The biggest lie ever told is that something that is essential to all life is bad for the planet. What is it? Believe it or not, it’s CO2 – carbon dioxide.

This is not some misinterpretation.  This is not even faulty science.  This is an outright lie.  The lie of climate change/global warming that CO2 is a killer.

Carbon dioxide is a critical part of the photosynthesis process that creates life in plants. Without photosynthesis, no life would be possible on the planet. You can read up on this in any elementary science book. From the website comes this explanation of photosynthesis:

“… the process of photosynthesis which allows plants to convert light energy into usable food and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen into our environment.”

It’s a symbiotic exchange. Plants require the carbon dioxide that animals give off, while animals require the oxygen plants produce. Without photosynthesis from plants, the oxygen on our planet would run out and all human life would end. Then, the plants would die without the carbon dioxide that animals and humans produce.

A scientific study published in Nature Climate Change described the vital role of carbon dioxide in sustaining life on the planet.  They said that the planet is getting greener because of an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Greener and healthier, you understand – because of carbon dioxide. So, here’s a real simple way to think of this:

Carbon dioxide = life

No carbon dioxide= no life

This issue hit the headlines recently because of a tweet by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent supporter of the Green New Deal.  AOC said, “We either decarbonize & cut emissions, or we don’t & let people die.”  There’s the lie. Remember carbon dioxide = life. So, what does AOC want to do?  Exactly the opposite.  She wants no carbon dioxide.

Okay, so you may have found the science lesson interesting but what does any of this have to do with you, right? Well, there’s a presidential election in 2020 and many of the people who are in the running are also supporting the Green New Deal. So, obviously, they are okay with no carbon dioxide/no life.  Are you?



Out in a remote part of Elbert County, Georgia, there stands a massive monument with an alarming message.  The monument is popularly called The Georgia Guidestones.  Inscribed on the monument is someone’s vision of a different set of Ten Commandments.  The First Commandment is to “maintain humanity under 500 million in perpetual balance with nature.” Any guess as to how they are going to reduce the world population down from 7 billion to 500 million?

Well, Bill Gates does. At a TED conference presentation on reducing world population, Gates said that we have to reduce CO2 to zero. To zero. Remember, no carbon dioxide = no life. Gates even proposed a solution towards that end – vaccines, courtesy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Just connect the dots. Green New Deal…Georgia Guidestones…and Bill Gates…  reduce world population by getting rid of CO2.

CO2, it’s absolutely essential for all life on the planet.  That’s a scientific fact. Yet, people like AOC and Bill Gates will try to tell you otherwise.  Sometimes the bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell.


“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist


…well, apparently not Petteri Taalas, the head of the World Meteorologist Organization (WMO). Taalas gave an interview to a Finnish magazine which was covered in an article by The Epoch The article was entitled, “Chief of Meteorologist Organization Castigates Climate Alarmists.” The WMO is not just any organization, it’s the organization that co-created the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC, of course, is the United Nation’s agency with respect to climate change (see link below for the full article).

Here’s some of the highlights of the article:

Taalas issued an “unprecedented rebuke to climate alarmists.”

Taalas said, “In parts of the globe, living conditions are becoming worse, but people have survived in harsh conditions…It’s not going to be the end of the world.”

“Taalas pointed out that climate extremists are selectively picking out facts from the IPCC reports to fit their narrative.” Taalas said that, “IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views.”

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace commented on Taalas’ remarks as follows: “The meteorologists are real scientists and probably fed up with Greta, Mann, Gore & AOC catastrophists. Good on him.”

 However, Taalas isn’t the only one speaking out lately against global warming; for example:

“Climate activists claim we face a global warming emergency that demands we replace dependable, inexpensive fossil fuels with so-called ‘green’ energy, such as wind and solar power. Not only would this starve society of the energy we need to survive. Real-world data demonstrate that there is no climate emergency! It is a manufactured crisis, created by vested interests – activists, scientists and crony capitalists – and adopted without question by opportunistic politicians, regulators and media pundits for their own interests.” – Paul Driessen

“The global climate scare – and policies resulting from it – is based on models that do not work.” – Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

Professor Ivor Giaever, a Nobel Laureate in physics, gave a speech in front of a group of other Nobel Laureates which was entitled “Global Warming Is Pseudoscience.”

