John Kerry just said Global Warming is a threat to National Security.

The climate is always changing. It didn't begin with pollution or the plundering of the earth. It has been going on for as long as the earth has been in existence.

 

They already do through UNESCO. Several of this country's biggest parks have been designated 'World Heritage Sites' under the control of the United Nations.

Also, if you look at the UN biodiversity map, you see how much land is also set aside as UN biosphere sites. This all ties in with what's outlined in Agenda 21.

It has nothing to do with the environment, but controlling the land. Now there is a push on by people like Maurice Strong and Ted Turner to grab up all the water rights in the US and Canada.

 

Pollution is causing the climate to change. You can ask any respected environmentalist, scientist, and decent human being. You even acknowledge that. The manipulation of the weather is possible, so what makes you think pollution isn't causing direct changes to the climate, eh?

The calculations and data are all there.

The hole in the ozone layer bigger than the size of Antarctica is melting ice and confusing bird migration patterns.

Why am I having this conversation? If you strongly believe in your heart and in your head that pollution has no ill effects on the environment and the planet that we live on, including weather conditions and trends in our biospheres, then you are someone who is very, very locked in.

There were never holes in the ozone until we polluted the skies. There was never acid rain until we polluted the water. Climate change and environmental degradation are occurring at an alarming and accelerated rate.

 

Yes, acid rain is caused by pollution. It also toxifies the air we breathe and the water we drink. This is why it's bad. It causes cancer and makes people and animals sick. This is common knowledge. But the idea that it's causing climate change (ie. global warming) has not been proven. It's simply the fear-mongering put out by the Al Gore crowd and the foundation-funded scientists of the United Nations, which have been refuted by some of the biggest, most well-recognized climatologists in the world.

I have already stated in the past that pollition IS BAD for the aforementioned reasons, but because of your lack of attention span, you went into attack mode and made accusations regarding things I never said.

THINK instead of REACT. It's not that difficult.

 

But what if it does? Then we're screwed. That's the whole point. Reducing CO2 emissions is like getting insurance. Even McCain was on board.

 

Don't talk to me like that.

Where did I make accusations?

 

And why wouldn't McCain be on board? He is part of the same establishment that's pushing this nonsense. McCain is a total joke.

What if?? C'mon now. This is being pushed by bureaucrats who have made their agenda painfully clear to those who are awake and know what's going on. If these people told you that you had to cut your fingers off to save the earth, would you do it simply because that's what they told you?

I make it clear that there are many REAL environmental concerns, but the CO2 that plants breathe is not one of them.

 

.................

 

You seem to be the one who has reacted before thinking. I see a question followed by a conditional sentence.

You seem to think that pollution has an effect on the environment but disclude any effects pollution has on weather conditions and climate. This is a very narrow mind set, let's be honest.

 

CO2 levels are now much higher than they've been for the last 500,000 years due to our emmisions. This conclusion is based on reliable ice core samples. What makes you believe it will have no effect? It's pretty clear cut.

CO2 is good for plants? Plants depend on water, sun and nitrogen for nearly all their growth. CO2 isn't really a factor.

 

Not if you've done the research and have looked at all the evidence. Yes, I do believe that aerosols can and do have some affect on the climate, but I don't believe in this notion that global warming is caused by C02. (Plus, a lot of the scientific evidence I am looking at points to earth entering a COOLING period.) I believe that, for the most part, climate change is an ongoing and cyclical process. The popular belief of "climate change" is based on a couple hundred years of studying the weather and climate patterns, when the earth is billions of years old.

Anyway, you accused me in an indirect way by inferring that I believe that pollution is harmless. Same thing as far as I am concerned. I don't think pollution is harmless. I think it's a real problem, as is deforestation, overfishing, among others.

 

I'm sorry. I was under the impression for the most part that you believe that any and all climate change was a hoax and pollution has little effect on the earth, that its resources are plenty and abundant. I must have been thinking about a previous discussion and another matter altogether.

 

C02 levels have been MUCH HIGHER in the past than they are now, and according to ice core samples, this was during periods when the earth was considerably cooler than it is now. This more than anything disproves the idea of C02-influenced climate change.

There seems to be no real correlation with CO2 and temperature increase. As a matter of fact, ice core sample show that C02 levels lag behind temperature increase by 800 years.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

 

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Climate debate far from over, claim senators

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3319753/Climate-debate-far-from-over,-claim-senators.html

 

You are right that CO2 levels were much higher millions of years, but during that time the sun was 30% dimmer so they equaled eachother out. Ice core samples only go back 600,000 years. Here's the chart of the ice core sample data. As you can see the CO2 levels peak at around 280 ppm. They're now at 385 ppm It's pretty self explanatory.

 

you obviously didnt thoroughly read the content of the site because these "proposals" are not,they are signed agreements and questions you are asking were answered there..

i really see no reason to continue this any further as its obvious you are not willing to fully research your arguments.. if you did youd see you dont have one..

 

the site i referenced is the most detailed LEGITIMATE site i know of on the subject rat.it has all the above information in it.the fact is he is not willing to research his arguement because if he did he would see he doesnt have one.
as i said before.he wants to assume its just conspiracy talk and wont take the time to see its not.

dont waste your time,he wishes to remain blind to the truth so he can accuse us of being conspiracy nuts and stroke his own ego.

 

I read and skimmed the site fairly well, the site is 14 pages of environmental bills and proposals having to due with Agenda 21 and World Heritage so what did I miss here?

The World Heritage Convention was signed by the United States and adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization on November 16, 1972. The purpose of the convention is to establish "an effective system of collective protection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value" currently referred to as "global commons." In 1995 there were 469 cultural and natural sites designated in 105 countries around the world, of which 20 are found in the United States.

So this “evil global environmental organization” has management say in 20 U.S. parks, So how is this going to take away land owner ship for all of the U.S.?

I just don’t see where a participation in this global environmental program will make the U.S. lose privite landownership rights.

So this goes from 20 parks that have partnership in a global environmental plain to everyone losing property rights?
That is a bit of a stretch don’t you think.

Quote from-sovereignty.net "One of the biggest rumors being circulated about the USMAB and World Heritage Convention concerns the loss of national sovereignty. Although there is a loss of national sovereignty, the United Nations does not have control over how our parks and forest lands having a MAB or World Heritage (or both) designation are managed."

taken from http://sovereignty.net/p/land/mapmabwh.htm

 

I think Under Control is a deceptive word to apply to a park joining a environmental program. I think it means we keep the parks to the USMAB standards like no strip mines and logging which we already do.
I think this stuff is designed for places like the Amazon basin where people dump mining chemical straight into the rivers.

This sounds like a fear monger rumor to gather position to this plain. Water rights are a hot topic around the parks.

I could imagine there are some deceptive things going on with this, most politics are deceptive and have alternate motives but the “Ultimate agenda” and take away all land ownership rights?

 

way to contradict your own arguement in the same post...:cheers2: