Thursday, February 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Oh Shit! ... GMO Food Sterilizes People ... And It's Really A Form of Population Control?"
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider - founder Club of Rome - The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
GET A CHICK...
Were We All Kunta Kinte? Or Are We Also Mansa Musa?
Barry Goldwater 1909-1998
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. "
The Honorable Elijah Muhammad
"It Is Easier To Change A Man's Religion Than It Is To Change His Diet"
Private Prison Industry
2,000,000 human beings in American prisons and counting
IS THIS LITTLE GUY A PERSON?
The founders of the American state understood that the proper functioning of a democracy required an educated electorate. It is this understanding that justifies a system of public education and that led slaveholders to resist the spread of literacy among their chattels. But the meaning of "educated" has changed beyond recognition in two hundred years. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are no longer sufficient to decide on public policy. Now we need quantum mechanics and molecular biology. The knowledge required for political rationality, once available to the masses, is now in the possession of a specially educated elite, a situation that creates a series of tensions and contradictions in the operation of representative democracy.
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. P
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Louis Pasteur
"The Microbe is nothing. The terrain is everything."
Beverly Johnson. Beverly Hills. 1978
"Bra! Tell Me About It!"
"Most of the trouble I have had in advancing the cause of the race has come from Negroes."
Ted Turner - CNN founder and UN supporter - quoted in the The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
Lord Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science On Society (Routledge Press: New York, 1951).
"At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars.. War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it?"
Denmark Vesey For President 08
1. Troops Out Of Iraq Immediately. Like By Monday. 2. Money Owed To Haliburton and War Contractors Be Given Directly To The Iraqi People 3. Complete Electoral Reform 4. No Corporate Conglomerate Will Be Allowed To Control More Than 5% Of News Market 5. Federal Reserve Abolished 6. For-Profit Prison Industry Abolished
*George Orwell (1903-1950) English novelist, critic
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness... If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear... The great enemy of clear language is insincerity... The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it... To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle... For a creative writer possession of the truth is less important than emotional sincerity.
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society will be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.” – Zbigniew Brzezinski
God Don't Make No Mistakes
Gordon Parks 1912-2006
"I suffered evils, but without allowing them to rob me of the freedom to expand."
Great Grandmother Harris
Subscribe
56 comments:
The policy, which took a sceptical position, was unveiled by the party’s leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor on scientific policy to Margaret Thatcher’s government. He also warned the then prime minister of the possible threat posed by global warming and supported greater research into the issue.
So, was he for it, then against it?
What changed his mind? Do you know?
Bra,
If you're going to pick someone as the Climate GOAT at least pick someone with better credentials; degrees in Classics and Journalism, puzzlemaking, advising Margaret Thatcher and being a member of right-wing nutters, UKIP hardly makes up a good rap sheet.
Monckton was not an adviser to Thatcher on scientific policy. He was head of the Center for Policy Studies and advised on economics. He never said anything about global warming in the era of Margaret Thatcher.
Like other UKIP politicians Monckton is big on rhetoric and conspiracy, but short on truth.
On his tour of North America, Copenhagen was made out to be the culmination of an unelected communist world government - anyone with any political sense would dismissed this as rhetoric; but he found an audience with energy guzzling Americans.
Coal is not "clean" energy as he believes. His interests in climte change are very much about pandering to his American corporate sponsors; ExxonMobil and the tobacco and drug industry - same industries DV opposes 24/7 on here.
As to his stance on climate change; sure there are opposing beliefs and I'm all ears, I'm open to the debates on climate change, but for Monkton to present a model that ignores some of the basics in climate science, is at best, bunkum and intellectually dishonest.
OH LAWD.....,
KW
So the newspaper article was misinformed when it identified Monckton as an adviser to Thatcher on global warming. 'Cause unless i read the piece wrong, that's what it said.
As for your other points, I think DV makes a compelling argument that the people pushing for action on climate change have ulterior motives. I don't know if its a single world government, but I'm skeptical of Al Gore and the amount of money he's made from global warming.
I just read these piece over at the homie T3's blog about vaccines and developing countries that echoed many of DV's concerns, but posited a much more mundane reason for the Western push for vaccines. Moola.
Namely, more moola for rich folks. I could see the same thing being behind the climate change push. I think that obviously mankind's abuse of the planet is causing problems, look at the situation with fish in the ocean, but I'm skeptical of the folks who are pushing for change. They just don't smell right.
KW,
Where have you been? Ahh,ahh...Climate Gate anyone ? Forget titles and people and the whole Hegelian Flip Flop. The mugga fuggas (Scientific Dictatorship) admitted to faking the data etc...1934 was the hottest year and record not 1998 etc., etc.,. Phil Jones had to retire, East Anglican, etc. etc,. Have you ever read the Carbon Tax documents? Not really pushing environmental solutions -just a method to institute a world tax of 2.9 percent on everyone. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COAL, BIG OIL ETC., etc. It is all about forming a new carbon base monetary system and setting up the foundation for a one world govt. than anything else .
