“If you take the next left, it will get you to the store 10 minutes faster…Hey, you’re revving too much, the engine can’t take it! The aircon is up to high I’m getting chilblains just sitting here…do you know how much gas that thing sucks out of the tank? This trip’s gonna end up costing you a fortune…You’re going to get stuck behind that tanker going uphill, you should indicate now and get into the middle lane…the cops usually park right behind that next bend with a speed-o-meter, hit the brakes so you don’t get fined…”
Few things are more irritating than having a back-seat driver along for the ride. There they sit, picking holes in your driving style, your sense of direction, even your choice of music. Ask the backseat driver why they do what they do, and they’ll tell you straight out: they’re just trying to be helpful. And they really believe it!
But going anywhere with a backseat driver is invariably exhausting and draining. They don’t shut up… they’re forever looking for one more thing to worry over, one more thing to criticize you about, one more way to make you feel small, stupid and entirely reliant on them and their superior advice and experience.
Backseat drivers take all the fun out of the journey.
Now, it’s hard enough to deal with a real-live person stuck in the back of your car trying to call all the shots and not giving you anytime or space to think things through for yourself in a calm, relaxed fashion. But there’s a big secret you should know about yourself: You’ve got a back-seat driver calling the shots in your own head 24 / 7 and you never get away from them.
And that’s not all. This backseat driver is so cunning, it’s managed to convince you that the person who’s doling out all the criticism, and worry, and doubt and harsh judgments about you and the rest of humanity is actually…you.
“I’m such an idiot! I can’t believe I forget to call the insurance guy to renew the policy on time. Now, I’m going to have to re-do all the paperwork from scratch, I’m so retarded!”
Or, try this:
“I can’t believe I was dumb enough to try to avoid paying the tax I owed. Now, I’m stressing about it all the time and I sit in the office convinced the IRS are going to burst through my door any minute and arrest me. They’ll splash the story all over the local press and my wife will divorce me…”
Or how about this:
“Man, why did I eat all those fries and pizza? I really feel like I’m going to throw up now! I’ve got no self-control, I can’t seem to get a grip on my life, I’m such a loser.”
He's convinced us that HE is really US!
Do you see what’s happening here? The backseat driver has us convinced that he is really us. He talks in our voice, he uses our catch-phrases, he knows all our secret fears and weaknesses, and he has absolutely no qualms about using them against us to get us to do what he wants.
And what is it that this internal back-seat driver really wants from us? In a word: control. He wants to control the way we see our lives, and the way we relate to other people, and the way we react to the different circumstances we get sent to deal with.
He wants to convince us that the world is full of bogey-man waiting to get us, and monsters under our bed who want to spirit us away to the netherworld, and nasty people who are just itching to kidnap our children and steal our lifesavings.
Maybe you’re reading this and thinking to yourself: “But isn’t that true? Isn’t that a rational opinion to hold, that the world is a dangerous place and home to milllions and even billions of psychos, derango-s and otherwise criminally insane, crazy people?”
Let’s be clear no-one is arguing with the idea that the world is full of loony-tunes. Everyone walking around on planet earth has got their own issues to deal with, and their own craziness to face down. But top of the crazy-making list is this:
People think that their backseat driver is really them.
That’s why they have ceded almost all their power, control and inner vitality over to that little crazy guy sitting behind them who is calling all the shots in their lives.
So what can we really do, to try to get rid of this pernicious backseat driver who seems to have opinions about everything and everyone, and who makes judgment calls 24/7 and doesn’t give us a moment’s peace and quiet, even (or maybe especially…) when we’re trying to settle down for the night?
Just as we’ve got into our favorite pair of pyjamas and started to drowse off over an interesting bit of bedtime reading and reached to turn the bedside light off - that’s when it starts reminding us that we forgot to hang the washing up, and it’s going black and moldy in the machine. Or that we forgot to respond to that niggly work email, and now all the endless possible responses are going to be cycling through our head, bothering us and stopping us from going to sleep all night long.
Let’s be clear that this crazy little backseat driving guy is really good at what he does, he’s an expert in keeping our heads too stuffed up with worries and problems and doubts and arguments and criticisms to really take a breath and to actually think.
But it’s time to turf him out of pole position, and to reclaim control of the vehicle once again
These days, it seems like you need a bunch of letters after your name to have a right to an opinion on anything.
“You can’t eat carbs for breakfast! The latest research shows that eating carbs for breakfast will severely impact your digestive system and make you sluggish and slow the whole day.”
“But, I really like my Weetabix…”
“Who are you to have an opinion like that?! What’s your alma mater? What do you know, really? I’m telling you that carbs are bad for breakfast - and I’ve devoted the last 10 years of my life to researching this issue - and you’re still telling me that you enjoy wheat-based cereals first thing in the morning?! Why should I take you seriously? Who are you, to be arguing against the science?”
All the experts out there are pretty busy these days telling us what to eat for optimal gut health, and what gloopy stuff to smear on our skins to combat wrinkles, or zits, and how to raise our kids so they won’t turn into psychos.
The list goes on and on.
Uhoh. Here comes one now.
“Wait a minute, who gave you permission to write about all this emotional health stuff? Where’s your credentials? Where did you study? Who are you, anyway?!”
Hopefully, we’ll get to a much deeper answer to that question as this series of posts unfolds, but you should know that regardless of all the experts out there who are trying to convince you that you can’t so much as pick up a pair of slacks or buy a new toothbrush without their ‘expert’ advice and opinion, really there is only expert you should be listening to on a regular basis: yourself.
Not because you have a million shiny PhD diplomas hanging on your wall (although that’s nice if you do); and not because you’re a self-made millionaire, or a fashion icon, or a pillar of society, or because you happen to bake the best pecan pie this side of the Atlantic.
