In short they think that global warming is a huge "New World Order" plot, and that global warming is beneficial to the NWO so they can "tax us more" or depopulate. They go on the logic that the NWO is made up of Corrupt politicians, big business (especially the military-industrial complex) which is true to it's image.
Never mind the fact that environmental concerns big business would have to adhere to would LIMIT profit and thus have a negative effect of funds big business, and therefore the politicians they lobby; and that the right-wing politicians who have been destroying our civil liberties have been the biggest deniers and the most anti-green.
It's the most economically liberal (such as Bush) that have been the staunchest dismissers of man-made global warming so their story falls apart in the face of logic.
they do not think that global warming is a NWO plot, allow me to explain.
Global warming is a natural occurance and the fact is that people are being taxed and punished for it when they have not caused it.
That is the plot the taxing of people for something that is a natural event.
It is like taxing people every time it rains
in case you have been taking in by the global warming propaganda simply look at a few geography study books. You will observe that most of Britain and Europe used to be covered by GLACIERS because it was much colder than it is today.
Earth surface temperaatures have been steadily rising due to solar activity. The sun is gradually cooling and also getting bigger.
The moon and Mars are both experiencing warming and yet they have no pollution. _________________
Interesting that other planets are experiencing global warming without any human help eh ? _________________ "The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." George Orwell
In short they think that global warming is a huge "New World Order" plot, and that global warming is beneficial to the NWO so they can "tax us more" or depopulate.
The First Global Revolution by The Club of Rome wrote:
The Common Enemy of Humanity Is Man
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we suggested that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...
...The real enemy then is humanity itself.
Maybe those Infowars boys are onto something... _________________ "Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: Great tactic....
Global warming is being used as a 'mind method' in order to increase taxation on us all, and have us really pleased to be paying more taxes in order to 'save the planet'. If these corrupt politicians really cared about the environment they could lead by immediately ceasing their illegal wars, stop their war planes from flying, stop dropping their uranium enriched weapons, and stop talking about 'nuclear' war with Iran!!
The trouble is, too many of the unthinking population are completely taken in by the continual brainwashing.
Exactly the same tactics are being used elsewhere in a remarkably effective way such that many of the brainwashed populace are 'slavering at the bit' to have politicians take away their rights and freedoms in the name of "security", and the largely fictional "war on terror". How many people do you hear say "well, if you've got nothing to hide, why fear giving your DNA, fingerprints, retinal scans (etc etc) to the Government". The British, American and Israeli Governments are the biggest war mongers (terrorists) in the world just at present, so yes, I do fear them having my private information.
The tactic is brilliant and works well, until sufficient of the population finally wake up, but by then it will, in all likelihood, be too late, as those rights will have been consigned to the history books.
I don't want to get into a debate about climate change, but rather the logic behind their argument. For example Exxon (most prominent of companies in the military-industrial complex) funds the groups that QUESTION man-made global warming.
It is in THEIR interests that people question global warming and continue investment in their company. Every other MIC company would logically act in exactly the same way to keep profit as high as possible. We know about the revolving door between politicians and big business so this would be detrimental to political interests, especially on the free market Right who seem to be getting more power the world over.
Infowars' logic just doesn't add up to the facts.
Can anyone answer this- Why has the Bush administration (an admin which embodies Elite thought) been so dismissive of action on Climate Change if it really is a "NWO" plot ?
`Can anyone answer this- Why has the Bush administration (an admin which embodies Elite thought) been so dismissive of action on Climate Change if it really is a "NWO" plot ?`
This whole anti green side of the Alex Jones possie turned me off him. Alex Jones often makes sweeping statements on his show like 'the whole green movement...' I take offence by this as I am part of the green movement. I think anyone his who makes an effort to tread more lightly on the planet. _________________ 911 Was An Outside Job. I used to be a 'truther' but I now believe all the conspiracy theories to be nonsense. Please watch 'Screw Loose Change' on youtube.
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists?
Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations.
By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
Ritchie - the fact that global warming is NOT a man made event does not mean we should not live our lives more conservatively. Governments have blocked clean fuels for donkeys years.
Dont you agree that depleted uranium pollution is far worse than leaving your tv on standby?
And methane emitted from landfill sites is amuch worse thing than sending the rubbish to the incinerator and making free electricity? _________________
The oil cartel is really happy with the climate change theory in the long term while financing a few gainsayers in the short term, so it looks like there's a conflict going on between them and the CC propagandists.
In the long term they will delight in the confining of their products to the jetsetting and smugmobile driving rich and superich, whilst the mass of little people lose their Easyjet hols while cycling around fulfilling their duties to the former, controlled by their subdermal chips
By Sally Peck
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/10/2007
The 'nine inconvenient truths'
Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.
The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.
In the documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, the former US vice president and environmental activist calls on people to fight global warming because "humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb".
But Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration" in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming.
