It’s never been about clean new fuels and the environment.
It’s about new data streams and control.
Think “Pegasus”.

Don’t be a crash test dummy.

If data is the new oil is the new gold…

These new computerized cars are new oil pumps.

The drivers are the data wells.

SHARE THIS VIDEO

The first news segment in my video edit is what prompted this report. It’s been released by Israeli tv only a few days ago and it’s nothing but an ad for the Israeli hacking industry.

Many drivers spend hours every day in super-sized smartphones on wheels, mobile Matrix pods, and everything that goes for smartphones goes for computerized cars, in terms of hackability.

Basically, these new cars belong to the best hacker around. Which is, usually, some military/intelligence service or some private basement dweller.

Think Pegasus.

What does your car know about you? We hacked a Chevy to find out.

Our privacy experiment found that automakers collect data through hundreds of sensors and an always-on Internet connection. Driving surveillance is becoming hard to avoid.

Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2019

Cars now run on data. We hacked one to find out what it knows about you.

Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler cracked open a Chevrolet to find an always-on Internet connection and data from his smartphone. (Jonathan Baran/The Washington Post)

Behind the wheel, it’s nothing but you, the open road — and your car quietly recording your every move.

On a recent drive, a 2017 Chevrolet collected my precise location. It stored my phone’s ID and the people I called. It judged my acceleration and braking style, beaming back reports to its maker General Motors over an always-on Internet connection.

Cars have become the most sophisticated computers many of us own, filled with hundreds of sensors. Even older models know an awful lot about you. Many copy over personal data as soon as you plug in a smartphone.

But for the thousands you spend to buy a car, the data it produces doesn’t belong to you. My Chevy’s dashboard didn’t say what the car was recording. It wasn’t in the owner’s manual. There was no way to download it.

To glimpse my car data, I had to hack my way in.

We’re at a turning point for driving surveillance: In the 2020 model year, most new cars sold in the United States will come with built-in Internet connections, including 100 percent of Fords, GMs and BMWs and all but one model Toyota and Volkswagen. (This independent cellular service is often included free or sold as an add-on.) Cars are becoming smartphones on wheels, sending and receiving data from apps, insurance firms and pretty much wherever their makers want. Some brands even reserve the right to use the data to track you down if you don’t pay your bills.

When I buy a car, I assume the data I produce is owned by me — or at least is controlled by me. Many automakers do not. They act like how and where we drive, also known as telematics, isn’t personal information.

Cars now run on the new oil: your data. It is fundamental to a future of transportation where vehicles drive themselves and we hop into whatever one is going our way. Data isn’t the enemy. Connected cars already do good things like improve safety and send you service alerts that are much more helpful than a check-engine light in the dash.

But we’ve been down this fraught road before with smart speakers, smart TVs, smartphones and all the other smart things we now realize are playing fast and loose with our personal lives. Once information about our lives gets shared, sold or stolen, we lose control.

There are no federal laws regulating what carmakers can collect or do with our driving data. And carmakers lag in taking steps to protect us and draw lines in the sand. Most hide what they’re collecting and sharing behind privacy policies written in the kind of language only a lawyer’s mother could love.

Car data has a secret life. To find out what a car knows about me, I borrowed some techniques from crime scene investigators.

What your car knows

Jim Mason hacks into cars for a living, but usually just to better understand crashes and thefts. The Caltech-trained engineer works in Oakland, Calif., for a firm called ARCCA that helps reconstruct accidents. He agreed to help conduct a forensic analysis of my privacy.

I chose a Chevrolet as our test subject because its maker GM has had the longest of any automaker to figure out data transparency. It began connecting cars with its OnStar service in 1996, initially to summon emergency assistance. Today GM has more than 11 million 4G LTE data-equipped vehicles on the road, including free basic service and extras you pay for. I found a volunteer, Doug, who let us peer inside his two-year-old Chevy Volt.

I met Mason at an empty warehouse, where he began by explaining one important bit of car anatomy. Modern vehicles don’t just have one computer. There are multiple, interconnected brains that can generate up to 25 gigabytes of data per hour from sensors all over the car. Even with Mason’s gear, we could only access some of these systems.

This kind of hacking isn’t a security risk for most of us — it requires hours of physical access to a vehicle. Mason brought a laptop, special software, a box of circuit boards, and dozens of sockets and screwdrivers.

We focused on the computer with the most accessible data: the infotainment system. You might think of it as the car’s touch-screen audio controls, yet many systems interact with it, from navigation to a synced-up smartphone. The only problem? This computer is buried beneath the dashboard.

After an hour of prying and unscrewing, our Chevy’s interior looked like it had been lobotomized. But Mason had extracted the infotainment computer, about the size of a small lunchbox. He clipped it into a circuit board, which fed into his laptop. The data didn’t copy over in our first few attempts. “There is a lot of trial and error,” said Mason.

(Don’t try this at home. Seriously — we had to take the car into a repair shop to get the infotainment computer reset.)

It was worth the trouble when Mason showed me my data. There on a map was the precise location where I’d driven to take apart the Chevy. There were my other destinations, like the hardware store I’d stopped at to buy some tape.

Among the trove of data points were unique identifiers for my and Doug’s phones, and a detailed log of phone calls from the previous week. There was a long list of contacts, right down to people’s address, emails and even photos.

For a broader view, Mason also extracted the data from a Chevrolet infotainment computer that I bought used on eBay for $375. It contained enough data to reconstruct the Upstate New York travels and relationships of a total stranger. We know he or she frequently called someone listed as “Sweetie,” whose photo we also have. We could see the exact Gulf station where they bought gas, the restaurant where they ate (called Taste China) and the unique identifiers for their Samsung Galaxy Note phones.

Infotainment systems can collect even more. Mason has hacked into Fords that record locations once every few minutes, even when you don’t use the navigation system. He’s seen German cars with 300-gigabyte hard drives — five times as much as a basic iPhone 11. The Tesla Model 3 can collect video snippets from the car’s many cameras. Coming next: face data, used to personalize the vehicle and track driver attention.

In our Chevy, we probably glimpsed just a fraction of what GM knows. We didn’t see what was uploaded to GM’s computers, because we couldn’t access the live OnStar cellular connection. (Researchers have done those kinds of hacks before to prove connected vehicles can be remotely controlled.)

My volunteer car owner Doug asked GM to see the data it collected and shared. The automaker just pointed us to an obtuse privacy policy. Doug also (twice) sent GM a formal request under a 2003 California data law to ask who the company shared his information with. He got no reply.

GM spokesman David Caldwell declined to offer specifics on Doug’s Chevy but said the data GM collects generally falls into three categories: vehicle location, vehicle performance and driver behavior. “Much of this data is highly technical, not linkable to individuals and doesn’t leave the vehicle itself,” he said.

