RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII -

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 


GlobaloneyWarming/Climate Hooey - Recent Articles

Geo-Engineering and blocking the Sun. $cientism and the Matrix

EU Reich and International partners want to block the Sun for the non-existing issue of 'warming' from plant food.

Bookmark and Share

In 1972 42 top European and American ‘scientists’ wrote a hysterical letter to President Nixon outlining the catastrophe to food and water from Globaloney Cooling and the new ice age - a consensus prediction. The letter states that a ‘global deterioration of climate…larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind… may be due very soon.’ They cite lower food production, more rain in Central Aisa and Eastern Europe and more extreme weather due to natural causes which caused the last Ice Age (no one really knows why the last Ice Age occurred). None of those predictions came true. There were even demands for the Americans to set off nuclear bombs in the Arctic to save the world from GlobaloneyCooling.



50 years later, same fraud new Satan

50 years later the same language is used regarding extreme weather, lower food production and how the ‘warming’ of 1.5 C will cause migrations and wars. But this time it is a man-made disaster, if one views a tepid 1.5 C or less temperature increase as a ‘disaster’ and even that increase is unlikely given that many regions are colder than they were 120 years ago.


But no worries the EU Reich is going to save us. Geoengineering to the rescue.

The European Union is joining an international scheme to investigate whether major interventions in the Earth's natural processes, including deflecting some of the Sun's rays, can help mitigate climate change, Bloomberg reported on Monday. 

The agency cited a draft document that might be made public later this week, aimed at assessing the consequences of global warming on water and food scarcity, and the risks of them triggering new conflicts or mass migration waves.

The paper will also feature plans to study atmospheric re-engineering technologies and the dangers associated with them.

Such projects could range from reflecting a certain percentage of sunlight back into space to altering weather patterns, Bloomberg noted. The EU is seeking international discussions on the schemes and the potential to set down rules for this field. 


No Science in this cult

So in 50 years we went from natural causation to man-only or anthropogenic causation all due to ‘fossil fuels’ which don’t exist but are in reality hydrogen-carbon energy, abiotic, self-generating, but when burned apparently produce ‘carbon emissions’. The entire premise of this cult is plainly stupid but that is where we are in our anti-reality world.


Supposedly, the ‘science’ claims that the only variable which controls climate is the man-made production of Co2. Co2 is a 4 parts per million gas by weight in the atmosphere, and pales in comparison to nitrogen, water or oxygen in the atmosphere. Humans emit maybe 5% of the total. So the ‘science’ is saying that 0.05 (5%) x 0.000004 (4 parts per million) is the end of the world. Gaia’s 95% emission of Co2 is okay and to be ignored. It is the ‘radiative heat’ of the human-only emissions which matters.


There is no Globaloneywarming

Globaloneywarming is not an issue. The Earth might be cooling not warming, no one really knows. In any event it is a non-issue. If it is warming naturally, it is a very limited amount of warming which has no impact on Gaia - except the benefices of more oxygen, plant growth and food. Real science would advocate ‘warming’ if pace above, the concern is with ‘water and food scarcity’. But that is not the EU Reich’s goal. It is to control water, food and the weather. It is to impose self-created emergencies on its population to force changes in behaviour including the loss of hydrocarbon energy, the use of digital IDs to track hydrocarbaon usage and compliance to laws, and the tool of lockdowns and passports to limit travel, consumption and other ‘climate changing’ activities. Climate Change and Globaloneywarming are frauds with a purpose.


As with the quackcine, stabbination industry, there is zero science in the cult of climate and a lot of stupid and evil.



$cientism. Chemtrails are well known to have existed since the 1950s. Kill Gates and others while rubbing their ample stomachs have opined on managing the weather - after all they are Gods in their own minds. The WEF mentions the same in their ridiculous books Covid 19 The Great Reset and the 4th Industrial Revolution.

Geoengineering is another attack on normal people. When they start playing with the Sun, they will destroy plant, food, animal life and complex cycles which create water, carbon and other vital chemicals. They will create crises and of course use the same solutions we saw used during the Corona scamdemic.

Scientism, Solar Panels and False Accounting

No the ecologically destructuve solar farms are not cheaper than a coal plant.

Bookmark and Share

An often-quoted Scientism declaration, is that solar panels and wind turbine or bird choppers, are less expensive than coal plants.  The Scientism than concludes that industrialised nations should de-industrialise and focus the energy needs of a modern economy on unreliable solar and wind power, which of course, provide very poor value in output for the roughly US$500 million to $1 Trillion, per annum investments which feed the ‘climate change’ industry.  The accounting fraud in declaring that solar is cheaper than coal for example, is similar to the Corona fraud and data manipulation of death rates from the ‘virus’ and the death rates post the stabbination programs in which the latter in reality, is 5 times higher, than the former.  


In reality wind and Solar ‘energy’ are NOT less expensive than Coal.