All that stuff is nice, sure, but the reason you are the real expert about your own life is because you got given that job to do, and every ability you need to carry it off properly. This book isn’t about teaching new truths or new wisdoms that you’ve never heard of before. It’s about revealing that truth deep inside of yourself that you actually already know and recognize to be your own.
Really, you know better than anyone else in the world what you should be doing with yourself, what’s good for you, what you should be aiming for and getting the heck away from. And you for sure know what to have for breakfast.
So this series of posts isn’t so much a journey of discovery as a journey of helping you to reclaim what is already yours, and to find what you already possess deep within.
More and more of us are starting to wake up to the fact that the information we consume may have just as much of an impact on our mental and physical health than the food and other substances we’re ingesting.
There are a lot of similarities between the way we consume food, and the way we ‘consume’ information online.
The healthier, more wholesome sources of information and help on the net can truly help us to nourish ourselves spiritual, and can feed the appetite we have for information and advice in a fulfilling, positive way.
Those are the sites that are routinely useful and calming, without trying to ‘hard sell’ you anything, rope you in to anything, scare the pants off you about anything. In short, about 2% of the sites you’ll find online (maximum).
SO MANY YUCKY SITES OUT THERE...
Then, there’s the other end of the spectrum - the sites that are encouraging and promoting the worst types of behavior in humanity, like online porn, DIY build-your-own bomb sites, sites encouraging teenagers to commit suicide, of people to gamble their life-savings and homes away online.
These sites are more like crack cocaine than foodstuffs, because even evil substances like MSG don’t really come close to the damage viewing sites like this can do to a person’s psyche and overall sense of health and wellbeing.
Thank God I’m not in that world, and I have a couple of strong filters to try to help me stay out of that online version of hell on earth, so I have no idea what percentage of the internet these types of sites account for. But sadly, it’s a lot.
And then, there’s all the sites that are in between, ranging from mildly helpful but still a complete waste of time, through to sites full of profane language and demeaning behaviors that aren’t quite illegal, but are still really, really awful.
In so many ways, the world would be a better place without the internet, but for now we’re stuck with it - at least, if we want to pay our bills, find out what’s going on in our kids’ schools and be able to buy things conveniently or make cheap calls abroad.
(And of course, if we need to work on it, which is the biggest reason I’m still stuck in front of a screen much more than I’d like to be.)
HELPFUL GUIDELINES TO REGULATE WHAT WE CONSUME ONLINE
So then, how can we ensure we’re consuming more of what’s good for us, and much less of what isn’t?
I was pondering this myself, and I’ve come up with a few guidelines that are helping me tremendously, and that BH will also help you too to ensure that more of the ‘wholesome’ and healthy sites are making it into your daily internet diet.
It’s very useful to approach the internet as you would food.
The first thing to do is to divide your internet use into two categories: necessary and unnecessary.
Necessary is work, paying bills, checking PTA notices, printing off a Google map etc - anything that has to be done, and that can only be done online.
Consider this to be your internet staples, the bread and butter of your time online.
Next, take a look at your unnecessary list.
This is where the real work can begin, in two stages. Stage 1 is to divide these sites into ‘helpful’ and ‘unhelpful’ sites. The definition of ‘helpful’ I’m using here is very simple:
does it make you feel cheerful, filled-up and inspired, when you read it? Does it give you real, practical information you can use in your real life, or just panic-inducing superficial soundbytes?
It can be hard to figure out what site is ‘helpful’ and what isn’t, especially initially, because so many of the unhelpful sites are actually strongly addictive, so we get an initial burst of ‘great’ when we log-on, but that feeling tends to sour very quickly.
CHEMICALLY ADDICTIVE, OR REALLY ENJOYABLE?
Again, it’s useful to use a food analogy. Sometimes, we just need that bar of chocolate, that scoop of ice-cream, especially if we’re using it as a coping mechanism or a form of self-soothing. An occasional splurge on sites that aren’t ‘crack cocaine’ is fine, and won’t kill anyone.
But if all you’re doing online is consuming the internet equivalent of candy bars and big bottles of coke? Then sooner or later you’re going to start feeling very, very ill, mentally and spiritually.
So for now, go slow, and just pay attention to how you really feel after you’ve read a site. What sites do you look forward to, and why? What sites are ‘addictive’, what sites do you feel compelled to read almost against your will - the same way a binge eater just has to raid the fridge late or night, or finish every crumb of the gateau?
This stage can take a few weeks or even months, so don’t rush it, and treat yourself very nicely while you’re going through this process of trying to streamline your internet intake. No guilt trips, no beating yourself up, no harsh judgments about your viewing habits.
Just plenty of self-compassion, patience and asking God for help to show you what’s going on and why.
GIVE UNHELPFUL SITES THE HEAVE-HO
Once you’ve really managed to pin-down the helpful and unhelpful sites, you can move on to the next stage: block the unhelpful sites.
Now, don’t panic! I’m not saying you can never, ever, ever see that particularly poisonous Facebook page you’re addicted to. All I’m saying is list your unhelpful sites with something like ‘Block Site’, which is a free add-on for Chrome users.
You can change the settings on it at anytime, so if your urge to splurge online gets too much for you (it happens…) you can indulge it for 5 minutes, remember why you blocked that site in the first place, and return back to your healthy internet diet.
Go HERE to download the BLOCK SITE plug-in for Chrome, and let me know how you get on.
I installed it last week, and I’m already noticing that my internet habits have got so much better. Little
by little, I’m spending much less time online, and more time in my ‘real’ life doing ‘real’ things with real people that really bring me more pleasure and contentment.
A last tip for the news addicts out there (I’m also one, which is how I know all this stuff about you…): block the images on the news sites you regularly visit, and you find you’ll be able to get your ‘news fix’ much faster, without disappearing down the latest bit of eye-candy’s appealing cleavage.
Again, try this for yourself, but blocking the pictures made a huge, huge difference to the pulling power these sites had on me - and I’m a lady!
