reduce the world’s population, which they see as inherently damaging and harmful:

I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend and Chairman of Temple, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Low and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?”

That the mainstream media continues to promote this global warming hoax as something that is real means that journalists who are buying into this garbage are sealing their own fate as well.

This is yet another reason why President Donald Trump should make good on a threat to pull the U.S. out of the United Nations; it’s become nothing but a cesspool of Left-wing activism that is destroying entire nations.
https://thenationalsentinel.com/201...cam-designed-to-change-worlds-economic-model/

 

[Deleted member 16771]

You'd have to believe that the world's scientists are in on it... Since the scientific consensus came first, and governments had to reluctantly start doing something about it under public pressure.

Also that article should be taught in journalism classes for taking quotes out of context. The issue with capitalism is that its internal logic cannot solve the climate crisis, so we need some intervention into the ecomony to get it to do what we want.

You know, just like we do for armies and missiles.

National parks and clean water.

'Capitalism' is not a god to be worshipped and held inviolate, it's a just a tool, nothing more.

 

[kinglear]

Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong” … temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling
09/19/2017 / By Mike Adams

A stunning new science paper authored by climate change alarmists and published in the science journal Nature Geoscience has just broken the back of the climate change hoax. The paper, authored by Myles R. Allen, Richard J. Millar and others, reveals that global warming climate models are flat wrong, having been deceptively biased toward “worst case” warming predictions that now turn out to be paranoid scare mongering.

The paper, entitled, “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5?°C,” concludes that the global warming long feared and hyped by everyone from Al Gore to CNN talking heads was based on faulty software models that don’t stand up to actual measured temperatures in the real world. In technical jargon, the paper explains, “We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200?GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6?°C in 66% of Earth system model members.”

In effect, the current global warming software models used by the IPCC and cited by the media wildly over-estimate the warming effects of CO2 emissions. How much do they over-estimate warming? By about 50%. Where the software models predicted a 1.3 C rise in average global temperatures, only a rise of about 0.9 C has actually been recorded (and many data points in that average have, of course, been fabricated by climate change scientists to push a political narrative). In other words, carbon dioxide emissions don’t produce the warming effects that have been blindly claimed by climate change alarmists.

“Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,” reports the UK Telegraph. “New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.”

In other words, the climate change threat has been wildly overstated. The fear mongering of Al Gore and the government-funded science community can truly only be described as a “junk science hoax.”
https://www.newstarget.com/2017-09-...rent-rising-as-predicted-hoax-unraveling.html

 

[kinglear]

Article | Published: 18 September 2017

Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C

• Richard J. Millar
• , Jan S. Fuglestvedt
• , Pierre Friedlingstein
• , Joeri Rogelj
• , Michael J. Grubb
• , H. Damon Matthews
• , Ragnhild B. Skeie
• , Piers M. Forster
• , David J. Frame
• & Myles R. Allen

Nature Geoscience volume 10, pages 741–747 (2017) | Download Citation

• An Author Correction to this article was published on 14 May 2018

Abstract
The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031?foxtrotcallback=true

 

[kinglear]

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

• Henry Bodkin

18 September 2017 • 7:15pm


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/

 

[kinglear]

From “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker: (bold emphasis added)

Nothing alerted us more to the curious nature of the global warming scare than the peculiar tactics used by the IPCC to promote its orthodoxy, brooking no dissent. More than once in its series of mammoth reports, the IPCC had been caught out in very serious attempts to rewrite the scientific evidence. The most notorious instance of this was the extraordinary prominence it gave in 2001 to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, mysteriously produced by a relatively unknown young US scientist, which completely redrew the accepted historical record by purporting to show temperatures in the late twentieth century having shot upwards to a level far higher than had ever been known before. Although the ‘hockey stick’ was instantly made the central icon of the IPCC’s cause, it was within a few years to become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.

Similarly called into serious doubt was the reliability of some of the other temperature figures on which the IPCC based its case. Most notably these included those provided by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, A1 Gore’s closest scientific ally, which were one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC relied. These were shown to have been repeatedly ‘adjusted’, to suggest that temperatures had risen further and more steeply than was indicated by any of the other three main data-sources.

…Out of the blue in 1998 Britain’s leading science journal Nature, long supportive of the warming orthodoxy, published a new paper on global temperature changes over the previous 600 years, back to 1400. Its chief author was Michael Mann, a young physicist-turned-climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, who had only completed his PhD two years before. In 1999 he and his colleagues published a further paper, based only on North America but extending their original findings over 1000 years.

Their computer model had enabled them to produce a new temperature graph quite unlike anything seen before. Instead of the previously familiar rises and falls, this showed the trend of average temperatures having gently declined through nine centuries, but then suddenly shooting up in the twentieth century to a level that was quite unprecedented.

