It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaked U.S. Document Calls For "Global Regime" To Tackle Climate Change

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by belial259
 


I hope you didn't think I was attacking the messenger, I just stated I don't trust Alex Jones, but to each their own.

Personally, I do feel there is a conspiracy to hype global warming, and in order to regulate a planetary situation, there "needs" to be a planetary body with jurisdiction to do so.

I however feel that global warming/ climate change whatever they're calling it now is a bunch of bs as indicated by the rest and majority of my post.




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   



"I never let schooling get in the way of my education."


Tell that to someone who can't read.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Biggest mistake: You sourced Info Wars....


Though I might normally be inclined to agree with that statement, the original source is www.guardian.co.uk...

The interpretation however is classic Infowars rhetoric.

[edit on 13 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]


to be fair the original source according to the article is unsuprisingly anonymous




A document accidentally left on a European hotel computer and passed to the Guardian reveals .........


That said...the first item in the report....

Strategic communications objectives

1) Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime .....

A public relations strategist looking to craft a political message...suggests as it's #1 item the message that the USA is looking to create a "GLOBAL REGIME"....I mean really, that's the message/perception thier top PR guy is actually looking to communicate? GLOBAL REGIME???

It smells to high heaven like BS being fed with agenda in mind. But I think folks are becoming acclimated to the smell around here.

I am confident on that point alone the doc is not legit. But I am sure no one in the Denier crowd will pause to question it. It serves thier purposes....which of course is why it was made ...

[edit on 13-4-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
If its real it shows how easy they can manipulate media!



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
A public relations strategist looking to craft a political message...suggests as it's #1 item the message that the USA is looking to create a "GLOBAL REGIME"....I mean really, that's the message/perception thier top PR guy is actually looking to communicate? GLOBAL REGIME???

It smells to high heaven like BS being fed with agenda in mind. But I think folks are becoming acclimated to the smell around here.

I am confident on that point alone the doc is not legit. But I am sure no one on in the Denier crowd will pause to question it. It serves thier purposes....which of course is why it was made ...


But let me remind you it is election time in the UK and the guardian is a UK source. Sometimes members of the civil service or opposition politicians will leak these documents to the press to attack their opponents.

And unnamed source during election time could be anyone in government.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by brianmg5
 


This child attends college and can't spell "classes"? ok....



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The world powers have already been chem-trailing us for over 10 years now. You know all them chem-trails that go from horizon to horizon then spread out to hase the skies by noon most days---barrium for cloud seeding and aluminum up high for reflecting.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, spraying is world wide. The magma is heating up and expanding fast wich is why we see the increase in BIG EARTHQUAKES .
Cant believe so many smart people out of the loop are not putting this togather.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gakus
 


lol, if you want to deduce what I say by pointing out a typo, go right ahead!



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


On this point:


1) Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change. This includes support for a symmetrical and legally binding treaty.


Of course AJ and Infowars probably screamed like pre-pubescent girls when they saw those two words in succession.


However, it is difficult if not near impossible to glean context/meaning without provenance identification ... namely who wrote this and who do they work for?

At face value it seems to be championing a global regulatory institution to oversee that any climate agreement/treaty is adhered to by all parties ... I would imagine something akin to IAEA.

I will say this however, the document if legitimate, does reveal a tactical cynicism beyond the requirements of pragmatism.

[edit on 13 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I will say this however, the document if legitimate, does reveal a tactical cynicism beyond the requirements of pragmatism.


It does. But at the same time it seems to closely match what we actually ended up with. And also rumours of the working paper that was circulating at Copenhagen by the "circle of commitment" as it was called.

Regime can mean a number of things, and that can be open to misinterpretation but if we step away from the debate about the source or the validity of global warming and actually focus on the subject matter what we actually have does seem to be a memo in reference to actions undertaken by the circle of commitment (the rich nations) during the Copenhagen summit.

We were given the impression that Obama and the US were trying to create a global "whatever" for climate change and that the US was behind it politically.

In the end there were really only 6 main parties that undertook an agreement to reach a further solution after the COP15 conference.

This is not idle speculation from conspiracy theorists with dubious questionably it is a matter of fact.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EzraBuckley
 

To me the reality of this alleged leaked document is not relevant. TPTB are using global warm...errr.. cimate change as an excuse to consolidate authority over the whole world. If you deny that you are either a disinfo agent or blind. PERIOD.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The issue here seems to turn on two words. The first is the operative for the entire document: "perception." In other words, the originator of the documents is concerned that the US be "perceived," ie; is believed to be, taking the lead in combating global warning. This is why the document does not discuss specific policy matters, simply how best to get the word out. It may have been written by a press attache, or a PR consultant.

The scariest word here is, of course, "regime." Here is a definition for those who automatically think it has only one meaning:

Main Entry: re·gime

Variant(s): also ré·gime \rā-ˈzhēm, ri- also ri-ˈjēm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French régime, from Old French regimen, regime, from Late Latin regimin-, regimen
Date: 1776
1 a : regimen 1 b : a regular pattern of occurrence or action (as of seasonal rainfall) c : the characteristic behavior or orderly procedure of a natural phenomenon or process
2 a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government c : a government in power d : a period of rule


www.merriam-webster.com...

I suspect whoever drafted this had definition 1a in mind: a "regimen," that is a series of consistent measures to achieve a particular goal, such as ending global warming. This regimen is fairly well publicized: specific emissions goals, cap-and-trade, etc. Sorry, but it's just not as sinister as some people wish it was.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Something else seems to be odd about this whole thing ... perhaps someone can help me shed light on it.

If The Guardian is in possession of this document why aren't they posting a pdf version with their article? The reason that would be useful is that it would most assuredly reveal a letterhead to identify provenance. If it is a simple text file in a computer then the identity of the owner will also be contained within. Whatever its form it would make the claims much more legitimate than they are now.

I'm not doubting content since it seems quite consistent with known strategies, but I am wondering why a reputable newspaper would be unwilling to share the document that substantiates their article.


ETA: Someone is asking a similar question in the comments section:


Whose document, authored by whom, for whose attention?

Left on which computer by who?

Passed to the Guardian by who?

How does one 'verify' a document left on a computer?

If I make a document and recite the author as President X and address it to whomever and upload it to a datastick and then visit 'a European hotel' and download it there, how could someone else verify its authenticity?

Just saying...

www.guardian.co.uk...


[edit on 13 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth

Personally, I do feel there is a conspiracy to hype global warming,...

I however feel that global warming/ climate change whatever they're calling it now is a bunch of bs ...


Searching4truth? If that is accurate and you want a view to a real conspiracy take a look at Koch Industries..




Greenpeace Unmasks Koch Industries' Funding of Climate Denial Industry
Koch Industries has “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine, according to an extensive report today by Greenpeace.

The Greenpeace report reveals how Koch Industries and the foundations under its control spent far more than even ExxonMobil in recent years to fund industry front groups opposed to clean energy and climate policies. Koch spent over half the total amount -nearly $25 million - funding climate denier groups from 2005 to 2008, a period in which Exxon only spent $8.9 million.

Greenpeace’s attempt to lift the veil of secrecy inherent to a private company like Koch Industries is no easy task. Because it remains privately owned, Koch faces few of the disclosure requirements designed to increase transparency among publicly-traded companies.

That intentional secrecy allows Koch Industries, the second-largest privately-held company in the United States, to fly largely below the public’s radar. Few Americans have likely heard of Koch, even though it operates crude oil refineries and pipelines across North America and owns such well-known consumer brands as Dixie cups, Brawny and Quilted Northern paper products, Stainmaster carpet, CoolMax and Lycra.

The company’s founder, Fred Koch, who once earned $5 million building oil refineries in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin’s reign, was a co-founder of the libertarian John Birch Society. Charles G. and David H. Koch, two of Fred’s four sons, each now own 42% of the company’s stock. According to 2009 Forbes rankings, the Koch brothers are tied for the 19th-richest person in the world, and for ninth-richest American, each worth between $14 and $16 billion, more than George Soros or the founders of Google.

The Koch brothers use three foundations to spread Koch Industries’ influence, including support for roughly 40 organizations that doubt or downplay climate change or otherwise oppose policy solutions to build a clean energy future. ...

Koch Industries has bankrolled Americans for Prosperity to the tune of over $5 million since 2005. AFP – known primarily for its role in organizing the tea party movement in the U.S. – brought notorious climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton to the Copenhagen climate summit as its guest speaker. Despite Lord Monckton’s reprehensible behavior in Copenhagen – where he repeatedly compared college students advocating for a clean energy future to “Hitler Youth” and “Nazis” – Americans for Prosperity continues to host Monckton at its events in the United States, including a recent appearance in Wisconsin.

