The Carbon Con:

Free energy is around the corner:



Global Warminga Swindle and Scientifically illegitimate: It is propaganda:

The real truth about the global weather situation is what you won’t hear about it in the main stream media:


  1. Global warming ended in 1998, it is now global cooling;
  2. Antarctic icecap is growing;
  3. Sea level increases 15 cm per century and not 6 metres;
  4. Snowfall is not abnormal;
  5. CO2 cannot cause global warming!!!!
  6. Global warming could come from a gas called nitrous oxide (N2O).


Global warming is a hot issue. Are we indeed the ones that destroy the Earth with our CO2 gas emissions and whatever additional sins we commit? Don’t worry, it is hype, not true, politically motivated and propagated by activists that are directed to protest against anything whatsoever. There is no direct evidence that links global warming to greenhouse gasses. Since the early 90s, global warming has created a whole industry of profitable businesses subsidised by our governments with our tax money. The millions of people working or related to these enterprises advocate the urgency of this belief whilst instigating fear onto the populace, otherwise they would lose their jobs.

How realistic is it to go green? Humanity will keep spewing carbon into the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol divided the world into two groups. The roughly 1.2 billion citizens of industrialized countries accounting for 20% of the people living on the planet who are expected to reduce their emissions. And the other 80% or 5 billion including both China and India that are not expected to do so. These numbers alone are a guarantee that humanity isn’t going to reduce global emissions at all, not now and not in the future. The long-term trend is clear. The per capita emissions of 80% of the population of the planet are increasing much faster than ours in the west are, which undermines any remotely plausible carbon-reduction scheme.

The truth is that people’s CO2 emissions are so negligible, -0,05% of the total – the ability to warm the planet due to this is virtually zero, if CO2 emissions indeed are the cause of global warming as repeatedly is purported. This ongoing meme is not even supported by scientific evidence.

The main question is whether all the emitted gasses in the atmosphere cause Global-Warming as the media wants us to believe? Watch the video below: ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and make up your mind.


At the end of this film, the reader can make up his mind on this subject as to whether greenhouse gasses and CO2 emissions really destroy the Earth and cause global warming.

To be straight, I’m not against the preservation of our environment, or in dispute of global warming, but rather, I am concerned that the objectivity pertaining to this subject has been shattered by people who depend on it financially and politically. They exploit the fear with regard to global warming while the truth of the matter is that it is definitely not going to destroy our planet.

Once governments, on behalf of the Deep State’s New World Order, start subsidising politically motivated issues, it is clear that everyone wants to be on the bandwagon to cash in on the money-making racket.

The propaganda sold to the people, goes beyond belief and is creating a widespread panic which further increases the impact of the lies being peddled. The film explains through comments of various specialised top-scientists, experts, politicians, a science editor and even the co-founder of Greenpeace what the truth is regarding Global-Warming.


Observations of a well-known scientist:

Don’t be afraid, Global warming is not true. It’s dressed up as science but it’s not science, it’s propaganda. We have just been told lies. There is no direct evidence that links global warming with greenhouse gasses. We can’t see that CO2 drives climate change, it certainly didn’t do so in the past.

If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature should go up. The ice core records show exactly the opposite. The fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change being the cause of humans is shown to be wrong.

Manmade global warming is no longer a theory about the change in climate, it is a defining moral and political cause of our age.

Campaigners say that the necessity for debate outweighs all criticism thereof, no matter how scientifically rigorous, illegitimate, or even worse, dangerous the debate becomes. Earth’s climate over the centuries is continuously changing. There is nothing unusual about the current temperatures and all the scientific evidence peddled today doesn’t support the notion that climate change is driven by CO2, manmade or otherwise. Everywhere we look, we are told that climate change is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but we are being fed lies.

Prof Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg:

When people say not to believe in global warming, he says he does believe in global warming, but he doesn’t believe that human CO2 is causing that warming.


Prof Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem: A few years ago if you would have told me about global warming, I would have believed it, because the media was claiming this.

Each day the news reports grow more apocalyptic. Politicians don’t dare to express any doubts about global climate change.


Lord Lawson of Bably:

This is the most politically incorrect situation imaginable. It greatly resembles a climate change orthodoxy.

Global warming has gone beyond politics ‘Trains not Planes is what is being promoted’. It is a new kind of morality. As the frenzy of a manmade global warming meme grows, senior scientist says the actual scientific basis for climate change is crumbling. We have had in the past periods of 3 to 10 times as much CO2 as today in the atmosphere, and if CO2 has an effect on climate change it should be evident in the temperature reconstruction.


Prof Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:

If you analyse the geological timeframe, you would never suspect CO2 as a major climate driver.


Dr Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action:

Climate changes in the last 1000 years cannot be explained by CO2.


