It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See (for all you skeptics overloards out their )

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:05 PM
Just because.....

I was waiting for a punch-line.
If one could only refund time.....

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:21 PM
To ignore the question of whether climate change is man-made or not is to be ignorant to the real issue at hand. While I liked his logic model, it is basic, and quite honestly ignorant to the issues at hand. Weather and climate data has only been recorded for the past 100 years or so. This is peanuts on a massive time line, and I have stated this many, many times in threads like this. The fact of the matter is, we don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not our emissions have caused the Earth to change her climate in a little over 100 years of industrialization. Ice core samples dug from our two poles tell a much different story of heating and cooling of the Earth. And of course, this is over a much longer time line and from a time where (as far as we know) there wasn't any sort of industrialization. This is not to mention the political and economic ramifications of further regulating a market. Who stands to make money from regulation regarding this topic? Would things really change?

There have already been several reports that claim that the scientific data was fraudulently altered, omitted, or just plain made up. The fact of the matter is that we do not know for certain about anything. Say we go with his "ticket A." Say we dump billions of dollars into research and manufacturing for "green technology." Say the world's governments collectively agree to demand more regulation on industrial pursuits, carbon emissions from vehicles, et al. Where would that leave the middle class? How much larger would the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" become? Would this not cause another disaster of global proportions? The economy is a fragile thing, as these past few years have proven. Why push it further? Okay, so say everything that these GCC scientist have said is true, that GCC is human caused and that technology needs to be developed and regulation needs to be stricter in order to prevent a "catastrophe." This still leaves out a very important third option "Ticket C" as I will call it, and which I will talk about in a few lines.

Now there is his "Ticket B." We don't do anything about GCC, and it turns out the obvious frauds were frauds. The data was forged and faked, and nothing is going to happen. We don't dump billions of dollars to this research and everything is peachy keen. We go on, we live on. The opposite side is that GCC is a real trend and we are on a collision course with disaster (ignoring whether or not it is human caused or natural...which is not conducive to a true logic proof. One must take all options into account when trying to push a point). Now according to his logic, this gives us a 50/50 chance of either success or massive disaster. The "Ticket A" is giving us a 100% chance of success (according to his logic, negating the real question of whether it is a natural process or human caused), by "hedging our bets" as it were.

Now on to "Ticket C," or my take on things, and to make this a true logical argument. What if neither Ticket A or B are valid, considering the fact that he negates the question of whether it is a natural occurrence or human caused? The "Ticket C" is the third side of the argument, and in my opinion, the most important. It is important to consider the option that GCC is a completely natural occurring process, and that regardless of the amount of money we throw at the problem, nothing is going to change the fact that we are on a collision course for a disaster. Ticket C gives the option of considering the options of man made or natural. If it is indeed man made and completely reversible, then great. It gives validity to Ticket A. We change our ways of living, go further into global debt, yet save ourselves from disaster. The other option, like I have stated, is that it is a natural occurrence, there is no amount of tech or money that we can throw at it, and it is an inevitable condition of living on planet Earth. Mother Nature will take her wrath out regardless of what we do. So why not take that money that would be spent on fraudulent data, and make someone very rich, and put it toward making reinforced infrastructure, putting plans in place to save people and property, and "ride out the storm" as it were? This is a very important fact that he fails to talk about (or omits it to push his own agenda).

His theory and logic relies on the fact that it is a man made condition, whether he states it or not. He fails to recognize the very real possibility that GCC is just a normal condition of living on Planet Earth, and that it cycles throughout history. As I recall, he states that that particular issue doesn't matter. Well, it does matter, if only for the fact that there would be nothing we could do to prevent a completely natural occurrence.

Quite honestly, as I'm sure you can tell, I don't buy the man made GCC theory. There have been too many falsified records released and too many whistleblowers that have stated that the data was faked. We need more research before we blindly start throwing money at whatever cause the TPTB is pushing on a particular day. So, I urge you to consider my "Ticket C" before giving this man any more credit where I believe credit is not due. One must consider all possibilities before one makes a logic argument, and he did not do that.

