What Will our Collective Future Look Like in the Year 2050? Part Two, the Result of The Great Reset and Build Back Better

The picture below is a good visual example of what those that want to rule us i.e. Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros, Barack Obama and yes even Anthony Fauci would like it to be. I do not, for one second, think this is an exaggeration.  

Obviously, this is not a picture that any one that is not a multi billionaire would want to experience but there is one person on the planet that demands that this is what our future will be. That person is Klaus Schwab the creator of the World Economic Form (WEF). So what is the WEF? The WEF is an international non-government organization (NGO) founded by Klaus Schwab on January 24, 1971and located in Switzerland. The stated goal is to improving the status of the entire world. This is accomplished by training potential Global leaders on how best to rule the world and conducting an annual meeting in Davos Switzerland.  

Klaus Schwab’s Master Program

Klaus fist related book published in 2016 was The fourth Industrial Revolution where he predicted a future where AL, Robots and biotech advances would create a new world with wonderful things in it. I think during the years prior to publishing the book Bill Gates got involved with Schwab and they used the Marxist take over of the Environmental movement of Global and dangerous climate change as the tool to scare the population into agreeing to make radial change in energy production by switching from fossil fuel to wind and solar called “Green Energy” for short.

Klaus Schwab enlisted French economist Thierry Malleret to help him develop the plan for the New World Order that Schwab wanted to create and as I understand it Malleret help Schwab to develop his “Stakeholder Capitalism” with a new monetary system called “Modern Monetary Theory” or MMT. These were some of the key elements along with of his predictive advances in technology that would allow his New World Order (utopia) to actually work. This was all published the book COVID-19 The Great REST in 2020 just after the COVID-19. Also helping Schwab was Bill Gates who was getting into politics after leaving Microsoft. However, since he made a fortune while running the company he as now a multi-Billionaire.

I became aware of Gates’ plans for the world around 2005/6 after watching some of his TED talks, At that tome he was promoting net Zero CO2 emissions and showed an equation sowing how it could be done. Below is an image from Gates explaining it he theories about climate change. The following image it gates’ not mine.

Keep in mind that Gates’ view is the the wolds population need to be under One Billion which means that 90% of the worlds population must disappear. The remaining 10% would get all the energy from Green sources; however, since people bread out CO2 there is no way to ever get to net Zero. Some time between the end of Obama’s presidency and the start of the Trump Presidency all the Gates’ TED talks prior to 2010 on this subject disappeared only the newer ones that were less threatening were still there.

Part Three will continue the discussion.

What Will our Collective Future Look Like in the Year 2050? Part One, the Background

The picture below is a good visual example of what those that want to rule us i.e. Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros, Barack Obama and yes even Anthony Fauci would like it to be. I do not, for one second, think this is an exaggeration.  

Obviously, this is not a picture that any one that is not a multi billionaire would want to experience but there is one person on the planet that demands that this is what our future will be. That person is Klaus Schwab the creator of the World Economic Form (WEF). So what is the WEF? The WEF is an international non-government organization (NGO) founded by Klaus Schwab on January 24, 1971and located in Switzerland. The stated goal is to improving the status of the entire world. This is accomplished by training potential Global leaders on how best to rule the world and conducting an annual meeting in Davos Switzerland.  

Schwab’s goal is to have every country on the planet be a member of the United Nations (UN) and relinquish their sovereignty to the UN. The UN would then after this was achieved be run by the unelected people that Schwab has trained in his Young Leaders program; comprising tens of thousands of people today. Most of the international corporations and governments are now run by these Schwab people.  

His programs can be found in two books he wrote; The Fourth Industrial Revolution published in 2016 and COVID-19: The Great Reset published in 2020. The core of Schwab’s vision is a modification of the theories of Karl Marx undated to the modern world. The basic essence of Schwab’s vision can be derived from the work of Patrick M. Woods in his book Technocracy Rising The Trojan House of Global Transformation published in 2015. 

