Global Warming?

This article has a part 2, which can be viewed here.

Firstly, I do not disagree that the Earth’s temperature is rising. (Edit: I should say ‘changing’). I do disagree that it is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions created by humans. Consider this article in the context of a court presentation. To convict someone you need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation is true. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there is any doubt that humans are directly altering the latent temperature of the planet then all of the taxation, depopulation and energy price schemes that are being pushed through are being done because of another reason.

The main thrust of this hysteria about man-made global warming stems from the UN IPCC report. In order to give their report credibility to the ignorant masses, the UN frequently mentions that large majority of scientists endorse the report.

This is a lie.

Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

…Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC’s report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that “none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”.


…Nor are the purveyors of panic giving much notice to the scientists like Dr. Chris Landsea who in his own words, resigned from the IPCC because:

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

There is PLENTY of doubt about the IPCC report, they are just not reporting it to you. Why? This is even more clear to see when you consider that although most people do not believe in the man made global warming hype the UN and the governments are pushing ahead with these taxes, restrictions and regulations anyway.

The temperature of the Earth has oscillated since it formed, over 4.5 billion years ago. As recently as the seventies, there was the global cooling hysteria which had its proponents screaming from the rooftops about how the Earth was entering into a new ice age, billions are going to die etc.

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. — Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

That did not stick. So they left it for a few decades and now they are trying to push a new flavour of climate change. Why?

Because the global warming subject is a catalyst for globalists and other elitists to push for sweeping changes to the social, industrial and legal structure of the world. A common fear to scare the global population into acquiescence…

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind”, by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5

Now, we have established that the Earth is warming, but why? What can contribute to the rise of this global temperature if it isn’t humans breathing or cows farting?

Before we answer that question, we should take a quick look at basic thermodynamics (which are the laws that govern the behaviour of energy and entropy in a system.) Hot objects emit more energy than they absorb. Cold objects absorb more energy than they emit. That is about as basic as it gets. You can prove this with an experiment at home. Put some water in an ice tray and pop it in the freezer. After a while it will freeze. Obviously. Thermodynamically the freezer is essentially a form of energy vacuum, because it is designed to stay cold (absorb more than it emits) by channeling energy (heat) away from the freezer. The energy level of the water drops as it constantly emits more than it absorbs. The ambient energy level of the freezer is below water’s freezing point, so the energy of the water can drop so low that the water freezes.

Now, take the ice out and put it in a hot oven and you can literally watch the ice melt before your eyes. Why? Well it is the same as the above, but in reverse. Now the system has more energy than the ice. The ice absorbs more than it emits. Its temperature rises until the H2O molecules have enough energy to break the lattice in the ice, and it becomes water again. If it is hot enough, the water will heat up, absorbing more and more energy, eventually boiling off and becoming steam. Steam is a very high energy form of water.

I think we can all agree that this is basic common sense. You wouldn’t stick an ice cube in an oven and come back 30 seconds later to find the inside of the oven looking like Santa’s Grotto. Ever.

Now that is out of the way, lets look at the main source of energy in the solar system.

The Sun.

There is a reason why it is called the Solar System, and that is because the Sun dominates it in every single possible way. Let establish this with some interesting facts about our local mega-ball of plasma.

The sun contains over 99.5% of the mass of the entire solar system.
The sun is over 1 million times bigger than the Earth. Click here for a comparative graphic.
In a single second, the sun generates enough energy to supply all U.S. energy needs for 9,000,000 years.
Global human energy consumption per year = Solar output of less than 1.5 millionths of a second.*
One second of solar output = More than 800,000 years of human energy needs.

The sun is about 92 million miles away. Click here for a comparative graphic. Using the fastest production car ever built, the gorgeous SSC Aero travelling at 256.15 miles per hour, it would take you over 350,000 years.

Reading those facts, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to read this:

“Solar energy is energy from the Sun. This energy drives climate and the weather supports virtually all life on Earth.” — Solar energy, Wikipedia.

Now, back to thermodynamics. Let’s say that the solar output goes up. We would expect to see the effects of this throughout the solar system, ‘global warming’ on other planets if you will.

Well, the solar output has been increasing. An obvious effect of the sun getting hotter would be other planets exhibiting signs of global warming. Like Mars, for instance.

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

The sun’s increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we’re seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

“It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth’s oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

How about Jupiter?

