Must… fight… global… warming… (even if it doesn’t exist)

Somebody explain this to me.

Source: BBC

The UK’s Royal Society is to investigate whether ambitious engineering schemes could reduce the impact of global warming.

Several “geo-engineering” schemes have been proposed including putting mirrors into space and iron filings in oceans.

The society says these must be properly assessed – however fantastical.

But environmental groups warn that technological solutions should not divert attention away from reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses.

No, everything must be done, even if it involves the extraction of trillions of pounds of wealth from us commoners, to fight global warming, as the article states. I mean, after all these years of propaganda, calling it fighting climate change sounds fucking idiotic. Like humans can control the planets’ climate. No, it’s global warming. Maybe someone should send them these articles…

There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
Global Cooling? [1998-2005 data shows cooling trend]
Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Sun Spot Cycle Prompts Fears of Global Cooling
Is There Global Cooling?
National Post: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

It took me about one minute to pull all of those links up. One fucking minute. I guess the climate change/ carbon tax industry is too big a cash cow to just let go. I mean, you can’t monopolise the ‘solution’ when people don’t believe there is a ‘problem’ to solve.

Although most don’t believe the official theory (where have I heard that before).

Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.

Advertisements

Wives to be let off for murdering their husbands in cold blood

Hot on the heels of my earlier scribblings regarding what actually constitutes ‘abuse’ for the self interested feminists and abuse industry.

Source: Daily Mail

I hate this evil feminist bitch.

I hate this evil feminist bitch.

Women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.

Under a major government review, they will be punished for the lesser offence of manslaughter, sparing them a mandatory life sentence.

Women’s groups had long campaigned for changes to the law to protect victims of domestic violence who hit back in desperation.

As long as they’re women, hitting men.

But the proposed new partial defence for killers who feel ‘seriously wronged’ by ‘words and conduct’ took experts completely by surprise.

They must establish only that they were responding to a ‘slow burn’ of abuse.

The change sweeps aside the existing requirement in any defence of provocation that they killed on the spur of the moment after a ‘sudden’ loss of control.

In cases where a husband kills, the existing ‘partial defence’ of provocation if a wife was having an affair is scrapped altogether.

The Ministry of Justice said this was in response to long-standing concerns that the centuries- old measure impacts differently on men and women.

In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer, as well as domestic violence victims, should be offered new partial defences of provocation.

They include those ‘seriously wronged’ by an insult.

Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours, or victims of a serious crime who are taunted at a later date by the attacker.

Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction.

Note that this is the complete opposite to equality. This is just giving women who are so inclined, a government mandate to kill their husbands, as long as they can cook up a good textbook story about abuse, which as we know can be almost anything women say it is.

Essentially, this means that if a woman ‘feels’ wronged, she can kill you, if you ‘feel’ wronged, you cannot kill her. The ‘crime of passion’ motive has been strengthened for women and taken away from men. This represents laws for certain groups. This is illegal. Continue reading

UN to cause 3 billion deaths as result of Codex Alimentarius

Source: YouTube

Codex Alimentarius was created in 1962 as a trade Commission by the UN to control the international trade of food. Its initial intentions may have been altruistic but it has been taken over by corporate interests, most notably the pharmaceutical, pesticide, biotechnology and chemical industries.

Codex Alimentarius will go into global implementation by December 31, 2009, unless We, the People, avert it.

Codex Alimentarius Summarized in 7 Points

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”. Continue reading