The Obama Deception HQ Full Length Version
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
You will listen to me and give up your conspiracy crap?
If you havent tried, how do you know?
I do not believe I've been the type of forumer that hurled personal insults instead of engaging in discussion.
Its not a matter of who listening to who. If you have a valid basis to conclude that I'm incorrect, then of course I should acknowledge that I'm wrong. And likewise, the same applies for you.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
If you have a valid basis to conclude that I'm incorrect, then of course I should acknowledge that I'm wrong. And likewise, the same applies for you.
Okay.
We'll see how this goes.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
And how do you know I'm like that? "Angry at the world, angry at bullshit state media for reporting rubbish." Thats your own description of yourself which I don't see how you could associate it with me. I'm rather insulted to be described like that; shows shallowness and lack of understanding.
I'll address the topics that you brought up 1 at a time.
One world government- Although this has been called a favourite of "conspiracy theorists" for a long time, this is becoming more mainstream as the financial system begins to fail. We are hearing a lot about a global currency, more regulatory powers concentrated with the UN; in other words, a reshaping of the world into a new world order. Even the term used by the mainstream media is the same as the one being used by so-called "conspiracy theorists". Back then, it was called a "conspiracy theory" because probably the public wasnt supposed to take it seriously. But today, you'll find the situation is different. We are being conditioned to accept these changes by constant exposure by the media.
Illuminati- I don't care about discussions about this because I find it irrelevant to events in the world, perhaps because I know too little about it. But as historical records can show, there was indeed an organisation called the Illuminati founded in 1776 in Germany that recognised that only those enlightened with knowledge had the right to govern others. It existed then, in the 18th Century before being disbanded by the Bavarian government. Today, I feel its an injustice to constantly associate this organisation, which existed then, not now, with political events that impact the world we live in.
Fake Cold War- Obviously the diplomatic tensions between the US and its allies and those of the Soviet Union's happened. However, there're many inconsistencies when the economic relationship between those two are examined, for instance, as author Antony Sutton describes, the US, using western corporations, built up and sustained the military-industrial complex of the USSR throughout the Cold War. Unless you can successfully demonstrate Sutton is a fraud, I don't see how you can reasonably condemn this topic as a "conspiracy theory" and "nonsense".
CFR, TC and Bilderberg control- Let me quote from the president of the CFR, himself former Director of Policy and Planning in the US State Department. He wrote in "The Role of Think-tanks in US Foreign Policy" (Nov 2002) that "Of the many influences on US foreign policy formulation, the role of think tanks is among the most important and least appreciated." He then goes on to state that "In addition to supplying experts for incoming administrations, think-tanks provide departing officials with institutional settings in which they can share insights gleaned from government service, remained engaged in pressing foreign policy debates, and constitute an informal shadow foreign affairs establishment."
In other words, he is implying that foreign policy could be monopolised by people of similar ideology without having to be elected. All that is needed is that they come from similar so-called academic environments such as think-tanks like the CFR, TC etc. And as The Obama Deception chronicles, the Obama Adminstrations, like others before it, does have an exceptional number of staffers coming from these think-tanks.
If a person in such a position as Richard Haas's can acknowledge that, all the more it makes people like you seem rather immature in refusing to accept such a reality of politics.
Furthermore, Hiliary Clinton, herself a member of the CFR, made a revealing comment when addressing the CFR when she stated, "We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."
As for the Bilderberg Group, what do you think of a meeting that gathers the world's 150 most influential people in the political and corporate world in a abnormally secured hotel that bars media access? I don't suppose you know a lot about this group, but neither do I. But people like Jim Tucker and Daniel Estulin should know. They've spent decades on the trail of these elites. In comparison, what do you know about the Bilderberg Group?
Understanding these issues does not mean one hates Americans. Thats demonstrates that you have an extremely poor understanding of such issues because the Americans are also suffering tremendously. Knowing about all these distortions does nothing at all, standing by a solution is a totally different thing, which is why I advocate the direction of The Venus Project, promoted in Zeitgeist Addendum.
Ok. So what do you disagree with and why?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Ok. So what do you disagree with and why?
Hold on hold on, not so fast.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Whether or not global warming is genuine, the point mentioned in the film is that this crisis is being used to further concentrate financial and political power into the hands of the corporate elite by destroying whatever financial independence the middle class still has.
However, in 2007 National Geographic reported that Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming. And recently, The New Scientist featured an article where they reported that World's climate could cool first, warm later. Even if there is a real crisis, there're plenty of ways of solving it instead of using it as a pretext to pursue other political and economic objectives.
I don't think the US is rejecting the notion of global warming anymore with the passage of global warming-related legislature. The idea of "saving the planet" is steadily gaining acceptance in US politics, especially from the Obama Administration.
