Worden: How They Came to Embrace the BIG Lie

eye_on_america_newWhen the first reports of so-called “Chemtrails” hit the Internet crowd ten years ago, I knew it was a very well-thought-out hoax, but I didn’t know why it was being so heavily promulgated, and who stood to benefit from it. After all, a sizable number of people had obviously spent a great deal of time and effort to promote that absurdity, and then I noticed their e-mail addresses: Too many of those addresses ended with “.edu”, telling me they were hatched from individuals directly connected with institutions of higher learning.

It appears the Chemtrail hoax was an elaborate, college-based experiment to see what average individuals would believe en masse, even if there was no solid chain of evidence to support the theory — which is all it ever was. In order to prove the Chemtrail theory, it would be necessary to equip an aircraft capable of flying at 30,000 feet with research gear that could collect what is being “sprayed” from directly behind the suspect vehicle and have the matter analyzed in a lab. Instead, a number of individuals came forward to claim that suspect materials had floated to the ground after an alleged spraying, and that they had allegedly had that material analyzed as toxic and dangerous. Unfortunately for those well-meaning, but incompetent sleuths, they couldn’t establish a chain of evidence that could directly link what was on the ground to what was seen being “sprayed” way up there. All these people ever really saw was regular old contrails that had been left behind by passing aircraft, only now they were paying more attention because some jackass convinced them they were witnessing a diabolical conspiracy being carried out to harm them. Hence, it was a well-thought-out hoax that would be very difficult, if not impossible to disprove by anyone who lacked the money and equipment.

It appears that is the same scenario being presented by those who claim that man and our carbon-based fuel burning are to blame for climate change.

Carl F. Worden

Carl F. Worden

For example, my wife strongly suspected the whole global warming theory was an elaborate hoax very much like the Chemtrail hoax, but she is a disciplined researcher, so she searched the Internet for climate records going back as far as world temperature records would allow. Guess what? Such records are not on the Internet in a reliable format anywhere that would allow the common citizen to personally research and analyze them. Why not? You can find just about anything on the Internet — but not a concise and verifiable record of world temperatures??

So we have these “scientists” and other researchers claiming they know the earth is warming, which is not an issue for me one way or another, but they go on to claim the warming is due to humans burning fossil fuels, and that is where they are beginning to run into credibility problems, especially after those e-mails were hacked by unknown parties that strongly suggested the climate data was being manipulated by the same scientists and researchers.

But just for the sake of argument and clear thinking, let’s say those hacked e-mails never surfaced, and let’s look at the “evidence”. We can’t. NASA claims to “know”, but we don’t have access to their data. These global warming scientists and researchers claim to know, but we don’t have access to their data either, and even if we had full access to the data of NASA and the others, we still have no way of independently verifying their data. I know, because my wife looked for two full days researching the Internet before she finally gave up and was quite frustrated.

It is common for hoaxers to use the old, “Prove it isn’t true”, argument, and no one should fall for that deceptive ploy for two reasons: First, it is impossible to prove a negative and they know it, and second; the burden of proof is always upon the person or group making the claim. So where does that leave the average person on the street who is being told almost daily that the human burning of fossil fuels is directly responsible for current climate change? All we can do is demand they prove it — and they can’t!!

Al Gore recently lit a firestorm of controversy by claiming the ice caps would be completely melted within 5-7 years. When pressed, Gore admitted he had no scientific basis for making such an outrageous claim, and as I recall from my basic High School science classes, if the ice caps fully melted there would be almost no land masses left above water on the entire earth. Maybe in the 45 years since my High School days the earth has shed some of its water into space, and maybe frogs will grow wings so they won’t bump their butts every time they jump! We’re being conned, but why, and in return for what?

We know there are many people who would like very much for all of humanity to stop burning fossil fuels, and I’m not against that at all so long as there is a viable alternative. There actually is a viable alternative that is fully supported by existing technology, and it is called Hydrogen. Hydrogen burns clean and the best source for Hydrogen is sea water — something the earth has in abundance — and when Hydrogen is burned with Oxygen it produces water that presumably finds its way back to the ocean. It is not difficult to manufacture Hydrogen powered cars, and the only real challenge would be to set up as many Hydrogen filling stations as possible in the shortest possible time.

But we’re not hearing much about Hydrogen power these days. No, they’re talking about Natural Gas power and Cap & Trade schemes that will cost everyone dearly, and you can bet the farm somebody stands to make a lot of money from it — just not you. You see, the entire Petroleum Industry would be diminished to no more than 20% of its present size, making only plastics and lubricants for the most part. A Hydrogen scenario would be much harder to profit from because technology exists to break down seawater on board a vehicle and burn it, meaning we eventually wouldn’t need Hydrogen filling stations at all. For the big bucks gang, going full Hydrogen would be their ruin, and they aren’t about to let that happen without a huge fight, and the Middle East would be back to living in tents and trading camels if Hydrogen energy were to replace oil. Going full Hydrogen would definitely be the answer every environmentalist dreams of, but it would completely turn the entire economy of the earth on its head and the powers that be won’t let that happen because they know there would be unintended consequences they could never foresee — or control.

So it appears the environmental crowd has embraced the Fat Lie in order to promote their push for reduced fossil fuel reliance. I met a young man in Capitola, California a few months ago who was absolutely flabbergasted that I had not bought into the human-caused global warming theory. He was attending U.C. Santa Cruz, a hotbed of radical thought if there ever was one, and second only to U.C. Berserkely. He became quite condescending, as if he was dealing with a Troglodyte, until I demanded proof of his argument, at which point he challenged me to prove the “man-caused” theory false.

You see, I don’t question whether the earth is warming or cooling because earth’s climate is always in a state of flux anyway. The “man caused” claims are what I question — as should any intelligent and ethical scientist/researcher — but those who do are being shouted down and belittled as if they are stupid, and in some cases the positions of these “skeptics” have been threatened and even eliminated. It can be quite hazardous to your future if you question the Fat Lie nowadays, and it seems to work for the perpetrators quite well now. All you have to do is create a hoax almost nobody is in the position to independently verify and insist they all believe you based upon your trustworthiness alone.

You know, kinda like when the FBI expected everybody to believe their fat lies about Waco and when President Clinton assured America he did not have sexual relations with that woman? We also saw what happened when we believed President Bush’s claims that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction he was about to give to international terrorists. They all successfully embraced the power of the lie and continue to do so, so why on earth would anyone ever believe them when they claim man is causing global warming? The evidence just isn’t there.

Carl F. Worden

5 thoughts on “Worden: How They Came to Embrace the BIG Lie

  1. Granny

    Something has happened to Carl Worden – He used to be right on but several of his latest writings indicate he has either suffered a severe mental relapse or he has sold out to the enemy and is pushing their agenda by trying to discredit what many of us have personally witnessed.

    Sorry, Carl, you have truly lost it and because of my personal experience with the Chem Trails and others I know very well – your efforts to discredit the reality fall on deaf ears.

    We miss the Carl of former days who didn’t play these games of this Carl.

    Reply
  2. Ed Lewis

    I figured out two or maybe three years ago that Worden sold out. This piece of crap article on sheer fantasy confirms it.

    Reply
  3. Birdy

    If you are ignorant enough to believe in global warming you will find something wrong with this man, if however you fancy yourself to be a free thinker……THINK ALREADY….research yourself…..you spend two f$@king days researching..what will you find? Look for yourselves sheeple

    Reply
  4. Pingback: Get This DVD To Your State Legislator | National Health FederationNational Health Federation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


 Powered by Max Banner Ads