Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
MiguelD

"Global Warming": Excuse for Global Genocide

516 posts in this topic

Dear Conspiracies Forum Participants,

HYPOTHESIS: "Global Warming" is just Rockefeller Eugenics "Warmed Over". The Rockefeller-Morgan-... Plutocracy intends to use their "Global Warming" BIG LIE to justify (1.) Destruction/'Peonization' of the global middle class, especially in the U.S. and Western Europe, to aid them in completing the process that they have already far advanced, of 'de-democratization', (2.) Global Totalitarian Rule by their servant-dictators, and (3.) Global Malthusian "population reduction" [Multi-Genocide], because "People Are Pollution". The Rockefeller, etc., foundations have massively funded thereby-corrupted "Environmental" organizations in support of their Global Warming "BIG LIE" to these ends. The motives of the Rockefeller-Morgan-... Plutocracy for this Multi-Genocide plan -- for their planned GLOBAL Holocaust -- are only dimly understood by the public.

EVIDENCE: The Rockefeller Oligopolies massively funded the "Eugenics" movement in the U.S. prior to World War II, and got laws passed to enforce their theories, banning reproduction by those who they deemed unfit to live. Hitler adopted those U.S. laws -- while he was still the hand-picked, massively Rockefeller-funded servant-dictator of the Rockefeller Plutocracy, before he turned on them and became a 'Franken-Dicrtator' -- and those Eugenics laws became the foundation of Hitler's holocaust.

* On the Rockefeller-funded and -designed Eugenics "movement", see the book "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race" by Edwin Black --

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/0914153056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260367533&sr=1-1

-- and the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton --

http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0061782661/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260367662&sr=1-1

* On the Rockefeller attempt to overthrow the Roosevelt administration, and establish their open dictatorship in the U.S., while Hitler was still their servant-dictator, see the book "The Plot to Seize The Whitehouse" by Jules Archer --

http://www.amazon.com/Plot-Seize-White-House-Conspiracy/dp/1602390363/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260367854&sr=1-1

* On the Rockefeller foundations' massive funding, corruption, prostitution, and perversion of the "Environmental" movement, into a "People Are Pollution" , "population reduction" [Global Multi-Genocide] movement, see --

http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS12-WhoFundsEcologism/GS12-WhoFundsEcologism.htm

* On the scientific evidence that reveals the fallacies of th "Global Warming" lies propagated by Rockefeller-prostituted scientists and politicians, see --

http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS8-GlobalLie1/GS8-GlobalLie1.htm

http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS7-GlobalWarmingHysteria/GS7-GlobalWarmingHysteria.htm

http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS4-PeakOilPloyAndGlobalWarmingHysteria/GS4-PeakOilPloyAndGlobalWarmingHysteria.htm

* On the real motives behind the Rockefeller Plutocracy's push toward global, totalitarian, multi-genocidal state-capitalist dictatorship, see --

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/CrisisAndSolution/CrisisAndSolution.htm

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/MaladyAndRemedy/MaladyAndRemedy.htm

ttp://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/TowardsAStrategyForHumanity/TowardsAStrategyForHumanity.htm

* On the way out, for humanity, from the "Hell-On-Earth" that the 'Rocke-Nazis' have planned, see --

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/AmendmentXXVIII/AmendmentXXVIII.htm

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy.htm

Regards,

Miguel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite what the oil companies and certain corrupt politicians and lobbyists may want us to think, the science behind global warming is all but incontrovertible.

The spring is coming on average 2 weeks early in the Northern hemisphere now. The arctic sea ice is on a declining trend the likes of which we have never seen. 1998 was the warmest year on record (and while we are not quite as warm today as we were then, that is because of the El Nino/La Nina oscillation - the total AMOUNT of heat stored in the surface of the Earth is higher, but a good chunk is currently keeping the deep ocean warmer than it normally is - in a few years it will turn over and we will shatter our 1998 records). Appealing to local decreases in temperature is not the way to dispute this - there is still such a thing as "weather", and you can still set record lows if your overall climate has warmed by 1 degree. That record low will just be one degree higher than it would have been. The heat budget of the planet has been increasing for decades, if not a century. It cannot be accounted for by the sun or anything external to the Earth (we have direct measurements of the sun's intensity, and claims that other planets are warming always ignore that many of them are on 40+ year orbits and that an equal number are cooling), and the upper atmosphere's temperature is unchanged, exactly as we would expect from all the heat being trapped by gases in the lower atmosphere.

The danger is that once we pass some critical threshold, feedback effects (open ocean being darker than sea ice, methane clatherates locked up in permafrost in the tundra, etc) will take over and we will transition into a different stable climate state that is warmer than today. Yes, the world was a bit warmer during the last interglacial period, but the CO2 levels then were lower than we have now - we have not yet reached equilibrium. We have not had CO2 levels like we have now in many hundreds of thousands of years. In the long run life will adapt, as it always does - but SO MANY people are dependent on the climate patterns that will shift. The loss of biodiversity, while not unprecedented in Earth's history by a long shot, is still something to be avoided as well.

No government is planning "genocide" to avoid global warming. And even if they were, that would not change a thing about the science. It is an incontrovertible fact that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at rates the world has not seen for a LONG time. The world is not our dump, to pillage as we please. It is, in the words of Carl Sagan, "the ship that bears the entire human species through the ocean of space and time". And even were we not damaging climate on a huge scale... is it not better to use what FINITE resources we have responsibly, and not consume them with wild reckless abandon?

If you're looking for a "conspiracy", the concerted efforts of those who wish to deny the science of climate change come far closer to one.

I leave you with some excellent videos on the evidence for global warming. Check out this guy's uploads:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Torgo,

All of the overblown claims of "scientific incontrovertibility", by Rockefeller-Plutocracy-prostitute and weak, integrity-compromised, conformist scientists and politicians, and by their dupes, are easily overthrown for example, even just by the single data visualization, and narrative, posted below [click on link to see graphical data]--

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264

"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."

"Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)"

"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

-- and by the many world-class scientists who dissent from the Rockefeller-Plutocracy pseudo-science juggernaut, and who are being persecuted by that Plutocracy for their courage and honesty, including the following --

Let's begin documenting the evidence for the above-stated hypothesis with just three extracts, out of a massive amount of documentary evidence — one from a journalist, and two from scientists — demonstrating the fallacy of the Rocke-Nazi's "the climate science debate is over" claim.

1. Journalist James Gleick, in his 1987 book, Chaos: Making a New Science, noted the degree to which the solutions of the equations which model the 'climato-dynamics' of our planet describe an enormous undertow — an 'attractor', in the language of [nonlinear] dynamical systems theory [the main subject of his book] — toward global glaciation:

"Climatologists who use global computer models to simulate the long-term [and highly nonlinear — anonymous] behavior of the earth's atmosphere and oceans have known for several years that their models allow at least one dramatically different equilibrium. During the entire geological past, this alternative climate has never existed [the 'Snowball Earth' theory asserts the contrary — anonymous], but it could be an equally valid solution to the system of equations governing the earth [ed: Earth]. It is what climatologists call the White Earth climate: an earth [ed: Earth] whose continents are covered by snow and whose oceans are covered by ice. A glaciated earth would reflect seventy percent of the incoming solar radiation and so would stay extremely cold.... Computer models have such a strong tendency to fall into the White Earth equilibrium that climatologists find themselves wondering why it has never come about... [per the 'Snowball Earth' theory, it already has come about, repeatedly — anonymous]".

[James Gleick; Chaos: Making A New Science; Viking Penguin, Inc. (New York: 1987); page 170, emphasis by anonymous]

2. Russian climatologist M. I. Budyko may have been "under the thumb" of the "Soviet" Stalinist bureaucracy, when he wrote the following words, but he was not, at that time, "under the thumb" of the 'Rocke-Nazis':

"... the process of decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere started in the Cretaceous period and accelerated at the end of the Tertiary period.

The probable reason for the decreasing CO2 mass is the attenuation of volcanic activities, possibly caused by the exhaustion of the reserves of radioactive elements that produce heating of the lithosphere.

From the available approximate estimates it follows that, if this process continues for about a million years [a period short from the viewpoint of the earth's history] one of two ecological catastrophes will occur: the complete glaciation of the earth or the disappearance of autotrophic plants....

It is assumed that in the Pleistocene the earth's biosphere was not far from destruction in the epochs of greatest development of the Quaternary glaciations, which advanced close to the critical latitude [the limit beyond which ice loses its stability and shifts toward the equator as in a self-propelled process]....

Assuming the possibility of the disappearance of the biosphere in the not very distant future, one should return to the question of how the biosphere could be maintained for such a long period in the past. ...

It is believed that the maintenance on the earth [ed: Earth] of a mean temperature within the narrow zone necessary for life for billions of years seems to be a random event, the probability of which is very low....

The first result of the global impact produced by man on the biosphere that is connected with restoring the ancient CO2-rich atmosphere is an inadvertent consequence of economic activities.

This change in the composition of the atmosphere has increased the stability of the biosphere and decreased the possibility of its complete or partial destruction by glaciations....

It is essential for understanding the present changes in the state of the biosphere that, with an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the atmosphere returns to the composition typical of the Tertiary period, when climatic conditions were far warmer and plant productivity was higher than at present.

Since the atmosphere lost CO2 for the last hundred million years, directly threatening the existence of the biosphere due to a decrease in the productivity of autotrophic plants and the possible complete glaciation of the earth [ed: Earth], the present anthropogenic impact on the biosphere seems to be a favorable factor that eliminates the indicated threat.

However, it must be mentioned that although many aspects of global warming could be favorable to mankind [a rise in the productivity of autotrophic plants, better usage of land in cold climates, etc.], a number of difficulties can also inevitably arise.

The major difficulty lies in the necessity of adjusting, in a relatively short time, many branches of the economy to the conditions of a rapidly changing climate and other aspects of natural conditions."

[M. I. Budyko; The Earth's Climate: Past and Future; Academic Press (New York: 1982); pages 281 and 285-287, emphasis added by anonymous]

3. In 2005, Dr. Jennifer Hoffman, Dr. Tina Tin, and science writer George Ochoa, published a book entitled Climate: The Force that Shapes Our World and the Future of Life on Earth. Dr. Tin is a climate scientist affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund. Dr. Hoffman is a marine biologist and World Wildlife Fund consultant. Both are subject to the reprisals, including cut-offs of all funding, that have been visited upon many other scientists who have dissented from the 'Rocke-Nazi' "party line" on "Global Warming" — reprisals carried out, in part, by the 'Rocke-Nazi'-funded and controlled "environmental movement", by the plutocracy-controlled National Sciences Foundation, etc. Thus, even the mildly-worded critique that they have registered, below, against the "Global Warming" dogma, represents an act of considerable, and admirable, courage:

"From about 1450 to 1850, Earth passed through what is called the Little Ice Age (Some scientists place the start date as early as 1300 and the end date as late as 1890).

During this period of renewed cold, alpine glaciers advanced in virtually all the world's mountain areas, and the Arctic islands' ice caps grew larger.

Winters became colder and summers cooler, though the effect on winters was generally greater....

Worldwide, the climate change damaged many ecosystems.

Floods, plague, and famine devastated Europe.

Crops failed, especially in northern regions.

The Baltic Sea froze. England's Thames river developed ice several inches thick. In higher latitudes, great storms increasingly roiled the skies. A storm that hit southern England on December 7-8, 1703, blew down a lighthouse, wrecked houses, tossed ships onto land, and killed 8,000 people....

Drought and flood often besieged the same areas.

... The causes of the Little Ice Age are not well understood....

In general, since the Little Ice Age, climate has been growing warmer. Temperatures reached a high in the 1940s, became cooler until the mid-1960s, and since have been rising again, setting records for warmth in the 1990s.

Despite this trend of global warming, some researchers believe that the Little Ice Age may not be over, but that it is being counteracted by rising carbon dioxide levels generated since the Industrial Revolution.

It is possible that atmospheric circulation patterns characteristic of the Little Ice Age may still be in place."