So here’s to your healthy internet use, and BH, one day we’ll be able to go back to sending snail mail letters, reading magazines printed on proper paper and interacting with people in person again.
I, for one, can’t wait.
A few years’ ago, God did me a very big favor. Every time I was around someone with a very complicated inner landscape, my eyes would go funny.
The first few times it happened, I freaked out and started panicking that I’d developed some horrible disease that was going to leave my partially sighted, God-forbid, or worse. But then, after this had been going on for a few months, and after I’d been talking to God about it a lot, I suddenly got the insight that my eyes would only go funny around particular people, or in particular circumstances.
One of those people was my husband, so figuring out what was going on become a big imperative.
After many more months of pondering it, praying on it, thinking about it, I managed to narrow down ‘funny eye syndrome’ a bit more, and to realize that it would happen whenever I was around people who were suppressing strong, negative emotions.
By suppressing, I don’t mean that they knew what they were feeling, consciously, and were gritting their teeth, or keeping a stiff upper lip, although clearly that also would sometimes occur.
I mean that these negative emotions were so buried, so hidden - even from the person themselves! - that they had absolutely no idea what sort of tremendously powerful emotional vibes they were actually sending out into the atmosphere.
That was being soaked up by yours truly and making my eyes go funny.
Releasing the pressure
Over time, I figured out that the single best way to cure my funny eyes was by helping the person I was talking with to really acknowledge their deeper, nearly always extremely negative, true feelings.
This is so much easier said than done, as most people who make my eyes go funny are suffering from something called alexithymia, or an inability to really describe or get a handle on their feelings. This usually happens because a kid isn’t really ‘seen’ in their childhood by an emotionally-absent parent.
So when they get upset, or scared, or anxious, or concerned, there is no caring adult around to notice what’s going on with them, and to give them the word, the label, they need to shrink their huge feeling down into language, and make it manageable.
So then, these individuals grow up, and a fuzzy sense of frustration (that they would never think to label ‘anger’) is really the only feeling that can or will admit to experiencing.
But if you could rip the scab off that ‘frustration’, then a whole bunch of seething, immature, enormous negative emotions would come bubbling out. If that sounds like a scary prospect, you are now starting to understand why so many people who find it hard to relate to their negative emotions are so scared of anyone getting anywhere near close enough to prise off the ‘frustration’ lid.
Because a volcano is lurking underneath.
Sadly for me, or luckily for me, depending on how you look at it, pretending that nothing was really happening underneath got very, very hard when my eyes would suddenly go completely weird mid-conversation.
Someone would be telling me what they had for breakfast, or about their upcoming trip to the US to visit family, or about their kid’s new school, or they’re new job - and whammo, my eyes would de-focus and I’d be left squinting around, completely perplexed as to what was going on and thinking big thoughts about serious vitamin deficiencies.
Until I figured this out.
Which is when I realized that God had actually given me a secret back route into instantly figuring where the emotional body was buried, so to speak. Because a person can swear until they’re blue in the face that they’ve made their peace with so-and-so, or don’t care about such-and-such, or completely past whatever it is - but if my eyes have gone funny, I know they are lying.
Especially to themselves.
This is useful with husbands, but not so useful with everyone else
Now, with husbands this is actually a pretty wonderful, helpful thing, as thanks to the funny eyes, we’ve got to the bottom of so many issues that we probably never would have, otherwise.
But with other people? Well, it’s made things pretty complicated. And it’s a big part of the reason I got so anti-social for a while, because for the life of me I couldn’t work out how I was meant to be reacting when someone would be telling me about their wonderful family celebration, or how much they really wanted to just settle down with someone (when the exact opposite was true) while my ‘funny eyes’ would erupt off the Richter scale.
If a person isn’t telling themselves the truth about a particular situation, woe betide the person who is dumb enough to try to step in and deliver the message the other person is trying so hard to ignore and avoid.
I learnt the hard way that you can’t fix people with ‘the truth’, and if you try, you are only going to get your head completely blown off. And you probably deserve it.
So, for a long stretch of time it’s been easier to keep things superficial with most people for most of the time, because in 2018, so many people are dealing with huge negative emotions that they’re repressing, without even realizing what’s going on.
Why am I sharing this with you?
Because I have the feeling that the more you start to get in touch with your own real self, and the more you try to work through your own enormous, deeply-buried negative feelings, the more you’ll also start to notice how certain people, certain conversations, set you off, too.
Maybe, your eyes won’t go funny, but you might find your breathing goes a bit weird, or that your heart starts beating too fast, or you suddenly feel horribly hot and suffocated, or weak and faint, or your hands suddenly go ice-cold.
Pay attention to those clues that God is sending you, especially if they’re popping up around a spouse or a kid.
Because those people, you probably can help, if you take a deep breath and prepare yourself mentally to face down an internal volcano of huge, suppressed feelings.
But everyone else, you probably can’t.
So the best bet is then just to smile and nod politely, and quickly change the subject.
As the orthodox Jewish world seems to be hurtling towards encouraging more and more orthodox women and girls to start posting more pictures of themselves online and in other publications, I thought it would be timely to take a look at the links even the non-Jewish world is starting to flag up between so-called ‘selfie’ culture and a whole host of emotional issues and problems.
Let’s start with some scientific studies examining the huge impact ‘selfies’ is already having on young women’s self-esteem and body image.
Back in 2014, a Dr David Veale, a consultant psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and The Priory Hospital, started sounding the alarm that about the alarming link between the rise of ‘selfie culture’ and Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Dr Veale said:
“Two out of three of all the patients who come to see me with Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) since the rise of camera phones have a compulsion to repeatedly take and post selfies on social media sites.”