The claim by Scientism that poor value for money solar panels or bird-chopping turbines is ‘cheap’ is rather tendentious and full of the usual fraud one finds with cults of ‘The Science’.  These declamations clog up search engine inquiries and dominate the fake-science mass media.  As with Corona, the Quacksines, and other cults of ‘The Science’, the claim that digging up tonnes of earth to find rare materials for solar panels, and the related manufacturing, shipping and distribution of said panels, or the hydrocarbon manufacturing process and related operational costs and management of said useless wind turbines which run on diesel gas, being cheaper than a coal plant is ridiculous.


Solar Panel creation

Setting up a Solar Farm costs roughly U$115.000 per 5 MW of produced energy.  That is just the setup.  The total costs are in the region of $1 million per 1 MW of produced energy including operations, replacement costs and upgrades.  1 MW of energy supports 200 households.  To produce 1 MW of energy these solar farms will consist of roughly 72 solar cells linked over 6-10 acres, comprising some 500-1000 panels.  The total costs do not include soil degradation, ecological devastation, or the loss of farmland or other productive uses, which is called an ‘opportunity cost’ in accounting.  You will never see ‘opportunity costs’ included in the total cost of solar farm deployments.  Just as rare are the calculated costs for on-going maintenance, both material and human.


By contrast a single coal plant costs less than US$ 1billion to setup with maintenance costs of about $100 million per annum and produces 4.000 MW of energy and coal stations provide 40% of the world’s electricity.  We can do a simple comparison of coal versus solar energy.


Total costs over 10 years for a coal plant:  U$ 2 billion.

Energy produced over 10 years from a coal plant:  40.000 MW

Cost per MW produced over 10 years:  U$50.000


Total costs of a solar farm, over 6-10 acres, for 10 years:  U$ 10 million

Energy produced over 10 years: 10 MW

Cost per MW produced: U$ 1 million


So, in reality, coal plants are 20 times more efficient per MW than a solar farm.


The UK consumes 300 Terawatts of energy, each year.  Does anyone with a shred of common sense believe that a constellation of 6-10 acre solar farms, producing 1 MW of year is going to satisfy such a demand?  Solar panels may contribute 3% of UK energy usage today or a meagre 9 Terawatts.  Please note that official UK statistics vary the output of ‘renewables’ between 28 and 43% depending on the agency or reporter.  This includes nuclear energy.  Solar by itself is a small fraction of total output. If we strip out nuclear energy, and focus on solar, the zealots usually demand that solar should comprise 30% or more of energy output, necessitating the building of an almost unlimited number of solar panel farms.  100 Terawatts of energy produced by solar panels is equivalent to 1 million Megawatts


This means that the UK would need to have roughly, 1 million solar farms of roughly 10 acres in size, or 10 million acres under solar panels.  The current agricultural land availability in the UK outside of cities and forests is approximately 17 million hectares or roughly 40 million acres.  The eco-fanatics are demanding that ¼ of UK agricultural land be torn up and polluted by solar panel farms.  Or, they are demanding that some of the 8 million acres of woodland, already under pressure due to insatiable housing demands, be put under solar racks and despoiled.  On the other hand, the Gaia cult of course laments the loss of wild, forested or undeveloped land which are the exact targets for solar farm deployments.  Many farmers in the UK are offered government largesse to employ solar farms on their acreage and these subsidies of course are never accounted for in the cost of solar energy.  The UK government is also bribing farmers not to farm and to turn over their acreage to the bird and bat choppers.


David Craig wrote a very good book There is No Climate Crisis.  In the Daily Sceptic he takes the latest solar propaganda: “New Wind and Solar Are Cheaper Than the Costs to Operate All But One Coal-Fired Power Plant in the United States.“ to task highlighting the fraudulent analysis and data used. 


He notes the massive government subsidies which are omitted from the costs of the beloved solar panels. 

“Here’s a U.S. Treasury ‘Factsheet‘ about the Inflation Reduction Act. In it we read that: The U.S. Department of the Treasury will be at the forefront of implementation, delivering $270 billion in tax incentives as part of the $369 billion the Inflation Reduction Act dedicates to combating climate change.”  U.S. consumers spend about $1 trillion on energy each year including transport. I did a quick ‘back-of-a-fag-packet’ calculation. If the USA’s 123 million or so households spend around $4,000 a year each on energy (excluding transport) then that’s about $400 billion. Yet the inflation Reduction Act is spending a massive $369 billion subsidising supposed ‘renewables’, which are just a minor part of the USA’s energy use. In fact, wind and solar make up only about 3% of USA energy use:

Yet these almost negligible energy sources are getting $369 billion in subsidies – that’s almost as much as the $400 billion U.S. households pay for in total for energy each year.”


Government accounting.  Xi Biden and his Green Totalitarian policies will pour out subsidies equal to the total energy spend in the US, to generate 3% of its actual production?  This idiocy is repeated in the UK and everywhere else.  Add in the dark side of panels, the ecological devastation of the solar panels, the destroyed farm and forest lands, the effects on wildlife, and you have a massively negative balance sheet.  Only an incompetent, immoral and deluded eco-zealot could possibly try to argue on their behalf. 