Not only would so-called 'save the Earth' taxes not solve the problem, but its going to drive the American people deeper into debt and further enrich the corporatocracy. It is interesting to note that Obama's science advisor advocated a zero economic growth policy in the 1970s and wanted to de-develop the US, which is exactly what a carbon emission regulating bill would do.
I see a return to feudalism and autocracy as frankly the more desired outcome considering the mess we are in now. The human race have survived for thousands of years under that system before i don't see why we won't be doing it again.As humans and as social animals we live under the thumb of one person or the other, that has always been how social dynamics have always worked. Either we are the wolf or we are the sheep, removing the "corporatocracy" in the end is only the equivalent of removing a cancerous growth, it would still grow in another form even in the ideal world of the Venus Project.
We are nothing more than fleas on this ball of water called Earth, life would still continue even if the world warms up another 5 or 10 degrees. But the slight movement of a few degrees in either direction would cause devastating effects for humans, especially when the system is already at its maximum with our population numbers.
Global warming isn't just a blanket increase of global temperature, it is a disruption of what we consider to be the natural cycle of global phenomenons. It means longer dry periods and heavier monsoons. It means more severe droughts and floods. It means a severe disruption of the food chain that keeps 7 billion people fed and clothed. Even a minor disruption of a few weeks could cause the death of millions.
Complain all you want about our political system, we are still considered the richer minority of the world population, we can still continue to buy food from countries who would let their poor die so that their leadership could enrich themselves. But by the time we start feeling the squeeze, there would be no turning back and no reset button.
This derailing of the efforts to control global warming as another attempt of "elites" to cheat money is a distraction with potential horrific consequences. It is written by people who has never done a decent day of hard work and live as the most comfortable 5% of the human race, who consume more resources on average than anyone of us outside of the USA.
The global elites as you call them requires business as usual in order to maintain their dominance while part of the efforts to stop global warming is an attempt to reduce consumption. Why in the world do you think America has been so against the Kyoto Protocols?
This constant barrage of global warming denials, if one simply use common sense would benefit the "global elites" far more. In their attempts to fight these "global elites", these fools have ended up fighting the war for the elites.
-
No doubt we shouldn't trust every single information that we read on the net .
However, Alex Jones has always been challenging those who has doubt on his finding to check on his sources but how many of you (the disbelief) actually bother ?
On the other hand, does that mean we have to trust every single piece of information that is on CNN BBC etc ? Same arugment.
-
Originally posted by milk_teh:
No doubt we shouldn't trust every single information that we read on the net .
However, Alex Jones has always been challenging those who has doubt on his finding to check on his sources but how many of you (the disbelief) actually bother ?
On the other hand, does that mean we have to trust every single piece of information that is on CNN BBC etc ? Same arugment.
I don't dispute the authencity of his information, his conclusion however...
-
Originally posted by milk_teh:
No doubt we shouldn't trust every single information that we read on the net .
However, Alex Jones has always been challenging those who has doubt on his finding to check on his sources but how many of you (the disbelief) actually bother ?
On the other hand, does that mean we have to trust every single piece of information that is on CNN BBC etc ? Same arugment.
You seen too few conspiracy videos.
-
Originally posted by milk_teh:
No doubt we shouldn't trust every single information that we read on the net .
However, Alex Jones has always been challenging those who has doubt on his finding to check on his sources but how many of you (the disbelief) actually bother ?
On the other hand, does that mean we have to trust every single piece of information that is on CNN BBC etc ? Same arugment.
nobody ask u to trust the net, as for cable news, the one who get the latest news, tends to be in the forefront, for us, you read it, believe it or not is another issue, whether it is alex or obama or Lky talking,..u do your analysis ya. -
Originally posted by angel3070:
You seen too few conspiracy videos.
The amount of videos that you have watched doesn't carry any significants to the argument , more importantly use your common sense / logic .
Check your sources and present the facts if you're so damn sure you're right.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
nobody ask u to trust the net, as for cable news, the one who get the latest news, tends to be in the forefront, for us, you read it, believe it or not is another issue, whether it is alex or obama or Lky talking,..u do your analysis ya.Above ^
-
Originally posted by milk_teh:
Above ^
Above is the sky -
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I see a return to feudalism and autocracy as frankly the more desired outcome considering the mess we are in now. The human race have survived for thousands of years under that system before i don't see why we won't be doing it again.As humans and as social animals we live under the thumb of one person or the other, that has always been how social dynamics have always worked. Either we are the wolf or we are the sheep, removing the "corporatocracy" in the end is only the equivalent of removing a cancerous growth, it would still grow in another form even in the ideal world of the Venus Project.
We are nothing more than fleas on this ball of water called Earth, life would still continue even if the world warms up another 5 or 10 degrees. But the slight movement of a few degrees in either direction would cause devastating effects for humans, especially when the system is already at its maximum with our population numbers.