In Mann’s graph such familiar features as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had simply vanished. All those awkward anomalies were shown as having been illusory. The only real anomaly which emerged from their studies was that sudden exponential rise appearing in the twentieth century, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.

As would eventually emerge, there were several very odd features about Mann’s new graph, soon to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ because its shape, a long flattish line curving up sharply at the end, was reminiscent of the stick used in ice hockey. But initially none might have seemed odder than the speed with which this obscure study by a comparatively unknown young scientist came to be taken up as the new ‘orthodoxy’.

So radically did the ‘hockey stick’ rewrite all the accepted versions of climate history that initially it carried all before it, leaving knowledgeable experts stunned. It was not yet clear quite how Mann had arrived at his remarkable conclusions, precisely what data he had used or what methods the IPCC had used to verify his findings. The sensational new graph which the IPCC made the centrepiece of its report had been sprung on the world out of left field.

…Yet when, over the years that followed, a number of experts from different fields began to subject Mann’s two papers to careful analysis, some rather serious questions came to be asked about the basis for his study.

For a start, although Mann and his colleagues had cited other evidence for their computer modelling of historical temperatures, it became apparent that they had leaned particularly heavily on ‘proxy data’ provided by a study five years earlier of tree-rings in ancient bristlecone pine trees growing on the slopes of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains. ‘Proxies’ used to calculate temperature consist of data other than direct measurement, such as tree rings, stalactites, ice cores or lake sediments.

According to the 1993 paper used by Mann, these bristlecone pines had shown significantly accelerated growth in the years after 1900. But the purpose of this original study had not been to research into past temperatures. As was made clear by its title – ‘Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric C02 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies’ – it had been to measure the effect on the trees’ growth rate of the twentieth-century increase in C02 levels.

Tree rings are a notoriously unreliable reflector of temperature changes, because they are chiefly formed during only one short period of the year, and cannot therefore give a full picture. This 1993 study of one group of trees in one untypical corner of the US seemed a remarkably flimsy basis on which to base an estimate of global temperatures going back 1000 years.

Then it transpired that, in order to show the twentieth-century section of the graph, the terrifying upward flick of temperatures at the end of the ‘hockey stick’, spliced in with the tree-ring data had been a set of twentieth-century temperature readings, as recorded by more than 2,000 weather stations across the earth’s surface. It was these which more than anything helped to confirm the most dramatic conclusion of the study, that temperatures in the closing decades of the twentieth century had been shooting up to levels unprecedented in the history of the last 1,000 years, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.

Not only was it far from clear that, for this all-important part of the graph, two quite different sets of data had been used. Also accepted without qualification was the accuracy of these twentieth-century surface temperature readings. But the picture given by these was already being questioned by many expert scientists who pointed to evidence that readings from surface weather stations could become seriously distorted by what was known as the ‘urban heat island effect’. The majority of the thermometers in such stations were in the proximity of large and increasingly built-up population centres. It was well-established that these heated up the atmosphere around them to a significantly higher level than in more isolated locations.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than by contrasting the temperature readings taken on the earth’s surface with those which, since 1979, had been taken by NASA satellites and weather balloons, using a method developed by Dr Roy Spencer, responsible for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, and Dr John Christie of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Surprisingly, these atmospheric measurements showed that, far from warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century, global temperatures had in fact slightly cooled. As Spencer was at pains to point out, these avoided the distortions created in surface readings by the urban heat island effect. The reluctance of the IPCC to take proper account of this, he observed, confirmed the suspicion of ‘many scientists involved in the process’ that the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists’.

What was also remarkable about the ‘hockey stick’, as was again widely observed, was how it contradicted all that mass of evidence which supported the generally accepted picture of temperature fluctuations in past centuries. As was pointed out, tree-rings are not the most reliable guide to assessing past temperatures. Scores of more direct sources of proxy evidence had been studied over the years, from Africa, South America, Australia, Pakistan, Antarctica, every continent and ocean of the world.

Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et ai, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There had been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There had similarly been a Mediaeval Warm Period. Furthermore, a mass of data confirmed that the world had been even warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1998.

The first comprehensive study to review this point was published in January 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and his colleague Dr Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They had examined 140 expert studies of the climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. Some had given their findings only in a local or regional context, others had attempted to give a worldwide picture. But between them these studies had covered every continent. The question the two researchers had asked of every study was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm Period; and (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium.

Their conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not found evidence for the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies had denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm Period, while 116 had confirmed it.

On the crucial question of whether or not the twentieth century had been the warmest of the past thousand years, only 15 studies, including that of Mann himself, had unambiguously agreed that it was. The vast majority accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer. The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas was that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the twentieth century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’

But if Mann and his colleagues had got the picture as wrong as this survey of the literature suggested, nothing did more to expose just how this might have come about than a remarkable feat of analysis carried out later in the same year by two Canadians and published in October 2003. (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy databse and northern hemispheric average temperature series’, Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771. In the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005b, ‘The M & M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications’, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), ‘What is the “Hockey Stick” debate about?’, op. cit.)

Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.

Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)

When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.

One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).

But the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it. As McKitrick was later to explain, ‘had the IPCC actually done the kind of rigorous review that they boast of they would have discovered that there was an error in a routine calculation step (principal component analysis) that falsely identified a hockey stick shape as the dominant pattern in the data. The flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers. ’ (McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit.)

Using Mann’s algorithm, the two men fed a pile of random and meaningless data (‘red noise’) into the computer 10,000 times. More than 99 per cent of the time the graph which emerged bore a ‘hockey stick’ shape. They found that their replication of Mann’s method failed ‘all basic tests of statistical significance’.

When they ran the programme again properly, however, keeping the rest of Mann’s data but removing the bristlecone pine figures on which he had so heavily relied, they found that the Mediaeval Warming once again unmistakably emerged. Indeed their ‘major finding’, according to McKitrick, was that Mann’s own data confirmed that the warming in the fifteenth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century.44

One example of how this worked they later quoted was based on comparing two sets of data used by Mann for his second 1999 paper, confined to proxy data from North America. One was drawn from bristlecone pines in western North America, the other from a tree ring chronology in Arkansas. In their raw state, the Californian series showed a ‘hockey stick’ shape; the other, typical of most North American tree ring series, showed an irregular but basically flat line with no final upward spurt. When these were put together, however, the algorithm emphasised the twentieth-century rise by giving ‘390 times as much weight’ to the bristlecone pines as to the trees from Arkansas.45

In other words, although Mann had used hundreds of tree ring proxies from all over North America, most showing a flattish line like that from Arkansas, the PCAs used to determine their relative significance had given enormously greater weight to those Californian bristlecones with their anomalous ‘hockey stick’ pattern.

Furthermore, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann had been well aware that by removing the bristlecone pine data the ‘hockey stick’ shape of his graph would vanish, because he had tried it himself. One of the files they obtained from him showed the results of his own attempt to do this. The file was marked ‘Censored’ and its findings were nowhere mentioned in the published study.

What, however, concerned McIntyre and McKitrick as much as anything else about this extraordinary affair was what it revealed about the methods of the IPCC itself. Why had it not subjected Mann’s study to the kind of basic professional checks which they themselves had been able to carry out, with such devastating results?

Furthermore, having failed to exercise any proper quality control, why had those at the top of the IPCC then gone out of their way to give such extraordinary prominence to ‘the hockey stick data as the canonical representation of the earth’s climate history. Due to a combination of mathematical error and a dysfunctional review process, they ended up promoting the exact wrong conclusion. How did they make such a blunder?’

Continue reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009), available at BN.com, Amazon.com and Audible.com.

Conclusion: The global warming “hockey stick” is SCIENCE FRAUD
What all this reveals, of course, is that the global warming “hockey stick” is fake science. As Booker documents in his book, data were truncated (cut off) and software algorithms were altered to produce a hockey stick trend out of almost any data set, including random noise data. To call climate change “science” is to admit your own gullibility to science fraud.

The IPCC, it turns out, used science fraud to promote global warming and “climate change” narratives, hoping no one would notice that the entire software model was essentially HACKED from the very beginning, deliberately engineered to produce the alarming temperature trend the world’s bureaucrats wanted so they could terrorize the world into compliance with climate change narratives.
https://www.newstarget.com/2017-09-...rent-rising-as-predicted-hoax-unraveling.html

 

[Lady Jolanda]

 

[kinglear]

You'd have to believe that the world's scientists are in on it...

i heard someone dismantle the idea that there was a scientific consensus by them digging into who those people on the list were. I'll try and find it for you

Since the scientific consensus came first, and governments had to reluctantly start doing something about it under public pressure.

no it was the other way around as this documentary explains by charting the history of the push for technocracy. The very same people who controlled the big polluting oil companies are the very same people behind the climate change agenda now and its because they want to create their technocracy

Why Big Oil Conquered The World

Also that article should be taught in journalism classes for taking quotes out of context.

i posted the study as well so don't worry too much about the article

The issue with capitalism is that its internal logic cannot solve the climate crisis, so we need some intervention into the ecomony to get it to do what we want.

no the issue with capitalism is that some people have been trying to control it and turn it into technocratic communism for a very long time

You know, just like we do for armies and missiles.

National parks and clean water.

'Capitalism' is not a god to be worshipped and held inviolate, it's a just a tool, nothing more.

no what it is at its most simplest is the belief that you and me have a right to carry out a transaction between us. That's it

you don't have capitalism. if you had capitalism you would not have a central bank or income tax and the banks would not have been bailed out. What you have is the ten planks of communism

 

[kinglear]

.

greek based art is off topic!

 

[kinglear]

@Deleted member 16771

sounds like you are a brit and a leftie so you will be familiar with jeremy corbyn the leader of the opposition

for the yanks in the house the equivalent in the US would be hilary clinton.

His brother Piers is an astrophysicist and this is what he has to say about it:

'Never mind the heat, climate change is hoax by gravy-train scientists'

 

[Deleted member 16771]

i heard someone dismantle the idea that there was a scientific consensus by them digging into who those people on the list were. I'll try and find it for you



no it was the other way around as this documentary explains by charting the history of the push for technocracy. The very same people who controlled the big polluting oil companies are the very same people behind the climate change agenda now and its because they want to create their technocracy

Why Big Oil Conquered The World

i posted the study as well so don't worry too much about the article



no the issue with capitalism is that some people have been trying to control it and turn it into technocratic communism for a very long time



no what it is at its most simplest is the belief that you and me have a right to carry out a transaction between us. That's it

you don't have capitalism. if you had capitalism you would not have a central bank or income tax and the banks would not have been bailed out. What you have is the ten planks of communism

No we don't have capitalism, it would be an absolute disaster. Everywhere it's been tried just falls into total chaos.

We use the mechanics of capitalism within highly regulated and stable nation-states, just as we have done for the last half-millennium or so.

 

[kinglear]

No we don't have capitalism, it would be an absolute disaster. Everywhere it's been tried just falls into total chaos.

that's because it is repeatedly sabotaged by the people who do not believe you and me have a right to transact

the banking crisis that led to the creation of the fed was orchestrated by the bankers themselves

We use the mechanics of capitalism within highly regulated and stable nation-states, just as we have done for the last half-millennium or so.

YOU are regulated but the elites are not

 

[Deleted member 16771]

that's because it is repeatedly sabotaged by the people who do not believe you and me have a right to transact

the banking crisis that led to the creation of the fed was orchestrated by the bankers themselves



YOU are regulated but the elites are not

Hey I like the elites *looks around for elites*

 

[Lady Jolanda]

I'm a scientist Kinglear. I'm coming for your brains. I have traced your IP adres to your home. You better lock your windows and doors...

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I'm a scientist Kinglear. I'm coming for your brains. I have traced your IP adres to your home. You better lock your windows and doors...

*spots an elite* I fkn knew it, run @kinglear! Leave the kids, grab the guns!

 

[kinglear]

*spots an elite* I fkn knew it, run @kinglear! Leave the kids, grab the guns!

quick before they drink your blood!

Not a Conspiracy Theory: Rich Lining Up to Pay for the Blood of Children to Be Injected into Them
By JOHN VIBES on 10/02/2018

A new startup is hoping to cash in on a disturbing trend that has been growing in popularity among the ultra-rich. It is a treatment in which blood from young people is injected into the veins of older people—seriously.

While it has been reported that this practice has been popular underground in Silicon Valley for years now, this is the first company to officially offer the service to the public. Stanford Medical graduate Jesse Karmazin is the founder of Ambrosia Medical, which plans to open its first clinic in New York City in the next few months.

The trial, which involved giving patients 1.5 liters of plasma from a donor between the ages of 16 and 25 over two days, was conducted with physician David Wright, who owns a private intravenous-therapy center in Monterey, California. Before and after the infusions, participants’ blood was tested for a handful of biomarkers, or measurable biological substances and processes that are thought to provide a snapshot of health and disease.
https://govtslaves.info/2018/10/02/...e-blood-of-children-to-be-injected-into-them/

 

[Deleted member 16771]

quick before they drink your blood!

Not a Conspiracy Theory: Rich Lining Up to Pay for the Blood of Children to Be Injected into Them
By JOHN VIBES on 10/02/2018

A new startup is hoping to cash in on a disturbing trend that has been growing in popularity among the ultra-rich. It is a treatment in which blood from young people is injected into the veins of older people—seriously.

While it has been reported that this practice has been popular underground in Silicon Valley for years now, this is the first company to officially offer the service to the public. Stanford Medical graduate Jesse Karmazin is the founder of Ambrosia Medical, which plans to open its first clinic in New York City in the next few months.

The trial, which involved giving patients 1.5 liters of plasma from a donor between the ages of 16 and 25 over two days, was conducted with physician David Wright, who owns a private intravenous-therapy center in Monterey, California. Before and after the infusions, participants’ blood was tested for a handful of biomarkers, or measurable biological substances and processes that are thought to provide a snapshot of health and disease.
https://govtslaves.info/2018/10/02/...e-blood-of-children-to-be-injected-into-them/

Well guess what grandma's getting for Christmas.

 

[Lady Jolanda]

Well guess what grandma's getting for Christmas.

Do you think it works post mortem? I'd love to revive grandma. And what better time than Christmas?