Because there is no evidence for it, but there is a massive potential profit at stake for it. Follow the money. Everything (in Commerce) is a rich man's trick.
Indeed, which is why they had to switch to "climate change". Lol, how convenient. No shit the climate changes, always has and always will. The useful idiots buy into this, though...
You don't think the money to be made is with coal and oil companies funding anti climate science efforts so that new energy doesn't make their profits shrink as people move away from fossil fuels? Those billionaires have everything to lose by countries getting off of oil
I believe that scientists have absolutely zero clue about how much of an effect carbon emissions actually have on our climate, and therefore can’t possibly quantify any kind of “solution” to the problem.
Florida was supposed to be on water multiple times by now. I find it funny that when doomsday peddlers get the dates wrong and then push back their predictions for some BS reason, everyone laughs at them and discredits them the next time they make that claim.
than
Yet somehow when Al Gore and “climate scientists” are completely wrong multiple times, and just push back their predictions using BS explanations such as “The Pause” in order for their models to not be completely inaccurate, the entire MSM and much of the public somehow believes them now more than ever??
There’s more conclusive evidence for them having no clue what they are talking about than there is for carbon emissions causing catastrophic global consequences in the near future.
The Taurid meteor stream, solar flares, and super volcanos/massive tectonic events are far more of a threat to humanity than global warming, IMO.
Oh dude you have no idea how wrong you are. Rockefellars, Rothchilds and the rest of the "oiligarchs"
are VERY engaged in bringing the new "green revolution" on it's way. THEY are PUSHING it. They are the very ones who came up with the manmade global warming hoax.
Watch James Corbett's "How big oil conquered the world" and then "Why big oil conquered the world"! (youtube/ corbettreport.com)
If you feel like you don't have that much time to spend for this, just watch WHY big oil...
In case you don't know The Corbett report/ James Corbett, he isn't some lunatic who reports every lie that fits his narative, but a real investigative journalist with an awesome reputation in the conspiracy theory world. Just saying this, because I know dolts here throw around 1.30 hour long youtube videos, made by lunatics who lie, fake and never deliver evidence/ sources and then those dolts act insulted when you don't watch all of it only to find out it was all garbage. :) Not the case here, promise. He always delivers all sources for his research. (real sources)
You are totally right that the globalists are the primary pushers for action that responds to global warming. The elite in almost every country are pushing for actions based on global warming. It's a very weak argument that people make, when they suggest that the elite want coal or oil as opposed to solar or renewables.
if anything it helps oil companies by being able to ship raw bitumen to countries that have extremely lax environmental and worker protections, then ship it back at a huuuge markup where they would be taxed to refine it. so less cost building refineries and the upkeep..., just build a once off pipeline. china for instance is still buying ever oil patch and oil company they can in canada. oil is not going anywhere
i dont think you understand. say canada and us throw these carbon taxes on oil production. these oil companies (chinese companies own a good portion of the oil and oil companies in canada), who really really wants the oil , say you are making it too expensive to refine the bitumen on the continent, we are going to make a pipeline to the coast and refine it china or vietnam or wherever.
thats why the trans mountain pipeline is being built, to ship raw bitumen to asia where it will be refined and then shipped back and resold. this carbon tax is really good excuse to avoid the more expensive labour and tighter environmental regulations in canada. its not going to be shipping refined product, its raw bitumen (the green party has been advocating building more refineries in alberta). they then promote all this green energy to lower the price of oil (china is buying all the oil and oil companies it can, weather you think its on its way out or not)
These billionaires own everything. They own the oil and coal companies and they do or will own the renewable sources of energy. There is little risk to them in switching from gas to solar or whatever. They are very good at just taking over industries.
Maurice Strong: With all the evidence that we’ve amassed in our preparations for the Stockholm Conference, including the views of many of world’s leading scientists, I am convinced that the prophets of doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words, doomsday is a possibility. I am equally convinced that doomsday is not inevitable.”...
....But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Strong, this ubiquitous figure of the 20th century environmental movement, was his background: a Rockefeller-connected millionaire from the Alberta oil patch who divided his time between environmental campaigning and running major oil companies.
To understand how this came about, we have to examine the history of the emergence of the environmental movement. In the post-war period, the desire to control the population put on a new mask: protecting the world from resource depletion, pollution and ecological catastrophe. And, as always, the Rockefeller family was there to provide the funding and organizational support to steer this burgeoning movement toward their own ends.
Joining the Rockefellers in shaping the international environmental movement were their fellow oiligarchs across the Atlantic, including the British royals behind BP and the Dutch Royals behind Royal Dutch Shell. And facilitating the transition from eugenics to population control to environmentalism was Julian Huxley, brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley and grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.H. Huxley.
Julian Huxley was a committed eugenicist, chairing the British Eugenics Society from 1959 to 1962. But, like the other eugenicists of the post-war era, he understood the need to pursue the now-discredited work of eugenics under a different guise. The founding director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Huxley wrote in the agency’s founding document about the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Huxley found the perfect front for the re-introduction of those “unthinkable” eugenical ideas in 1948, when he used UNESCO as a springboard for founding the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and then again in 1961, when he used that agency as a springboard to create the World Wildlife Fund. Joining Huxley as co-founders of the fund were not only Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder of the Bilderberg Group and former employee of the IG Farben conglomerate, and Prince Philip of England, but Godfrey A. Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty. Together, they pledged to “harness public opinion and educate the world about the necessity for conservation.”
In 1987, Strong helped to organize another environmental conference, much less known but no less remarkable than the Stockholm summit. Dubbed the 4th World Wilderness Congress, the meeting took place in Denver, Colorado, and brought together Strong, David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker, and a gaggle of other oiligarchs, bankers, Washington power players and globalists, ostensibly to talk about the environment. What they actually discussed was altogether more incredible:
DAVID LANG: I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.
Those were the words of David Lang, a banker from Montreal who spoke during the conference. And to Lang, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the other bankers and oiligarchs assembled at the meeting, the general population are “cannon fodder” that “unfortunately […] populates the earth.” This candid admission, a perfect encapsulation of the eugenical ideas at the heart of the global conservation movement funded into existence by the oiligarchs themselves, was caught on tape by George Hunt, a businessman in Boulder, Colorado, who had volunteered to help the conference as a concerned citizen and came away horrified by what he had witnessed there. He released his own recordings of the proceedings in the early 1990s to warn the public about this group and its ultimate aims.
Hunt’s recording captured the moment when Maurice Strong introduced Baron Edmond de Rothschild — whose father’s cousin had sold the Rothschild’s Azerbaijani oil fields to Royal Dutch Shell in 1911 — as a pioneer of the environmental movement and a founder of the concept of “conservation banking.”
Earth can get hot and it also can get cold. It's happened many times throughout Earth's history. Currently there's an active volcano under Antarctica that's melting the ice.
I believe the Sun and Volcanos play a huge role in global warming and cooling.
So there's a huge conspiracy to push climate change and potentially make money on new energy tech, and it's being funded through debt on the hope that it works?
But there's NOT a conspiracy to deny climate change so that current billionaire oil/gas companies can continue to make the money they are making?
Is that correct? The currently poor entity is pushing the conspiracy and NOT the currently rich entity?
This chart seems extremely fake (no scales, no margins of error, WAY too smooth, mentions a-historical events like the Hebrew Exodus...). I was curious, so I looked around and found the source. There, I found 0 discussion of methodology, which can be compared with similar reconstruction of north hemisphere temperatures which discuss in full the data used (ice cores, tree rings, sediments etc.) and the associated uncertainties. How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
Also, the "about us" page makes me suspect that at least Cliff Harris isn't a trained scientist, and just appropriated the "climatologist" tag to lend himself authority. His bio cites "Since age 11, he has compiled nearly 100 weather scrapbooks that detail major events throughout the U.S. and the world on a daily basis" as evidence of how smart he is, but no alma mater. And of course, his occupation is just to run a weather station and write for a local column...
It's mostly the globalist Marxist that are begging to set up a global tax authority under the guise of saving the planet. I'll tell you this for damn sure, if some fucking global tax collector shows up at my house I'll make a point of burning tires every day for the rest of my life. Back off.
Are you talking about Jordan Peterson? You realize that Jordan Peterson didn't invent Marxism right?
But this pretty much proves that you're 100% signed up for the agenda. You guys bring Peterson up as if it debunks anything negative about Marxist when you actually do just the opposite.
Are you talking about Jordan Peterson? You realize that Jordan Peterson didn't invent Marxism right?
Wow, today I learned...
But this pretty much proves that you're 100% signed up for the agenda. You guys bring Peterson up as if it debunks anything negative about Marxist when you actually do just the opposite.
Drop the "you guys" collectivist stuff, treat people as individuals. It was a back handed remark because I've only seen "cultural marxism" "global marxist" only start to be used when he got popular. Been following him since the first video that went viral from UT
Also I guarantee you that I'll start burning tires in random locations if some global save the planet tax rolls out. Just to spite you.
Destryoing the enviroment just to own the libs eh? When the planet is unhabitable that'll show em!
What the hell is a global tax? The UN starts going door to door demanding a cheque? Sovereignty is just going to disappear like that? It's a pretty ridiculous thing to be worried about
Drop the "you guys" collectivist stuff, treat people as individuals.
Why? Marxists are by definition collectivist just like communists and Nazis were. Why would I treat a collectivist like an individual? Maybe so you can take advantage of our individual rights when it protects you and suits you then the antifa masks go on and you try to strip others of their individual rights when it's convenient and suits you as collectivist mobs.
