Monday, November 17, 2008

Global Warming or Global Governance

I am posting the movie Global Warming/Global Governance.

I'll admit to being skeptical about global warming. I was convinced, at one time, of the facts behind the theory. Now I am completely unsure. Some of the information, I have dug up myself, has left me wondering.
The so called "solutions' proposed to deal with the issue, reek suspiciously of control and massive profiteering.

Like the war on terror.

When the solution "a war", to the 'problem' of 'terror', is so blatantly and obviously false , one is left with no choice but to question the very problem itself.
Terror is it real or contrived?

So it is with Global Warming. Real or Contrived?
I hope you enjoy this and it provides some food for thought.
(btw, if so inclined one can hit the tags at the bottom for some additional posts on this subject)



Global Warming or Global Governance:
Interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy. The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.

11 comments:

  1. so buff, have you seen this flick and what did you think of it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pen, I haven't seen it - and oddly enough was just about to post a piece on my blog wrt Global Warming!

    Haha! Great minds and all that!

    I'll give it a gander, and let ya know!

    Needless to say, thanks to a wonderful prof in my uni days, I did not fall for the bullshit of this tax and power grab. Having a background in geology helps too... ;)

    ~ Buffy

    ReplyDelete
  3. right on!
    I will check it out, and yes, great minds and all that stuff!!!
    hehehehehe

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ahahahaha! My prof is in this show!! LMAO!! You get them Tim!!

    I love it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not a bad little doc at all. I'll edit in a link on my (sad) little blog to the video here.

    As I said over there, that so many power elites back this BS CO2 hypothesis should in and of itself be cause for concern.

    Given that a good basic understanding of scientific method - and what that really means - is sorely lacking in our education system, it's no wonder that so many are convinced. But hey, that's all part of the plan too eh?

    Cheers Pen, good catch.

    ~ Buffy

    ReplyDelete
  6. Firstly let me state that there is not one Biologist or Climatologist worth his or her ethical salt that believes that Global Warming is not a clear and present danger to this small speck of cosmic dust we call planet earth and home.

    The problem stems from the fact that the so called experts and scientist that that you refer to that deny that Global Warming exists are much the same experts that work for and live out of the pockets of big Pharma. These paid for experts will also tell you that all of the 25,000 prescription medications available in Canada and in the US are all necessary for good health. When the truth of the matter is that of the 25,000 or so meds available only 250 are NEEDED for a good quality health care in a third world country. Now this country of Canada is not of the third world and as such dose not need even the 250 scripted Medications for good quality health care as we do not have many of the tropical and subtropical diseases. Do you hear the so-called experts that works for big Pharma tell you this? Not likely. Do they tell you that not only are the vast majority of these drugs NOT necessary but also many have the potential of doing great harm to those taking them? Not a chance, not when the profit margins is so high for so few.

    The only difference in these so-called experts is that these experts that you refer to work for and are told what to say by Big Industry and by dint of that by Big Government. The largest polluters on the planet are also the richest and with riches comes power, and with power comes control first of government and then of the people. Next to Power and Control the health and well being of planet earth does not enter the debate.

    Do you think for one minute that government who is controlled by big industry will hire experts to speak publicly of and present the facts as they ARE rather than how big industry needs them to be?

    Now my particular field of Biology being the Tetragenicity of Ionizing Radiation has had from the very start it's hurdles to cross. From past experience I know full well how the system works in favor of those who control the purse strings.

    Many years ago I worked as a Nuclear Research Biologist at a facility known as the Greater White Shell in Pinawa Manitoba. This facility was HUGE and next door to a nuclear power station on the Winnipeg River it and we were supposedly there to monitor the emissions if any and the effects of ionizing radiation leakage on the environment. On occasion the reactor would vent and our instruments would max out. Now I'm not talking a blip on the screen or a momentary spike on the dial, what I'm talking about is a Holy Sweet Jesus Christ sort of an event. Bells would ring, lights would flash and reports would be written and handed in.
    Same thing when myself and other Biologists would discover unexpected (both in numbers and species) mutations that could only be explained by the presence of ionizing radiation as these anomalies were not present in significant numbers in locations upstream or otherwise remote from the power station. Again reports were written and handed in. We were told that it would be taken care of, it never was. The fate of these reports was one of two things either they ended up going through the shredder before we were back in our labs or they were so sanitized that they bore no resemblance to the original. The amount of whitewash used was incredible. We used to refer to the director’s office as the paint shop.