[George Ochoa, Jennifer Hoffman, and Tina Tin; Climate: The Force Which Shapes Our World and the Future of Life on Earth; Rodale International Ltd. (London, U.K.: 2005); pages 77-80, emphasis added by anonymous]

Now, Consider the sheer radicality of the theory described variously by Budyko, and by Hoffman, Tin, and Ochoa, above, in relation to the "Global Warming" party-line parroted exclusively by the corporatist media. This theory holds that —

* The earth [ed: Earth] entered a phase of global cooling and re-glaciation circa ~1300 C. E. [possibly marking the end of the already over-extended, >10,000 interglacial, and the resumption of the next, ~100,000 year+ round of the ["Pleistocene"] Ice Age, as indicated by the Milankovitch drivers, which paced all of the previous Pleistocene Ice Age rounds, and all three of which now point towards renewed glaciation];

* This global cooling and re-glaciation, devastating to the biosphere, has been held in check by the return of CO2 to the CO2-depleted atmosphere achieved by the fossil fuel burning of the Industrial Revolution, and ever since.

Thus, humanity has — however inadvertently, so far, per these hypotheses — SAVED THE BIOSPHERE from the massive biomass massacre of that CO2-depletion-enabled, Milankovitch-cycles-driven re-glaciation.

The CO2 depletion of the atmosphere was produced, in major part, by the accelerated photosynthetic biomass productivity "booms", and the anaerobic dead-biomass decay, of the Carboniferous, of the Cretaceous, etc., — the very bio-geological processes that formed the fossil fuels in the first place.

That CO2 depletion lowered the atmospheric temperature sufficiently, by the Pleistocene, to where the Milankovitch drivers, instead of oscillating atmospheric temperature from warm to a little less warm, as they did throughout most of earth's history, oscillated atmospheric temperature from warm to cold-enough to initiate glaciation, and thus to support sufficient standing-ice-reflection of solar light/[potential] heat back into space, to launch the self-amplifying, self-accelerating "positive feedback" cooling trend that generated the Ice Ages.

Most have probably never heard this theory before, though it is well known to scientists like Budyko, Tin, Hoffman, and many others. The corporatist media holds this, along with other taboo topics, such as fusion power as solution to the so-called "energy crisis", under deep cover, and almost never mentions these topics, and, even then, usually only to ridicule them. If you would like to know more about what the capitalist-plutocracy-controlled media has been hiding from you in these regards, just click on the links provided below.

A fuller and detailed exposition of a theory of the species alluded to above — elaborated more some 30 years ago, and updated recently — is available via the following link: Crises by Nature: How Humanity Saved the Biosphere, wherein the link is --

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/Crises-by-Nature/Crises-by-Nature.htm

This theory of 'climato-dynamics' is grounded in a model of the historical dialectic of nature, and in an immanent critique of the atomism, reductionism, mechanism, and linearist-equilibriumism of the capital-mentality's version of science.

A Canadian e-newspaper series documented the dissents of a large number of world-class climatologists and other scientists, in a series of brief but hard-hitting, one-and-one-half page articles. Links to a selection of 14 of those articles are provided below.

Overall Series links, with sub-links to all (approximately) 35 articles

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8

Individual articles' links to 14 of the (approximately) 35 articles:

1. Dr. George Kukla: Forget Warming — Beware the New Ice Age

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278

2. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu: The Little Ice Age is Still with Us

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1

3. Dr. Christopher Landsea: The Hurricane Expert Who Stood up to UN Junk Science

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

4. Dr. Richard S. J. Tol: Warming is Real — and has Benefits

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0

5. Dr. Carl Wunsch: Unsettled Science

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=7e23a550-9cc4-4697-b730-b2d094f1628a

6. Dr. Richard Lindzen: The Original Denier — into the Cold

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7bd269b6-b2e7-44d2-85e0-e7749714ba34

7. Prof. Paul Reiter: Bitten by the IPCC

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f

8. NASA Chief Michael Griffin: NASA Chief Silenced

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=2271ac23-6895-4789-9da0-6b28968b8d15

9. Dr. William Nordhaus: Discounting Logic

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7bd269b6-b2e7-44d2-85e0-e7749714ba34

10. Lawrence Solomon: End the Chill

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=216ca730-10f0-4614-9692-fc37d99cbac3

11. Dr. Duncan Wingham: Polar Scientists on Thin Ice

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0

12. Lawrence Solomon: They Call this a Consensus?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

13. Dr. Roger Revelle: Even Gore's Guru Disagreed

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=58e0c50c-1631-46ca-8719-778c0973526e

14. Dr. Edward Wegman: Statistics Needed

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Additionally, over 100 prominent scientists have recently registered, and documented, their dissent from the "Global Warming" global pogrom, via a U. S. Government Congressional Committee's e-Records site, accessible via the following link: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts --

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d4b5fd23-802a-23ad-4565-3dce4095c360&Issue_id

Regards,

Miguel

Edited by MiguelD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no quibble with the assertion that the earth used to have a lot more CO2 in the past. It is also true that this ice age cycle we have been in for a few million years is pretty much the coldest the Earth has been in half a billion years (the last "snowball earth"). These are also incontrovertible facts. I also have no quibble with the assertion that over evolutionary timescales life would weather anthropogenic climate change as just a blip.

My assertion is that by SUDDENLY forcing the climate system the way we are, on a timescale of decades and centuries rather than tens of millions of years (for the larger changes you mentioned) or hundreds of thousands of years (for the ice age cycles), things will change quickly and the lives and livelihoods of billions of people will be affected negatively. Our agricultural, industrial society has been built on the current climate system of the earth, and rapid changes would be very destructive to us.

Edited by Torgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Targo,

You keep missing one key point -- that the Earth's Northern Hemisphere climate has, in modern times, overall, been cooling, not warming, and is still cooling today, as the Milankovitch-cycles-driven "Little Ice Age" continues to re-assert itself, with accelerating momentum.

You're worrying about the wrong trend -- the opposite of the true trend!

Drought is -- quite generally -- not caused by "warming" climate, but by cooling climate, because, as ocean and non-ocean water-bodies' surface waters cool, their rates of water evaporation decline, hence the rate of precipitation of moisture from the atmosphere upon continental land surfaces also declines, creating drought and desertification.