I'm not a marxist lol? I thought not treating people as individuals is what is getting all the Trump types and other conservatives unhappy, so why continue it? You're playing identity politics bruh
I've listened to a ton of him. I don't know about that, he says he's a liberal but I think since his popularity he's become a lot more conservative since he's exposed to the worst of the left almost 24/7. Ive been following him since his UT viral video, seen all lectures, read maps of meaning, seen almost all his interviews but I probably missed a couple since there's so many...
Despite all that, not really a fan of his politics I think his hysteria about the left is misfocused, the right wing is a much bigger problem and threat to democracy.
It would maybe matter if there spread was greater than 1%.
You're talking about what 3 million people out of 120 million that voted.
Truth is neither candidate got a majority, and the popular vote has never been the game being played but fuck me right. Don't let me stop you from putting your mask on and fucking up our democracy while blaming it on the Nazis who lost ww2 80 fucking years ago.
What the hell is a global tax? The UN starts going door to door demanding a cheque? Sovereignty is just going to disappear like that? It's a pretty ridiculous thing to be worried about
It's not a ridiculous thing to be worried about, it's literally a thing trying to be pushed by the ipcc, the EU and all the 3 letter global government agencies IMF, CFR. And yes this is exactly how sovereignty disappears. Any moron who has two brain cells to rub together can see that the US republic gave way to the US federation by creating new authorities above but outside of the existing republic that eventually devoured the sovereignty of the individual states, and that same moron might try observing the shit-show that is happening as EU member states are systematically having their sovereignty stripped away by what started as a "free trade union".
Meanwhile all the geniuses out there can't seem to manage basic pattern recognition.
They aren't the ones collecting the carbon tax though, it's just an initiative to get companies to lower their impact on the environment. And it's pretty effective too, the extra revenue is usually used towards social services or national park maintenance while companies become 'greener'. Works well in Canada at least
Really, the whole idea was hatched by a global entity and is being rolled out by local governments at the moment. I wonder how many increments until it's all just handed over to carbon tax central in Brussels and reinvested in new and interesting ways to tax the new member states.
You realize that people like me predicted the EU well over a decade before it appeared, we have been watching this club of Rome shit since the 70s which was where the EU was hatched. You know what else was created by the club of Rome? A global climate crisis!
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
— Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
“The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
Why worry about such silly things when they are literally telling us what they are going to do. Works great for Canada does it?
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
— Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Social justice! Reeeeeeee!
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
— Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
Not it wasn't. The countries set their own climate goals and signed the deal promising to adhere to their own conditions. The money would have been made back with all the investment and success of new energy technologies
How uninformed do you have to be to believe such delusions? BTW, not addressing climate change is what's actually going to cost America (nevermind the rest of the world) trillions of dollars.
You do know there's an active volcano under antarctica and cooling/warming is linked to the Sun and Volcananos? But tell me I'm uninformed when you probably know less.
You sound anti-science, because science is never "settled". It's always open for revision(s) or to be thrown out completely. Damn, bruh do you even science?
It's settled in the sense that 99% of climate scientist are no longer arguing over whether or not man made climate change is real and a problem. It's such a complex topic that models are always being updated or changed based on new knowledge but the underlying hypothesis still holds true. Too much Carbon in the atmosphere = bad, humans add too much extra to the climate
Of course I've looked into both "sides". The pro side is filled with hysteria, fear mongering, and massive potential for profits. Everything (in Commerce) is a rich man's trick.
This just leads me to believe you've never looked at it with an open mind
I find this quite ironic, tbh. Yes, I've looked at both sides, and I'm not convinced, hence why I said what I've said. How are you not understanding this?
Just curious if you have any credentials on this topic
If you're asking if I have a degree, then... no, I don't. I'm self taught in many topics. Degrees are pointless, imo (ie. garbage in, garbage out - indoctrination).
Global Warming seems to be a natural and not predictable event and scientists are more discussing about how much impact humans and there co2 production has. Most scientists believe that it is real but many of them doubt that the human impact is decisive, because on Mars is the same effect.
Government and the so-called „Elite“ are already profiting. Taxes and regulations. Charity Events... etc
Disgusting fact: Bill Gates wants to regulate humans to regulate CO2
They do not believe that global warming or climate change is fake, but they do not believe that it is caused by what we think it is or if it is natural.
Yet it's the same people and organizations that inform people about those past cycles, that are warning of our damaging influence on current and future cycles.
"We trust you completely and will cite you on that stuff; but fuck you for being dirty stinking liars about this stuff!"?
That’s what I thought too. But there really are people who think climate change is completely fake. Like, that’s it’s not happening at all. I can buy the argument that it’s not man-made phenomena, but there really are people who think it’s completely made up.
There's billions of people on the planet, so you're bound to find people that will support any theory, but how common do you think it is that people don't believe the planets warming at all? I think the percentage of people that believe that is tremendously small compared to people that wholesale believe in man-made global warming and people who believe in global warming but that it's not man-made.
I wouldn’t doubt that my anecdotal evidence is much different than most. But there’s far too many people down here that think it for me to be comfortable
Because global government agencies immediately started trying to turn it into a tax scheme. I'd rather die in a furnace than submit to some global tax collector. Sorry but that's the hot Truth.
If you want to save the planet then stop making it about global government and taxes.
Instead of arguing against strawmen, you're welcome to propose your own solutions to the underlying problem. If your side of the issue gave a rats ass of its own about saving the planet, it be fairly easy for them to get support for emission reduction schemes that kept control local and did not increase taxation.
Um since you mentioned strawmen I'm going to assume that you deny the global carbon tax reality. You're just the type that will continue to lie to people and deny that the worst part of the thing you're supporting exists at all.
Dude I've been saving the planet since the fucking 80s. And guess what? No matter how many hundreds of millions of people recycle religiously and volunteer hundreds of hours of their time doing ecosystem clean ups with their community, I pull trashbags full of litter out of the river every time I go canoeing (I literally never see anyone else doing this) but none of fucking matters so some fucking scientist over in Europe who have been pushing for carbon taxes to fund their little Ponzi scheme for decades.
You want the hard truth about how to save the planet? Stop shipping cheap food and energy to 3rd world breeders who turn around and literally fill huge rivers with trash while having zero intention of ever changing their ways. Eventually those billions die off and the planet is saved.
Wow, you're so close to getting it, and yet so far away. Small scale, individual acts of "saving the planet" don't matter when the larger economic system is designed to make things worse regardless. What would make a difference would be systemic alteration would be internalizing the externality by a price on carbon. No Ponzi scheme required, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself.
Pricing carbon would also lead directly to less food and energy being shipped to the third world. The people who support pricing carbon generally also support subsidizing contraception in the third world, which would be the easiest way to calm your demographic fears. Meanwhile, the groups that oppose pricing carbon also support heavy export-oriented agricultural subsidies, and oppose anything that seems like decent sex-ed or contraception for the third world. Leaving aside that, however bad the third world's trash may seem anecdotally, the truth is that the vast majority of climate altering pollution comes from the first world.
Small scale, individual acts of "saving the planet" don't matter when the larger economic system is designed to make things worse regardless.
See you don't want to be bothered with actually doing something productive about it yourself, you just want a big government and big tax to take care of everything for you behind the scenes.
I do plenty productive about it myself, but like you said one person doing the little things means jack all compared to the scale of everything else happening. I don't want someone else to take care of it for me, but nice projection there. You could actually engage in discussing how to solve the issue, but instead you spend your time fantasizing about the psychology of the people who do.
The people who support pricing carbon generally also support subsidizing contraception in the third world, which would be the easiest way to calm your demographic fears.
you spend your time fantasizing about the psychology....
Projection.
Literally all you people do every day. But its not my fault your true feelings slip out. like most everyone I know you probably do fuck all about it in real life. You probably consume just as much as the average person in your area. I even hang around groups full of very "climate change away" people who constantly woe on about it but do FUCK ALL about themselves.
But yes lets call in the big government to do everything for us. we can just throw money at the problem and it will magically vanish, even if it doesn't vanish we'll have tax deductible proof that we did something about it! we'll be able to blame all those deniers even though we personally never make single choice in life with the good of the planet and ecosystem in mind.
I paid my taxes! can't blame me!
I simply don't believe you because you're a deceptive debater.
3rd world breeders ... Eventually those billions die off and the planet is saved.
What part of what I said is projection? You've got demographic fears, contraception'd be a better solution for them than mass famine, and contraception is obviously more supported by one side of politics than the other.
If you're going to accuse me of projecting and being a deceptive debater, you probably shouldn't base your argument on speculations about my motivation and consumption patterns. You're deflecting from the substance of the issue to whine about people you don't like.
The fastest way to "save" the planet, is to force disclosure of free energy devices that are hidden within black projects, or is you assume they don't exist to create them.
Maurice Strong: With all the evidence that we’ve amassed in our preparations for the Stockholm Conference, including the views of many of world’s leading scientists, I am convinced that the prophets of doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words, doomsday is a possibility. I am equally convinced that doomsday is not inevitable.”...
....But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Strong, this ubiquitous figure of the 20th century environmental movement, was his background: a Rockefeller-connected millionaire from the Alberta oil patch who divided his time between environmental campaigning and running major oil companies.
