The insidious passing of executive orders to enable Agenda 2030 and "The Great Reset"

 

Context: USA late 20th Century and the early part of this century .

Thanks to Peter Stallinga and his Earthling News roundup for making me aware of this which I think is worth singling out and sharing. So much legislation is passed in Washington but these are Executive Orders and noteworthy even taken stock of together.

•Executive Order 11003 gives the government control of all airports and aircraft.

•Executive Order 11004 allows the government to seize all housing and finance and force people to leave what are declared to be ‘Forced Relocation Designated Areas’.

•Executive Order 11005 gives the government control of all  railways, waterways and storage facilities.

•Executive Order 11051 outlines the role of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives the right to activate all Executive Orders into effect in times of ‘increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis’.

•Executive Order 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in US financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

•Executive Order 12919 was signed by President Clinton on June 3rd, 1994, to bring all of the above under one order.

VAERS Update on adverse effects of the ¢0√¡d √a¢¢¡ne

 

Consider this a quick update on my more involved post after 2 of VAERS stats. Its concerning but necessary to bear in mind the estimation that only 6% of adverse reactions are actually reported.

In loosely related noteworthy news, a murder trial in India has been opened, involving Bill Gates

https://indianbarassociation.in/worlds-first-vaccine-murder-case-against-bill-gates-adar-poonawalla-filed-in-indias-high-court/

Thanks to Peter Stallinga of Stallinga.org

The same thing we saw in Europe happens in the United States. In Europe the EudraVigilance adverse-side-effects monitoring hinted at about 500 thousand vaccination deaths in Europe. (With 500 million inhabitants that is one in 1000 or 0.1% of the population). In the US, the VAERS reported 19249 official vaccination deaths. With 6% reporting this implies 320 thousand deaths. (On a population of 333 million this is again 0.1% of the population culled by the vaccine). 

People with corona tunnel-vision will not see these deaths as we know from psychology (see videos of Mattias Desmet). But | want to communicate to the others: 

- The sacrifice of how many innocent human lives do you think is acceptable in the combat of the virus? 1, 10, 100, 1000 ... ? 

- Do you see that these people are in all age cohorts? CoFlu19 kills people of 83 years age on average (compared to 83 years of other causes; ergo CoFlu19 does not take away much life), while the vaccine kills on average much younger people. Some in the prime of their lives. 

'T is a sad world. Exactly what Dostoevsky wrote. A great sadness on Earth. History repeating. The way it goes, in Europe, in twelve years, how many deaths by human hand will we have ... ? ss 

The "Greenhouse Effect". Ironic fail!

Note: The graphs below illustrate at a glance that whatever the actual role of CO2 (by correlation between temperature and CO2) it is certainly not consistent with a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere functioning like a glass roof. This is a pity because Mars (96% CO2) would probably be a bit warmer if it were. The graphs come from a single excellent recent paper (details below) which is well worth a read. It is less about CO2 in isolation and more about CO2 with respect to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT itself.  You can also find it here where you can download a PDF. It does a perfectly good job of dispatching the nonsense science used by Climate Change movement to strongarm their way into the various avenues of social influence both scientifically and politically. Because of this I'm going just going to focus on one tiny little aspect, so minor you never hear it mentioned, yet so soaked in irony it begs to be pointed out.. So that's my objective here, pointing out the role of CO2 in a greenhouse and in the "greenhouse effect", nothing more.

The above mentioned paper:

Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere

Peter Stallinga
University of the Algarve, FCT-DEEI, Faro, Portugal.
DOI: 10.4236/acs.2020.101003   PDF   HTML   XML   

       

.    The "Green House Effect" is an analogy made to represent the earth and its atmosphere in principle using a greenhouse. For the benefit of those of you who may be a bit fuzzy on the concept of a greenhouse, here below is a quick synopsis of 

1) How a real greenhouse works

           And

2) How the greenhouse effect is supposed to work

1. In a real greenhouse CO2 plays no role in creating heat, only in boosting total growth, rate of growth and development of all plant life dramatically

2. In the theoretical model the role of CO2 is hypothesized to no longer be important in plant growth and it now switches for some reason to the role played by the glass roof. Its unknown if the glass roof is meant to nourish plants in this model..... There is strong speculative evidence to support this.