The Pleistocene Ice Ages -- which are continuing [we are just at the end of an interglacial, which, per the Pleistocene Ice Ages' norm, would last ~10,000 years, but that has, this time, become over-extended due to CO2 restoration to the atmosphere, and other causes -- were all preceded by major waves of drought and desertification, mainly for this reason.

Actual "Global Warming" would be signaled by increased moistness -- 're-tropicalization' -- not by drought and desertification.

Those "scientists" who cite drought and desertification as "proof" of "Global Warming" are, to be truthful, just prostituted liars.

Regards,

Miguel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard arguments from both sides of this issue...and as a layman the argument of increased CO2 in the atmosphere or 'normal levels' is really the secondary argument. The problem is when you show data to support and explain the co2 levels or a rise in temperature the pundants of global warming scream 'paid oil company shills' or politics. I am losing interest in arguing against what could possibly be 'stacked' data and put my concerns for what I think is the major problem here.

I don't think we have sufficient data to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man is the evil culprit here. We don't have enough records or data to establish the fact that what is happening is not a normal cycle. Weather cycles can last for decades. Who can say what is 'normal' for the Earth? As was mentioned we are just coming out of a 'mini iceage'. Here is my question...Why turn over vast amounts of money and soverignty to some real 'paid shills' in the UN? Why not do genuine research on alternative sources of energy and cleaner methods to burn fossil fuels?

Remember Jimmy Carter...remember 'windfall profits tax' that was suppose to go to research and developement? Where is it at? Why the big rush now? Why impose extreme hardship on the West and 3rd world countries when we are on the threshold of a global depression? You have to ask these questions and they are legitimate questions. How is all this going to fix something that we clearly do not understand completely? You have to step into politics for the only sensible answer . It's not the carbon or CO2...it's the lifestyle. According to some...the lifestyle of 'some' is too good so we need to do something to discourage it..wha-la...a global emergency...to much CO2 from the good life...too many SUV's and too many people wanting electic current...hot showers..flat screen TV's all the fruits of capitalism. Besides...it's too hard to control people that don't depend on you...we would't want people to think for themselves..there are many truths we aren't qualified to know which one is 'right'.

The 'solution' is my problem with 'global warming'. Turn the 'true' scientist loose and let them come up with alternatives...new sources...better combustion means and cleaner. Do it within the boundaries of our own countries governed by our own countries and then put the products on the market and let the market pay for it...not damn taxes....to be given to some dip from the UN or the likes of Al Gore to make money from trading carbon credits.

You can argue for days on end if there is global warming...really myself....I believe not..but the real answer is finding better...cleaner...cheaper....energy and the problem is solved and if there is not problem then we are being smart conserving preventing the problem...

Just my take...

best regards,

seax B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drought is -- quite generally -- not caused by "warming" climate, but by cooling climate, because, as ocean and non-ocean water-bodies' surface waters cool, their rates of water evaporation decline, hence the rate of precipitation of moisture from the atmosphere upon continental land surfaces also declines, creating drought and desertification.

Ice sheets have been shrinking and precipitation rising in the Northern Hemisphere, which points to warming (at the equator )to me.

)

The data is compelling and the fact that some scientist have had to assimilate that data in a consistent way, which superficially may look like fraud to the ill informed, proves only that the ill informed have difficulty interpreting data and handling complex concepts.

Seax, all your arguments are based on a belief that the agenda is to undermine the "lifestyle" which you feel is your god given right. You will edit the data in whatever way allows you to hold onto that idea. If you looked at the bigger picture and leave out Global Warming you would realise that consumption in its current form is unsustainable, and will inevitably lead to ecosystem collapse on a global scale. So you underlying premise that our lifestyle is god given and sacrosanct doesn't bare close scrutiny. Your thinking, just as the pattern of societal consumption based living, is flawed and will lead to widespread human (and animal death) in a realitivly short time scale. So in this context global warming is a facet, a symptom of a lifestyle which over exploits its support system.

To put it bluntly if you had a field of plants which supplied all your oxygen needs (via a huge bubble and small pipe) and one day you decided to replace that field with a new mansion, unfortunately you would not be there to appreciate your new bauble. This is the situation we are in and bleating about wanting to keep your SUV is quite frankly insane.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest the use of gasoline and other carbon emissions are a lot LOWER THIS YEAR because of the PRICE of going anywhere. Also, the cost of living and all is going up so there is a lot less people driving now because of this. Also, do you honestly think that CO2 is causing all of this global warming and not the Earth's CORE SYSTEM its self? By the way, did you know that cold water will melt ice faster than warm water because of the refreezing effect? Hot water freezes faster than cold water all the time, that's always been proven. But going back to what I was saying, if you think that us humans are the cause and effect of everything think about this, us HUMANS PRODUCE CO2 WHEN WE EXHALE AIR!!! Now you're telling your self, well that's not enough to change anything, then you're wrong. Think about when you breath into balloon. Sure you can blow a lot of air into ( NOTE: You're dealing with CO2 AGAIN )in order to get it to float or to stay blown up. Now there's a good amount of HOT AIR in the balloon, but if you blow more air into it then it'll pop. Now what's the cause and effect here? Human produced hot air for the balloon to gain size and float but they decided they could add more to it and not care, then the balloon popped because of too much hot air and force. So basically you're saying that the human's ability to breath is one of the leading causes to the Earth's so-called Climate change. So basically you'd have to kill millions upon billions of people to make any difference because even with all the most sophisticated environmentally friendly vehicles out there, you'd still produce lots of CO2 ( Carbon Dioxide ). Also, think about trash too? Decaying trash that we throw away or burn produces Methane if it's buried and produce Carbon Dioxide if straight burned. PS: Think about how much energy we produce and use to recycle things too....Now isn't that a catch twenty two huh? So if you was to ask me, I would say that the Earth is naturally heating and sooner or later we will be seeing a lot more colder climates in the next four years at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice sheets have been shrinking and precipitation rising in the Northern Hemisphere, which points to warming (at the equator )to me.

)

The data is compelling and the fact that some scientist have had to assimilate that data in a consistent way, which superficially may look like fraud to the ill informed, proves only that the ill informed have difficulty interpreting data and handling complex concepts.