    At the time and nothing has changed anywhere, (to get first fired and then black balled from ever working at any facility ever again) was to send a letter to the minister of the environment and tell him just exactly what was going on at Pinawa. The powers that be did not like their staff getting uppity, some of the researchers were so intimidated that they fell lockstep in line and spoke no evil, saw no evil and heard no evil. Others simply quit or wrote reports that were so blatantly false as to be almost laughable, while others got fired for reasons like insubordination. I am proud to have been in the latter group. Now the facility at Pinawa stands completely empty save for a janitor who sweeps clean floors and turns the lights on and off. I wonder why, perhaps radiation is no longer a health hazard or perhaps they just simply couldn’t find anyone to lie for them anymore, you decide.

    Having said all this let me finish by stating that any Biologist, Climatologist, or other expert who claims that Global warming is not a real problem is either a Fool, a Liar or just a Puppet for the powers that be. And whilst Gores message is perhaps commendable, he’s in it for the buck plain and simple. As a politician never once did he give one sweet rat’s ass about the environment and I wouldn’t give you a Scottish Farthing for his good intentions now……

    ReplyDelete
  7. howdy silverfish:

    thanks, and I knew I would get a good response from you.

    I used to think the same thing, that the persons opposed to global warming, the so called opponents of the theory, were, had to be backed by big oil, and other big industries.

    I am still unsure if this is correct or incorrect.

    But this is what I have found out on my own and how I got there.

    It was actually a paper put up on global research, and subsequent interview that put me on a search of my own.

    What I found was that some people stand to make alot of money, (Al Gore included, which makes him and his movie that much more self-serving)

    It will disproportionatly hurt low income and the middle class, it will create a system of control, of every person, the likes that has never seen before.

    I am unsure that the plans to combat this, carbon credits/cards and trading will do anything for resolving the problem?

    If that is the case, how serious am I to take this problem?

    Because given these solutions presented, I doesn't seem the powers that be take them seriously either, other then a means of profit.

    Now i just question the whole scenario.

    And that is where I am at. And likely where I will stay, for some time to come.

    What really cheezes me about this whole thing, is not only do I garden organically, save seeds, no chemical fertilizers, ride my bike approx 2400 kms this year, etc, etc, I care deeply for the environment and the planet, our wonderful speck.

    But, I just can't stop with the sneaking suspicion that this is being used as a something other then a saving the planet, and the human race kind of gesture.

    I keep thinking of how GM foods are presented to the populace as a means of "feeding the planet" or "saving the third world", etc.

    Nothing could be further from the truth, GM foods are about making money and controlling the food supply.

    Does Monsanto give a hoot, really?
    Or Archer Daniels Midland?


    This is very much how global warming solutions come off.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Penny:
    This is not rocket science, all one has to do is trackback the history of anyone saying that Global Warming is NOT a threat. Find out who they work for, what are their vested interests are they independent or are they beholding to the establishment in any form whatsoever. After doing this the answers come easily.

    As for Monsanto Please don't get me started.

    ReplyDelete
  9. While, as silverfish mentions, there is no scientist worth his or her wieght who would deny 'global warming' there is certainly not a consensus as to what the driving factors are.

    In fact for the sake of debate I think a clarification of what 'global warming' means to all of us might go a long way. I'll go first:

    Generically GW is the belief that recent warming in global temperatures are solely contributable to CO2 emmissions.

    This is certainly what the public is led to believe as utter gospel. Yet, it is overwhelmingly simplisitic and certainly bad scientific method to say the least.

    Climate and her state of constant flux is no simple 'this' or 'that'. There are so many different factors which do effect this complex system, and even more that we truly don't understand yet. The variables are almost endless.

    One thing I have noticed however, politically so to speak, is that now the big hit is GW - no one seems to give a fig about other, pressing and dire problems, due to the use of other 'chemical' agents. Not to mention the non-debate over the use of GM organisms. How convenient.

    The Earth's climate will forever change, as she is not a static system. I think there are greater threats that are far more insidious.

    ~ Buffy

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Generically GW is the belief that recent warming in global temperatures are solely contributable to CO2 emmissions."

    in a nutshell, this is what I understand GW to be about.

    ReplyDelete
  11. silverfish, what you say about all those who question the CO2 mantra being in the pockets of the Pharma etc, industries isn't totally true. It also diminishes the debate as to what exactly are the variables and to what extent humans can have an impact - wrt CO2- and more importantly otherwise.

    Some of those screaming the loudest (Al, Suzuki et al.) stand to gain big time.

    The numbers just don't pass muster, and history (not recent - but geological) has shown that CO2 is simply not the culprit it's made out to be. It is a BIG mistake to confuse weather patterns and cycles with climate. It's also a mistake to look at time intervals which barely cover a human life span or two - not when dealing with a planet billions of years old.

    On a side note, I can certainly vouch for one of the profs in the video - he is in NO way in the pocket of big anything.

    Penny - yes this is what it means to me too, in the 'public consumption' sort of way.

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS