The Copenhagen Climate Conference of 2009 introduces the most critical International Framework outside of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU, and the new call for a world banking system and international super-currency. It will alter life on the planet as we know it. This is a time of great excitement over the prospect of achieving a sustainable way of life. Without question, this is riveting and necessary.
This is also a time of unprecedented risk, individual and mass confusion, irrationality, large-scale fear, anxiety, hope, and projection. With all of this comes an almost complete disassociation from the international legal details – and their implications for humanity.
A near-religious fervor has potentiated into a deeply-set unwillingness to scrutinize the legality of one the most disturbing and far-reaching treaties in history. It is difficult to watch as the potential for new funding and industry related to sustainability and green projects is seized and converted into an international law enforcement apparatus. We must not allow our commitment to bettering Planet Earth and saving humanity to be hijacked and reshaped into something it was never meant to be.
This is exactly what will manifest if we don’t slow the process down and examine all of the legal and whole systems details.
There are many problems we can solve, and things we can and should do, to make the planet a better and more inhabitable place. I am aligned with this in principle. The effectiveness, the beauty, and the benefits all lie in the details.
It is in the whole systems examination and the discovery of the details that we must come together to develop a more sustainable biosphere. Global warming as “a problem we can solve” is not grounded in a whole systems approach to discovery, and therefore does not belong in the realm of whole systems exploration into the factors.
I share the passion, the connection, the commitment, and the sincere concerns of green communities across the world. As we observe the damage being done to our planet, I share the pain. A great majority of human beings, myself included, desire to eradicate deadly pollution. Some forms are more deadly than others, and should be dealt with first. I think many of us can agree on this.
I have dedicated the last 25 years of my life to sorting out ways to fast-track solutions and discoveries, and how best to prepare for what lies ahead. As people come together to bring forth remarkable and long-awaited solutions, industries, and jobs, the excitement in the air is palpable.
Those who have tried to do anything to make the world a better place ought to be applauded. We should celebrate those who are willing and courageous enough to think of new ways of doing things and to find new and inventive ways to stand up for them.
When you dig into the legal details and frameworks associated with this Treaty, a new universe of industrial self-interest emerges, flanked by the politics of the obstruction of science itself. It is imperative that our sense of urgency not be used insidiously against us. This sense of urgency, which has been cultivated by scare tactics (such as the ongoing declaration of a state of Planetary Emergency), has a hypnotic effect on a loving and caring public and is being used to usher in a violent form of Global Change with great haste.
To fully grasp what the Treaty says about the implementation of new powers, authorities, and public monitoring mechanisms, each of us should read the proposed Legal Framework. Human beings around the planet are being asked to blindly follow enforceable laws that will alter life on earth. As we get into the details, we will see that life won’t be “better”. It’s hard to imagine “saving the planet” failing to make things better. And there’s the rub.
Out of concern for the environment on a grand scale, many of us have been standing on blind faith. Critical details that will alter life as we know it are not understandable to the lay public. People simply don’t have the time, the energy, or the legal expertise – let alone the financial wherewithal – to exercise complete and proper due diligence with regard to this treaty. We are in the dark about the details and their meanings. We cannot afford to be in the dark anymore.
We must question the business practices, protocols, policies, and legal frameworks associated with this new banner of change. And we must neither feel bad, nor accept shame or vilification, for doing so. It is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the details that we may find deeply unsettling.
If we study how mass movements started and how they were engaged, I believe we will understand what is happening. The greatest corruptions in human history were achieved under the blind faith and spell of a trusting public who so desperately wanted to believe in their leaders that they waived their discernment and voice, and shirked the opportunity to stand up when they needed to.
Many important questions must be asked at this point in time. For example:
- What is being signed that necessitates the internationally agreed-upon assignment of an entire police and law enforcement apparatus?
- What are the details and inner workings of this deal, which will alter all of life on planet earth in a detrimental way?
- What is it based in and on?
- What are the ramifications?
- What if it’s the right occasion to come together, but the wrong rallying point and conversation due to inaccurate information, faulty reporting, and political self-interest?
- What if the treaty at Copenhagen is based on fundamentally wrong assumptions, facts, causation attributes, and misguided rules?
- Who makes these new rules for humanity?
- What is the consciousness behind the rule-makers and the new rules?
And, perhaps most importantly, “Why are the authorities in power focusing exclusively on carbon as the key factor and player in the realm of pollution?”