Just my $.02 on the matter.

Peace be with you.


posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:38 PM
This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of global climate change or whether any given version of that theory is either true or false.

This comment is about the logic used in the video.

The Comment:

This is the very same kind of reasoning that many of the masses used to justify a pre-emptive war against Iraq. The theory of WMD's in Iraq was approached as the worst case scenario. After having witnessed the consequences of choosing the "lottery ticket" without the worst-case scenario on it, do you still think that this video is compelling?

What he refers to as the "middle" options between the two extremes is where all of the important stuff is. This is where the details are, and these middle options are precisely why "action" alone will not solve a problem.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by badw0lf

Sadly your logic does not investigate the situation entirely.

Very good.

Now why don't you apply your excellent powers of obsveration and analysis to the video in the original post?

Why is it - I've never reasoned against this concept before, it's new to me,
go figure - that people are using illogical situations based on nothing to
negate the reasoning behind this logic?

No, we're creating wildly ridiculous scenarios using the same logic as the original video to demonstrate that the "logic" being used fails the common sense test.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by KineticFaction
reply to post by snusfanatic

You've missed the point of the video, its not whether or not global warming is human caused or not.

Its playing safe.

But the whole premise of the video is based on flawed logic! Omitting details (which he blatantly stated) is not doing him, or his argument justice. Look at my previous post to understand where I am coming from.

Peace be with you.

edit on 22-11-2010 by truthseeker1984 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:46 PM
The guy in the video needs to expand his circle of "smart" friends and family. Maybe he should have brought this nonsense to ATS and got hammered. Or got hammered first, which he probably did and then came up with this "logic"...
In "reality" there is no smiley face in the corner of "no, it turns out it is not real and we did nothing so we are good"..
In reality, it is a frown because we are going to pay one way or the other for politicians to lie, and scientists to be paid off to lie, so that these scientists can get grants and the politicians can collect taxes.
So, doing "nothing" is NEVER an option, in reality, not when it comes to governments.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by LordBucket

Mr Bucket

Thank you for your reply to my swipe about your perverted Mother & Daughter analogy as it did trigger emotion.... and in a similar fashion you revealed your emotion about educating people through learning ref Pascals Wager....

I have read the link and tried to understand it as best I can and yes I do see what your saying... Never allow 'Fear' to cloud or colour one's judgement. But does Religion of any sort 'rule' by fear ? Does your reference to this 'wager' induce fear in those of a God fearing disposition.....
Does your stance against the logic in the video and in favour of your believed logic induce fear in others whom worry about loss of freedom ??

I see we can go around and around and around and around and around and oooppss the sky fell down on us !!

In business and in medicine (my world) decisions have to be made to secure an 'outcome' !! Sometimes that outcome is 'fubar' (for all you Americans out there) and sometimes it was right BUT ''Action' happened and talking and debating stopped.... Life is about taking responsibility for one's self and those around you (and the world around you as well)............ debating and Philosophying are admirable pursuits but DO NOT really get us any where until it's probably too late........

And to all those people worrying about loss of freedom and Communism etc etc etc then hey you lot should have woken up along time ago when consumerism was taking off and everything including USA flags were being made in China.... The new communism people is corporations and that is what has caused our society to fail...... as most are chasing the American dream and untold riches of the Dollar, that as we all know DO NOT exsist....... Much like the Euro as well now.....

Enjoy 2011, it's going to be one hell of a ride............ good Luck


PurpleDOG UK

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:33 PM
I believe the guy in the video makes a convincing case. However, the same thing can be done with a table comparing Believing in God and NOT Believing in God. Apply the same principles and present it in the same manner and you will reach a similar conclusion. Does this mean everyone should believe in a God due to the consequences for NOT believing? (Pascal's Wager comes to mind).