The company, he said, collects real-time data to monitor vehicle performance to improve safety and to help design future products and services.

But there were clues to what more GM knows on its website and app. It offers a Smart Driver score — a measure of good driving — based on how hard you brake and turn and how often you drive late at night. They’ll share that with insurance companies, if you want. With paid OnStar service, I could, on demand, locate the car’s exact location. It also offers in-vehicle WiFi and remote key access for Amazon package deliveries. An OnStar Marketplace connects the vehicle directly with third-party apps for Domino’s, IHOP, Shell and others.

The OnStar privacy policy, possibly only ever read by yours truly, grants the company rights to a broad set of personal and driving data without much detail on when and how often it might collect it. It says: “We may keep the information we collect for as long as necessary” to operate, conduct research or satisfy GM’s contractual obligations. Translation: pretty much forever.

It’s likely GM and other automakers keep just a slice of the data cars generate. But think of that as a temporary phenomenon. Coming 5G cellular networks promise to link cars to the Internet with ultra-fast, ultra-high-capacity connections. As wireless connections get cheaper and data becomes more valuable, anything the car knows about you is fair game.

Protecting yourself

GM’s view, echoed by many other automakers, is that we gave them permission for all of this. “Nothing happens without customer consent,” said GM’s Caldwell.

When my volunteer Doug bought his Chevy, he didn’t even realize OnStar basic service came standard. (I don’t blame him — who really knows what all they’re initialing on a car purchase contract?) There is no button or menu inside the Chevy to shut off OnStar or other data collection, though GM says it has added one to newer vehicles. Customers can press the console OnStar button and ask a representative to remotely disconnect.

What’s the worry? From conversations with industry insiders, I know many automakers haven’t totally figured out what to do with the growing amounts of driving data we generate. But that’s hardly stopping them from collecting it.

Five years ago, 20 automakers signed on to volunteer privacy standards, pledging to “provide customers with clear, meaningful information about the types of information collected and how it is used,” as well as “ways for customers to manage their data.” But when I called eight of the largest automakers, not even one offered a dashboard for customers to look at, download and control their data.

Automakers haven’t had a data reckoning yet, but they’re due for one. GM ran an experiment in which it tracked the radio music tastes of 90,000 volunteer drivers to look for patterns with where they traveled. According to the Detroit Free Press, GM told marketers that the data might help them persuade a country music fan who normally stopped at Tim Horton’s to go to McDonald’s instead.

GM would not tell me exactly what data it collected for that program but said “personal information was not involved” because it was anonymized data. (Privacy advocates have warned that location data is personal because it can be re-identified with individuals because we follow such unique patterns.)

GM’s privacy policy, which the company says it will update before the end of 2019, says it may “use anonymized information or share it with third parties for any legitimate business purpose.” Such as whom? “The details of those third-party relationships are confidential,” said Caldwell.

There are more questions. GM’s privacy policy says it will comply with legal data demands. How often does it share our data with the government? GM doesn’t offer a transparency report like tech companies do.

Automakers say they put data security first. But I suspect they’re just not used to customers demanding transparency. They also probably want to have sole control over the data, given that the industry’s existential threats — self-driving and ride-hailing technologies — are built on it.

But not opening up brings problems, too. Automakers are battling with repair shops in Massachusetts about a proposal that would require car companies to grant owners — and mechanics — access to telematics data. The Auto Care Association says locking out independent shops could give consumers fewer choices and make us end up paying more for service. The automakers say it’s a security and privacy risk.

In 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act will require any company that collects personal data about the state’s residents to provide access to the data and give people the ability to opt out of its sharing. GM said it would comply with the law but didn’t say how.

Are any carmakers better? Among the privacy policies I read, Toyota’s stood out for drawing a few clear lines in the sand about data sharing. It says it won’t share “personal information” with data resellers, social networks or ad networks — but still carves out the right to share what it calls “vehicle data” with business partners.

Until automakers put even a fraction of the effort they put into TV commercials into giving us control over our data, I’d be wary about using in-vehicle apps or signing up for additional data services. At least smartphone apps like Google Maps let you turn off and delete location history.

And Mason’s hack brought home a scary reality: Simply plugging a smartphone into a car could put your data at risk. If you’re selling your car or returning a lease or rental, take the time to delete the data saved on its infotainment system. An app called Privacy4Cars offers model-by-model directions. Mason gives out gifts of car-lighter USB plugs, which let you charge a phone without connecting it to the car computer. (You can buy inexpensive ones online.)

If you’re buying a new vehicle, tell the dealer you want to know about connected services — and how to turn them off. Few offer an Internet “kill switch,” but they may at least allow you turn off location tracking.

Or, for now at least, you can just buy an old car. Mason, for one, drives a conspicuously non-connected 1992 Toyota.

The ‘Pegasus’ creators, Israeli Military trains and ‘privatizes’ some of the world’s best hackers

the perfect tool for the perfect murder

These being said, we’re dealing here with the perfect tool for the perfect murder.
Speaking of which, we will be commemorating soon 10 years since the death of Michael Hastings, in 2013. #NeverForget

Here’s DARPA talking about hacking cars just months before Michael Hasting’s suspicious death:

SHARE VIDEO

Nowadays, with the Pentagon, the WEF and the Bilderbergers freaking out about the demise of their low-IQ fake-news media and the advent of independent journalism, this report alone is enough to get us targeted by a bunch of agencies that commonly use Pegasus and likely more advanced technology we haven’t even found out about.


You can’t hope much from a truther who drives computerized cars. Since 2013.

Why voting technology has to stay primitive is why cars have to stay primitive.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

If you collapsed the world based on his test results, what are you going to do based on the infomation he presents below?

1. PCR tests are not a good tool for medical diagnose and shouldn’t be used as such
2. AIDS science is a fraud
3. Climatology is a “Joke”

HIS EULOGY IN SPANISH TOP NEWSPAPER EL PAIS

Kary Mullis grew up throwing frogs to the sky with homemade rockets, he studied chemistry, left science for a couple of years to work in a bakery, earned a doctorate at the University of California at Berkeley in the heat of psychedelic drug fever and eventually invented, while driving his car, a technique that It marked a before and after in biology: the polymerase chain reaction, a kind of molecular photocopying that allows you to copy a small segment of DNA millions of times. Its revolutionary discovery allowed us to read the human genome, diagnose genetic disorders, identify corpses and hunt serial killers for their DNA. Mullis, born in 1944 in Lenoir (USA), eventually won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993. He died on August 7 from pneumonia in the Californian city of Newport Beach, according to has explained his widowNancy Cosgrove, to the newspaper The Washington Post.

The same American newspaper said in 1998 that Mullis was “possibly the strangest person who has never won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry ”. In 1994, just one year after winning the prize, the researcher visited Spain to give the closing talk of the congress of the European Society for Clinical Research, in Toledo, but refused to talk about his great discovery. Instead, he decided to disseminate his theory that AIDS is not caused by a virus, but arises from exposure to many other pathogens.Mullis told in his autobiography that one night he spoke in a forest with “a bright raccoon”, perhaps “extraterrestrial”

“Mullis started laughing at his audience by commenting that he was going to Seville” where there is some kind of festival in which one gets drunk all night. ” He illustrated the principle of his intervention, cumbersome and confusing, with photographs taken by him of geometric images projected on naked women ”, The country then recounted. Mullis, a genius in his field, showed that a nobel It can be a real songwriter outside your discipline.

The French virologist Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, who discovered HIV in 1983, talked about Mullis in an interview with this newspaper Two years ago. “I have never talked with him. I refuse to talk to people who say idiocy, ”said the researcher. “Scientific data has clearly demonstrated the link between the virus and the disease. These types of statements are dangerous. There are patients who have stopped treatment because of these observations and have fallen ill. You have to stop them, because they are dangerous, ”he added.

Mullis published his autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field (“Dancing naked in the field of mind”), in 1998. In the book, the chemist tells us that one night in 1985 he met “a bright raccoon” in a forest he owned in Mendocino County, California . “Good afternoon, doctor,” the raccoon greeted him, according to Mullis’s delirious story. “To say they were aliens is a lot to say. But to qualify him as a stranger would be to underestimate him, ”reflected the Nobel winner.The discoverer of HIV, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, described Mullis’ denial speech as “dangerous”

The polymerase chain reaction, known as PCR, changed science forever. Each cell keeps in its tiny nucleus two meters of DNA folded in an inconceivable way. There is written the operating manual of life. Until 1985, scientists needed huge amounts of DNA to be able to analyze genetic information. But, that year, Mullis conceived a new strategy. When the DNA molecule was heated, its two complementary chains – which are usually curled up like a spiral staircase – were separated. By adding the fundamental bricks of DNA, and with the help of an enzyme, each independent chain served as a template to generate the complement and give rise to a perfect photocopy of the original molecule. That way I could have millions of copies in no time. According to Mullis, he had his eureka moment while driving his car from Emeryville, where he worked at the Cetus company, to his farm in Mendocino, which he thought he saw a luminous raccoon and talkative raccoon, perhaps extraterrestrial.

The American chemist, who dedicated himself to surfing after winning the Nobel Prize, always boasted of swimming against the current. In a TED talk in 2002 Mullis recalled that the idea of ​​PCR came to him in 20 minutes and that if he had listened to his molecular biologist friends he would have abandoned it as impossible. “If I had to seek an authority in the matter to ask if the idea would work, I would have said no,” said the chemist. That same attitude towards the scientific consensus led him to deny the existence of the AIDS virus and also that of global warming, an invention of “parasites with degrees in economics or sociology.”

Mullis always knew that he would win the Nobel. In his book Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, the chemist says that his mentor in Berkeley, Joe Neilands, warned him in 1993 that he could take the prize that same year. The old biochemist, 23 years older than Mullis, recommended that he not talk so much with the press to avoid ruining his candidacy. “Neilands told me that probably nothing was wrong because he admitted that I love surfing and women, but he thought that the (Nobel) committee could frown at the fact that I admitted to having taken LSD. Surfing, women and LSD could be too much, ”Mullis recalled in his autobiography. “We both knew I wouldn’t shut up.”
El Pais, 2019 (Spanish)


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Ghislaine Maxwell actually spoke at least NINE times in front of United Nations assemblies, promoting some weird globalist financial schemes (see earlier posts); this is one of the speeches.

By the way, those fact-checking presstitutes from rhino-media and social media lied to you again, Ghislaine DID speak 9 times for the UN, it says so in her official bio presented at TED x Westchester Digital Summit 2014.

Also:

SOURCE
I wonder why they deleted this from their channel…

“Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell operated a mysterious company called TerraMar that pushed the UN to issue passports for the ocean, listed a Manhattan property owned by the Rothschilds as a base, and was funded by the Clinton Foundation. (News Punch, July 9, 2020)

“Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s mysterious company TerraMar, which closed down permanently just six days after Epstein’s arrest, appears to tie much of it together.

“The TerraMar Project was non-profit company that Ghislaine Maxwell started in 2012. Jeffrey Epstein and various other high power financiers funded the venture.

“The company described itself as an ocean conservation group but it shut down by 2019 over sex trafficking crimes stemming from Epstein’s arrest. It was only six days after Jeffrey Epstein was brought into custody that the firm announced it was shutting down permanently. The company had immediate support from globalist organizations including the Clinton Foundation.

Maxwell attended multiple United Nations (UN) meetings and even spoke to the council as the founder of TerraMar. Ghislaine and another man from the company’s Board of Directors, Scott Borgerson, spoke in Washington DC at a special event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations.”

What Newspunch missed is that Borgerson was her boyfriend, rumored “secret husband” at the time. But this is not even half the story, see below!

Scott Borgerson in NYPost, ladies and gents

The “tech entrepreneur” who is rumored to be married to Ghislaine Maxwell once boasted to his family that he was dating “a high profile woman,” according to a report.

Scott Borgerson, 43, reportedly left his wife Rebecca, the mother of his two children, for Maxwell in 2014, although his estranged father said he knew nothing about Maxwell’s ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, The Sun reported.

Way before Ghislaine was talking about ocean management at the UN, her husband pushed the same agenda from the CFR tribune.

Update: found the evidence that she was married (and Epstein wasn’t)

According to Business Insider:

Borgerson’s name “has resurfaced after prosecutors recently alleged in court that Maxwell is secretly married. Maxwell has declined to provide the name of her spouse, but news outlets have suggested it could be Borgerson.

Borgerson has not responded to further requests for comment since he last spoke with Business Insider in August 2019.

Borgerson’s company has raised nearly $23 million from investors, which include former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt led a $10 million funding round for CargoMetrics in August 2017, according to PitchBook.”

According to New York Times, Borgerson was working forthe Arctic Circle and we shouldn’t then be too surprised Ghislaine got to speak there, on the same stage with Hillary Clinton, as I reported before:

“In an effort to rebrand herself from jet-setting cosmopolitan to oceanic conservationist, Ms. Maxwell had in 2012 founded and appointed herself C.E.O. of the TerraMar Project, an opaque organization that had no offices and gave no grants to other organizations. It was disbanded in 2019.

Its biggest accomplishment was helping Ms. Maxwell maintain social capital. Associating herself with Mr. Borgerson — the founder of a maritime investments company called CargoMetrics and a former fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he wrote about oceanic issues — added to her credibility.

Mr. Borgerson was called a director at the TerraMar Project, although he never had a job there. Ms. Maxwell supplied him and CargoMetrics with introductions to people on her contacts list.

In 2007, he became a fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank whose officers and directors have included Colin Powell; the philanthropist David Rockefeller; and Robert Rubin, the secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton. While at the the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Borgerson wrote for a magazine it publishes called Foreign Affairs about the effect of global warming on the Arctic region.

His residency as an International Affairs fellow ended in 2008, a spokeswoman for the organization said, and Mr. Borgerson spent another two years as a Visiting Fellow for Oceans Governance, working offsite.

In 2010, he founded Cargometrics, a “maritime innovation company” that uses data systems to study shipping patterns, from which the company determines what goods are being sent where and in what quantities and then bases investment decisions on the results. (For example, in February of this year, the firm used its data on cargo from China to surmise that imports from there were “in free-fall” because of the coronavirus.)

Back when Mr. Borgerson was writing for Foreign Affairs, there weren’t a lot of articles being published about oceanic conservation, said Dagfinnur Sveinbjornsson, the C.E.O. of the Arctic Circle, an organization dedicated to economic and environmental issues in the region.

Mr. Borgerson’s were “among the most prominent,” he said in an interview. “That’s what led to his involvement in the Arctic Circle.”

Mr. Borgerson was picked to serve on its advisory board and moderate a discussion about “Business in the Arctic” at the organization’s annual assembly in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 2013.

Conferences are a strange business. Big issues are often on the agenda, but the events can also (in prepandemic times) serve as glorified cocktail hours and public relations opportunities for people seeking to make connections and enhance their reputations as philanthropists, whether or not they even have a substantial record of working on the causes they’re discussing.

This category included Ms. Maxwell, who spoke at the Reykjavik conference and did not have the organization’s endorsement, according to Mr. Sveinbjornsson. According to British tabloids, it was there that Ms. Maxwell made the acquaintance of Mr. Borgerson.”

Sure, and they fell in love because their environmental agendas were original, but almost identical, by coincidence. We’re big fans of coincidence theories here at SILVIEW.media!

NYT goes on saying that “He was the father of two young children with his wife, Rebecca, to whom he had been married since 2001, public records show.

In 2014, he filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. Ms. Borgerson obtained a restraining order from Mr. Borgerson. (It was later dismissed.) In legal filings, she claimed that he drank too much, hit her and threatened to beat her in front of the children.

Ms. Maxwell was smitten with Mr. Borgerson, stating over and over again how “hot” and “brilliant” he was, according to a person who worked with the TerraMar Project and agreed to speak to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, concerned the association would draw censure from environmentalists.

Ms. Maxwell also described the relationship between Mr. Borgerson and his ex-wife to this person as having become cordial, adding that much of her life now involved making lunch for his children and driving them to school.

After Mr. Epstein’s 2019 indictment on sex trafficking charges, the enormous interest in Ms. Maxwell led reporters to Mr. Borgerson, who admonished them for peddling gossip.

They would be far better off, he said, writing about the Jones Act, an esoteric maritime regulation from 1920 that stipulates that all ships on the water traveling between United States ports be built on United States shores and be owned by United States citizens. (It has recently become a point of contention between economists who see it as senselessly protectionist and others who contend that it is essential to preventing terrorism.)

Many of Ms. Maxwell’s old friends were surprised to read in reports of court proceedings earlier this summer that she had gotten married. It remains possible either that she was not telling the truth or that her spouse is someone other than Mr. Borgerson.”


SOURCE
SOURCE
Yup, it happened twice. I wonder why is this video unavailable

Damn, this is unavailable too (not deleted), I wonder why… 🙂

SOME OF THE MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE PRAISED GHISLAINE FOR HER SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORLD:

CNN

NYT

HUFFPOST

MSNBC

TED

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

I WONDER WHY THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED TOO?

Actually, let’s better have a look at the official Ghislaine Maxwell / TerraMar partners, including the UN, as displayed on their former website:

Have you trusted your science autoritah today?
Here she is at a two day seminar hosted in December 2013 by the Swedish Ministry of the Environment, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and the Embassy of Sweden in partnership with Duke University’s Nicholas Institute, SIWI and UNDP.

In 2017, Ghislaine participated with Terramar at the UN Oceans Conference in New York City. Take a good look at the event logo, I hope i reminds you of something:

SOURCE
Looks like they plan to build back better in the oceans too
Video produced by Ghislaine’s organization for the UN Oceans Conference 2017 NY pushing Agenda 2030 / “sustainable development” on Climate. You can hear her voice at 2:32 mark

Ghislaine Maxwell Bought In UN Via Amir Dossal on Terramar Board Also UN Briber Guterres Linked

By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song
BBC – Decrypt – LightRead – Honduras – Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 20 – Ghislaine Maxwell used the United Nations, as reported by Inner City Press whose questions about it UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres refuses.

  Now we have more: long time UN operative Amir Dossal, also informed with UN bribers like Ng Lap Seng and Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, was on the board of directors of Maxwell’s shadowy Terramar. Inner City Press first made this link July 5, & now publishes 990. And here is Dossal introducing Maxwell as one of her nine visits to the UN, here.

   After the death of Jeffrey Epstein in the MCC prison, on July 2 Acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Audrey Strauss announced and unsealed in indictment of Maxwell on charges including sex trafficking and perjury.

   Inner City Press went to her press conference at the US Attorney’s Office and asked, Doesn’t charging Maxwell with perjury undercut any ability to use testimony from her against other, bigger wrong-doers? Periscope here at 23:07.

  Strauss replied that it is not impossible to use a perjurer’s testimony. But how often does it work?

  At 3:30 pm on July 2 Maxwell appeared in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampsire, before Magistriate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. Inner City Press live tweeted it here.
(Also live tweeted bail denial of July 14, here.)

   In the July 3 media coverage of Maxwell, media all of the world used a video and stills from it of Maxwell speaking in front of a blue curtain, like here.

 What they did not mention is something Inner City Press has been asking the UN about, as under UNSG Antonio Guterres with his own sexual exploitation issues (exclusive video and audio) it got roughed up and banned from the UN: Ghislaine Maxwell had a ghoulish United Nations press conference, under the banner of the “Terramar Project,” here.

 On July 5, after some crowd-sourcing, Inner City Press reported on another Ghislaine Maxwell use of the United Nations, facilitated by Italy’s Permanent Representative to the UN, UN official Nikhil Seth and Amir Dossal, who also let into the UN and in one case took money from convicted UN briber Ng Lap Seng, and Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, also linked to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

  At the Ghislaine Maxwell UN event, the UN Deputy Secretary General was directly involved.

