4 ms·

> Media presentation has nothing to do with it. The submission is for an article from the Washington Post, owned of course, by Jeff Bezos. There are many reas

> Media presentation has nothing to do with it. The submission is for an article from the Washington Post, owned of course, by Jeff Bezos. There are many reasons to question what is being told. Al Gore's presentation didn't come true in his timelines but no one accused him of making mischief effectively calling fire in a crowded theatre. If course he is heavily invested in alternative technology - he stands to gain a lot. In the 70s Leonard Nimoy was warning us about the 'mini ice age', then it was 'global warming', and now the catch-all term of 'climate change'. For me, this is a governance control tactic - how to get people to willingly give up their freedoms (of travel, energy, etc) not to mention that this works very well with the micro-management planned with the technocratic agenda. And what I say is supported by the globalist books themselves - that in order to gain greater control they needed to make man in general the enemy, and using the climate as an excuse fitted the bill. Take a look at the club of Rome. Here are some quotes: "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome. "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome. "The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security." Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore's mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome. "I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world's first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world's central carbon trading body.

wizofaus 4y ago
Even if all of that were true there hasn't been a single alternative hypothesis of how the earth's atmosphere would be able to deal with a huge increase in greenhouse gases in such a way it wouldn't have strongly averse effects on the climate that's managed to gain any sort of widespread acceptance among climatologists. I have enough trust in the scientific method and peer review process that theories put forward by those primarily motivated by dubious personal reasons won't stand the test of time.
- verisimi 4y ago
  The scientific method is great, but TRUST has nothing to do with it. That's the point! The method is about being able to verify things for yourself. So, what info have you verified personally? Any at all? For myself, I have heard the claims of water rising, hot summers, etc and cannot see anything different or exceptional. I can verify nothing. Perhaps you are unaware of the replication crisis, where 70% of studies cannot be replicated, even by the authors. Perhaps you are also unaware of what I think is the 'funding crisis', where funds for science are given out by the government, corporations and the military. This triumvirate work together, you see this in technology quite clearly, eg Google was funded by inqtel, and hands over data to the government. Given the above, do you think it is possible that the governance system we have (corporations and government, aka fascism) works together to create narratives that better support their agenda? Do you see how climate change is supportive of technocracy, and plans to hand over fine-grained control of all resources to nameless bureaucrats? The trick is to get people to cheer for this, and that is what climate change is for. Most of us, on the basis of no evidence we can see, will cheer as we lose access to cars, pay more in taxes, are unable to travel, cannot visit distant places, live in small, densely-packed urban areas, as NGOs (billionaire foundations) take control of the world's resources, etc, etc. PS those quotes are true and verifiable. They have told us what is planned.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    It's not feasible for any individual to go out there and verify every scientific claim for themselves but I'm satisfied that scientists are out there doing so all the time. No doubt many of the more specific hypotheses around exact sensitivities or likely glacial melting patterns will turn out to be overturned and replaced with better ones. The economic forecasts of the effects of warming temperatures/ higher sea levels I definitely take with a large grain of salt, and there may well be cases it makes more sense to wait until better technologies are developed before going all out with what we have now, but we've known enough for quite long enough (multiple decades) that it's absurd to continue claiming we should do nothing at all about reducing emissions just in case current scientific understanding gets overturned.

wizofaus 4y ago

Even if all of that were true there hasn't been a single alternative hypothesis of how the earth's atmosphere would be able to deal with a huge increase in greenhouse gases in such a way it wouldn't have strongly averse effects on the climate that's managed to gain any sort of widespread acceptance among climatologists. I have enough trust in the scientific method and peer review process that theories put forward by those primarily motivated by dubious personal reasons won't stand the test of time.

verisimi 4y ago
The scientific method is great, but TRUST has nothing to do with it. That's the point! The method is about being able to verify things for yourself. So, what info have you verified personally? Any at all? For myself, I have heard the claims of water rising, hot summers, etc and cannot see anything different or exceptional. I can verify nothing. Perhaps you are unaware of the replication crisis, where 70% of studies cannot be replicated, even by the authors. Perhaps you are also unaware of what I think is the 'funding crisis', where funds for science are given out by the government, corporations and the military. This triumvirate work together, you see this in technology quite clearly, eg Google was funded by inqtel, and hands over data to the government. Given the above, do you think it is possible that the governance system we have (corporations and government, aka fascism) works together to create narratives that better support their agenda? Do you see how climate change is supportive of technocracy, and plans to hand over fine-grained control of all resources to nameless bureaucrats? The trick is to get people to cheer for this, and that is what climate change is for. Most of us, on the basis of no evidence we can see, will cheer as we lose access to cars, pay more in taxes, are unable to travel, cannot visit distant places, live in small, densely-packed urban areas, as NGOs (billionaire foundations) take control of the world's resources, etc, etc. PS those quotes are true and verifiable. They have told us what is planned.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  It's not feasible for any individual to go out there and verify every scientific claim for themselves but I'm satisfied that scientists are out there doing so all the time. No doubt many of the more specific hypotheses around exact sensitivities or likely glacial melting patterns will turn out to be overturned and replaced with better ones. The economic forecasts of the effects of warming temperatures/ higher sea levels I definitely take with a large grain of salt, and there may well be cases it makes more sense to wait until better technologies are developed before going all out with what we have now, but we've known enough for quite long enough (multiple decades) that it's absurd to continue claiming we should do nothing at all about reducing emissions just in case current scientific understanding gets overturned.