You said " Like other UKIP politicians Monckton is big on rhetoric and conspiracy, but short on truth."
Huh?
Conspiracy?
Are you saying that Global Warming is anthropogenic and for real?
Please, please, please-send me any of his "conspiracy statement"?
You are joking right?
I mean, Barry Sotero is even saying to hell with you people , I am going to try use executive orders to pass the "meme" that failed at Copenhagen.
this is one of the best scams that blew up in our time... Mockton just played a nice role in getting the word out-not the hero or goat.
Fa real sista, Goggle Climate Gate. Major Fraud!!!
check out this website;
http://www.climategate.com/
KW, it was criminal -they hid, changed and suppressed the data.
Big Man
I'm all with you climate change advocates having ulterior motives, but so does Monckton - look at who his financers are and look at his political ties. UKIP have built up electoral support on Euroskepticism and fear mongering of the worst kind: anti-immigration, Islamophobia and racism.
Do a search online and read up on his anti-climate change 'theory' and see if things add up.
let's see.
1. ducking and dodging questions.
2. trying to change the subject.
3. and all he's got for backup is wax?!?!?!
dayyum....,
this current downward octave enough to make deevee nostalgic for a thodaddy backup!
Hhehehehehehehhehehehehehehhehehehe Sheeeeeeit! You go Madame KW. Enough said.
KW,
Everything I can find about Monckton says he has been correct in his life in his conclusions about issues.
He questioned the propaganda about AIDS becoming a heterosexual epidemic.
Yes, he is Eurosceptic. According to Wiki (which may not like him very much), he sued John Majors to stop British contributions to some Social Development EU project that Britain could have opted out of making. (Must have endeared him to the Conservatives.)
He’s an AGW skeptic. AND most important, everything in his speeches fits with views that Barry Sotero has expressed. AND the left is now admitting that such a Copenhagen (one world) treaty existed in draft form.
HW and DV are both guilty of bias confirmation, that is they cite resources to back up their opinions. This is a classic critical thinking error. When confronted with the hypocritical and inconsistent nature of these admonitions, more errors abound, if they are even addressed.
"I'm all with you climate change advocates having ulterior motives, but so does Monckton - look at who his financers are and look at his political ties." KW
Why don't we just look to see whether or not the earth is actually warming?
@ Rig, OK- that is the rules to the game then.(yawn)
Is this True?
Earth and it’s inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:
* More Plant Growth
* Plants need less water
* More food per acre
* More robust habitats and ecosystems
CO2 is Earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it – No Life On Earth!
www(dot)co2isgreen.org
www(dot)plantsneedco2.org
scienceandpublicpolicy.org
I have also asked for a reference to what statement that Lordie M made that was conspiratorial and did not get a response , but that is not bias. (yawn)
before yall go there- anyone knows the history and Maurice Strong and his relationship to AGW? Before we all go to the resource backup game...How many of yall know about the history Northern Trust of Chicago, and how they set up the IOC as a racketeering loan syndicate to take control of the U.N. through carbon disclosure and the cap and trade scam run by the Chicago Climate Exchange (‘CCX’)?
Think real hard folks, I got reams of Data and Sources (Which every loves and no one reads), and all night. Also before you go there know that I came out of the "GreeN crooked sustainable bullshit con game worst than Enron" Corporate Energy Business. My job was to steal your money with bullshit like AGW because it is the right and moral thing to do.BTW," Sustainable " was the new con word to replace population control by the powers that be.
So let the resource wars begin.
“If you want to know the length of my tie you can call up all the tie manufacturers and ask them the average length of the ties they sell and produce a model based on that
...
Or you could just measure it”.
LOL
The 'A Students' aren't comfortable unless they are pacified by the illusion of authority.
"Peer reviewed study"
"IPCC"
"YOUnited Nations"
"On his tour of North America, Copenhagen was made out to be the culmination of an unelected communist world government - anyone with any political sense would dismissed this as rhetoric; but he found an audience with energy guzzling Americans."
Anyone with any sense of history and law would recognize that as the observable truth.
"Coal is not "clean" energy as he believes. His interests in climte change are very much about pandering to his American corporate sponsors; ExxonMobil and the tobacco and drug industry" KW
Not just a lie. A bullshit lie.
Those corporations you just named are actually financing the global carbon tax scheme.
check your homework.
The ASSUMPTION that the "Global Warming" meme is about Environmentalists vs. Corporate Oil is laughably absurd.
"but for Monkton to present a model that ignores some of the basics in climate science, is at best, bunkum and intellectually dishonest." KW
Name 3 climate science "basics" that lead any reasonable person to believe the earth is a) warming b) warming BECAUSE of CO2, and that 3) reducing CO2 would reduce warming.