Seax, all your arguments are based on a belief that the agenda is to undermine the "lifestyle" which you feel is your god given right. You will edit the data in whatever way allows you to hold onto that idea. If you looked at the bigger picture and leave out Global Warming you would realise that consumption in its current form is unsustainable, and will inevitably lead to ecosystem collapse on a global scale. So you underlying premise that our lifestyle is god given and sacrosanct doesn't bare close scrutiny. Your thinking, just as the pattern of societal consumption based living, is flawed and will lead to widespread human (and animal death) in a realitivly short time scale. So in this context global warming is a facet, a symptom of a lifestyle which over exploits its support system.

To put it bluntly if you had a field of plants which supplied all your oxygen needs (via a huge bubble and small pipe) and one day you decided to replace that field with a new mansion, unfortunately you would not be there to appreciate your new bauble. This is the situation we are in and bleating about wanting to keep your SUV is quite frankly insane.

Br Cornelius

Neither is it 'anyone' elses 'god given right' to be the final and defining authority on it also...other than taking the moral highground by lies and strong arming the public.

It's call facisim.

seax B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice sheets have been shrinking and precipitation rising in the Northern Hemisphere, which points to warming (at the equator )to me.

)

Seax, all your arguments are based on a belief that the agenda is to undermine the "lifestyle" which you feel is your god given right. You will edit the data in whatever way allows you to hold onto that idea. If you looked at the bigger picture and leave out Global Warming you would realise that consumption in its current form is unsustainable, and will inevitably lead to ecosystem collapse on a global scale. So you underlying premise that our lifestyle is god given and sacrosanct doesn't bare close scrutiny. Your thinking, just as the pattern of societal consumption based living, is flawed and will lead to widespread human (and animal death) in a realitivly short time scale. So in this context global warming is a facet, a symptom of a lifestyle which over exploits its support system.

To put it bluntly if you had a field of plants which supplied all your oxygen needs (via a huge bubble and small pipe) and one day you decided to replace that field with a new mansion, unfortunately you would not be there to appreciate your new bauble. This is the situation we are in and bleating about wanting to keep your SUV is quite frankly insane.

Br Cornelius

Cornelius...I respect your opinions...and if at times I seem to be harsh it is not my intent. Everyone's opinion counts because we all have a different dimension to any problem.

As stated in my previous post I think it is not only mandatory that we protect the environment but smart. But..we live in a world where everything has a price tag. The lifestyle we live now are courtesy of 'energy'. Lifestyles have risen in the free world because of it...while at the same time 'opportunist' have muddied the water with the same fruits that lifted the lifestyle of billions of people throughout the world. The 3rd world nations have been plagued with dictators...used and abused in some instances by the west...but mostly just 'bad management' on everyone's involvement...including the UN...especially the UN. That is politics not science.

While science has recieved a black eye...I still have a lot of faith in it...but it has a problem now that has plagued the rest of the world and that's politics. When you get a phd...it for study in specific field...it does not say you are a good citizen or immunized from all the bad things we humans indulge in...greed...lies....and personal idealogy's which are not science based but politically based and sometimes those idealology's come 'where the paycheck comes from' that's called self preservation, and we all do that... :lol:

It is my opinion...and this is based upon the ranting and ravings of 'extemeist' for years now from everything such as SUV's to cutting trees to build homes a contingency of our fellow men on the Earth don't like the progress and lifestyle we all are enjoying now...such as the prior Sierra Club leader that lived in a huge log cabin house...but didn't want anyone else to. While I feel you are sincere in your concerns you have posted...I feel they are extreme. This Earth was here before we were. It has taken care of itself without our help...and I think it will continue to...provided we don't do something stupid mash some buttons igniting some plutonium. Even you body heals itself to a certain extent...the Earth goes through cycles and who knows...these cycles probably fix things we aren't aware of. We think we know a lot ....we don't know anything.

I don't think anyone has the right...to impose financial hardship on the mass'es based on an opinion they gathered from a few years measurements...on a planet...no one built and do not have the schematics or a tech manual to go by. I don't think it is climate...many other people don't think it is climate...it's control. And the big boys have convinced some of the public we are going to die if we don't turn it over to them. Sad. Never have there been times like now.

best regards,

seax B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to state something which is very controvercial, but has truth.

The environmental catastrophy which man is creating is very real and any search of the journals on species extinction, pollution build up and resourse depletion will confirm this. Already the oceans are so changed that it is very unpredictable what the end result will be.

If you understand the issues and what are the causes and failed to do anything about them then you would be criminally negligent. Maybe the elitists you rail against have the wisdom to realise that to allow the death of an ecosystem is a greater crime than to try to address the causes. If you were in the same position and had the power to do something about it -would you attempt to do anything else?

Personally I think there are many available solutions to our situation - but every single one of them requires a root and branch overhaul of how we do everything. A sustainable world need not be any worse for those who live in it, but by definition it will not involve capitalism or currently configured consumerism. I have not the intellect to conceive of what a sustainable world might look like, simply that it is not business as usual.

Unfortunately I do not think our elitists want to change the fundamental rules of the game so the only solution they can see is to lessen the ecological load by reducing the problem - Man. I do not see you as wanting any fundamental change to the rules - so by definition you are part of the same problem and share the responsability and blame.

Until the majority can see the problems and realistically look at finding sustainable solutions we are doomed to death by oligarchy or death by ecological collapse. Those are the informed choices if you don't want to change the rules.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ame='Br Cornelius' date='10 December 2009 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1260434845' post='3202750']

Ice sheets have been shrinking and precipitation rising in the Northern Hemisphere, which points to warming (at the equator )to me.

)

I don't think anyone has the right...to impose financial hardship on the mass'es based on an opinion they gathered from a few years measurements...on a planet...no one built and do not have the schematics or a tech manual to go by. I don't think it is climate...many other people don't think it is climate...it's control. And the big boys have convinced some of the public we are going to die if we don't turn it over to them. Sad. Never have there been times like now.

best regards,

seax cool.gif

Nothing is based on "a few years measurments" they go back for more than 20Myrs. There really are NO financial hardships at all, (where do you naysayers get this from?) I live in Spain (possibly the poorest "man" in Europe at the moment) but I warrant that my energy bills are massively lower than yours even though 50% of my energy is sourced through wind power. My bills are not subsidised by the way.