To understand how this came about, we have to examine the history of the emergence of the environmental movement. In the post-war period, the desire to control the population put on a new mask: protecting the world from resource depletion, pollution and ecological catastrophe. And, as always, the Rockefeller family was there to provide the funding and organizational support to steer this burgeoning movement toward their own ends.
Joining the Rockefellers in shaping the international environmental movement were their fellow oiligarchs across the Atlantic, including the British royals behind BP and the Dutch Royals behind Royal Dutch Shell. And facilitating the transition from eugenics to population control to environmentalism was Julian Huxley, brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley and grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.H. Huxley.
Julian Huxley was a committed eugenicist, chairing the British Eugenics Society from 1959 to 1962. But, like the other eugenicists of the post-war era, he understood the need to pursue the now-discredited work of eugenics under a different guise. The founding director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Huxley wrote in the agency’s founding document about the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Huxley found the perfect front for the re-introduction of those “unthinkable” eugenical ideas in 1948, when he used UNESCO as a springboard for founding the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and then again in 1961, when he used that agency as a springboard to create the World Wildlife Fund. Joining Huxley as co-founders of the fund were not only Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder of the Bilderberg Group and former employee of the IG Farben conglomerate, and Prince Philip of England, but Godfrey A. Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty. Together, they pledged to “harness public opinion and educate the world about the necessity for conservation.”
In 1987, Strong helped to organize another environmental conference, much less known but no less remarkable than the Stockholm summit. Dubbed the 4th World Wilderness Congress, the meeting took place in Denver, Colorado, and brought together Strong, David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker, and a gaggle of other oiligarchs, bankers, Washington power players and globalists, ostensibly to talk about the environment. What they actually discussed was altogether more incredible:
DAVID LANG: I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.
Those were the words of David Lang, a banker from Montreal who spoke during the conference. And to Lang, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the other bankers and oiligarchs assembled at the meeting, the general population are “cannon fodder” that “unfortunately […] populates the earth.” This candid admission, a perfect encapsulation of the eugenical ideas at the heart of the global conservation movement funded into existence by the oiligarchs themselves, was caught on tape by George Hunt, a businessman in Boulder, Colorado, who had volunteered to help the conference as a concerned citizen and came away horrified by what he had witnessed there. He released his own recordings of the proceedings in the early 1990s to warn the public about this group and its ultimate aims.
Hunt’s recording captured the moment when Maurice Strong introduced Baron Edmond de Rothschild — whose father’s cousin had sold the Rothschild’s Azerbaijani oil fields to Royal Dutch Shell in 1911 — as a pioneer of the environmental movement and a founder of the concept of “conservation banking.”
So when it's coming from Corbettreport, you won't look at the ACTUAL PROOF you are linked to??
You won't look at UNESCOS ACTUAL FOUNDING DOCUMENT http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000681/068197eo.pdf to read how Julian Huxley explains the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again under the guise of environmentalism.
You won't listen to secretly recorded speeches of JDRockefeller and David Lang where they call us cannonfodder while talking about their new environmental movement in front of Rothchilds and CO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8c-NKjOOA0
And that because ONE OF THE PEOPLE who did spread all those links to inform people, was James Corbett.
Sound reasoning.
And that is only a fraction of all the ACTUAL LEGIT SOURCES THAT ALL PROOOOF THAT IT WAS THE OIL ELITE WHO CREATED ALL OF THE GREEN MOVEMENT THEMSELFS.
Only a few People think that “global Warming” is fake,
the majority of the People do not have the Resources to think about,
People who spent Time “in the Outside”, have the possibility to Research and understand the Mechanism of Climate do not think that the so called “global Warming” is a Hoax!
I hope we all live long enough to see the Results of a anthropogenic Climate Change, and even more i wish that we can stop it.
It’s not that people don’t believe it’s fake...are our waterways getting more polluted? Are we trashing our planet? I think we can all agree on that.
Where I don’t agree is with their solution to global warming or now climate change. It’s a financial scam. It’s a financial scam that will have zero impact on cleaning up our world and will only make the poorer more poor and the rich more richer. It’s a financial scam!
What is? Its not like there's a singular solution proposed, there certainly is no singular "they," and if y'all wanted to engage in good faith there's plenty of ways to address greenhouse gases that would be economically beneficial rather than scams.
No one thinks the Paris Agreement actually solves anything. The Kyoto Protocol, which was very different, might have solved it, but only because at that early date the problem was much smaller. Carbon credits are not taxes on nations that use carbon, the Paris Agreement does not mandate specific mechanisms for national emission reductions, there's plenty of ways to reduce carbon usage without tax revenues going beyond the local level, or even without taxes on carbon at all.
Lastly, because this is a problem that will disproportionately affect nations and communities that have not historically and do not currently have high emissions, any moral system more evolved than "fuck you got mine" should be able to accept that there should be significant economic transfer for rich to poor in addressing this issue. Moreover, since ethics in economics isn't something y'all tend to support, even someone with a basic understanding of science or geopolitics should understand why some rich-poor economic transfer is required for rich nations and demographics to achieve their own optimal result.
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
–David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum and donated the land on which the United Nations stands. Speaking at a U.N. Business Conference, Sept. 14, 1994
because you can't trust the people who invented it...
pollution is a real thing of course. but they are trying to blame it on the people (for breathing FFS).
its an diversionary tactic that also divides and conquers us. while not addressing the problem of the cabal going round and wrecking the planet.
The cabal that's going round and wrecking the planet are the people who cause most global warming, fund most global warming denial, and attack most of the people who discover and analyze the phenomenon.
Because many extremely rich and powerful people become and stay extremely rich and powerful by doing things that warm the planet, and so have both an incentive to convince people that global warming isn't real, as well as the resources to finance campaigns to that effect.
Recently, the evidence for global warming has gotten so overwhelming that the denialist line has shifted from "its not happening" to "its happening, but its either not human's fault or too expensive to address."
This is enhanced by the fact that older people wield more political and economic power than younger people. Why care if the ice cap will melt by 2050 if you're going to die by 2040? Moreover, for the older generation to acknowledge global warming as a problem would require them to acknowledge that their lifestyle choices contributed significantly to it. Baby boomers are notably narcissistic, and thus susceptible to anything that absolves them of guilt.
Moreover, for the older generation to acknowledge global warming as a problem would require them to acknowledge that their lifestyle choices contributed significantly to it.
I've spent at least a few years researching and talking about climate change, and this point you make is almost entirely the reason why we have deniers and no real movement on the issue. This is really the core of the problem and it's just maddening.
Maurice Strong: With all the evidence that we’ve amassed in our preparations for the Stockholm Conference, including the views of many of world’s leading scientists, I am convinced that the prophets of doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words, doomsday is a possibility. I am equally convinced that doomsday is not inevitable.”...
....But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Strong, this ubiquitous figure of the 20th century environmental movement, was his background: a Rockefeller-connected millionaire from the Alberta oil patch who divided his time between environmental campaigning and running major oil companies.
To understand how this came about, we have to examine the history of the emergence of the environmental movement. In the post-war period, the desire to control the population put on a new mask: protecting the world from resource depletion, pollution and ecological catastrophe. And, as always, the Rockefeller family was there to provide the funding and organizational support to steer this burgeoning movement toward their own ends.
Joining the Rockefellers in shaping the international environmental movement were their fellow oiligarchs across the Atlantic, including the British royals behind BP and the Dutch Royals behind Royal Dutch Shell. And facilitating the transition from eugenics to population control to environmentalism was Julian Huxley, brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley and grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.H. Huxley.
Julian Huxley was a committed eugenicist, chairing the British Eugenics Society from 1959 to 1962. But, like the other eugenicists of the post-war era, he understood the need to pursue the now-discredited work of eugenics under a different guise. The founding director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Huxley wrote in the agency’s founding document about the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Huxley found the perfect front for the re-introduction of those “unthinkable” eugenical ideas in 1948, when he used UNESCO as a springboard for founding the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and then again in 1961, when he used that agency as a springboard to create the World Wildlife Fund. Joining Huxley as co-founders of the fund were not only Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder of the Bilderberg Group and former employee of the IG Farben conglomerate, and Prince Philip of England, but Godfrey A. Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty. Together, they pledged to “harness public opinion and educate the world about the necessity for conservation.”
In 1987, Strong helped to organize another environmental conference, much less known but no less remarkable than the Stockholm summit. Dubbed the 4th World Wilderness Congress, the meeting took place in Denver, Colorado, and brought together Strong, David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker, and a gaggle of other oiligarchs, bankers, Washington power players and globalists, ostensibly to talk about the environment. What they actually discussed was altogether more incredible:
DAVID LANG: I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.
Those were the words of David Lang, a banker from Montreal who spoke during the conference. And to Lang, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the other bankers and oiligarchs assembled at the meeting, the general population are “cannon fodder” that “unfortunately […] populates the earth.” This candid admission, a perfect encapsulation of the eugenical ideas at the heart of the global conservation movement funded into existence by the oiligarchs themselves, was caught on tape by George Hunt, a businessman in Boulder, Colorado, who had volunteered to help the conference as a concerned citizen and came away horrified by what he had witnessed there. He released his own recordings of the proceedings in the early 1990s to warn the public about this group and its ultimate aims.
Hunt’s recording captured the moment when Maurice Strong introduced Baron Edmond de Rothschild — whose father’s cousin had sold the Rothschild’s Azerbaijani oil fields to Royal Dutch Shell in 1911 — as a pioneer of the environmental movement and a founder of the concept of “conservation banking.”
