Super Creepy Video!
By: James Burge
January 7th, 2011
So I was perusing the internet the other day and came across this video that describes a super creepy 1984-esque future where only the rich are allowed to eat meat, drive cars, and choose their own career. Its interesting how the same people telling us we aren’t competent to make our own decision regarding these practices, also feel that they should be above the same restrictions they are trying to get us to embrace. What’s good for the goose, doesn’t apply to the gander, cuz the gander is rich. So in order to fight global warming or some crap like that, we all have to give up our freedom to choose our life’s purpose and get “designated career announcements” from the government, if they didn’t control enough of our life already. The video also talks about rationing food, and how far people are allowed to travel. The creepiest part about the video are the companies involved in creating it, mostly banks and oil companies.
Some of its [Forum for the Future] financial backers include Bank of America, the City of London Corporation, PepsiCo UK, Time Warner, and crucially Royal Dutch Shell – which of course is one of the biggest emitters of CO2 on the planet.
But the creepiness doesn’t stop there, for those who aren’t willing to fit their lives inside the lines dictated to them by the elite, they will be able to live in floating prisons, I mean cities, yeah, cities, where you would be denied jobs, high speed transport, and the internet, because they can’t handle it anyway, right.
Super Creepy vid below. Is this the future you want your kids to live in? I know I don’t.
And now for a touch of levety…
By: James Burge
January 5th, 2011
Ok this video is funny, but also true… which is sad.
MIT Proff of Meteorology @ MIT, and Atmospheric Physicist talks of ‘Global Warming’
By: James Burge
November 26th, 2010
Ok I just realized I have been posting a lot of videos lately with almost no commentary on them so I wanted to talk quickly about a video I just came across of an interview with Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, an Atmospheric Physicist and one of the lead authors on the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report.
I wanted to bring some quotes to your attention, but you should catch them if you are going to watch the video.
On the climate change debate:
[They are] “trying to deal with global warming as though the issue was weather the climate ever changes, or weather there is a greenhouse effect or weather man could contribute something to it. None of that is actually in dispute; there is a greenhouse effect, climate always changes, and undoubtedly man can contribute something if the fluttering of a butterfly’s wings could contribute something. The question, as always in science, is how much. If man’s contribution is very little when compared to the normal variability people experience, then there’s not much point in trying to manipulate it because it won’t make much of a difference.”
On the use of Climate models:
“The issue of climate sensitivity is the primary question we are dealing with. […] There are numerous pieces of evidence, some of them quite rigorous, that the current models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity, that in reality it’s very modest. And what we are dealing with is the potential effect over the next century or so of ½ a degree, and there is no evidence whatever that this is associated with catastrophe”
“In general, […] using models, especially models that don’t test out very well to predict long into the future beyond the time scale which they function does not seem wise. […] What isn’t realized is, the models are quite similar to each other and their agreement on climate sensitivity within a broad range hardly proves anything. It depends on rather delicate feedbacks and primarily on feedbacks from clouds and even the IPCC acknowledges that we are virtually ignorant of clouds and the models do a very bad job of them. So if you understand how the feedbacks function, that statement is tantamount to the statement that the models cannot be used to predict climate.”
On the idea of a ‘tipping point’:
“It is almost unheard of to have a natural system that when you perturb it, it tries to make the perturbation worse. That would say the earth system was ‘sick’ from the origin, 4.5 billion years ago, and it doesn’t seem like it would have made it this long if that were true.”
On who is keeping the ‘crisis’ alive:
“[F]or a lot of people including the bureaucracy in government [...] the issue is power. It is hard to imagine a better leverage point than C02 to assume control over a society. [...] [I]t is essential to the production of energy, it is essential to breathing. It’s a point, if you demonize it and gain control of it, you so to speak control everything. That’s attractive to people.”
“There are those that are committed to it because they stand to profit from it”
Not sure I could have said it better myself. (video below)
Evidence of Cover-up… literally
By: James Burge
July 19th, 2010
No more Oysters, at least not for now…
By: James Burge
July 9th, 2010
What will future generations think?
By: James Burge
May 10th, 2010
After watching the short video below I am struck with a question. What will future generations think? About our lack of care for the environment, about our exploitation of developing nations, or about our apparent inaction when faced with evidence of Corporate Looting of both the Environment and the Economy. I have to say that ours is a generation that will be measured by our failure to properly place the environment and its effects on the livelihood of millions, ahead of the profits available to those corporations in the third world, where environmental regulations don’t exist. Why is it that American corporations working abroad aren’t subject to the same regulations as they are domestically? And Why haven’t they been taken to task regarding the blatant damage done? How can we expect our world to survive us when we continue to dump toxic chemicals into the water? How can we expect humans to survive in these toxic conditions? Have we already doomed humanity to extinction? Only time will tell.
CO2 helps plants grow… interesting
By: James Burge
April 27th, 2010
This video is for anyone still worried about CO2 levels on plants and photosynthesis. Turns out, like most things in nature, natural buffers exist, that would increase the amount of CO2 plants can process given an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Looks like we should all feel guilty and allow governments the ability to further tax us in order to relieve our guilt, instead of trying to change our habits. Oh wait, strike that reverse it. Globalists everywhere are taking advantage of people’s good nature and attempting through various means, to implement carbon taxes on us all. So what does that mean exactly? Well no one is really sure, cuz most politicians keep info on carbon taxes fairly close, but it seems that whatever they could get away with is alright with them. It seems the framework for carbon taxes would be on a usage basis, punishing anyone who uses fossil fuels, like the majority of the North American Population, as opposed to rewards, or tax breaks for those who choose to participate in green activities. This is the simple difference between positive and negative reinforcement, a lesson governments seem unwilling to learn (see US greatest population incarcerated). They don’t seem interested in the fact that water is the most abundant greenhouse gas, or that warming periods are not new to earth, just new to us. They also seem to forget that the developing world is much worse when it comes to emissions due to low technology coal plants and offers the greatest opportunity for CO2 level reduction by helping developed nations develop clean energy, there is no money in that. There is also the fact that carbon taxes on industry will only make produces such as gasoline more expensive as they trickle down to the consumer. The other thing they don’t tend to reveal, is what the money generated by carbon taxes would be used for. If governments are not forced to use this money on environmental issues then why pose it in such a matter as to punish those seen as gluttonous. Why not be honest, governments are broke (especially the US, wonder why?) and they need a new source of revenue. Canada just gave up 2% of its GST, how long do you think the government will go before finding newer more creative ways to punish, I mean tax the population. In a time when most people are trying their best to live within their means, globalists are trying to reduce those means as much as they can in any way they can and the carbon tax seems to fit the bill. So when does my bill come? Soon enough.
The video below outlines something else they don’t really want you to know, but it’s got me thinking of how I could get away with doing this to my garden.
