United Nations
“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.”
Two lies in a single statement
Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find
Date:
September 12, 2009
Source:
Vetenskapsrådet (The Swedish Research Council)
Summary:
Researchers in Sweden have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.
Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.
He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits.
As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources – that they can be created in other ways than via fossils.
This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.
“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.
But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically – from 20 to 70 percent.
Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well.
“The savings will be in the many billions,” says Vladimir Kutcherov.
To identify where it is worthwhile to drill for natural gas and oil, Vladimir Kutcherov has used his research to arrive at a new method.
It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid. The grid corresponds to fissures, so-called ‘migration channels,’ through underlying layers under the surface of the earth.
Wherever these fissures meet, it is suitable to drill.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these research findings are extremely important, not least as 61 percent of the world’s energy consumption derives from crude oil and natural gas.
The next step in this research work will involve more experiments, but above all refining the method will make it easier to find places where it is suitable to drill for oil and natural gas.
Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov, and Alexander Goncharov’s research work was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.
Journal Reference:
Anton Kolesnikov, Vladimir G. Kutcherov, Alexander F. Goncharov. Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions. Nature Geoscience, 2009; 2 (8): 566 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo591
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm
Human caused ‘climate change’ aka ‘global warming’ is a myth designed to create fear and loathing among populations so they will seek refuge in the promises of being saved by despotic actions of their governments.
Consensus does not equal truth or proof of anything. IF it is a fact that 95% of some undesignated group of so called ‘scientists’ actually agree on the proposal that human caused global warming is valid, this does not mean they are right. Science is NEVER settled. Consensus is a myth dependent on the passage of time.
Among the many climate scientists who disagree with the so-called 95% consensus is Dr. Judith Curry, who has enough credentials in her field ‘climate science’ to match any who may attempt to counter her positions.
The FULL Judith Curry Interview: Climate Scientist Says World Won't End
Climate Alarmism w/ Professor Richard Lindzen
The Inconvenient Truth about Climate Science - Ep93: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.
Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado Boulder since 2001, where he teaches and writes on a diverse range of policy and governance issues related to science, technology, environment, innovation and sports. Roger is a professor in the Environmental Studies Program. Roger is currently focusing his research on a NSF-sponsored, 16-country evaluation of science advice in the COVID-19 pandemic. Roger holds degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science, all from the University of Colorado.
In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate from Linköping University in Sweden and was also awarded the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America. In 2006, Roger received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany in 2006 for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. Roger has been a Distinguished Fellow of the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan since 2016. From 2019 he has served as a science and economics adviser to Environmental Progress. Roger was a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences from 2001 to 2016. He served as a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute from 2008 to 2018. In 2007 Roger served as a James Martin Fellow at Oxford University’s Said Business School. Before joining the faculty of the University of Colorado, from 1993 to 2001 Roger was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. At the University of Colorado, Roger founded and directed both the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research and the Sports Governance Center. He also created and led the university’s Graduate Certificate Program in Science and Technology Policy, which has seen its graduates move on to faculty positions, Congressional staff, presidential political appointees and in positions in business and civil society.
His books include Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society (with R. Pielke Sr., 1997, John Wiley, full text free as PDF), Prediction: Science, Decision Making and the Future of Nature (with D. Sarewitz and R. Byerly, 2001, Island Press), The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics published by Cambridge University Press (2007), The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell you About Global Warming (2010, Basic Books). Presidential Science Advisors: Reflections on Science, Policy and Politics (with R. Klein, 2011, Springer), and The Edge: The War Against Cheating and Corruption in the Cutthroat World of Elite Sports (Roaring Forties Press, 2016). His most recent book is The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change (2nd edition, 2018, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes).
Dr Richard Lindzen exposes climate change as a politicized power play motivated by malice and profit
Veteran climate expert Dr Richard Lindzen made a name for himself before the fundamentally flawed field of climate science that we know today was invented. In an interview with the pioneering atmospheric physicist and former emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, he recounted events that occurred in the 1980s, which gave birth to the all-consuming climate change narrative that prevails today. Having begun his research on climate change in the mid-70s motivated by a sincere interest in understanding the Earth's climate regimes, Lindzen's assessment of the various elements paraded as scientific evidence of an impending climate catastrophe is remarkably sensible. What's particularly revealing from his recollection of events is how complicit the media and politicians have been in forcing the disastrous climate change narrative upon an unsuspecting and trusting public from the very beginning.
Data shows there’s no climate catastrophe looming – climatologist Dr J Christy debunks the narrative
Dec 12, 2022
Dr John Christy, distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has been a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate for decades. Christy, a self-proclaimed “climate nerd”, developed an unwavering desire to understand weather and climate at the tender age of 10, and remains as devoted to understanding the climate system to this day. By using data sets built from scratch, Christy, with other scientists including NASA scientist Roy Spencer, have been testing the theories generated by climate models to see how well they hold up to reality. Their findings? On average, the latest models for the deep layer of the atmosphere are warming about twice too fast, presenting a deeply flawed and unrealistic representation of the actual climate. In this long-form interview, Christy – who receives no funding from the fossil fuel industry – provides data-substantiated clarity on a host of issues, further refuting the climate crisis narrative.