Prof John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC – International Panel for Climate Change: IPCC states

“often the assertion is held that there is a wide consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue being the cause of a dramatic change in the climate system, and humans are causing this dramatic change to the climate system. – Global warming is not true. It is presented in the media as having the stamp of authority of a huge international organisation”.


Prof Philip Stott, Dept. of Biogeography, University of London:

The IPCC of the United Nations, like everybody at the UN, is political, the final conclusions are politically driven.


Prof Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris:

The claim that the IPCC represents the absolute top of world’s 1500 – 2.500 scientists, is simply not true there are quite a number of non-scientists involved.


Prof Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T.:

To make up the number of 2.500 they have counted the reviewers and government officials, anyone who was involved to the slightest degree. None of them were asked whether they agreed with the climate change assertions, in fact, many of them disagreed. Those that didn’t agree and resigned, and there are quite a number known to have left, were simply added to the author’s list as part of the 2.500 top world scientists. This is pure propaganda. It has turned into a political ideology.


Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Greenpeace:

It is not an environmental movement anymore but an activist movement, influential at a global level. It is the story of distortion of an entire area of science.


Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader NASA:

In order to get funding, we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow into climate science. There is one point of view which will not be tolerated and that is the view that there may not be a problem at all regarding climate change. It is the story of how a political campaign has turned into a bureaucratic bandwagon.


Prof Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia:

The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now. It is big business. It has become an extensive industry in itself.  If the whole global warming saga had to collapse, there would be an awful lot of people out of jobs, and looking for work. It is a story of censorship and intimidation.


Nigel Calder, Former Editor of the New Scientist:

Seeing and hearing anybody who disagrees with them, gives reason to spit on them. Regarding Westerners invoking the thread of climate disaster, this is hindering vital industrial progress in the developing world.


James Shikwati, African Economist & Author:

Somebody is keen to kill the African dream; the African dream involves developing. The environmental movement has evolved into a strong force to be reckoned with, they’re strong in preventing all development in the developing countries.


A tale of media fear:

The global warming story is a cautionary tale of how media-concocted fears have become the defining ideas of an entire generation. The whole globing warming saga has become a religion and people who disagree are called lunatics.


Global warming could come from a gas called nitrous oxide (N2O):

How realistic is it to go green? Humanity will keep spewing carbon into the atmosphere, but can good policy help? The Kyoto Protocol divides the world into two groups. The roughly 1.2 billion citizens of industrialised countries equalling 20% of the people living on Earth that is expected to reduce their emissions. And the other 80% or 5 billion including both China and India that aren’t.  These numbers alone are a guarantee that humanity isn’t going to reduce global emissions at all, not now and not in the future. The long-term trend is clear. The 80% populations and their per head emissions are increasing much faster than ours could fall under any remotely plausible carbon-reduction scheme. (HERHALING BOVEN)


Additionally, the International Council for Science (ICSU) in Paris, a federation of scientific associations from around the world, has issued a report concluding that most analyses made, have underestimated the importance to global warming of a gas called nitrous oxide (N2O) by a factor of between three and five.

Although N2O is not common in the Earth’s atmosphere, it is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and it hangs around much longer. The result is that, over the course of a century, its ability to warm the planet is almost 300 times greater than that of an equivalent mass of CO2. The ICSU report suggests that N2O emissions in general are probably more important than previously acknowledged. Even more so, the production of biofuels has aggravated, rather than improved global warming!


Another way to rob us:

In the rich countries, a CO2 Emissions trade or ‘cap trade’ has been put in place, which is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants, which is known to be pure bogus.

Due to emissions trading, coal becomes less competitive than other fuels.

A central authority, usually a government or international body, sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emissions permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances or credits, which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to the capped level. Companies that need to increase their emissions allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade.

In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is rewarded for having reduced emissions according to what was necessary. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most economically will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and carbonate ions as those that exist freely in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, “absorbing about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date”. Gas solubility decreases as the temperature of water increases and therefore the rate of uptake from the atmosphere decreases as ocean temperatures rise.

Most of the CO2 taken up by the ocean forms carbonic acid in equilibrium with bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Some is consumed in photosynthesis by organisms in the water (such as algae), and a small proportion of that sinks and leaves the carbon cycle.


Meaningless arguments:

China is adding 100 Giga-Watts of coal-fueled electrical energy per year. That equals three times as much as the whole of the USA emits, with no end in sight. Much of the rest of the developing world is on a similar path.

China, not the United States, is the planet’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses. Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and others are close behind. And these countries have all made it clear that they aren’t interested in spending money that they don’t have. Emissions from motor vehicles are responsible for under a quarter of the man-made carbon dioxide.

It is meaningless to argue that global warming can be solved at a cost of 1 to 2 percent of the global economy.

The rich 20% can’t stop the world’s 5 billion poor people from burning the trillion tons of cheap carbon that is easily available to them. There is not a chance for a durable reduction in global emissions, because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast. 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy because they are part of the same global economy and are dependent on it.