If carbon were truly a form of deadly pollution, it should be viewed in context with other deadly forms of pollution. If it were scientifically examined amongst all the other factors associated with impacting climate and weather, its role would be infinitesimal at best. Since carbon is the seed of this new world industrial complex, more of us should seek to learn about it, be willing to embrace the science of it in context, what it is (and isn’t), and how it works.
Electromagnetic communication is one of the most dangerous forms of pollution, and involves (but is not limited to) microwave and cellular technology as weaponry used by the military industrial complex. Aerosol spraying of the upper atmosphere is another form of dangerous pollution that remains totally unaddressed by anyone involved in the global discourse regarding “climate change” or “atmospheric pollution” (which I find interesting, because people all over the world witness planes spraying their air everyday). These factors are not even on the table for discussion, but they should be.
We should also consider Tesla’s weather engineering capability. For a comprehensive understanding of a broad range of factors that impact climate and weather, be willing to consider all the other MAJOR factors that are totally off the table of the climate debate and missing from the public knowledge. Electromagnetic pollution is being excluded from the Worldwide Declaration of Climate Emergency for many reasons.
If the public knew how powerful these methods of weather modification were, and how they impact climate over time, nobody would be rushing to save the world from manmade climate change.
To omit these dangerous and virulent forms of pollution from the arena of the emerging carbon-rush industry, the depiction of “climate change” and “global warming” as “problems we must and can eradicate” feels very much like a Trojan Horse marching in under the guise of sustainability. To march onward with a spirit of religious zealotry in the context of these omitted factors is a sacrilege against humankind and the planet itself.
Essentially, the authors of the new Treaty are saying, “We are writing a new international constitution, and whether you like it or not, your original constitution will be rendered null and void when it is agreed upon. You are destroying the planet, and we have to make new international rules and regulations to save you from yourselves.”
Do you see how dangerous this line of thinking really is, and how deeply it is being absorbed into the mass consciousness?
Millions of people are buying it. I was one of them. I did it blindly and without discernment, without looking under the hood of what’s going on and how it evolved. I believed the leaders involved because of who I perceived them to be. In so doing, I failed to examine the details. This is how we get ourselves into trouble.
I am coming out about this because I am an environmental advocate who, like you, loves this planet. I was unwilling to question the environmental “prophets”, the experts I saw as idols, for the public good. I assumed without question that they were in the know and that it was inappropriate to challenge them. I was annoyed by those who did challenge them. I trivialized and deflected their debates and opposition, and mentally, I put them into the camp of pure politics. I regret that I did not notice this part of my consciousness at work. I was unaware and was not paying attention.
Having a change of heart and choosing to engage in a deep level of inquiry does not make you a “flat-earther”, an anti-establishment kind of a person, or an enemy of sustainability. It is crucial that you understand how the climate discourse and debate has been shaped, because it will take great courage to truly be willing to discover the truth at the bottom of the official story: the evolution of this new industrial complex.
You must also recognize the incredible power of repetition. When something we perceive as fact is told to us for years by officials, it can be amazingly persuasive. It is like mass hypnosis.
Many good people in the public trust have made grave mistakes to which they cannot admit without losing their credibility. Everywhere you look, so much is at stake. That is why we must do something truly different that transcends politics, ego, position, power, control, and authority. The authorities who control the mass discourse on climate change and global warming must stop discouraging dissent and those who are calling for full disclosure.
I feel very sad that the individual and collective desire to better the world has been emotionally hijacked, just as the theft of this economy was enabled by international private interest, the banking industrial complex, fiat currency, and securitized mechanisms that continue to function as a form of economic terrorism.
The difficult truth is that it is all connected. Entire industries and an international power circle of groups, networks, and individuals expect the entire civilian population and leaders of other governments to tow the line and for us to be ignorant instead of questioning the science, legality, politics, processes, protocols, and the stakes involved.
We are being forced to accept that consensus has been achieved, that the climate debate is over, and that those who are not going with the flow are responsible for holding up one of the most important accomplishments needed to move humanity forward. This is an attempt to bully people around the world into blind submission.
As far as those in charge are concerned, the “problem” they are declaring has been under examination for a very long time. I can certainly appreciate this. But consider that those in power who coined the terms “global warming” and “climate change” have designed their own architecture and story about the problem they have coined. They orchestrated their own rules and protocols for debate. They have organized massive media attacks and counterattacks, and strategically crafted metaphors and analogies to stigmatize basic facts and the people that have been grounded in science for years. The public is being pulled apart about this matter.