In 2016, researcher Katia Mifsud undertook a study for the University of Malta which found that respondents with Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) were:
Before we continue, here’s a definition of what ‘Body Dysmorphic Disorder’ actually is:
Body dysmorphic disorder: A psychiatric disorder characterized by excessive preoccupation with imagined defects in physical appearance. It is classified as an anxiety disorder, and it is believed to be a variant of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Also known as somatoform disorder and dysmorphophobia.
As posting pictures online and ‘selfies’ has become de rigeur in the non-Jewish world, more and more people are falling prey to Body Dysmorphic Disorder, caught up in the overwhelming focus on ‘externals’ and ‘how they look’ instead of who they really are, as a person.
Is this really something we want to be promoting in the orthodox Jewish world for Jewish women and girls, under the banner of ‘progress and equality’?
Even the non-Jewish world is starting to realize there is a huge selfie-induced problem with people posting too many images of themselves online, and becoming overly-obsessed with their external appearance. This comes from the official BDD website:
Body Dysmorphic Disorder affects 1.7% to 2.4% of the general population — about 1 in 50 people. This means that more than 5 million people to about 7.5 million people in the United States alone have BDD. BDD is about as common as obsessive-compulsive disorder and more common than disorders such as anorexia nervosa and schizophrenia.
Again, we take all psych stats and statements with a huge pinch of salt, but we can still clearly see that there is a huge problem that's developed around BDD, and it's of fairly recent origin.
Let’s go back to the scientific studies, to see what else they are telling us about how social media is promoting some very unhealthy emotional attitudes to how people relate to themselves.
Dr Giuseppe Riva recently published a study called: ‘Risk and maintenance factors for young women’s DSM-5 eating disorders’. This study found that:
Self-objectification (thinking about and monitoring the body’s appearance from an external observer’s perspective) was the largest contributor to both Eating Disorder onset and maintenance.
To put this into plainer English, the more a young woman was focused on how her body appeared to other people, the higher her chances of developing an Eating Disorder in the first place, and also for her Eating Disorder-ed behavior to continue. In other comments that he made to VICE magazine (horrible name, but actually a really good article), Dr Riva explained how social media is promoting the problem of ‘self-objectification’. He said:
"This is particularly true for Snapchat and Instagram, which provide a mirror-like vision of young women, which is also altered and shared. This behavior supports the vision that a social body—self-objectified—is more relevant than the real felt body."
In case you don’t know how Instagram and Snapchat actually work (I didn’t until I started researching all this stuff) both apps let users retouch their snaps and selfies with a variety of filters. Spots and birthmarks can be erased, wrinkles retouched, even the shape of the face altered, to give your selfie that ‘perfect’ appearance.
Apparently, things are getting so bad with these apps that many users now refuse to have any picture taken that they can’t ‘retouch’ and make ‘perfect’ - which brings us on to the next mental illness selfies can feed in to: narcissism.
I’ve written so much about narcissism, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NDP) on spiritualselfhelp.org and in other places. The bottom line is that it’s learned behavior and can be unlearned (with an awful lot of effort, prayer and understanding of what’s really causing it and how.)
But there is no question that social media encourages people to behave in a very narrow-minded, self-aggrandising and un-empathetic way, all of which can fuel the fire of narcissistic traits, and turn the latent narcissistic ‘tendencies’ that we all have, to a greater of lesser degree, into a real problem.
This comes from an excellent article on the RAWHIDE website (which sadly has pictures of women in it, so I can’t link to their excellent infographic), but here’s their take on what they call ‘social media narcissism;”
Social media narcissism may be displayed through many of the following traits:
Again, this is an over-simplification of the real reasons why people want to post pictures of themselves online, and compulsively get attention from strangers and other people they don’t know based on how they look.
But the point is this: the whole social media / selfie culture that encourages both men and women to obsess over appearance instead of being concerned by substance, and that glorifies people’s looks over their personalities, abilities and deeds is clearly leading to some huge spikes in emotional and mental issues, including:
So why oh why would the orthodox Jewish world want to encourage our teens and women to start doing more of this stuff, and to start putting more emphasis on having pictures of themselves posted up all over the place?
The mind boggles.
In the next post, I will explain much more about Sujok and how it actually works, but given the huge amount of geomagnetic / emotional / spiritual 'stress' in the air at the moment, I just wanted to post this diagram up now, so you can try this at home and see if it helps.
The points marked on the palm (above) indicate the body's main glands in relation to the endocrine system. These are the parts of the body that get most fried-out and disrupted by geomagnetic storms, coronal mass ejections and space weather. When this stuff gets out of balance, all sorts of strange emotional states and physical issues can occur, and believe it or not, seed therapy can help us get through these tough times, and help us maintain more balance mentally and physically.
TRY THIS TONIGHT:
Get some clear adhesive tape from the pharmacy (that's designed to stick to skin). You can use plasters if you want, but it won't be as easy to work it out.
Then, take a WHOLE red lentil (split ones won't work) and stick a lentil on each of the spots marked on this diagram, before you go to sleep.
Make a note of any weird aches or pains you have right now, or any other strange emotional states and / or physical symptoms, and then see how you feel when you wake up tomorrow morning.
There's a lot more to say about SuJok - and you can read more about it HERE, in the meantime. But try this, and if it works for you, please drop me a quick note in the comments section.
The last few weeks, there’s been some huge disruptions in the solar weather, which are manifesting themselves in all sorts of unusual phenomena.
If you remember in THIS POST, we talked a lot about how flares in solar activity can lead to huge spikes in the number of people having:
Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus fly space weather balloons to the stratosphere over California. These balloons are equipped with radiation sensors that detect cosmic rays, a surprisingly "down to Earth" form of space weather.
On December 24, 2017, planet earth entered a high-speed solar wind phase - and we're seeing and feeling the results of all this additional cosmic energy in a number of different ways.
The last few weeks, I’ve been struck by the number of fatal pitbull attacks that are suddenly occurring around the world. Animals are also affected by ‘solar weather’, and the same mechanism that’s messing around with the delicate balance of our hormonal functioning and mental health is also affecting them.