Carbon based climate change is a scam perpetuated to justify the carbon credit trading market based out of the Chicago stock exchange. Also it helps to justify the restriction of economies in situations of economic warfare
The best argument against man-made global warming is that rapid climate change is being seen on planets and moons throughout our solar system that is further than can be explained by normal seasonal weather changes. If changes are happening all over the solar system, than it is logical that whatever is driving their changes is also a strong contributor to the changes on Earth. I would recommend David Wilcock's Wisdom Teachings series on Gaia.com as the best explanation of that theory (Season 28). It is well worth the monthly subscription to gaia to become well versed on the topic.
If you look at temperature samples over large periods of time you can see that the fluctuations we are experiencing today are nothing new. The climate change supporters hand pick their sample data from a small period of time instead of sampling over larger periods of time; this way they can make climate change seem much more alarming and new than it is. Pollution is bad for the Earth, but climate change is a load of crap and a way for corrupt politicians to steal more money from us.
Because the people pushing it are socialists who advocate solutions that require government to tax and control behavior. Cap and trade is a perfect example among others. Globalists like it too because they are interested in consolidating power in a world government. This is not speculation it is fact.
We are definitely destroying the environment. But climate change and GW in general is being politicized. They make us all pick sides like anything else.
I'm not at all concerned about global warming and I'm sure you haven't heard my reason before.
There's enough proof out there that aliens do exist and the government has reverse engineered their methods of travel. Reportedly these vehicles are able to travel faster than light. It obviously takes some pretty exotic sources of energy to power something capable of these feats. If earth were really in any danger due to fossil fuels and other methods of contemporary energy generation, I'm sure this would be marched out to the public next week.
That is, of course, assuming that those who controlled such technology wanted to keep the planet and population intact as it now exists.
No I do not deny the climate changes. Of course it does.
Also do I mix this with anything resulting from pollution or environmental damage. I am very much against both of those.
No Climate Denier means I do not feel there has been sufficient proof to:
1.Show that human produced CO2 is the 'knob' that controls the planet's temperature.
2.Show that if the planet were to warm a bit (notice how this is different from number 1) that is a bad thing.
Since I have seen reddit delete accounts and even entire subs, I will cross post this to www.voat.co/v/climateskeptics. Each post in this series will refer to past posts.
If Man Made Climate Change is Such a Slam Dunk, Why Do They Keep Faking Data?
In science you never change the data, but in Global Warming / Climate Change, they keep 'adjusting' past data. Why lower the temps from 70+ years ago to make the past look colder & make the present look warmer? Maybe because your global warming models don't work unless you cheat?
“Almost all the alterations resulted in higher temperatures being reported for the present and lower numbers for the past–with the higher numbers being used to demonstrate a historical warming trend–than the numbers that were actually recorded,”
Are the Global Warmists Simply Juicing Up the Latest Years' Temperatures With "Adjustments" While Reducing the Temperatures of Previous Years, To Always Make the Current Year "The Hottest"
I think people realize that the "right people" profit from the politics and business of "Global Warming/Climate Change/ManBearPig". I may be mistaken, but the carbon tax (etc) will go to a non-governmental, New World Order, organization for administration. The continued erosion of State sovereignty.
I believe that scientists have absolutely zero clue about how much of an effect carbon emissions actually have on our climate, and therefore can’t possibly quantify any kind of “solution” to the problem.
Florida was supposed to be on water multiple times by now. I find it funny that when doomsday peddlers get the dates wrong and then push back their predictions for some BS reason, everyone laughs at them and discredits them the next time they make that claim.
than
Yet somehow when Al Gore and “climate scientists” are completely wrong multiple times, and just push back their predictions using BS explanations such as “The Pause” in order for their models to not be completely inaccurate, the entire MSM and much of the public somehow believes them now more than ever??
There’s more conclusive evidence for them having no clue what they are talking about than there is for carbon emissions causing catastrophic global consequences in the near future.
The Taurid meteor stream, solar flares, and super volcanos/massive tectonic events are far more of a threat to humanity than global warming, IMO.
136 comments
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
Because there is no evidence for it, but there is a massive potential profit at stake for it. Follow the money. Everything (in Commerce) is a rich man's trick.
1 recono85 2018-07-07
However, there is plenty of evidence of more cold records being broken than heat records in the last ten years.
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
Indeed, which is why they had to switch to "climate change". Lol, how convenient. No shit the climate changes, always has and always will. The useful idiots buy into this, though...
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
You don't think the money to be made is with coal and oil companies funding anti climate science efforts so that new energy doesn't make their profits shrink as people move away from fossil fuels? Those billionaires have everything to lose by countries getting off of oil
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
Not really, because the truth is starting to come out, that fossil fuels is a complete absurd and made up term. Oil is abiogenic, and not finite. Bait and switch.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
So do you believe carbon having an effect on the climate is bullshit?
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-07-07
I believe that scientists have absolutely zero clue about how much of an effect carbon emissions actually have on our climate, and therefore can’t possibly quantify any kind of “solution” to the problem.
Florida was supposed to be on water multiple times by now. I find it funny that when doomsday peddlers get the dates wrong and then push back their predictions for some BS reason, everyone laughs at them and discredits them the next time they make that claim. than Yet somehow when Al Gore and “climate scientists” are completely wrong multiple times, and just push back their predictions using BS explanations such as “The Pause” in order for their models to not be completely inaccurate, the entire MSM and much of the public somehow believes them now more than ever??
There’s more conclusive evidence for them having no clue what they are talking about than there is for carbon emissions causing catastrophic global consequences in the near future.
The Taurid meteor stream, solar flares, and super volcanos/massive tectonic events are far more of a threat to humanity than global warming, IMO.
1 gehwegok 2018-07-07
Oh dude you have no idea how wrong you are. Rockefellars, Rothchilds and the rest of the "oiligarchs" are VERY engaged in bringing the new "green revolution" on it's way. THEY are PUSHING it. They are the very ones who came up with the manmade global warming hoax.
Watch James Corbett's "How big oil conquered the world" and then "Why big oil conquered the world"! (youtube/ corbettreport.com) If you feel like you don't have that much time to spend for this, just watch WHY big oil... In case you don't know The Corbett report/ James Corbett, he isn't some lunatic who reports every lie that fits his narative, but a real investigative journalist with an awesome reputation in the conspiracy theory world. Just saying this, because I know dolts here throw around 1.30 hour long youtube videos, made by lunatics who lie, fake and never deliver evidence/ sources and then those dolts act insulted when you don't watch all of it only to find out it was all garbage. :) Not the case here, promise. He always delivers all sources for his research. (real sources)
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
Defending oil corporations in a conspiracy sub.. I just don't even know where to start
1 medailleon 2018-07-07
You are totally right that the globalists are the primary pushers for action that responds to global warming. The elite in almost every country are pushing for actions based on global warming. It's a very weak argument that people make, when they suggest that the elite want coal or oil as opposed to solar or renewables.
1 bringsmemes 2018-07-07
if anything it helps oil companies by being able to ship raw bitumen to countries that have extremely lax environmental and worker protections, then ship it back at a huuuge markup where they would be taxed to refine it. so less cost building refineries and the upkeep..., just build a once off pipeline. china for instance is still buying ever oil patch and oil company they can in canada. oil is not going anywhere
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
Except it won't be helpful to them because the alternatives will be cheaper because of regulations and taxes
1 bringsmemes 2018-07-07
i dont think you understand. say canada and us throw these carbon taxes on oil production. these oil companies (chinese companies own a good portion of the oil and oil companies in canada), who really really wants the oil , say you are making it too expensive to refine the bitumen on the continent, we are going to make a pipeline to the coast and refine it china or vietnam or wherever.
thats why the trans mountain pipeline is being built, to ship raw bitumen to asia where it will be refined and then shipped back and resold. this carbon tax is really good excuse to avoid the more expensive labour and tighter environmental regulations in canada. its not going to be shipping refined product, its raw bitumen (the green party has been advocating building more refineries in alberta). they then promote all this green energy to lower the price of oil (china is buying all the oil and oil companies it can, weather you think its on its way out or not)
1 medailleon 2018-07-07
These billionaires own everything. They own the oil and coal companies and they do or will own the renewable sources of energy. There is little risk to them in switching from gas to solar or whatever. They are very good at just taking over industries.
1 gehwegok 2018-07-07
Maurice Strong: With all the evidence that we’ve amassed in our preparations for the Stockholm Conference, including the views of many of world’s leading scientists, I am convinced that the prophets of doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words, doomsday is a possibility. I am equally convinced that doomsday is not inevitable.”...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YCatox0Lxo
....But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Strong, this ubiquitous figure of the 20th century environmental movement, was his background: a Rockefeller-connected millionaire from the Alberta oil patch who divided his time between environmental campaigning and running major oil companies.
To understand how this came about, we have to examine the history of the emergence of the environmental movement. In the post-war period, the desire to control the population put on a new mask: protecting the world from resource depletion, pollution and ecological catastrophe. And, as always, the Rockefeller family was there to provide the funding and organizational support to steer this burgeoning movement toward their own ends.
Joining the Rockefellers in shaping the international environmental movement were their fellow oiligarchs across the Atlantic, including the British royals behind BP and the Dutch Royals behind Royal Dutch Shell. And facilitating the transition from eugenics to population control to environmentalism was Julian Huxley, brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley and grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.H. Huxley.