May 2006: Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is a swirling storm seen for over 300 years, since the beginning of telescopicChristopher Go noticed it had been joined by Red Spot Jr – formed as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the remarkable reddish hue. This sharp Hubble Space Telescope image showing the two salmon-colored Jovian storms was recorded in April. About half the size of the original Red Spot, Red Spot Jr. is similar in diameter to planet Earth. Seen here below and left of the ancient storm system, it trails the Great Red Spot by about an hour as the planet rotates from left to right. While astronomers still don’t exactly understand why Jupiter’s red spots are red, they do think the appearance of Red Spot Jr. provides evidence for climate change on the Solar System’s ruling gas giant.

SUV’s On Jupiter?

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one – long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth’s atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

Global warming on other planets

Sun’s Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

Remember our experiment with the ice and the oven? Of course, it over-simplifies the issue, there are countless processes that complicate the transfer of energy around the solar system and on individual planets. For example, if the sun’s output increases, it warms the oceans, which then release CO2 into the atmosphere, as is described in this next quote:

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. “Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated,” he maintains. “Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”

The real news from Saint Petersburg — demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world’s oceans — is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and “will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60” lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

The truth is that this is all perfectly natural and unless the human race comes up with a plan to regulate the temperature of the sun, is completely unavoidable.

As far as human CO2 being a driving factor in global CO2 levels:

From The Global Warming Hoax:

Some Quick Facts:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring atmospheric substance.

CO2 makes up .054% of the atmosphere.

Volcanoes produce far more CO2 than humans.

Animals produce more CO2 than volcanoes.

Decaying vegetation produces more CO2 than animals (remember Gore’s explanation for why the red line is so squiggly?; He left out half the explanation.)

The OCEANS produce more CO2 than vegetation, animals, volcanoes, and the puny, insignificant amount of CO2 humans produce.

Do you still believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that human-created CO2 is the primary driver of global warming?

These facts cannot be unknown by the multi-billion dollar UN and government agencies, yet they continue to push this ‘humans are to blame myth’, using the media and government owned public services, like state school.

Labour ‘is brainwashing pupils with Al Gore climate change film’

Children are being brainwashed by propaganda from the Government on climate change, a court heard yesterday.

The “New Labour Thought Police” were accused of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.

The packs include the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, made by Bill Clinton’s former vice president Al Gore.

The film – acclaimed by the movie industry and the global warming lobby – was described in the High Court as irredeemable, containing serious scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush”.

Here is a quote from an open letter written by a physics teacher by the name of Wellington Grey:

The number of questions that relate to global warming is appalling. I do not deny that pupils should know about the topic, nor do I deny its importance. However, it should not be the main focus of every topic. The pupils (and their teachers) are growing apathetic from overexposure.

A paper question asked: `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ This is a political question. Worse yet, a political statement. I’m not saying I disagree with it, just that it has no place on a physics GCSE paper.

Pupils are taught to poke holes in scientific experiments, to constantly find what is wrong. However, never are the pupils given ways to determine when an experiment is reliable, to know when an experiment yields information about the world that we can trust. This encourages the belief that all quantitative data is unreliable and untrustworthy. Some of my pupils, after a year of the course, have gone from scientifically minded individuals to thinking, “It’s not possible to know anything, so why bother?” Combining distrust of scientific evidence with debates won on style and presentation alone is an unnerving trend that will lead society astray.

Destroying the critical thinking process of a population is important for creating a moral and scientific class system. This all revolves around the gathering of power away from all countries and peoples of the world, in one place.

Global warming, as an environmental movement, has added benefits for those in power. By blaming the human race for global warming, they can then proceed to punish the human race for existing, as our mere existence threatens Gaia, or Mother Earth. This leads conveniently to population control, and population reduction. Think of the children!!!

Meet the women who won’t have babies – because they’re not eco friendly

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Having large families ‘is an eco-crime’

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4×4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.

Could We Save the Earth by Reproducing Less?

Even the most greenest of American families are generally hurting the earth, just not at the rate of others. So could we really save the earth by limiting our population? Would it be right for governments to limit how many children a couple can have for the sake of saving the planet?

Top Scientist Advocates Mass Culling 90% Of Human Population

A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka’s chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite’s agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.