The following link shows that a record 7 people were killed in the US alone by dog attacks in December 2017, and many more were mauled - and December isn't even over yet.
So that’s one way you can tell that the ‘solar weather’ is hitting some sort of extreme, even without having a NASA satellite at your disposal. But there’s more clues, too. A couple of days’ back, a young mother in one of my kid’s school had a fatal heart-attack whilst driving, and died.
'Standard science' blames the spike in strokes and heart attacks on things like cold snaps or heatwaves, as this article demonstrates:
But really? It's the SOLAR weather that's causing all these phenomena.
Other clues are that everyone I know seems to be feeling achey, in some weird way. This one has an unusual back-ache, that one an unusual headache, this one an unusual tooth, or gum-ache - and me?
The last few days my throat has been feeling really weiingrd, or to be more accurate, my thyroid gland has been feeling really weird, because solar weather affects the hormonal mechanism directly.
The following comes from Heather Carlini's website, who has been gather information from readers around the world about the impact increased cosmic rays and solar energy is having on their mental and physical health (sadly with the usual 'new age' cack attached. What can you do...)
Heather's research show far shows that:
We appear to be losing track of time easily. We lose words when we are speaking. The day simply disappears as time is moving quickly. Many are experiencing insomnia, and strange dreams. We are feeling immense power surges in the body followed by energy drops. There were numerous reports of nausea, and body aches and pains and dizziness. Many feel deep grief. Some feel as if they were walking on water (ungrounded). Others said that when they closed their eyes at night, everything is spinning.
So, what can we do about all this, especially as another big geomagnetic storm is forecast for January 1, 2018?
Apart from shipping your pitbull to the dog pound ASAP, I have another strange suggestion for trying to manage all this ‘over energy’ that’s affecting us via the solar weather: seed therapy.
Or to be more precise, whole red lentil therapy.
I know, I know, this sounds even more far-fetched than global warming being good for us, and whole continents sinking beneath the waves around 3,500 short years’ ago - but it really works!
And I’m going to try to give you a brief explanation of why that is. Seed therapy is one of the disciplines included in ‘Sujok’, a Korean form or acupressure that you can read more about HERE.
In a nutshell, a whole seed, or red lentil, contains a living energy that operates on the barely measurable, very subtle level that human bio-energetic levels also function at. When there is some sort of energetic imbalance going on in the human body - like when the solar weather is going nuts, for example - seeds can help to ‘ground’ the whole system, and bring the body back into some sort of energetic equilibrium very quickly.
This is a very basic description of what’s going on, and it’s on my ‘to do’ list to explain seed therapy properly at some point, God willing. But for now, here’s how seed therapy can help with your solar weather-induced aches and pains.
Sujok teaches that each part of a person’s anatomy is ‘mirrored’ in the hands and feet (and also other parts of the body, too, but that’s a post for another time.) It’s a similar idea to reflexology, but uses a different ‘map’ of the human body.
In the next post, I will explain exactly what those areas are, with a diagram, so you can start to stick your own seeds on the affected areas, and deal with the current ‘over energy’ that is making so many of us feel stressed and achy for no obvious reason.
At the end of the last post, you saw the National Geographic sponsored video of the 'poor, starving' polar bear who is so emblematic of the 'problem' of rising CO2 levels melting all the ice in the Arctic basin etc etc etc.
Well, reader Elisheva just sent me a great link to a site that shows that actually, the polar bears of Hudson Bay and the Baffin Islands (where the 'starving' bear video was shot) actually have a different health problem to contend with, if any:
They are fat!
And some of them are positively obese!
(In polar bear terms, this is a good thing, because more fat helps to insulate them from the cold).
You can read more about them for yourself, and see more pictures HERE.
But it looks like even the polar bears are enjoying global warming.
For the last 30-40 years, we’ve been routinely told that rising CO2 levels are leading to:
1) Global warming (now amended to ‘climate change’), and
2) Terrible future outcomes for planet earth.
Firstly, as we covered in the last post, people are not responsible for climate change. Climate change - even massive, immediate climate change - has been happening for millennia, long before humanity began the industrial revolution and started burning fossil fuels.
Climate change has much more to do with what’s going on in our solar system, and the earth’s reaction to these events, than human activity, however crass or destructive.
(To put this another way: God is in charge of the weather. That’s the bottom line, and it’s also something that nearly no scientist is willing or able to concede, hence all the crazy ‘climate change’ theories.)
But in this post, I wanted to pull out some of the facts about CO2 to start to explore a little bit what might actually happen, if CO2 levels do continue to rise - regardless of anything humanity might be doing to retard or promote this effect.
As usual, I know I sound like a ‘flat earther’ at this stage in the post. I mean, we all KNOW that rising CO2 emissions are a terribly bad thing for planet earth, don’t we?! How often have we been told that by ‘the experts’, how often have we seen news stories making direct links between taking our SUV for a spin and the rainforest dying….
So I have to say that I was also pretty surprised at what started to turn up very quickly, when you scratch the surface of the ‘scientific’ claim that increased CO2 = huge destruction of planet earth.
Because in fact, the opposite appears to be true.
Before we continue, take a look at these two, very short, videos from no less an authority than NASA, which clearly shows how very large (and historically frozen…) areas of the world are starting to get a whole bunch greener. The first video shows the world, generally, and the second video concentrates more on Alaska and North America.
These videos were put out to illustrate a new study that was published on April 25, 2016 by a team of 32 scientists from 8 different countries in the Nature Climate Change Journal. In that study, the scientists found that:
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now, I don’t know about you but this actually sounds like pretty good news, climate change-wise.
Frozen tundras don’t grow a thing, people can’t live there, and 10% of the world is currently covered by perma-frost, taking these land masses off the table as viable areas of the planet where more food could be grown and more people could live.