Julian Huxley was a committed eugenicist, chairing the British Eugenics Society from 1959 to 1962. But, like the other eugenicists of the post-war era, he understood the need to pursue the now-discredited work of eugenics under a different guise. The founding director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Huxley wrote in the agency’s founding document about the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000681/068197eo.pdf
Huxley found the perfect front for the re-introduction of those “unthinkable” eugenical ideas in 1948, when he used UNESCO as a springboard for founding the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and then again in 1961, when he used that agency as a springboard to create the World Wildlife Fund. Joining Huxley as co-founders of the fund were not only Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder of the Bilderberg Group and former employee of the IG Farben conglomerate, and Prince Philip of England, but Godfrey A. Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty. Together, they pledged to “harness public opinion and educate the world about the necessity for conservation.”
In 1987, Strong helped to organize another environmental conference, much less known but no less remarkable than the Stockholm summit. Dubbed the 4th World Wilderness Congress, the meeting took place in Denver, Colorado, and brought together Strong, David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker, and a gaggle of other oiligarchs, bankers, Washington power players and globalists, ostensibly to talk about the environment. What they actually discussed was altogether more incredible:
DAVID LANG: I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.
https://www.wild.org/wild-congress/4wwc/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8c-NKjOOA0
Those were the words of David Lang, a banker from Montreal who spoke during the conference. And to Lang, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the other bankers and oiligarchs assembled at the meeting, the general population are “cannon fodder” that “unfortunately […] populates the earth.” This candid admission, a perfect encapsulation of the eugenical ideas at the heart of the global conservation movement funded into existence by the oiligarchs themselves, was caught on tape by George Hunt, a businessman in Boulder, Colorado, who had volunteered to help the conference as a concerned citizen and came away horrified by what he had witnessed there. He released his own recordings of the proceedings in the early 1990s to warn the public about this group and its ultimate aims.
Hunt’s recording captured the moment when Maurice Strong introduced Baron Edmond de Rothschild — whose father’s cousin had sold the Rothschild’s Azerbaijani oil fields to Royal Dutch Shell in 1911 — as a pioneer of the environmental movement and a founder of the concept of “conservation banking.”
Do I need to go on, or
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/ do
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/ you
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/ under
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/ stand
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/ now ?
1 rspix000 2018-07-07
https://imgoat.com/uploads/0a080f42e6/121728.jpg
1 gehwegok 2018-07-07
https://imgur.com/YzWXYu5
1 Setagaya-Observer 2018-07-07
You can use the same Argument for the Claim “the Climate Change is a Hoax”, so it is not a good use of this Argument!
Fact is that the US/ EU Deep State in anchored in fossil Fuel and they will do everything to defend it, incl. manipulative Ideas!
1 dankweeddoe 2018-07-07
Earth can get hot and it also can get cold. It's happened many times throughout Earth's history. Currently there's an active volcano under Antarctica that's melting the ice.
I believe the Sun and Volcanos play a huge role in global warming and cooling.
1 PotatosBitch 2018-07-07
But why would they “make it up”? How would the government or whoever benefit off this?
1 ignoremsmedia 2018-07-07
Carbon Tax, Air Tax, Tax Tax..
1 russianbot01 2018-07-07
Don't forget trading carbon credits on Goldman Sachs backed exchanges. What could possibly go wrong there?
1 ignoremsmedia 2018-07-07
...and forcing the consensus to extract money from weaker nations.
1 EnclaveHunter 2018-07-07
Cleaner air in the end. Worry when it's a solar or renewable tax
1 dankweeddoe 2018-07-07
Money
1 Boneasaurus 2018-07-07
So there's a huge conspiracy to push climate change and potentially make money on new energy tech, and it's being funded through debt on the hope that it works?
But there's NOT a conspiracy to deny climate change so that current billionaire oil/gas companies can continue to make the money they are making?
Is that correct? The currently poor entity is pushing the conspiracy and NOT the currently rich entity?
1 MaximinusDrax 2018-07-07
This chart seems extremely fake (no scales, no margins of error, WAY too smooth, mentions a-historical events like the Hebrew Exodus...). I was curious, so I looked around and found the source. There, I found 0 discussion of methodology, which can be compared with similar reconstruction of north hemisphere temperatures which discuss in full the data used (ice cores, tree rings, sediments etc.) and the associated uncertainties. How do you reconcile these discrepancies?
Also, the "about us" page makes me suspect that at least Cliff Harris isn't a trained scientist, and just appropriated the "climatologist" tag to lend himself authority. His bio cites "Since age 11, he has compiled nearly 100 weather scrapbooks that detail major events throughout the U.S. and the world on a daily basis" as evidence of how smart he is, but no alma mater. And of course, his occupation is just to run a weather station and write for a local column...
1 bringsmemes 2018-07-07
the earths magnetic field is fairly variable as well, the weaker it is, the more energy get through
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
It's mostly American Conservatives that eat up the anti climate change propaganda. The rest of the world doesn't quibble about settled science
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
It's mostly the globalist Marxist that are begging to set up a global tax authority under the guise of saving the planet. I'll tell you this for damn sure, if some fucking global tax collector shows up at my house I'll make a point of burning tires every day for the rest of my life. Back off.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
Yeah, none of that is true or is going to happen. Take a break from the Peterson videos
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Are you talking about Jordan Peterson? You realize that Jordan Peterson didn't invent Marxism right?
But this pretty much proves that you're 100% signed up for the agenda. You guys bring Peterson up as if it debunks anything negative about Marxist when you actually do just the opposite.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
Wow, today I learned...
Drop the "you guys" collectivist stuff, treat people as individuals. It was a back handed remark because I've only seen "cultural marxism" "global marxist" only start to be used when he got popular. Been following him since the first video that went viral from UT
Destryoing the enviroment just to own the libs eh? When the planet is unhabitable that'll show em!
What the hell is a global tax? The UN starts going door to door demanding a cheque? Sovereignty is just going to disappear like that? It's a pretty ridiculous thing to be worried about
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Why? Marxists are by definition collectivist just like communists and Nazis were. Why would I treat a collectivist like an individual? Maybe so you can take advantage of our individual rights when it protects you and suits you then the antifa masks go on and you try to strip others of their individual rights when it's convenient and suits you as collectivist mobs.
No thanks.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
I'm not a marxist lol? I thought not treating people as individuals is what is getting all the Trump types and other conservatives unhappy, so why continue it? You're playing identity politics bruh
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Lol I just don't believe you for a second.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
I'm definitely not a marxist. Pro-capitalism liberal
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Peterson is a pro-capitalism liberal. Maybe you should listen to him more.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
I've listened to a ton of him. I don't know about that, he says he's a liberal but I think since his popularity he's become a lot more conservative since he's exposed to the worst of the left almost 24/7. Ive been following him since his UT viral video, seen all lectures, read maps of meaning, seen almost all his interviews but I probably missed a couple since there's so many...
Despite all that, not really a fan of his politics I think his hysteria about the left is misfocused, the right wing is a much bigger problem and threat to democracy.
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Yes all that running around in masks disrupting free speech and refusing to accept the results of a DEMOCRATIC election disrupting democracy.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
Elections where the side that got fewer votes wins aren't terribly democratic.
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
It would maybe matter if there spread was greater than 1%.
You're talking about what 3 million people out of 120 million that voted.
Truth is neither candidate got a majority, and the popular vote has never been the game being played but fuck me right. Don't let me stop you from putting your mask on and fucking up our democracy while blaming it on the Nazis who lost ww2 80 fucking years ago.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
Yup, right, fuck you.
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=251
It's not a ridiculous thing to be worried about, it's literally a thing trying to be pushed by the ipcc, the EU and all the 3 letter global government agencies IMF, CFR. And yes this is exactly how sovereignty disappears. Any moron who has two brain cells to rub together can see that the US republic gave way to the US federation by creating new authorities above but outside of the existing republic that eventually devoured the sovereignty of the individual states, and that same moron might try observing the shit-show that is happening as EU member states are systematically having their sovereignty stripped away by what started as a "free trade union".
Meanwhile all the geniuses out there can't seem to manage basic pattern recognition.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
They aren't the ones collecting the carbon tax though, it's just an initiative to get companies to lower their impact on the environment. And it's pretty effective too, the extra revenue is usually used towards social services or national park maintenance while companies become 'greener'. Works well in Canada at least
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
You don't understand how creeping authority works. It's an incremental process.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
Carbon tax isn't what I would consider a global tax, unless by global you mean global warming?
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Really, the whole idea was hatched by a global entity and is being rolled out by local governments at the moment. I wonder how many increments until it's all just handed over to carbon tax central in Brussels and reinvested in new and interesting ways to tax the new member states.
You realize that people like me predicted the EU well over a decade before it appeared, we have been watching this club of Rome shit since the 70s which was where the EU was hatched. You know what else was created by the club of Rome? A global climate crisis!
— Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
Why worry about such silly things when they are literally telling us what they are going to do. Works great for Canada does it?
— Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Social justice! Reeeeeeee!
— Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
THEY ARE TELLING US EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
Also, welcome to /Conspiracy.
1 ShinigamiSirius 2018-07-07
I think you will enjoy this.
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-282-the-ipcc-exposed/
1 dankweeddoe 2018-07-07
Paris Climate Accord? That was pretty much a global climate tax. It would've cost America trillions of dollars.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
Not it wasn't. The countries set their own climate goals and signed the deal promising to adhere to their own conditions. The money would have been made back with all the investment and success of new energy technologies
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
How uninformed do you have to be to believe such delusions? BTW, not addressing climate change is what's actually going to cost America (nevermind the rest of the world) trillions of dollars.