Leading Scientists: Overpopulation ‘is main threat to planet’

Government Report: Bio-Weapons Could Be Used To Combat Overpopulation

The story of over-population is also a myth and just an excuse to condition the public to accept the killing over 5 billion people and embracing global government.

Is human population really the problem?

Newspapers have become overpopulated, so to speak, with warnings about human overpopulation. Such warnings have been issued regularly for decades – even centuries – with consistently incorrect predictions. On the first Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, was widely quoted. He predicted that by 1985, the “population explosion” would lead to world famine, the death of the oceans, a reduction in life expectancy to 42 years, and the wasting of the Midwest into a vast desert. He was about as accurate as Malthus himself, the Englishman who, in 1798, predicted catastrophic food shortages that never came.

The population doomsayers usually offer the solution of global government – BIG government – to determine, in Gaylord Nelson’s words, “the optimum number of people.” Ironically, where there is famine, the problem usually is not an excess of people but an excess of government, which leads to gross misallocation and misuse of resources as corrupt bureaucrats or dictators seek power more than the welfare their subjects.

Overpopulation – Myth and Reality

It has become the bogeyman used to scare us into accepting desperate measures to curb this threat to our way of life. A vivid picture is painted of our being submerged in the struggle for survival. We will drown in a sea of people, gasping for the room to breathe, as the last square foot of inhabitable land sinks beneath the overwhelming tide of surging humanity.

Overpopulation: Not a Problem Now, and Never Will Be

So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km2, and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km2, with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land).

Another related scam is the idea of carbon credits, which amounts to global taxation.

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The case against carbon trading

You can’t trade in something unless you own it. When governments and companies “trade” in carbon, they establish de facto property rights over the atmosphere; a commonly held global commons. At no point have these atmospheric property rights been discussed or negotiated – their ownership is established by stealth with every carbon trade.

And finally, a nice article about Al Gores’ carbon trading.

Al Gore exposed – buys his carbon offsets from himself

Talk about the biggest fraud in the history of frauds. This guy is good, really good. Not only is he perpetrating a hoax on the world with this global warming stuff, he is a hypocrite who doesn’t practice what he preaches. Not only that and perhaps even more sinister, he is profiting from the hysteria he help create by buying his carbon credits from himself, from his own company.

Just another scam to tax the middle class and the poor, while at the same time depopulating the planet, consolidating power in organisations controlled by these globalists, forcing a global union, a new world order, a global governance, where the sovereignty of individual nations is superseded by the UN and other related groups. It is also a cover to push Communism on the entire human race, using various movements like feminism, socialism, environmentalism etc.

I am not sure what more there is to say about global warming. It seems obvious to me that the UN is speaking out of its arse in regards to this subject. I mean, what a way to make $7 trillion!

The UN’s $7 Trillion Socialist Scam

The United Nations says it can end poverty, stop global warming, and end the threat of contagious disease while also unlocking $7 trillion of hidden wealth from developing nations in the process. If this sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

I will provide links to more articles and sites below for further reading. Something to keep in mind is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Lies and distortion of the truth are being carried out by governments and the media daily. Their goal is to make us believe a version of reality that will suit the elitists. There is plenty on this site and others can be used as a guide to uncovering the truth. Please, don’t allow the propaganda of the TV or spin of politicians to think for you. Think for yourself, and question everything.

I will leave with this piece from the founder of the Weather Channel.

Weather Channel boss calls global warming ‘the greatest scam in history’

The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as ‘the greatest scam in history’ and accused global media of colluding with ‘environmental extremists’ to alarm the public.

“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM,” John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.

His original post is here.

“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” — Mikhail Gorbachev 1987

“National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.” — Adolph Hitler during World War II

“Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loud-speaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man…” — Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments (at his trial after World War II

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” — Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844

“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England … (and) … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”— Professor of History Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”.

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg

These links below will continue to be updated as more information comes to my attention…

Watts Up With That?

SUV’s On Jupiter?

The Global Warming Hoax

Solar Energy

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

The Inconvenient Truth:The Sun Varies in Intensity

Brussels urged to fight climate change with tax

EU global warming crackdown will cost every family £730 a year

Analyzing Global-warming Science

Skeptical Global Warming Scientists To Challenge “Consensus”

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Should roads have tolls to fight global warming?

Environmentalism: The Religion for an Eco-theocratic Superstate?