A whole systems approach to pollution eradication has not even begun – not even remotely – in international legal circles. We need a totally different approach to solution delivery – the art, the science, and the business.
So many of us say, “Follow the money”. I am, and I am following those who are involved in the new carbon rush and its emerging industrial complex! Look at how the Green Movement has been fused with “Save the World” and ending manmade climate change.
Celebrities, who have not studied the proposed framework, are used as pawns and mouthpieces to promote the declared planetary emergency. They eagerly lend their voices to a new international system and monitoring apparatus they know nothing about. I watch as people follow them like sheep and forget their need for introspection, discernment, reflection, and inquiry. Our better judgment is sublimated because our gaze is fixated on idols.
Idols are often used without their permission, knowledge, or understanding regarding world stage agendas. Many of them are good, well-meaning people. But if there were ever a time for public figures across the world to exercise great discernment, it is now.
Idolatry can be (and has been) used to manipulate entire populations, so it must be kept in check at all times. Celebrities must be on their toes like never before. Observe idolatry in action as you follow the money during this carbon rush.
Of course, new inventions and industries will have frontrunners who benefit from being first out of the gate. I support people prospering and capitalizing ethically on opportunities when windows open. But when a group with an international agenda that has been decades in the making induces global alarm for a problem that is based on its own research, that it is another matter entirely.
It is still another when that group has developed the means to crush those who question it, to violate the public’s right to open inquiry, to distort the facts and obstruct science, and to vilify journalists and media outlets who refuse to play along.
its rainmaking time is dedicated to one of my late great teachers, Anita Roddick (may she rest in peace). She was dedicated to global sustainability and kindness towards all of life. If she had even the slightest glimpse into of the inner workings, legal matrix, and monitoring mechanisms of this new industrial complex, she would rise from her grave and do everything in her power to stop this sleight-of-hand and propose a blueprint that would honor all of humanity and the planet. Thank God that she is not alive to witness this atrocity.
What is unfolding in at the Copenhagen Climate Conference is far beyond climate change and global warming. It stands to impact every facet of life on this planet for generations to come. It is imperative that we are conscious of the big picture, and that we stay on our toes. The time has come to bring about a new paradigm for life, beginning with a whole systems approach to problem identification and solution delivery.
Don’t be afraid to question anything – not leaders, controllers, governments, laws, media, literally anything. Declarations that move into mass thought have power whether or not they are true. Treaties, organizations, and laws have consciousness; paradigms are living things. Be careful what declarations you align with, what you allow yourself to keep repeating, and how you direct your energy. How conscious will you be in the face of mass hypnosis, public pressure, and hysteria?
Stand tall and call for a whole systems approach to this situation and your future from this moment forward. This is time for supernatural intervention, conscious faith, and for heeding the call from the still, small voice deep within you. The dawn of a new day is finally here.
My question to all of you is: Who’s in?
Thanks Kim. I do want to engage in this inquiry in a way that gets at the truth as far as possible. And try to be warm, friendly and with great integrity in my communication.
For the science of climate I have been relying on experts who publish on the Real Climate blog, and Hansen and Lovelock et al. I see (and therefore assume) that you are relying on experts such as Dr. Idso, Dr. Soon, and Dr. Legate.
When I observe that Real Climate experts are able to respond to the papers of Drs. Idso, Soon, and Legate with what appear to be sensible rebuttal arguments, all documented by link on the site, I find myself not sharing a sense of a one-sided, vicious, slanderous enterprise. I also have observed substantial viciousness, duplicity, etc on the part of those opposing the Real Climate and IPCC scientists, so I don’t find that a one-sided phenomenon.
Because I honor the integrity with which you pursue your inquiry, I wish to ask if you have read Real Climate and followed the arguments presented there. For me it’s an attempt to learn whether your characterizations of the debate are based on believing Drs. Idso, Soon and Legate’s perspective, or seeing these other ones and making a judgment from there? Or, perhaps, are you reading the papers themselves to inform your judgments? I confess I have only read one or two, so I have relied on these experts.
