Wednesday 23 December 2009
Population control is pretty good business for the Rockefellers.
I’m not suggesting its part of their plan; I’m saying it's their words, their own writings; they openly promote it as part of the agenda. People like Cecil Rhodes, the council on foreign relations, the royal institute of international affairs; all the Anglo-American round table groups that pull the strings and control practically every aspect of our life at the moment. You can just look into their own writings to see what kind of things these philanthropists pursue. all under righteous, charitable fronts; which in reality are foundations set up for the pursuit of things like Eugenics.
Carbon taxing is a great business plan as well. The UN dreamed that up. and guess who gets the biggest cut of it. The same people who have fucked up our world are posing as saviors. Same old story, really.
When I referee to the new world order, I’m meaning the so called shadow governments: the people who understand how geopolitics really works. These people have been in control for literally, Ages. They are involved in everything from the military-industrial complex to biometrics.
Of course, you can argue that the NWO doesn't really exist - but in the same way that a corporation doesn't really exist - it's merely a legal creation, on paper only, for the generation of individual profit (minus individual responsibility) for any damages incurred.
But you’d be living in the early stages of denial. I believe that are new “leaders” are close to declaring them selves to the public (the useless eaters.)
"Keep your hands off my bargains"
GM food will constantly be presented as a great answer to food shortages. I'd even say they will go as far as creating further shortages - perhaps ones to effect this country, in order to really hurry along a complete compliance with anything GM.
It's the bigger picture we have to consider here.
They are asking us to employ some high level double-think in order to think of bargains as environmental waste!
In reality, I personally feel there should be a lot less packaging on foods in general - I remember comparing various mainstream brands at school in Geography when I was about 15 - we had to say which elements of the food packaging were purely aesthetic as a pose to ergonomic. It's been clear as daylight for years is what I’m saying.
But back to GM - has anyone heard about how some of the GM farms effected the competition? The 'modified' yields spread there seed, ended up growing on other farms not authorised to grow GM foods. The same companies which we’re involved with the setting up and growth of these plants has the audacity to slam a fine or compulsory license for the farms which were simply in the way. What we are faced with is the concept of people actually owning a patent for nature i.e. the seeds that grow the crops which are in everything you eat. Even things you wouldn’t normally consider…
Please read:
http://permaculture.org.au/2009/04/17/the-global-spread-of-gmo-crops-2/
Then tell me you are convinced by the utopian values presented to us by GM mongers.
It's the bigger picture we have to consider here.
They are asking us to employ some high level double-think in order to think of bargains as environmental waste!
In reality, I personally feel there should be a lot less packaging on foods in general - I remember comparing various mainstream brands at school in Geography when I was about 15 - we had to say which elements of the food packaging were purely aesthetic as a pose to ergonomic. It's been clear as daylight for years is what I’m saying.
But back to GM - has anyone heard about how some of the GM farms effected the competition? The 'modified' yields spread there seed, ended up growing on other farms not authorised to grow GM foods. The same companies which we’re involved with the setting up and growth of these plants has the audacity to slam a fine or compulsory license for the farms which were simply in the way. What we are faced with is the concept of people actually owning a patent for nature i.e. the seeds that grow the crops which are in everything you eat. Even things you wouldn’t normally consider…
Please read:
http://permaculture.org.au/2009/04/17/the-global-spread-of-gmo-crops-2/
Then tell me you are convinced by the utopian values presented to us by GM mongers.
NWO is OWO
I believe the NWO has [partly] revealed it’s self and is now posing as our saviours, as they always have done through out the ages.
We are being led up the proverbial garden path via the big issues; terrorism, global warming and the (engineered) banking crisis. The solutions have been drafted and agreed upon long before these issues hit the headlines.
The same people who have been manipulating society and populations for hundreds of years are now telling us, openly in the mainstream press, that yes, the shadow government is not a conspiracy.
We live in such a parallel world sometimes; TV is so surreal you cannot get any kind of constructive information about what is really going on. So when they deny the existence of that a world government is forming, while at the same time embracing the concept, people are either in a state of denial, hoping for the ‘old days’ (which I think is the intention – even if non exist), or they are screaming ‘I told you so’. Either way, I believe that this kind of surreal, disenfranchised, apathetic model of society has been crafted to be this way. The farse of democracy has been made more believable by selling us lifestyles, consumer society and a certain level of comfort which pacified us into a state of inertia. Lets be honest; the only reason were allowed to vote is to stop any real, bottom-up revolution. We’re too stupid for that, after all.
People like David Ike, Alan Watt, Alex Jones, Ian Crane – all people who have been ridiculed by the establishment for spreading the truth about the real globalist agenda, which we are, in tern, expected to accept as the only viable option for progress.