Of course, all these benefits - which let’s remember have already been witnessed and recorded in real time on planet earth, not just guessed at and predicted by computer models in the labs of climate change professors - fly in the face of all the doom-mongering about the terrible ‘problems’ apparently associated with rising CO2.
To put this in NASA speak: Houston, we have a problem.
So as this study came out, the climate change lobby scrambled to try to keep the debate going. First of all, they listed a whole bunch of apparently ‘bad’ side effects of climate change, including:
We can’t do anything much about the ‘downside’ of climate change, except to stop telling lies about what’s really causing it, and to get real about what it really might mean for the planet and also to stop exaggerating the awful impact that we believe it may cause (more on this in a moment).
But in the meantime, the climate change lobby trotted out a number of talking heads to try to damper down any thought that climate change could actually be good for the planet, at least in some major ways:
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
We’ll met Dr Ciais again later on and we’ll also discover his other employer (which is very pertinent information that is strangely missing from this citation on the Nasa website).
One of the biggest ‘worries’ the climate change lobby likes to promote is that the ocean can’t cope absorbing all the extra CO2 that’s out there, and that this will kill off a bunch of our marine life in a process named ‘ocean acidification’.
Here’s an excellent piece of recent ‘ocean acidification’ scaremongering from the Guardian, published in October 2017:
If the outlook for marine life was already looking bleak – torrents of plastic that can suffocate and starve fish, overfishing, diverse forms of human pollution that create dead zones, the effects of global warming which is bleaching coral reefs and threatening coldwater species – another threat is quietly adding to the toxic soup.
But while these ‘alarming’ climate change studies are getting so much attention in the press, the scientists who are say the opposite are getting very short shrift. This from The Spectator:
“Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.”
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore recently published a paper on ‘ocean acidificiation’ where he clearly stated:
“The term “ocean acidification” is, in itself, rather misleading. The scale of pH runs from 0 to 14 where 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic and above 7 is basic, or alkaline. The pH of the world’s oceans varies from 7.5 to 8.3, well into the alkaline scale.
According to Moore, there is no chance that increased CO2 in the oceans will kill off anything, and it may well even have a positive effect on marine life:
“An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century.”
Guess what? NASA agrees with him!
NASA satellites are finding that over the last few years, instead of the ocean and marine life ‘dying off’, previously barren stretches of the ocean are bursting back into life, again thanks to the increase in the planet’s temperature.
This comes from the NASA website:
"Satellites have measured the Arctic getting greener, as shrubs expand their range and thrive in warmer temperatures… As ocean waters warm, satellites have detected a shift in phytoplankton populations across the planet's five great ocean basins — the expansion of "biological deserts" where little life thrives….
Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t this sound suspiciously like good news for the planet? I mean, more plankton means more food for fish, which means more fish, which means fuller, thriving oceans all around.
If you want to know why you probably haven’t heard about this stunning evidence for the good side of global warming / climate change, then you’re in good company. Matt Ridley writing in the Spectator last year explained that:
"Four years ago, I came across an online video of a lecture given by Ranga Myneni of Boston University in which he presented an ingenious analysis of data from satellites. This proved that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, and only a little bit was getting browner.
Ridley was ‘startled’ by these findings. Although he knew that commercial greenhouse owners had started routinely doubling the carbon dioxide levels to get their tomatoes to grow faster, this was the first time that CO2 impact on the earth’s vegetation overall had been measured.
Ridley laments that even though the paper’s lead author, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, said that this increase of greenery was ‘like adding a green continent twice the size of mainland USA’ to the planet - no-one was interested in reporting it:
“[A]s I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.
Another interesting point I got from reading Ridley’s piece is that while the climate change lobby are very keen on quoting Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius when it comes to predicting doom and gloom scenarios for the planet as a result of rising CO2, they are strangely coy about reproducing his statements of what would occur if CO2 levels should indeed rise, as he thought.
‘By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.’ He predicted that the earth: ‘will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind’.
How strange that the climate change lobby never mention this aspect of his statements, when citing his research into rising CO2 levels. And in case you think that all the doom-and-gloom was only written when they didn’t know any better, i.e. before the study showing the benefits of CO2 greening was published, the following comes from a recent article on the National Geographic website:
The planet is already suffering from some impacts of global warming.
Again, if this was the only information you were going on you’d be certain that all this frozen wasteland turning into green pastures is awful; that the ‘impact’ of global warming on the world is only bad, that more rain can only be a bad thing and that the only ‘species’ that are thriving in warmer temperatures are tree-destroying insects.
But if that’s not enough, National Geographic then launches into a whole bunch of ominous ‘predictions’ again, including the spread of disease, the extinction of species (which is strange, given that most creatures find it harder to survive in Arctic conditions than lush, warmer ones) and less fresh water available, despite noting that ‘precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average’, immediately above their scary predictions.
Here’s my favorite doom-and-gloom warning from National Geographic:
Just recently, National Geographic was slammed for shopping around a viral video of a ‘starving polar bear’ which they claimed was a result of man-made climate change, but they were forced to back down - at least a little - when challenged on the claims being made in the video.
“Nunavut polar bear monitor Leo Ikakhik told CBC that he was not surprised by the sight of the starving bear in the video. "Everybody probably was shocked to see a really skinny bear, but this is not my first time seeing something like this,” he told Carol Off, host of CBC’s radio show "As It Happens."
Ikakhik, who has been monitoring polar bear activity since 2010, said that the polar bear in the video may have been sick or recovering from an injury that made it unable to hunt. "I wouldn't really blame the climate change. It's just part of the animal, what they go through."
But any hint that climate change is not man-made, and is not destroying the planet, or that rising CO2 levels could be a good thing - all based on empirically proven studies - is uniformly derided by the media and ‘official’ science. On another ‘proper’ website for scientists, phys.org we’re told that:
“The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
How shocking, that anyone should argue for a rethink of policy based on actual facts and proven observations! But Phillippe Ciais pops up again to tell us that:
"The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report.