List of (some of) the participants on Patreon here.

  Inner City Press has published a phone of Maxwell in the UN with Dossal, here. But the connection runs deeper: Dossal with “25 years of UN involvement” was on Terrarmar’s board of directors, one of only five directors, only three not related to Maxwell by blood and name.

The directors: Ghislaine Maxwell, Christine Malina-Maxwell, Steven Haft, Christine Dennison and… Amir Dossal.

  Dossal has operated through the UN Office of Partnership, with Antonio Guterres and his deputy Amina J. Mohammed, here.

And the links to the world of UN bribery, including Antonio Guterres through the Gulbenkian Foundation, runs deeper. More to follow.

Antonio Guterres claims he has zero tolerance for sexual exploitation, but covers it up and even participate in it. He should be forced to resign – and/or have immunity waived.

  Terramar has been dissolved, even though Maxwell’s former fundraiser / director of development Brian Yurasits still lists the URL on his (protected) Twitter profile, also here.

  But now Inner City Press has begun to inquire into Ghislaine Maxwell’s other United Nations connections, starting with this photograph of another day’s (or at least another outfit’s) presentation in the UN, here. While co-conspirator Antonio Guterres has had Inner City Press banned from any entry into the UN for two years and a day, this appears to be in the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) chamber. We’ll have more on this, and on Epstein and the UN.

  The case is US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (Nathan).” – Inner City Press

Inner City Press is backed by the Terramar website, which has been dead for years, but I dug it out with the Wayback Machine.
This is what I found out about the structure of her organization:

Ghislaine MAXWELL, Founder and President

Ghislaine Maxwell has a lifelong love and appreciation for the ocean. She is a successful businesswoman, holds a BA-MA from Oxford University, and is a helicopter, and deep worker submersible pilot and a certified EMT.

Rob Foos, Director of Development

Rob Foos holds a BS in Management from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He was a collegiate rugby player, winning a national championship. He commanded a ship, served on three regional fishery management councils, and led fundraising efforts across the federal government in south Florida. Growing up on the water in California, he loves exploring everything ocean related and is looking forward to his next adventure on the high seas.

Inge Solheim, Polar Ambassador

Inge Solheim is the world’s foremost polar guide and explorer. He led Prince Harry and injured soldiers on expeditions to the North and South Poles. Inge has also produced and co-produced many television series featuring some of the world’s most remote areas, witnessing firsthand the decline of the polar regions. A native Norwegian, he’s joining TerraMar to save the poles by bringing attention to the least explored part of the planet—the ocean.

Steven Haft

Steven Haft serves as Advisor at LiveLOOK, Inc. and serves as Chair of Allscreen Studios at Burson-Marsteller, LLC. As a producer, his productions have garnered 7 Oscar Nominations, 8 Emmy Nominations and a Peabody Award. He has served as Chief Strategy Officer of the interactive marketing group at AOL. He has a 15-year career in Politics, Law and Public Policy.

Amir Dossal

Amir Dossal is a 25-year veteran of the United Nations, and was the UN’s Chief Liaison for Partnerships. As Executive Director of the UN Office for Partnerships, he managed the $1 billion gift by media mogul Ted Turner; and forged strategic alliances to address the Millennium Development Goals.

MEET OUR EXPERTS IN OCEAN POLICY, SCIENCE, LAW, GOVERNANCE AND CONSERVATION IN THE HIGH SEAS

Aeolian Islands Preservation Fund
Antarctic Ocean Alliance
Blue Marine Foundation
Blue Ventures
Conservation Law Foundation
Coral Restoration Foundation
Debris Free Oceans
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition
Earth Vision Institute
Encyclopedia of Life
Global Partnership Forum
Green Teen Team Foundation
Guy Harvey Magazine
Healthy Oceans Coalition
High Seas Alliance
Ibiza Preservation Fund
The International Sea Keepers Sociecy
IPSO
IUCN
The Jason Project
Kerzner Marine
Marine & Oceanic Sustainability Foundation
The Marine Foundation
Marine Science Today
MarViva
Max Impact
Mission Blue
National Geographic
National Ocean Sciences Bowl
Ocean Crest Alliance
Ocean Elders
Ocean First Institute
Ocean Recovery
OceanAMP
One More Generation
Plastic Oceans
Project Baseline
Rare
The Safina Center
Sargasso Sea Alliance
SeaOrbiter
SciStarter
The Stow It Don't Throw It Project
Strategic Ocean Solutions
Sustainable Oceans Alliance
Teens 4 Oceans
Waterkeeper Alliance
The Watermen Project
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Ocean Observatory
Worldrise
Youth Ocean Conservation Summit

I’m not even done here, I’ve just done making my point, but more info will be added soon, developing.

UPDATES:

Here’s an excellent research that takes this further and greatly completes my work, kudos to Mouthy Buddha!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

DISCLAIMER: I am sorry if this article insults your intelligence, if that’s the case, this is not aimed at you, it’s aimed to help you in conversations, since society is dominated by people who need these clarifications. Not sure if the final target audience will comprehend this, but I’m doing my best.

I’ve just been outside, the climate… the climate is gone!!!

The first historical instance of “climate denial, by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

There you go, that’s what “climate denial” means, if you’re using English as a code for your communication. And no one has ever done it before me in the history of humanity! I did it only jokingly. There exist no climate deniers since no one has ever denied climate.
If you have ever used this buzzword before, it’s only because you’re intellectually dysfunctional. 50 years ago, you would’ve flunked 2nd grade for not being able to use correctly such basic vocabulary.

If you were thinking of people who deny the climate change, those are called “climate change deniers” in English. It’s a completely different group, since they’re denying different things. That’s if you operate the formal distinction between “climate” and “change”, but climate is change, factually, it’s anything but constant.
However, there has always existed a small and fringe group of people who denied climate change of any sort. Note that in English “fringe” doesn’t mean “wrong”, they’re just not representative for large populations. If you were thinking of them, correct your English accordingly, please!

Lastly, but most importantly, quantitatively and scientifically, there’s the large mass of “climate change official narrative deniers“, people who deny establishment’s official story about the climate.
And that’s the third and most important group you need to be aware of and understand what they do.
But frankly, if you needed these clarifications, you seriously need professional help with your cognitive functions, not my blog posts. I mean it clinically, not mockingly.

Later edit: unsurprisingly, in the first couple of days since publishing, among the few negative comments this article got on social media, the most frequent theme is:
“I don’t get it, therefore you’re a stupid troll!”.
QED.

There is a scientist character in ‘The Walking Dead”, obsessed with turning zombies back, he wouldn’t ever give up, despite a long history of constant failures. Can we turn a functional illiterate and make him get it?
Help us find out, here’s a fun challenge:
Make the least wordy and the most visual version of my meme below, something a goldfish can understand. Then let’s each compare goldfish with gretards and the rest of menagerie that survives at the bottom of the human intelligence pit, based on their direct feedback. My money is on goldfish.