Everything revolves around progress; we’re taught this at an early age. Our society always has to be progressing to the next level. But we never quite know what that means. Same with change. Always change and hope. What change, and hope for what? Changing into a world government and hoping it’s for the best maybe?
Here’s some of what I believe we are heading for over the next 10 years:
The cashless society .
Large scale implementation of biometrics (having its roots in Eugenics) – in the UK we’ve already had this hit hard in the schools. It’s just so great and convenient not to worry about cash. It’s all on the finger print. You pay for “credit” on your account. Nothing worrying or sinister here at all. No mark of the beast. You’d be a “Christian fundamentalist” for thinking such a thing!
This is the basic blueprint for how cashless society would work. It’s a huge way of controlling the consumer. Remember we’ve already been indoctrinated into the idea that a computer can have say over what we able to achieve in society. Credit Cheques? Medical Records? All at the click of a button. So why would be taken by surprise with Biometrics? We wouldn’t. I think they’ll be little protest, and if there is the issues will be simplified to the point of not even being relevant (e.g. should kids under 13 be allowed to choose how their “credit” is spent? Says The Sun. Well yes I think this is a good thing, or no I think Government or social works should be given access as well, to make sure the moneys not going to fund illegal pursuits… ) That kind of debate, you know the ones that don’t even scratch the surface.
By this I mean when computers just say no. Think of the possibilities. “you have gone overboard with your carbon consumption this week… you are not allowed to purchase… ”
Lend me your finger?
----
Unification of the Americas
World government – accompanied with the new religion which is a combination of science and “new age” earth worship – which is really a fraud because when you look into which foundations are funding these things, you realise it’s the same people who have been pulling the strings since at least the first world war.
The UN is being set up as a front for the new world government. Their tag line says it all, classic example of double think: “we the people… a stronger UN for a better world” Let this be clear; it ain’t nothing to do with “we the people!”
Nature has turned against us – Club of Rome “we much teach the people that man is the enemy of the world” If you you do not see the relevance of this, you need to clear your blinkers (Gordon Brown practically parroted it, saying it would unite the world). Check out the propaganda put out by this Government to do with “Climate Change” – 6M to make sure we believe! [ref]
Obey authorities – predictive programming – in relation to vaccines which will for everyone.
Fear mongering for ‘swine flu’. More and more confusion. The creation of chaos, the order of which will be the agreement that WHO should have more “authority” in these matters, something along the lines of streamlining. EU anyone? Heard that idea before? Yeah, same deal.
We are being led up the proverbial garden path via the big issues; terrorism, global warming and the (engineered) banking crisis. The solutions have been drafted and agreed upon long before these issues hit the headlines.
The same people who have been manipulating society and populations for hundreds of years are now telling us, openly in the mainstream press, that yes, the shadow government is not a conspiracy.
We live in such a parallel world sometimes; TV is so surreal you cannot get any kind of constructive information about what is really going on. So when they deny the existence of that a world government is forming, while at the same time embracing the concept, people are either in a state of denial, hoping for the ‘old days’ (which I think is the intention – even if non exist), or they are screaming ‘I told you so’. Either way, I believe that this kind of surreal, disenfranchised, apathetic model of society has been crafted to be this way. The farse of democracy has been made more believable by selling us lifestyles, consumer society and a certain level of comfort which pacified us into a state of inertia. Lets be honest; the only reason were allowed to vote is to stop any real, bottom-up revolution. We’re too stupid for that, after all.
People like David Ike, Alan Watt, Alex Jones, Ian Crane – all people who have been ridiculed by the establishment for spreading the truth about the real globalist agenda, which we are, in tern, expected to accept as the only viable option for progress.
Everything revolves around progress; we’re taught this at an early age. Our society always has to be progressing to the next level. But we never quite know what that means. Same with change. Always change and hope. What change, and hope for what? Changing into a world government and hoping it’s for the best maybe?
Here’s some of what I believe we are heading for over the next 10 years:
The cashless society .
Large scale implementation of biometrics (having its roots in Eugenics) – in the UK we’ve already had this hit hard in the schools. It’s just so great and convenient not to worry about cash. It’s all on the finger print. You pay for “credit” on your account. Nothing worrying or sinister here at all. No mark of the beast. You’d be a “Christian fundamentalist” for thinking such a thing!
This is the basic blueprint for how cashless society would work. It’s a huge way of controlling the consumer. Remember we’ve already been indoctrinated into the idea that a computer can have say over what we able to achieve in society. Credit Cheques? Medical Records? All at the click of a button. So why would be taken by surprise with Biometrics? We wouldn’t. I think they’ll be little protest, and if there is the issues will be simplified to the point of not even being relevant (e.g. should kids under 13 be allowed to choose how their “credit” is spent? Says The Sun. Well yes I think this is a good thing, or no I think Government or social works should be given access as well, to make sure the moneys not going to fund illegal pursuits… ) That kind of debate, you know the ones that don’t even scratch the surface.