This is a good time to remind us all that the US alone spent $64 billion on ‘climate change’ research between 2010 and 2013, and a lot of that money went straight into the IPCC coffers that Ciais works for.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, the climate change industry is now worth a whopping $1.5 trillion a year. So many scientists, so many people, now owe their jobs to ‘man made climate change’ that should it disappear, we could be facing the next Great Depression…
Which is probably the single biggest reason why the enormous amount of evidence that shows that global warming and melting glaciers are probably a GOOD thing aren’t getting a fair hearing.
Really, what are the negative aspects to more of the world developing a livable climate where plants and food can grow (aside from the skinnier polar bears?)
The last thing to tell you for now is that back in 1992 - more than 25 years’ ago - the fossil fuel industry put out a video called ‘The Greening of Planet Earth’ which put forward the suggestion that more carbon dioxide would lead to the ‘greening’ of planet earth.
Writing all the way back in 2001, Patrick Michaels explained that:
“Greening” was put out by energy-industry activists (you can get your own copy by contacting http://www.greeningearthsociety.org), who discovered that several big-name scientists were willing to appear and argue that carbon dioxide will enhance global plant growth by directly stimulating plants and by warming the coldest air of winter.
These scientists found that Eurasia had as much as 18 extra crop-growing days year, thanks to ‘global warming’, while the increase in North America averaged 12 extra days a year. Michaels concludes:
“So is this what global warming has wrought? It appears to have created a more comfortable planet with more food. The video was right. The greens were wrong. The world is greener.”
Michaels himself wrote these words more than 16 years ago, yet the climate change lobby has consistently failed to include the observable facts on the ground about the benefits of climate change and rising CO2 levels - like a 14% greener planet, like more potentially cultivatable and habitable land, like 18 extra days to grow more food in a year - to harp on ‘predictions’ of computer-modelled problems that have almost entirely failed to materialize.
Sure, I’ll be upset if the polar bears get a little skinnier. But if it means that millions more people have affordable food and a location they can cultivate and thrive in, I think I’ll be able to live with it.
If you’ve been following this blog’s series on ‘the false foundations of modern science’ you’ll hopefully already have picked up an inkling of how all this ‘false science’ gets established in the world.
A researcher comes up with a theory or proposal that garners a lot of attention, and / or a lot of funding, and / or a lot of ‘political clout’ (for whatever vested interest reasons) - and then they build a big career, and a big reputation, and a big bank balance defending that ‘theory’ for all it’s worth.
Depending on who else thinks their theory is a good idea (regardless of whether the real facts or true science backs it up) any opponent to this theory will then usually have their career torpedoed, their reputations publicly trashed, and their credibility tarnished at every turn.
It takes a very strong person indeed to stand up to people who are ‘religious’ about their scientific beliefs, and who will stoop to any tactic to ensure that their version of events, and their interpretation of data is the only one the public ever gets to hear about.
We’ve seen this tactic play out with macro-evolution, with geology, with the infamous ‘chemical imbalance’ theory for mental illness, and now, we’re going to take a look at one of the biggest ‘false science’ scams of modern times: climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
The first thing to note is that climate change is real, and is happening all the time. There is no doubt that some parts of the planet are hotter, or colder, or wetter, or drier etc than they were a few decades, or a few centuries ago.
No-one is really arguing about that.
But where the rub comes is that while the pseudo-scientific community - with Al Gore and ex-president Obama at its head - is loudly proclaiming that PEOPLE are to blame for the changing climate, and especially FOSSIL FUEL BURNING PEOPLE, the actual science paints a very different picture.
Before we continue, remember that so much of what we think is ‘proven’ in so many fields of science actually really isn’t. Also remember that vested interests manipulate us via the media into believing things that really aren’t true, for their own agendas and aims.
Between 2010 and 2013, the US government alone paid climate change researchers $64 billion. A lot of scientists, a lot of politicians, and a lot of companies have their fingers in that very big pie. Climate change is big business and great for your scientific career, if you happen to be ‘sounding the alarm’ on climate change.
But what’s really going on, what’s really causing climate change, and how did we get to this place where so many people are panicking over Co2 emissions? Read on.
CARL SAGAN AND THE VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY
Carl Sagan was a professor of Astronomy at Cornell University, and in 1974 he renewed official science’s attack on Immanual Velikovsky, and his ‘ridiculous’ theories that Noah’s flood actually happened, the bible’s account was literally true, and that the world had been shaken to its core a number of times in the last 8,000 years, due to ‘action at a distance’ events with enormous planet-sized comets.
So many of Velikovsky’s theories have subsequently been validated by science over the last 70 years since he wrote them, including his claim that Venus would be found to have a scorchingly hot temperature, due to it being a very new addition to the solar system.
(Velikovsky suggested that Venus only became a planet in our solar system within the last 3,500 years or so. Before that Venus had been the ‘comet’ responsible for wreaking utter havoc on the earth and the moon - as described in innumerable ancient sources and as evidenced by the geological record - and which had also stripped planet Mars of its atmosphere and water on one of its fly-bys.)
Of course, the suggestion that such cataclysmic things might have occurred within the modern age, or that all the theories of the world being many billions of years and uniformly ‘stable’ were anathema to the open minds of modern scientists like Sagan, so they used any tool they could to discredit Velikovsky and his ‘theories’.
The first space probe, Venera 7, successfully landed on Venus on December 15, 1970. It remained in contact with Earth for 23 minutes, relaying surface temperatures of 455 °C to 475 °C (855 °F to 885 °F). Before this information was discovered, Sagan and other NASA scientists were confidently predicting that Venus would have an ambient temperature akin to earth’s.