Considering there are thousands of people around the world willing to die for their beliefs in a God or kill others who do not share the same beliefs, isn't the issue of addressing whether a God does or does not exist become an important one? (Not addressing your belief in the existence of a God therefore might become problematic even if you are not religious.)
edit on 22/11/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:34 PM

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
This is one of my favourite videos on the Net.

Can anyone, after watching this argue against the logic presented. It is the strongest reason why we as the human race should act and change our ways !!!! Unfortunately, i don't think we will and hence I believe we are doomed to a radically altered world in the not too distant future......

Again - sound and solid logic presented in this video....

PurpleDOG UK

There is no "solid logic presented in this video"... There is only scaremongering at the deepest level from people who do not have an argument anymore simply because their masters have been shown to be hoaxers.

The question you should be asking yourself is, if there was any real problem with AGW, why in the world did the so called "brightest cream of the crop" scientists who have been pushing AGW down everyone's throat, had to lie, falsify information, hide evidence including to the point of talking about using all sorts of tactics including legal and illegal ways to keep people in the dark regarding the so called "settled science"?....

If the cream of the crop scientists, such as Jones, Mann et al could not provide any real evidence, and all they provided was false information, they would harass, and even talked about stopping other expert scientists from publishing peer reviewed research that demonstrates AGW is a lie, and a hoax, why in the heck do you even need to believe an argument which is based on nothing more than scaremongering, which in itself is based off the false allegations from the AGW scientists such as Jones, Mann, et al?...

Not only that, we also discovered that the IPCC lied KNOWINGLY several times claiming for example that the Himalayan glaciers would met by 2035, when in fact it was based not only on speculation, but the claim was made, alongside many others, to force governments to accept the AGW/Global Warming scam...

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

We have known for several years, and thanks to several brave scientists that the IPCC has politicized AGW/Global Warming, and that they are not interested in science, but to shove down the throats of governments, and people the AGW/Global Warming lies for agendas which only have in mind the promotion of a One World Government, and more taxes for rich elites, and some scientists and scientific groups to get more funds and get richer...

Expert scientists such as Chriss Landsea have tried to warn us for years.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

Chriss Landsea is not the only scientist who has been warning us for years that the IPCC and the topic of AGW/Global Warming is nothing more than a political tool.

Several scientists, including several scinetists who have worked for the IPCC have been giving us the same warning for years, yet the AGW believers just want to continue "BELIEVING" in their new found religion...

Scientists warn: The globe may not be warming

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC, has his doubts about global warming.

Christy told the Times of London: “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change.

It has been compromised by urbanization and other factors. Christy has published research on stations in Africa, Alabama and California.

Christy: “The story is the same for each one.The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.

He is not alone. Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the IPCC to review its last report.

McKitrick told the Times of London: “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCCs climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, told the Times of London: “The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years.

We have also heard, or read how the AGW believers love to claim that "Climategate" has been exagerated, when even several scientists who believe or believed in AGW/Global Warming have said that Climategate IS A BIG DEAL...

Sprigg, adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, believes the planet is on a potentially dangerous warming path and atmospheric carbon dioxide is to blame. He also led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990. Clealry, Sprigg is no “outlier” or “rebel,” but one of the most respected and “mainstream” scientists in the field of climatology. So it came to a bit of shock to the audience when Sprigg expressed concerns about how contrarian scientists are treated with contempt by many of his colleagues.

Its not right, he said, that the game is rigged to keep skeptics out of peer-reviewed journals. It violates the scientific method to refuse to release raw data so others can test your theories. And its a big mistake to keep defending the likes of infamousHide the Declineemailers Phil Jones and Michael Mann. The very credibility of the entire discipline of climate science is at stake, Sprigg said, and its time to stop ignoring this fact. As one might imagine, this all did not go over very well in the audience — who were undoubtedly expecting to hear a lecture ratifying their view that ClimateGate was no big deal when they saw Sprigg’s topic on the agenda.