By this I mean when computers just say no. Think of the possibilities. “you have gone overboard with your carbon consumption this week… you are not allowed to purchase… ”
Lend me your finger?
----
Unification of the Americas
World government – accompanied with the new religion which is a combination of science and “new age” earth worship – which is really a fraud because when you look into which foundations are funding these things, you realise it’s the same people who have been pulling the strings since at least the first world war.
The UN is being set up as a front for the new world government. Their tag line says it all, classic example of double think: “we the people… a stronger UN for a better world” Let this be clear; it ain’t nothing to do with “we the people!”
Nature has turned against us – Club of Rome “we much teach the people that man is the enemy of the world” If you you do not see the relevance of this, you need to clear your blinkers (Gordon Brown practically parroted it, saying it would unite the world). Check out the propaganda put out by this Government to do with “Climate Change” – 6M to make sure we believe! [ref]
Obey authorities – predictive programming – in relation to vaccines which will for everyone.
Fear mongering for ‘swine flu’. More and more confusion. The creation of chaos, the order of which will be the agreement that WHO should have more “authority” in these matters, something along the lines of streamlining. EU anyone? Heard that idea before? Yeah, same deal.
Communitarianism.
I think what should be clearly open for debate is how much the individual is directly responsible, you know? Are we content with just allowing this thing to escalate?
Or, if you except that what the human body emits should be limited, where does one draw the line in terms of legislation? We breathe OUT Carbon Dioxide.
Would you, for example, be happy at surveillance (we got more than China, remember) being used to see if people aren't recycling? Or if they are trading Carbon Credits that aren't theirs to trade? Or maybe it’s just fine to see if people are applying for the “wrong” schools in this post-democratic federation.
Significant portions of the global agenda is tied up with the entire scam; e.g. The Optimum Population Trust. The UN views China as a model state. I'm sure from their point of view, looking down, it is. They would like that kind of mindset to be fully accepted here (Europe). Oh and guess what - you can use the Carbon Emission Incentive in this instance as well... bloody babies, polluting the air!
There was a time when Carbon wasn't even considered a pollutant. I'm not saying fighting for the environment isn't necessarily a just cause; I’m just curious as to why we look at the business men and global elite to assume such responsibilities. Too much rests on it as far as what they have lined up, so the Copenhagen is a done deal, at least the economic side anyway - 6 months ago.
In reference to the “Climate Gate”… a little quote from the main scientist involved
“My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well." – Phillip Jones.
Or, if you except that what the human body emits should be limited, where does one draw the line in terms of legislation? We breathe OUT Carbon Dioxide.
Would you, for example, be happy at surveillance (we got more than China, remember) being used to see if people aren't recycling? Or if they are trading Carbon Credits that aren't theirs to trade? Or maybe it’s just fine to see if people are applying for the “wrong” schools in this post-democratic federation.
Significant portions of the global agenda is tied up with the entire scam; e.g. The Optimum Population Trust. The UN views China as a model state. I'm sure from their point of view, looking down, it is. They would like that kind of mindset to be fully accepted here (Europe). Oh and guess what - you can use the Carbon Emission Incentive in this instance as well... bloody babies, polluting the air!
There was a time when Carbon wasn't even considered a pollutant. I'm not saying fighting for the environment isn't necessarily a just cause; I’m just curious as to why we look at the business men and global elite to assume such responsibilities. Too much rests on it as far as what they have lined up, so the Copenhagen is a done deal, at least the economic side anyway - 6 months ago.
In reference to the “Climate Gate”… a little quote from the main scientist involved
“My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well." – Phillip Jones.
Garden Path.
In light of the recent “Climate Gate” scenario: I really don’t think people are fully aware of the scam that’s being perpetuated in front of their eyes.
Here’s an a good article featuring some great quotes.
Here’s what Al Gore says himself:
Denies any need for suspicions regarding the scientific evidence. All the quotes were taken out of context, blown out of proportion and he even uses a smug little quote from Shakespeare (Bacon?) to shrug off any uncertainty people might have.
There was a time when carbon dioxide was not strictly considered a pollutant; now it seems it’s a central pivotal point on the whole consensus as to whether or not the government funded research into the human causes of global warming / climate change myths. An inconvenient truth maybe that the whole Carbon Trading schemes were dreamed up by big business, for the benefit of the same companies they were aimed at taxing.
So the dialectic, Hegelian world view that’s so often presented by our ever more reliable, mainstream media, is that you’re either a denier (with all those connotations) or a skeptic… or, on the winning side with your friends wisdom and altruism: you want to save the environment, stop climate change and end world poverty (and save the polar bears, etc). Hardly much room for any other perceptual manoeuvre within the confines of years of government funded research. Tow the line or be prepared to be labelled a “skeptic” or worse, a “denier” or worse, anti-climate change. This infers that you are a total nut and is slanderous towards scientists (or anyone) who seek more openness about the data and motivations behind certain conclusions.