People are even taking their frustration with global warming alarmists out through legal actions in the court system.

A physics professor in Australia was awarded $800,000 because he was unlawfully fired by his university because of his skeptical views on global warming.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) dismissed a lawsuit by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann against climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. In its landmark ruling, the court found that there was no evidence to support Dr. Mann’s science for global warming. It was Dr. Mann’s work which Al Gore used to start the whole global warming hysteria.

Then, there’s the media which has published various articles which undermine the global warming narrative, such as:

Daily Caller – “Math Error: Scientists Admit Mistakes Led To Alarming Results In Major Global Warming Study” – November 8, 2014 

Newsmax – “New Reports: There Is No Global Warming” – September 9, 2019

Daily Mail(UK) – “Exposed: How World Leaders Were Duped Into Investing Billions Over Manipulated Global Warming Data” – February 4, 2017

Investors’ Business Daily – “Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years of Record-Breaking Global Cooling” – May 16, 2018

Outer Places – “Bundle Up: Scientists Predict Mini Ice Age Will Hit Earth In Five Years” – December 28, 2017

The Freedom Articles – “10 Prominent Scientists Refuting Manmade Global Warming” – January 13, 2016

Newsmax – “John Casey: The Sun Has Ended Global Warming” – September 9, 2019

Natural News – “Environmentalists Are At War With Life On Earth…Total Collapse of Ecosystem The Real Goal of Climate Propagandists” – January 10, 2019

Breibart – “Study: Global Warming Does Not Cause Hurricanes” – January 16, 2019

News Punch – “Scientists Find Earth Is Cooling, Not Warming; NASA predicts Mini Ice Age” – November 19, 2018

Gateway Pundit – “Top NASA Global Warming Scientist Walks Back Global Warming Claims” – February 14, 2019

Armstrong Economics – “Al Gore’s Global Warming Deliberate Fraud To Increase Governmental Power” – February 14, 2019

Humans Are Free – “The Great Global Warming Scandal” – February, 2019 (based on a British television documentary)

National Geographic – “Deep Bore Into Antarctica Finds Freezing Ice, Not Melting As Expected” – January 16, 2018

Mish Talk – “Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling” – January 29, 2019

New American – “UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level” – February 12, 2019

Zero Hedge – “U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism” – February 3, 2017

Ice Age Now – “Most Important Glacier in Northern Hemisphere Growing Rapidly, NASA Study Shows – March 26, 2019

Zero Hedge – “Scientists Find Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice” – July 12, 2019

Hal Turner – “NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming Caused By Changes in Earth’s Solar Orbit and Axial Tilt” – August 8, 2019

The global warming change agenda is driven by the United Nations and the former head of its climate agency admitted that the Paris Climate Accords were not about science but rather about politics. Yes, it’s all about the politics, just as Paul Driessen said. Of course, some people will always respond with a “he said, she said.” However, as Stuart Chase once astutely observed, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”


Here’s the link to the article mentioned above:

Here is a must-read from Armstrong Economics entitled, “Global Warming Is Undermined By New Discoveries.”  I’ll just give you a few of the highlights:

Scientists have discovered a massive, previously unknown, source of nitrogen that has profound implications for the whole global warming theory.

The findings were published in the prestigious Journal Science.

The new discovery alters the theory that man is causing global warming.

The article was written by Martin Armstrong.  Here’s the link to the complete article:

Here’s an article that is worth reading from the Fee Foundation For Economic Freedom (see link below).  I’ll give you just the highlights of the scientific facts listed in the article:

  • Climate has always changed – always.
  • Temperature increases in the past was not caused by humans.
  • The arctic and antarctic are doing better than ever!
  • Polar bears and other species are not dying but flourishing!
  • Increases in carbon dioxide do not result in increases in temperature.
  • There has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, droughts or other extreme weather events.  Even the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported low confidence that global warming – manmade or not – was causing extreme weather events.

The article went on to say that, “These are some of the many climate facts that the media refuses to acknowledge, like the impending solar minimum that NASA has predicted for the next two solar cycles between 2021 and 2041, ushering in a period of global cooling like it did during the solar minimum of the 17th century.”

New Ice Age anyone?

The writer of the article is Vijay Jayaraj (from India).  Link-


The planet just came out of a mini ice age in the 19thcentury so of course temperatures have gone up. Obviously, they couldn’t have gone much lower. Thank goodness that temperatures did go up or we would still be stuck in a mini ice age and holding frost fairs on the Thames River.

Nevertheless, the climate change hysteria continues to ratchet up. Recently, though, a number of people have been undercutting the global warming hypothesis. Here’s a short list:


The politics of global warming

  • Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s former Chief of Staff and one of the authors of the Green New Deal, disclosed that the Green New Deal is a change-the-economy-thing. In an interview with the Washington Post, he said, “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all… we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” Comment:  So, it’s not really about the climate. Are you listening AOC?
  • Christiana Figueres, of the United Nations global warming agency, publicly admitted that the U.N. goal was not that of environmental activists to save the world from ecological calamity, but rather to destroy capitalism. Comment: Investor’s Business Daily reported on Figueres’ statement with an article bearing this headline – ‘U.N. Official Reveals Reason Behind Warming Scare.’
  • John Holdren, Science Czar under President Obama – Headline from CNS reads ‘White House Science Czar Says He Would Use Free Market to De-Develop the United States.’ Comment: Now you know where Figueres and Chakrabarti got their ideas about changing the economy from.
  • Noel Brown, of the United Nations Environment Program, warned in 1989 of a 10-year window of opportunity to solve global warming or entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by the year 2000. Of course, it never happened. Comment: Now you know where AOC got her 12 year end-of-the-world scenario from.


The science of global warming

  • Kate Marvel, a NASA climatologist, in an interview had this to say: “I’m not sure that climate change is an immediate threat to human existence.” Comment: Maybe, she better give AOC the “bad” news that we’re not going to all die in 12 years.
  • Ben Sauter, a global warming advocate, wrote a paper which was published in Nature Geoscience in which he admitted that the computer models used in global warming studies to predict future climate change were way off.  Comment: Can you spell C-L-I-M-A-T-E-G-A-T-E?
  • Nils-Axel Morner, did an interview with The New American entitled “UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level.” Comment: The IPCC’s own Dr. Madhav Khandekar also blew the whistle on the U.N.’s fake science, as I have reported in previous posts.
  • After a series of studies, scientists in Finland found glaring errors in the IPCC’s research on global temperatures. They found that there was practically no man-made climate change. This has since been corroborated by researchers at Kobe University in Japan whose findings were published in Science Daily.
  • A scientific study, based on NASA data, and published in Nature Climate Change reveals that rising carbon dioxide levels are having a tremendously positive impact on the re-greening of planet.  Comment: The life of the planet depends on high levels of CO2 and yet AOC wants to eliminate carbon dioxide! If we followed her advice, we probably would all die in 12 years.


Global warming in the courts

The Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) recently dismissed a lawsuit by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann against climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. In its landmark ruling, the court found that there was no evidence to support Dr. Mann’s science for global warming. Comment: Of course, it was Mann’s research that was used by Al Gore in his famous “hockey stick” presentation. Try telling that to Al Gore now.



Referring to the Paris Climate Accord, Christiana Fuentes said, “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 (capitalism) that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

So, the real objective of the global warming initiative is to destroy Western Civilization’s economy (capitalism) by regulating carbon emissions. This is all to accomplish a very totalitarian form of population control (eugenics). To understand the underlying ideology just see the Georgia Guidestones or read John Holdren’s book “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

With respect to the United States, they want to introduce a socialist form of government which will lend itself to totalitarianism.  The Green New Deal is just the tip of the iceberg.  Here’s a flavor of what it would look like. No cars, no planes, no freedom of speech, no 2nd Amendment.  People would live almost exclusively in high-density population centers (for further reference you can read up on the U. N.’s Agenda 21). The country would have no borders and would, at some point, cease being a sovereign nation altogether.  The country would then be run by The United Nations which, in turn, would be controlled by the world’s elites. Welcome to 1984 courtesy of George Orwell.


“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture.  The object of power is power.”  – George Orwell





If A Tree Falls


If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make a sound? This is one of the riddles of modern science.

The answer is that it depends on what you mean by “sound.” Philosophers argue that sound is a quality which exists only in our minds. Sir John Eccles, a neurophysiologist and Nobel Prize winner, put it this way:”I want you to realize that there exists no color in the natural world, and no sound – nothing of this kind; no textures, no patterns, no beauty, no scent.” What Eccles is saying is that the world is contained within the mind and not the other way around.

More confused?  Welcome to the world of quantum physics.  In quantum physics, quantum particles exist in all possible states simultaneously. They have distinct properties only after they are measured/observed (by human consciousness). So, science can never know where an electron (the basic building block of reality) is until they measure it because the electron, itself, is everywhere at once.

Human consciousness is the key. In that regard, physicist Bernard d’Espagnat said that, “The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.” We live in a world that is affected and changed by our very existence. As physicist John Wheeler put it, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”

The native peoples of ancient times were much more in touch with nature (the universe) than we are today. For example, the Australian aboriginals have a saying which goes like this: “We are all visitors to this time, this place.  We are just passing through.  Our purpose here is to observe, to learn, to grow, to love…and then we return home.” Notice the first thing that they say about our purpose in life.  It’s to observe.

One could make the argument then, based on quantum physics, that we are observers (of the universe).  In actuality, we are an integral part of a conscious universe, a universe that is alive and evolving, a universe that is an all-pervasive sea of quantum energy which is constantly creating reality. Thank you to Bernaud d’Espagnat, John Wheeler and the Australian aboriginals for illuminating this matter for us.



Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” –  Arno Penzias, physicist and Nobel laureate





Dark matter (and dark energy) is missing.  At least, scientists haven’t been able to find it yet.  It’s the elephant in the room (space), but we don’t even know where the room is, or even if it is a room for that matter.

Dark matter supposedly makes up some 90% of creation.  We, on the other hand, exist in the other 10% (the known physical universe). From that perspective, you could say that we are the tail wagging the dog.  Of course when I say that 90% of creation is missing, it’s probably much worse than that.  The 90% figure is calculated by scientists based on known matter in this universe.  However, we don’t know how big the universe is and on top of that there are no doubt other universes and other dimensions.  It’s very probable, therefore, that we exist in an extremely miniscule part of creation.

I know.  You’re probably asking what does any of this have to do with Jesus.  Well, according to the Bible, there were times when Jesus could not even be recognized by his closest associates, the disciples and Mary Magdalene. Further, Jesus apparently had the ability to disappear through walls.  It’s fair to say, then, that whoever, or whatever, Jesus was defies all logic.  He’s beyond our ability to comprehend, just like the universe.  To wit, an understanding of the real Jesus is “missing,” just like dark matter.

The Bible says that Joseph was the father of Jesus. However, Joseph is not even mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, which is the oldest of the gospels. In Mark 6:3, Jesus is referred to simply as the “son of Mary.” Besides, why would a 12 year-old marry an old man?

I’ll tell you why, although you might not like it. The Gospel of Matthew (1:18) says that, “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.” So, Jesus was an illegitimate child. The Talmud says as much (see also John 8:39).  Further, Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph “…did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus.” In any event, then, Joseph was not the biological father.

Therefore, we don’t know who the real father of Jesus was.  However, I can tell you this about the ”virgin birth.”  It was accomplished by artificial insemination. Just ask the “angel” Gabriel. Gabriel was no angel yet he somehow predicted that Mary would give birth to Jesus.

What’s missing from the story of Jesus is just about his entire life; for example, his biological father, the “missing years” from Jesus’ life which were approximately from age 12 to age 29, his marriage to Mary Magdalene (although their marriage ceremony is in the Bible disguised as the Wedding at Cana), his children, in effect the Holy Grail, and most importantly his body after the crucifixion. Much of his life is like dark matter. It’s simply missing.







A Quantum Conundrum



What is a quantum conundrum? It’s a riddle wrapped in an enigma. It exists only at the mysterious quantum level (smaller than sub-atomic particles).

According to the science of quantum mechanics, the quantum world works in ways that do not reconcile with the laws of physics and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  Basically, what we have is two connected worlds each with its own set of different rules.  Thus the riddle: How is that even possible?

Here’s what science claims that it knows:

  • Quantum particles exist in all possible states simultaneously. They have distinct properties only after they are measured/observed.
  • Quantum particles come in what is referred to as “entangled pairs.”  The two pairs always know what the other is doing even if they are separated by vast distances.  The communication between the two exceeds the speed of light, thus violating the Theory of Relativity. Einstein referred to this as “spooky action.”