Global warming isn't just a blanket increase of global temperature, it is a disruption of what we consider to be the natural cycle of global phenomenons. It means longer dry periods and heavier monsoons. It means more severe droughts and floods. It means a severe disruption of the food chain that keeps 7 billion people fed and clothed. Even a minor disruption of a few weeks could cause the death of millions.
Complain all you want about our political system, we are still considered the richer minority of the world population, we can still continue to buy food from countries who would let their poor die so that their leadership could enrich themselves. But by the time we start feeling the squeeze, there would be no turning back and no reset button.
This derailing of the efforts to control global warming as another attempt of "elites" to cheat money is a distraction with potential horrific consequences. It is written by people who has never done a decent day of hard work and live as the most comfortable 5% of the human race, who consume more resources on average than anyone of us outside of the USA.
The global elites as you call them requires business as usual in order to maintain their dominance while part of the efforts to stop global warming is an attempt to reduce consumption. Why in the world do you think America has been so against the Kyoto Protocols?
This constant barrage of global warming denials, if one simply use common sense would benefit the "global elites" far more. In their attempts to fight these "global elites", these fools have ended up fighting the war for the elites.
Extrapolating the situation of society today as consisting of rulers and the ruled is similar to how Malthus extrapolated how food production would not keep up with the rise in population. It has no bearing on reality. This mentality simply limits one's possibilities of the future. Society, like context, is changing all the time.
I agree with you that removing the corporatocracy wouldn't help but corporate corruption and collusion isn't the root problem in the first place. It is merely a symptom of a larger problem, which in a TVP world would have no basis, because the root problem being a monetary system, would have been abolished.
That aside, do you consider global warming deniers the equivalent of holocaust-deniers? But I'm not saying that global warming is or isn't genuine, that isn't my point, though based on my information, it is part of a natural progression.
What I'm focusing on is that efforts at curbing global warming have been hijacked in order to further the interests of the corporatocracy. The Obama cap-and-trade bill (who says the US Gov. is still skeptical about global warming?), far from promoting the protection of the environment is all about enriching vested interests such as the energy industry, relaxing energy standards, putting more financial burdens on Americans and creating another speculative bubble for the banking corporatocracy.
And why this fixation on the Kyoto Protocol when it is totally irrelevant when it comes to solving so-called "climate change" [note the dropping of "global warming"]. Back in 2006, 60 scientists with backgrounds in environmental sciences wrote an open letter to the Canadian PM Stephen Harper in which they stated:
"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant.
...
The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
...
However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" [Only MSM-generated consensus] among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next."
In fact, even if Kyoto was implemented, it would only alleviate 0.06 degrees of the projecting warming, with the consequence of much unnecessary economic pain. That reminds me of a documentary on global warming, I think it was The Great Global Warming Swindle, where this demonising of fossil fuels is aggravating poverty in the Third World. If the developed world can't even become energy-independent, then how can the so-called environmentalist expect some Third World country to industrialise with the help of renewables?
In any case, if the efforts to combat this "climate change" were genuine, wouldn't we see proposals that would put renewable energy sources with huge potential such as solar, wind, tidal, wave and geothermal energy at the forefront instead of measures which would largely result in profits for vested interest with environmental protection being a side-effect?
"Geothermal aside, Solar, Wind, Wave and Tidal energy sources also offer powerful possibilities if harnessed efficiently with technology. The solar radiation striking the Earth's surface each year is more than 10,000 times the world's energy use. The problem then is not availability - it is the technology to harness it most efficiently. From simple photovoltaic panels that can capture energy into storage batteries for private use, to full scale solar power plants, new technology is constantly emerging which is improving this potential. Wind power, while often denounced as weak and impractical, is a lot more powerful than most people think. U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind harvested in the Great Plains states of Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota could provide enough electricity to power the entire nation. More impressively, a 2005 Stanford University study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that if only 20% of the wind potential on the planet was harnessed, it would cover the entire world’s energy needs. And then there is Tidal and Wave Power. Tidal Power is derived from tidal shifts in the ocean. Installing turbines, which capture this movement, generates energy. Tapping the flow of the Gulf Stream, Icelandic current and other underwater currents can be harnessed. In the United Kingdom, 42 sites are currently noted as available, forecasting that 34% of all the UK’s energy could come from Tidal Power alone. More effectively, Wave Power, which extracts energy from the surface motions of the ocean, is estimated to have a global potential of up to 80,000 TWH a year. This means 50% of the entire planet’s energy usage could be produced from this single medium."
- TZM Activist Orientation Guide
My issue isn't with the reality of "climate change"; the climate is always changing. My issue is with the hijacking of this emotionally-charged topic to promote non-environmental causes.
On that note, I'll quote from one of George Carlin's stand-ups. Coming from a social scientist and comedian, I think this is rather profound:
"We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?
