[ZNPaaneah]

12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

At the Great White Throne men are judged based on what is written in "books" and these books are very clearly not the book of life. Being judged according to the book of life is a separate judgment.

You can interpret books to refer to 2 books other than the book of life (at the very least) or you can interpret this to refer to the innumerable number of books mentioned by John when trying to write down all that Jesus did, much less all that all men have done. Perhaps these books are documentaries, perhaps they are chronicles of senate hearings, maybe they are newspaper clippings. It is very vague as to what these books are other than they are plural and they are not the book of life. However, what is not vague is what these books contain, the basis on which the men are judged, i.e. their works.

If we cross reference this with the Lord's word in Matthew that men will be judged from every word that they speak, and then in another place that "with what judgement you have judged you shall be judged" then I think it is clear that it could be a quote of what the man said. It could be "fake news" that they authored. We have seen this time and time again. The same PR firm that advised Tobacco executives how to spin the truth concerning cigarettes being addictive, they also advised oil executives how to spin the truth concerning climate change.

Because of the lawsuits we now have about 80 million pages of documents from the tobacco companies. These represent their internal memos, studies, conversations. It is a book and it tells a very coherent story. It shows that in the 1950s all the tobacco companies knew that tobacco caused cancer. Then there is another book, this is the public testimony, advertisements, PR. This also tells a very coherent story, but quite different from the secret book. This one has them saying "it is not known if tobacco causes cancer" in 1984. This one has them all testifying before congress that they did not think cigarettes were addictive when the secret book tells us that not only did they know that it was addictive but they hired large groups of scientists to manipulate the addictiveness to make it more and more addictive. I am pretty sure that at the great white throne these ones will be judged by these two books.

One of the strategies they use is to "identify who is a potential threat to you" and then "neutralize them". For the tobacco company that meant blaming furniture for fires started by cigarettes. This resulted in legislation requiring "flame retardants" (toxic cancer causing chemicals put in your furniture, rugs, carpets, mattresses, etc). The oil industry has used the same strategy and even employed the same PR firm.

In the 1990s the strategy of the oil companies was “let’s not rush to judgement” and “there is no consensus among scientists”. Naomi Oreskes article “The Scientific consensus on Climate Change” in Science magazine was a study designed to answer that question. She looked at every paper published from 1992 to 2002 that used the key word phrase “Global climate change”. There were 928 papers. Of these 928 how many disagreed with the premise that “most of the observed warming is due to increased greenhouse gases?” The answer was none. All 928 papers agreed.

You want to talk about fake news, the presentation in the news that there was a "debate" among scientists over this was "fake news".