L

At this point I will leave you to make up your own mind about the greenhouse effect itself. The subject is investigated in detail in the paper by Peter Stallinga, and the greenhouse model is evaluated somewhat sarcastically by me in this post as a bonus. Weak humour aside, there is some benefit to pointing this out since the term has been around so long its not really given a second thought.

For more on Van Belmont's Experiment and many others click here for my post on transmutation (Biology's version of LENR).

Click HERE for my extensive sources page on Climate Change

Click Here for Peter Stallinga's Academic Publications and here for his Earthling News. He also has a dot org science nonprofit site with interesting bits and pieces, located here

Or click HERE for the homepage of this site.

Peter Stallinga's Scientific Consensus

While Going through 2 papers by the author /co-author these papers it struck me much later than it should have that the paper I will next post on, empirical forecasting, is in in principle intrinsically linked to the case made by the authors against the weighting of scientific consensus in terms of credence given to the argument in question. Despite this I will post them seperately and include the link later. The reasoning, accuracy and absence of intractable logical conflicts really should be the the basis on which any published paper or scientific hypotheses is based. The filtering process should never become greater than the idea. That sort of thinking is for small minded bureaucrats and really has no place in the arena of scientific ideas. 

When I first started writing this blog I wrote about this topic, here is that post:

An Audio of my old blog post above. 

It was a broadly cast and "all over the place" post yet I don't regret a word of it. That being said I didn't know a heck of a lot on the topic back then and I would like to make this paper, a more methodical and structured deconstruction of the issue, much more rigerous than I could ever do, available to myself to posterity to refer back to. 

To anyone reading this, I hope you enjoy it as much as as I did. 

CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE 

by Peter Stallinga and Igor Khmelinskii

Consensus in science

Peter Stallingapeter@stallinga.org 1  and Igor Khmelinskiiikhmelin@ualg.pt2

• 1 Departamento de Engenharia Electrónica e Informática, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal 
• 2Departamento de Química e Farmácia, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal

DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1515/mcma-2014-0008 

| 

Published online: 

14 Feb 2015

ABSTRACT 
The biggest argument in some areas of science is the existence of a consensus. However, on top of it being a non-scientific argument, it is easy to show how a consensus naturally evolves in modern research environments. In this paper we demonstrate analytically and by cellular automata how a consensus is obtained. Important conclusions are that a consensus is not necessarily representing the truth and, once established, can never change anymore.
Read more here and purchase the article for €30.00

Or read the text images below which I have made screenshots of at no cost.

Manufacturing Concensus

Science is not a vote, it's an outlook, an attitude, a discipline and (mostly) It's a method. No scientist worth his salt should ever use the words "settled" especially if voting or "consensus" produce it rather than the scientific method. There are words for the sort of  (public or corporate) funded scientific studies and organisations that are better suited to that sort of thing.

Those words are "Politics" and "Commercial" and if that does not jump right out at you then I don't know what will. Each of the above has its place of course, but if you think it through, it turns out the implications are far further reaching than it seems on face value. I think that those aspects are affecting the personalities as well, especially those appointed under the nebulous title of "public understanding of science" are either taking a diengenuous approach on this topic or are perhaps a little politically naive.

Fortunately I've come across this little gem, a research article from Peter Stallinga and Igor Khmelinskii that looks into the issue in a disciplined fashion and I'm posting it here as a basis for a new angle I'm going to explore in future when I address "Climate Change"

https://origincache-prn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/30653953_1237089103092032_879322905211568128_n.pdf/Stallinga_MCMA2014.pdf?oh=de5abf7159016475742c358d147a2765&oe=5B9DD562&dl=1