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”

Professor: Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda

The fact is global warming is waning!

Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance

World’s Most Powerful Banks Behind Push To Introduce Global Carbon Trading Markets

‘Motorists unfairly hit by £45bn green tax despite more eco-friendly cars’

NASA Chief: Global Warming Treated Like a Religion

Gore’s 10 Errors: Old and New

Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends – Part 1Part 2

Billionaire environmentalist says world has too many people

OFFICAL: IPCC computer model is WRONG

Over 500 Sign Climate Realist Declaration – ‘Global Warming’ is Not a Global Crisis

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

APS Editor Reverses Position on Global Warming- cites “Considerable presence” of skeptics

Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming

*Total solar output per second = 3.86*10e25 J
Total human energy consumption in 2004 = 4.71*10e19 J
(4.71 * 10e19) / (3.86 * 10e25) = 1.22020725*10e-7 seconds or 1.22020725 microseconds. You can reverse this to obtain the number of years 1 second of solar output can provide for the human race.
(3.86 * 10e25) / (4.71 * 10e19) = 819 532.909 years per solar second.

89 thoughts on “Global Warming?

  1. That’s all about natural resources dispute… nothing less.. no one is trying to save the world.. it’s just about oil runing out in developed countries … simple … global warming is a strategy to break sovereignty of states from countries that are rich in natural resources… Unfortunattley, america does not have fossil fuel anymore to sustain themselves..

  2. “It’s about people who make messes cleaning them up. Your mother doesn’t run the planet, so you have to clean up after yourself. That’s no grand conspiracy, it’s just good ethics. Good, also Christian ethics, I might add.”

    Ed, never bring religion into these topics.
    Your arguments suck.

  3. lololololol. Ed……what the hell?!

    “It’s about people who make messes cleaning them up. Your mother doesn’t run the planet, so you have to clean up after yourself. That’s no grand conspiracy, it’s just good ethics. Good, also Christian ethics, I might add. Claiming to see a grand conspiracy doesn’t mean there is one.”

    Never bring religion into topics like these.
    You suck.

    It’s funny to watch smart people argue.

  4. You just gotta love this Ed Darrell guy. I’ve never seen such hyperbole and attempts at intimidation. Just look at his first post. Apparently, to deny global warming is to “hate America” and, in fact, to basically despise the entire human race. Jesus, that’s scary. Mr. Darrow’s totalitarianism is somewhat Goebbels-like, and only serves to illustrate quite nicely just how angry and intent the global warming fascists can be. I am about as left-wing as they come — I consider myself to be a Scandinavian-style socialist — and I have a degree in chemistry. I completely deny that mankind’s emissions of CO2 are responsible for the inarguable global increase in temperature. There really is not one shred of real scientific evidence, and what is being used as “proof” of human-caused global warming is really only Al Gore’s schmaltz and tears, and dropping down on one knee and singing “Mammy”. It’s all just so much disgraceful manipulation of the population for profit and personal glory. People — so-called “liberals”, especially, who are, in reality, actually crypto-fascist pro-corporate globalists — seem to forget that Gore was the guy during the 1980s who crossed the aisle half the time to vote with the Reagan Republicans. He was a typical border state boll weevil Democrat, who was pro-military and anti-progressive. His shrewish wife, Tipper, is a lardy, mealymouthed gasbag who tried to convince us all that heavy metal music was destroying our children, so we should therefore clamp down on it immediately. Don’t you global warming people get it? This is all about control of the population and the advancement of the New World Order. If they can’t scare you enough with the image of evil, leather-wearing teenagers cutting your heart out at a Motley Crue-infused human sacrifice, they’ll up the stakes by telling you that, now, a gas will kill you.

    However, reducing the amount of CO2 dumped in the atmosphere might be a good thing, considering it’s a toxic gas, and reducing the amount of oil burned would hit Bush et al where it hurts. But, in my opinion, that should be the primary reason behind reducing CO2 emissions, and not some farcical, lesbianic, organic food-eating, pony-tailed, ignorant, Birkenstock-wearing scenario wherein we are killing ourselves with our own farts and breaths.

  5. Pingback: Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming « End of Men

  6. Well that’s why it’s a theory and not a fact emma. It does highlight the methodology of those who stand to gain immeasurably from the implementation of the schemes and taxes designed to fight this ‘theory’.