Can you make this better and reach a functional illiterate’s mind?

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Unless governments cede some of their sovereignty to a new world body, a global carbon trading scheme cannot be enforced and regulated.”

Rothschild & Co., 2008

Big Oil is huge! But it’s still just a segment of the energy market, and whoever controls energy, controls the human species.
Foreseeable, technology is bound to make oil obsolete sooner or later, it was already one of the least efficient combustibles available when the Rockefellers turned it into a standard. So, as moguls always do, instead of letting a demise take them by surprise, they organize a “controlled demolition show”, and they sell tickets (taxation) to the poor to make some extra-profit.
The Rockefellers, the most notorious rock-stars on this stage, are known as Big Oil moguls, but they are actually way bigger than that. They’ve been always acting like they aspire to be planetary moguls, through the control of energy, food, health and media. The old decrepit Big Oil is actually just holding them back now and they’ve been wanting to end it for quite a while. Exxon, Russia and the rest of the oil/gas-reliant forces on the planet are just annoyances for the Rockefellers and friends. They’ve already ensured themselves a leading position in the next level of the game and have been eager to get there for a while. They’re already selling solutions to the problem they created, instead of letting others steal that market from them. Problem – Reaction – Solution, right?


As mega-financiers, the Rothschilds profit from any controlled demolition or construction, as long as they’re on the controls too.
And with mega-vultures like these, always comes a menagerie of predators and corpse-eaters.
Projected on the TV screens, this story translates as a “climate emergency”.
Below you have a little collection of evidences that prove climate alarmism has always been an elite-sponsored movement , despite the popular belief.

Billionaires are the most invested people in climate alarmism on the planet. Here’s some of the evidence:

The Rothschilds: Top investors in Asian coal, Chinese pollution and subversive climate policies

THE ROCKEFELLERS HAVE PLEDGED BILLIONS IN THE POST-OIL ENERGY MARKET

The Ecologist, 27th September 2014:
” The movement to divest from fossil fuels is gaining strength, writes Ruth Lumley, with $50 billion of institutional investment behind it. This week’s news that almost $1 billion of Rockefeller money is moving from fossil fuels to clean energy shows that the world is changing faster than most ever imagined.

The latest fund to announce its divestment from fossil fuels is none other then the heir to the Rockefeller fortune, built on oil and coal.

Coinciding with today’s UN Climate Change Summit in New York, the Rockefeller Brother’s Fund said that not only would it pull vast sums of money out of fossil fuels, but that it would funnel the money into clean energy.

This latest announcement is further evidence that the divestment movement is unstoppably gaining traction and snowballing, fast.

Institutions across the globe have begun to pledge to divest from fossil fuels in support of the climate change campaign. This list includes the British Medical Association and the Church of Sweden.

The combined asset size of the 837 institutions and individuals committing to divest amounts to more than $50 billion, campaign group 350.org has calculated. 

$50 billion moving out of fossil fuels

The move towards rapid divestment form individuals and institutions has been a result of support for the climate change movement.

The demand for climate change action was evident on Sunday when an estimated 40,000 people took to the streets of London for the Peoples Climate March, which saw over 2,000 protests take place around the world in a bid to make world leaders take solid action towards a stopping climate change.

The movement also took New York by storm with an estimated 400,000 marchers, as well as Rio, Jakarta, Brisbane and hundreds of cities around the world.

In New York, many of the 50,000 students, faith groups, state contingents, and groups carrying banners representing cities or towns, also wore orange squares representing fossil fuel divestment.

Records show that 181 institutions and local governments and 656 individuals representing over $50 billion dollars have pledged to divest to-date.

That number includes the $860 million which will be redirected from fossil fuels by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The report indicates that divestment commitments have doubled in the eight months since January 2014.”

As I said earlier, The Rockefellers have been long selling solutions to the problem they’ve created. Fast forward from 2014 to present time and go on their website to watch Katherine Hamilton – Chair of 38 North Solutions, a boutique consulting firm that provides a suite of business strategy, public policy, and communications services to innovative businesses and organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum’s Future of Energy Global Future Council and was formerly the President of GRID Alternatives Mid-Atlantic. In a nice video, she will tell you all about how “ we can transition to a clean energy economy through the advancement of technology and leadership to end dependence on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.
Aren’t you already starting to love the Rockefellers?

Source
Source

Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism (propaganda) efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.

“The billionaires’ goal, according to the report, was to crush the oil and gas industry, using government power as the weapon of choice, to ultimately gain greater control over the energy sector once again. “Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers are heavily invested in renewable energy,” the report explains, offering examples. But Rockefellers are no strangers to underhanded machinations to gain market share. Using extremely shady tactics, the report also details how John D. Rockefeller Sr., the founding patriarch of the Rockefeller dynasty, gained a virtual monopoly over the U.S. energy industry by the 1880s — at least until the feds broke it up into smaller companies.” noted The New American in January 2107


“EVEN THE ROTHSCHILDS ARE WEATHER OBSESSED”


Can you believe it?! 🙂

Evelyn de Rothschild and Lynn Forester de Rothschild said they are buying a majority stake in weather-data service Weather Central L.P., marking a significant expansion of the Rothschilds’ investments into media and information.

The couple’s private-investment company, E.L. Rothschild LLC, is slated to acquire 70% of Weather Central, which provides weather forecasting services and graphics to local television stations and TV programs such as ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Ms. Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications executive and a prominent Democratic fund raiser, is CEO of E.L. Rothschild. Evelyn, her husband, is chairman of the investment company and was chairman of the NM Rothschild & Sons investment bank until 2007, when he cashed out his investment. His cousin, Baron David de Rothschild, now runs the investment bank.

E.L. Rothschild also holds the couple’s investments in the U.K.’s Economist Group and agricultural company FieldFresh Foods, majority owned by India’s Bharti Enterprises.

“We have been looking for an investment to partner on an operating basis — as we did with our investment in agriculture in India and with the Economist — since my husband sold his position in NM Rothschild,” Ms. Forester de Rothschild said in an interview.

Wall Street Journal, Jan 31, 2011

This is what happened right after the acquisition.

Before Greta Thunberg, there was David de Rothschild

David de Rothschild was a romantic climate warrior before it was cool, basically he’s the proto-climate-hipster. Here he is, in 2009, at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen, whining they can’t fix the weather without a global government and that’s hard to get.

I wonder if David got the Maxwell ocean passport…



One year earlier, “Simon Linnett, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, has called for a new international body, the World Environment Agency, to regulate carbon trading. In a recently published paper, Trading Emissions, for the Social Market Foundation, Mr Linnett argues that the International problem of climate change demands an international solution. Unless governments cede some of their sovereignty to a new world body, he says, a global carbon trading scheme cannot be enforced and regulated.”The Telegraph, 2008
We can see what you’re doing there!

2008 – 10 = 1998

It all goes back to 1987, when the Rothschilds, through their proxy Maurice Strong, ignited the theory that CO2 is driving global warming. The subtext was that it will cost some money to solve the problem, but they can lend them to any government in need. Which they did, through a host of financial bodies and instruments they control: IMF, World Bank, World Conservation Bank which later became Global Environment Facility, Edmond de Rothschild Private Equity and many more.
And the world has never been the same since.

This is a real book 🙂

OF COURSE SOROS IS OVER HIS HEAD INTO SPONSORING CLIMATE WARRIORS…


Billionaire George Soros said on Saturday that he would invest $1 billion in clean energy technology as part of an effort to combat climate change.

The Hungarian-born U.S. investor also announced he would form and fund a new climate policy initiative with $10 million a year for 10 years.

“Global warming is a political problem,” Soros told a meeting of editors in the Danish capital where governments are scheduled to meet in December to try to hammer out a new global climate agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

“The science is clear, what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem,” he said, according to a brief email statement.

Reuters, 2009

Source



In 2016, DC Leaks has released documents showing that Al Gore pulled in $30 million over three years from the Open Society Foundation: “This budget item captures George Soros’s commitment of $10 million per year for three years to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, which conducts public education on the climate issue in pursuit of creating political space for aggressive U.S. action in line with what scientists say is necessary to put our nation on a path to reducing its outsize carbon dioxide emissions.”

ONE FOUNDATION AKA THE HOLY CLIMATE ALLIANCE: GATES, SOROS, BONO, GRETA. BARE THIEVES.

According to their own website:
“ONE originated in conversations between Bill Gates and Bono in the early 2000s about the need to better inform Americans about extreme poverty around the world. Together with Melinda Gates, Bobby Shriver, George Soros, Ed Scott, Bob Geldof, and Jamie Drummond, they created an anti-poverty advocacy organization called DATA that focused on deploying celebrities and other influential individuals to urge world leaders to take action on specific development issues. Within a few years, DATA had joined with several other organizations to form ONE, with major backing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal was to create a political constituency for development priorities—particularly the UN Millennium Development Goals, which in 2000 set specific global targets to address disease, poverty, and other pressing development issues. “
They are baby-sitting Greta Thunberg too, and the rest is history:

An anonymous source claims to have extracted lots of documents from Extinction Rebellion’s computer database and has put them up online.

The documents, if genuine, seem to have been exposed through carelessness on the part of Extinction Rebellion, not a computer hack. Anyway, Paul Homewood has been filleting some of the best bits and here is what he has found.

Source

UPDATE NOVEMBER 9, 2021:

Study Warns ‘Luxury’ Pollution By Global Mega-Rich Is The Real Problem

Authored by Jake Johnson via CommonDreams.org,

The richest people on the planet, representing a small sliver of the total population, are emitting carbon dioxide at a rate that’s imperiling hopes of keeping global heating below 1.5°C, prompting fresh calls for government action to rein in “luxury” pollution and combat the intertwined crises of inequality and climate change.

New research by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) shows that by 2030, the carbon footprints of the wealthiest 1% of humanity are on track to be 30 times larger than the size compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century, the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious temperature target.Bezos: “We must conserve what we still have, we must restore what we’ve lost.” Image: EPA

If current trends continue, the richest 1% will account for 16% of global CO2 emissions in 2030.

The carbon emissions of the poorest half of the global population, meanwhile, “are set to remain well below the 1.5°C-compatible level,” according to the analysis, which was commissioned by Oxfam International and published Friday. The planet has already warmed by roughly 1.1°C, and scientists have said any heating beyond 1.5°C would have destructive consequences worldwide.

“The emissions from a single billionaire spaceflight would exceed the lifetime emissions of someone in the poorest billion people on Earth,” Nafkote Dabi, Oxfam’s climate policy lead, said in a statement. “A tiny elite appear to have a free pass to pollute. Their oversized emissions are fueling extreme weather around the world and jeopardizing the international goal of limiting global heating.”

“The emissions of the wealthiest 10% alone could send us beyond the agreed limit in the next nine years,” Dabi added. “This would have catastrophic results for some of the most vulnerable people on Earth who are already facing deadly storms, hunger, and destitution.”

Authored by Tim Gore, head of the Low Carbon and Circular Economy program at IEEP, the new research paper notes that “while carbon inequality is often most stark at the global level, inequalities within countries are also very significant.”

“They increasingly drive the extent of global inequality, and likely have a greater impact on the political and social acceptability of national emissions reduction efforts,” the paper reads. “It is therefore notable that in all of the major emitting countries, the richest 10% and 1% nationally are set to have per capita consumption footprints substantially above the 1.5⁰C global per capita level.”

To slash the outsized planet-warming emissions of the global rich, the study calls on policymakers to pursue restrictions on mega-yachts, private jets, and recreational space travel. In a paper published last month, French economist Lucas Chancel estimated that “an 11-minute [space] flight emits no fewer than 75 tonnes of carbon per passenger once indirect emissions are taken into account (and more likely, in the 250-1,000 tonnes range).”

“At the other end of the distribution, about one billion individuals emit less than one tonne per person per year,” Chancel observed. “Over their lifetime, this group of one billion individuals does not emit more than 75 tonnes of carbon per person. It therefore takes a few minutes in space travel to emit at least as much carbon as an individual from the bottom billion will emit in her entire lifetime.”

In addition to targeting sources of “luxury carbon consumption,” the analysis by IEEP and SEI also proposes restrictions on “climate-intensive investments like stock-holdings in fossil fuel industries.”

“The global emissions gap to keep the 1.5°C Paris goal alive is not the result of the consumption of most of the world’s people: it reflects instead the excessive emissions of just the richest citizens on the planet,” Gore said in a statement. “It is necessary for governments to target measures at their richest, highest emitters―the climate and inequality crises should be tackled together.” Emily Ghosh, a scientist at SEI, agreed, arguing that “carbon inequality must urgently be put at the center of governments efforts to reduce emissions.”

“Our research highlights the challenge of ensuring a more equitable distribution of the remaining and rapidly diminishing global carbon budget,” said Ghosh. “If we continue on the same trajectory as today, the stark inequalities in income and emissions across the global population will remain, challenging the equity principle at the very heart of the Paris Agreement.”



