Global Warming Nonsense

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Global Warming Nonsense

Post  Shelby on Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:20 am

The Great Global Warming Swindle (watch all 9 parts)

I wrote the following on May 26, 2007

This information is too important, and most people are unaware of it. I was aware of this BBC video months ago, but I never got around to watching it, because I am too busy.

The main points of the video are:

1) C02 does not cause global warming, rather warming causes C02 to rise.

2) In same charts used by Al Gore (over any long enough time period), it can be seen that C02 increase lags warming by 800 years. (no correlation)

3) Whereas, in chart of sun spot activity, there is a extremely high correlation to earth temperature change, without any significant lag. In fact, when warming cooled from 1940 to 1970 (as human C02 was rising), sun spot activity decreased. There are many examples in any period in history, which show temperature correlates to sun spot activity, not to C02. C02 does rise when temperature rises, but 800 years later. So short-term (less than 800 years) changes in temperature have no correlation to C02. Thus C02 does not cause warming, rather is a slow effect from it (slow because the oceans are big and take a long time to warm up if atmosphere is warmer).

4) Sun spots cause global warming due to directing the cosmic winds away from earth, which reduces the formation of clouds, as clouds form when rising water vapor meets incoming cosmic particles.

5) C02 is like a grain of sand in the atmosphere compared to the main greenhouse gas, which is water vapor. Annual human activity production of C02 is a grain of sand, compared to annual release of C02 from oceans. Oceans release more C02 when climate warms (but on an 800 year lag). Thus drastic increases in human C02 production are infinitesimally irrelevant to warming and greenhouse atmosphere.

6) The UK government of Thacher bribed the Royal Society (scientists) to develop a theory of global warming related to C02, as Thacher was about to be driven out of office by discontented coal miner unions (why were they on...).

7) The IPCC was created during Thacher's time, and the recent IPCC report which "ended all debate" had the names of 2500 scientists, many of whom are not even scientists in the field, and many of the real experts in the field wanted their names removed from the report, when they saw that their dissenting research was excluded from the final report. Only a few scientists have gone to the extreme of suing in court to get their names removed (probably most can't afford it).

7) Over time, the mass media has been able to get people to MISassociate their discontent with their lives in general, with modernization, industrialization, and thus erroneously with C02. In other words, people are not happy ( on...) and people don't know why they are unhappy, so the mass media has given them a false answer.

Now I will add my own points:

Government wants to eliminate dispersed forms of energy, to force the world towards nuclear energy, so that government can centralize the control of energy. The more efficient (less people involved), the less dispersed the source (nuclear fuel is highly compact and enough can be stored for decades or even centuries), thus the less power people have over their access to energy and thus the less power people have over the government. Because without energy, we can not even transport food to market, and thus food rots and people can starve to death. We have seen this often in Africa, where access to food is the problem, not the ability to grow food.

I will assert right now, that is wrong about global warming, and he is playing right into the plans of BIG government to stockpile decades worth of uranium to enslave us. If Dines is worth his reputation, then he will take notice of this immediately. PLEASE BOMBARD HIM WITH THIS POST. He has blocked my email address. Dines specifically lead us into large cap gold & silver companies (away from bullion and small caps) and into uranium instead. I now assert that Dines is (maybe unknowingly) working for the cabal and the continuation of usury system.

9) Oil is a problem for the bankers. Always has been difficult for them to control, because it is too plentiful and it exists every where. It even bubbles from the ground. They tried to control it by moving us to refined gas, instead kerosene or diesel. They tried to use wars to control it. Use religion to control it. Etc. They are very scared of oil, which is why they create stupid Peak Oil lies. They try to force the oil rich countries to their control, or create havoc in the oil countries to make their production fail.

10) Democracy is a lie. Goverment means "control" in the dictionary. Our use of debt transfer power (our wealth) to the bankers, who control the printing of the various fake paper monies of the nations (via their semi-secret ownerships of the central banks), which enables the bankers to buy our government. Every politician is in the back pocket of the bankers.

11) People don't understand how use of debt transfers power (wealth) to the bankers. They don't understand that every piece of paper money (even if electronic record) is a debt payable to the central bank, which is controlled by the bankers, because every paper money created is loaned into existence at it's origin. People don't understand that if one group controls the loaning of money into existence, then $1 compounded for 2000 years (modern man) at 3%, is more paper money than exists in entire world, and not just more, but a billion earths worth.

IT IS TIME FOR THIS TO STOP! People need to know they are enslaving themselves! People are you this stupid???? If you are, then as the bankers said at the Bilderberg global meeting, "Stupid Americans, they deserve their fate". Maybe we do. We are stupid!

12) Romantization of primitive life-- tap the core need?

See 8 and 9 of 9 in the Great Global Warming Swindle

I have to admit that I also fell into these traps at one time or another (even recently):

* romantization of primitive life (wishing for a simpler life)
* misassociation of my unhappiness with industrialization
* association of C02 with industrialization

I notice the vast amount of NOISE out there to pull our minds away from the true causes of our discontent.

People are unhappy because they are using debt, which is feeding a vast socialistic, usury system, which then enslaves them and makes them less free (long hours at work, no time for cooking, no time for family, etc).

People are under stress because they fed the usury system for 80+ years. But people don't realize they caused their own morass.

13) C02 follows warming; a lesson in statistical correlation

It is a bit difficult for the untrained eye to see in this chart, because the time scale of this chart is 500,000 years for 5 inches, so 800 years in only 0.00000015 of an inch (we would all be fooled), but still seems I can see that CO2 rises offset slightly to the right of rises in temperature (but I would need to look at the chart zoomed in, I trust the scientists have not lied about their statistical calculations on the data):

Charts like the following are scientifically meaningless, and if you have no training in Probability & Statistical Theory, then you will be fooled. The reason is the Nyquist limit and Aliasing error. It doesn't surprise me that Jason could be fooled by a chart like this, because current Resource Leverage uses Jason's highly aliased concept of valuing companies. I will be improving Resource Leverage to be more scientifically meaningful:

The reason the above chart is meaningless (no correlation), is because the time scale is too short relative to the volatility of the temperature within that time period, the temperature change is too small relative to the temperature change trends in the longer term charts, and the correlation to C02 is too volatile (low correlation confidence). There are statistical measurements called signma (standard deviation), which give you a measurement of your confidence, and I can tell just by looking at the above chart, that there is very high sigma.

In short, the sampling period (window) is too small.

Now as the video showed us, over a longer sampling period, the C02 always lags the temperature change by on avg 800 years. Whereas on this more accurate statistical time periods, the sun spot activity correlates very well (within statistical confidence) to the temperature changes.

Even over the short time period in chart above, the sun spot activity has a much more meaningful correlation (more statistical confidence). Can you see the difference?:

Here is a closeup of one section of long time period where you can see the 800 year lag clearly:

Here is the correlation of sun spot to temperature (two charts) over the past 300 years (well within the lag period for CO2 to temperature) and you can see the correlation is very good:


14) I have verified the 7,000 million tons of carbon released per year by humans, by using the world annual oil consumption, times the carbon per barrel. Also doing a personal calculation and multiplying by # of people living our western lifestyle, also roughly jives. I found another link that agrees that man releases 150 times more carbon than volcanoes.

For me, it makes common sense that volcanos release less carbon than humans, because volcanos are not nearly as numerous and volumenous as compared to all the oil burned. So I agree the video probably made an error here, but it was a minor point (they mentioned in about 15 seconds). But, read on please...

Immediately after mentioning volcanos, the video made the MORE SIGNIFICANT point that the release of C02 from vegetation and animals is MUCH larger than from human activity.

You can also validate the above number by taking total soil carbon and dividing by 300 (as discussed in the link), and I did this from other estimates of soil carbon and seems to jive.

But it is important to realize (similar to Hommel's point about the oceans storing and releasing), that the carbon process on earth is two-way, so although soils release a lot, plants also consume a lot, of C02 (agree the video should have mentioned this and failed to):

So the contention of the C02 theory, is that by burning the carbon stored in the soil, we are accelerating the release of carbon from soils, but the problem with that argument is that we are only releasing 1/21th (5%) of the carbon being released from the soils. The question is that 1/21 (5%) increase, enough to upset some balance on earth, or is the earth more likely influenced by some much stronger outside influence? The fact that C02 is increasing in the atmosphere, does not necessarily mean anything. We must examine what it means, if on please...

I think the video did not mention the complication of plant absorption of carbon, because it is hard to explain to average viewers, that 5% increase in something is a small effect, even if the percentage of the net release is larger than 5%. This is because the more carbon released, the more that plant life is stimulated. So the net increase remains small, perhaps even less than 5%, but no one knows for sure how to measure the earth's feedback system, so it is better we move to the point of whether C02 is causing global warming or not...

...regaring sun spots as "the cause". They may not be the cause either, as this is a relatively new theory that some feel has not accurately predicted the last 10 years..

Even the proponents of the C02 theory, agree that C02 lagged temperature (in fact, I think no bonafide expert disagrees with this), and the concensus appears to be that the sun played a role in the past. They are trying to say it is all different now (yeah right!), so it doesn't matter to me if it is sunspots or it is orbital variance...I will show in a future post how it is illogical that the earth causes sunspots, yet sunspots have correlated very well!

...don't need an alternate theory to prove "manmade CO2 is causing global warming" is false...The issue is really about earth worship...

C02 has lagged temperature through history. Methane has lagged temperature though history. To make them correlate, they have to average out 800-1000 year periods, yet now they want to say everything is different in the last 100 years. How can they make conclusions about 100 years, when they already admit that C02 does not correlate well with temperature if the window is less than 1000 years??

100 years is way below Nyquist. They can't say anything scientifically meaningful until they wait at least 700 - 900 more years! It is all scientific hogwash and they know it!

...One of the movie's best points was that in the past, when the earth was much warmer, when there were vinyards somewhere in London?, England, the earth was more productive economically, and life was easier.

