Freedom Plan

[Drake01]

Even leaving away the facts stated by the united stations, scientists all over the world and widely accepted by the remaing part of the world except the US and China that global warming is a consequence of industrialisation and pollution- would you really bet on it, continue as before and just wait what happens risking that Silicon Valley is becoming a hot and dry desert with no point of return ? Not to speak of the other consequences ? That is a very, very high risk you would be taking.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I have seen articles that indicate scientists are essentially being "blacklisted" if they do not support the popular global warming theory.  The articles I've read indicate some correlation between industrialization and global warming, but I haven't seen anything that proves a cause-and-effect relationship.  And, I've heard a number of arguments for a natural cycle.

Do I believe that pollution needs to be abated?  Yes.  Do I believe that we need to find better sources of energy?  Yes.  Do I believe that the world is doomed because of global warming caused by our society?  I haven't seen enough unbiased evidence that I feel confident in making a decision either way.

[Drake01]

I dunno-- I think you kind of hit it.  Too many people, period.  We should probably have per region population caps.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Judging by what I see in the news, I think people should have a license to breed before contributing to the population.  Too many bad parents out there today.

[ArchiMark]

Even leaving away the facts stated by the united stations, scientists all over the world and widely accepted by the remaing part of the world except the US and China that global warming is a consequence of industrialisation and pollution- would you really bet on it, continue as before and just wait what happens risking that Silicon Valley is becoming a hot and dry desert with no point of return ? Not to speak of the other consequences ? That is a very, very high risk you would be taking.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I have seen articles that indicate scientists are essentially being "blacklisted" if they do not support the popular global warming theory.  The articles I've read indicate some correlation between industrialization and global warming, but I haven't seen anything that proves a cause-and-effect relationship.  And, I've heard a number of arguments for a natural cycle.

Do I believe that pollution needs to be abated?  Yes.  Do I believe that we need to find better sources of energy?  Yes.  Do I believe that the world is doomed because of global warming caused by our society?  I haven't seen enough unbiased evidence that I feel confident in making a decision either way.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

AMEN to that too, Brother Drake01!!

[desertrat]

I have seen articles that indicate scientists are essentially being "blacklisted" if they do not support the popular global warming theory.

Are you living in the US by any chance? Because the reports that we read (or I read) from outside the US is that scientists/researchers are gagged and/or denied funds if they don't toe the Bush regime's line on climate change:

New Scientist Editorial: Suppressing the science of climate change

The articles I've read indicate some correlation between industrialization and global warming, but I haven't seen anything that proves a cause-and-effect relationship.  And, I've heard a number of arguments for a natural cycle.

You've probably been influenced by this:
New Scientist: Oil giants' money fuels a climate of suspicion
Not sure what proof you need (accept):
industry+pollution=greenhouse gases=warming
Whilst you may argue over what contributes more to global warming - human activities or natural cycles, the cause of human activities and its effects on global warming should be in no doubt.

Yes.  Do I believe that the world is doomed because of global warming caused by our society?  I haven't seen enough unbiased evidence that I feel confident in making a decision either way.

Global warming = ice melts, it has been estimated that if all the ice at the poles melt then the sea level would rise by 70m - that would leave a substantial chunk of land under water and many countries would simply be wiped out (eg Bangladesh, the Netherlands).

[Antikx]

Global warming = ice melts, it has been estimated that if all the ice at the poles melt then the sea level would rise by 70m - that would leave a substantial chunk of land under water and many countries would simply be wiped out (eg Bangladesh, the Netherlands).
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Us landlubbers in central Canada are looking forward to having ocean beaches, so keep driving you cars please.

(this is purely a joke and is not intended as a method to discredit what is happening in the world)

[ntw1103]

YOU are your own God,
[div align=\"right\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I don't see this as matching the definition listed in the dictionary. ?
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value (This one does somewhat fit.)
4 : a powerful ruler (While the Denotation matches, the Connotation of this word does not follow this 4th definition in the strict sense.)

Thank God for the internet, Linux and open source then!
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158632\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

So in your mind, You are responsible for the internet? Which god are you thanking?