Schwab is not an uneducated man; and and has multiple degrees. And like many men of his intellect he dreams of creating the perfect world, written about for the first time by Thomas More in his book Utopia published in 1516. Since then others have tried to find the way to accomplish the lofty goal with that last serious attempt by Karl Marx in his works Capital Volumes I, II and III resulting in the deaths of hundreds of millions in the twentieth century mostly in Russia and China which all failed.

The current attempt by Schwab in creating this elusive goal of a Utopia is The Great Reset and Build Back Better program; which has been adopted by most of the countries in Western Civilization. The Great Reset was started with the planned introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yes I did say planned and the two men responsible for it were Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci. The prove of it in all the initial planning for a pandemic and the work of Fauci in creating the virus (COVID-19) as identified in the book publish by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Real Anthony Fauci. Gates, from a family of hard core Eugenic promoters, masterminded his reduction of the world population in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s by adopting the Global Warming narrative developed by the Environmental crowd of Marxists after they took over the movement from the real scientists looking at the real environmental issues.  

Patrick Moore one of the founders of Green Peace was drummed out when that changed accrued  and is the only one left from that movement that truly understands what happened and how the Climate change narrative has no basis in fact as you can read about in his book Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. There is absolutely no truth in the current narrative that Carbon dioxide is a Clear and Present Danger to the world and must be eliminated. There is actually solid scientific evidence that Carbon dioxide is “not” a Clear and Present Danger to us or the planet.

  What Schwab and Gates have done is combine the views of both of men into one master program that will be discussed in Part Two.

Mining Expansion for Green Energy

Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Feb 15, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

MiningWatch Canada is estimating that 3 billion tons of mined metals and minerals will be needed to power the energy transition. All of this nonsense for climate change means that mining for minerals will escalate dramatically. There will be an incredible expansion in the mining industry for six critical minerals: lithium, graphite, copper, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth minerals. What is really just insane is that even if this green energy were to last, over the next 30 years, we will have to increase the production of these minerals consuming more that all the past generations combined.  Our What-If models project copper at 9-10 by 2028 shutting down fossil fuels.

President Trump also Watching RGA for Background Moves in 2024

Posted originally on the CTH on February 2, 2023 | Sundance

Of course, he is.  President Trump is not only running against the Democrat candidate in 2024, likely Newsom, but he’s also running against the Republican establishment candidate in 2024, most certainly DeSantis.

As such, President Donald Trump is noting the same strategic plays that we are.  Fortunately, he’s keeping an eye on how the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) is intending to execute their anti-MAGA moves against the base working-class voters. [Trump Truth]

[Background Article]

Again, for emphasis, despite accusations and ridiculously unfounded assertions, I have no affiliation or contact with anyone in/around the campaign.  However, as with the prior election(s) in ’08 (McCain), ’12 (Romney), ’16 (Jeb!), and 2020 (Biden), the republican establishment roadmap is complex in a Machiavellian way, yet easy to spot if you know their objective. [Prior Resource Article on RGA ‘2022 Background Moves Here]

It is affirming to see that President Trump is watching these same tripwires as they are triggered.

As soon as Ron DeSantis makes his ’24 announcement (likely May, June or July – but he will be the last to enter), it will be the RGA who trigger the first wave of attacks against the MAGA base of voters.  Together with the controlled GOPe field, they will trigger a sequential process for republican governors to align with DeSantis.

Ahead of the DeSantis announcement, those who are aligned with the playbook will start to come in next, beginning with Nikki Haley on February 15th.  Each will have a billionaire donor class financier assigned to their specific SuperPAC support system.   I would expect Chris Sununu to quickly follow Haley.

(National Rifle) […] The Republican Governors Association (RGA) donated almost $21 million to the Friends of Ron DeSantis PAC, a massive war chest that politicos believe the Florida Governor will use to take on Trump in 2024, with the backing of the GOP establishment.

Over the year and a half that the RGA was dumping millions into the Friends of Ron DeSantis PAC, they gave zero dollars to Doug Mastriano, the Trump-endorsed Republican nominee for Governor of Pennsylvania, effectively surrendering the pivotal state to Democrats. (more)

I also suspect, nothing but a hunch based on research, that Kristi Noem may have rejected the early entreaties from the professional Republicans who are coordinating the roadmap.  If she didn’t reject something, the DeSantis crew would not be attacking her so hard.  If my hunch is correct, this position could make Noem a wildcard.

Military Surveillance Critics During COVID

Armstrong Economics Blog/Tyranny Re-Posted Jan 31, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Evidence is surfacing that the military was engaged in domestic surveillance in Britain as well as Canada of anyone who was a critic of the COVID lockdowns. It is very clear that there was no historic precedent whatsoever for locking down all of society for a virus that was not even lethal beyond the normal flu virus. All the data coming out on the fatalities and injuries surrounding the vaccines is another issue altogether.

There, the conspiracy theories have suggested that Pfizer has been behind a plot to actually reduce the population which has been a pet project of Bill Gates. It certainly does not do well for society as a whole when our fearless leaders hand absolute immunity to Pfizer to actually kill or maim as many people as they desire all because they did not take the time to really test their vaccines. I choose not to be vaccinated simply because once the government got involved by mandating, there was something seriously wrong and I have spent enough time behind the curtain I know politicians earn a couple hundred grand a year but manage to retire as multi-millionaires. Once the government gets involved, never trust anything. They do not prosecute themselves.

As far as the surveillance is concerned, they have no doubt assembled lists of those of us who resist the tyrannical decrees of the government. Those who resist being mindless drones are a threat to the survivability of the government. Hence, the lockdowns were a perfect way to sort out those who have a brain, and others who are just gullible and think the government is the adult version of Santa Claus. We are all on some secret list, that much we can count on. It has never been a Government of the People, but a Government Against the People as history has always shown for 6,000 years. It’s just all part of 2032.

The Good News Nuclear War Will Save the Planet

Armstrong Economics Blog/Energy

Posted Jan 24, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Spread the love

Most of these people like Al Gore, Kerry, the mainstream media, Rhinos, democrats, and Bill Gates seem to actually believe in climate change for they are displaying the most stupid form of analysis invented by the lowest possible intelligence level of society. Hey, it’s warmer today than when I was a kid so we must be causing it. There has been ZERO research into climate on any of their parts to even test their theory. They all project that we are headed toward an environmental Armageddon if mankind does not immediately end fossil fuels. Not a single one has bothered to even consider that switching to electricity curiously makes society extremely vulnerable. If I were China looking to take down the West, I would be pushing this agenda at light speed. The first thing you do is take down the power grid and society will crumble in less than 72 hours. Using digital currency would mean you could not buy anything. Without an electric car you would be forced to walk to a store that then could not sell you anything without electricity and no new supply of anything would be able to move so there goes the supply chain – again.

The GOOD NEWS is you can then just nuke your opponent and actually save the planet all at the same time. Without electricity, your opponent could not even make a phone call to launch a response. But if we look at Chornobyl, the nuclear disaster restored the region which became a sanctuary for animals void of humans.

Bikini Atoll 70 years after nuclear tests is thriving. On July 24, 1946, Baker Test shrouded its formidable height over the U.S. Navy’s test fleet. The United States dropped 23 nuclear bombs on the island, including a device in 1954 that was 1,100 times larger than the Hiroshima atom bomb. Now a team of scientists from Stanford University has been stunned. They discovered an abundance of marine life apparently thriving in the crater of Bikini Atoll, which was declared a nuclear wasteland after the bombings.

Strangely enough, the same has been found at Chernobyl in Ukraine. It is starting to emerge that even setting off every nuclear bomb will not destroy the planet or turn Earth into space rocks. We can alter our environment by doing so and ridding the planet of humanity as the dominant species, but Earth will heal itself and life will adapt exactly as scientists have discovered in Ukraine at the site of Chernobyl. Wildlife has thrived because it sent humans running.

This new evidence emerging from Chernobyl and Bikini Atoll is demonstrating that we just may not be as smart as we think we are no less all-powerful. Obviously, the WEF and world leaders who are all pushing for World War III, are obvious far smarter than we are. They are really trying to save the planet from us. Exterminate humanity and we can save the bugs and crickets from becoming our next food source.

A DIY Guide To Demystifying “Greenhouse Gas” Claims…The Science That Cuts Corners

Reposted from https://notrickszone.com/2023/01/14/a-diy-guide-to-demystifying-greenhouse-gas-claims-the-science-that-cuts-corners/

A DIY Guide To Demystifying “Greenhouse Gas” Claims…The Science That Cuts Corners

By P Gosselin on 14. January 2023

Share this…

By Fred F. Mueller

Do you feel helpless when trying to assess the veracity of “climate doom is looming” claims we are constantly bombarded with?

For ordinary citizens not having acquired at least a Ph.d. degree in atmospheric physics or comparable climate-relevant sciences, it seems nearly impossible to tell right from wrong when it comes to assess such claims. Do so-called greenhouse gases really reflect infrared energy back to earth in such quantities that this affects earth’s temperature?

Don’t give up trying to understand the relevant basics: there are rather simple ways to get an idea about what this is all about. Even without a scientific background, most people have at least a good common sense. And that’s all it takes to get a grasp of how vigorously and chaotically enormous energy fluxes slosh up and down, back and forth between earth’s surface and the skies.

Fig. 1. The setting sun illuminating a fairly thin veil of clouds from below – thus injecting energy into the space between the earths’s surface and cloud cover.

Part 1 – some basics

Let’s first clarify where the heat that allows us to live rather comfortably in our habitats is coming from and where it goes to. Despite the enormous energy content of the molten core of our planet, the bulk of our energy comes from the sun, which sends us energy mainly using three forms of electromagnetic radiation: visible, ultraviolet and infrared light.

At the top of the atmosphere, every square meter oriented towards the sun thus receives a fairly constant power influx of 1361 to 1362 W/m2. Although not being a real constant, this value is often referred to as the solar constant.

The alleged greenhouse effect

The notion of a “greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere has been used and misused incredibly often, resulting in an incredible mess of erroneous perceptions not only among the public, but even in the scientific world. A striking example for an obvious misrepresentation can be seen in the lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter on the topic, Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. The lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter about the “greenhouse effect” (Author: Efbrazil 2), CC 4.0)

This graphic highlights the extent to which Wikipedia gives the impression of having fallen prey to climate activism. The complex reality of transfers and transformations of energy on our planet involving soils, waters, gases, clouds, aerosols, heat storage, conduction and convection, chemical reactions and phase transformations, as well as a host of additional factors are simply swept under the carpet, attributing all their combined effects solely to the odious “greenhouse gases”.

This Wikipedia chapter is a saddening example for the downfall of an allegedly scientific encyclopedia actually spreading rather crude ideology under the guise of educating the public. The related chapter comprises more than 7,000 words and tries to underscore its claim of being “scientific” by a list of 80 citations including papers about the atmospheric conditions on far-away cosmic bodies such as Titan and Venus. But this cannot excuse the use of such a grossly misleading graphic as the lead-in picture for the abstract. Such tricks commonly used in tabloids or yellow journals. Wikipedia touts itself to be an encyclopedia addressing not only scientists but also laymen and the general public and should therefore care all the more not to disseminate content that may be misunderstood by people lacking a scientific background.

Fig. 3. This more detailed representation of the energy fluxes on earth elaborated by NASA is still misleading with respect to some decisive facts (Picture by NASA 3), public domain) Note: This graphic and the corresponding link have been withdrawn after completion of the article. In a subsequent part, the replacement graphic and its amendments will be treated in detail. Nevertheless, this graphic and its errors have been displayed for a prolonged time, thus warranting a suited discussion.