Nah.
Hell.
Name 1.
KW
I agree with you on Monckton, but even a broken clock...
HW, I believe you are guilty of bias confirmation because you are convinced of the rightness of your opinion despite evidence to the contrary, that you are not willing to concede.
With regard to carbon dioxide emissions and global carbon tax, I think all of that is a bunch of whoey as well. This is simply because I see a major profit motive for those who craft policies to do the taxing while they know how to get around loopholes written into those laws.
On the other hand, regarding the nature of disease and some issues from biophysics, I think you are sorely mistaken.
Learn something about history on this subject before you start shooting off:
In the 50's it was warming
In the 70's it was the ice age.
(See time magazine cover-about the coming ice age)
in the 00's it is warming again.
Read the Club of Rome document below:
The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (King, Schneider):
"The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose." (p.71)
The common enemy of humanity is man
"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." (p.75)
warming or cooling -it does not matter. As long as it is man's fault is the only thing that matters. then the PTB can give u a bill (Pay up nugga. :)
@Rig,
"HW, I believe you are guilty of bias confirmation because you are convinced of the rightness of your opinion despite evidence to the contrary, that you are not willing to concede. "
what "evidence to the contrary"?????
35 degrees in Miami? Coldest Winter on Record ever??
East Anglian university saying that they lied and faked the data and that the earth is actually cooling?
WHAT EVIDENCE???
please I am begging you-send me something? (Remember I made my living with these den of thieves :))
@ rig and all you other Al Gore lovers -Since I will always be the one who is looney, Are the following 10 statements correct?
Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).
Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.
Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
just yes or no for each one. This is the dogma you said that I am bias against.
So I ask humbly, are these statement correct?
This is your meme. Just answer each one.
Wax
“Everything I can find about Monckton says he has been correct in his life in his conclusions about issues. “
Wrong.
Have you been reading Junkscience.com and Climate Gate.com only? A simple reading of Wikipedia will show you he failed in his lawsuit against the govt and he failed in taking the case against the screening of Al Gore’s documentary in schools.
If you knew anything about European politics you wouldn’t be touting UKIP and this specific group of Euroskeptics – that’s the equivalent of teabaggers in the US. His stance on AIDS is not one to be admired – suggesting that the infected be placed in quarantine camps - even if it was 1987, what the???
And don’t forget that he was an economic adviser in the time of Thatcher - the Tories’ policies were designed to benefit the rich with little social reform so the poor got poorer. Their free market policies are partly responsible for the present economic mess the UK is in right now.
Hot Wax said:
“AND the left is now admitting that such a Copenhagen (one world) treaty existed in draft form”
Can you provide proof positive please.
Back to climate change -
DV said
“Name 3 climate science "basics" that lead any reasonable person to believe the earth is a) warming b) warming BECAUSE of CO2, and that 3) reducing CO2 would reduce warming...Name one.”
Because I’m nice like that I’ll name two:
1. He misinterprets the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which is a description of radiation from a “black body” – an idealized planet that absorbs all the electromagnetic radiation that reaches it. Monckton thinks the Earth is a black body, but it is not. It reflects some of the radiation it receives back into space.
2. That the Western hemisphere is colder this winter means this is climate chaos, but it does not mean the world is not warming. Why? Check ocean temperatures, they are rising. How does that mean we’re not at entering a cooling period? Check past records in consideration of climate sensitivity - understanding that you must factor in a time lag when calculating sensitivity.
This time lag is linked to the planetary energy imbalance and rise in ocean heat content. It tells you the temp you will get to *eventually* and if you leave this out it means you get a much smaller figure for climate sensitivity which is what Monckton does.
FAIL.
DV
"b) warming because of CO2?"
Moving swiftly past Monckton, for me, this is where the more interesting debate is because that’s what govt policies hinge on and scientists argue about the specifics of warming but it doesn't mean it ain't happening.
DV said:
“Those corporations you just named are actually financing the global carbon tax scheme.
check your homework.
The ASSUMPTION that the "Global Warming" meme is about Environmentalists vs. Corporate Oil is laughably absurd.”
Nah Teach, what’s laughably absurd is that you’re making the assumption I’m working on the classic Green v Greed binary. Frisking your boy doesn’t mean I’m ‘unaware’ of what Big Bizness is up to.
DV said:
“Anyone with any sense of history and law would recognize that as the observable truth.”
LOL. Nah, bra, I’m from a so-called developing country and anyone from a country in that category could have told you what was up from the get-go – same ol’ same ol’ at world govt conventions; we get shafted by the rich.
Big Man:
A clock can tell the time but if tells you the wrong time will you still buy it?
@DV-My true opinion of everyone who fights you for plantation medicine and /or Global Warming: No pulling punches.
I thought about all the stuff I have on AGW and said before I start lining it up( truly have the entire blue print to the plan and how it was a coin toss to say warming or cooling), I needed to review why is so hard for others to see ? Your blog have some of the sharpest and brightest people I have ever seen. I am not that great , but after one week it is there. Walla, bright as day.
Therefore sum tin Wrong. Bright people fighting for oppressors?
With that said , I have come to the conclusion that your "A students "have become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed will not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them. Do some of the PTBs actually want them to hear how they have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize your students even further?
You see, the PTB or plantation is your "A students" pimp or abusive husband and right now, I need to make a diagnoses.
Some of your students are suffering from what I call the “abuse syndrome.” How do abusive pimps, spouses, bosses, corporations, and governments stay in control?
They shove lies, emotional and physical abuses, and injustices in their victims’ faces, and when victims are afraid to exit from these relationships, they get weaker; and so the abuser then makes their victims eat even more lies, abuses, and injustices, resulting in victims even weaker as they remain in these relationships.
Will my view of truths or your view of the truth of their abuse set them free when they are deep in these abuse syndromes?
Hell Fucking NO.
For victims of the abuse syndrome that I am talking about, the truth of their passive submission to humiliating oppression is more than embarrassing — it can feel shameful; and there is nothing more painful than shame. And when one already feels beaten down and demoralized, the likely response to the pain of shame is not constructive action but more attempts to shut down or divert oneself from this pain. It is not likely that the truth of one’s humiliating oppression is going to energize one to constructive actions.
When people become broken, they cannot act on truths of injustice. Furthermore, when people have become broken, more truths about how they have been victimized can lead to shame about how they have allowed it. And shame, like fear, is one more psychological way we become even more broken.
For example DV, most U.S. citizens do not actively protest obvious injustices for the same reasons that people cannot leave their abusive spouses. They feel helpless to effect change. The more we don’t act, the weaker we get. And ultimately to deal with the painful humiliation over inaction in the face of an oppressor, we move to shutdown and escape strategies such as depression, substance abuse, and other diversions, which further keep us from acting. This is the vicious cycle of all abuse syndromes.
DV, do you remember the “political genius” of the Bush-Cheney regime when they fully realizing that Americans were so broken that they could get away with damn near anything. And the more people did nothing about the boot slamming on their faces, the weaker people became.
Time out Teach ! Lets look at what forces have created what I see as your students meme :
The U.S. government-corporate partnership has used its share of guns and terror to break Native Americans, labor union organizers, and other dissidents and activists. But today, most U.S. citizens are broken by financial fears. There is potential legal debt if we speak out against a powerful authority, and all kinds of other debt if we do not comply on the job. Young people are broken by college-loan debts and fear of having no health insurance.
cont---
Schools and Universities: Do most schools teach young people to be action-oriented—or to be passive? Do most schools teach young people that they can affect their surroundings—or not to bother? Do schools provide examples of democratic institutions – or examples of authoritarian ones?
Today, U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly become places where young people are merely acquiring degree credentials — badges of compliance for corporate employers — in exchange for learning to accept bureaucratic domination and enslaving debt.
Mental Health Institutions: Aldous Huxley predicted, “And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude.” Today, increasing numbers of people in the U.S. who do not comply with authority are being diagnosed with mental illnesses and medicated with psychiatric drugs that make them less pained about their boredom, resentments, and other negative emotions, thus rendering them more compliant and manageable.
When human beings feel too terrified and broken to actively protest, they may stage a “passive-aggressive revolution” by simply getting depressed, staying drunk, and not doing anything – this is one reason why the Soviet Empire crumbled. However, the diseasing/medicalizing of rebellion and drug “treatments” have weakened the power of even this passive-aggressive revolution.
Television: Television, Mander claimed, helps create all eight conditions for breaking a population. Television: (1) occupies people so that they don’t know themselves—and what a human being is; (2) separates people from one another; (3) creates sensory deprivation; (4) occupies the mind and fills the brain with prearranged experience and thought; (5) encourages drug use to dampen dissatisfaction (while TV itself produces a drug-like effect, this was compounded in 1997 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration relaxing the rules of prescription-drug advertising); (6) centralizes knowledge and information; (7) eliminates or “museumize” other cultures to eliminate comparisons; and (8) redefines happiness and the meaning of life.
Commercialism of Damn Near Everything: While spirituality, music, and cinema can be revolutionary forces, the gross commercialization of all of these has deadened their capacity to energize rebellion. So now, damn near everything – not just organized religion — has become “opiates of the masses.”