Being "branded" right-wing is another tactic.
That’s because too much rests on people forgetting about these things pretty soon. Just go on with it, surly the science will come out eventually? Then next time these international heads of state, bankers and other self perpetuating ego-centric frauds meet, they can take it that step further while we forget as they move us into whatever next crisis is going to take centre stage.
And then papers like the Guardian, who are oh so liberal and forward thinking, put in full page adverts urging “our leaders” to sign the treaty, to prevent an imminent climate catastrophe. And we still think our papers are representative of the people, or at least some kind of moral majority? The real players are charlatans. Most people don’t understand they want to tax us on the same “emissions” that we breathe out. Your spirit which flows in and out of your physical body each day is damaging the environment. Can we see what else this might lead to? The legitimate public discussions of such well disguised eugenics-inspired programs like the Optimum Population Trust, perhaps? We’ve already had the trust worthy granddad that is Attenborough spouting his support for this think tank, on the BBC’s Horizon, which features a constantly increasing population counter on their website. How alarmist, you might cry. But then wouldn’t you also be lumped in with the climate change sceptics? Well surely, as the doctrine goes, if you can’t see the correlation between a newborn and Carbon Dioxide emissions, you must be of ape like intelligence!
Here’s a smashing little article from Spiked magazine online. Note the use of the term eco-Malthusianism – very important in understanding an elitist world view.
And that is the mantra they are pressing onwards with, without a second thought. These misanthropes consider the “useless eaters” simply that: useless. Unless of course, you are a useful idiot, for example a dogmatic, hard-line activist working for one of the big foundations like (example) who are badgering our “representatives” (or is it Ministers?) for change. This works on a level that makes activism appear legitimate and grassroots, when quite often if that kind of activism was taking place, independent of big money, it would receive little attention. Also known as AstroTurfing (i.e. referring to the fake grass which is used instead of genuine grass) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
The idea of “act now or it will be too late” was often the mantra of genuine eco warriors, trying to stop companies like Enron from dominating the world’s gas and oil supplies, but now it’s the cry of these same villains who want to tax us all over again – and gradually redesign our slavery. After all it was us who personally ruined the world for everyone, wasn’t it? We’re all in this together. How very convenient and communist.
Because the government funded research & propaganda regarding climate change sets its tone with countless examples of an imminent catastrophe, or wide scale death, it also leaves the people in control of this data huge scope to manipulate the results in a way which shows them to be “right”, even in the case of a natural disaster. Of course they wouldn’t do that, would they? I imagine this would hit the front pages without any reference to the military applications and experience of weather manipulation while simultaneously screaming out “we need to act NOW”.
This is the real fear mongering. Not the sentient beings who wish for a more open discussion on the long terms plans of these elites who threaten us all with destruction with out even batting an eyelid, in order for us to obey and keep the “Queens Peace”. Example at hand being Gordon Browns 6 million he’s recently pissed away on the awareness raising campaign of global warming. When they raise awareness, they are seeking your consent, or at least your acceptance of, certain modes of thought which they want you to be on board with. Granted in some cases this is in regards to drink driving, or not using mobiles, or speeding – I feel there is little point demolishing these. But when it comes to “not revving your engine” and the untimely apocalyptic vision of the future presented on the recent “awareness raising” advert for climate change – one can’t help but feel the whole thing is a complete and utter scam designed to make children ask parents questions about the future they can’t answer.
Which is a shame for genuine environmental movements.
I believe they are well under way in the implementation of this “global, uniting force” they keep talking about, being elevated to the position of a religion. Now this isn’t going to happen in a sense of “what a great religion – sign me up” I think it will be a gradual transition, a mind set, a paradigm shift you hear the New Agers talking about. That’s what they always intended; the ball has been rolling significantly on this one since the first earth summit in 1992. A new form of earth worship which replaces the pagan gods and ancient archetypes of antiquity with the very real focus of “Gaia” or Mother Earth. It is occult, to say the least. And funded by huge money.
Literally just found this article as well. Wow, pretty speechless:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6812981/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-sceptic-scientist-has-heart-attack-live-on-TV.html
Links:
www.john-daly.com - A Lukewarm View of Global Warming founded by John L. Daly
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts - Henrik Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
Here’s an a good article featuring some great quotes.
Here’s what Al Gore says himself:
Denies any need for suspicions regarding the scientific evidence. All the quotes were taken out of context, blown out of proportion and he even uses a smug little quote from Shakespeare (Bacon?) to shrug off any uncertainty people might have.
There was a time when carbon dioxide was not strictly considered a pollutant; now it seems it’s a central pivotal point on the whole consensus as to whether or not the government funded research into the human causes of global warming / climate change myths. An inconvenient truth maybe that the whole Carbon Trading schemes were dreamed up by big business, for the benefit of the same companies they were aimed at taxing.
So the dialectic, Hegelian world view that’s so often presented by our ever more reliable, mainstream media, is that you’re either a denier (with all those connotations) or a skeptic… or, on the winning side with your friends wisdom and altruism: you want to save the environment, stop climate change and end world poverty (and save the polar bears, etc). Hardly much room for any other perceptual manoeuvre within the confines of years of government funded research. Tow the line or be prepared to be labelled a “skeptic” or worse, a “denier” or worse, anti-climate change. This infers that you are a total nut and is slanderous towards scientists (or anyone) who seek more openness about the data and motivations behind certain conclusions.
Being "branded" right-wing is another tactic.
That’s because too much rests on people forgetting about these things pretty soon. Just go on with it, surly the science will come out eventually? Then next time these international heads of state, bankers and other self perpetuating ego-centric frauds meet, they can take it that step further while we forget as they move us into whatever next crisis is going to take centre stage.
And then papers like the Guardian, who are oh so liberal and forward thinking, put in full page adverts urging “our leaders” to sign the treaty, to prevent an imminent climate catastrophe. And we still think our papers are representative of the people, or at least some kind of moral majority? The real players are charlatans. Most people don’t understand they want to tax us on the same “emissions” that we breathe out. Your spirit which flows in and out of your physical body each day is damaging the environment. Can we see what else this might lead to? The legitimate public discussions of such well disguised eugenics-inspired programs like the Optimum Population Trust, perhaps? We’ve already had the trust worthy granddad that is Attenborough spouting his support for this think tank, on the BBC’s Horizon, which features a constantly increasing population counter on their website. How alarmist, you might cry. But then wouldn’t you also be lumped in with the climate change sceptics? Well surely, as the doctrine goes, if you can’t see the correlation between a newborn and Carbon Dioxide emissions, you must be of ape like intelligence!
Here’s a smashing little article from Spiked magazine online. Note the use of the term eco-Malthusianism – very important in understanding an elitist world view.
And that is the mantra they are pressing onwards with, without a second thought. These misanthropes consider the “useless eaters” simply that: useless. Unless of course, you are a useful idiot, for example a dogmatic, hard-line activist working for one of the big foundations like (example) who are badgering our “representatives” (or is it Ministers?) for change. This works on a level that makes activism appear legitimate and grassroots, when quite often if that kind of activism was taking place, independent of big money, it would receive little attention. Also known as AstroTurfing (i.e. referring to the fake grass which is used instead of genuine grass) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
The idea of “act now or it will be too late” was often the mantra of genuine eco warriors, trying to stop companies like Enron from dominating the world’s gas and oil supplies, but now it’s the cry of these same villains who want to tax us all over again – and gradually redesign our slavery. After all it was us who personally ruined the world for everyone, wasn’t it? We’re all in this together. How very convenient and communist.
Because the government funded research & propaganda regarding climate change sets its tone with countless examples of an imminent catastrophe, or wide scale death, it also leaves the people in control of this data huge scope to manipulate the results in a way which shows them to be “right”, even in the case of a natural disaster. Of course they wouldn’t do that, would they? I imagine this would hit the front pages without any reference to the military applications and experience of weather manipulation while simultaneously screaming out “we need to act NOW”.
This is the real fear mongering. Not the sentient beings who wish for a more open discussion on the long terms plans of these elites who threaten us all with destruction with out even batting an eyelid, in order for us to obey and keep the “Queens Peace”. Example at hand being Gordon Browns 6 million he’s recently pissed away on the awareness raising campaign of global warming. When they raise awareness, they are seeking your consent, or at least your acceptance of, certain modes of thought which they want you to be on board with. Granted in some cases this is in regards to drink driving, or not using mobiles, or speeding – I feel there is little point demolishing these. But when it comes to “not revving your engine” and the untimely apocalyptic vision of the future presented on the recent “awareness raising” advert for climate change – one can’t help but feel the whole thing is a complete and utter scam designed to make children ask parents questions about the future they can’t answer.
Which is a shame for genuine environmental movements.
I believe they are well under way in the implementation of this “global, uniting force” they keep talking about, being elevated to the position of a religion. Now this isn’t going to happen in a sense of “what a great religion – sign me up” I think it will be a gradual transition, a mind set, a paradigm shift you hear the New Agers talking about. That’s what they always intended; the ball has been rolling significantly on this one since the first earth summit in 1992. A new form of earth worship which replaces the pagan gods and ancient archetypes of antiquity with the very real focus of “Gaia” or Mother Earth. It is occult, to say the least. And funded by huge money.