1 dankweeddoe 2018-07-07
You do know there's an active volcano under antarctica and cooling/warming is linked to the Sun and Volcananos? But tell me I'm uninformed when you probably know less.
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
You sound anti-science, because science is never "settled". It's always open for revision(s) or to be thrown out completely. Damn, bruh do you even science?
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
It's settled in the sense that 99% of climate scientist are no longer arguing over whether or not man made climate change is real and a problem. It's such a complex topic that models are always being updated or changed based on new knowledge but the underlying hypothesis still holds true. Too much Carbon in the atmosphere = bad, humans add too much extra to the climate
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
You sound like you'd be a huge fan of the Inquisition. So anti-science, bruh...
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
Have you even looked into it the pro sides evidence? I'm sure you've seen lots of "debunking" videos
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
Of course I've looked into both "sides". The pro side is filled with hysteria, fear mongering, and massive potential for profits. Everything (in Commerce) is a rich man's trick.
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
There's mountains of evidence to support man made Climate change... How can you say there is none? Are you a climatologists or geologist or something?
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
No, no there isn't. Furthermore, I can fund studies to produce any result I'm seeking (ie. cooking the books/data). Garbage in, garbage out.
I'm whatever I want to be. I'm a special snowflake :)
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
This just leads me to believe you've never looked at it with an open mind
Just curious if you have any credentials on this topic, I don't. Not trying to be combative with you
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
I find this quite ironic, tbh. Yes, I've looked at both sides, and I'm not convinced, hence why I said what I've said. How are you not understanding this?
If you're asking if I have a degree, then... no, I don't. I'm self taught in many topics. Degrees are pointless, imo (ie. garbage in, garbage out - indoctrination).
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
I'm skeptical that you haven't looked at both sides with an open mind because you keep saying theirs no evidence when that's objectively false
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
I'm telling you I have. Now, have you done the same?
1 butterbean90 2018-07-07
Yes. I guess we just don't see eye to eye.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
When you say you've looked at the mainstream scientific side, what do you mean? Have you read an IPCC report?
1 CloudsHideNibiru 2018-07-07
Then why is the sun rising ENE and settin in the NW? Carbon?
1 nilrednas 2018-07-07
Goddamn shills brigading everywhere.
1 travinyle1 2018-07-07
Yea didn't they settle on an ice age coming in the 70s? Ooops they missed that.
1 Toplock1 2018-07-07
Lol don't act like you understand this "settled science" you just listen to what Bill Nye tells you.
1 Belzebump 2018-07-07
Global Warming seems to be a natural and not predictable event and scientists are more discussing about how much impact humans and there co2 production has. Most scientists believe that it is real but many of them doubt that the human impact is decisive, because on Mars is the same effect.
Government and the so-called „Elite“ are already profiting. Taxes and regulations. Charity Events... etc
Disgusting fact: Bill Gates wants to regulate humans to regulate CO2
1 Butt_mugger5000 2018-07-07
They do not believe that global warming or climate change is fake, but they do not believe that it is caused by what we think it is or if it is natural.
1 fuckeverywhoreson 2018-07-07
Yet it's the same people and organizations that inform people about those past cycles, that are warning of our damaging influence on current and future cycles.
"We trust you completely and will cite you on that stuff; but fuck you for being dirty stinking liars about this stuff!"?
1 Cunty_Balls 2018-07-07
It's not though so you're talking shit.
1 AnonDidNothingWrong 2018-07-07
I think this really sums it up
Video clip 1
Video clip 2
Video clip 3
1 Lokipokie504 2018-07-07
That’s what I thought too. But there really are people who think climate change is completely fake. Like, that’s it’s not happening at all. I can buy the argument that it’s not man-made phenomena, but there really are people who think it’s completely made up.
1 medailleon 2018-07-07
There's billions of people on the planet, so you're bound to find people that will support any theory, but how common do you think it is that people don't believe the planets warming at all? I think the percentage of people that believe that is tremendously small compared to people that wholesale believe in man-made global warming and people who believe in global warming but that it's not man-made.
1 Lokipokie504 2018-07-07
I have no idea about the widespread perceptions. But I live in the south, and it’s EXTREMELY common.
1 medailleon 2018-07-07
I live in the midwest, and I don't really see it and I don't really see it online. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.
1 Lokipokie504 2018-07-07
I wouldn’t doubt that my anecdotal evidence is much different than most. But there’s far too many people down here that think it for me to be comfortable
1 _PM_ME_YOUR_ASIANS_ 2018-07-07
I also live in the Midwest and have talked to many people that believe global warming is a lie made up by liberals.
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Because global government agencies immediately started trying to turn it into a tax scheme. I'd rather die in a furnace than submit to some global tax collector. Sorry but that's the hot Truth.
If you want to save the planet then stop making it about global government and taxes.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
Instead of arguing against strawmen, you're welcome to propose your own solutions to the underlying problem. If your side of the issue gave a rats ass of its own about saving the planet, it be fairly easy for them to get support for emission reduction schemes that kept control local and did not increase taxation.
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Um since you mentioned strawmen I'm going to assume that you deny the global carbon tax reality. You're just the type that will continue to lie to people and deny that the worst part of the thing you're supporting exists at all.
Dude I've been saving the planet since the fucking 80s. And guess what? No matter how many hundreds of millions of people recycle religiously and volunteer hundreds of hours of their time doing ecosystem clean ups with their community, I pull trashbags full of litter out of the river every time I go canoeing (I literally never see anyone else doing this) but none of fucking matters so some fucking scientist over in Europe who have been pushing for carbon taxes to fund their little Ponzi scheme for decades.
You want the hard truth about how to save the planet? Stop shipping cheap food and energy to 3rd world breeders who turn around and literally fill huge rivers with trash while having zero intention of ever changing their ways. Eventually those billions die off and the planet is saved.
That's fucking reality.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
Wow, you're so close to getting it, and yet so far away. Small scale, individual acts of "saving the planet" don't matter when the larger economic system is designed to make things worse regardless. What would make a difference would be systemic alteration would be internalizing the externality by a price on carbon. No Ponzi scheme required, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself.
Pricing carbon would also lead directly to less food and energy being shipped to the third world. The people who support pricing carbon generally also support subsidizing contraception in the third world, which would be the easiest way to calm your demographic fears. Meanwhile, the groups that oppose pricing carbon also support heavy export-oriented agricultural subsidies, and oppose anything that seems like decent sex-ed or contraception for the third world. Leaving aside that, however bad the third world's trash may seem anecdotally, the truth is that the vast majority of climate altering pollution comes from the first world.
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
See you don't want to be bothered with actually doing something productive about it yourself, you just want a big government and big tax to take care of everything for you behind the scenes.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
I do plenty productive about it myself, but like you said one person doing the little things means jack all compared to the scale of everything else happening. I don't want someone else to take care of it for me, but nice projection there. You could actually engage in discussing how to solve the issue, but instead you spend your time fantasizing about the psychology of the people who do.
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
Projection.
Literally all you people do every day. But its not my fault your true feelings slip out. like most everyone I know you probably do fuck all about it in real life. You probably consume just as much as the average person in your area. I even hang around groups full of very "climate change away" people who constantly woe on about it but do FUCK ALL about themselves.
But yes lets call in the big government to do everything for us. we can just throw money at the problem and it will magically vanish, even if it doesn't vanish we'll have tax deductible proof that we did something about it! we'll be able to blame all those deniers even though we personally never make single choice in life with the good of the planet and ecosystem in mind.
I paid my taxes! can't blame me!
I simply don't believe you because you're a deceptive debater.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
What part of what I said is projection? You've got demographic fears, contraception'd be a better solution for them than mass famine, and contraception is obviously more supported by one side of politics than the other.
If you're going to accuse me of projecting and being a deceptive debater, you probably shouldn't base your argument on speculations about my motivation and consumption patterns. You're deflecting from the substance of the issue to whine about people you don't like.
1 medailleon 2018-07-07
The fastest way to "save" the planet, is to force disclosure of free energy devices that are hidden within black projects, or is you assume they don't exist to create them.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
That Lockheed Martin fusion thing would be a great way for them to launder something out into the public.
1 RogueSolid 2018-07-07
Mostly because George Soros is backing it. Soros doesn't back anything good.
1 rspix000 2018-07-07
Fossil fuel giants would lose profits if they are found to cause global warming.
1 gehwegok 2018-07-07
Maurice Strong: With all the evidence that we’ve amassed in our preparations for the Stockholm Conference, including the views of many of world’s leading scientists, I am convinced that the prophets of doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words, doomsday is a possibility. I am equally convinced that doomsday is not inevitable.”...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YCatox0Lxo
....But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Strong, this ubiquitous figure of the 20th century environmental movement, was his background: a Rockefeller-connected millionaire from the Alberta oil patch who divided his time between environmental campaigning and running major oil companies.
To understand how this came about, we have to examine the history of the emergence of the environmental movement. In the post-war period, the desire to control the population put on a new mask: protecting the world from resource depletion, pollution and ecological catastrophe. And, as always, the Rockefeller family was there to provide the funding and organizational support to steer this burgeoning movement toward their own ends.
