Transparency is not about you living in a glass box

It was a quite a wild ride to get on almost all major platforms during several days. We are now accepted everywhere on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Google podcasts, and everywhere else where podcasts are served. Amazon Music, Stitcher, Pandora is pending, TuneIn and Alexa. I also listened to us on Alexa in the kitchen. This was very funny. I said, Alexa resume playing and the family was there. And they were like, oh, nice.

Oh, my gosh, dad, you're here and there. That's the technologies.

Yeah!

First of all, congratulations on getting this podcast on all of the platforms. It is such a tremendous amount of work, it's such a tremendous amount of efforts. And to kick it off since the very first episode on the highest possible quality level, touching upon the topics that there are not many people actually talking about them. And even less people understand the importance of bringing out this truth about the climate.

Yeah. So we had some interesting topics that we still did not cover. And we just started talking about the Climategate emails.

Well, those who have seen the forum "Global Crisis. We are people. We want to live," understand that this is vital to know the history of the climate, because if we know the history, we know that the warming or CO2 level changing is signals. It's not caused by the humanity. And this is exactly why because we have history about the climate change, it's called paleoclimatology. And to substitute this history was the original goal of IPCC since 1995. There were leaks here and there about what they are actually doign but the proofs were obtained by public in 2009. When Climategate emails leaked, and important to understand that their servers of New England research facilities were not hacked, it was an internal leak, because employees were horrified with the level of substitution of information says this is counter scientific. And this is counter humane. This is inhumane format of the society in which money is above human life. Why is it important because if we keep spending money and time and efforts on fighting the wrong cause of the climate change, I'm talking about anthropogenic global warming, it's a wrong fake cause. The real cause is cyclicity. So eventually, spending efforts in the wrong direction is going to cost us all lives. Our civilization. We're talking decade ahead, thinking decade ahead. If we project the amount of extreme climatic events happening, year by year, into the future, we will see that in a decade, we're going to have at least half of the population of the Earth, as climate refugees, and our civilization is not spending any resources on preparation for that. And that is to blame on the fake scientists on the fake international groups, which suppose to tell us truthful information about the climate change.

I want also, to bring this analogy that we are somehow fighting the symptoms every time in healthcare, as in climate, we are fighting the symptoms, because CO2 rise is a symptom, as you said, the planet is showing us that something is changing. And instead of finding out what is changing, we are spending tremendous amounts of money on just you know, covering up the pimples. Why are we doing this?

And the fact that United Nations is covering this ripoff. Global ripoff of population is just showing us what it consists of. And maybe you could tell us a few words about how actually United Nations are spending their resources just to give us a hint.

It is true that everything is not only covered by the United Nations, we can say that it is orchestrated, because IPCC is also an organ which is founded by two of the United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization, and the UNEP. We can clearly see looking into their financials, and this is what we did while preparing for the forum. Billions of dollars if you take the whole industries that are working to counteract the CO2 rise, are spent because this lie is being perpetrated, and how the United Nations they spend their budget? Well, they spend it on so-called humanitarian causes. But none of the causes were solved. 76 years of existence, let's say, of the United Nations system, because it's a system, there's already almost 100 organizations that are being operated under the umbrella of the United Nations. And none, like literally none of the issues were solved, how and why? Well, we have found out that this is just a money making machine. Because as any organization in the consumerist, format of society, its only goal is to grow and grow and become more powerful, have more money, more influence, this is what we are seeing. And when everything is being covered up at this high level, well, people tend to believe that this is true. But a lie that is repeated many times does not become true. We have to remember this, even if on all TV screens, all radio stations and billboards in the city, we can see the same information repeated the CO2, the CO2. And even when we talked to the BBC, they said, well, you know, 99% of scientists and literature say that this is the CO2. So why are you saying it is not the only cause? Or the main at least cause of the climate change? I said, well, you know, it is great that there is only one type of literature like this. But we can also talk regarding the peer reviewed science, the peer reviewed publishing. How can you publish anything different if the peers are letting you publish only the things that support their ideas, while their ideas are being paid for? We can say it like this. If we go back to the advertisements for Camel cigarettes, posters, and magazines that more doctors smoke...

Your doctor prefers...

More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarettes.

This is hilarious.

So it doesn't make any sense. We have to have critical thinking. We have to think critically about everything. Until we get to a point where we live in a society where human life is the highest value, not money. And this is the main idea of the Creative Society.

Yeah, absolutely. This is a consumeristic system. And this is what consumerism is about it's not about me, are you going to grocery store or getting a new TV. No, we're talking about this systematic consumerism. This is when the organizations that are supposed to be solving problems, are oriented on consuming our resources consuming us as the humanity. And none of them is interested in solving the problem because solving the problem means for them cease to exist. Which organization would like to disappear? Same way as any other consumeristic organization is not interested in solving the problem. Pharmaceutical companies would go bankrupt if we all of a sudden started being healthy, right? The very same way, the people who fighting climate change didn't improve not a single graph, not a single result that's been improved, despite the tremendous amount of money spent on it. And they constantly keep demanding more and more and more. And that's what it's all about.

Yeah! Back to the emails. It's not a matter of security, the we can say that the weakest link is always a person. But we are happy to have such persons who are honest, and who could not stand these lies. And they started speaking publicly, they leaked these emails. And now we at least we have the proof for this particular case that data was manipulated, and we are now paying a very hefty price, the whole humanity. And most importantly, as you said, we are losing time, because while we are trying to covering up we are not moving in the right direction, we are not spending all the potential and resources on finding the real cause.

Yeah, and the letters from the Climategate emails, well, one of the most important of them was regarding hiding the decline. And we brought some light on it already, because their graphs based on proxy tree rings were declining and showing the decline in temperatures in the 20th century. So the IPCC leadership, specifically Chris Folland, who at that time was one of the lead authors for IPCC reports. He sent out an email in which he was pointing out that his favorite graph is the multi proxy graph by Michael Mann. But what he also brought up that the other graphs contradict Mann's information. And showing the decline because not everyone was trimming their graphs in the right place as mixing them up with temperatures from thermometers. So the thing that changed in graph, forge in the graph was made on purpose. What we're specifically interesting in the emails itself is the exchange in opinions between the group of authors. Among them was Keith Briffa, who had the original graph, which was showing the decline of the temperatures based on tree ring proxies in the 20th century. And he was saying that he does not believe in these graphs by his co-authors, specifically Michael Mann, who was showing the very flat graph for previous centuries. And he was specifically mentioning that. And there is a huge changes in the temperatures over milleniums. Specifically, he was saying that, listen to this, I know that there is a pressure to present a nice tidy story, as regards apparent unprecedented warming in 1000 years or more based on proxy data. But reality of situation is not so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies, and the ones we do so some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I don't think it's wise to ignore this in this chapter. End of quote, so what he was saying is that unexpected changes in 20th century's thermometers showing the temperatures going up, proxy triggering showing down so they not recording the rise in the temperatures. In this case, how would you know, if the warming was happening in previous centuries, maybe this proxy also wouldn't catch it. Or maybe the system you use to calculate the temperatures is not good enough. It's not showing the exact temperatures, or maybe tree rings is not a good proxy at all to measure temperatures for the previous centuries. These are all the questions that any observer who is able to use logic would ask. What they did by cutting off, trimming off, chopping off the 20th century measurements, what they did, they ripped off people, they stole this piece of data, they hid it. And they took away the opportunity to ask these questions, because simply we do not possess this data. This fake scientist decided to hide this data. And what happened next? It's very interesting because Keith Briffa and Johns, the other scientist, they both got very well in their careers. They became the lead authors for 2007 IPCC report, so their careers went up. But they had to give up on their views, on their beliefs, on their researches, on the truth. So when you've given up on the truth, this is what happens. IPCC gives you nice cookies. And you get Nobel Prize as collectively as IPCC together with Al Gore. So Al Gore got 50% of the Nobel Prize. And about 200 authors from IPCC got the second 50%. Second part.