Although the more detailed Fig. 3 elaborated by NASA gives a better impression of the many different factors influencing energy transfer fluxes between earth’s surface and space, it still misleads in a subtle way that makes it unfit to convey a correct understanding of the vital facts. Let’s look at the main inconsistencies.

Mean values intended to mask natural variations

One of the favourite tricks of climate prophets of doom is to suggest that all major factors influencing our climate are more or less constant, with the sole exception of “greenhouse gases”. They intend to exploit the fact that the CO2-level of the atmosphere is rising while at least for the past some 150 years, meteorologists have also seen a moderate rise of the temperature levels they monitor on their stations. Though both trends are far from being in lockstep, this coincidence of trends has been declared to be the proof for a causality, although no clear mechanism or quantitative deduction could hitherto be established. Despite many striking discrepancies e.g. with respect to the natural cycles of CO2 or the absorption and sequestration of CO2 in our oceans, the perceived rise in temperatures has been almost exclusively attributed to CO2.

Misusing water vapor

Another diversion has been to declare that water vapor is simply reinforcing the leading role of CO2. This might be viewed as a real masterpiece of twisting reality since water vapor has not only a much higher efficiency with respect to absorbing (and re-emitting) infrared radiation (see Fig.4.), but is also exceeds the content of CO2 in the atmosphere by factors between 25 (= median concentration value at sea level) and up to 100!

Fig. 4. Comparing the spectral IR radiance of a surface with 14 °C with the overlapped absorption bands of CO2 (brownish) and water vapor (bluish) shows the highly superior absorption capacity of water vapor for the IR emission of soil or water at 14 °C – (which is the “mean” temperature on earth’s surface). Please mind the different scales of the x axes: linear for the spectral radiance, logarithmic for the absorption. (Graphics: SpectralCalc 4) (above), NASA, Robert Rohde 5) Public domain (below)).

 Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, the climate science community has in its vast majority adopted this approach. This might be attributable to the fact that the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere is subjected to wild temporal and local variations between nearly zero – e.g. at high altitudes and very low temperatures – and sometimes up to 4% at sea level.

Cutting corners

Additionally, especially when transforming to clouds, water vapor tends to condense or freeze out of the atmosphere in ways that have up to now resisted any realistic attempt to describe them mathematically. Trying to establish realistic three-dimensional models of water vapor distribution over a certain location at a given moment and to calculate the resulting effects on absorption and re-emission of IR radiation thus remain a much more arduous task than using a single value for all and every condition, as can conveniently be done when attributing the whole “greenhouse effect” solely to CO2. And voilà, truckloads of complicated research work may simply be skipped. This approach also greatly reduces the scale of expenditures in data acquisition, manpower, computer time – and in waiting time before reaping academic awards. After all, the beacon for all climate science, the IPCC, is doing it too, e.g. by simply omitting water vapor from its account of “greenhouse gases”, see Fig. 5.

Pic.5. Contribution to observed climate change from 12 different drivers, as taken from the Summary for Policymakers of the sixth IPCC assessment report, adapted from figure SPM.2c (Graphic: Erik Fisk, CC 4.0 6))

The numerous advantages of such a cutting of (scientific) corners might be one of the main driving forces for the deplorable tendency towards the “single number fallacy” explained by Kip Hansen 7) as being “the belief that complex, complicated and even chaotic subjects and their data can be reduced to a significant and truthful single number.”

Unfortunately for us, that’s exactly what the official climate science is doing. Under the headline “One number to track human impact on climate”, NOAA scientists released the first AGGI 8) (aggregated greenhouse gas index) in 2006 as “a way to help policymakers, educators, and the public understand the cumulative impact of greenhouse gases on climate over time”.

The minuscule driving forces of “greenhouse gases”

When trying to assess the real impact of “greenhouse gases” on earths energy balance, the first step should be to assess the driving force they are alleged to exert on the input and output of energy fluxes. Corresponding parameters can be found in a table within the Wikipedia chapter about Greenhouse gases 9). They reveal that in the view of the leading climate scientists, just four gases have a relevant influence on the budget of energy exchange between incoming and outgoing radiation energy since the alleged start of “human- induced climate change” in 1750. These are:

Carbon dioxide with                          + 2.05    W/m2
Methane with                                      + 0.49    W/m2
Nitrous oxide with                             + 0.17    W/m2
Tropospheric ozone                           + 0.4      W/m2
Total GHG contribution             +3.11     W/m2

This figure is extraordinarily small when comparing it with the enormous temporal and local variability of energy fluxes within our planet’s ocean/atmosphere/soil system within short time periods, and amounts to just a low single digit percentage of the daily variations. This will be treated in more detail in the following chapter.

Peculiarly enormous greenhouse effect range 

On a side note, it is interesting to see that the IPCC gives an enormous range for the greenhouse effect (TCR, Transient Climate Response or “climate sensitivity10)) of CO2, which is estimated to range “likely” between 1.5 and 4.5°C. The figure represents the alleged rise of earth’s mean temperature in °C for every doubling of the CO2 level of the atmosphere. Given this extraordinarily broad range of ± 50%, one might be surprised that IPCC, NOAA and Wikipedia authors advance temperature rise values for greenhouse gases calculated with up to three “significant” digits. This too might be attributable to the feeling of certainty about climate relevant figures instilled into the public by the “one number fits it all” mentality prevalent in our current climate science community.


  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
  3. http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/pdf/Energy_Budget_Litho_10year.pdf (Note: This link seems to have been deactivated very recently.)
  4. https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
  5. File:CO2 H2O absorption atmospheric gases unique pattern energy wavelengths of energy transparent to others.png – Wikimedia Commons
  6. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg
  7. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/03/unknown-uncertain-or-both/
  8. https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2877/Greenhouse-gas-pollution-trapped-49-more-heat-in-2021-than-in-1990-NOAA-finds
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
  10. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-climate/climate-sensitivity-explained

Ice Age – the Come Rapidly

Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate Re-Posted Dec 29, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Spread the love

COMMENT: Marty you may remember this.

When this hit upper midwest I was in middle school in San Diego. I was in the library every morning before school following this, Voyager and Viking.

I watched another rendition of this video on youtube and it cut out the portion where the chief scientist at Lamont-Doherty (Columbia) stated ice-age conditions can return inside of 10-20 years time at any time (or something like that).


RD, San Marcos Ca

REPLY: With Ice Ages, we find a similar pattern of cyclical pattern formations as we do in markets. About 2.6 million years ago, that is when the Earth entered the Pleistocene period. This was marked by an interesting cyclical pattern whereby there were these deep ice ages that came at regular 43,000-year intervals. Then about 1 million years ago, the Earth entered what is known as the Mid-Pleistocene transition period. It was here where these ice age cycles suddenly expanded from 43,000-year intervals to nearly 100,000-year cycles. The last one was about 11,000 years ago. This is not referring to the Mini-Ice Age of the 1600s.

What we do know is that there were tiny changes in Earth’s orbit. These events are known as Milankovitch cycles. They are believed to have driven the planet in and out of these ice ages. However, it is also now assumed that these Milankovitch cycles have not correlated to the sudden jump in nearly doubling the Ice Age cycle length.

Preliminary data from Antarctic Ice Core saw a transition from glacial to interglacial conditions about 430,000 years ago which is known as (Termination V). This transition into the present interglacial period needs to be looked at from intensity using our Energy Models. Scientists look at the magnitude of change in temperatures and greenhouse gases. What seems to be overlooked is the cycle of these warming periods. The interglacial stage following Termination V was quite long running the course of about 28,000 years compared to the 12,000 years period so far in the present interglacial period.

What this is warning is that an Ice Age is not entirely out of the question post-2032. I am awaiting access to the data from the 2.7 million-year core and then run it through Socrates to see if we are indeed going to see a 12,000-year interval or a doubling effect. What does appear to be likely, which explains the frozen animals in Siberia, is that we can see an Ice Age hit within less than 10 years.