His criticism followed an unsuccessful attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, to block the Government's plan to screen the documentary in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales.
The father of two claimed An Inconvenient Truth included "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush".
The film's distributor, Paramount, warns in its synopsis of the film: "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."
But the judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.
It is, he ruled, a "political film".
The nine alleged errors in the film
# Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."
# The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
# The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
# Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".
# Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
# The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."
# Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".
# Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".
# Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
A Government spokesman said he would not make any further comment on the case today.
Whilst the mass of little people lose their Easyjet hols while cycling around fulfilling their duties to the former, controlled by their subdermal chips
Ofcourse it is not right that Easyjet and Ryanair should be subsidised by us the UK taxpayers.
I have never in my life flown on a plane so why the hell should i be punished so that fat hairy troll Labour party donors get rich?
I say tax airlines properly NOW
Environmental activists opposed to the climate wrecking effects of short haul flights have this morning shut down the HQ of Easyjet in London. Activists from green direct action group, Plane Stupid, took action on Britain’s first national day of action.
_________________
Last edited by karlos on Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:18 pm; edited 3 times in total
Whilst the mass of little people lose their Easyjet hols while cycling around fulfilling their duties to the former, controlled by their subdermal chips
Ofcourse it is not right that Easyjet and Ryanair should be subsidised by us the UK taxpayers.
I have never in my life flown on a plane so why the hell should i be punished so that fat hairy troll Labour party donors get rich?
I say tax airlines properly NOW
I say go travel while you have the chance I'm quite sure they don't want us seeing how the other half live _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
I say go travel while you have the chance I'm quite sure they don't want us seeing how the other half live
Yep if you're relatively poor, get on a plane now and see other places and people. The opportunity wont be there much longer. Their chief objective is to tie us down where they can control or eliminate us _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
how much exactly do you benefit from your one cheap flight a year?
you save what?
a tenner or a score?
Yet you are willing to pay extra taxes of several thousands every year when you fill up your car or when you turn on your central heating in order to save that tenner on your flight.
It is a totally unjust subsidy and people are so stupid that they get bought off by that one 'cheap' flight every year and dont complain about the extra thousands in taxes that one flight has cost them.
It is really unfair that my taxes are going to make these Labour party donors rich. Do you think it is right that a train journey costs more than a plane journey?
Boeing and Airbus get so much money in subsidies, dont you think that money could pay for so many better things like better pensions or more prisons or lower domestic fuel bills? _________________
The point is Stelios that the system is so loaded that ordinary folk cant hope to benefit whatever they do or dont do. Nothing you can do as an individual really matters. The Labour folks and the Tory folks and the Lib Dems and the fringe politicos dont really matter
The thing that really matters is when the collective consciousness decides one Monday morning to stay in bed and not contribute a drip to this false downpouring, and within a few hours it would all collapse
The Burmese Generals could be taken out in an instant if the Burma people took to their homes with the necessary risks of non-trading, rather than to the streets _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
[quote="zennon"]This guy pretty much sums up the logic I'm talking about:
what a c*** !
Climate change is happening, but the evidence points to more of a natural cycle rather than being man-made that is the big difference. In the 1959 we had global warming, 1961 global cooling, 1970`s they were reporting another iceage. The ice core records prove temperature rises THEN co2 levels rise.
So until science can prove the climate change is caused by us, children in schools and adults in general should be shown both sides man-made vs natural cycle and let them make their own minds up. The problem is our media only portrays one side of the argument which is the fire and brimstone/ end of the world scenario which most people will take as the truth and leads to comments like `I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.`
by The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman.
Its getting to the stage where man-made global warming is matter of belief rather than fact.
The whole global warming / climate change debate should be decided by science and not propaganda or spin.
I suggest looking up the oregon petition which was signed by over 18,000 scientists and professionals opposing the Koyoto Protocol.
how much exactly do you benefit from your one cheap flight a year?
you save what?
6 trips to Germany in 8 years that I'd never afford??
It is very refreshing not to have CCTV in your face 24/7 and no terror alerts or security anouncements on public transport or stations!!
It is also refreshing to feel the Anti-Bush sentiment and be laughed at because we are the under the thumb big-brother Brits _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
This whole anti green side of the Alex Jones possie turned me off him. Alex Jones often makes sweeping statements on his show like 'the whole green movement...' I take offence by this as I am part of the green movement. I think anyone his who makes an effort to tread more lightly on the planet.
Actually Alex is quite 'green' but doesn't talk about it all the time. He does complain a lot about the GW movement as it's a fraud and actually 'sucks up' all the concern for real environmental crisis.
I requently hear Alex complain about Genetic Engineering, deforrestation, toxic polution, rubbish in the drinking water and mercury in vaccines i.e. real environmental issues.
The whole 'Humans a Virus on Earth' movement is so openly a brainchild of the ruling class it's astonishing what with the involvement of Prince Phillip, his son, Zac Goldsmith and David Rothschild. It doesn't get much more blatant than that.
