(ed. There is no real debate about the world warming. This article fails to comment on Geoengineering of the Earth for the past 40 years (here).
Until this major factor is brought into the conversation on Climate Change, all comments on Climate Change are incomplete.
The U.S. Navy had to revise their estimates some 34 years, last year, as to the now predicted end of snow in the Arctic by 2016. (here)
science (n.) mid-14c., “what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;” also “assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty,” from Old French science “knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge” (12c.), from Latin scientia “knowledge, a knowing; expertness,” from sciens (genitive scientis) “intelligent, skilled,” present participle of scire “to know,” probably originally “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,” related to scindere “to cut, divide,” from PIE root *skei- “to cut, to split” (cognates: Greek skhizein “to split, rend, cleave,” Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan “to divide, separate;” see shed (v.)).
From late 14c. in English as “book-learning,” also “a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;” also “skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness.” From c.1400 as “experiential knowledge;” also “a skill, handicraft; a trade.” From late 14c. as “collective human knowledge” (especially “that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of “body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation” is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of “non-arts studies” is attested from 1670s.
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to “The Mismeasure of Man,” 1981]
The Freedom Articles
National Geographic now has a long list of people who it labels anti-science
or to be exact who it deems are engaging in a war on science by exercising free and critical thinking – and by forming an opinion which is contrary to the supposed “mainstream scientific consensus” (an illusion by the way). In one of its latest issues (cover above), the National Geographic lists 5 areas where it thinks the science is settled. This is typical of the way that the mainstream media seeks to suppress the truth and label truth seekers as irrational, crazy or in this case anti-science. National Geographic, by the way, is owned by Fox which is in turn owned by the notorious Rupert Murdoch, the arch-Zionist who has publicly admitted that his “fair and balanced” media deliberately drummed up support for wars under George Bush Jr.
Anti-Science: Another Label to Discourage Critical Thinking
It is ironic that this time around the mainstream media is using the concept of anti-science, because if it really considered the meaning of that term, it would realize that science is the open-minded search for knowledge using theories and testing to discover the truth. Those who want the truth on issues like fluoridation, vaccines and GMOs are pro-science, because they want real and independent tests done in these areas instead of the corporate junk science which is performed in its place. In our Alice-in-Wonderland upside-down world, where governments destroy freedom, media destroys information and medicine destroys health, the word science is applied to what is really just opinion (at best) or deceptive propaganda designed to sell you something – or worse, limit your idea of yourself, the world around you and what is truly possible.
National Geographic’s Anti-Science Stand #1: Fluoride is Good for You
Although it’s not written on the front cover, the National Geographic article on the subject begins by berating the residents of Portland Oregon for not choosing to fluoridate water, and wonders why “reasonable” people doubt science. I would suggest that reasonable people are not anti-science but are rather rightly suspicious of schemes to harm their health and enrich mega corporations. When you look at the facts around fluoride, it is evident that it is really a composite of hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride, and an industrial byproduct considered a toxic hazard by the EPA and used in rat poison, pesticides and Big Pharma antidepressant drugs like Prozac and Paxil. As I have written about in Fluoride, Fluoride, Everywhere, studies have shown it leads to arthritis, diabetes, endocrine disruption, gastrointestinal effects, hypersensitivity, kidney disease, male fertility, skeletal fluorosis and thyroid disease, as well as damage to bone structure and the brain. It accumulates in the pineal gland and impairs its functioning, which effectively means it shuts down our access to higher potential. Additionally, fluoride is implicated in cardiovascular disease and cancer which are the 2 highest leading causes of death in the US. See the Fluoride Action Network of Paul Connett by more information about this toxin.
So, it is pro-science or anti-science, reasonable or unreasonable, to avoid ingesting an obvious toxin and harming yourself?
National Geographic’s Anti-Science Stand #2: Man is
Warming the Environment Changing the Climate
It’s funny how we were bombarded with the idea that man was causing global warming until results came in that man was actually cooling the planet (see the excellent research of people like John Casey for evidence of this), that the data was selectively picked (see Ian Pilger and Lord Christopher Monckton) and that the figures were fudged (e.g. the ClimateGate emails). After that, the Controllers decided it would be better to change the manipulating Orwellian language to climate change. It’s quite brilliant really: this way any change in the climate, whether it was warming or cooling, could be ascribed to “climate change” and blamed on humanity – you know, that parasite on the planet’s surface that Prince Charles wants to wipe out by reincarnating as a virus?
I wonder if those who believe in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or Manmade Global Warming have any idea that the elite came up with the idea of using mankind itself as the global threat against which we are all supposed to gather behind a One World Government? Take the 1966 Report from the Iron Mountain, commissioned by JFK and considered by LBJ as too dangerous to reveal to the public at the time. Here is a passage from it where it is discussing how a Global Government could function without war, and suggesting the threat could instead be environmental pollution:
“It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power.”
Or what about the Club of Rome’s 1991 document entitled “The First Global Revolution”? Here is a quote from it:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together … all these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
The great documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle exposed the lies behind the very political climate change agenda. More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have challenged the man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and shredded its credibility. In truth, it is the National Geographic which is again anti-science on this issue.