Joining the Rockefellers in shaping the international environmental movement were their fellow oiligarchs across the Atlantic, including the British royals behind BP and the Dutch Royals behind Royal Dutch Shell. And facilitating the transition from eugenics to population control to environmentalism was Julian Huxley, brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley and grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.H. Huxley.
Julian Huxley was a committed eugenicist, chairing the British Eugenics Society from 1959 to 1962. But, like the other eugenicists of the post-war era, he understood the need to pursue the now-discredited work of eugenics under a different guise. The founding director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Huxley wrote in the agency’s founding document about the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000681/068197eo.pdf
Huxley found the perfect front for the re-introduction of those “unthinkable” eugenical ideas in 1948, when he used UNESCO as a springboard for founding the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and then again in 1961, when he used that agency as a springboard to create the World Wildlife Fund. Joining Huxley as co-founders of the fund were not only Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder of the Bilderberg Group and former employee of the IG Farben conglomerate, and Prince Philip of England, but Godfrey A. Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty. Together, they pledged to “harness public opinion and educate the world about the necessity for conservation.”
In 1987, Strong helped to organize another environmental conference, much less known but no less remarkable than the Stockholm summit. Dubbed the 4th World Wilderness Congress, the meeting took place in Denver, Colorado, and brought together Strong, David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker, and a gaggle of other oiligarchs, bankers, Washington power players and globalists, ostensibly to talk about the environment. What they actually discussed was altogether more incredible:
DAVID LANG: I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.
https://www.wild.org/wild-congress/4wwc/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8c-NKjOOA0
Those were the words of David Lang, a banker from Montreal who spoke during the conference. And to Lang, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the other bankers and oiligarchs assembled at the meeting, the general population are “cannon fodder” that “unfortunately […] populates the earth.” This candid admission, a perfect encapsulation of the eugenical ideas at the heart of the global conservation movement funded into existence by the oiligarchs themselves, was caught on tape by George Hunt, a businessman in Boulder, Colorado, who had volunteered to help the conference as a concerned citizen and came away horrified by what he had witnessed there. He released his own recordings of the proceedings in the early 1990s to warn the public about this group and its ultimate aims.
Hunt’s recording captured the moment when Maurice Strong introduced Baron Edmond de Rothschild — whose father’s cousin had sold the Rothschild’s Azerbaijani oil fields to Royal Dutch Shell in 1911 — as a pioneer of the environmental movement and a founder of the concept of “conservation banking.”
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
1 rspix000 2018-07-07
https://imgoat.com/uploads/0a080f42e6/121728.jpg
1 gehwegok 2018-07-07
You are presentet here with ABSOLUTE PROOF, that your statement was wrong and it doesn't cause any reaction besides giving it a downvote. glorious. :)
1 rspix000 2018-07-07
corbettreport / = "absolute proof" except in this sub
1 gehwegok 2018-07-07
So when it's coming from Corbettreport, you won't look at the ACTUAL PROOF you are linked to??
You won't look at UNESCOS ACTUAL FOUNDING DOCUMENT http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000681/068197eo.pdf to read how Julian Huxley explains the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again under the guise of environmentalism.
You won't listen to secretly recorded speeches of JDRockefeller and David Lang where they call us cannonfodder while talking about their new environmental movement in front of Rothchilds and CO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8c-NKjOOA0
You won't watch the video of Rockefeller mate and oiligarch Maurice strong pushing the doomsday narative for rockefeller. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YCatox0Lxo
And that because ONE OF THE PEOPLE who did spread all those links to inform people, was James Corbett. Sound reasoning.
And that is only a fraction of all the ACTUAL LEGIT SOURCES THAT ALL PROOOOF THAT IT WAS THE OIL ELITE WHO CREATED ALL OF THE GREEN MOVEMENT THEMSELFS.
1 rspix000 2018-07-07
copy pasta enough times and I'll still not go for it.
1 gehwegok 2018-07-07
https://imgur.com/a/HMXuisG
1 ShinigamiSirius 2018-07-07
"I won't look at anything that doesn't confirm my bias, pls stop"
1 Setagaya-Observer 2018-07-07
Only a few People think that “global Warming” is fake, the majority of the People do not have the Resources to think about, People who spent Time “in the Outside”, have the possibility to Research and understand the Mechanism of Climate do not think that the so called “global Warming” is a Hoax!
I hope we all live long enough to see the Results of a anthropogenic Climate Change, and even more i wish that we can stop it.
1 endprism 2018-07-07
It’s not that people don’t believe it’s fake...are our waterways getting more polluted? Are we trashing our planet? I think we can all agree on that.
Where I don’t agree is with their solution to global warming or now climate change. It’s a financial scam. It’s a financial scam that will have zero impact on cleaning up our world and will only make the poorer more poor and the rich more richer. It’s a financial scam!
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
What is? Its not like there's a singular solution proposed, there certainly is no singular "they," and if y'all wanted to engage in good faith there's plenty of ways to address greenhouse gases that would be economically beneficial rather than scams.
1 endprism 2018-07-07
You are grossly uninformed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Carbon credits...ever heard of it? The singular solution...and yes...there is only one singular solution proposed is a tax on nations who use carbon.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
No one thinks the Paris Agreement actually solves anything. The Kyoto Protocol, which was very different, might have solved it, but only because at that early date the problem was much smaller. Carbon credits are not taxes on nations that use carbon, the Paris Agreement does not mandate specific mechanisms for national emission reductions, there's plenty of ways to reduce carbon usage without tax revenues going beyond the local level, or even without taxes on carbon at all.
Lastly, because this is a problem that will disproportionately affect nations and communities that have not historically and do not currently have high emissions, any moral system more evolved than "fuck you got mine" should be able to accept that there should be significant economic transfer for rich to poor in addressing this issue. Moreover, since ethics in economics isn't something y'all tend to support, even someone with a basic understanding of science or geopolitics should understand why some rich-poor economic transfer is required for rich nations and demographics to achieve their own optimal result.
1 Third_Eye_Blown 2018-07-07
–David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum and donated the land on which the United Nations stands. Speaking at a U.N. Business Conference, Sept. 14, 1994
1 MyBrothersKeeper2018 2018-07-07
Because scientists have already proved it.
Nature needs no help from man.
1 perfect_pickles 2018-07-07
so faithful.
1 theawesomethatis 2018-07-07
"create" a problem that always existed and you can't really solve.
sell a solution.
profit.
1 swordofdamocles42 2018-07-07
because you can't trust the people who invented it... pollution is a real thing of course. but they are trying to blame it on the people (for breathing FFS).
its an diversionary tactic that also divides and conquers us. while not addressing the problem of the cabal going round and wrecking the planet.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
The cabal that's going round and wrecking the planet are the people who cause most global warming, fund most global warming denial, and attack most of the people who discover and analyze the phenomenon.
1 perfect_pickles 2018-07-07
you are confusing environmental damage with global warming/cooling.
separate things. different battles.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
Global warming is directly connected to environmental damage. That you think they're separate is amazing.
1 MagpieJames 2018-07-07
Nearly half of all people are of below average intelligence.
1 NagevegaN 2018-07-07
Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink
Why Would People Lie About Climate Change
Professor Emeritus of Geology Dr. Don Easterbrook exposes the global warming hoax
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
Because many extremely rich and powerful people become and stay extremely rich and powerful by doing things that warm the planet, and so have both an incentive to convince people that global warming isn't real, as well as the resources to finance campaigns to that effect.
Recently, the evidence for global warming has gotten so overwhelming that the denialist line has shifted from "its not happening" to "its happening, but its either not human's fault or too expensive to address."
This is enhanced by the fact that older people wield more political and economic power than younger people. Why care if the ice cap will melt by 2050 if you're going to die by 2040? Moreover, for the older generation to acknowledge global warming as a problem would require them to acknowledge that their lifestyle choices contributed significantly to it. Baby boomers are notably narcissistic, and thus susceptible to anything that absolves them of guilt.
1 Boneasaurus 2018-07-07
I've spent at least a few years researching and talking about climate change, and this point you make is almost entirely the reason why we have deniers and no real movement on the issue. This is really the core of the problem and it's just maddening.
1 gehwegok 2018-07-07
Maurice Strong: With all the evidence that we’ve amassed in our preparations for the Stockholm Conference, including the views of many of world’s leading scientists, I am convinced that the prophets of doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words, doomsday is a possibility. I am equally convinced that doomsday is not inevitable.”...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YCatox0Lxo
....But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Strong, this ubiquitous figure of the 20th century environmental movement, was his background: a Rockefeller-connected millionaire from the Alberta oil patch who divided his time between environmental campaigning and running major oil companies.
To understand how this came about, we have to examine the history of the emergence of the environmental movement. In the post-war period, the desire to control the population put on a new mask: protecting the world from resource depletion, pollution and ecological catastrophe. And, as always, the Rockefeller family was there to provide the funding and organizational support to steer this burgeoning movement toward their own ends.
Joining the Rockefellers in shaping the international environmental movement were their fellow oiligarchs across the Atlantic, including the British royals behind BP and the Dutch Royals behind Royal Dutch Shell. And facilitating the transition from eugenics to population control to environmentalism was Julian Huxley, brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley and grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.H. Huxley.