The primary societal role of some of your A students meme is not that of independent being(IBs) but that of “consumer.” While IBs know that buying and selling within community strengthens that community and that this strengthens democracy, consumers care only about the best deal. While IBs understand that dependency on an impersonal creditor is a kind of slavery, consumers get excited with credit cards that offer a temporarily low APR. Consumerism breaks people by devaluing human connectedness, socializing self-absorption, obliterating self-reliance, alienating people from normal human emotional reactions, and by selling the idea that purchased products — not themselves and their community — are their salvation.
final
So DV, you might ask Wax, how do I change this?
Well when most people get caught up in humiliating abuse syndromes, more truths about their oppressive humiliations don’t set them free. What sets them free is morale.
What gives people morale?
Encouragement.
Small victories.
Models of courageous behaviors and anything that helps them break out of the vicious cycle of pain, shut down, immobilization, shame over immobilization, more pain, and more shut down.
Thanks for Showing that courageous behavior. Do your thing- You got mad skills.
I needed to let some steam off because I know you got some mad gifted superior people on this site and I started to get weak and frustrated that they would argue for the people who have set up systems like AGW which is designed for the elimination of themselves. It really hurts man, I do this with people every day in the real world (family, friends etc.) and people just believe that everything is on the up and up.
Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?
U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Your wall street journal not mine.
Is CO2 a pollutant?
Your lab coat guys!! not pitchmen...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2-Pmy0lfAY&feature=related
Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
Best PDF on this false history....
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
A message to you crazy greenies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI
A man once told me:
"Preaching is mastubatory."
Where is that man?
Read this and tell me you still believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI
For someone so big on "air" and "sunshine", one would think our host would be for cutting back carbon emissions and other pollutants that...well, block out sunshine and foul up our air.
Curious.
Wax,
Disagreeing with some of ideas being peddled here does not mean people are defenders of the Plantation. It's not simply a case of being against Monckton and doubtful of Duesberg that means one is pro-Plantation.
A kneejerk reaction like that is signals a rigidity and narrowness in thinking. It also means you're not fully taking in the arguments and you're not open to alternative ideas.
Debate is good, it keeps the brain ticking. If you test out your ideas and they get shot down, ay stand up and fight if you know you are right or crack a book and see why people oppose you - Big Man and Mahndisa both told you this before on different occassions.
And just so you know the "A Students" is just DV's cute li'l term, but sometimes he's on point, other times he gets schooled, heavy, like errybody else - you are no different.
Thanks for the link to the UN doc, will sift through it.
ROFL @ Big Man, best comment on the thread!
@ DMG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2-Pmy0lfAY&feature=related
Is CO2 a pollutant?
Ha Ha Ha!
"For someone so big on "air" and "sunshine", one would think our host would be for cutting back carbon emissions and other pollutants that...well, block out sunshine and foul up our air"
What you exhale out is a pollutant? Funny!
Posted the wrong link
Read this and tell me you still believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI
it should be:
http://www.green-agenda.com/index.html
my bad! The Green Agenda
Hot Wax said:
"What you exhale out is a pollutant? Funny!"
That's bad logic son. If I take a dump in your drinking water, is that not pollutant? If I piss in your tea, is it not polluted?
Yet, we all know that dung is the best fertilizer, and urine properly stored can make a mean eye wash.
It's all in the situation. CO2 can be beneficial in some cases and a pollutant in others.
KW,
I know and appreciate what Rig, BM and yourself have told me about being closed to other ideas and really know that you guys are being sincere.
However, I need to let you know why the the frustration comes across and the reactive emotions and the dismissiveness comes from.
Imagine being brought up Jehovah Witness (Part of the masonic branch of Charles Taze Russell Society) and having your parents at 4 or 5 telling you the truth because of their faith. So they not only told you that there is no Santa but they also schooled you about the satanic ritual of it all. So you go to school and get your ass kick from 6 to 10 about it only to have to wait til the other kids found out it was a hoax at age 10-12. Damm, 4 -6 years of trying to enlighten my buddies about it and not having anyone say ,"Sorry Wax".
From that early age I knew how bullshit was package and knew authority was bullshit. I wish I had the gift of patience and elegance and the "art of words" like most of you( but I don't) in order to get out the message.
But KW, if you have been up to speed for 10 years on Agenda 21, Club of Rome , UN , Darwinism Hoax( was a liar and fucking his family members) and had a copy of thePTB master plan (thanks to some very dark friends ) etc., etc., you would feel like I do now (about my Satan Clause meme) discussing AGW because this would not be new to you. I will probably alienate myself pretty soon if I try to go to fast (nut-job label) so I am trying to go slower than I want to in order to appear normal. AGW( real or not) was decided for me years ago, therefore it feel like I am repeating the 3rd grade. (No ones want to address John P Holdren like players and how they fit into this scam etc.,etc. )
Finally, the frantic tone in my really bad writings is that the Muggas are executing some of there de-industrialization plan shit that they said that they were gonna do( 50% devaluation of your money next) from 10 years ago in real time. My sense of urgency (Masturbating according to BM) to tell the "Santa Story" is overriding my calmness and collectiveness. Again it is not that I can't take the pressure, it is just that kid in me- is too excited to alert his friends that Santa is dead and that you are being lied to by your parents.