Koch was also one of the funders of the 2007 polar bear junk science “study” authored by prominent climate deniers (including Sallie Baliunas, David Legates and Tim Ball) that claimed to prove that polar bear populations were not affected by anthropogenic climate disruption in the Arctic.

Although the paper was thoroughly debunked by actual experts on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, many of the front groups funded by Koch and Exxon rebroadcast the study widely, creating public confusion. The matter came to a head when Sarah Palin and her officers in the Alaskan government referenced the Soon/Baliunas polar bear paper before it was even published ...

The Greenpeace report notes Koch’s role in funding the Institute for Energy Research, which was behind the Danish study that attacked the viability of wind power. Greenpeace also points out the role that Koch’s web of climate denier groups played in supporting, disseminating and promoting the Spanish study attacking green jobs, including AFP, IER and the Heritage Foundation.

If you thought you knew everything about anti-science front groups from hearing about ExxonMobil’s efforts over the years, think again. This expose of Koch Industries serves up a heaping pile of unsavory evidence that the climate denial industry is alive and well-funded, even with the scaling back of ExxonMobil’s support.

More attention needs to be paid to Koch Industries, and this report will hopefully encourage deeper investigation into the Koch web’s confusion campaign.


current.com...


[edit on 13-4-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

If The Guardian is in possession of this document why aren't they posting a pdf version with their article? The reason that would be useful is that it would most assuredly reveal a letterhead to identify provenance. If it is a simple text file in a computer then the identity of the owner will also be contained within. Whatever its form it would make the claims much more legitimate than they are now.

I'm not doubting content since it seems quite consistent with known strategies, but I am wondering why a reputable newspaper would be unwilling to share the document that substantiates their article.


[edit on 13 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]


Agreed. Good question. I will add this, i googled the articles author and he appears suprisingly nuetral on the debate having covered the debate relatively objectively, so there appears to be little precedence of agenda with the Guardian author...now I am interested in the authors source.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpmail

Originally posted by brianmg5
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Go to College and take an environmental science class, Global warming is real.

So much ignorance. You are the result of manipulation from those who don't want to see new policy related to global warming affecting their bottom line.


Of course everything taught at a college must be true and factual without any errors, ommisions or bias [sarcasm]. Please take your climate troll self and educate yourself on the truth not regurgitate all the facts you hear at college.



DON'T LISTEN TO ALL THOSE SMARTIES AT COLLEGE, YOU MIGHT LEARN YOU SOMETHING GOOD



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
If The Guardian is in possession of this document why aren't they posting a pdf version with their article?


Maybe they want to protect the source. I've no doubt this document is a leak. If it had a Foreign Office letterhead on it for instance would implicate a source and land them in hot water.

They aren't allowed to get involved in day to day politics but everyone knows they do from time to time. Especially around election time.

Maybe this is just a friendly parting gift for Gordon Brown to saddle him with the whole thing and wash the civil services hands of it.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by maybereal11
 


On this point:


1) Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change. This includes support for a symmetrical and legally binding treaty.


Of course AJ and Infowars probably screamed like pre-pubescent girls when they saw those two words in succession.

[edit on 13 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]


Here is the thing...this is purported to be a Strategic Communications outline.

It is discussing MESSAGE strategy ....and I can't fathom anyone of any standing in public relations suggesting creating "the perception that the US" is engaged in an effort to create a "Global Regime"...

words and PR spin are these peoples business...and they think the message of "Global Regime" will sell the public???? Whether that is the plan or not, they would never suggest that message.

It smells. The more likely scenario is that this wording was put into a forged doc with the express purpose of firing up the Deniers.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
It is discussing MESSAGE strategy ....and I can't fathom anyone of any standing in public relations suggesting creating "the perception that the US" is engaged in an effort to create a "Global Regime"...


I don't know about that. "Global Regime" sounds better for regular consumption than "Global Con job"



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Isnt this letter just down to the readers own perception?
Whether its true or not, its likely to have been written by an American.
Hence the American viwe point and the memo to emphasize the American struggle in dealing with climate change. They do want to cover themself's if the climate really does hit the fan.
And the mention of some 'regulative body' that can regulate/monitor climate change dosnt mean that the ''NEW WORLD ORDER" have their fingers firmly fixed on this.
Its most likely refrence to G8 and all other developed nations that form the regulative body that have placed sanction's aimed at the reduction of Carbon gasses.

Although my point will be detested, im going to sleep now...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join