The usual distribution of wealth, right?

Yeah, this is how it works in our society, of course, the way that Chris Hall and was showing that request, and pressuring the scientists to hide the inconvenient data, it was showing that they were just executing an order from a higher political leadership. And this is what it was all about. These are things that usually not brought up publicly. These are things that usually are done quietly, and whatever is left swept under the carpet. So as the Climategate emails, you'll see that white washing has been happening for over 10 years by now. So that only investigations that were done, were used to whitewash the reputation of involved institutes, universities have facilities, and those were made in the UK. As to the United States. Nothing was done at all. And of course, because those who ordered made an order, that's where they are. So Penn State University, you can you can find still pictures of billboards in Pennsylvania showing that Penn State would you finally investigate the climate gate? No one did that. I think Of course, interesting thing about it that until this days, all the information is available for the public. But you see the general public, we don't have that much time to research this kind of things, because we're all stuck in the consumers format of the society. And this is when it comes to transparency of information. There is a good joke when two climatologist are getting ready for the climate conference and one asks another, did you get prepared? And he said, Yes, I deleted all my emails. So I'm ready for the climate conference. This is what it comes to, you have to make sure no one can read the way you prepared your climate research. This is what it's all about it. It's a shame. It's a huge shame that we cannot have transparency in this system of consumers were executed in political orders by the researchers by the United Nations became normal.

I haven't heard about the Climategate emails until you brought this up while preparing to the forum. When you start noting all these things, you can not unsee how the information is diverted from one problem to another, we have many issues in the society. When people are asked - transparency is great. But people start thinking about them being under surveillance, people tracking their every move. But this is what's already happening in our society. I mean, guys, transparency is not about you living in a glass box. It's about all those who have put us in this glass box and observing our every move, and exploiting the data that is being collected for profit and to manipulate public opinion. It is about these things becoming transparent. Remember, it was it has been almost a year when we talked about dangers in the consumer society and potential benefits in the Creative Society of a global AI system that could optimize and improve every aspect of our lives. It was on July 24, 2021. During the international online conference, "Global Crisis. This already affects everyone". It was not new for some people, those who are dealing with AI, or at least following the latest AI developments. But for many, you know I've talked to a friend a couple of days ago, he's learning the 3D animation right now. I told him: look, have you heard about the new AI systems that are already drawing pictures? You just type several words describing what you want to see. And they you have an image like a painting right

oh, yeah, but this will not happen for a very long time, you still need human input. We've also talked with him on another topic. And our phones were on the table at the coffee shop. He told me about how he had to travel to Geneva, his mum died, and he had to go through all the formalities. And he told me about everything, the costs of stuff. And later this day, I open Instagram and I see an ad: "Did you know that Geneva is the only municipality that covers your obituary costs, click to know more." When you notice these things that we were not exchanging this information by texting or anything like that. We were just talking and our phones were on the table. And I'm having this ad, like what are the odds. When we think about this kind of AI system, but in a good way, the transparency of information is there, but not for everyone. The information is being collected and being exploited for profit. I think this has to change. This has to change. And we have already the solutions. We've talked about the multipurpose complex Voskhod, which can track all this information and help us optimize our lives to the point where we will know exactly what has to be done to provide everything at the planetary level and eradicate corruption. Can you imagine this up to 25% of the budget of every state is embezzled up to 25%. Guys, it's our taxes, our money that goes no one knows where but in someone's pocket, and this has to change.

And this is why we have to take action today and to take action means to demand transparency of information and value of a human life. When we start being a little bit more open minded about the system in which we live and stop taking for everything what it is for the only possible way. Many times I heard the excuse this system wasn't built.It just happened itself. No, it's not but everything is working by design, we talked about it before. And such thing, for example is inflation, right? People are forced to invest their money into some very risky things to save their money, right? Because why? Because the money has being depreciated year by year because every state is printing more money than they produce goods? Do you think this is the only system possible? Can we build the system? Can we request to build a system in which inflation will cease to exist? Simply, let's get our scientists together. Let's bring them on the round table, let's make a conference on which people from 200 countries 189, whatever, sit together and say, Okay, let's finally build a system in which our money stops depreciating in which we are going to have fair rules, something worth spending efforts on. Nobody's even doing it. Creative Society showed the example when people can connect from all over the world using modern technologists from their, quoting, BBC, very well lit living rooms.

