jrodefeld
New member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 9
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
(Since this post is so long, I am forced to divide it into two posts. It is meant to be read as one continuous thought, however)
I would like to propose this post as a challenge to all the Liberal Progressives posting on this forum to spark a debate on the science of global warming, Cap and Trade legislation and the Copenhagen Treaty. The reason I feel compelled to submit my views and the research it is based on, is due to a rant I witnessed on tonights episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill, typical of many on the left, expresses a smug dismissal of so-called "skeptics", equating them with flat-earthers, and clings to the notion of a 100% consensus among ALL scientists and recites many of the most apocalyptic climate change forecasts ("don't you want to live?", he asks condescendingly of conservative Amy Holmes and Libertarian Gary Johnson). I almost find it funny that Bill Maher has such an attitude of elitism, posturing as a member of a sophisticated class of intellectuals, when in fact he has such a poor grasp of the fundamentals of the pressing issues of our day (economics and US history come to mind) and he seems to be blind to the way in which ALL political agendas (of both parties) are brought about by the use of fear, exaggerating the danger, and straight out lies.
I do think that this exchange illustrates that there still exists a great deal of ignorance towards the facts of climate science, the agendas of bankers and politicians, and the corporations which seek to make a profit from Cap and Trade. So I would like for those of you who, like Bill Maher, feel that the facts are all on your side, or that all "skeptics" are dumb hicks from rural america, please read the facts that I will lay out, study the quotes and investigate the scientists who dispute the credibility of the IPCC, please correct me and show me where I go wrong. The error for most people comes due to the continuous barrage of media exposure and lowering standards of adequate education of our populace, and people no longer study economics or climate science, we merely accept that "experts" (that the media parades in front of cameras) have decided what the truth is, and we are expected to follow in line without a second thought. And isn't it interesting that these "experts" always advocate for the continual concentration of power among fewer and fewer hands and an authoritarian approach as a solution, while at the same time protecting the profits of the "corporatocracy" that we currently live in. We would do well to look into the numbers and actual science ourselves and do our patriotic duty to challenge conventional wisdom, rather than just roll over whenever our government asks us to.
Just to clear up any misconceptions, although I take the position that is against Cap and Trade and Climate Alarmism, I am no Republican. I am a proud Independent. I am a Political Atheist (credit to Gerald Celente, who coined this term). I like the notion of simply looking at the facts dispassionately and giving a diagnosis (like a doctor). I have seen enough material and science to throw doubt on the whole "Al Gore / Cap and Trade / Copenhagen Treaty" agenda and merit serious investigations. Although I want to keep this thread open for all to participate, I especially would like for those Obama supporters and Progressives who believe in the conventional view of Global Warming to really respond to the information I will be presenting. Take the challenge, Prove me wrong. If it is as much of a slam dunk consensus as so many think, it should be no hard task, Right?
Consider the following quotes:
"The common enemy of humanity is man.
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 behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
I will attempt to show you all exactly how the environmental movement has been hijacked and subverted and now is fueled by an entirely different agenda from a humanitarian desire to protect the environment. As you will see, the movement evolved over the last forty years through the encouragement of politicians like Al Gore, financed by international central bankers, and given a scientific gloss through the efforts of Maurice Strong and the United Nations, whose talking points are parroted endlessly in our Corporate Media. Yet, the agendas of these men are far from noble. The desire is to create an authoritarian world government and a world central bank, with the goal of destroying industrial production, capitalism, and the greatest engine of human progress in the history of the world. They would also be able to exercise unprecedented control over our lives through assigning us with a "carbon footprint". Since all nearly all human activity produces Co2 (just breathing produces it), near complete control of our lives would be accomplished. This does not even mention the way in which big corporations will be making money off of selling and trading carbon credits. Most alarmingly, some very radical characters associated with the United Nations and involved in climate legislation are very serious in their desire to pursue an agenda of depopulation. There is NO humane way to reduce the worlds population drastically. Even if you are an Obama supporter, I urge you to LOOK at the actual U.N. documents and THINKabout the effects of the Copenhagen Treaty on the economy, industrialized society, and personal liberty. I think you will quite easily be able to tell that this is not a conspiracy theory, there are mountains of evidence that support everything that I am saying.
The origins of the modern environmental movement came into being during the 1960s. It is important to note the cultural and political climate of the time. The 60s were at the tail end of what can be considered the "Progressive Era", a period of time characterized by massive expansion of government and radical new proposals spearheaded by ambitious politicians. FDR gave us the New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson "The Great Society". Following the Great Depression, the newly devised Keynesian economics came into vogue. This allowed the new Federal Reserve system to exert more control over the economy. The desires of many wealthy bankers (Rockafeller, Morgan, Warberg, etc) to control the destiny of our nation seemed to come to pass. Also, this was a period of time where there was a push towards international government and treaties that spearheaded the "globalization" that has taken place since then. The creation of the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the IMF came during this time frame.