Literally just found this article as well. Wow, pretty speechless:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6812981/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-sceptic-scientist-has-heart-attack-live-on-TV.html
Links:
www.john-daly.com - A Lukewarm View of Global Warming founded by John L. Daly
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts - Henrik Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
Tow the line.
I wrote this as a fairly hurried response to Mark Lynns' recent addition to "Climate Gate"
The theft and web publication by climate change deniers of private emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is an extremely worrying development in the tortured politics of global warming.
Theft? Everything I’ve read seems unsure if it was a leak or a theft. A security breach, perhaps. I guess Theft has a more provocative tone and immediately insinuates guilt, so that works.
Although high-profile individuals have been targeted and unfairly vilified before – Pennsylvania University's Michael Mann comes to mind, with his "hockey stick" palaeoclimate graph – most of the ire of the denial movement has so far been reserved for big-hitters like Al Gore. Gore can take it. Politics is his job.
Yeah. The hockey stick graph is a joke. And Al Gore is a charlatan. He is pretty much the sole person responsible for getting this “message” out to the public, particularly in the U.S. Right on.
But the "exposure" of private correspondence from a much larger group of scientists – and the out-of-context quotation of certain sentences as "revealing" some hidden subterfuge – suggests a dangerous shift in strategy. Instead of targeting the science communicators (myself included), the deniers are now declaring war on the scientists themselves. Like the creationists they unconsciously mimic, they make no distinction between the political and the scientific sphere – it is open season in both.
Strategy? Targeting? War? People want truth, man.
The CRU (Climate Research Unit) was set up back in the 1970s. Big funding from Rockefellers (that’s banking royalty to you and I) and huge support from the Royal Society. The rabbit hole goes incredibly deep on this one. Club of Rome and other big elitist think tanks (made up of industrialists, diplomats) openly discussed ways to unite mankind through the threat of famine, pollution etc as literally “the best they could come up with” – back in 1972.
As far as they’re concerned now it’s business as usual and just a case of damage control after this scandal – thankfully the years of propaganda and everyday threats of catastrophe seems to have etched its way into the true believers psyche. Hense why these true believers will sometimes, given the right dialectical circumstance, referrer to weather as climate, to further their cause. Oh dear.
Enter stage left the official “Independent Report” of the whole “Climate Gate” scandal. Might be a case of the Fox looking after the chicken hut, again. But we’ll see. Too much rests of this whole farse for anything to fundamentally change.
Science is the new priesthood. Priests never give away all their knowledge to the profane. You just keep on praying the sun will come up…
And the strategy is simple. Given that scientists are one of society's most trusted groups (unlike journalists or politicians), the climate denial movement has begun a battle to undermine public trust in climate scientists themselves. No more will the legions of anonymous researchers who collect and interpret data from meteorological stations, satellites and ice cores be considered above the fray – they now run the risk of personal attacks, exposure of their private lives and vilification.
Why are scientists the most trusted groups? Have you ever read Brave New World?
Here's a video of Aldous Huxley talking about a scientific based government. Science would rule all aspects of your life, eventually.
If all their work (to prove AGW) is based upon the evidence provided in a couple of fundamental papers relating to climate change, only for this data to then be thrown into question because of the lack of peer related reviews (independent ones mind) and lack openess of the raw data then yes, I imagine the scientists who go along with it do run the risk or exposure or vilification. I’m just hypothesizing here. You don't need a weathergirl to know which way the wind blows.
It is important to understand the significance of this. Scientists are not politicians. They are not used to communicating publicly. They trust in their objectivity, the objectivity of their peers, and the rigour of only citing work published in learned journals. They will have private views, but are very used to keeping these out of their work – indeed the entire scientific method is based on conducting research which can be replicated by peers in order to check its accuracy and objectivity.
Like the 9/11 conspiracy theories before it, the global warming conspiracy is palpably absurd. The idea that scientists have teamed up with governments and the United Nations to foist some kind of social control project on an unwary public is laughable – it would need conspiratorial activities involving thousands of people, for a start..
from the UN’s website:
"The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change. U.N Website
It’s not a case of them teaming up – they’re one and the same. The big boys give huge grants to governments who hand in to the research institutes, set up by & for big boys. They're talking big and long term here.
None of this would matter if the public weren't fooled. But they are. Polls show climate "scepticism" is rising, perhaps even to a majority position, on both sides of the Atlantic. Presumably public trust in climate change scientists is falling commensurately. This will in turn undermine consensus in mitigating climate change – which is of course the very intention of the deniers in the first place.
We’re always being fooled. I’m personally just slightly hesitant to push through international legislation which effectively turns what I breathe out into a pollutant.
Some of the scientists whose private emails have been exposed write for the blog RealClimate, where they argue that the revealed correspondence shows "no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy ... no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data" and so on. But as George Marshall, a writer on climate change who specialises in the psychology of denial on the issue, puts it: "This is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context."