Within 10 years we will not be buying oil from Arabian states either, therefore, we will not be supporting their sick Shariah Law beliefs either, but USA does, and will continue to do so because oil is easier than research and development

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to state something which is very controvercial, but has truth.

The environmental catastrophy which man is creating is very real and any search of the journals on species extinction, pollution build up and resourse depletion will confirm this. Already the oceans are so changed that it is very unpredictable what the end result will be.

If you understand the issues and what are the causes and failed to do anything about them then you would be criminally negligent. Maybe the elitists you rail against have the wisdom to realise that to allow the death of an ecosystem is a greater crime than to try to address the causes. If you were in the same position and had the power to do something about it -would you attempt to do anything else?

Personally I think there are many available solutions to our situation - but every single one of them requires a root and branch overhaul of how we do everything. A sustainable world need not be any worse for those who live in it, but by definition it will not involve capitalism or currently configured consumerism. I have not the intellect to conceive of what a sustainable world might look like, simply that it is not business as usual.

Unfortunately I do not think our elitists want to change the fundamental rules of the game so the only solution they can see is to lessen the ecological load by reducing the problem - Man. I do not see you as wanting any fundamental change to the rules - so by definition you are part of the same problem and share the responsability and blame.

Until the majority can see the problems and realistically look at finding sustainable solutions we are doomed to death by oligarchy or death by ecological collapse. Those are the informed choices if you don't want to change the rules.

Br Cornelius

Cornelius...I can see you are not a capitalist...and thats ok. But I think in our brief conversations I can say the root of your opinion is based on exactly what my 'ranting' is about...anti capitalism. We live in an energy economy...like it or not... and we all are beneficiaries of what the Earth bears...and as I said before...everything comes with a price tag...the question is...how much? We sit here today and enjoy the internet...which is brought to us by...energy... and if you can pay a power bill and the internet bill...you can enjoy the internet and get to talk to very informed and interesting people like myself... :P It is my contention that if today...by some miracle...some enterprising individual would develope an energy that was cheap...clean and produced gold as a by product...the same people in Copenhagen today screaming the sky is falling will change their rant to...there is still too many people and the production of so much gold is going make people too rich.

This travesty of 'bogus legislation' on the table in Copenhagen is not necessary. It is a front for a more sinister purpose..and unfortunately Cornelius they have convinced you and many more of it's urgency and importance..by trying to market something they don't understand. Measurements from a few decades trying to explain something that has gone on for millions of years is a spit in the eye of any thinking person and a rank abuse of monies...and the taxpayers backed by politicians...that no one wants to talk about...you mention global warming now and Al Gore and everyone screams it's the data it's the data. Like it or not...he's your poster boy. And he and other's like him ...fly all around the world contributing 1000's of time more to the 'supposed problem' than the average person will in a lifetime. It's hypocracy at its finest...I'm sorry Cornelius...I won't buy the snake oil...and there are millions upon millions like me that won't. I respect your opinions...but it is not going to be my fault if New York submerges under water...or anyone elses...blame mother nature...or if you are religious the creator of the Earth. Some paid shill that works for the UN...or a university funded by anti-capitalist...marxist guru's don't have my attention.

I say this without any hard feelings...but you don't know the outcome of what you are preaching for. Now more than ever I am conviced it's all politics.

And Cornelius...you will get more bang for your buck in selling the program if you didn't insinuate that not agreeing with you is 'criminal'. I have never understood why liberals resort to name calling when they stand on the podium of understanding and caring. I say that seriously...not being sarcastic. At any rate...thanks for your post.

best regards,

seax B)

Edited by seax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is based on "a few years measurments" they go back for more than 20Myrs. There really are NO financial hardships at all, (where do you naysayers get this from?) I live in Spain (possibly the poorest "man" in Europe at the moment) but I warrant that my energy bills are massively lower than yours even though 50% of my energy is sourced through wind power. My bills are not subsidised by the way.

Within 10 years we will not be buying oil from Arabian states either, therefore, we will not be supporting their sick Shariah Law beliefs either, but USA does, and will continue to do so because oil is easier than research and development

Yeah...I heard you lost your good credit rating...I'm referring to Spain. Sorry about that...there will be more to follow.

Nah...you're not the poorest man in Europe...if you have your good health...you're a rich man ;)

My energy bill is high. And with cap and trade...Obama has already said it will go up. And I am with you on the Saudi's you have a friend here on that. We should be using our own oil...and developing better and cleaner ways to burn it..and create some jobs...put people to work and let the market pay for the new technology. The Saudi's have been financing our debt...the government is scared of them...sad but true....you call a spade a spade.

Off subject...but I had a friend that worked at a local bank from Spain...she moved back to Spain because of her mother's health. She and I used to argue...(just kidding of course) if Columbus was Spanish or Italian. She was a nice lady...and I wish her well.

best regards,

seax B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornelius...I can see you are not a capitalist...and thats ok. But I think in our brief conversations I can say the root of your opinion is based on exactly what my 'ranting' is about...anti capitalism. We live in an energy economy...like it or not... and we all are beneficiaries of what the Earth bears...and as I said before...everything comes with a price tag...the question is...how much? We sit here today and enjoy the internet...which is brought to us by...energy... and if you can pay a power bill and the internet bill...you can enjoy the internet and get to talk to very informed and interesting people like myself... :P It is my contention that if today...by some miracle...some enterprising individual would develope an energy that was cheap...clean and produced gold as a by product...the same people in Copenhagen today screaming the sky is falling will change their rant to...there is still too many people and the production of so much gold is going make people too rich.

This travesty of 'bogus legislation' on the table in Copenhagen is not necessary. It is a front for a more sinister purpose..and unfortunately Cornelius they have convinced you and many more of it's urgency and importance..by trying to market something they don't understand. Measurements from a few decades trying to explain something that has gone on for millions of years is a spit in the eye of any thinking person and a rank abuse of monies...and the taxpayers backed by politicians...that no one wants to talk about...you mention global warming now and Al Gore and everyone screams it's the data it's the data. Like it or not...he's your poster boy. And he and other's like him ...fly all around the world contributing 1000's of time more to the 'supposed problem' than the average person will in a lifetime. It's hypocracy at its finest...I'm sorry Cornelius...I won't buy the snake oil...and there are millions upon millions like me that won't. I respect your opinions...but it is not going to be my fault if New York submerges under water...or anyone elses...blame mother nature...or if you are religious the creator of the Earth. Some paid shill that works for the UN...or a university funded by anti-capitalist...marxist guru's don't have my attention.

I say this without any hard feelings...but you don't know the outcome of what you are preaching for. Now more than ever I am conviced it's all politics.

And Cornelius...you will get more bang for your buck in selling the program if you didn't insinuate that not agreeing with you is 'criminal'. I have never understood why liberals resort to name calling when they stand on the podium of understanding and caring. I say that seriously...not being sarcastic. At any rate...thanks for your post.

best regards,

seax B)

I am an environmental scientist so have a good grasp of the facts.

I am not anti capitalist, I am an advocate for intelligent management of the resources we have.

If we suddenly found an infinite source of cheap energy, in a consumption based society it would inevitably lead to worse resource exploitation and faster environmental destruction. It is not an energy crisis, it is a crisis of ideas.

Did you realise that almost all previous civilizations failed as a direct consequence of over exploitation of natural resource - mostly forestry. What makes us so different-nothing ?

As a society we are criminally insane by any definition. To realise the consequences of disfunctional behaviour and to do nothing about it is the very definition of insanity. It is to be so locked into a belief system that it becomes impossible to conceive of any other way of behaving, to be controlled by our conditioning. And if you are part of that system you are complicit in those consequences -and that applies to me as much as anyone else.

Copenhagen will fail because those who seek to solve the problems within the current set of intellectual paradigams will never be capable of grasping the real problems. Growth is the problem and at its core Copenhagen is about sustaining growth by trying to manage the negative consequences of growth. It doesn't address the problem - simply the consequences and until the problems solved then no solution will fix the system which generates the problems.

I do not believe in any 'ism - I believe that intelligent analysis of the issues and their consequences are the only possible solution to making a sustainable future for us all.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an environmental scientist so have a good grasp of the facts.

I am not anti capitalist, I am an advocate for intelligent management of the resources we have.

If we suddenly found an infinite source of cheap energy, in a consumption based society it would inevitably lead to worse resource exploitation and faster environmental destruction. It is not an energy crisis, it is a crisis of ideas.

Did you realise that almost all previous civilizations failed as a direct consequence of over exploitation of natural resource - mostly forestry. What makes us so different-nothing ?

As a society we are criminally insane by any definition. To realise the consequences of disfunctional behaviour and to do nothing about it is the very definition of insanity. It is to be so locked into a belief system that it becomes impossible to conceive of any other way of behaving, to be controlled by our conditioning. And if you are part of that system you are complicit in those consequences -and that applies to me as much as anyone else.

Copenhagen will fail because those who seek to solve the problems within the current set of intellectual paradigams will never be capable of grasping the real problems. Growth is the problem and at its core Copenhagen is about sustaining growth by trying to manage the negative consequences of growth. It doesn't address the problem - simply the consequences and until the problems solved then no solution will fix the system which generates the problems.

I do not believe in any 'ism - I believe that intelligent analysis of the issues and their consequences are the only possible solution to making a sustainable future for us all.

Br Cornelius

Thank you Cornelius...I appreciate your honesty and sincereity on the subject. You are one of the few that have told the truth. We can agree that we do have a growth problem..which what stems much of the fear using global warming as the 'buggie man'. We should be concerned about population growth...because more people the more need of energy. But...don't you think we can sit down at the table and come up with a plan to challenge these problems without massive and intrusive legislation. Whatever we do...it will take years for any effects to be felt...why push the world in a terrible recession now? Don't you agree? After all...it is results we want...not create a new problem or many. Imagine the new industries...business's that could result from this. But...being the devils's advocate...until our politicians...get real..and commit themselves to serving the people and our better interest...not interest groups..not much will happen...even with Copenhagen being a success.

Would you agree with me on that?

best regards,

seax B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all that data is wrong. I think 'global warming' is a natural flucuation and the little bit humans add is nothing. This whole flap is just another big scam so people like Al Gore can get richer. Humans did not cause global warming and nothing they can do will stop it. KennyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all that data is wrong. I think 'global warming' is a natural flucuation and the little bit humans add is nothing. This whole flap is just another big scam so people like Al Gore can get richer. Humans did not cause global warming and nothing they can do will stop it. KennyB

Personally I will go with the data rather than your opinion.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Cornelius...I appreciate your honesty and sincereity on the subject. You are one of the few that have told the truth. We can agree that we do have a growth problem..which what stems much of the fear using global warming as the 'buggie man'. We should be concerned about population growth...because more people the more need of energy. But...don't you think we can sit down at the table and come up with a plan to challenge these problems without massive and intrusive legislation. Whatever we do...it will take years for any effects to be felt...why push the world in a terrible recession now? Don't you agree? After all...it is results we want...not create a new problem or many. Imagine the new industries...business's that could result from this. But...being the devils's advocate...until our politicians...get real..and commit themselves to serving the people and our better interest...not interest groups..not much will happen...even with Copenhagen being a success.

Would you agree with me on that?

best regards,

seax B)

For such a pow wow to be a useful exercise you would have to be prepared to question your very fundamental beliefs and assumptions. Without that it would resolve down to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic and thats exactly what they are attempting at Copehhagen.

I will accept that the recession/depression we are in is probably a manipulated creation (though instability is intrinsic in a greed based economy) with greater ambitions to create massive social change for the benefit of elites - but again unless it results in massive population decrease its more deckchairs. If Eugenics is the only solution that can be made to work in the world we live in then maybe we need to fundamentally change the world that we live in. Are you ready for that ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice sheets have been shrinking and precipitation rising in the Northern Hemisphere, which points to warming (at the equator )to me.

)

The data is compelling and the fact that some scientist have had to assimilate that data in a consistent way, which superficially may look like fraud to the ill informed, proves only that the ill informed have difficulty interpreting data and handling complex concepts.