Respect-
Namaste-
So HW you are convinced that you are right and that you have the knowledge of truth about this world and would like to enlighten us. Cross reference your sources with more reputable ones if you want people to listen to you.
One last thing for the lovers of AGW science and politics mixing.
Those who don't remember History will be doom to repeat it...
At the beginning of the last century the "scientific issue" that shares the most familiarity with AGW ( with all the reliable data and stuff) was called Eugenics. that 's right they had "scientific proof" that you weren't shit!
http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
Eugenics and its nasty policies are not news. This is in the common realm of knowledge. You aren't sharing anything new.
@rig
Have you not looked at any of the links that I have sent?
What is reputable to you? CNN , MBC-something in the Rupert Murddock owned MSM?
For example:
Where they faking the data?
Ah Ah Ah British news-see below? We had the head , CRC& IPCC Phil Jones admitting that he lied and fake the data(world wide?). What sources do you want rig?
They are 1000 sources -that said that this WB lied. I promise I will try my best- just tell me who you want as your verification and validation authority ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
@ rig
I did not say it was new! I said that it was THE EARLY 1900s GLOBAL WARMING LIKE ISSUE WITH ALL THE "FAKE" SCIENTIFIC BULLSHIT DATA.
Just A Bunch Of Pavlov's Dogs...,
1929-1933 was the collapse of the last global trade system...It was followed by the 1933-1945 bankruptcy reorganization of the world...about 10% of the global population around that time was liquidated.
The top seems to desire a 90% liquidation this time.
Scaled up it will take around 72 to 96 years to reach the bottom...or end of the liquidation of the current global trade system.
Or control is lost and it implodes to oblivion far more rapidly.
There is around 210 Trillion Dollars equivalent global circulating money supply. US Dollars make up 52 Trillion of it. The 65 year old Bretton Woods global trade system is collapsing. The US money supply for the first time since the 1930's contracted in the 3/09 quarter.
Even if not one more penny of new money was created...that 210 Trillion is in search of yield and just a few billion flooding into metals is enough to cause rapid gains. These doomsday spike ups will start becoming more common as all the existing money in circulation desperately jumps around searching for yield.
Yields are drying up fast.
The metals are up because there's no glut of them and 210 Trillion dollars globally is in search of yield.
From this point there are two options...
Hyperinflate to maximum potential and then implode to oblivion...quick
or
Continue on the current slow waterfall decline to oblivion...slow
There is more than enough production to make all rich...One slight problem.
How do you cause farmers to produce 1000's of times more food than they require to sustain their existence?
How do you keep everyone "working"
or playing the game.
Sorry folks but this is nothing new...It's as old as civilization...the system requires you all to work...it implodes if you all reach maximum potential.
There are many maximum potentials...this is one of them.
It would be foolish if I as employer supplied my employees with the means to stop being my employees.
It's your purpose...It's why the vast majority of you exist...
The top lives off the yield from the bottom.
All that the top has comes from the bottom.
You all must supply the top.
The bottom supplies the top with all the power...the top then supplies the bottom with power...but just enough to make the bottom happy. So that the bottom toils day in and day out till the day they die supplying the top with power.
Bottom supports the top.
The purpose of the Police and military is to protect the top from the bottom...
To protect cause from consequence...
The easiest prey of the hunter gatherer is the farmer and the simplest operation is the protection scheme...
You are either with us or against us...
Hot Wax
I don't think preaching is mastubatory. Search my blog archives and you'll find my thoughts on that topic.
I was just repeating something that i heard here on the topic.
I think it's cool that you're passionate about your cause and want to find converts. In fact, I feel the same way about other topics.
I wasn't poking fun at you, more tweaking our illustrious host.
Keep doing your thing man.
@ Rig
Question is CO2 a pollutant?
Dr. Brian Valentine US Dept of Energy,
Dr. Bonner Cohen Senior fellow National Center for Public Policy research and Dr. William Harper Princeton University says No! -are they reputable for explaining why CO2 is not a pollutant or explaining the only reasons we would want to regulate CO2?
If I remember the game(DMG meme) from the last time, these guys are idiots :), therefore I am an idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg-frkJBxm4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwCMM5I5rQM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2-Pmy0lfAY&feature=related
HW you attribute stuff to me that I've never advocated. I don't believe in the global carbon tax etc so don't go there with me. NO, increase your reading comprehension to understand that I principally think your understanding of biology and biophysics is flawed. MSM isn't necessarily truth but it can lead you to some understanding of what is going on. Same with Alex Jones, it is all about spin.
With that in mind, there are processes that are known and are at least understood procedurally in our bodies. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of many of these processes and like I said before, being a grad school in engineering I'd suggest you review your basic physics and chemistry again to at least qualify what you are saying...