I’m getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I’m tired of fucking Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that."
-
Obama is not God, Obama is a HUMAN BEING
and HE WILL make mistake
GOSH! bunch of babies whiner americans. always wanting to make ppl wipe their ass, but nv wanting to wipe their ass themselves.
go sit in a freaking chrysler, and sit in a freaking toyota.
they will tell you NO chrysler is better cause is a US company before even sitting in one.
-
George Carlin is a funny guy:
GEORGE CARLIN on Homelessness and Golf
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Extrapolating the situation of society today as consisting of rulers and the ruled is similar to how Malthus extrapolated how food production would not keep up with the rise in population. It has no bearing on reality. This mentality simply limits one's possibilities of the future. Society, like context, is changing all the time.
I agree with you that removing the corporatocracy wouldn't help but corporate corruption and collusion isn't the root problem in the first place. It is merely a symptom of a larger problem, which in a TVP world would have no basis, because the root problem being a monetary system, would have been abolished.
That aside, do you consider global warming deniers the equivalent of holocaust-deniers? But I'm not saying that global warming is or isn't genuine, that isn't my point, though based on my information, it is part of a natural progression.
What I'm focusing on is that efforts at curbing global warming have been hijacked in order to further the interests of the corporatocracy. The Obama cap-and-trade bill (who says the US Gov. is still skeptical about global warming?), far from promoting the protection of the environment is all about enriching vested interests such as the energy industry, relaxing energy standards, putting more financial burdens on Americans and creating another speculative bubble for the banking corporatocracy.
And why this fixation on the Kyoto Protocol when it is totally irrelevant when it comes to solving so-called "climate change" [note the dropping of "global warming"]. Back in 2006, 60 scientists with backgrounds in environmental sciences wrote an open letter to the Canadian PM Stephen Harper in which they stated:
"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant.
...
The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
...
However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" [Only MSM-generated consensus] among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next."
In fact, even if Kyoto was implemented, it would only alleviate 0.06 degrees of the projecting warming, with the consequence of much unnecessary economic pain. That reminds me of a documentary on global warming, I think it was The Great Global Warming Swindle, where this demonising of fossil fuels is aggravating poverty in the Third World. If the developed world can't even become energy-independent, then how can the so-called environmentalist expect some Third World country to industrialise with the help of renewables?
In any case, if the efforts to combat this "climate change" were genuine, wouldn't we see proposals that would put renewable energy sources with huge potential such as solar, wind, tidal, wave and geothermal energy at the forefront instead of measures which would largely result in profits for vested interest with environmental protection being a side-effect?
"Geothermal aside, Solar, Wind, Wave and Tidal energy sources also offer powerful possibilities if harnessed efficiently with technology. The solar radiation striking the Earth's surface each year is more than 10,000 times the world's energy use. The problem then is not availability - it is the technology to harness it most efficiently. From simple photovoltaic panels that can capture energy into storage batteries for private use, to full scale solar power plants, new technology is constantly emerging which is improving this potential. Wind power, while often denounced as weak and impractical, is a lot more powerful than most people think. U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind harvested in the Great Plains states of Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota could provide enough electricity to power the entire nation. More impressively, a 2005 Stanford University study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that if only 20% of the wind potential on the planet was harnessed, it would cover the entire world’s energy needs. And then there is Tidal and Wave Power. Tidal Power is derived from tidal shifts in the ocean. Installing turbines, which capture this movement, generates energy. Tapping the flow of the Gulf Stream, Icelandic current and other underwater currents can be harnessed. In the United Kingdom, 42 sites are currently noted as available, forecasting that 34% of all the UK’s energy could come from Tidal Power alone. More effectively, Wave Power, which extracts energy from the surface motions of the ocean, is estimated to have a global potential of up to 80,000 TWH a year. This means 50% of the entire planet’s energy usage could be produced from this single medium."
- TZM Activist Orientation Guide
My issue isn't with the reality of "climate change"; the climate is always changing. My issue is with the hijacking of this emotionally-charged topic to promote non-environmental causes.
On that note, I'll quote from one of George Carlin's stand-ups. Coming from a social scientist and comedian, I think this is rather profound:
"We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?
I’m getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I’m tired of fucking Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that."
Fine, party on then.It seems you don't mind that letting the car crash as long as it is you behind the wheels.
I don't intend to have children, i won't have any stakes anyhow.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Fine, party on then.It seems you don't mind that letting the car crash as long as it is you behind the wheels.
I don't intend to have children, i won't have any stakes anyhow.
That wasn't my point. I also acknowledge that our levels of consumption and reliance on fossil fuels isn't contributing to human progress, with or without global warming. The problem is that the present so-called 'solutions' aren't going to solve any warming if any, at all.
I believe my earlier post has shown that this warming, if it is happening, could be easily averted, not to mention, the whole problem of energy independence.