National Geographic’s Anti-Science Stand #3: Might-Is-Right Evolution
Although Darwinian evolution may provide a welcome alternative for some to the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Creationism, the truth is that we are facing another false dichotomy where neither side has all the truth. The theory of evolution may explain some things well, but it fails to fully understand the role of cooperation and symbiosis among species and the ecosystem. The whole idea of a dog-eat-dog, might-is-right, survival-of-the-fittest world is totally in line with the way that the predatorial elite class thinks. They view the rest of humanity and the world as a resource to be used and exploited for their own personal gain. Devoid of empathy and compassion, they see this as the rightful and moral way of things. A closer examination of Darwin reveals that his father was a 33rd degree Mason, that Freemasonry (one of the most powerful Secret Societies on Earth) funded the theory of evolution because it destroyed people’s idea of God and their spiritual sides, and drew people’s attention to lower matters (base level survival) rather than higher ones (love and harmony).
National Geographic’s Anti-Science Stand #4: We Really Went to the Moon, Honest
The idea that we went to the moon in 1969 – in the way that it was told in the official Government narrative – is a lingering and ludicrous lie. We are expected to believe that the astronauts who went up there only took around 80-100 photos of the entire event, not to mention the massive discrepancies in shadows and the failure of anyone to explain at the time how we got passed the Van Allen radiation belts with that technology. Look at the dejected state and massive does of amnesia displayed by the astronauts at the press conference. Does this seem a likely response to men who had really just done something so monumental as walk on the moon for the first time ever? Or men whose lives (and whose families’ lives) had just been threatened if they told the truth? Why is there variation in the shadow darkness? Why are there no stars in the pictures? In the video footage of the astronauts talking with Houston control, who is the anonymous 3rd party prompting the astronauts with what to say? Check out “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.”
Interestingly, Neil Armstrong said:
“There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth’s protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief.”
Jay Weidner did some excellent analysis of the faked Moon Landing and put forth a convincing theory that it was actually Stanley Kubrick who was recruited to fake it. Kubrick later made artistic, opaque references to this in a future film “The Shining” and tried to expose the Satanic elite in “Eyes Wide Shut”, but conveniently and mysteriously died of a heart attack before the film’s release.
Whatever really happened on the moon, there is now copious evidence from various whistleblowers (many from Project Camelot) that a Secret Space Program is in existence and maintains a fleet of space vehicles which are more than capable of going anywhere in the Solar System – and beyond.
National Geographic’s Anti-Science Stand #5: Vaccines are Safe and Effective
The idea that questioning something as dangerous and ineffective as a vaccine is anti-science is really quite absurd. Again, it is a rational and pro-science position to take to carefully examine what goes in your body, especially in your bloodstream (where it bypasses digestion), no matter how many so-called experts call it “medicine”. Vaccines are loaded with tens of dangerous additives (adjuvants) which are known carcinogens (mercury, formaldehyde) and known to be highly harmful to the body (aluminum, aborted fetal tissue, MSG, etc.). More and more evidence is coming to light that vaccines lead to autism and other debilitating autoimmune diseases. On top of this, those vaccinated undergo a process called viral shedding where they are actually contagious and can infect those around them! Finally, many studies have shown that vaccines are not even that effective, such as this one published in the Lancet which found that only 1.5 people out of 100 were protected by getting a flu shot.
National Geographic’s Anti-Science Stand #6: GMOs are Safe and Wonderful
Finally, the mainstream media wants you to believe that GMOs are safe and wonderful, and that you must be anti-science if you oppose them. Yet GMOs are made with the artificial injecting of the DNA of a completely different, random species into plant DNA. Some of them, such as Bt corn, are made to deliberately produce an insecticide poison to kill bugs – but it keeps doing this inside of you once ingested. Seralini showed with his study that rats fed GM corn developed horrendous lesions and tumors, and other studies have shown that GMOs are implicated in a large number of ailments, such as organ failure, autism, allergies, asthma, sterility, infant mortality, digestive disorders, bowel disease, Crohn’s, constipation, kidney disease, heart disease and more.
These horrible side effects arise in part because when we ingest GM food our immune system treats it as a foreign entity, so it starts attacking it. Thus GMOs cause inflammation, the hidden source of many auto-immune diseases (e.g. arthritis, multiple sclerosis, etc.) and other illnesses like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and cancer.
This is new untested technology, allowing around 6 corporations to potentially control the entire global food supply at great profit. It’s a giant human experiment that could end up genetically modifying humanity. Science is supposed to follow the precautionary principle, yet profit trumps precaution here.
So who’s really more anti-science – GMOs skeptics or National Geographic-like GMO supporters?
Of course, it is National Geographic’s intention with their cover and article to group together ideas people may have (i.e. that manmade climate change is bogus) with other ideas they simultaneously have (i.e. that man did go to the moon as described in the official story) and imply that if you believe the latter, then you must also believe that vaccines are safe, and GMOs are good, etc.
Very cunning. Watch out for the deceptive propaganda.
Want to keep informed on the latest and greatest news and analysis on the New World Order, Natural Health, Sovereignty and more? Sign up for free blog updates!
Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.