As you can see, this was a time in which there was a tremendous centralization of power and growth of government, almost always as the result of a perceived crisis. If you study the history of our banking and monetary system, you will see that the real story to come forth from the time of Woodrow Wilson through the Great Depression was not the New Deal or public libraries or minimum wage laws or any supposedly Progressive initiative designed to help the poor or middle class. No, it was the successful coup of our government by the bankers, affirming the long standing ambitions of the most powerful banking families in the world and sowing the seeds of financial ruin. I find it amusing when I hear partisans talking about how only one side of the isle uses fear and some legitimate concerns to pursue ulterior motives. The history of mankind is that some men will try to control and rule over other men, using any form of deceit and propaganda to pursue those ends. Our politicians, from both parties, have over many decades used what is termed the "Hegelian dialectic". This is "Problem-Reaction-Solution". So, powerful men either create a problem or capitalize on a real problem, eliciting a provoked reaction among the American people, and then offer up a "solution" to that problem. They all do this. When Rahm Emanuel sayed "Never let a crisis go to waste", he wasn't joking. I am pointing this out because whether man-made climate change is a very serious problem, or whether it is mostly manufactured propaganda and hysteria (in reality it is probably a little of both), it doesn't preclude powerful men from capitalizing and pursuing an altogether different agenda in its name. It happens all the time.
Looking at the origins of the modern environmental movement and the creation of UN agencies, early fears were founded around the population itself getting out of control. Rather than focus on what humans DO on the planet (industrial production, litter, wasteful behavior), the early hysteria centered around there being too many of us on the planet (and getting worse by the year). The Club of Rome was formed in April of 1968 and led to the publication of the book “Limits to Growth”. Another book published in 1968 titled "The Population Bomb" provided fuel to the fire. There is another piece of evidence that illustrates that many influential policymakers feel that humanity itself is the threat, rather than our behavior. In 1977, Obama's current science czar John P. Holdren wrote a book called "Ecoscience". In this book, Holdren clearly illustrates that population reduction is a very serious goal that policymakers are looking to deal with. Holdren very seriously and soberly proposes the following steps to combat the "population problem":
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
See this website: John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet (There are many others that cover this material. Do your research.)
I would like to propose this post as a challenge to all the Liberal Progressives posting on this forum to spark a debate on the science of global warming, Cap and Trade legislation and the Copenhagen Treaty. The reason I feel compelled to submit my views and the research it is based on, is due to a rant I witnessed on tonights episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill, typical of many on the left, expresses a smug dismissal of so-called "skeptics", equating them with flat-earthers, and clings to the notion of a 100% consensus among ALL scientists and recites many of the most apocalyptic climate change forecasts ("don't you want to live?", he asks condescendingly of conservative Amy Holmes and Libertarian Gary Johnson). I almost find it funny that Bill Maher has such an attitude of elitism, posturing as a member of a sophisticated class of intellectuals, when in fact he has such a poor grasp of the fundamentals of the pressing issues of our day (economics and US history come to mind) and he seems to be blind to the way in which ALL political agendas (of both parties) are brought about by the use of fear, exaggerating the danger, and straight out lies.
I do think that this exchange illustrates that there still exists a great deal of ignorance towards the facts of climate science, the agendas of bankers and politicians, and the corporations which seek to make a profit from Cap and Trade. So I would like for those of you who, like Bill Maher, feel that the facts are all on your side, or that all "skeptics" are dumb hicks from rural america, please read the facts that I will lay out, study the quotes and investigate the scientists who dispute the credibility of the IPCC, please correct me and show me where I go wrong. The error for most people comes due to the continuous barrage of media exposure and lowering standards of adequate education of our populace, and people no longer study economics or climate science, we merely accept that "experts" (that the media parades in front of cameras) have decided what the truth is, and we are expected to follow in line without a second thought. And isn't it interesting that these "experts" always advocate for the continual concentration of power among fewer and fewer hands and an authoritarian approach as a solution, while at the same time protecting the profits of the "corporatocracy" that we currently live in. We would do well to look into the numbers and actual science ourselves and do our patriotic duty to challenge conventional wisdom, rather than just roll over whenever our government asks us to.