@Cnu
You are on it dude! I thought I gave out a link to everyone title " mary elizabeth croft" that gave some background on how the system was set up with your Avatar and Persona's to settle the last bankruptcy in 1933.
Second most of you have not realize that Citi gave out a warning that you will need to give a 7 day request starting April 1st in order to withdraw your money etc., etc.,
I am in CNu camp and co signing on some of what he said. We are at that point. He just has not laid the astrotheology over it.
Citigroup (it is really all banks) Warns Customers It May Refuse To Allow Withdrawals
http://www.businessinsider.com/citigroup-warns-customers-it-may-refuse-to-allow-withdrawals-2010-2
Last word-
Back when it showed that the United Nations was using the IPCC to sell this hoax of human caused global warming in order to bring about a global government, a lot of people said that Wax had "jumped the shark", i.e. that I was just being dumb.
Yet here we are in the harshest winter since 1963, with yet another massive snowstorm burying the northeast, exposures of outright fraud and suppression of opposition in the Climategate scandal, Dr. Phil Jones doing an about-face and admitting there hasn't actually been any warming at all during the period of the much-ballyhooed Hockey Stick, the withdrawal-by-the-authors of numerous journal articles on which the claims of human-caused global warming were founded, the admission by Greenpeace that they just made up the story about Greenland losing its ice cover in 20 years, the Himalayas gaffe, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. and STILL the United Nations is trying to force through this agenda as we speak today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/24/ban-ki-moon-un-reject-sceptics
Yes Virginia, there really are massive conspiracies among governments, the media, and academia and you are looking at one right now.- Jeeez
Good night!
"What you exhale out is a pollutant? Funny!"
What's funny is that YOU ARE THE CAT who just a few days ago was preaching about "acidosis". You want to know what happens when you when you don't ventilate? You retain CO2...but hell don't believe me look it up. Perhaps you would do well with spending some time with the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation (yeah it has two l's).
So, yes my unwashed friend CO2 can be and is a pollutant in a micro and macro scale.
A hint for your Google search...respiratory acidosis.
No those guys aren't idiots, as at least a couple of them can defend their points even if they are incorrect.
You are just an idiot because you choose to surround yourself with dubious scholarship at every turn, and are unrepentant in choice to embrace that stupidity.
Dammit DMG! I said good night -off to bed! :)
"The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution.
EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/1022
The EPA on April 17 proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” as “pollutants” under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. While not mentioning what aspects of carbon-dioxide emissions will be regulated, the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and power plants is definitely on the regulation block. The first step toward costly and far-reaching regulations is that the EPA establish carbon dioxide as a regulatory “pollutant,” even though all plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and all animals exhale carbon dioxide.
In fact, about 8 percent of man-made worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are due to simple human breathing. The EPA says they do not want to regulate this activity … for now. But there's no chemical difference between CO2 emitted from a gasoline engine and that emitted from a human lung.
How does the EPA go about declaring carbon dioxide — a common and healthy gas needed for plant life on Earth — a dangerous “pollutant”? They redefine “pollutant” thusly:
To clarify the distinction between air pollution and air pollutant, the air pollution is the atmospheric concentrations and can be thought of as the total, cumulative stock problem of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The air pollutants, on the other hand, are the emissions of greenhouse gases and can be thought of as the flow that changes the size of the total stock.
Translated from bureaucratese, it means that carbon dioxide, methane and other alleged “pollutants” aren’t dangerous and are in fact natural elements. But the fact that human activities such as breathing and car exhaust add to the global amount of carbon dioxide means that CO2 emissions should be regulated, according to the EPA.
How powerful is the EPA about to become? They’ve essentially been given the power to regulate the periodic table of the elements.
Ha! Ha!
But even though they took 133 pages to say they would regulate six of the most common chemical compounds in nature, there are no specifics about what would be regulated or what standards would be upheld. They need to establish the principle first.
The excuse for the EPA’s need for regulatory powers is the “threat” of global warming. Though even the EPA admits the Earth has heated up only 1.25 degrees in the last 100 years, the agency assumes that any continued warming is going to be catastrophic. The EPA even claims that continued global warming would cause “increased drought” while at the same time creating “more heavy downpours and flooding.” If global warming is real, then it can’t create more rain and less rain at the same time.
The EPA ignored the evidence presented by top scientists who claim that carbon dioxide will not cause any type of climate catastrophe. Besides, any sort of climate change is bound to have both positive and negative side effects. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson noted that there are some positive effects of rising greenhouse gases: “One is faster-growing trees in tropical forests, which helps offset deforestation. Another is marshes that can more quickly grow above rising sea levels, providing an insurance policy of sorts for some low-lying areas against the potential ravages of rising sea levels resulting from warmer global temperatures.”