When the NASA probe reported back the shocking information that Venus was scorchingly hot - just as Velikovsky had predicted - Sagan et al went into damage limitation mode, and came up with the VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS theory.
Scientist Charles Ginenthal wrote a whole book deconstructing this hugely deceitful and fraudulent ‘theory’, but here’s the crux of the matter (as explained by a reviewer):
“Rather than admit Velikovsky right on this issue, Sagan invoked a "runaway greenhouse" effect to account for the planet's 900 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature. As Ginenthal explains, greenhouses are warm primarily because they have a glass ceiling to prevent the loss of heat; and, as everyone (even Sagan) was aware, planets don't have glass ceilings.
And NASA is still doing its best to try to link Venus with faulty climate change theories for earth, as this story from last year shows:
NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable
Remember, false assumptions and beliefs in one area of science inevitably give rise to other false assumptions and beliefs, as this little snippet clearly demonstrates. The same ‘science’ that is telling us Venus is billions of years old is telling us that humans are responsible for disastrous climate change.
STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN
Even though Sagan’s greenhouse gas theory has subsequently been discredited for Venus, it sadly put down very deep roots in the nascent field of ‘climate change science’, as we shall see.
One of the main people pushing the issue of climate change was the so-called ‘father of climate change’ James Hansen. He bought Sagan’s false theory of greenhouse gases hook, line and sinker.
The following quote is from Hansen’s book called“Storms of My Grandchildren” end of chapter 10, The Venus Syndrome:
“After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
How’s that for unparalleled scientific rigor? Hansen appears to have proven that the only reason Venus is a hot, barren hell-hole of a planet it because human beings were burning tar on it at some undefined time in the past…
This is the same person who wrote this in 1981:
“It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
And here’s what he told Congress in 1988:
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere.
Unperturbed by the lack of evidence to support his theories, Hansen has continued to churn out alarming soundbytes and scary quotes for the last 40 years’ or so, like:
“Climate change is analogous to Lincoln and slavery or Churchill and Nazism: it's not the kind of thing where you can compromise.
Sadly, the internet is chock-full of quotes from Hansen along these same lines, but I picked these four out to show a few recurring themes:
1) Hansen’s language makes clear that anyone burning fossil fuels is akin to a Nazi, which seems to be an exaggerated comparison, even if you ARE a big believer in human-induced climate change.
2) This is much more about emotive propaganda than hard science.
3) There’s loads of false suggestions contained in these few sparse quotes.
Uh, really? Burning coal is giving my kid asthma? Where’s the studies that show that’s true? Uh, really? Natural disasters are being caused by burning fossil fuels? Where’s the scientific evidence for that big statement? Uh, are you sure that Co2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that this was known since the 1800s?
The ‘proof’ for that last statement, as referenced by the NASA website on climate change, amounts to this:
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Over on the website climatechange.org, a headline from May 2013 screams:
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
It seems to be completely lost on the author of this article - and the many climate change scientists he quotes (more on that in a moment) that if this is true, then human beings burning fossil fuels is clearly not the cause of climate change on planet earth…
But these are the types of obvious arguments that false science can never seem to wrap its head around. So instead, you get told pseudo-scientific guff like:
“While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
Once again, we see how the false beliefs in one field of science sow more false beliefs in other areas.
Climate change scientists make huge assumptions that ‘the rate of change taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past.’ But this simply isn’t true! Every time they drill more ice cores, they are presented with the EVIDENCE that the climate has changed rapidly in the very recent past. For example, this comes from the British Antartic Survey website:
Abrupt climate changes
Again, note all the usual assumptions about these changes ‘only’ happening in the ancient past, because modern science teaches that the world has been stable for millions of years (despite all the evidence they keep turning up that this patently untrue…) There’s no evidence for these statements, they are just beliefs.
And while we’re on the subject of ice-cores, this (from the NASA climate change website) explains how they date those things, again using the same assumptions that weather patterns have always been the same for millions of years:
“How old is the oldest ice core—and how do we know it’s that old?
Again, even a cursory reading of this paragraph tells you that the ‘science’ being used to date these ice cores is based on a bunch of unproven assumptions about the world always working the same way - which again flys in the face of the actual evidence on the ground.
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, OR GLOBAL COOLING?
The last thing to share with you in this first post on climate change is that back in the 1970s, scientists started ‘alarming’ the world that the next Ice Age was imminent. Back in 1975:
Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change." The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it." On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".
In the 1980s, with James Hansen at the helm, the alarm about ‘global cooling’ gave way to an even more impassioned alarm about ‘global warming’. So what’s really going on? This comes from the Friends of Science website:
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
In other words, the planet’s temperature is oscillating all the time, and there is no ‘unusual’ warming going on right now.
(I’m kind of ruining my own production here, but go check out the Friends of Science webpage called ClimateChange 101, as it presents a lot of useful information in a very easy-to-digest way: http://www.climatechange101.ca/)
THE MAIN POINTS SO FAR:
The scientific establishment is so wedded to the false idea the world is billions of years’ old, and that the earth’s climate has been ‘stable’ for millennia (even though both ideas are patently false), that they have consistently discredited any evidence that suggests that:
But I know, ex-President Obama said this about climate change:
“Part of what’s unique about climate change, though, is the nature of some of the opposition to action. It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it; it was going to be too expensive, it was going to be too hard, it would take too long. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying that the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.”
And no-one could accuse him of manipulating the public with mass-produced, deceitful soundbytes that didn’t stand up to any real scrutiny…..
So in the next post, we’ll take a look at the nuts and bolts of the ‘false science’ - and outright lies - that’s propping up the befuddled theory of climate change.
Again, no-one is claiming that climate change isn’t actually happening - that’s a straw man.
What is being very seriously debated is:
Like my stuff? Then please consider becoming a PATRON of spiritualselfhelp, even for just $1 a month. Click the button below.