Just to clear up any misconceptions, although I take the position that is against Cap and Trade and Climate Alarmism, I am no Republican. I am a proud Independent. I am a Political Atheist (credit to Gerald Celente, who coined this term). I like the notion of simply looking at the facts dispassionately and giving a diagnosis (like a doctor). I have seen enough material and science to throw doubt on the whole "Al Gore / Cap and Trade / Copenhagen Treaty" agenda and merit serious investigations. Although I want to keep this thread open for all to participate, I especially would like for those Obama supporters and Progressives who believe in the conventional view of Global Warming to really respond to the information I will be presenting. Take the challenge, Prove me wrong. If it is as much of a slam dunk consensus as so many think, it should be no hard task, Right?
Consider the following quotes:
"The common enemy of humanity is man.
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 behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
I will attempt to show you all exactly how the environmental movement has been hijacked and subverted and now is fueled by an entirely different agenda from a humanitarian desire to protect the environment. As you will see, the movement evolved over the last forty years through the encouragement of politicians like Al Gore, financed by international central bankers, and given a scientific gloss through the efforts of Maurice Strong and the United Nations, whose talking points are parroted endlessly in our Corporate Media. Yet, the agendas of these men are far from noble. The desire is to create an authoritarian world government and a world central bank, with the goal of destroying industrial production, capitalism, and the greatest engine of human progress in the history of the world. They would also be able to exercise unprecedented control over our lives through assigning us with a "carbon footprint". Since all nearly all human activity produces Co2 (just breathing produces it), near complete control of our lives would be accomplished. This does not even mention the way in which big corporations will be making money off of selling and trading carbon credits. Most alarmingly, some very radical characters associated with the United Nations and involved in climate legislation are very serious in their desire to pursue an agenda of depopulation. There is NO humane way to reduce the worlds population drastically. Even if you are an Obama supporter, I urge you to LOOK at the actual U.N. documents and THINKabout the effects of the Copenhagen Treaty on the economy, industrialized society, and personal liberty. I think you will quite easily be able to tell that this is not a conspiracy theory, there are mountains of evidence that support everything that I am saying.
The origins of the modern environmental movement came into being during the 1960s. It is important to note the cultural and political climate of the time. The 60s were at the tail end of what can be considered the "Progressive Era", a period of time characterized by massive expansion of government and radical new proposals spearheaded by ambitious politicians. FDR gave us the New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson "The Great Society". Following the Great Depression, the newly devised Keynesian economics came into vogue. This allowed the new Federal Reserve system to exert more control over the economy. The desires of many wealthy bankers (Rockafeller, Morgan, Warberg, etc) to control the destiny of our nation seemed to come to pass. Also, this was a period of time where there was a push towards international government and treaties that spearheaded the "globalization" that has taken place since then. The creation of the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the IMF came during this time frame.
As you can see, this was a time in which there was a tremendous centralization of power and growth of government, almost always as the result of a perceived crisis. If you study the history of our banking and monetary system, you will see that the real story to come forth from the time of Woodrow Wilson through the Great Depression was not the New Deal or public libraries or minimum wage laws or any supposedly Progressive initiative designed to help the poor or middle class. No, it was the successful coup of our government by the bankers, affirming the long standing ambitions of the most powerful banking families in the world and sowing the seeds of financial ruin. I find it amusing when I hear partisans talking about how only one side of the isle uses fear and some legitimate concerns to pursue ulterior motives. The history of mankind is that some men will try to control and rule over other men, using any form of deceit and propaganda to pursue those ends. Our politicians, from both parties, have over many decades used what is termed the "Hegelian dialectic". This is "Problem-Reaction-Solution". So, powerful men either create a problem or capitalize on a real problem, eliciting a provoked reaction among the American people, and then offer up a "solution" to that problem. They all do this. When Rahm Emanuel sayed "Never let a crisis go to waste", he wasn't joking. I am pointing this out because whether man-made climate change is a very serious problem, or whether it is mostly manufactured propaganda and hysteria (in reality it is probably a little of both), it doesn't preclude powerful men from capitalizing and pursuing an altogether different agenda in its name. It happens all the time.
Looking at the origins of the modern environmental movement and the creation of UN agencies, early fears were founded around the population itself getting out of control. Rather than focus on what humans DO on the planet (industrial production, litter, wasteful behavior), the early hysteria centered around there being too many of us on the planet (and getting worse by the year). The Club of Rome was formed in April of 1968 and led to the publication of the book “Limits to Growth”. Another book published in 1968 titled "The Population Bomb" provided fuel to the fire. There is another piece of evidence that illustrates that many influential policymakers feel that humanity itself is the threat, rather than our behavior. In 1977, Obama's current science czar John P. Holdren wrote a book called "Ecoscience". In this book, Holdren clearly illustrates that population reduction is a very serious goal that policymakers are looking to deal with. Holdren very seriously and soberly proposes the following steps to combat the "population problem":
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
See this website: John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet (There are many others that cover this material. Do your research.)