Though I disagree with you on the scientific findings, and can clearly see these men have been caught with thier pants down, that isnt my beef. Regardless of wether or not the climate is changing from man made causes, I think we certainly should be moving tward cleaner energy just as a princible. My beef is how they are going about trying to fix the problem. Taxing to death the middle class for a very small % of carbon reduction over many many years, to me, is absurd. Right now the white house is talking about stimulas 2 (3 if your really counting). Instead of giving that money to banksters, why dont we simply use known technology to fix the problem? Build massive wind mill farms, give tax incentives to solarize homes, build tidal plants. Make it a 5 to 10 year plan to completly convert. This would actualy over the long haul, lower energy costs. It would encourage people to want to buy electric cars, and would actualy make a real dent in our carbon emitions. If current energy companies dont want to be left behind, they would invest in starting there own programs.

People say there isnt a demand for green energy, so it wont work. BS I say. If the government created a few hundred giant windmill farms (sub contracted the work, then made them independant companies) and people had a choice to get the same electricity, for half the cost, its a no brainer who they would pick. Now lets say you could buy a electric run car, which would bring your electric bill back up to what it is now, its still more than worth it. You might have the same electric bill, but you'd no longer pay for gas at all (other than for your lawn mower, ect). There is no need to create a one world government with unfair treaties, that will only hurt people, to fix this thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry BR I didnt read the rest of this thread. We are on the same wave. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For such a pow wow to be a useful exercise you would have to be prepared to question your very fundamental beliefs and assumptions. Without that it would resolve down to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic and thats exactly what they are attempting at Copehhagen.

I will accept that the recession/depression we are in is probably a manipulated creation (though instability is intrinsic in a greed based economy) with greater ambitions to create massive social change for the benefit of elites - but again unless it results in massive population decrease its more deckchairs. If Eugenics is the only solution that can be made to work in the world we live in then maybe we need to fundamentally change the world that we live in. Are you ready for that ?

Br Cornelius

You mentioned something I highlighted above that has a huge impact on this whole discussion. Many...many...people...including myself do feel that this depression we are in now was a manipulated creation. Greed is not to be left out of it...but...I think a blind eye was turned to allow it to go on...knowing full well what the circustances would be. This weighs heavily on everyone...rightfully so.

This is a terrible time in history to dump more expense on people. To show you the mindset of some people. I have a good friend that has a phd in economics from Davidson. He told me a few weeks ago that the 'poor' should pay the bigger portion of the taxes...it would encourage them to 'do better'. I couldn't believe my ears. The problem is...he has lost touch with the world...and there are many others just like him setting policy.

I think most Western countries would agree that a plan to reduce the birthrate..since people are living longer and spend money on 'true' research and developement of energy alternatives...and other areas such as housing and transportation. This would create new jobs and industrys...while eventually we would lose some but this would be transitional...not jumping off a cliff. This would pay for itself...not unfair taxation given to misguided entity's like the UN. Like I said earlier..in the mean time...life goes on...everyone is happy...even the bankers.. ;)

We're not so far apart Cornelius...we are on common ground :tu:

best regards,

seax B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I will go with the data rather than your opinion.

Br Cornelius

Dear Cornelius,

But the real, un-doctored data, is against you!

See, for example, the following 1-page refutation of "the Rockefeller's Global Warming Hoax" --

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264

-- and see also, for an extended refutation --

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/Crises-by-Nature/Crises-by-Nature.htm

Regards,

Miguel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the real answer is finding better...cleaner...cheaper....energy and the problem is solved

seax B)

Dear Seax,

Agreed. The real answer is Fusion Power [NOT fission power].

HYPOTHESIS. Even the mere mention of Fusion Power, as the other kind of nuclear energy besides fission power, is generally suppressed in the Rockefeller-Plutocracy-controlled mass media, and those who advance fusion technology -- like Dr. Eugene Mallove and Dr. Robert Bussard -- keep ending up murdered, or dead due to "hyper-aggressive double cancer", shortly after they go public with their results, BECAUSE fusion power would (1) 'techno-depreciate' virtually the entire fixed capital base of the Rockefellers' dictatorial socio-political power, in the petroleum industry, would (2) be fueled mainly by virtually 'unmonopolizeabe' -- unlike readily-monopolizeable Uranium and Fossil Fuels [via the control of which the Rockefellers and their fellow-plutocrats extract trillions of dollars in tribute and debt-slavery from nations all ofer the world today] -- water, Hydrogen, Helium, Boron, etc., and would, in the fusion fuel cycles championed by Dr. Bussard, eliminate virtually all 'radioactivation' pollution, releasing essentially only "beta particles" [electrons for direct conversion into electricity].

See, for example --

http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS5-FusionBreakthrough/GS5-FusionBreakthrough.htm

http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS3-SuppressionOfNuclearFusionEnergy/GS3-SuppressionOfNuclearFusionEnergy.htm

For more on 'Techno-Depreciation' -- the real core threat to the plutocracy's power that has led it to concoct all of these Malthusian "People Are Pollution", 'Meta-Nazi' ideologies ["Small Is Beautiful", "Limits to Growth", "Zero Economic Growth", "Zero Population Growth", "Peak Oil", "Back-to-Nature", "Neo-Primitivism", etc., etc., ad nauseam], see --

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/TechnoDepreciation/TechnoDepreciation-partA.pdf

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/TechnoDepreciation/TechnoDepreciation-partB.pdf

Regards,

Miguel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice sheets have been shrinking . . . which points to warming

Br Cornelius

Dear Br Cornelius,

Many ice sheets are shrinking due to drought, which is caused by cooling, not warming.

Many, many ice sheets, in other areas, are still expanding, but this information is suppressed in the mass media.

HYPOTHESIS: The evidence of ice sheets and glaciers that are still growing is seldom, if ever, mentioned in the Rockefeller-Plutocracy-controlled mass media, because they don't want the public to know about this, as about other evidence and data that falsifies their pseudo-scientific, hired-liar "Global Warming" fraud.

For data on ice sheets and glaciers that are expanding, see, for example --

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

-- and the book --

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Fire-but-Ice-Dinosaurs/dp/0964874687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260557069&sr=8-1

Regards,

Miguel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.