Orchestrated by whom? The requirement for truth and honesty about where this whole agenda is leading in years to come – at the very least in terms of international legislation? No doubt there’s a whole lot of political ground at stake but this whole debacle should rise above the usual left-right prejudices we’re indoctrinated with. I don’t understand why left/liberal = climate change is real! Where as right/conservative = they must be “anti” climate change. That’s the deal we’re presented with the majority of the time.
If the lesson for scientists is that the era when they can practice their trade entirely separately from the rest of society is well and truly over, the lesson for environmentalists is equally harsh. Having spent years (once again, myself included) reminding the public of the horrifying potential consequences of climate change, and demanding major lifestyle change on the part of ordinary people, it seems that our message is not just falling on deaf ears – but may even be counterproductive.
It’s never been entirely separate from the rest of society.
We have to start accentuating the positive, rather than constantly invoking apocalypse. Getting off fossil fuels is a necessity, but that does not mean that people's lives must be made harder or more austere. Forget all the "war economy" analogies, locally grown jam and appeals to save old clothes. Our message needs to be a forward-looking one of hope, prosperity and technological progress.
Interesting choice of words. “Invoking apocalypse” is exactly what all the government funded propaganda has been doing. Calling down the powers and jealous gods of the sky to punish the ignorant masses for living too unscrupulously and being “useless eaters”.
We also have to stop trying to make people feel guilty. No, flying isn't analogous to child abuse. Polar bears won't drop from the sky. Constantly accusing normal people of immoral behaviour is perhaps a way to get noticed, but not a clever way to win converts. And the normal people in question, upset at being accused of killing babies every time they step onto Ryanair, will be very susceptible to the first conspiracy theorist who whispers in their ear: "Don't worry, it's not true."
Decided the guilt factor doesn’t work then? Did you remind your selves of the Catholic Priests who literally drained the peasants of any wealth via guilt? This is the church of the new secular religion and you must pay up.
I’m sure with a quick regrouping of all the right think tanks, they’ll be a lot more monetary and tax incentives introduced to the whole scam, of course, for the benefit of “the people”.
That last line was fairly telling. A lot of this issue centers around doubt and worry, I’d even go as far as to say it thrives of it. People can then start worrying about things they don’t actually understand – never mind no jobs and rent going up! Such is life for a worrier! But as long as big daddy government is taking care of it and uncle bank lend their guiding hands, we’re all safe. Or so goes to fairy tale.
Bottom line is – don’t be a skeptic or a denier, you simply will not fit in.
The theft and web publication by climate change deniers of private emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is an extremely worrying development in the tortured politics of global warming.
Theft? Everything I’ve read seems unsure if it was a leak or a theft. A security breach, perhaps. I guess Theft has a more provocative tone and immediately insinuates guilt, so that works.
Although high-profile individuals have been targeted and unfairly vilified before – Pennsylvania University's Michael Mann comes to mind, with his "hockey stick" palaeoclimate graph – most of the ire of the denial movement has so far been reserved for big-hitters like Al Gore. Gore can take it. Politics is his job.
Yeah. The hockey stick graph is a joke. And Al Gore is a charlatan. He is pretty much the sole person responsible for getting this “message” out to the public, particularly in the U.S. Right on.
But the "exposure" of private correspondence from a much larger group of scientists – and the out-of-context quotation of certain sentences as "revealing" some hidden subterfuge – suggests a dangerous shift in strategy. Instead of targeting the science communicators (myself included), the deniers are now declaring war on the scientists themselves. Like the creationists they unconsciously mimic, they make no distinction between the political and the scientific sphere – it is open season in both.
Strategy? Targeting? War? People want truth, man.
The CRU (Climate Research Unit) was set up back in the 1970s. Big funding from Rockefellers (that’s banking royalty to you and I) and huge support from the Royal Society. The rabbit hole goes incredibly deep on this one. Club of Rome and other big elitist think tanks (made up of industrialists, diplomats) openly discussed ways to unite mankind through the threat of famine, pollution etc as literally “the best they could come up with” – back in 1972.
As far as they’re concerned now it’s business as usual and just a case of damage control after this scandal – thankfully the years of propaganda and everyday threats of catastrophe seems to have etched its way into the true believers psyche. Hense why these true believers will sometimes, given the right dialectical circumstance, referrer to weather as climate, to further their cause. Oh dear.
Enter stage left the official “Independent Report” of the whole “Climate Gate” scandal. Might be a case of the Fox looking after the chicken hut, again. But we’ll see. Too much rests of this whole farse for anything to fundamentally change.