You even have it admitted in 'The First Global Revolution' quoted earlier on this thread. _________________ www.wytruth.org.uk
As well as a whole global warming /enviromental journalism industy explosion, this latest hysteria is having a psyhcological effect within society.
We are being made to feel threated, to fear all that is natural and to feel unhappy and an inconveniecne to be alive. When the collective consciousness becomes one of fear or guilt the vibration is lowered.
I agree, we should take care of our environemnt, not waste resources and make sure we dont pollute if we can. I have noticed daily comments of people labelling human beings as criminals and should feel guilty to be alive seems to go well along the paralel of eugenics and depopulation ideals. The recent floods cause by rain seeding have done a marvelous job of keeping people working like slaves and attatched to their little houses and cars.
Yes i think global warming is a scam, there will always be change, orbits and cycles occur on every planet.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:33 pm Post subject: Global Warming and the state of the world
Having began a renewable energy course at Cornwall College,coming from Cyprus i was a person filled with the bright expectasions of a brighter future for the u.k.. only to be constantly supressed by the tutors. Though i did not fully under stand why my tutor had this stand on some arguments involving the proofs of global warming, he would turn out to be an "oil man" as in having 20 years of occupation at an oil company,probaly Bp, and also stating he has a "large amount of money in the energy business" .A few things he has said are.. "ARE WE GONA LET THESE CHINKS(chinese in racist) TAKE OVER !?" "Global warming I dont even believe its hapening". Now from what i gather we are not fully shore how fast, some say we have 5 years? some 25. the oil business opinion if you are of my concept would be to make it out to be a rapid climate crises so that thay can excuse the war in IRAN . Government is BIG money. Bp makes 290 billion a year. so schools are taught what industry wants since the coricullum is made by GOV. No smart kids no renewable energy the more goverments controlled by the s society can gain control and surpress others.. answer to all our problems spread the word? get on greenys side? are we organised enough?
Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Posts: 137 Location: southend essex
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:42 pm Post subject:
uselesseater wrote:
rubber_ritchie wrote:
This whole anti green side of the Alex Jones possie turned me off him. Alex Jones often makes sweeping statements on his show like 'the whole green movement...' I take offence by this as I am part of the green movement. I think anyone his who makes an effort to tread more lightly on the planet.
Actually Alex is quite 'green' but doesn't talk about it all the time. He does complain a lot about the GW movement as it's a fraud and actually 'sucks up' all the concern for real environmental crisis.
I requently hear Alex complain about Genetic Engineering, deforrestation, toxic polution, rubbish in the drinking water and mercury in vaccines i.e. real environmental issues.
The whole 'Humans a Virus on Earth' movement is so openly a brainchild of the ruling class it's astonishing what with the involvement of Prince Phillip, his son, Zac Goldsmith and David Rothschild. It doesn't get much more blatant than that.
You even have it admitted in 'The First Global Revolution' quoted earlier on this thread.
Alex jones is often pointing out real environmental issues as uselesseater points out above..
'They' also have the means to 'create' all the evidence they need in terms of 'chaotic' effects of climate change on weather, create draughts, floods, increase and direct the destructive power of cyclonic systems, then the media reports on these events re-enforcing the scam with big headlines of 'proof' of climate change.
What is more dangerous though for life on the planet and something the media hardly ever address is the continuing development of war technology, for instance, the elite have nuked 'us' the people of the planet on over 2000 occasions, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb ) for testing purposes and demonstration purposes since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. these tests are a combination of atmospheric, land, sea, and below ground, but it's research in how to kill people ... so it's ok?
The present technology being developed which utilizes the planets own energy systems to modify weather, create earthquakes and tsunamis doesn't even exist according to the media. But these activities more than anything threaten to de-stabilise the Earth systems and are damaging, or lethal depending on how the technology is employed, to Earth life forms.
So, I don't have much time for the global warming crew other than to point out it's yet another elitists project to exploit / control the people, and their attentions would be better employed confronting issues such as those mentioned above or other real environmental concerns such as de-forestation, mobile phone mast radiation and it's associated technology, GM food, .. there are lots to choose from.
I grew up in a bookstore, and ive seen some of the things you talk about like the earthquake machine in the 2WW.. and the nuclear experements. I even realise that leaders/ruling elite have and still are experimenting on global human behavior.. but how would thay let someone like Ron paul to run? the smarter portion of society would obviusly not let these people get away with what thay have done if he wins.. his a man thats on the ball as any other..
but how would thay let someone like Ron paul to run? the smarter portion of society would obviusly not let these people get away with what thay have done if he wins.. his a man thats on the ball as any other..
Good point, and one can only speculate in terms of answer’s. Maybe he will be used in some way, so often you see people being used without their knowledge to shape public opinion.
I'd like to think it was a sign that there is some sort of conflict going on where it really matters rather than on the level of our political puppets. But that’s just probably me being naive.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