Sharp looking volunteers in carefully lit living rooms.

As if having lights is already a privilege.

And I also noticed this negative connotation. As you said, having good lighting is some sort of a privilege that is only available to BBC.

It means oil, it means Big Oil, it means Big Oil finances, you're right. And the way they try to stigmatize us is very similar to the way also we found out from Climategate. And when there was any article published by anyone going against their hockey stick graph, or going against their agenda, the first thing they were doing was not verifying the facts in the article, it was discussing how to stigmatize the authors, how to get rid of the publishers, how to basically take over the newspaper, how to discredit the people who published the research in contradiction with their agenda. So when we faced their attacks on Twitter than later, in some articles, it was very similar scheme. First of all, they are financed by Big Oil. And for those who think Big Oil is such, it's actually interesting, let them let me just show you an example of what big oil does. So in the beginning of the year 2000, shortly after signing the Kyoto Protocol, there was a big demand to pressure big oil companies to pay a lot of taxes for their carbon emissions. So what they did, they hired BP, British Petroleum hired marketologists who came up with a scheme of personal carbon footprint, they popularized this topic across the newspapers and media paid a lot a lot of money for you to think that you're personally responsible for the climate change. And for you to reducing the amount of miles you drive would have an impact. Of course, it's not going to have impact. This is a lie.

This is quite interesting that you mention it. Because in Switzerland, the online shop, let's say, sort of Amazon in Switzerland, they have for every purchase, you can tick the box to offset your carbon footprint. And it went even further. Last year, I'm arriving at the gas station, fueling the car, young girl at the counter. She says Sir, would you like to pay to offset your carbon footprint? How, I laughed at this. Look, don't you think that this is quite interesting that the price of one liter of gas includes up to 70% of taxes already? Why would I pay to offset my carbon footprint? Everything is being put on the people, people are being stigmatized and are being made responsible for everything. This is a very interesting way of making people feel guilty that Oh, you're taking a plane. Wow, you should pay. You are driving car? You should pay. But aren't you paying already? For everything else, we are approaching the point where fresh air will be also some sort of commodity and you will have to pay for it quite soon.

This is the world that we are being offered in which lies and profit of a few is more important than the lives of millions and even billions of people. We are also seeing very interesting thing people obtaining information become more knowledgeable and they are taking actions which are unexpected by those who are orchestrating this climate, anthropogenic agenda. For example, Climategate emails, let's come back to this topic as it's what we started from. In them we saw that the tree proxies were cropped and replaced by thermometer readings, which are skyrocketing in 20th century. But then hold on a second, the group of people decided to verify the data from the thermometer readings, they decided to go all over US and check how those thermometers are actually reading data. What kind of data are they recording, and what they found out 650 volunteers in 2009, after Climategate emails, decided to inspect 860 thermometers across the US, land based thermometers, their total number is 1221. That's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. So it turns out that 89% of them do not meet the regulations because they were placed in very close in direct proximity to artificial sources of the heat. So most of them, were talking like 90% of them were showing thermometer readings approximately one degree Celsius hotter than it is. And when we look at the whole hockey stick, the whole difference between the bottom and the top is one degree. So this is such a tremendous fake that it's has no borders in their lies, basically. And what was done, the thermometers after multiple complaints were changed, but the data, the inflated data from them was not replaced was not deleted from the system. It is still used in the reports as in all the previous years, thermometer readings, we're basically stuck to this. This is something that Professor Vitterito was bringing up at the conference. And in fact, if we want the real readings, the more exact readings we should only use satellite data and not the land based thermometers. And this is the approach he has been taken and his graphs are very different. But as you see, his researches, which also proved that melting of the ice and the heating of our planet is coming from within from inside of the planet is not being that much widely represented in the media in the articles. Since we're talking about the articles I wanted to brought up something I found out coming across Greta Thunberg's Twitter, she reposted this post in the end of December, from New York Times in which they were basically trying to explain the things that we brought up on December 4. And this is very important. This is for the first time in history right at the conference Global Crisis, we presented the fact that's showing that the heating of the planet coming from the within and melting ice only in regions with a big submarine volcanic activity where geothermal heat is coming from within the planet. And of course, this information was not ignored by mass media. Instead of that in a few weeks and three weeks from the conference. New York Times is coming from very interesting point they trying to explain this phenomena by deep oceanic water deep ancient, and this is very interesting, deep ancient oceanic water that heats up the glaciers from within. And I was just curious, where is this ocean deep ocean ancient water is coming from? Because we know it's getting warmer from geothermal heat from underwater volcanoes and their articles, they tried to explain it by CO2 that's forcing air into the southern direction, and the heating of the water that pushes the water underneath the glaciers. If there could be anything more ridiculous and making less sense, it would deserve the prise for the most ridiculous, most disrespectful approach to the readers like how much you have to not respect and not consider your readers able to logically think by making such explanations.