    Something that is not proven to be caused directly by humans is used to force through a global legal framework, synchronised national policies and consequences which involve the starvation of millions (and the increasing profits of corporations).

    It is international corporate fascism. Remember the tiny minority control the majority of the Earth’s production now. If anyone could ‘reduce carbon footprints’ (not that it matters) it would be them. Yet they would rather you GIVE them the few pennies you have so they can control you more.

    To those of us having done the research (not just on global warming, that’s just a piece of the puzzle) it is obvious what is going on. I only wish the majority have studied what I’ve studied 😦

  7. Pingback: OFFICAL: IPCC computer model is WRONG « End of Men

  8. Global Warming?of course its happening exactly as you say through natural sources(SUN).Only a complete idiot would think any different.

  9. Pingback: TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose ‘the fraud of global warming.’ « End of Men

  10. Pingback: News Round Up 2 « End of Men

  11. I don’t see why you’d need to learn humility. Learning the facts might be all you need.

    Where is there any history that says bankers created the UN? I mean, get real. Those who are not blind can look at the evidence, regardless the messenger. No one has given a hint of an iota of evidence to the claim that corrupt, conspiring bankers formed the UN. Nor has anyone offered a hint of evidence that bankers had anything to do with it, nor even that there was a bank within miles of the conference.

    Got data? Let’s see it.

  12. Other readers can see the paradigms you live in Ed, ‘not a major historian in the bunch’. Ah so you subscribe to the scientific dictatorship then.

    Bankers created the Fed, they’ve wanted a NewWorld Order since before the UN, with the League of Nations.

    But whatever, believe whatever story spoon fed to you by whomever you were told to believe.

    Zeitgeist has a few small errors, but a new version is being released. Endgame is factually correct and so is Loose Change – Final Cut.

    “Those who are not blind to the truth can recognise the value of a message regardless of the status of the messenger’ – ‘Alan’

    Someone needs to learn humility.

  13. Tinfoil hat histories — even three of them — don’t make a serious dent in the many fine histories of the origins of the United Nations already published.

    Endgame, Zeitgeist and Loose Change — not a major historian in the bunch, in the case of Loose Change not a lot of substantiated claims, either.

    Is there any reason, any corroboration from many sources (on such a global issue, there should be lots of corroboration), that would lead us to believe these stories written on Kaiser Quilted Foil? The claim that bankers founded the UN is just so bizarre, so far from reality, that I cannot imagine why anyone would entertain it.

    High school kids today seem ignorant of World War II. You may convince me that ignorance is just an extension of ignorance flowing from the previous two generations.

  14. Geez Ed. It almost sounds to me like you are being paid by someone to try and discredit this whole article.

    The author has already suggested the watching of “Endgame”, I suggest “Zeitgeist” as well. “Loose Change” couldn’t hurt either.

    There is just too much evidence out there that suggests this article has validity. All of them “tin hat theories”? I don’t think so.

  15. Right, in regards to the communist organisation known as the UN, read this:

    Global Governance.

    You keep asking the same questions about obvious taxation when others here have repeatedly stated it wouldn’t be obvious. But the ‘elites’ want to just blatantly add taxes for global warming anyway.

    Oh, and let this be a lesson about the EU and other ‘unions’ with centralised power while we’re at it.

    Read the last two links in my article above.

    The European Union should fight climate change with a broad-based carbon tax rather than by setting precise targets for the use of biofuels and renewable energy, according to a team of British economists.

    Households will have to pay up to £730 a year to fund plans to tackle climate change, it was claimed yesterday.

    Under laws proposed by Brussels, Britain will be forced to generate 40 per cent of its electricity from green sources within 12 years.

    This is what the framework of soviet style unions is all about. Even with stealth taxes through targets buried in paperwork they can still attempt to force their serfs into paying for it.

    Now let me do some thinking for you seeing as these Marxists don’t seem to be able to.

    Imagine the world’s former sovereign nations controlled by a handful of unions, as I state here

    The elites would then be able to impose whatever they liked with the minimum of effort on the vast majority of the human race.

    And people don’t seem to find anything wrong with that? Fucking spineless infantile sheep.

    If you can’t see global governance when its biting you in the arse, there is nothing else to say.

    Bloody new world order ‘deniers’.