On the question of the politics:
i definitely agree that wealthy and powerful institutions always do their best to increase their wealth and power. No doubt they are doing so as part of a global treaty and institution around climate and CO2. i think that concerns around this are quite justified.
where i disagree is that i don’t see the ‘real climate’ and IPCC scientists as nefarious and involved in a conspiracy.
on the contrary, i see evidence that opposing scientists are associated with Exxon and the fossil fuel industry, which i assume affects their perspective.
however, for me it’s not an argument about the science of climate and the need for global response, but rather about global institutions of power and how they use crises to manipulate publics and governments. Naomi Klein has a powerful book about this as you know.
i’d like to hear more details about the emerging industrial complex – your passion about what’s happening is palpable, yet i’m not willing to rely on the scientific experts you cite, so i need something else. is your concern a narrow one, like the difference between a cap/trade system and a carbon tax system? or a broader one, that carbon need not be regulated or taxed in the way that cfc’s and sulfur have been?
instead i stand with the grassroots activists like Vendana Shiva, whose speech at Copenhagen was quite moving to me, and the president of the Maldives, and Bill McKibben; and Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken, who first raised the carbon tax notion to my attention in the 1990s. their responses to the observable local effects of climate change and the IPCC reports are based on local empowerment and solutions in a global context. i do find them aligned with Dr. Yunus and no doubt Ms. Roddick.
i also believe that all power rests ultimately with the people, and any global institution of oppression can be dismantled.
Alan AtKisson’s recent paper focusing on investing in widespread renewables as a strategy for local empowerment and climate stability is the paper that most excites me personally.
i look forward to exploring all this with you further.
Thank you for your comment. I have written a very long and clear statement as to where I stand about the entire matter, the details of which you have not responded to in your reply. I do not trust nor do I have to trust the IPCC and those associated with their reports. As for carbon dioxide, I have just done a show on the subject. I am comfortable what I covered about it. Please acquaint yourself with the treaty since that is where the action is and will be. I will continue to do the same and suggest that action to everyone who cares about the subject.
Feel free to tune into my shows on other forms of weather and climate impacts such as microwave radiation which blows massive holes in our ionisphere, the blowing up of 2 satellites by foreign military operations, whose materials and particulates have fallen to earth like plutonium and uranium, the aerosol spraying of our skies on a continual basis all over the world which are visible to hundreds and thousands of people all over the world dumping barium and other toxic substances into our atmosphere and then let’s discuss the entire matter from soup to nuts.
As long as entire series of toxic and ongoing virelent polluting and destructive activity is going on that is NEVER mentioned as a part of the weather and climate mix, I see no need to battle the politics of the current stage because all of it is skewed and has been infiltrated by people who finance all sides of the conflict.
Until we have thorough and honest reporting about these matters in a way that the public can clearly understand and until the Sun actually becomes an important part of Overall Climate Dialogue ie… how Sunspots and their activity work to impact climate and weather, as far as I am concerned the entire ground is rigged and deeply polluted for any type of dialogue that will not only matter but for a clear understanding of what is really going on.
We impact our world. There is no question about that. The question is; in what ways, to what degrees and how the total overall mix of what is actually happening is integrated as key factors in impacting climate both on a cooling and a warming basis.
Please feel free to tune into the upcoming shows related to this material that I am mentioning and then, when more people can begin to separate the wheat from the chaff on a whole -systems level and you are personally in full possession of the additional body of information that is not being covered in this entire stage of Climate dialogue, then, and only then am I ready to have a debate with anyone in the world about Climate and then and only then will my perspective on the entire matter be meaningful.
I appreciate you taking your time to write. I really do. By the way, I love Vedanta Shiva and her broad- based global work on behalf of people all over the world. I love her work and see that it is critical that it be known all over the world. She is one of my favorite people on earth. I look forward to meeting her one day soon and giving many hours of broadcasting access and time to her work and concerns.
You may also want to tune into an older show I did with Dr. Yunus before he got the Nobel. As for Naomi Klein, I appreciate her work immensely. She is a bright and captivating speaker and writer with so much to teach us all. Thanks for all of your input and for now, let us table this part of the dialogue until these next few segments are completed, so that a whole -systems dialogue with critical missing key factors and new knowledge can bring illumination to the PUZZLE which has so many missing pieces. Thank you for caring and for taking your time to write. I look forward to continued exploration, discovery and the adventures ahead of bringing solutions and remarkable discoveries to the world on a whole-systems level. I also look forward to being able to deliver a wide range of new programming to humanity and to join with others to make sure that a new universe of content finally makes the air waves. It’s Rainmaking Time!
I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?