Scientists against climate alarmism

A quick look at the history of the world's famous leaders and revered heroes shows that they, far from having our best interests at heart, were selfish men (and seldom women) who led us into bloody wars, mercilessly conquered other cultures, raped nature and committed mass genocide.

Whether it's Harry S. Truman and Winston Churchill who collaborated to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (an abhorrent practice now a War Crime in International Law) by dropping atomic bombs in Japan; a string of US presidents from Eisenhower to Nixon killing countless other civilians in the stupid, ineffectual and pointless Vietnam War; White Supremacist European powers who used explorers Christopher Columbus and James Cook to invade, conquer and practically wipe out the native populations (and their spiritual customs with it, replacing them with Christianity); barbaric arseholes like Alexander the Great (read: "pissweak") who got as far as India and then retreated when he was confronted by a massive army mounted on elephants after he had signed and broken a treaty that he would not invade at night (not only did Alexander the Pissweak break his promise but he slaughtered innocent women and children as he set fire to the town); shall I go on? I think you get my point.

The last thing we should do is trust our world leaders. It takes a certain kind of person - a megalomaniac - to aspire to be a powerful famous leader, often 'by hook or by crook'. Do you really think Scott Morrison, Theresa May, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un (Nth Korea), the president of China Xi Jinping (who?), Emmanuel Macron (France), Angela Merkel (Germany), Justin Trudeau (Canada) etcetera etcetera are plotting for World Peace? The United Nations has hypocritically sanctioned more wars than it has prevented.

Developing countries need cheap fossil fuels to grow their economies and eradicate poverty but the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming movement is designed to stop this from happening. The UN's radical greenie arm the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a Leftist political organisation whose agenda is to maintain the superior position of the richest elite countries by using their affluent economies to develop renewable energy technologies, create a "climate science concensus" to discredit and outlaw cheap fossil fuels, thereby ultimately keeping poor countries poor.

https://defyccc.com/scientists/

(h/t and thanks to Leo Goldstein) 

Two Buddhas, Two Kapilas?

Lord Buddha, ninth avatar of Viṣṇu appeared circa BC 1887 in order to preach a form of disguised atheism so as to temporarily discredit the Vedas - because they were being misused at the time by brahminical priests in order to perform unsanctioned fire sacrifices (yajña, or agni-hotra) for personal gain. Lord Buddha's main teaching was the principle of non-violence, Ahimsa, taught to invoke compassion so as to spare the poor creatures being innocently killed in such fire sacrifices.

Then, this having been achieved, Adi Shankara aka Shankaracharya (a partial incarnation of Lord Śiva) appeared in Kaladi, Kerala in AD 788, defeating Adi Buddha's teachings with philosophical argument, thereby restoring the validity of the Veda and driving Buddhism out of India. That is why it is extant today only in foreign countries and has mainly died out in its country of origin.

This history is unknown to the general public and of course refuted by practising Buddhists who declare that the mortal Gautama Buddha (BC 560) arose out of nothing and therefore is not an incarnation of Vishnu.

However, all major incarnations of Lord Vishnu throughout all the Four Ages are predestined – each and every one is foretold in Vedic scripture, revealing the identity assumed by each subsequent appearance and the names of the village and family (the mother and father) that He appears in. The next, Lord Kalki, is due in 427,000 years (give or take a decade or two) to usher in the new Golden Age and the demise of the present Kali Yuga.

But of course if you're a dutiful Buddhist you shan't believe the Vedic account because you're taught not to follow the Vedas!

Generally, there seems to be some confusion that remains about the two Buddhas in different times in history. Adi Buddha, the avatar of Vishnu mentioned in the Vedas, was born circa BC 1887  to Anjana (his mother) in Kikata, later named Bodh Gaya denoting this. The later mortal, Shakya Simha Buddha or Adi Buddha, better known as Siddhartha Gautama, was born over a millennium later to Mayadevi  in c. BC 560 at Lumbini, Nepal, and travelled to Bodh Gaya where he famously meditated under the banyan tree. The original Lord Buddha is the authorised avatar of Viṣṇu - and the second is the mortal atheist impostor popularly known in modern culture of whom the current practise of Buddhism is associated with, attributed to, and most people are familiar with.

There is a difference. Worshipping the original Buddha will give the guaranteed result of personal association with the Lord on the Vaikuntha planets in the Spiritual Sky – and worshipping the other will lead you to temporarily losing one's eternal individuality and merging in the brahmajyoti (the blinding spiritual effulgence emanating from the Lord's transcendental body), or the spiritual "No Man's Land", concurring with its ṡūnyavādi philosophy of nothingness.

There is a similar confusion around Kapila, of which there are at least two - the original incarnation of Lord Vishnu who expounded Samkhya philosophy; and the later mortal atheist monk. I could provide a string of references but I seriously doubt if anyone will read them all, so I'll just give this one link:

https://controversialhistory.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/is-gautama-buddha-avatar-of-vishnu.html

If you're curious do your own research, I'm sure it will be fruitful!
हरे कृष्ण

[footnote]
After Adi Buddha's śūnyavādi philosophy of voidism was defeated by Adi Shankara's māyāvādī philosophy, a third incarnation appeared - this time the combined form of Kṛṣṇa and Radha, as Lord Caitanya - who in turn defeated Adi Shanka's impersonalism with acintya bheda-abheda philosophy of the Supreme Lord being simultaneously one with and different from His creation. This dualist bhakti yoga - ecstatic love in devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as preached by Lord Caitanya is also known as Dvaita-vada. Śrī Caitanya Mahaprabhu appeared in Mayapur, West Bengal in AD 1486 and established the sankirtan movement, the congregational chanting of the Lord's Holy Names, singing the famous Hare Kṛṣṇa Mahā-mantra that Iskcon devotees are renowned for in cities all around the world.

This inaugurated a Golden Age lasting 10,000 years where it is prophesised that God's name will be heard in every town and village for the benefit of every fortunate soul who is blessed with hearing the liberating transcendental sound vibration of Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare, Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare.

Celebrity Climate Alarmists

Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FLS FZS FSA FRSGS

What are all those post-nominal letters and what do they mean? Well, for starters I can tell you that they're not qualifications, they're honours that've been awarded to him. He's a very decorated fellow, some say the most travelled man in the world, held in high esteem by Britishers as their very own living icon.

Bravo, I won't argue wih any of that because I have respect for anyone who is diligent and successful. As for his qualifications, which are mysteriously absent from the letters following his name....

He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Natural Sciences, majoring in Geology and Zoology at Cambridge. That's it.

In the early 60s he started a post-graduate degree in Social Anthropology at London Uni but left to return to the BBC (no-one really knows how far he got with it but I think it was a year or two). He has amassed some 32 Honorary Degrees, all without attending universities or anything, bestowed on him from various institutions for his extraordinary work in TV, mostly documentaries (as if we didn't all know already!).

So how does he get to lecture us all on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Like Arnie Schwarzenegger and Leonardo de Caprio, prominent actors who get plenty of air time on climate change because they're celebrities, apparently you don't need a university degree in Climatology if you're famous.

None of the following celebrities are qualified in the science of Climatology:

Al Gore has a BA in Law. Brian Cox is an Astrophysicist. Tim Flannery - Paleontology. David Suzuki - Zoology, Genetics. Name a famous Climate Change Activist and you'll be hard-pressed to find a single Climatologist amongst them. Yep, you'll find some glaciologists, environmentalists, atmospheric physicists (close), biologists, journalists, more politicians, geographers and zoologists and even more celebrities. (Not that having a University Degree means everything - there are plenty of highly qualified idiots out there, ha ha!) What does all this mean?

The religion of Climate Change is a political movement. Most commercially owned mainstream media is owned by the capitalist Left, and we have gotten so used to it that we think that the news we watch is Centrist and unbiased. Whether we realise it or not, much of what we accept as normal owes its roots to the Hippie Era of free sex, drugs and dropping out, the agenda of Marxist Culturalism designed to tear down the fabric of Western Society by destroying Judeo-Christian values.

Sound like a load of gobbledygook?

Conspiracy Theory #45: Marxist Culturalism invented the concept of politcal correctness. Some really good things came out of it. Speaking of which, for druggies, society became more tolerant of those who were 'out of it'. It put an end to racial segregation, apartheid, etc and although it made discrimination illegal it hasn't eradicated racism and probably never will (it could be a survival gene). It promoted Feminism and made great strides in achieving Equal Pay etc, but will never truly eradicate sexism whether it be mysogeny or misandry (womanhaters/manhaters). As far as homosexuality etc goes, although their input into human survival is a disputed area, hardly anyone wants to see the Sexual Freedom campaign continue unbridled, lest it degrades into orgiastic rape, bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia and other sexual perversions. Am I allowed to say that, perversions? No, that would be politically incorrect. Perhaps the right term is "expression" or "adventure". Whatever. I still think it's depraved. But that's just my opinion.

Ok, rant over, back on topic. I could barely stand to watch his docos for more that maybe a quarter of an hour, partly because of his stuffy accent but mainly because of his Darwinian commentary. Starting out as an Atheist, he later admitted to getting closer to admitting that there COULD be 'intelligent design' and therefore some God behind it - but remains an Agnostic and sticks to the theory of evolution even though it lacks proof and remains a theory.

As a believer in the person known as the Supreme Being, God, the Almighty etc naturally I am a Creationist (those Lefties love labelling, don't they!) and find it quite absurd, the idea that chemicals mixed together and life spontaneously arose; let alone that the Universe similarly arose from nothing with the Big Bang. To me, these are attempts by atheistic scientists to 'explain away'  something that only God can do; and substitute an "accident", a "freak of nature"(when there was none to begin with?) or some "unknown factor". Yep, they got the last part right, the unknown factor is Bruce Almighty. Whoops, sorry, I meant God.

Anyway.... this last evangelical tirade of his is the last straw for me. I have lost all admiration for him. To me, he is another Darwin, a Hawking, another Plato (who said the Earth was the centre of the universe, not the Sun). I think Sir David now looks like a doddering old man, a gibbering fool, a feeble shill, paid off by the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change). These celebrities are recruited as puppets to promote the Climate Religion cause. And his sermon was straight out of the Big Book. It used the same guilt trips and threats of punishment that Biblebashers enjoy. If you've read this far you probably agree with me. If so (or if not) please leave a comment and let me know by giving me your feedback either way. 

ॐ हरे कृष्ण ॐ



(I imagine most if not all of you are now thinking "well who the fuck are you Sam? You didn't go to uni, you failed school and are not an academic. Well, in my defence... If I had initials after my name, say, Sam Treloar WTF, IDK, LOL, FFS, ROFLMAO - would that be more impressive or convincing? Post-nominal letters can be deceptive. We place far too much emphasis on "experts". When I read the work of an intellectual writing on a topic, I scrutinise their style of delivery, vocabulary, grammar, and especially parsing of sentence structure in order to ascertain if the left and right brain activity is balanced and how integrated the two halves' thinking is. One can often tell poorly-thought out illogical rants by the disconnected phrasing or the non-stop continuous raving.)



(and... You should never have to re-read a sentence unless a particularly complex principle is being explained. If so, you can take it for granted that their imagination is working overtime and their left brain (the critical part) has shut down. In contrast, one can tell when the author's right brain is dormant if the same words are being used repetitively (or over and over, repeatedly, continuously, too often; you get my point) showing a lack of creativity, losing the reader's interest. A way to tell an overactive right brain is the overuse of flowery language, unnecessarily descriptive ramble and extraneous cogitation like I am illustrating now.)

[Author's note: I do so many edits and extenxive proofreading of my work that I lose count. Methinks both sides of my brain have a mind of their own ha ha] 

Political democracy

We like to think there is sanity in choice.

This is how we define ourselves, determine our future - as if we have some sort of control over our destiny.

When we roll up to the electoral polling booth to cross our name off, how much does our vote actually count? Do we really have a say?

I am so sick of hearing Americans complain about their President. After all, you voted him in, only to now protest. Are you mad? Dysfunctional yankees, I say!

Even worse is the mongering of unelected Pry Ministers, shoved up in the ranks by the Old Boys Club cohorts, insider politicking at its worst. We didn't vote for these emerging ghosts, yet they appear out of nowhere and seize the throne.