I’ve only scratched the surface in this article, this is just a trailer of a saga, the rabbit hole looks more like an old termite colony. I will try to come back with more in depth information and research on the topic, but the main point is beyond evidenced here already, I think:
Environmentalism is super-rich men’s business and we’re just pawns in it.

I leave you with a few more resources to explore:



WEATHER DERIVATIVES – HOW TO GET RICH BETTING ON TEMPERATURES

A FEW MONTHS LATER…

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Did you know there’s a weather casino on the global market and each weather report enriches some douchebags? Wouldn’t that incentivize the said douchebags to rig the casino, let’s say through geoengineering, insider info, or simply by faking the reports?


HERE’S HOW YOU CAN BET ON WEATHER AND TEMPERATURES

” Weather derivatives are financial products that are closely linked to weather conditions. This product was created with the aim of reducing the variability of margins due to adverse weather events. Weather derivatives are customizable products: for example, if the temperature recorded in Milan in the winter period negatively affects revenues, through weather derivatives conditions can be managed more efficiently and risks reduced. Moreover, unlike other products, this solution allows to have a clear knowledge of economic exposure: the occurrence of certain weather conditions leads to a cash flow defined previously and limited to a maximum and a minimum. Weather derivatives, with a lower expenditure compared to traditional solutions, allow to protect oneself from risks that cannot be managed with other products.” This is how sellers like Enel advertise for their products. As always, the advertising is false.
If the dealers’ claims were true, the main outcome of this business would be protection and the main beneficiary would be agriculture. The reality sits at the opposite pole of the spectrum: agriculture is one of the least involved in this market, and the main application for this instrument has been financial speculation and gain for the traders.
Speculative trading is also encouraged by the main difference between insurances and weather derivatives: it’s not damage that requires retribution, but unforeseen weather developments. Like a spike in temperatures or a hurricane. Well, hurricanes not so much, since Sandy, they dumped products covering for such events and now it’s almost entirely a temperature-based casino.

“Since the contract is index-based, buyers of weather derivatives do not need to demonstrate a loss. In order to collect insurance, on the other hand, damage must be shown.”

Investopedia

JOIN THE DOTS: WEATHER MANIPULATION + WEATHER BETS = ?

Weather modification and meteorological warfare have been a preoccupation for governments around the world since quite a while now, there’s recorded meetings of the US Congress debating these topics since 1950’s. But recently it’s become a private business too. You can even buy the perfect weather for your wedding nowadays. I also know directly from the crew that worked on the Cold Mountain movie that they had weather modification on emergency call because they were losing production money waiting for a rain that was predicted by meteorologists and never came naturally.
So the question in the headline above is a no-brainer, I’m not going to insult your intelligence by answering it.
Instead I’m going to quote an witty anonymous comment on Internet:

“So all we have to do is check the CME on weather derivatives to see if there is a spike in purchases & we’ll know if we have a major weather event about to happen?”

IT GETS BETTER… I MEAN WORSE!

There’s a video below with a muppet “expert” from the weather casino claiming you can’t abuse the system with “superior information” because meteorologists can only predict accurately a few weeks ahead. Right. I thought we have computer models that tell us beyond any doubt what’s up in 2030 and we only have 18 months to live on the planet due to Global Warming, blah blah… Is that BS then? If so, no probs buddy, that’s not the only way to predict things, best way is to fulfill your own prophecies. As suggested above. And you can get help from your partners in politics.
Barack Obama announced in 2013 that he had signed S. 716, which repealed a requirement of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act requiring high-ranking federal employees to disclose their financial information online.
“Versions of the STOCK Act had been introduced for several years, but it was fast-tracked at the Capitol following media reports that suggested members of Congress might have profited from private information obtained during their legislative work. Members singled out in the reports maintained their innocence, but the spotlight spurred quick action on enacting legislation emphasizing that members of Congress be subject to insider trading laws among their disclosure enhancements”, according to media reports.
So if you have access to intelligence on weather manipulation and geophysical warfare, as conducted by your own government, you’re in for a new nice villa on some tropical island. And that won’t be unprecedented.

WE HAVE THE MOTIVES, THE WEAPONS AND THE SUSPECTS. HOW BIG IS THE HEIST?



The expert in the video below says that no less than 1/3 of the US GDP is weather dependent. I say pretty much every walk of life is weather-dependent and I got back-up:

Weather is not just an environmental issue, it is a major economic factor. At least $1 trillion of our economy is weather-sensitive.

Investopedia

“Weather conditions tend to affect volume and usage more than they directly affect the price. An exceptionally warm winter, for example, can leave utility and energy companies with excess supplies of oil or natural gas (because people need less to heat their homes). Or an exceptionally cold summer can leave hotel and airline seats empty. Although the prices may change somewhat as a consequence of unusually high or low demand, price adjustments don’t necessarily compensate for lost revenues resulting from unseasonable temperatures” – from the same Investopedia article.
Bottom line: weather is business and the sky is no limit to how much money you can make.

Don Cyr, Associate Professor of Finance & Dean, Goodman School of Business, Brock University, looks at the use of weather derivatives in managing weather related risks tied to Hurricane Sandy. Video by: Business News Network Original video has been removed from the internet

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!




by Silviu Costinescu

Actual headline, not a frame from “Idiocracy”

Most (if not all) ground-breaking discoveries came from people who defied consensus, otherwise you would still spray DDT on kids and have nurses selling you cigarettes to smoke in hospital rooms. Consensus is the ground in “ground-breaking”.
Scientific consensus is a logical fallacy that you need to avoid in order to achieve science.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Michael Crichton.

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

The Guardian

Is your info on issues like “global warming” coming from people who can believe 99% consensus is possible among scientists (or any large groups of people), and that’s a good thing for science?
Are all arguments for global warming as imbecile as consensus = truth?
As fake as 99% consensus? That would make Stalin proud…
You know the only other “thing” on the planet that gets 99% consensus? Kim Jong Un.
As far as I dug, these have been the only two methods for reaching 99% consensus in all human experience:
1. Tyrannically silencing anyone who disagrees.
2. Polling an insignificantly small group that you control.

What is the difference between how the global warming “consensus” is obtained and how Kim obtains his?
You can’t even poll 100% of scientists, you can’t merely determine accurately who are all the people who deserve to be polled, are you kidding yourself?!!
The only claim that has obtained 99% consensus in science so far appears to be “we have to please our financiers!”. Do you know who finances this stuff?

Besides, bandwagoning and appealing to authority are not arguments, they are basic logical fallacies.
If you can’t spot obvious traps like these, you have no hope or chance to avoid being duped by people who have a long experience in trapping the ignoramus.


Functional literates be like:

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. (…)
Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” –
Michael Crichton

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” – Stephen Hawking

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” – Richard Feynman

Braindead NPCs be like: “Meh, check these presstitutes out!”




If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, so buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!

! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them