I recorded Sprigg’s remarks on video for Heartland, and (from what I could tell) mine was the only camera in the room. The footage below features Taylor — who is also managing editor of Environment & Climate News — asking Sprigg what he thinks the future holds for the wholly corrupted IPCC. Sprigg nodded as Taylor referred to “mounting scandals” at the IPCC and then responded:

“There will be some reform. I think there are going to be big changes in the peer review process for the IPCC. There will be — there are — calls for the head of [IPCC Chairman Raj] Pachauri. Some of my colleagues have written letters saying that he needs to be taken off the job.”

Heck, we even know that most of the warming had been happening FAR AWAY FROM BIG CITIES AND FAR AWAY FROM POLLUTION... so if CO2 was the culprit the warming should have been higher at the source of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and not on remote locations far away from big cities.

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

Yet despite all these facts, and many more which are too numerous to repost again, we have many people who want to keep believing in the AGW/Global Warming scam, just because they have "feelings" based on wrong assumtions and they 'feel guilty of being human"...

The answer to the claim of whether we should implement draconian regulations, and massive taxation on a very benign gas is simple. Since the main AGW scientists were caught in the hoax that is AGW, then it simply doesn't exist, beyond that there is no need for massive taxes, inflation, and possibly a global economic meltdown which would result more draconian laws controling everyone, and even the possible deaths of many people because of these draconian regulations which are simply based on a lie...

Now, has nobody asked themselves why are the elites so certain that people will believe this lie?...

Hasn't it crossed anyone's mind that for some reason the Earth could be experiencing massive natural changes, which we have no control over, and which will cause the oceans to rise, massive earthquakes, and dramatic Climate Changes which would bring economical and political upheaval, not to mention the deaths of many people close to the areas more vulnerable?

What you really need to ask yourself is this. Have dramatic NATURAL Climate Changes occurred in our past which have caused massive economic, and political upheaval as well as floods, droughts, etc, etc?...

The answer to that question is a very loud YES...

I will give you some examples, and there are many.

large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).

14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.

13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's

13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.

12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas.

Not to mention that the claims that "the Sun's activity stopped being influential in Climate change since the 1950s or 1980s" is nothing more than false...

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

This particular research was only for 24 years, from 1978 until 2002, but research by other scientists has shown that before that time solar activity had been increasing for several decades and could have been ongoing for at least 100 years if not more.

A bit more of the excerpt from the above link states.

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.

There are massive changes occurring in the Solar System, but the AGW believers wantto make us believe 'none of that is causing Climate Change, it is CO2, plant food, which is causing Climate Change...

You people are going along with the elites attempts to "depopulate the Earth with any means necessary"...

You people can't even understand you are being used, and viewed as "useful idiots" to cause even more mass starvation which is part of the dellusional plan of the elites not only to control us, but to "depopulate the Earth."

What could be the reason for so many governments, policymakers and crackpots passing for scientists to push for AGW/Global Warming?...


* UN advisory group on climate change submits report


Betwa Sharma

United Nations, Nov 6 (PTI) Three weeks ahead of the Cancun Climate Change Conference, a high-level UN advisory group has presented a report with suggestions to come up with USD 100 billion a year by 2020, including tax on international flights, for poor countries to combat global warming.

The 21-member advisory group is co-chaired by Prime Ministers Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Jens Stoltenberg of Norway. The group was set up in February and includes Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia, philanthropist George Soros and British academic Nicholas Stern.

"The Advisory Group has given us a path. It is now up to Governments to consider the options and to act," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told journalists.

"This is not about charity. It is about doing the right thing for those who are suffering most from a crisis that they did least to cause," he said.

Heck the bastards are not even scared of showing the reasons behind AGW/Clobal Warming, and the economic crisis...

Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“

In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability“:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (”The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability“: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”

These plans to start an environmental movement to force governments, cause economic hardshipcan even be found in UN websites. These people don't want to make the world a better place for you, and your family... They are doing it to implement more draconian laws to control everyone, to redistribute the wealth, which at the end will come to the hands of the rich, and to depopulate the Earth of "those people we don't really want around"...

A lot of people keep talking about a "false flag", but it seems they don't see that a massive false flag has already been implemented, and that is AGW...
edit on 22-11-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Thank you ElectricUniverse, that is the most comprehensive argument against the global warming cabal i have ever seen.

It is a false flag, with the premise we are our own worst enemy. It's a psyops, arguably the most successful ever. Fortunately it's falling apart, just wonder if it's fast enough to undo much of the damage, we're already paying green TAX on new cars.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:49 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Electric Universe....

Thankyou for your last post as it would appear you have spent Significant time researching, reading, collecting and cutting and pasting more information than I have ever seen before on this topic.... You are obviously passionate about your views and position on this subject....

As you might have realised, I am no expert on global warming and all the science around it..... I make no claims on it at all but there is a sense inside me that tells me Human activities must have an affect in some way to the environment around us.... Our urgency to cover large sways of the planet in concrete, to dump our effluent in treated or raw form into the sea's. To burn oil and associated compounds into the atmosphere to provide our species with power, light, heat etc etc....... all in a short time frame that is human exsistence so far !!!!

Your right, the planet is a larger 'system' than we can ever try to understand BUT like a spinning top being ever so faintly pushed by a shallow breath, it's trajectory and other variables are altered and it's outcome has changed.....

Bottom Line ..... is that You, I, Mr Bucket, All the F****** scientists (paid or not to say what they should or shouldn't) DO NOT REALLY KNOW........ it's all a best guess scenario....

But do you Really think that Humans have NOT left a ''footprint'' which has changed the world........
For all your Doubt and evidence and support of the fact that we Humans have not done anything to affect the world..... do you honestly really ''FEEL'' that ????


PurpleDOG UK

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by PurpleDog UK

Does your stance against the logic in the video and in favour of
your believed logic induce fear in others whom worry about loss of freedom ??

It might, but fear is not needed. For example, we could just as easily phase the rebuttal this way:

"We should all be kind and friendly to one another because apples are pink. The logic of this is irrefutable."

Here we have a premise that's fairly easy to agree with. "Let's be nice to each other." But it's being justified by "logic" that simply makes no sense and by facts that are incorrect. Following that up with the claim that the logic is irrefutable is simply begging even people who agree with the premise to argue against it because the justification is so silly.

That's basically what I see happening in this thread. The premise of the video is stupid, yet some people are claiming that it's "logical" or "obvious" or "irrefutable" and so naturally a whole bunch of people are coming in to point out how dumb it is.

to all those people worrying about loss of freedom

Different people are motivated by different things. Some people are motivated very wel by fear. Artificially attaching negative consequence to things is often an effective means of manipulating these people. For those people who are not especially motivated by fear, pointing out that they "don't need to worry" about something isn't especially going to effect them.

I propose that we try to examine situations accurately and take action when we choose to.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:23 PM

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Electric Universe....

Thankyou for your last post as it would appear you have spent Significant time researching, reading, collecting and cutting and pasting more information than I have ever seen before on this topic.... You are obviously passionate about your views and position on this subject....

As you might have realised, I am no expert on global warming and all the science around it..... I make no claims on it at all but there is a sense inside me that tells me Human activities must have an affect in some way to the environment around us.... Our urgency to cover large sways of the planet in concrete, to dump our effluent in treated or raw form into the sea's. To burn oil and associated compounds into the atmosphere to provide our species with power, light, heat etc etc....... all in a short time frame that is human exsistence so far !!!!

Your right, the planet is a larger 'system' than we can ever try to understand BUT like a spinning top being ever so faintly pushed by a shallow breath, it's trajectory and other variables are altered and it's outcome has changed.....