  16. I’m a bit busy at the moment so I don’t have time to reply to each point, I will do so later. It’s true, it is just a presentation, a summary, so things can be interpreted in various ways. I am in no doubt however, that the UN’s apparent honourable charge to ‘Unite The World Against Evil’ is horse shit.

    Trends To A New World Order

    Rockefeller and the UN

    Fuck Rockefeller. These elitist families are no friend of the free man, no matter what you like to think. Be sure to read the video’s text, on the right hand side.

  17. In other words, people shouldn’t be free. Remember UN was the brainchild of these bankers, after their League of Nations scheme failed.

    That’s a brief summary that, in its brevity, does serious damage to history.

    The UN grew out of the Allied efforts to stop the Axis powers. Bankers were on both sides of that battle. The UN was created as a home for international justice, chiefly. It grows out of the same soil as the Nuremburg Trials, and the concepts of war crimes — certainly much more than any bank’s idea.

    The idea is that we are all neighbors, and nations and the leaders of nations need to act responsibly. If bankers promote such ideas, good on them.

  18. It doesn’t matter what it’s called. The proposal you linked to is not a tax system. It’s a Milton Friedman-esque, Chicago School of Economics, free market effort to resolve problems of economic disequilibria. If you renamed the New York Stock Exchange the “Communist Brotherhood Tax on Evil Peoples” that wouldn’t change the fact that it’s a free market enterprise.

    So, when you suggested it might be a tax proposal, I was looking for a tax proposal. That’s not outlined in the presentation.

    And when you talk about a “wealth transfer,” I think you don’t understand a huge part of where the presentation claims to be finding money. If we could cure malaria, stop its spread so that far fewer people were affected by it (it strikes about 500 million people annually), poor people and third-world nations would profit by having a more productive work force, greater productivity, and would in effect “find” several hundred millions of dollars in their local economies. Work to produce food is not a wealth transfer as you’re talking about. Again, it’s no tax on rich people or rich nations — it’s not a tax on anything. The presentation assumes benefits from curing disease.

    Unless you think malaria is a capitalist tool and a good one, which case I’d love to see someone try to argue, this is, again, no transfer of wealth and no tax on the rich.

    The $7 trillion — The proposal appears to be a free market proposal to trade in pollution credits. One gets pollution credits generally by working pollution-free, or at least pollution-reduced. One makes money by doing good, in other words. Then one takes these credits to a free market, and converts them into cash.

    As a pragmatic matter, poor Marxist-leaning people aren’t going to be the ones building the power plants and other manufacturing places to get the credits. In that way, this is a massive “transfer” of wealth from the public domain (assuming as Garrett Hardin did years ago that the public owns the air in a commons) to these capitalist manufacturers. No taxes — free market.

    Nation-state as old-fashioned: Yeah, that’s sorta inflammatory language. But in the case of air pollution, it’s absolutely accurate. In fact, that’s rather the position of the non-Marxists in the Bush administration on the Kyoto Treaty. They claimed the U.S. shouldn’t do something while suffering from pollution from China that goes unregulated and uncontrolled. The fact is that with Chinese pollution drifting the Pacific and far inland to the central U.S., and with dust from drought-stricken areas of Africa crossing the Atlantic to infect people in South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida with odd lung diseases, the concepts of “nation-state” begin to pale. Our borders can’t keep out Mother Nature, nor especially the insurance company concept of the Hand of God.

    So, understanding that the oceans and the atmosphere neither respect national political borders nor are much affected by them, we need global solutions to pollution (which is what the U.S. demanded from Kyoto and why we officially refused to go along) rather than national “control plans” which regulate local sources, but don’t touch more serious pollution coming from other places.

    I’m not sure why you think this is a tax; the money in this free market system would be coming from polluters in China and India, or wherever they are located (Mexico, Haiti, Russia), and to the extent U.S. manufacturers are cleaner, the U.S. manufacturers would be reaping the benefits, selling their credits. Anyone who can work cleaner, gets a financial shot in the arm.

    Where did YOU think the money was supposed to come from?

    The piece is arguing (not really ably, I think), that financial markets need to be used in lieu of regulatory schemes. Free markets are not taxes. Free markets regulate with invisible hands of markets, not the pronouncements of commissars. When they say “harnass free markets,” they mean “avoid government regulation at all costs.”