Please confirm counselor , one last time by your dictionary definition of what a pollutant is and answer the following question : IS WHAT YOU EXHALE OUT A POLLUTANT?
The defense rest your honor.
Wax
I’ve looked at the Annex 1 para 38 of the Copenhagen draft you linked versus the Danish Text and final agreement and it just serves to confirm why Monckton is a propagandist and a LIAR.
He claimed that US sovereignty would be lost and this would be irreversible if BO signed the treaty – Copenhagen draft was not a treaty; this is a difference Monckton appears conveniently unaware of. I suggest you read and understand how UN treaties work before you co-sign on the delusions of these masters of the fringe. A 1st year international law student (as I was in undergrad) will easily tell you that signing a UN treaty or agreement does not mean that its provisions are binding.
It is an *intention* to become party to that treaty IF the state agrees to it. There is NO WAY Obama could sign that document without majority approval of Senate.
But this is what Monckton lied and said to his American audience:
“[the parties] are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign. He'll sign anything."
Anyone “with a sense of history” (DV) would recall Copenhagen was a continuation of Kyoto; everything in international treaties is a long process with lots of red tape and political antics to deal with; ‘communist world governments’ and climate treaties are not dreamt up and enforced the next day.
Use your “sense of history” and read up on what happened with the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols. With, Kyoto the US agreed to the Protocol on but *never* ratified it due to opposition in the Senate.
With a unanimous vote, the United States was *never* subject to any of the protocol's rules. Copenhagen was pretty much the same, if not worse for so-called developing nations; the US and other rich nations were unwilling to give up control over its carbon emissions policy and they were not legally bound to do so – even if they had agreed to the Copenhagen draft.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the UN has been to promulgate resolutions but lack ability to make its decisions binding – the US has continually breached the agreements its signatory why, if Senate ever passed Copenhagen, would that change now? And you really think a 'world order' would be imposed when the UN recognises the right to sovereignty and self-determination which is always fiercely guarded by member states.
From the start, the US government had already said they would not sign an agreement with whose terms they did not agree with (e.g. the test ban treaty, anti-personnel landmines). No guesses there as to why Obama arrived much later, after the conference had begun – international conventions are always about strategic moves in a state or a region’s best interests, that’s why there hasn’t been a binding climate agreement in the last 8 years.
And even if states did agree; according to international law; a treaty does not become binding until a certain number of nations have ratified it and depending on how the treaty language is written, this can take a while. If you go to paragraph 38 which is the basis of Monckton’s argument; you’ll see there’s alternative paragraph right below which is an amendment directed at co-operation between states rather than his imagined ‘communist world government’.
In Copenhagen were 193 nations – who were deeply split along historic, political racial, geographic and economic lines – none of whom would readily concede to a ‘world government’ that takes away their sovereignty on carbon emissions. Already Brazil, China and India were none too pleased with what was being proposed plus, Denmark decided to have its own secret meeting among the rich nations (to which the US was party to) to override what had been discussed in public.
According to The Guardian UK, the Danish Text was designed to
i. Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
ii. Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
iii. Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance; (wish is what paragraph 38 made provision for in its proposed setup of “government”)
iv. Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Thus, Copenhagen = Brokenhagen.
It was a stage-managed ego-driven effort to show a commitment to ‘saving the planet’, while behind closed doors private self-serving deals were being brokered. Under such farcical conditions can one really imagine a one world government being ‘imposed’ to ‘save the planet’ when it’s going to take away the sovereign right of nations to manage their own carbon cuts.
After 8 years of failed commitments and fierce defences to the rights of nations, this was just more of the same; Monckton is a crackpot kneejerk reactionary devoid of the intellectual capacity to decipher what Copenhagen meant, let alone be a credible anti-AGW voice of dissent.
And by the way don’t be dishonest about Dr Phil Jones:
“We had the head , CRC& IPCC Phil Jones admitting that he lied and fake the data(world wide?)”
Lied and faked? You sure about that? He wrote the 1990 paper but 2008 was a follow-up paper which corrected that research in favour of AGW – the source of the Climate Change conspiracy. See this Statement from the Uni of East Anglia. Also see this article from the New Scientist which is a bit of a 'in defence of Science' article; but it tries to explain the processes of publishing research and the position on global warming.
Ok nuff said.
...peace
I suggest you read and understand how UN treaties work before you co-sign on the delusions of these masters of the fringe. A 1st year international law student (as I was in undergrad) will easily tell you that signing a UN treaty or agreement does not mean that its provisions are binding.
Sorry KW, but that is not quite correct.
A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in the same sense as a federal statute that is judicially enforceable by private parties. Even a non-self-executing provision of an international agreement represents an international obligation that courts are very much inclined to protect against encroachment by local, state or federal law.
II
Thanks am reading it now
Post a Comment