Yeah, it's like the CO2 that is traveling in some direction, like what kind of mighty and intelligent particles are these CO2 particles? Guys, we need to really grow up and stop believing fairy tales. Luckily, there are other researchers who are doing their job. And they're bringing the information about the lava plumes that are coming up to the surface of the planet and are heating the ice and water from the bottom. We have to study all the information to determine what is causing the problem. Why this is not being done? Well. This is a quote from one article that I can't remember the name or the source now that they said "curing patients is not a sustainable business model."

Oh, this is hilarious. I remember this one by MSNBC when they were doing an open research survey. Among the pharmaceutical companies when it comes to genes using gene technologies, new modern technologies, which would allow us to do preventive medicine in which people would be cured prior to actually get in disease, this is actually very interesting. This is what some startups have been working on in Silicon Valley as well. And the tremendous amount of pressure from the pharmaceutical industry on them was shown that they are not interested in any sort of advanced medicine technologies to be put in place. And one of the excuses to prevent people from knowing their genes and their specifications, let's say so from the specific diseases that they could be more vulnerable towards to the excuse not to push this technology not to develop this technology officially was this kind of knowledge could cause mental pressure on people. And you know how you find this data? I pretty much love how the very brave CEO of their company. She said, we fight it with data. We asked them, do you have any data that proves your statement? There was none.

Yeah!

And she said, and I have my data, and she presented her data. And she was right into one. But it cost a tremendous amount of efforts to fight this system. And there are people with good hearts, there are people with really good intentions, and even financial abilities to do this kind of projects. But we publicly have to support as a society as humanity, we have to support such initiatives. And we don't even know about them, in many cases, because we're just not being informed.

Yeah!

If only we were also more transparent. And we have this information, which shows how exactly the money are being spent, we would see that the amount of money they requested to solve some issues, they have the money, they are getting in the money, they are not solving the problem. And the problem is growing, because they're interested to grow the problem to get more profit out of it next year.

I had this analogy that just came. Everything is fractal in this world. What we have proliferating everywhere is subscriptions, right? Looks like we are being subscribed into being a refugee into, being in some group that needs help. And these organizations, they're not interested in improving your situation, they're interested in you paying or better for them receiving a subscription payment for you being in this vulnerable situation. And this is what's happening for the last decades of what we have as data to prove. But everything will change once people know, as you said. Everyone should have a decent life. We have everything on this planet. And we, the people, are doing everything with our own hands, everything that surrounds us, we are doing ourselves, how can we believe that the crops that we are growing, or the clothes that we are making will not be available to us because of a shortage? How is this possible? Guys, we need to really wake up. And this is the main message of everything we are saying. Because we are not saying it just to expose or to point at someone and saying that they're doing this thing that is harmful to the society. But we are doing this to stop this from repeating. And how can we change this? Well, we can only change the whole system, the whole format of society. And this is what it's all about.

Yes, and it's a very simple step. In fact, once more than 50% of the population know about the Creative Society and familiar with the 8 Foundations, which is basically put human life first and actually make decisions. Can you imagine? How would it change if we verify everything passed in Parliaments around the world against 8 Foundations? Very simple! Is this law making the human life more secure, safer, better? Improves quality of life, improves safety of life of each person, each individual. Creative Society - we unite people because human life is universal value equally precious everywhere around the world. And if we put that first, not the profit of government organizations, because what we do today, we basically subscribed to paying our taxes for the right to live on somebody's land on government's land as if it's not ours as if we are not the ones who are hiring the government to execute laws to improve our life. But seems like that is not the priority. At least I don't see any country in which prices would go down, for example, for the crops And why isn't it so because technologies are being improved each year, we're getting more and more advanced in production of goods, and yet the prices are keep rising. So why is that? Isn't our land is delivering us the very same crops each year? Aren't we getting better and more efficient with our technologies and the way we produce goods? Then why does it cost more and more to us to maintain the level of life comfortable for living? And why do we still have such a tremendous inequality where millions and billions of people living in poverty when less than 1% of the people is generating, not generating, but collecting most of the resources of the humankind? Imagine anywhere else in the animal world where few individuals would collect more food than they can consume, and rip off the entire population, and just simply watch others dying from lack of food? We would call those individuals sick if it was, for example, monkeys or anything else. But in human society, we put those individuals on the cover of Forbes magazine and call them very successful people. They are very successful in current system of life. But they say, many times I heard, that they are going to stand against Creative Society. And I do not believe that. Because ultimately, if we people request this change, actually request to use the technologies that could provide water, we have all the technologies that can provide water in any region of the world. And we're simply not using them, we are just fine with paying our subscription to the government and putting the responsibility on them to transfer the money to the right hands. And very often it's not getting there. Very often we get those money being paid to individuals who are interested in subscription based income. And solving the problem once and for all means they're losing the subscription. So of course, it comes to a very simple decision. But at the very same time. The hardest part is for people to understand what exactly we are offering. Because putting human life first, getting transparency and allowing people to make decisions. And this is possible, this is totally possible. And then choice of people as to prioritization of projects, people should choose which project is a priority. Do we want to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on Mars or we want to make Africa blooming garden where all people have supplies to live - freshwater, food, and make everywhere on Earth, a very pleasant place to go and the safe place to go. Because today, we cannot even travel safely. And maybe once we do that we can solve the problem of travel between the stars and between the galaxies, and not only the dead planet of Mars.

You know, you've touched upon a very interesting topic about enormous amounts of money spent on colonizing a dead planet Mars, when we still have so many problems here that could be solved with the same money that is being spent on Mars. Recently, we've been covering a summit. And I have heard even more interesting, but at the same time unthinkable thing that grown-up men are buying land in a video game, in the metaverse, and they are talking about planting metacrops. Well, I think this can be a topic for our next discussion about how we are spending millions and billions of dollars on pictures of monkeys. I'm talking about the NFTs. And selling land in the metaverse, in a computer game. This is ridiculous. Why are they buying this land? Well, to make us pay for it later, but this is for another time.

This is so interesting. It just brings up the whole topic of this waste of resources and our time, human time. Right. And one of the articles I also came across was saying, and this is major US newspaper, that making the moon private is the way to solve problems on Earth. If we keep investing in NFT's and spending our resources on buying fictional land in some computer games or metaverses, and this is what people mostly doing, it's going to disappear. And I would like to suggest our listeners just to learn the lessons of the past. Let's take a look at the Great Depression of the 1930s and just take a look into it when gold and silver was mandatory taken away from the population. And if you think that taking away your bitcoins will be harder than physically taking gold and silver...