Science is the new priesthood. Priests never give away all their knowledge to the profane. You just keep on praying the sun will come up…
And the strategy is simple. Given that scientists are one of society's most trusted groups (unlike journalists or politicians), the climate denial movement has begun a battle to undermine public trust in climate scientists themselves. No more will the legions of anonymous researchers who collect and interpret data from meteorological stations, satellites and ice cores be considered above the fray – they now run the risk of personal attacks, exposure of their private lives and vilification.
Why are scientists the most trusted groups? Have you ever read Brave New World?
Here's a video of Aldous Huxley talking about a scientific based government. Science would rule all aspects of your life, eventually.
If all their work (to prove AGW) is based upon the evidence provided in a couple of fundamental papers relating to climate change, only for this data to then be thrown into question because of the lack of peer related reviews (independent ones mind) and lack openess of the raw data then yes, I imagine the scientists who go along with it do run the risk or exposure or vilification. I’m just hypothesizing here. You don't need a weathergirl to know which way the wind blows.
It is important to understand the significance of this. Scientists are not politicians. They are not used to communicating publicly. They trust in their objectivity, the objectivity of their peers, and the rigour of only citing work published in learned journals. They will have private views, but are very used to keeping these out of their work – indeed the entire scientific method is based on conducting research which can be replicated by peers in order to check its accuracy and objectivity.
Like the 9/11 conspiracy theories before it, the global warming conspiracy is palpably absurd. The idea that scientists have teamed up with governments and the United Nations to foist some kind of social control project on an unwary public is laughable – it would need conspiratorial activities involving thousands of people, for a start..
from the UN’s website:
"The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change. U.N Website
It’s not a case of them teaming up – they’re one and the same. The big boys give huge grants to governments who hand in to the research institutes, set up by & for big boys. They're talking big and long term here.
None of this would matter if the public weren't fooled. But they are. Polls show climate "scepticism" is rising, perhaps even to a majority position, on both sides of the Atlantic. Presumably public trust in climate change scientists is falling commensurately. This will in turn undermine consensus in mitigating climate change – which is of course the very intention of the deniers in the first place.
We’re always being fooled. I’m personally just slightly hesitant to push through international legislation which effectively turns what I breathe out into a pollutant.
Some of the scientists whose private emails have been exposed write for the blog RealClimate, where they argue that the revealed correspondence shows "no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy ... no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data" and so on. But as George Marshall, a writer on climate change who specialises in the psychology of denial on the issue, puts it: "This is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context."
Orchestrated by whom? The requirement for truth and honesty about where this whole agenda is leading in years to come – at the very least in terms of international legislation? No doubt there’s a whole lot of political ground at stake but this whole debacle should rise above the usual left-right prejudices we’re indoctrinated with. I don’t understand why left/liberal = climate change is real! Where as right/conservative = they must be “anti” climate change. That’s the deal we’re presented with the majority of the time.
If the lesson for scientists is that the era when they can practice their trade entirely separately from the rest of society is well and truly over, the lesson for environmentalists is equally harsh. Having spent years (once again, myself included) reminding the public of the horrifying potential consequences of climate change, and demanding major lifestyle change on the part of ordinary people, it seems that our message is not just falling on deaf ears – but may even be counterproductive.
It’s never been entirely separate from the rest of society.
We have to start accentuating the positive, rather than constantly invoking apocalypse. Getting off fossil fuels is a necessity, but that does not mean that people's lives must be made harder or more austere. Forget all the "war economy" analogies, locally grown jam and appeals to save old clothes. Our message needs to be a forward-looking one of hope, prosperity and technological progress.
Interesting choice of words. “Invoking apocalypse” is exactly what all the government funded propaganda has been doing. Calling down the powers and jealous gods of the sky to punish the ignorant masses for living too unscrupulously and being “useless eaters”.
We also have to stop trying to make people feel guilty. No, flying isn't analogous to child abuse. Polar bears won't drop from the sky. Constantly accusing normal people of immoral behaviour is perhaps a way to get noticed, but not a clever way to win converts. And the normal people in question, upset at being accused of killing babies every time they step onto Ryanair, will be very susceptible to the first conspiracy theorist who whispers in their ear: "Don't worry, it's not true."
Decided the guilt factor doesn’t work then? Did you remind your selves of the Catholic Priests who literally drained the peasants of any wealth via guilt? This is the church of the new secular religion and you must pay up.
I’m sure with a quick regrouping of all the right think tanks, they’ll be a lot more monetary and tax incentives introduced to the whole scam, of course, for the benefit of “the people”.
That last line was fairly telling. A lot of this issue centers around doubt and worry, I’d even go as far as to say it thrives of it. People can then start worrying about things they don’t actually understand – never mind no jobs and rent going up! Such is life for a worrier! But as long as big daddy government is taking care of it and uncle bank lend their guiding hands, we’re all safe. Or so goes to fairy tale.
Bottom line is – don’t be a skeptic or a denier, you simply will not fit in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