Bottom Line ..... is that You, I, Mr Bucket, All the F****** scientists (paid or not to say what they should or shouldn't) DO NOT REALLY KNOW........ it's all a best guess scenario....

But do you Really think that Humans have NOT left a ''footprint'' which has changed the world........
For all your Doubt and evidence and support of the fact that we Humans have not done anything to affect the world..... do you honestly really ''FEEL'' that ????


PurpleDOG UK

Be well citizen
edit on 23-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:15 AM
reply to post by LordBucket

Mr Bucket
Thank-you for your reply. I do understand what your message and how it relates to this video.
I think that you are one of a minority of individuals who actually engages in deep thinking on issues and delivers very thoughtful responses to the issues concerned.
I think that the majority of 'citizens' on this planet do not really spend the time evaluating and exploring what the real issues are..... Video's like this are simplistic and may be flawed in detail but are good for the masses to ''get them thinking''..

There are probably a greater deal of the 'more informed' on this site, although there are definately ' closed minds' here too and with that in mind then the video doesn't 'satisfy' the hunger here.....

But for the masses, it is a simple take with extremes that might take the ''gaze'' away from the TV and pop / celebrity culture onto more important human & global issues......

I do enjoy your replies and being the open minded individual I am, I do try to understand and take on board your perspective........ who says old dogs can't learn new tricks...


PurpleDOG UK

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:34 AM
Just as an add on, I was browsing the RSOE EDIS and saw this today - 23/11/2010 - 03:35:59

I know it's just Methane et al... being released but it is the first time I have seen it on and Emergency and Disaster Information Service website......


PurpleDOG UK

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:42 PM
We very likely have global warming happening. If we do not, it is undoubtedly true that at some point in the planet's history we will have it happening. There are historical precedents for it. The earth has been much much warmer in the past, with vastly altered coastlines and there are fossils to prove it. In addition to that, industrial carbon emissions had nothing to do with it.

Are carbon emissions speeding the process now? Maybe. Which means what? That coastlines will be altered faster and maybe more radically than they otherwise would be, which was still pretty radical.

Isn't there a much bigger scenario to discuss with respect to global warming than carbon emissions? Shouldn't we be getting ready for the greening of the Sahara, the Gobi and the Mohave, the vast expansion of the jungle, the spread of malaria, the fishing industry on the great North American inland sea? The list is endless.

The whole carbon thing seems like a scam to me. Just another globalist scam. Another rediculous attempt by an intellectually bankrupt class to force the sheeple to shore up the status quo.

The earth was also a giant snowball in the past. What are they going to do when that cycle rolls around again? Make it illegal to turn off your car's ignition?

This whole business is a completely transparent panic rave-up.
edit on 24-11-2010 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:30 AM

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Fun video. But I see nothing terrifying or that shocking.
Why did it take 10 minutes to explain the consequences of not taking action VS. taking action?!

We messed it up - we have to fix it now.

edit on 21-11-2010 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)

Global warming is a conspiracy, the sun is getting hotter. Google it.

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:10 AM
Back in the middle ages the powers that be simply sent their thugs around to rob everybody.

Nowadays they still rob you but they disguise it with a smokescreen of hysteria. The big lie. Thankyou Adolf Hitler for giving us the paradigm of the 21st century.
edit on 25-11-2010 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:29 AM
The video made perfect sense.

Something I cannot make sense of,no matter how much thought I give it,is....

...."Sustainable Development",which is not possible the way the term is interpreted today.

Development as it is viewed in this world today,is not sustainable,and never will be.

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:19 PM
Have you ever been in an argument with someone who tries to argue your side of the discussion for you and who keeps saying, "No wait.", everytime you try to interject your own version of your argument.

That's what the OP's video is like. It drives the viewer like a sheep to the slaughter, down a narrow train of logic that doesn't even begin to explore all the possibilities of the discussion.
edit on 25-11-2010 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in