Paradoxically, the West is having these poor countries produce even more by outsourcing nearly all production, losing their jobs in the process, and causing these countries to discharge more carbon at an even faster rate. Poor countries all around the globe do have the largest energy source within reach in the form of carbon, about a trillion tons of cheap and easily accessible coal.

If, 30 odd years ago the world had continued with the production of nuclear energy, we wouldn’t have been confronted with the present-day carbon issue, causing our planet to heat up which can unfortunately not be stopped quickly enough either.


The solution; cheaper energy without carbon emission:

The only solution that will work is to provide the 80% with cheaper energy without carbon emission such as that which they obtain from coal.

The most simple and sensible alternative is to develop ultra cheap carbon free energy. This would mean beating the price of coal which is used to generate electricity at under 3 cents per kilowatt per hour.

What comes to mind is renewable energy from the power of the wind, the sun, or tidal waves and various other elements of nature. But other than being carbon emissions free, all these technologies are not cheap enough. No single carbon-free fuel or technology comes even remotely close to the under 3 CT/KW, except nuclear energy.


Nuclear energy:

Nuclear energy complies with the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear power is compact while commercial operators in countries like France where 80% of their energy needs are generated in this way, and the U.S.A., Japan, all have credibly established that this type of energy generation is safe and cheap, probably becoming even cheaper if engineers are allowed to develop it even further.

The only drawback may be the up-front capital investment for a power plant, and the discharge of nuclear waste. But with all the bailout money slugging around, this should just be the opportunity to make a change for the better.

On the other hand, most of the costs of carbon-based energy comes, not from the cost of the fuels being used, but also from capital investment for the infrastructure of furnaces, turbines, and engines, thus not cheap either compared to nuclear energy.

Another important consideration, which when compared to the carbon issue, would be comparatively cheap, is the elimination of the dependence on oil. Generating power from nuclear energy is cheaper than from oil while it is still cheaper from coal. It is important to note that by sharply boosting the cost of coal through emissions trading, the war on carbon will make the rich 20% more dependent on oil and not less.



The carbon-reduction policy scheme as put into practice doesn’t help to reduce the quantity of carbon emitted, it appears to be more a political concoction, than that it really solves anything.

Despite how much we would like to solve this problem; it is virtually impossible along the chosen route! It will only make the 20% richest people on earth poorer, unable to control the demand for carbon and even more dependent on Middle Eastern crude oil, which will consequently become more expensive as result of the laws of ‘supply and demand’. Nonetheless it is still morally ethical to go green, but that requires other avenues to be explored and exploited:


Free energy is around the corner:

Or, put differently, if about 120 years ago Nicolas Tesla was not obstructed by the Deep State-cabal with his invention of free energy, generated from the magnetic fields around planet Earth, there wouldn’t have been any carbon emissions at all!

Nikola Tesla is remembered for his transformational inventions such as the induction motor, electrical power distribution, fluorescent lights, wireless communications, and the remote control of mechanical devices.

But of all of Tesla’s inventions, there was one that never saw the light of day. It was a revolutionary idea that had the potential to reshape our world in profound ways.

It was also an idea that was more than a century ahead of its time, involving  Free Energy, and wireless energy distribution.


Conventional power lines are expensive, ugly and wasteful, they can lose up to 14 percent of their energy from the resistance present in the copper cables. A major aspect of Tesla’s wireless energy grid is the distribution of electricity to remote areas, as well as to densely populated urban locations.

Tesla constructed a rather unusual-looking tower for his time. Originally and officially, he was said to have intended to use the facility to develop the technology to transmit wireless communications across the ocean to Europe.

But he wanted to secretly use the tower to demonstrate wireless power distribution on a very large scale. Tesla’s vision incorporated many of his towers emitting energy throughout the atmosphere. This energy would be utilised by airplanes, automobiles, and even ships, designed with special receiving devices to collect the wireless power.

Distributed on a large scale, this technology would have allowed ships to travel the seas without ever stopping to refuel. Planes could stay airborne indefinitely, constantly supplied with power from Tesla’s towers.


When the cabal’s JP Morgan discovered Tesla’s hidden motives, the funding was stopped immediately.


Tesla’s original idea of wireless communications has been with us for years. The mobile phone in your pocket is proof of this. While his inventions are not being used to transmit energy across the Atlantic Ocean, Tesla’s vision of wireless power distribution is happening right now all around us, with many being unaware of the origin thereof.


Free Energy Devices – Secret of Energy from the Earth and Sky – Nikola Tesla

Today; Behind the complex technology of wireless power distribution, something quite simple is occurring: technology is emerging which enables electronic devices to be charged without the need of a power cable for each device.

Once the cabal has been defeated; Tesla’s unfinished masterpiece will be on the verge of becoming a reality.


CNN Destroyed by Weather Channel Founder Over Climate Change


The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie: