The Secret of “N…”

There Are Two Vastly Different Ways to Look at “Climate Change.”  There is the IPCC, and then there is the NIPCC…

The IPCC plots to kill “Western Civilization,” the NIPCC does not…

From Germany By Karma Singh

You may well have heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) initiated under auspices of the United Nations.  Before we attach too much significance to this body it would serve us well to take a quick look into its antecedents.

In the 1930’s and 40’s in Germany, IG Farbenindustrie was an all-powerful chemical combine controlled by a board of directors who called themselves “The Council of the Gods” because they considered themselves to be above both law and custom. They were also a major financier of Adolf Hitler, gave orders to him and, themselves, built and managed Auschwitz where the experiments on humans were carried out which form the basis of modern medicine. At the Nürnberg war crimes trials, several IGF directors were given long prison sentences. Amongst these was Fritz te Mer.

Under pressure from, probably, Rockefeller and/or friends, Fritz te Mer was released from prison and brought to New York where he was instrumental in founding the United Nations.

The public image of the UN is VERY different to what really goes on there.

Probably 90% of the activities in that enormous office block go on behind closed doors.

I give you all this so that you can begin to understand what sort of organisation the IPCC really is.

Let us start with the head of this organisation, a world figure in climatology, obviously? Well, actually no. He’s a railway engineer of Indian origin by the name of Rajendra Pachauri. He ran the organisation for the first 13 years until he was arrested in India and charged with child sexual abuse.

Well then, those writing the IPCC reports must be top calibre climate scientists? Again, no. Some are students and then there are psychologists, bureaucrats and a whole heap of other people having zero expertise in the discipline. The IPCC has even had the nerve to add the names of top climate scientists to its report although they have categorically refused to have anything to do with this politically motivated hodge-podge. Let the investigative journalist Donna Laframboise tell you more about it in her article – “3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC…”

So, what are all the REAL climate scientists doing?

Quite a few of them have got together to offer a more balanced view on the world climate. They work together under the banner of NIPCC, i.e. the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change. As you can tell from the black propaganda about them on Wikipedia and other similarly controlled publications, the NIPCC is the real deal.

Amongst many other interesting things brought to light by the NIPCC is how one senior IPCC “scientist”, Michael Mann fudged data to create his notorious “hockey stick” rapid temperature rise and the complete disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period which has become the main tool of the climate mafia. This temperature rise has never actually happened yet all computer models of climate change projections (other than the Russian) continue to include it. Mr. Mann is suing both the National Review (an American newspaper or magazine) which first published these findings and many of the scientists who have exposed his dishonesty. The basis of his claim appears to be that because he is “so special,” criticising his work is libel, irrespective of whether the criticism is true or false. The First Amendment to the US constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and “fair comment” in the press does not, according to Mann, apply to him or his publications.

For seven years now, this case has been languishing in the D.C. Court of Appeals which has evinced no inclination to bring the case to a conclusion. The Supreme Court has, therefore, been asked to take charge of it.

The attitude of the NIPCC scientists, possibly because they ARE scientists is, “Here is my evidence. Study it and make up your own mind”: A very refreshing change from those promoting the IPCC who have, on many occasions, stated that it should be a criminal act to even question their findings.
Which is more likely to be truthful? You must make up your own mind but I always add the magic “N” to IPCC when I want unadulterated facts.

We should also not lose sight of the way in which Soros and friends are being allowed, in direct contravention of the United Nations’ Charter on Childrens’ Rights, to politically indoctrinate our children with their climate change propaganda and exclude their access to scientific facts. This again speaks volumes about the lack of veracity in the IPCC reports.

A further good source of reliable science is Dr. Roy Spencer PhD. and his monthly blog –

Blessed be

From Germany By Karma Singh

Published by

Karma Singh

Professional healer, teacher, and researcher since 1986. Author of ca. 40 books, Handbooks etc. in "alternative", i.e. true healing. In September 2014 taken up into the Ring of Merlins

26 thoughts on “The Secret of “N…””

  1. I’m quite shocked every time again how many people still believe in global warming/man made climate change. It’s particularly obvious that the earth is cooling down rapidly. That’s because the sun is going into hibernation. The sun’s cycles are a natural phenomenon and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. We are at the beginning of a new Grand Solar Minimum, which will start a new mini ice age around 2030. The signs are everywhere that this is happening. How anyone can seriously believe that global warming is causing the global cold is beyond my understanding.

    But the world is going to change soon. Food shortages are expected to start already by the end of the year, which will lead to price increases, which within a few years will lead to famines and economic collapse. Cosmic rays cause extreme weather and no doubt will also start to seriously interrupt mobile communication. We can expect complete chaos within 5-10 years, possibly earlier.

  2. Hi Rixta,
    I’m not so sure that things are so dire as you paint them. The present trend may be towards a very slight cooling but this is a far cry from the start of a new ice age which is a gradual process taking at least some hundreds of years. There are also the, as yet, completely unmapped warm and cold regions in space. We also have to take our approach to our stellar pair, Sirius A, into the calculation which, over the next 6,500 years or so will steadily increase the amount of energy reaching Earth. So by no means so simple as many would like to think.

    Why do so many still believe in Global Warming?
    Propaganda is the answer. Here is an example from the streets in Germany in which a real scientist confronted a worker on a “Green” info-stand:-

    Scientist to Climate Change protestor (S: to CC:)

    S: How high is the percentage of CO2 in the air?
    CC: High.
    S: How high then?
    CC: Very high.
    S: What percentage?
    CC: I don’t know.
    S: What is also in the air?
    CC: (Didn’t answer just looked dumbstruck)
    S: Have you heard of oxygen?
    CC: Yes, of course, oxygen is in the air.
    S: What percentage, then?
    CC: I don’t know.
    S: 21%
    CC: (this appeared to be acceptable to him)
    S: What is also in the air? Have you heard of nitrogen?
    CC: Yes, of course, nitrogen is in the air.
    S: What percentage?
    CC: I don’t know.
    S: About 78%
    CC: (At this point, he turned around and went away proclaiming that he didn’t believe these figures because, then, nothing would be left over for CO2.)

    S: He was almost right. The percentage of CO2 in the air is 0.038% of which Nature produces 96% and the remaining 4% is produced by humans, i.e. 0.00152%. CO2 levels vary widely from place to place; 0.038 is the average. Modern measurements in Germany show an average for the country of 0.0004712% of CO2 in the air, down from 0.04% in 1890. This is why greenhouse farmers buy compressed CO2 to feed their crops.

    The difference is that Soros & Co. have spent millions spreading the Climate Change fairy tale but, so far, almost nobody has made any effort to counteract this by printing off a few info sheets and handing them around at schools or setting up info stands on the street.
    Add to this the simple fact that most people never do their own research because it was hammered into them in school to always believe “authority figures” unquestionably and we have the present state of affairs. It’s up to us, by which I do mean not just I but YOU as well to change this.

    Blessed be

    Karma Singh

  3. “USA Today Op-Ed ignores evidence to claim climate change had no role in Hurricane Florence” on climatefeedback dot org.

    Multiple scientists explain why Dr. Roy Spencer’s USA Today Op-ed “Hurricane Florence is not climate change or global warming. It’s just the weather” is scientifically inaccurate.

    Scientists rated his work at minus -1.5 Very Low Credibility. There’s a reason he landed in Alabama for the past 18 years. Look at the backward laws Alabama has been passing lately against half the population.

  4. Happy Troll Day, K.
    I see that your colours are now nailed to your mast.

    Typical Troll/Soros technique – toss in an irrelevancy and try to make that the main theme and, thereby, obscure what is actually being said.

    Actually, history shows Dr. Spencer to be correct. The East coast of N. America has been subjected to hurricanes for a very long time before Mr. Gore began spouting his nonsense (which he refuses to discuss or take any questions when he does his propaganda act – I wonder why?) The hurricane season is marked as a seasonal navigation hazard on charts from the 16th century when the Little Ice Age was still in full swing! There is nothing remarkable or unusual about “Florence” and those who try to imply the opposite have either no scientific or historical knowledge or no integrity and honesty.

    The most laughable part of your nonsense is not your completely anonymous “Multiple Scientists” but the attempt to connect Dr. Spencers alleged residency in Alabama with the new Anti-abortion legislation in that state.

    Well, everybody now knows what you are. The question remains, “Are you going to continue in this vein or would you consider that honesty and an ethical way of life might serve you better?”

    Blessed be

    Karma Singh

  5. Mini ice ages are a quite common phenomenon. The last was about 400 years ago and lasted till about the mid 1800’s. Paintings from that time show a LOT of snow and ice. The sun goes through all kinds of cycles, long ones and short ones. Right now the sun is going rapidly into hibernation. This can simply be observed.
    I don’t pretend to understand all this stuff, but what I have learned matches exactly what I have observed. The output of the sun has drastically reduced over the last 12 months. I don’t know how things will develop exactly, but big changes are going to happen in the world the next ten years. And a lot of it won’t be pretty. The best thing we can do is prepare. It’s those who ignore this and keep believing in warming who will be hit the hardest.

    I try to explain these things to people when I can, but most people don’t want to hear it. And I don’t really care. I’m just so friendly to warn them, but if they don’t want to listen it’s their problem. It doesn’t affect me.

  6. The best way to get people to listen, Rixta, is to ask them questions just as the scientist on the street did or Viscount Monckton did in this video

    Preaching to people just puts them into resistance mode. Asking them gently and you can get them to admit out of their own mouths that what they are preaching is nonsense.

    P.S. expect an upswing in Solar activity later this year.

    Blessed be


  7. I thought you were supposed to be a “healer” Karma. When one cannot deal with facts, they always attack the person.

    Dr. Roy Spencer is an engineer/scientist who chose to politicize science and spin his conservatism on Fox and USA Today. Nearly all scientists stick to facts and science without the emotional manipulations.

  8. Well, Karma, your’e drawing flak, you must be over the target. It’s quite entertaining watching the crazymakers practice their skills here, I suppose. But it is equally madending seeing them project their quite perverse reasoning.

    1) starts with ad-hominem arguments, to open a post about ad-hominem arguments.

    2) twisted logic: real scientists deal in facts, you do not. Therefore you are not a real scientist.
    Therefore you do not deal in facts.
    Real scientists deal with facts, you do not.
    Therefore… and round and round it goes.

    3) presents a fake dichotomy as if that is all there is. The hurricane must have been caused by global warming, because somebody those who said it wasn’t were once debunked. As if all storms are either caused by global warming or not. As if we can ever know whether or not that storm would have been there, been different in some way, had CO2 been the same as it was in 1945. Or as if there wouldn’t have been something much worse instead.

    It’s extraordinary the way so many people today struggle with basic reasoning.

    Karma, keep up the good work. You’r a good example of real, honest, logical scientific commentary.

  9. Woops, excuse the typos. It’s pretty hard proof-reading ones own edits in that little box.

    ps. Tim can you tell me how you deal with spam here? I had comments on my site a while back, but had to close them, because even when manually checking, I still ended up with thousands of spam comments and in the end couldn’t keep up with checking them all. You must have a better initial filter than the one I had.

  10. Who’s this K fool?

    The posters here usually are of the highest calibre.

    Without using an appeal to authority or circular argument K can you tell us all precisely what science is and why it applies to all your beliefs and none of ours?

  11. Hi Cupid,
    do let us know where your blog is.

    At the bottom here, it says that Tim uses Akismet to filter spam.
    More, I know not.

    Blessed be


  12. Whilst I was teaching a seminar today, I recalled that the next tactic of the failed troll is to insult one or more of the “lead speakers” in the hope of causing a diversion by provoking them into anger.

    It won’t wash, Sunshine. I am wise to what you are trying and we will stick to the theme. The next article in this series which I will upload by Monday at the latest, Tim, is even more hard hitting so you’d better get you crash helmet out of the cupboard, K.

    Blessed be


  13. Rtp – it’s part of the show. The septics show up with their to try and draw the unwary into a discussion so they will then apply gaslighting tactics to do peoples heads in. Once you see the pattern it’s easy to avoid, but if one innocently mistakes it for a call to a sensible discussion one can end up as seriously deranged as they are.

    There are many clues but the biggie for me is this: is science about science or is it about choosing sides? If it is about choosing sides, then they are not on the level: their aim is not honest and well guided, or they are incapable of weighing up an argument fairly. Crushing ‘opposition’ is all they care about.

    Karma – thanks. My blog is offline at the moment while I restructure the site and move it to a new host – TBA. The theme is healing, but, like you, I see no limits to what subjects that can encompass. If it is relevant to our lives it is relevant to our health. The overarching point is healing has no limits, and health is the natural state. We have to deal with the limitations on our health, not fix the human body as if it were a machine. Then we have to navigate the natural healing process, something rarely taught anywhere (I had to knock on a lot of doors to learn about Healing Crisis). And finally we need to understand complex systems. I find it extraordinary that medicine, of all disciplines, still interacts with the human patient in a linear way, and then is confounded when it meets a non-linear response. If they can’t rise to chaos theory or at least see how it is relevant, I’d at least be happy if they would stop blaming the patient every time they run out of useful ideas. I have to fit this all in around clients, family, moving house, various dramas, hence I’m a little slow gathering momentum on this activity. If you want to see anything sooner contact me offline if you can see my contact details.

    Peace, love and baked potatoes.

  14. Yes I am well aware Cupid.

    By the way, have you read about German New Medicine? It deals with precisely *why* we have unpleasant experiences during the healing phase and what these healing phases are actually balancing out.

    There are two phenomena that I use to get people to understand it. Playing possum and focused rashes. We know that the sub-conscious mind causes the opossum to pretend to be dead (paralyzed and slowed breathing) when it feels trapped but no biologist ever stops to ask whether this phenomena is the cause of most forms of paralysis that humans (and other animals) experience.

    And then there is focused rashes. For example, some rashes occur behind the knees and inside the elbows. Some occur just on both hands. Some occur just on the torso. I have even seem some rashes occur in dead straight lines!

    How could a virus possibly cause such focused rashes? Even toxicity doesn’t seem like a very good explanation. The only coherent explanation is that rashes are caused by the mind and they occur where the sub-conscious mind most closely associates a certain type of trauma (which I will posit is a trauma of separation). The rash occurs in the *healing* phase and because multiple people can experience the same separation trauma (eg siblings missing their mother or classmates missing their teacher) it can appear to “spread” but no disease can be transmittted (if diseases were contagious then visiting doctor offices would be instantly fatal).

  15. Yes I have looked at German New Medicine and it is interesting but there are other paradigms that are not well known about because they were actively purged since the Flexner Report. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks perhaps the Flexner Report left a lot of ineffective paradigms alone to throw us all off the scent!

    The problem I have with GNM is that it too tries to narrow cause down to a single thing, when at most the brain focii are but pieces of a much bigger puzzle. In non-linear systems, cause does not narrow down when you follow the trail, it spreads out.

    It is tempting when the reason is not clear to say that it derives from the mind. Frankly I think this is allopathy’s latest meme. I won’t knock it as there is an element of truth, but what is in the mind had to get there somehow. The mind doesn’t just decide to go wrong for no reason. It is subject to its environment. Suffice to say there are other explanations worth exploring. What we don’t need is new theories so much as we need to look at some of the older ones.

    Take care

  16. Hi Rtp & Cupid,
    Dr. Hamer was to some extent correct in his assumption that specific traumas can play a deciding role in cancer and other maladies. What he, however, defines as THE cause is merely the part of the cause which decides where tumours will grow if all other conditions for cancer have been fulfilled. It’s a long list and, if you want to know about it, you must wait for my new book which I’ve almost finished writing.

    A large of the problem in getting German New Medicine accepted was Dr. Harmers very abrasive personality and arrogance in his assertion that he had discovered the cure for everything and no-one else had anything useful to say.

    What I have discovered during my many decades of working in this field is that, with the sole exception of pharmaceutical medicine, all healing techniques are mutually supportive. Dr. Harmer’s “discoveries” which are actually listed in some detail in ancient Wikkan teachings, are part of the picture but only a part. Asserting that they are the whole, entire thing and that nothing else has any truth or usefulness is in no way helpful and the reason why Dr. Harmer was rejected by almost everyone.

    In this new Age of Community in which we now find ourselves, exclusivity has no place. Take Dr. Harmer’s teachings for what they are worth and then look for the next bit of the whole.

    Blessed be

    Karma Singh

  17. Yes, at the end of the day, if your body needs a tumour it needs a tumour, and where it ends up is a matter of detail.

    The Hamer triad of traumatic influence is a truly powerful idea, and for me that is the most important message. A traumatic disease-causing event is:

    1) unexpected (you are unprepared, so it gets you)
    2) isolating (you can’t reach out for help so you turn inwards)
    3) disempowering (you have no strategy to deal with it).

    Whether this was actually his own scheme I don’t know, but it is what I learned from Hamer practitioners.

    I do deal with people with persistent mental trauma, such as PTSD. Some of my cases were Afghanistan veterans. And what struck me is that some manage to shake off the experience and move forward and others don’t. There are reasons for this that can be understood, and as a bodyworker first and foremost, I have learned to recognise that many of the reasons are somatic and environmental. As one of my teachers put it ‘the origins of disease are on the sensory side’. That set my head spinning, but the more I thought about it the more I realised it had to be true. Either that, or we have to face that the body is imperfect and simply malfunctions for no reason whatsoever, and to a natural healer that should make no sense at all, because we are working with a self-righting system. If we were not, all our patients would simply die with no warning at the very first sign of stress.

    Anyway, big subject.

    As far as all healing techniques being mutually supportive goes: they CAN be mutually supportive, but they can also be mutually destructive, or cancel each other out.

    That is why I insist that new clients finish up what they are doing with other therapists before I begin work with them. Then if something else is needed, we can look at that. I can’t be responsible for other peoples inputs, the results of which may take time to manifest.

    It is far too easy to have practitioners all working to different road-maps turning things up and down around each other. In the end they end up treating each other through the patient while the patient goes nowhere. So, let’s have one chef in the kitchen, please.

    The thing is, techniques are just the tools. They no more get you better than a bag of saws and chisels can rise up and build a Chippendale chair. It takes a craftsman and his experience and vision to take the tools and materials and make something worthy. Otherwise, those tools are more likely to take good wood and turn it into firewood.

    I had a potential client on the phone just now asking if I used this or that technique. My answer was I don’t offer techniques, I offer to solve your problem.

    That’s all 🙂

  18. Thank you Cupid,
    I consider myself admonished.

    I would maintain, however, that there is a difference between “therapy” and “healing”. The user of the former sees the tool as the objective whereas the user of the latter aims for the desired result and then decides which tools to use.

    I have had, for some years, a tool which I have good reason to believe could be very useful with shell shock (as PTSD used to be called) but the “authorities” have refused to even suggest that one of the “incurables” might like to try it. Since October last, I now have a second one but that I can only do one a one-to-one basis.
    Would you like to try the first one? Let me know quickly as I’m off to Africa in the morning and can’t mail anything from there.

    Blessed be


  19. Thanks! I won’t have an opportunity myself for a while, so how about revisit that idea when you’re back from travels!

    Totally agree therapy vs. healing, and it’s more than just semantics. Healing is what the body does, and it’s automatic. Health is the natural state our systems seek as surely as water seeks the lowest ground, and it only stops when it hits an obstacle.

  20. To me the easiest way to personally observe that GNM is the most correct of any possible theory is to look at photos of rashes.

    You will see that almost all are, strangely, focused.

    I say “strangely” because in any other theory of disease (particularly germ theory), rashes could never be focused – they would spread more or less evenly around the body. But rashes will be focused on one or a few areas of the body. Sometimes they will even be focused in corresponding areas of the body!

    How could a virus cause a rash on both hands and nowhere else?

    How could it cause a rash behind the knees and inside the elbows?

    How could it cause a rash just on the torso and nowhere else?

    How could the shingles “virus” know right from left?

    Clearly, only the mind can cause focused rashes. And if all rashes are caused by the mind then the next step is to presume that most diseases are probably also caused by the mind.

    I find this point is brutally effective when you are discussing vaccines/germ theory with people. People tend to be visual and you can actually show them photos essentially proving that germ theory makes no sense. Take a photo of a child with “hand foot and mouth disease” to a doctor and ask him how exactly he supposes that a virus could manifest in such a way. Then ask him why, even if the virus could manifest in such a way, it would bother to do so. Ask him why, despite having witnessed thousands of rashes in his time as a doctor, he never gave one second of thought to the phenomena of focused rashes.

  21. It’s a false dichotomy: virus/germ theory vs. German New Medicine. Other theories are available.

    Rashes/dermatitis do indeed tend to be dermatomal, or otherwise following patterns of peripheral nerves, or perhaps even homuncular. Certainly the symmetry suggests central – or at least common – cause. The Hamer focus – if it is there, could be incidental, or secondary.

    The body uses peripheral nerves as an elimination route for toxins and inflammation in the central nervous system. The surface rash is the exit point. Steroids etc. push the flow in reverse, drive the toxins back in, giving the illusion of healing. Mercury was the original suppressive oitment (still used in teeth, interestingly ALSO an elimination route). The problems of mercury are not just proximate toxicity but also the shift in equilibrium it drives.

    Hence many internal problems are the result of suppression of minor, superficial or peripheral problems. It is seldom the other way around. External symptoms tend to be signs of resolution of things more internal. We see seen skin ‘problems’ appear over arthritic joints as the joint improves. Flip that around, segmental inflammation in spinal joints can follow use of topical steroids on the legs. It’s just a manifestation of a thwarted global healing process gone underground, but is viewed and treated as ‘focal’.

    Boils on the upper thoracic spine treated with ointment can lead to heart problems. As often as not, eczema treated topically can drive the problem to the respiratory functions, as the lungs become recruited in the eliminatory process. Behind all of this there will often be sluggish bowels, liver and kidneys, as well as considerable nutritional stress. You don’t necessarily need to be vaccinated to get eczema, but it helps.

    So, if the problem is more homuncular, putting ointment on it – even light emolient – is asking for a reaction in a corresponding region of the brain – perhaps.

    It has become very trendy to see all problems as originating in the brain. That’s a big philosophical issue, if we think our bodies are constructed to survive not self-destruct. The brain is the highest survival organ, it is given royal treatment by the whole body. If it is in trouble there is an environmental reason. Sure the GNM theory relates to trauma (sensory). The question is why some peoples bodies hold onto stress and internalise it and others can sooner or later let it go. BIG subject, suffice to say the sustaining influence is on the sensory or environmental side, and the internal lesion – if it is there – is merely the result.

    In Complex Systems (capitals) I am reluctant to ever see one single thing as the key. Cause in Complex Systems tends to fan out as you explore it, not focus down.

  22. Thanks for the response.

    Just to clarify. The Hamer focus in the brain is not the focus I was talking about when I’m talking about the rashes themselves.

  23. Some focus needs to be directed at the major cause of atmospheric disturbance, HAARP. While it originally existed as a single installation based in Alaska, the technology is now widespread around the globe, even installed on floating barges and collectively bombarding the ionosphere with billions of watts of energy. There is much information available on this subject.

    Why not begin asking the question as to why the US Military thinks it has the independent right to torture our natural system in the manner it has done and continues to do for decades? Unless you ask the right question you will be unable to find and understand the answer. Good luck.
    PJ Leigh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.