posted 04-02-2001 05:14 PM
Global warming in the light of the
I've been thinking about G.W. Bush's
withdrawal from the Kyoto Accords in
light of the existence of the chemtrail
coverup. I conclude that Bush did the
right thing -- although I would never have
expected it given what I think I know
of his origins.
Global warming started as a political movement to serve the ends of zero-growth (i.e. zero-competition for transnational corporations and the money lords) advocates and of those who would control the world's weather and pollute the world's atmosphere and, therefore, stand in need of a serviceable cover story and scapegoat for all of the environmental, economic, and social harm their manipulations would cause.
Its source is the "experts," not the scientists; the foundations, the grants, and the funded chairs; not disinterested basic science.
As a lobbying and public relations disinformation effort it was born in 1988 when James E. Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, located at 112th and Broadway in New York! was called by Senator Timothy Wirth and other stooges in Congress, given, on the morning of June 23, the honor of giving the first testimony of the day, to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, before a gallery unusually filled with reporters. (Note: This committee exists for the Establishment to regulate competition, by imposing regulations that corporations can live with (by moving to China) but small businesses cannot -- it has nothing to do with protection of the environment or conservation of scarce resources -- although these latter goals are appealed to in the quest for public support for the Establishment anti-competition agenda.)
The press walked out with their stories as soon as Hansen
uttered the words "it is already happening now." (Although his speech was 100 percent biased selection of data and statistical fitting, e.g., "four of the warmest years of the last 130 years occurred in the 1980's" -- four out of how many? the 10 hottest? out of thirteen decades? junk statistics for the ignorant masses and the reporters who would pump it to them.)
As Michael Oppenheimer, the establishmentarian atmospheric scientist of that great family of many generations of communists (and one famous knowing atomic espionage enabler), who also testified that day, told a Times reporter two months later: "I've never seen an environmental issue = mature so quickly, shifting from science (!) to the policy realm almost overnight."
Oh, the power of money.
At any rate, CNN/Time have gone around phoning the hairdressers, social workers, day-care providers, bar tenders, and phone sales workers (among others) to recapture the back echo of their 13 years of media barrage of global warming junk-science special-interest propagandizing.
1,025 adults were polled. The exact polling instrument (the questions and the statements leading to the questions) have not been disclosed. (There is not government agency or independent polling organization that certifies the scientific soundness of polling design, to ensure the polls that pull our herd instincts have not been loaded, FYI.)
And so 3/4 "of Americans" consider global warming a serious problem. (Hey, George W. Bush, does that scare the hell out of you? It was meant to. It was designed to. I hope you will ignore it. We all should.)
And guess what else: 2/3 "of Americans" also feel there should be a plan to reduce the emission of green house gasses (i.e., carbon dioxide, what plants breath) because it may contribute to global warming. (When life first formed on the earth the entire atmosphere was carbon dioxide and atmospheric oxygen did not exist; blue algae exhaled/liberated the oxygen
we breath today. The issue is complex, those who make it so simple and so catastrophic-sounding do so for disingenuous reasons -- or because they are naive college students who believe because they can't imagine evil that would concoct such lies.)
Do you doubt my interpretation of what is going on. Then consider the final CNN/Time "result": 1/2 "of Americans" are willing to pay $.25 more per gallon for gasoline if it will reduce "pollution" and "global warming." (Why focus on THAT particular specific "remedy" and no others.)
What moral hazzard, what a setup for corruption, for the same elite few who own the oil companies and the media and the pollsters and the "establishment science" institutions etc. to be able to frame the "crisis" issues and frame the opinon "of Americans" about the sacrifices we all must make.
Do you think oil companies and investment bankers conservationists and environmental scientists run this country?
Do you think global warming is an issue that has come from science and then to the people and then up to the people's legislators? (If you do, then tell us why concern for the "chemtrails" that are covering the skies with particles and darkness and are influencing our weather are not able to get one tiny speck of attention in Congress or the mainstream media?)
Or do you think that global warming is a propaganda disinformation operation to make people accept regulation and price increases they otherwise would never accept?
I want to hear from anyone on this. Remember, CNN and Time have already spoken for Americans and Congressmen have limited time for letters and e-mails from a single voter --if the "filtering" Ivy-League
staffers would let him see it.
Every man is responsible to every other man.