    Cooperation between nations — Nations can handle their own energy requirements? Not on this planet, not today. Were we and Europe and Japan energy independent, OPEC wouldn’t work. Arabian and Venezuelan oil would confer no benefits to their dysfunctional governments, if we didn’t have to buy the oil from them. You’re assuming a utopian dream that doesn’t exist for most of the industrialized world. Few, if any, industrialized nations are close to being energy independent. Import and export of coal, oil, natural gas and other fuels, make massive transfers of these resources from the nations where they are mined to the nations where they are used — China, India, Japan, Indonesia, U.S., Canada, Brazil, EEU, etc.

    No China page — If the U.S. joins, if the U.S. leads, the world will follow. China doesn’t have its own page because China isn’t, yet, the economic, political and moral leader that the U.S. is, not by a long shot. So a requirement for such a free-market plan to work is that the U.S. agree to play. This slide is a recognition of the failure of the Kyoto Treaty, and the biggest reason it failed: The U.S. refused to cooperate and play.

    Did you seriously read this proposal? Do you understand what tax credits and the carbon credits are, and how they work? Here, take a look at the Chicago Climate Exchange:

    Free markets, not taxes. The ghost of Milton Friedman urinating on the grave of Karl Marx — or more like it, not bothering to visit the grave while on holiday in London, ignoring Marx completely.

    This group assumes China will want some of the wealth to be generated from cleaning up the air. Chinese pollution provides low-hanging fruit for a clean-up campaign. This proposal talks about how to harvest that fruit.

    Page 12 government intervention — Page 11 precedes page 12, and on page 11 are outlined scantily the 6 proposals, including “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through pollution permit trading.” The government intervention they ask is to require companies to hit a target of pollution reduction, to agree on a pollution cap, in order to establish the market for permits to trade in. Again, I suggest you look at the markets that work today, such as the one run by the very free-market guys in Chicago, that I referred to above. See also the Climate Futures Exchange (at the same site I listed), and check out the article I refer to in the next post.

    This is not a tax in the form you fear, just as requiring 10K statements to trade on the NYSE is not a tax on corporations. Yes, it’s regulation — in this case, regulation to facilitate free market solutions.

    So far no government has been able to control these free-market exchanges, and that possibility declines as the markets grow bigger. A market doesn’t lend itself well to governmental price controls, and no one proposes such a thing here, so far as I can see.

    I still haven’t tracked down that Rockefeller quote. It’s out of context at best, since David Rockefeller is first and foremost a free market capitalist who understands exactly how his personal fortune and the future of his children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren, rest best in the invisible hands of a free market. The market hasn’t been too kind to David Rockefeller’s groups this past year — but it’s Greenspan’s housing bubble that’s got them, nothing to do with pollution or any of these markets in pollution credits.

    Moreover, I can’t figure out what he’s talking about without a lot more detail. Clearly, with a carbon credits market running in Chicago in full public view since about 2001, this stuff has not been developed in private, and there are dozens of articles and serious studies of such plans.

    But again I ask that you look at what Rockefeller is saying: Free markets are better than government regulation, as we’ve learned from a few centuries of experience.

    Do you disagree with that?

    So, as I read through that slide presentation again, I have to wonder: Where is a tax scheme? I don’t see it. It doesn’t propose a tax scheme. It proposes instead a free-market pollution credits exchange.

    Where is there a tax scheme there?

  19. Ed it has been repeatedly mentioned in these comments that it is hardly going to be called ‘Comumunist Global Tax System.’

    The idea is massive wealth transfer, and this is talking about public wealth more than corporate wealth, which would be minor, if at all.

    The presentation alludes to supra-national schemes which nations are forced into in its lefty Marxist language.

    On page 4 it reads: US$7 trillion can solve xyz. Where is that going to come from? The global bankers? I didn’t think so…

    Page 5 – An admission that the ‘nation-state’ is an old fashioned concept. So the sovereignty of nations is old fashioned is it? How convenient for global governance. Just read the summary of the Treaty of Lisbon to get an idea about how the EU prerogatives supersede national interests.

    Financial markets need to be harnessed. For what? To collect wealth for the UN?

    Page 6 – Unprecedented co-operation between countries. Why is that needed? Countries can handle their own energy requirements. That’s the point of sovereignty. Financial tools between these countries, all starting to sound very centralised to me.

