by R.M., Survival Blog:
(Continued from Part 1. This concludes the article.)
CLAIMED GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE THREATS
You may recall hearing this, back in 2023: This is the hottest year in 12,500 years!
So, it is hotter now than during the ice age! Who’d a thunk it?
Will you base your prepping on a media story about a politician who says “Earth is on fire”?
You can find many charts showing various time periods and temperatures recorded somewhere. Many times a “temperature increase” is measured the exact way and in the same location they did a hundred years ago, in the cities. However, the cities have grown and they retain more heat in the manmade structures. It is actually cooler outside the cities due to wind draw. There may be no net gain in heat. The truth is out there. If you are shown a thirty-year chart, try to find a hundred-year chart, etc. It is easy to pick a warming period if you start at the end of the last cooling period, if you want to show warming.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
When I worked in the environmental engineering department for a major manufacturer, the hand-wringing liberals were yelling at me that we are literally heating up the planet. I would ask them, “What temperature would you like it set at?” They didn’t know. No one ever considered what a small portion of the earth’s temperature gain or loss is actually affected by mankind, compared to the solar cycle and volcanic activity. But people, who want to control what you do, see climate change as a useful tool to force compliance to their wishes. In this case, believe what you want. Study. Then follow the science.
I also had the privilege of battling the depletion of the ozone layer. Our manufacturing plant emitted more chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) than virtually anyone. We spent a ton of money replacing CFC use with other methods to clean our products. The ozone layer did restore itself eventually. But, it turned out there is a volcano near the South Pole that put out more ozone-destroying chemicals than we ever could have, and caused the temporary damage. But hey, I may have saved the planet….. With regard to the environment, I may not know everything, but I may know more than a high school kid from Sweden or an ex-bartender from New York.
VARIOUS POPULATION CONTROL AND IMMIGRATION CLAIMS
An information service ran a story on September 23, 2016 entitled, “Want to slow climate change? Stop Having Babies” and on May 19, 2019 ran a story entitled, “Only Immigration can reverse America’s baby bust.”
You can query the internet to easily find these related stories. These are not opposite of each other, but do indicate an agenda to the reporting – willingness to eliminate certain populations and replace with aliens. Again, I am not picking sides, but I would consider this outlet’s reporting history before following any of their storylines or advice.
CLAIM: THE BORDER IS SECURE!
On October 22, 2022 NBC reported that “The number of undocumented immigrant crossings at the southwest border for fiscal year 2022 topped 2.76 million, breaking the previous annual record by more than 1 million, according to Customs and Border Protection data.”
Then, on November 15, 2022, the US Secretary of Homeland Security testified that the border is secure. Okay. Got it.
Perhaps it depends on the definition of the word “secure”… or the definition of the word “is”? Getting true or accurate information in this case may help you decide how to prepare for civil unrest.
Picking sides in a conflict with protests and riots. Is your position swayed by reporting? Figure out what your stake in the war is and how it could actually affect your life. Look for consistency in reporting. Don’t just look to find articles that confirm what you already think. Is only one side said to be killing puppies and bombing hospitals?
If Country A invades Country B, do you support country B? Help them fight back? But, if country C attacks country D, and country D fights back, are you are angry that country D is counter-attacking country C? Does the war include the US pouring money on arms manufacturers and foreign politicians? As an added check, research which country’s citizens would like to kill you.
Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. This is a quote from Lenin or Goebbels, depending on your internet information source. (Apparently we can’t even get the truth about lies.)
Ask yourself – what is missing? Lying by omission is prevalent. Based on certain peoples’ track records of lying, if I was wondering what to do or how to react, I would fully check out what they are saying and then maybe do the opposite.
We found no evidence of… (Fill in the blank). News stories that want to refute some fact often say, “We found no evidence of….whatever.” The question then is: ”Did you look?”
If social media bans a person for an opinion about Covid, or Islamic terrorism, or gender, that may tell you that the banned person must have touched a nerve, right or wrong.
Evaluate your information, actions, and plans based on what you see, but also on what you don’t or aren’t allowed to see. Has anyone seen information that could help you know which facts are valid, honest or complete? Such as:
- Epstein Island flight logs and client list (original, complete, and un-redacted)
- Suppressed mass shooter manifestos
- Results of election ballot audits
- The 44,000 hours of January 6th camera footage
- Who is Ray Epps?
“Survey says”: Do you trust published survey results? If you read poll results that say So-and-so is the most dishonest president of all time….Ask: How big was the sample, and who was sampled? If you can, read the actual questions asked in the survey. Also check how previous questions in the survey set the stage for the answer. Beware of “push polls” that are an opinion poll designed to sway opinions using leading questions. Don’t base your prepping actions on group-think.
How are corrections handled? I often see one side say the other is inaccurate. I see both sides call the spokesmen or politicians on the other side liars. (Probably a good bet, actually.) But when they are caught in an inaccuracy, what do they do? Ignore it? Print retractions…on the same page the original inaccuracy was posted on, or page 182?
Fact-checking: If you want to learn who may be more trustworthy, an option is to go to the internet and check a story with the “fact checkers”. I won’t name the specific fact checkers, but if you query for information on a high-level politician’s wife having been killed by a drunk driver, you may get a “mixture” verdict, or a “wrong” verdict. Another brave fact-checker organization does not answer the question. The verdict is mixed on one site because “there is no evidence to say the other driver wasn’t drunk”. You can decide for yourself which sources may be more accurate. Take care not to base your decision only on your own biases though.