Two connected worlds, with different, incompatible rules, which instantaneously understands what is happening throughout creation. We are left with an enigma that has left scientists searching for a Theory of Everything to reconcile the two worlds.  However, as John Hogan put it in his book The End of Science, scientists will never be able to understand the universe (creation) because parts of it are beyond space and time.

The answer to the dilemma can only be answered by what I would call the supernatural. By supernatural, however, I mean something that is beyond our level of comprehension.  By definition, the supernatural will always be beyond man’s ability to understand.

Our world can only be a subset, or a projection, of “the source of reality.” If you are not standing at the source, you will never understand the cause (even if you can observe the effect). Thus, the answer to the question of “what is my purpose in life” can only be answered in the context of the “cause” and its effect on life in the universe.  We are simply the effect and the cause, whatever it is, is what gives meaning to our lives.

In the end, we have a conundrum.  More to the point, we are the conundrum. We are an extension of something that is supernatural, a riddle wrapped in an enigma. As Einstein simply put it, “The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.” Welcome to the quantum conundrum.


Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” –  Arno Penzias, physicist and Nobel laureate



The IQ Gene


As a companion to my last article entitled Blue-Eyed Gods, this post concerns the genetics of the human species. Researchers have said that man is not as smart as prior generations and that this has been a continuous trend (downwards). Why?

Well, to make the picture complete, scientists also say that man has gotten physically smaller with a smaller brain size and, as a result, not as smart. There’s really only two possibilities to explain this phenomenon.  Either, man’s genes have mutated or they have been watered down.  By watered down, I mean that in the past there could have been an infusion of genes that contributed to some people becoming taller and smarter (at least in the short term).  However, that infusion might have been a one-time event and limited in scope (raw numbers).  Over time, what you might call smarter man would have inter-married with the older and not so smart man.  Since smarter man was fewer in numbers, smarter man would have gradually begun to disappear.

This trend would, of course, continue until man returns (almost) to his physical state before the infusion of genes.  In other words, we would continue to get smaller and dumber over time.  Welcome to the world of the blue-eyed gods.

Blue-Eyed Gods



A little over three years ago I posted an article entitled “Does God Have Blue Eyes?” It has been one of my top read posts of all-time. The premise of the article is that we didn’t all evolve from Adam and Eve and we all didn’t come “out of Africa,” so to speak. Genetics pretty much tells the story.

Researchers/geneticists have demonstrated that people with white skin, blue eyes and blond hair first made their first appearance on this planet only 10,000 years ago, a real johnny-come-lately in evolutionary terms.  All three traits appeared suddenly and simultaneously in one area (near the Black Sea).  All three traits are “recessive” genetic traits meaning that they could not come from people with darker skin, hair or eye color. They had to have had a unique gene pool separate and apart from the other races on the planet.  Thus the question, does God have blue eyes.

While they first arose in the area around the Black Sea (the Caucasus Mountains), Caucasians have migrated all over the world. Some went east to Iran (Persians) and India (Aryans) and some even further to China, as the discovery of the Tarim mummies can attest to.  Some went south into the Middle East and then west into Africa (Berbers and Tuaregs).

Some also became pharaohs in Egypt as their mummies attest to.  Egyptologists have said that King Tut is Caucasian and is related to most of the men in England (and therefore most Europeans) and geneticists have said that they all have a common ancestor from 10,000 years ago in the Black Sea area. Of course, what they conveniently forget to mention is that King Tut had an elongated skull.  Queen Nefertiti, for example, is always pictured with a headdress which obscures her elongated skull.

As for the rest of the blue-eyed peoples, they migrated throughout Europe (Scandinavians, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Scots, etc.) and eventually on to America where half the people in the country had blue eyes as of the turn of the twentieth century. Some, of course, stayed in the area around the Black Sea (e.g. Russians) which today boasts a very large blond, blue-eyed population despite having recessive genes (because blue-eyed people are constantly inter-marrying).

Aside: Further, all these people spoke some version of an Indo-European language which is one related family of languages.

Of course, the Mayans, the Incans, the Aztecs and the Sumerians knew about blue-eyed gods hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. The truth is a funny thing.  That is, it can be repressed for centuries, but eventually it has to surface. Welcome to the world of the blue-eyed gods.



Some of the the aboriginals of Australia have blue eyes and blond hair.  How did that happen without blue-eyed gods?