How dare they! We didn't elect them! Rack off, Scott Morrison! And you too, Peter Dutton! You are like dog droppings on the footpath, picked up unwittingly on the passing pedestrian shoe, previous unknowns dredged from the muck to represent the new face of "The Party".

Theatrics, orchestrastions, stage presentations.

Program the children; thus control the future

Thousands of truant Aussie schoolkids protesting about the Australian Govt's lack of action on misanthropic (look it up) climate change prove that brainwashing (the education system) is very successful. Like sponges they soak up the bombarding propaganda, rattling off in rote fashion everything they have been programmed with. Children lack the worldly experience to make informed expert decisions. Their behaviour is, however, a great way to measure how well the process of indoctrinating them is 'progressing'.

Some facts. First there were meteorologists, a fancy word to describe 'experts' in the 'science of weather'. Not really an exact science (like say, mathematics or physics) there was a lot of guessing and a lot of contradicting theories because nobody really understood weather enough to be able to predict it. That remains true to this day. Still, they fancy themselves as experts despite not fully understanding their area of expertise. I don't either, but I don't claim to be an expert - just an informed skeptic.

Then came climatologists. A distinction was made between short-term weather and long-term climate. Meteorologists traditionally have looked at the present reality and used this to speculate about the future - yet climate is the history of past trends.

Out of nowhere, in the 70s, 80s and 90s 'climatologists' invented themselves and decided they were experts in predicting the future (which they're not). This is not science, this is guesswork. They hardly ever get it right, unlike meteorologists that have become pretty good at forecasting the next 24 hours of weather - even longer, up to 7 or 10 days or more.

Out of the 100 or so official 'Climate Models' proposed in the burgeoning computer era of fashionable 'Global Warming' in the 90s, nearly (practically) all of them were wrong. Two underestimated the amount of temperature increase and the other 98% exaggerated 'global warming) by as much as 50, 100, 200% compared to the real figures we have now, 20 years later. Clearly their models were wrong and not at all 'scientific'. Science is not based on such terrible statistical failure rates. Thank heavens.

In science, real sciences, there are Laws and there are Theories. There is no such thing as concensus in science. Things are either proven and are accepted as Laws or they're not and remain mere Theories. Concensus is a word coined by non-scientists who want to advance a hypothetical theory... even if it is an unproven fact. They can do this because, like street gangs, the biggest bunch of thugs rules.

(for instance, take the Theory of Evolution, based on 'abiogenesis' – the supposed spontaneous arising of life forms from a lifeless mixture of chemicals. Like the Missing Link, abiogenesis has never been proven or even replicated and remains nothing more than a figment of evolutionists' imaginanation – because it is necessary to account for their theory in the absence of proof. Like I said, there are Laws and there are Theories.)

Did you know that the Greenhouse Gas Effect has never been demonstrated? Ever? In reality? It is merely a theory. Well, yes it has been established in closed systems such as GREENHOUSES but never in an indefinitely variable open system such as the Earth's amosphere. The GGE deals specifically with the open system theory and remains that, a theory - unproven.

In an actual greenhouse, CO₂ has very little impact, the driving force being water vapour (humidity) which traps kinetic energy, thereby pushing up temperatures through the heating action of sunlight. Carbon dioxide actually plays a healthy role in vegetation growth which thrives in higher concentrations of CO₂!

Farmers use carbon dioxide generators to pump CO₂ into commercial greenhouses to increase yield and therefore profits. It is not a poisonous gas, it is not toxic, in fact without it nothing would grow! Unlike humans who breathe in oxygen and expire CO₂, plants do the opposite. No CO₂, no plant life, simple as that. It is a wholly symbiotic relationship between animal and plant life that enables both to exist, completely dependent on each other for survival.

Also it is worth noting that in the entire history of Planet Earth, current CO₂ percentages (3-400 parts per MILLION)  are at historically low levels. Note also that most of the other planets and satellites in our Solar System are currently experiencing warming events - nothing to do with fossil fuels or CO₂ and all about Sunspot activity and orbital fluctuations. That, my friends, is real science - not the hypothetical hit-and-miss guesswork of Climatology.

Maurice Strong started it all.

Look that up,"Maurice Strong, climate fraud" (you may prefer to substitute 'activist' for fraud, crook, villian, etc... same result).