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: 3
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by belial259

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.


Well ... here's the thing though.

Their "source" as I understand it isn't the same person who wrote this document or at least the same person who had this on their found computer. Their source is the person who found it and gave them the info. By revealing the former they would not be betraying the confidence of the latter.

So it seems to me at least that source protection isn't a valid pretext to withhold provenance.

From a journalistic point of view, without proof of the documentation, this is little more than you or I saying "I heard from a friend of a friend that ..."

Again, not saying that the content is inaccurate, just saying that for the moment the story leaves much to be desired.




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I don't see how anyone can say, man hasn't damaged the atmosphere with his pollution? That sounds like straight up confusion. The reason why I am not happy with this guy (Obama) is not because of what he is doing, but how he is doing it. It's confusing, cause we all wanted our Health system to be fixed and we all know the Atmosphere is polluted because of man, but the way he goes about doing things, is very mob like. I think it's important for us to not become opposed to the issue at hand, but rather oppose the way it is been dealt with. That's how he, they, are able to spin things in their favor and make there opposition seem crazy and out of touch. We do need to cut back on the damage we are doing to earth, but I also know, no real change comes from authority. That's what makes me question this guy, cause if he really wanted to create change for the better, he never would of got into politics. $.02



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OverSword
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.



I deny that...and I am niether a "disinfo agent" or "blind".

Do you work for Exxon Mobile? Or the RNC?

Let me know when you want to have a grown-up discussion.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Aww!! You beat me to it... I was going to make nearly the exact same post. I guess this is why we're ATS friends?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by OverSword
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.



I deny that...and I am niether a "disinfo agent" or "blind".

Do you work for Exxon Mobile? Or the RNC?

Let me know when you want to have a grown-up discussion.


Whatever. I agree with OverSword. Like everyone here doesn't know already that the elite's goal is a one world government. Its dumb to suggest that they are not using 'climate change' to further this agenda.

Oh I guess I can't have a grown-up discussion either right? Yeah I'm against a global tax so I must work for Exxon.. pff



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr_Awesome
 


Well, fair enough ... everyone has the right to express their stance on the greater issue of climate change.

However when someone states:


To me the reality of this alleged leaked document is not relevant.


... on a thread specific to that very document, it hardly contributes to this specific discussion.

Keep in mind that there are many major players who manipulate this topic to further their own agenda, including Russia (who leaked the original climategate documents), OPEC nations, energy corporations, globalists, green corporations, just to name a few. It isn't as simple as saying "that's them guys who did them things!"
In this context, when things like this document come forth, imho following up and investigating it till the truth behind it is revealed is paramount, for each time another piece of the puzzle is revealed.

Furthermore and again imho, anyone who closes the door on new knowledge on the premise that they know all they need to know and their mind is made up, is either doing themselves a disservice or purposefully avoiding the truth.

[edit on 13 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


lol, putting a question mark after my name, clever


Anyway, while the article is a little interesting, it doesn't change my opinion. For that information to have any impact upon my though process, one would have to assume that my opinion was formed by anything other basic and advanced science courses and history.

Shall we construct a list of donors, both private and public, that contribute to spreading the climate change theory. Because that is all it is, it is a theory. There is no hard proof that humans are responsible of any sort of climate change.

That is not to say I believe we should start throwing all of our trash out the windows and such. I do believe that we aught to things at least as clean as we found them and big surprise I'm even a supporter of recycling. But to make the assumption humans are so significant that we could destroy the planet with anything short of multiple nuclear explosions is ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I get that this thread is about the document so what I should have said is I agree with most of what OverSword said.

But really my response was in the context of maybereal 'denying' that TPTB are using climate change as an excuse to consolidate authority and then asserting that people that think like that are immature or work for big oil, which is BS.

I agree that it's important to know if it is a true document. But still with everything that you have seen so far, dont you think that it is pretty clear that the TPTB are using climate change for global governance purposes?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_Awesome
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


... dont you think that it is pretty clear that the TPTB are using climate change for global governance purposes?


Well I tried to outline my general thoughts on my previous post but my general attitude to the climate debate is the following (copied in part from a previous post when another member asked me the same question):

I am in this topic as in most others, agnostic ... that is to say that I accept the limitations of both my knowledge and my understanding of the knowledge I have. Though perhaps this doesn't always come across, I try to be humble in my claims of truth or knowledge. Fact of the matter is I simply don't know. If I had to guess i would guess that there is truth on both camps, and much more to be discovered.

But I believe this conversation to be mostly a red herring, one that is largely irrelevant in the context of how humans interact with nature and each other. ... but that's simply a personal sentiment.

But I have to say I always cringe a little when I see intellectual "mobs" forming for or against an idea or theory. They remind me of the Simpsons episode where they think a comet is going to crush them only to burn off on entry ... and Moe says: "Let's go burn down the observatory so this will never happen again."


I see an awful lot of folks right now jumping on the AGW hoax bandwagon, in a exactly the same way others jumped on the GW bandwagon ...

Most importantly in global issues such as the climate debate, my observation is that the singular "PTB" reference is too simplistic. That is to say that it seems to me somewhat intellectually convenient, if not lazy, to identify a single causal source under the PTB umbrella term ... this in my opinion also applies to the "NWO" nomenclature.

Again, my observation is that there are many competing players in "the game" manipulating the populace to further their own ends. Sometimes their ambitions converge and some might work in unison, sometimes they fight each other ruthlessly.

Anyhoot, this is more of general understanding on my part based on the premise that the world is more complicated than just a few bad guys at the top ... but I could obviously be wrong.


That's why it appeals to me to investigate little glimpses into this "game" like this document and try to identify who is pulling the strings ... I also find that not having a set position on the issue itself allows for less bias and more clarity when evaluating the evidence.

2nd line!


[edit on 13 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Mr_Awesome
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


... dont you think that it is pretty clear that the TPTB are using climate change for global governance purposes?


Well I tried to outline my general thoughts on my previous post but my general attitude to the climate debate is the following (copied in part from a previous post when another member asked me the same question):

I am in this topic as in most others, agnostic ... that is to say that I accept the limitations of both my knowledge and my understanding of the knowledge I have. Though perhaps this doesn't always come across, I try to be humble in my claims of truth or knowledge. Fact of the matter is I simply don't know. If I had to guess i would guess that there is truth on both camps, and much more to be discovered.

But I believe this conversation to be mostly a red herring, one that is largely irrelevant in the context of how humans interact with nature and each other. ... but that's simply a personal sentiment.

But I have to say I always cringe a little when I see intellectual "mobs" forming for or against an idea or theory. They remind me of the Simpsons episode where they think a comet is going to crush them only to burn off on entry ... and Moe says: "Let's go burn down the observatory so this will never happen again."


I see an awful lot of folks right now jumping on the AGW hoax bandwagon, in a exactly the same way others jumped on the GW bandwagon ...

Most importantly in global issues such as the climate debate, my observation is that the singular "PTB" reference is too simplistic. That is to say that it seems to me somewhat intellectually convenient, if not lazy, to identify a single causal source under the PTB umbrella term ... this in my opinion also applies to the "NWO" nomenclature.

Again, my observation is that there are many competing players in "the game" manipulating the populace to further their own ends. Sometimes their ambitions converge and some might work in unison, sometimes they fight each other ruthlessly.

Anyhoot, this is more of general understanding on my part based on the premise that the world is more complicated than just a few bad guys at the top ... but I could obviously be wrong.


That's why it appeals to me to investigate little glimpses into this "game" like this document and try to identify who is pulling the strings ... I also find that not having a set position on the issue itself allows for less bias and more clarity when evaluating the evidence.

2nd line!


[edit on 13 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]


Thanks for the answer.

But heres the problem. While I agree that the truth is not known I have to resort to what I think is most likely based on what I have learned so far.

My oppinion is that regardess of what causes climate change the elite (whatever factions they may be) want carbon tax and carbon trading (and global governance to handle it at an international level). I don't think it is an effective solution for the environment and I don't think they are doing it for the public good.

The fact that the MSM rams climate change issues down our throat with disinformation and blacks out opposing aguments is a big hint that there is something wrong with this whole thing.

I am inclined to believe that it is most likely that the elite are pushing AGW as propaganda to further their political goals.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Reply to post by brianmg5
 


Wow look another post today with a horrible story and terrible source. What's new?

Anyways where do you go to college and in what context do your teachers tell you this? I'm a student at wisconsin, but a finance major and haven't taken any science sine soph year, however I hear about all the enviro. Stuff just about every day being in a liberal city. I don't feel like posting everything I've been told, but aren't we only speeding global warming up? I forgot how it was exactly explained, but once the salinity of the ocean drops from all the ice melting will we go into a global cooling? Is it not true that people have contributed very little green house gas to the world over our course of reign? Has the earth not already gone through a period of warming in the past? I mean is this really out of the ordinary... If we were not here would earth not experience global warming? Is it actually possible for the human race to destroy earth or would earth just destroy us and come back better than ever? Enlighten me I only have heard other peoples arguments and to me global warming seems like a money amking scam for many. Sorry if thay seems ignorant, but all the scientists behind this just seem greedy and not legitimately concerned. Al gore being the face of this movement does not help and the fact that he will not debated any scientist with contrary evidence.

Provide professor names and any work as sources if possible. At the very least these professors should have some sort of e book that can be downloaded to your computer via your schools online library.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_Awesome

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by OverSword
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.



I deny that...and I am niether a "disinfo agent" or "blind".

Do you work for Exxon Mobile? Or the RNC?

Let me know when you want to have a grown-up discussion.


Whatever. I agree with OverSword. Like everyone here doesn't know already that the elite's goal is a one world government. Its dumb to suggest that they are not using 'climate change' to further this agenda.

Oh I guess I can't have a grown-up discussion either right? Yeah I'm against a global tax so I must work for Exxon.. pff


Correct.

You aren't able to have a grown up conversation if you are going to quickly dismiss any view contrary to your own as nothing more than a view being offered by a "Disinfo Agent", someone who is "Blind" or an "Exxon Mobile" or "RNC" plant....

Make a case based on evidence and/or logic and actually THINK and LISTEN to opposing views and opinions without resorting to the intellectual equivelant of nanny nanny boo boo I can't hear you.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Shall we construct a list of donors, both private and public, that contribute to spreading the climate change theory. Because that is all it is, it is a theory. There is no hard proof that humans are responsible of any sort of climate change.


An investigative, nuetral, comprehensive list of financial entities and powers backing both sides of the debate would rock. Great idea for a website. Wish it would happen.

As for the science...I disagree wholeheartedly. Man Made climate change has crossed the threshold...still a theorey as much as smoking being linked to lung cancer...and a very similiar debate as far as a public campaign being launched to dismiss the science.


Originally posted by searching4truth
But to make the assumption humans are so significant that we could destroy the planet with anything short of multiple nuclear explosions is ridiculous.


I agree with you. Humans can not destroy the earth...even with Nuclear weapons For all of our "technology" we are nothing more than an advanced ant colony and still very much part of nature...our pollution included.

What we can do is unwittingly hasten our own extinction by altering the climate to a given state that makes the earth inhospitable to humans...the earth will shake us off like a bad cold and we will go the way of millions of other extinct species.

I actually believe climate change to be part of the earths natural mechanisms to defend itself...and moneyis on the earth succesfully ridding itself of the minor threat we might pose. We either change or the earth will shake us off.

This debate is not about "saving the earth" it is about figuring out a path where humans don't go extinct....or at least delaying it. Mother earth will be just fine



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 



Correct.

You aren't able to have a grown up conversation if you are going to quickly dismiss any view contrary to your own as nothing more than a view being offered by a "Disinfo Agent", someone who is "Blind" or an "Exxon Mobile" or "RNC" plant....

Make a case based on evidence and/or logic and actually THINK and LISTEN to opposing views and opinions without resorting to the intellectual equivelant of nanny nanny boo boo I can't hear you.


Who said anything about dismissing any view contrary to my own? I was responding to your view about this specific issue, a view which shows me that you did not THINK or LISTEN very hard when the case and evidence was presented in previous threads.

Like its so ridiculous that the people in power are lying to us? You go right ahead and trust them if you want.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join