Scientism and the cult of Plant-Food as Satan

A trace chemical which falls out of climate processes, cannot cause the same.

Bookmark and Share


Scientism is the religious worship of ‘Science’, which is never defined, or simply references the ‘Scientific Method’.  There are many variations within any methodology including that of ‘science’, there is no single method of finding ‘fact’, or confirming a ‘natural law’.  Many roads exist within any methodology, a fact supported by anyone who has worked inside a methodological framework.  Scientism in its pure and faith-filled liturgy, simply venerates the authority of the abstract called ‘science’.  The acolyte and scientism laity believe in their deity of ‘science’ and are untroubled by the validity and integrity (or not) of data, the details, the approach, the conflicting interests, or the financial and political beneficiaries from ‘the science’, which is thrust forward and declared as fact.  Scientism is in short, a dogma of ignorance, a belief system that is opposed to rationality and one which demands obeisance, and which does not allow questioning, validation, replication, or data source verification.

We see the absurd insipidity of Scientism within the cult of the Plant Food catastrophists who historically, have ranged from the Ice Age extremists, to the Warming jihadis, and now the re-purposed Climate Change coalition of eco-terrorists and totalitarians.  Even given the morphological changes of the Plant Food-is-Satan-cult, the underlying foundation of this Scientism and associated millenarian theology is its incorruptible stupidity and anti-science.

Co2 in climate

There is such a paucity of Co2 in the atmosphere that we need to measure it in parts per million.  There is now just over 420 parts per million Co2 in our atmosphere, or 0.042% of the total.  This is a rounding error.  Rounding errors cannot cause climate any more than rounding errors in your bank balance will make you a millionaire.  Most of our atmosphere, some 99% is made up of Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (21%) which are not ‘greenhouse gases’ and don’t ‘trap heat’.  The rest are trace chemicals led by the redoubtable Argon (0.9%), and then the terrifying Co2 (0.04%).  Negligible quantities of methane, helium, neon and krypton make up the rest.  Note that the miniscule amount of methane in our atmosphere is also a raving-mad concern of the Plant Food cult, who regularly intone in various ‘scientific’ journals that methane release from a ‘melting Arctic’, would herald the end of the earth.  If the 90.000 seat Wembley stadium was the atmosphere, Co2 would occupy a mere 25 seats.  The Plant food-cult dogma is that (supposedly), Co2 has risen 50% from a ‘safe’ 280 ppm, to about 420 ppm.  Terrifying.  In the 90.000 seat Wembley stadium, Co2 has increased by 8 seats in the past 140 years. 

The main ‘greenhouse gas’, is of course water vapour not Co2, accounting for over 90% of ‘greenhouse gases’.  Even the IPCC admits that humans have no appreciable impact on water vapour.  The Fake News visuals of towers emitting what appears to be a smoky white substance and referring to this stream as ‘pollution’ or Co2 is mildly amusing.  They are showing water vapour of course.  Water, Co2, and methane have different levels of heat insulation.  Water vapour arises out of natural hydrological cycles, especially water released from oceans.  If temperatures were really ‘warming’ (they aren’t), water vapour given its potential to trap heat would be the main gas to worry about, and humans have a next to zero impact on water vapour concentrations.

Co2 has been proven to lag temperatures by many years, sometimes hundreds of years (an example is the August 2 2019 Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences paper on the Vostok Ice Cores).  The Earth’s atmosphere contains some ~750 billion tonnes or gigatons of Co2.  The oceans have around 37000 gigatons.  When sea water warms it released Co2 into the atmosphere.  When sea water cools, it absorbs Co2 from the atmosphere.  Instead of Co2 driving temperatures it is rather obvious that Co2 is derived from temperature and climate changes including various climactic cycles.  There can be a lag of several hundred years between the Earth warming and cooling and the level of Co2 responding to those changes, by rising or falling, depending on how long the atmospheric warming or cooling affects, warms or cools the oceans.  This is obviously true given that in times past the Earth’s temperature has been much colder (Ice Ages) when Co2 was much higher than today, or much warmer when Co2 levels were much lower than today.  In fact, according to long-age believers, the Earth’s temperature has declined from 25C to the current level of 13.9C in the past few million years with Co2 levels all over the place, both higher and lower than today’s level.

A real scientific principle is that Co2 greens the planet and allows for more crops to be grown, and for plant, bush and tree life to flourish.  This is why flower growers pump Co2 into their greenhouses, to levels of 1500 ppm, extracting 30-50% more production.  This Co2 concentration level is far above our current level of 400 ppm.  It could easily be reasoned and defended that the ‘natural’ level of Co2 should be double or triple the 400 ppm, which would allow a flourishing of plant and crop growth.  The Plant Food is Satan cult, of course completely ignores the beneficial effects of Co2.




Further reading:

·        Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.

·        Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.

·        Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600

·        Mudelsee (2001) - Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.

·        Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.

·        Excellent summary of the papers on the lag at CO2 science.