    And it goes on, I’m not going to go through all 20 pages translating the Tavistock Institute jargon, it’s Sunday morning, but:

    Pg 9 – United States must join international pollution trading system which could deliver over US$3.7 trillion of wealth. Where’s China’s page in this presentation?

    Then it mentions the schemes. After all of the debating, all of the facts all of the scientific evidence, they mention greenhouse gases, and, unless they are going to tax water vapour, I take it they mean CO2.

    So that’s the reason the UN IPCC focuses on CO2, although it ends its report by saying it isn’t fact, it’s a climate model. So it can provide the Hegelian framework for this global ‘wealth transfer.’

    All the schemes smack of centralised control. Great, enlarged vaccine scheme! That’ll help Big Pharma. Cutting borrowing costs for developing nations? How about abolishing the IMF and World Bank, seeing as their job is getting countries into their debt and offering them loans with massive conditions.

    Pg 12 Government must intervene in public to limit pollution. What, forcing governments to tax their citizens even more? And pollution is defined as CO2, so before you know it, they will be advocating one-child policies to cut ‘the baby pollution footprint’. And yes, that has come up.

    And so on. It sounds to me, like the UN is proposing a massive centralisation of financial power and wealth transfer to combat ‘global warming and poverty’ by forcing governments to sign up. It makes no mention of public opinion, or what they want of course. Seeing as it’s a global village now and the public have no say. This fits in nicely with quote from your buddy D. Rockefeller:

    “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

    He also mentioned:

    Zyuganov reported that Rockefeller said, “is preferable to the right of peoples to self-determination.” (Sovetskaya Rossiya, 10 Apr 97)

    In other words, people shouldn’t be free. Remember UN was the brainchild of these bankers, after their League of Nations scheme failed.

  20. Very interesting Fmwatkins. There is no proposal for any tax in that presentation. The proposal to set up a free market exchange in pollution credits is a Milton Friedman-endorsed, anti-communist solution.

    The claimed benefits include significant reductions in poverty world wide, significant reductions in health effects from air pollution, and a reduction in malaria cases.

    Were you pointing out that there is no proposal to tax, or did you link to a presentation you didn’t intend to link to?

  21. According to former long-time BBC science correspondent and editor David Whitehouse, global warming, in contradiction to the current theories predicting ever increasing temperatures, has stopped. “The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001,” Whitehouse noted in an article in New Statesman. “Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming — the greenhouse effect.” In Whitehouse’s estimation, “something else is happening….”

    Maybe it’s global cooling. According to the Washington Times, 2007 was noteworthy for the number of “record low temperatures … being set all over the world.” In Buenos Aires, the Times recounts, “snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold” and “the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency” amid a rash of cold-related crop failures and respiratory ailments. Similar problems afflicted the northern hemisphere with cold snaps in the Spring destroying 95 percent of South Carolina’s peach crop and 90 percent of North Carolina’s apple harvest.

    Despite this, David Deming, the author of the Times article and a geophysicist with the National Center for Policy Analysis, says true believers in global warming will not be swayed by any amount of evidence that runs counter to their preferred theories. “Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer,” he writes. “In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained ‘global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.’ In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming.”

    “I can’t make this stuff up,” Deming sarcastically concludes.

    Why the era of cheap food is over

    What is behind the increases in food prices?

    Certainly not bad harvests. Although a drought hit the traditionally bountiful Australian wheat harvest this past year, world cereal harvests hit 2.1 billion metric tons, a record production level, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

    Two major trends have been pushing prices up faster than they have risen for more than 30 years. One is that increasingly prosperous consumers in India and China are not only eating more food but eating more meat. Animals have to be fed (grains, usually) before they are butchered. The other is that more and more crops – from corn to palm nuts – are being used to make biofuels instead of feeding people.

    Great. Starve the poor some more to please a tiny bunch of rich liberal whiney motherfuckers who go around preaching about CO2 and Gaia and how us humans don’t deserve to exist if we don’t pay extra costs to their companies.

    It’s blatently obvious to see by anyone with a brain. And Rob is right, this pro-Marx generation will be torn down along with corporatism. People’s suffering is only going to increase while these lobby groups have so much say within OUR governments in OUR countries.

Leave a Reply to Mac Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s