Global warming = ice melts, it has been estimated that if all the ice at the poles melt then the sea level would rise by 70m - that would leave a substantial chunk of land under water and many countries would simply be wiped out (eg Bangladesh, the Netherlands).
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Umm... there is a fix, we just need to build more nuclear power plants:
[a href=\"http://powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5]http://powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5[/url]
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/RN/2006-07/07rn12.htm
More power plants means more power = More electronic toys.
Just my 2+1/2 cents.

[Drake01]

Are you living in the US by any chance?

I am.  

Whilst you may argue over what contributes more to global warming - human activities or natural cycles, the cause of human activities and its effects on global warming should be in no doubt.

I didn't say that human activities are affecting the environment.  I think there are too many people on this rock.  Deforestation and urbanization are likely affecting the planet.  I've heard arguments that the agriculture industry is doing plenty to harm the environment in various ways, including cattle emissions.

Global warming = ice melts, it has been estimated that if all the ice at the poles melt then the sea level would rise by 70m - that would leave a substantial chunk of land under water and many countries would simply be wiped out (eg Bangladesh, the Netherlands).
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

The world is not a static place.  If it were, then it would be a dead planet.  Coastlines have been changing since the continents were formed.  This planet is also an extremely complex interdependent system, and it's nearly impossible to predict the outcome of a change to one variable when there are so many others that have to be accounted for.  

I've heard arguments that the greenhouse gas situation is a vicious cycle, and that the warming will cause more gases to be released which will accelerate the process.  This seems unlikely or the climate would not be as stable as it has been for millennia.  I've also heard arguments that the Earth "self-corrects" when something is out of balance.  This can be seen in smaller ecosystems, so maybe there's some truth in this at a global scale.

I would also like to reiterate that I am completely in favor of moving away from fossil fuels, for various reasons.  I don't use lawn fertilizer and weed killer because I don't feel the need to pollute my waterways for the sake of a pretty lawn.  I dislike the amount of plastic packaging used in consumer products.  I try to not buy "disposable" products (toilet paper excepted, of course).

[ArchiMark]

Are you living in the US by any chance? Because the reports that we read (or I read) from outside the US is that scientists/researchers are gagged and/or denied funds if they don't toe the Bush regime's line on climate change:

That's not correct.... I live in the US and it's the complete opposite situation here now.

Scientists and climatologists who don't go along with the Stalinist global warming kooks party line and drink their global warming kool-aid are being harassed and silenced...

The articles I've read indicate some correlation between industrialization and global warming, but I haven't seen anything that proves a cause-and-effect relationship.  And, I've heard a number of arguments for a natural cycle.

You've probably been influenced by this:
New Scientist: Oil giants' money fuels a climate of suspicion
Not sure what proof you need (accept):
industry+pollution=greenhouse gases=warming
Whilst you may argue over what contributes more to global warming - human activities or natural cycles, the cause of human activities and its effects on global warming should be in no doubt.[/quote]

Yes, they should be in doubt, as their is no actual scientific proof that human activities are contributing to global warming...

Besides the sun's solar activities and the ocean floor vents I've already mentioned in earlier posts are the main cause of climate change (not global warming as there are parts of the world that are actually cooling...), if anything else is contributing to the situation it's all the cows around the world producing methane gas every day!!

So, maybe the global warming crowd should focus there energy (no pun intended...) on either

1) Killing all the cows and making them into hamburgers or

2) Putting catalytic converters on their rear ends or

3) Collecting all the methane gas so that we convert our cars to running on methane and have cheap gas!

Yes.  Do I believe that the world is doomed because of global warming caused by our society?  I haven't seen enough unbiased evidence that I feel confident in making a decision either way.

Global warming = ice melts, it has been estimated that if all the ice at the poles melt then the sea level would rise by 70m - that would leave a substantial chunk of land under water and many countries would simply be wiped out (eg Bangladesh, the Netherlands).
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
[/quote]


The fact is that some places are melting but some place are not melting but growing...