Julian Huxley was a committed eugenicist, chairing the British Eugenics Society from 1959 to 1962. But, like the other eugenicists of the post-war era, he understood the need to pursue the now-discredited work of eugenics under a different guise. The founding director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Huxley wrote in the agency’s founding document about the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000681/068197eo.pdf
Huxley found the perfect front for the re-introduction of those “unthinkable” eugenical ideas in 1948, when he used UNESCO as a springboard for founding the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and then again in 1961, when he used that agency as a springboard to create the World Wildlife Fund. Joining Huxley as co-founders of the fund were not only Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder of the Bilderberg Group and former employee of the IG Farben conglomerate, and Prince Philip of England, but Godfrey A. Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty. Together, they pledged to “harness public opinion and educate the world about the necessity for conservation.”
In 1987, Strong helped to organize another environmental conference, much less known but no less remarkable than the Stockholm summit. Dubbed the 4th World Wilderness Congress, the meeting took place in Denver, Colorado, and brought together Strong, David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker, and a gaggle of other oiligarchs, bankers, Washington power players and globalists, ostensibly to talk about the environment. What they actually discussed was altogether more incredible:
DAVID LANG: I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.
https://www.wild.org/wild-congress/4wwc/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8c-NKjOOA0
Those were the words of David Lang, a banker from Montreal who spoke during the conference. And to Lang, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the other bankers and oiligarchs assembled at the meeting, the general population are “cannon fodder” that “unfortunately […] populates the earth.” This candid admission, a perfect encapsulation of the eugenical ideas at the heart of the global conservation movement funded into existence by the oiligarchs themselves, was caught on tape by George Hunt, a businessman in Boulder, Colorado, who had volunteered to help the conference as a concerned citizen and came away horrified by what he had witnessed there. He released his own recordings of the proceedings in the early 1990s to warn the public about this group and its ultimate aims.
Hunt’s recording captured the moment when Maurice Strong introduced Baron Edmond de Rothschild — whose father’s cousin had sold the Rothschild’s Azerbaijani oil fields to Royal Dutch Shell in 1911 — as a pioneer of the environmental movement and a founder of the concept of “conservation banking.”
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
1 rspix000 2018-07-07
https://imgoat.com/uploads/0a080f42e6/121728.jpg
1 ShinigamiSirius 2018-07-07
Your response to his info is a shitty image with a strawman? Really?
1 Ghost_of_Durruti 2018-07-07
Cui bono? Oil companies. Who gets away with murder? Oil companies. Who's capable of purchasing peoples's opinions?
1 Johnathonathon 2018-07-07
Carbon based climate change is a scam perpetuated to justify the carbon credit trading market based out of the Chicago stock exchange. Also it helps to justify the restriction of economies in situations of economic warfare
1 RingosBeardNumber9 2018-07-07
I've seen no rise in water levels at the local ocean beach. Same as it has been my whole life.
1 drgaz 2018-07-07
Because they follow random conservative figures and youtubers religiously
1 bryanhoule 2018-07-07
Simple. Earth is flat and we live under a dome. NASA lies with CGI. spinning globe is freemason lie. Most of us are sheep to them.
Also fake: climate change, dinosaurs, space (made in a holly-wood basement), big bang, evolution.
Just research flat earth.
Real eyes realize the real LIES.
1 medailleon 2018-07-07
The best argument against man-made global warming is that rapid climate change is being seen on planets and moons throughout our solar system that is further than can be explained by normal seasonal weather changes. If changes are happening all over the solar system, than it is logical that whatever is driving their changes is also a strong contributor to the changes on Earth. I would recommend David Wilcock's Wisdom Teachings series on Gaia.com as the best explanation of that theory (Season 28). It is well worth the monthly subscription to gaia to become well versed on the topic.
1 BiglyPepe 2018-07-07
If you look at temperature samples over large periods of time you can see that the fluctuations we are experiencing today are nothing new. The climate change supporters hand pick their sample data from a small period of time instead of sampling over larger periods of time; this way they can make climate change seem much more alarming and new than it is. Pollution is bad for the Earth, but climate change is a load of crap and a way for corrupt politicians to steal more money from us.
1 jthefrg 2018-07-07
Because the people pushing it are socialists who advocate solutions that require government to tax and control behavior. Cap and trade is a perfect example among others. Globalists like it too because they are interested in consolidating power in a world government. This is not speculation it is fact.
1 dontletmetalk 2018-07-07
They. Are. Stupid.
1 arnkk 2018-07-07
they're paid to
1 perfect_pickles 2018-07-07
because they lied and falsified the data to fit their theory.
basic science 101 , if a 'scientist' lies then they are not one and thus are discredited.
1 LKMKLK 2018-07-07
We are definitely destroying the environment. But climate change and GW in general is being politicized. They make us all pick sides like anything else.
1 Fill_Drummin 2018-07-07
I'm not at all concerned about global warming and I'm sure you haven't heard my reason before.
There's enough proof out there that aliens do exist and the government has reverse engineered their methods of travel. Reportedly these vehicles are able to travel faster than light. It obviously takes some pretty exotic sources of energy to power something capable of these feats. If earth were really in any danger due to fossil fuels and other methods of contemporary energy generation, I'm sure this would be marched out to the public next week.
That is, of course, assuming that those who controlled such technology wanted to keep the planet and population intact as it now exists.
1 SuperCharged2000 2018-07-07
I am a Climate Denier
First I want to start out with that that means.
No I do not deny the climate changes. Of course it does.
Also do I mix this with anything resulting from pollution or environmental damage. I am very much against both of those.
No Climate Denier means I do not feel there has been sufficient proof to:
1.Show that human produced CO2 is the 'knob' that controls the planet's temperature.
2.Show that if the planet were to warm a bit (notice how this is different from number 1) that is a bad thing.
Since I have seen reddit delete accounts and even entire subs, I will cross post this to www.voat.co/v/climateskeptics. Each post in this series will refer to past posts.
Here is a link to post 1
Here is a link to post 2
Here is a link to post 3.
Here is a link to post 4
Here is the link to post 5
Here is a link to post 6A
Here is a link to post 7
If Man Made Climate Change is Such a Slam Dunk, Why Do They Keep Faking Data?
In science you never change the data, but in Global Warming / Climate Change, they keep 'adjusting' past data. Why lower the temps from 70+ years ago to make the past look colder & make the present look warmer? Maybe because your global warming models don't work unless you cheat?
Here are some examples. There are many more.
Switzerland’s weather bureau adjusted its raw temperature data so that “the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded.”
Paul Homewood documented how NASA has “homogenized” temperature data across Paraguay to create a warming trend that doesn’t exist in the raw data.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology admits it adjusts temperatures resulting in higher temperatures for the present and lower numbers for the past--showing a historical warming trend--that didn't exist. The difference between actually measured temperatures and homogenized temperatures topped 4 degrees Celsius over certain periods at some measuring stations.
“Almost all the alterations resulted in higher temperatures being reported for the present and lower numbers for the past–with the higher numbers being used to demonstrate a historical warming trend–than the numbers that were actually recorded,”
Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For Nearly All Of The Warming In Government Climate Data
US CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE NOAA’S TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS
NOAA Refuses To Publish Methodology For Temperature Adjustments
NOAA Temperature Adjustments Invert Reality
How Much Do Temperature Adjustments Affect Global Temperatures? | "adjustments account for 0.3C of the 0.7C of warming recorded in the last century."
Unwarranted Temperature Adjustments and Al Gore’s Unwarranted Call for Intellectual Tyranny
COMPUTER MODEL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS NOT RELIABLE
Temperature Adjustments At USCRN1 Stations
GHCN Temperature Adjustments In Iceland–A Closer Look At Stykkisholmur–Part I | "GHCN adjustments appear at all six Icelandic stations ..., the algorithm must have been comparing with stations hundreds of miles away"
Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas
Important study on temperature adjustments: ‘homogenization…can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.’
Temperature adjustments: Simmering Science Scandal
Temperature Adjustments Transform Arctic Climate History
Are the Global Warmists Simply Juicing Up the Latest Years' Temperatures With "Adjustments" While Reducing the Temperatures of Previous Years, To Always Make the Current Year "The Hottest"
1 wwwwho 2018-07-07
I think people realize that the "right people" profit from the politics and business of "Global Warming/Climate Change/ManBearPig". I may be mistaken, but the carbon tax (etc) will go to a non-governmental, New World Order, organization for administration. The continued erosion of State sovereignty.
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
No, no there isn't. Furthermore, I can fund studies to produce any result I'm seeking (ie. cooking the books/data). Garbage in, garbage out.
I'm whatever I want to be. I'm a special snowflake :)
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-07-07
I'm telling you I have. Now, have you done the same?
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-07-07
I believe that scientists have absolutely zero clue about how much of an effect carbon emissions actually have on our climate, and therefore can’t possibly quantify any kind of “solution” to the problem.
Florida was supposed to be on water multiple times by now. I find it funny that when doomsday peddlers get the dates wrong and then push back their predictions for some BS reason, everyone laughs at them and discredits them the next time they make that claim. than Yet somehow when Al Gore and “climate scientists” are completely wrong multiple times, and just push back their predictions using BS explanations such as “The Pause” in order for their models to not be completely inaccurate, the entire MSM and much of the public somehow believes them now more than ever??
There’s more conclusive evidence for them having no clue what they are talking about than there is for carbon emissions causing catastrophic global consequences in the near future.
The Taurid meteor stream, solar flares, and super volcanos/massive tectonic events are far more of a threat to humanity than global warming, IMO.
1 PinkoPrepper 2018-07-07
That Lockheed Martin fusion thing would be a great way for them to launder something out into the public.