The Continuing Plot to Destroy America
In March of 2020 the Covid Plandemic struck America and the world with a contrived bioweapon designed by Peter Daszak Ralph Baric and Anthony Fauci colluding with DARPA. This attack is part of an agenda to destroy America and subsume the nation in a Global Technocratic Tyranny led by the World Economic Forum, the UN and the US administrative state in league with the corrupt DNC leadership.
The official response to this manufactured pandemic was to instate authoritarian mandates by the plausible assertion that draconian measures were necessary to prevent the spread of the “virus”. These measures included mandates to wear face masks which were obviously ineffective in preventing the spread of a virus. Forced lockdowns and quarantines of the population resulting in the ruin of many small businesses and loss of school attendance by students, teachers and faculties. ‘Social Distancing’ was mandated in public spaces, generating a general fear and loathing of each other as a means of social engineering. These authoritarian measures were accepted without question by a large timid segment of society, who only slowly began to come to their senses much too late, when the deep and lasting damage to the society was already done.
A second crises was generated as a revetment to the ‘pandemic’; Global Warming. Which had been lingering quietly in the background for several years.
This issue also referred to as ‘Climate Change’ has now come to the foreground as propaganda to induce fear and loathing for social engineering purposes.
Like the plandemic, global warming has a ‘scientific’ veneer meant to baffle the layman with technocratic language, and repetition. Again the goal is hysteria and fearmongering.
Historic’ or ‘weak’? Parsing the climate agreement from COP28
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is in collusion with the United Nations, World Economic Forum the DNC and the American Administrative State in propagating the hysteria of ‘global warming.
They just published this propaganda online today December 13, 2023
The decision text from Cop28 has been greeted as “historic”, for being the first ever call by nations for a “transition away” from fossil fuels, and as “weak and ineffectual” and containing a “litany of loopholes” for the fossil fuel industry. An examination of the text helps to explain this contradiction.
Entire article:
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/historic-or-weak-parsing-the-climate-agreement-from-cop28/
Bill Gates and WEF caught DESTROYING humanity!
Stephen Gardner interview with Seamus Bruner on how people like Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell and more have used their wealth and government influence to ruin the world and control your life. Klaus Schwab announces NEW WEF Plan To Control Your Life! Keywords in this video: Bill Gates, Clintons, Billionaires, Control, Spending habits, Freedom, Experimentation, Alex Jones, Sheamus Bruner, Control lears, Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schwitzer, Follow the money, Nonpartisan, Nonprofit, Think tank, Clinton Foundation, Charity, 990 IRS filings, Clinton investigation, Bush, Jeb Bush, Biden, Ukraine money, Barisma, China, FBI, DOJ, Corruption, Compromised, Money and politics, James Comey, Lock Martin, Robert Mueller, Private Equity deal, Bank of China, Control archs, Davos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, George Soros, Pandemic, Elites, Trillions of dollars, Personal net worth, Meta, Lockdown, Information control, Google, Facebook, Censorship, Propaganda, Mainstream media, Digital ID, Central Bank digital currencies, China, Social credit score, Artificial intelligence, Job losses, Universal basic income.
Missouri v Biden aka Biden v First Amendment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL. CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01213 VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., ET AL. MAG.
JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY MEMORANDUM RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
At issue before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] filed by Plaintiffs.1 The Defendants2 oppose the Motion [Doc. No. 266]. Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition [Doc. No. 276]. The Court heard oral arguments on this Motion on May 26, 2023 [Doc. No. 288]. Amicus Curiae briefs have been filed in this proceeding on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom,3 the Buckeye Institute,4 and Children’s Health Defense.5
1 Plaintiffs consist of the State of Missouri, the State of Louisiana, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty (“Kheriaty”), Dr. Martin Kulldorff (“Kulldorff”), Jim Hoft (“Hoft”), Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya (“Bhattacharya”), and Jill Hines (“Hines”). 2 Defendants consist of President Joseph R Biden (“President Biden”), Jr, Karine Jean-Pierre (“Jean-Pierre”), Vivek H Murthy (“Murthy”), Xavier Becerra (“Becerra”), Dept of Health & Human Services (“HHS”), Dr. Hugh Auchincloss (“Auchincloss”), National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (“NIAID”), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (“CDC”), Alejandro Mayorkas (“Mayorkas”), Dept of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Jen Easterly (“Easterly”), Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), Carol Crawford (“Crawford”), United States Census Bureau (“Census Bureau”), U. S. Dept of Commerce (“Commerce”), Robert Silvers (“Silvers”), Samantha Vinograd (“Vinograd”), Ali Zaidi (“Zaidi”), Rob Flaherty (“Flaherty”), Dori Salcido (“Salcido”), Stuart F. Delery (“Delery”), Aisha Shah (“Shah”), Sarah Beran (“Beran”), Mina Hsiang (“Hsiang”), U. S. Dept of Justice (“DOJ”), Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Laura Dehmlow (“Dehmlow”), Elvis M. Chan (“Chan”), Jay Dempsey (“Dempsey”), Kate Galatas (“Galatas”), Katharine Dealy (“Dealy”), Yolanda Byrd (“Byrd”), Christy Choi (“Choi”), Ashley Morse (“Morse”), Joshua Peck (“Peck”), Kym Wyman (“Wyman”), Lauren Protentis (“Protentis”), Geoffrey Hale (“Hale”), Allison Snell (“Snell”), Brian Scully (“Scully”), Jennifer Shopkorn (“Shopkorn”), U. S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”), Erica Jefferson (“Jefferson”), Michael Murray (“Murray”), Brad Kimberly (“Kimberly”), U. S. Dept of State (“State”), Leah Bray (“Bray”), Alexis Frisbie (“Frisbie”), Daniel Kimmage (“Kimmage”), U. S. Dept of Treasury (“Treasury”), Wally Adeyemo (“Adeyemo”), U. S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), Steven Frid (“Frid”), and Kristen Muthig (“Muthig”). 3 [Doc. No. 252] 4 [Doc. No. 256] 5 [Doc. No. 262]
I. INTRODUCTION
I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hill, 1906, The Friends of Voltaire This case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issues— this is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.
Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines. The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology. It is the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by government itself or private licensee. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., v. F.C.C., 89 S. Ct. 1794, 1806 (1969).
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, through public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication, regarding what Defendants described as “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation,” have colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms. Plaintiffs also allege that the suppression constitutes government action, and that it is a violation of Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added).
First Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I. The principal function of free speech under the United States’ system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Texas v. Johnson, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 2542–43 (1989).
Freedom of speech and press is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 1986 (1967).
The following quotes reveal the Founding Fathers’ thoughts on freedom of speech:
“For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”~George Washington, March 15, 1783
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the free acts of speech.” ~Benjamin Franklin, Letters of Silence Dogwood
“Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”~Thomas Jefferson.
The question does not concern whether speech is conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, or somewhere in between. What matters is that Americans, despite their views, will not be censored or suppressed by the Government. Other than well-known exceptions to the Free Speech Clause, all political views and content are protected free speech. The issues presented to this Court are important and deeply intertwined in the daily lives of the citizens of this country.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech, such as:
(1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election;
(2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin;
(3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns;
(4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines;
(5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election;
(6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail;
(7) suppressing parody content about Defendants;
(8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and
(9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.
Plaintiffs Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are infectious disease epidemiologists and co-authors of The Great Barrington Declaration (“GBD”). The GBD was published on October 4, 2020. The GBD criticized lockdown policies and expressed concern about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of lockdowns. They allege that shortly after being published, the GBD was censored on social media by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others.
Bhattacharya and Kulldorff further allege on October 8, 2020 (four days after publishing the GBD), Dr. Frances Collins, Dr. Fauci, and Cliff Lane proposed together a “take down” of the GBD and followed up with an organized campaign to discredit it.
Dr. Kulldorff additionally alleges he was censored by Twitter on several occasions because of his tweets with content such as “thinking everyone must be vaccinated is scientifically flawed,” that masks would not protect people from COVID-19, and other “anti-mask” tweets.7 Dr. Kulldorff (and Dr. Bhattacharya ) further alleges that YouTube removed a March 18, 2021 roundtable discussion in Florida where he and others questioned the appropriateness of requiring young children to wear facemasks. Dr. Kulldorff also alleges that LinkedIn censored him when he reposted a post of a colleague from Iceland on vaccines, for stating that vaccine mandates were dangerous, for posting that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, and for posting that health care facilities should hire, not fire, nurses.
Plaintiff Jill Hines is Co-Director of Health Freedom Louisiana, a consumer and human rights advocacy organization. Hines alleges she was censored by Defendants because she advocated against the use of masks mandates on young children. She launched an effort called “Reopen Louisiana” on April 16, 2020, to expand Health Freedom Louisiana’s reach on social media. Hines alleges Health Freedom Louisiana’s social-media page began receiving warnings from Facebook. Hines was suspended on Facebook in January 2022 for sharing a display board that contained Pfizer’s preclinical trial data.
Additionally, posts about the safety of masking and adverse events from vaccinations, including VAERS data and posts encouraging people to contact their legislature to end the Government’s mask mandate, were censored on Facebook and other social-media platforms. Hines alleges that because of the censorship, the reach of Health Freedom Louisiana was reduced from 1.4 million engagements per month to approximately 98,000. Hines also alleges that her personal Facebook page has been censored and restricted for posting content that is protected free speech. Additionally, Hines alleges that two of their Facebook groups, HFL Group and North Shore HFL, were de-platformed for posting content protected as free speech.
Biden: the Worst President in the Last 100 Years" - Victor Davis Hanson
Yes indeed, Joe Biden is a pathological liar, the whole Democrat party is a cabal of psychopaths. In fact Biden is obviously a titular front man for a corrupt cabal of warmonger elite headed by Barack Obama that is colluding with the administrative state to take down America permanently as a sovereign nation to be subsumed in a global technocratic despotic rulership. This group of traitors are in on the UN -- World Economic Forum agenda. John Kerry the Biden regime's "Climate Czar" is the public face of this gang of maniacs bent on world domination.
If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
~Edward Bernays