Once again, I think that there are too many non-critical thinkers out there you who just swallow hook, line, and sinker,  what the anti-American, anti-industrialization, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush, leftist, environmental wacko crowd wants you to believe.....

Think some of you need to widen your horizons a bit.....expand your reading lists and listening lists too....get out of the 'echo chamber' you're in where you're just repeating the same stuff back and forth between your same like-minded buddies without ever really hearing other legimate perspectives....

Just my 2¢ (as we say in the good ol' USA...).....

 

[desertrat]

That's not correct.... I live in the US

ergo

and it's the complete opposite situation here now.

 

Scientists and climatologists who don't go along with the Stalinist global warming kooks party line and drink their global warming kool-aid are being harassed and silenced...

Do you have any articles or references to backup the above statements?

Yes, they should be in doubt, as their is no actual scientific proof that human activities are contributing to global warming...

The IPCC (www.ipcc.ch has plenty of scientific data, whether you accept them as proof is for you to decide.

I will re-iterate my simple proof:

1) human activities leads to industry and pollution
2) industry+pollution = greenhouse gases
3) greenhouse gases = warming

I'm sure you would agree with (1) and (2). As for (3), look up the defintion of greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases are so-called precisely because they contribute to warming. www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/95report/glossary.html

Besides the sun's solar activities and the ocean floor vents I've already mentioned in earlier posts are the main cause of climate change (not global warming as there are parts of the world that are actually cooling...), if anything else is contributing to the situation it's all the cows around the world producing methane gas every day!!

No one is denying the fact that a million and one other factors contribute to climate change, but you seem to be denying that human activities is one of them.

The fact is that some places are melting but some place are not melting but growing...

You can probably cite exceptions for almost anything. The key point is the global trend - the big picture - not isolated incidents.

Once again, I think that there are too many non-critical thinkers out there you who just swallow hook, line, and sinker, ...

Think some of you need to widen your horizons a bit.....expand your reading lists and listening lists too....get out of the 'echo chamber' you're in where you're just repeating the same stuff back and forth between your same like-minded buddies without ever really hearing other legimate perspectives....

I couldn't have put it better myself  

[adf]

This is really simple.  We have overbred and need to work on reducing and balancing our population. Once we have a plan for that we can concentrate on keeping the planet habitable unti we have a truly optimal population and can let the place heal itself.. In the meantime polluting less is probably a good idea, just on general principles. Any "solution" that doesn't emphasize depopulation seems to me like a prolonged and painful suicide. On the other hand, maybe soylent green isn't so bad.

[Meanie]

That's not correct.... I live in the US

ergo

and it's the complete opposite situation here now.

 

Scientists and climatologists who don't go along with the Stalinist global warming kooks party line and drink their global warming kool-aid are being harassed and silenced...

Do you have any articles or references to backup the above statements?

Yes, they should be in doubt, as their is no actual scientific proof that human activities are contributing to global warming...

The IPCC (www.ipcc.ch has plenty of scientific data, whether you accept them as proof is for you to decide.

I will re-iterate my simple proof:

1) human activities leads to industry and pollution
2) industry+pollution = greenhouse gases
3) greenhouse gases = warming

I'm sure you would agree with (1) and (2). As for (3), look up the defintion of greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases are so-called precisely because they contribute to warming. www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/95report/glossary.html

Besides the sun's solar activities and the ocean floor vents I've already mentioned in earlier posts are the main cause of climate change (not global warming as there are parts of the world that are actually cooling...), if anything else is contributing to the situation it's all the cows around the world producing methane gas every day!!

No one is denying the fact that a million and one other factors contribute to climate change, but you seem to be denying that human activities is one of them.

The fact is that some places are melting but some place are not melting but growing...

You can probably cite exceptions for almost anything. The key point is the global trend - the big picture - not isolated incidents.

Once again, I think that there are too many non-critical thinkers out there you who just swallow hook, line, and sinker, ...

Think some of you need to widen your horizons a bit.....expand your reading lists and listening lists too....get out of the 'echo chamber' you're in where you're just repeating the same stuff back and forth between your same like-minded buddies without ever really hearing other legimate perspectives....

I couldn't have put it better myself  
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158879\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

we just need to start a few wars to kill some people to reduce the over population which produces pollution and increases green house gases... oh wait, someone already did that but he wasnt very honest about the reason he wanted to wage war....

[desertrat]

This is really simple.  We have overbred and need to work on reducing and balancing our population.

That is good as a long term goal. When people talk of over-population I bet most will be thinking of places like China and India, and indeed they are, however reducing populations in those countries isn't going to significantly reduce pollution. Killing off China and India, with about 30-35% of the world's population would reduce pollution by maybe 10-15%, whereas killing off the US, with about 5% of the world's population would reduce pollution by about 20-25%[1]. Hence it would be far better value for money to kill off the US
Assuming that we can't commit mass genocide then the short term goal is to reduce pollution.

[1] these are figures pulled out of my arse but they should be more or less accurate give or take a few orders of magnitude

[danboid]

It is my personal belief that a big contributor to climate change has been all the various nuclear tests. However, the current media hubbub on climate change and Iraq are just distractions from something, much, much more important...

On Wednesday, May 9th 2001, over twenty military, intelligence, government, corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National  Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...closure+project

Its original broadcast was sabotaged but you can watch the full event for free on Google video. EVERYBODY needs to watch this because it was a truly historic event. Its a shame they don't show any good UFO footage bu there's lots of that out there already (like the OVNI vids, 2005 UFO Conference etc.).

In the video they talk of anti-gravity machines manufactured by people like Lockheed Skunkworks and ARVs (Alien reproduction vehicles) that can travel at least mach 20 that have been known to exist since the early 70's and they show the designs such craft in the video.

A few months after this press conference we all know what happened (911) and that has been the main focus of the world news broadcasts since. IMO, and increasingly many others, the full open, honest disclosure and discussion of ET life and the associated technologies is BY FAR and away the most important issue today because if the military-industrial complex and our governments co-operated then we could see end end to poverty, famine, the (potentially) impending energy crisis as well as entering a whole new level of consciousness by becoming an inter-galactic society.

[Cresho]

Cresho

(and anybody else who think 9/11 was a genuine 'terrorist' attack or that you can trust our governments)

You're being greatly deceived. Please watch at least this:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...ll+matrix+power

and if you have time:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...well+illuminati

I find it funny that you think I'd give any credit to a 9/11 conspiracy theory debunking statement from the US govt itself   

Support 9/11? You're supporting lies, death, destruction, bullying and the NWO
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

It' interesting you mention this but alot of people are aware of this.

anyway, if you been reading up on other stuff, the combined reading i have done leads to a big war that will destroy 40% of the population.  This needs to happen to control population and certain power.  this is supposedly going to happen within 10 years.  That is the speculation.  Free mason is true and is very embedded in the states like we already know and also in money.  use google maps and look at the white house.  It is an inverted pentagram and the pillars in each corner represents...well ill let you decide.  Free masons wanted this architecture to appear.  There are many things many many people are aware but the only way i see us stopping this is to tell everybody to stop the system by not using their money.....end of line.

[desertrat]

Alright Danboid, I took the bait, I downloaded one of the Jordan Maxwell videos (Jordan Maxwell -Basic Slideshow Presentation (Hidden Symbols)), and watched it (I try to keep an open mind). I've gotten halfway through it, and all I've seen is that Maxwell attributes anything that contains one or more of the four basic geometric shapes:
  circle - 1 line
  cross - 2 lines
  triangle - 3 lines
  square - 4 lines
as Masonic symbols. Incidently I just noticed that I have a piece of chalk (for cues - snooker, pool) sitting on my desk and according to Maxwell's criteria it most certainly is produced by a Masonic company, it says Triangle Chalk (trademark registered), on one side it has a circle containing a triangle, on another it has another Masonic symbol - a crown with the caption "KING of them all".

I'm just wondering before I watch the rest of it - does it get any better?