Therefore, even if man could cause global warming, it would probably be a good thing for the entire planet!...

Agreed! More carbon means more plant growth! It means more rain, more life, more activity. The life cycle is carbon based. Ice Ages trap carbon and kill off life (only Asia survives severe Ice Ages).

So why discredit the video. The main points of the video are FACT:

* CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, so changes within the past 100 years are statistically meaningless

* Sun (orbits or sunspots) has been a better correlated change to temperature through history

* Global warming is not a bad effect, the earth has prospered with it.

* There is no evidence whatsoever (nothing statistically revelant as the time window is too small since 1900s, and the 5% increase over soil release is miniscule compared to ocean release) of a runaway effect that the earth has not seen before in history. Let me explain why. Their extrapolations of carbon change and temperature change based on what has happened in the past 100 years, is mathematically analgous to, when your favorite stock jumps 20% in one day, extrapolating that it will rise 20% every day for the next year. That is what we call "Aliasing Error" and it results from having a sample size (or time period), which is too small relative to the variance (volatility). I assure you that their projections are mathematical hogwash and they MUST KNOW IT! (so it means they are being paid to lie...they are not stupid...)

...But it plays into the desire of the globalists; because ...requires a "global solution", and thus, a "global government"...

Almost no one realizes this.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Hydrocarbon is the Fuel of Life on Earth

Post  Shelby on Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:55 am

...continued from prior post, which I also added it today also.

All of this was written in late 2007.

The Great Global Warming Swindle continued...

C02, methane, and sunspots are correlated to average earth surface temperature over the past 500,000 years. However, C02 and methane only correlate well, if you filter out any changes that occur more frequently than several hundred (800 - 1000) years. Whereas, sunspots correlate well even on a year-to-year basis (and even as far back as several hundred years). In fact, sunspots correlate so well that the scientist who discovered the correlation to sunspots, was winning all his money bets on the weather (when his theory was not widely known). Okay maybe sunspots are not the cause either, maybe it is orbital variance, or...who knows and who on please...

Now for the common horse sense:

* If C02 and/or methane (both here on earth) are causing global warming, then that means the earth is causing sunspots millions of miles away (is earth that hot!)?? Ridiculous and totally illogical. Isn't it much more plausible that sunpots (which are extremely intense electromagnetic energy radiations) are causing global warming, and thus that global warming causes increases in C02 and methane here on earth?? Isn't that even more logical when we see that both C02 and methane changes follow temperature changes by on average about 800 years! Isn't it even more logical when we see that C02 and methane don't correlate to temperature well, if we don't filter out the 800 year lag!

* Since both C02 and methane correlate with temperature (but on an 800 year average lag), then why is that some can (erroneous) assert that only C02 is causing global warming?? Why would they have an incentive to single out C02? Hint: fossil fuels release C02 but not methane.

* So even if you can overcome the common horse sense above, the C02 proponent still has an insurmountable problem. Humans only cause a miniscule amount of C02 release, as compared to the oceans. And oceans also release a lot of methane when temperature rises as well.

* Lastly (a STRONG point made in the video), if upper atmosphere gases were causing global warming (such as C02), then the temperature increases (as % of upper atmosphere temperature) in the upper atmosphere should be greater than the temperature increases (as % of surface temperature) at the surface, due to gases trapping radiated energy, yet both extensive weather balloon and satellite measurements confirm the opposite, which is that surface temperature is rising at faster gradient than upper atmosphere. This strongly indicates that the warming effect is at the surface, indicating that increase energy is radiating to the surface. Increased sunspot activity theoretically causes a decrease in cloud formation, due to solar winds being deflected away from earth, causing less cosmic rays to intersect with rising water vapor. If it is not sunspots, then isn't logical that the sun (perhaps orbital variance) is a more likely candidate to cause temperature change on earth, given that earth would be frozen like Pluto without the sun??? Isn't it common sense that the biggest factor for life on earth and temperature on earth is the sun??

And after all that, global warming is not a bad thing, and has been more beneficial (prosperity) to mankind in past, than Ice Ages.

Hydrocarbon is the Fuel of Life on Earth

I spent about 14 hours yesterday researching energy.

For example, there will never be energy from water (except for perhaps cold fusion), because water is one of the lowest energy states. No car can use water as the energy source. All energy is differential electromagnetic (aka chemical) state of matter (and anti-matter). The only "water car" that worked was actually an aluminum burning car using water as a reactant, as it used the high energy state of aluminum to react with the oxygen (O) in water to create aluminum oxide. This releases Hydrogen (H), which is then fed into a combustion engine. Aluminum does not occur naturally and is created from aluminum oxide using electrolysis & catalysts. Thus the aluminum burning car, is just releasing the energy used to create aluminum from aluminum oxide, thus the water is not contributing energy except in the sense that it gives up a high energy state (Hydrogen) in return for a lower energy state (aluminum oxide).

As one explores the different possible fuels that could be used to power mobile applications, one eventually realizes that only hydrocarbon fuels have the necessary attributes of minimized volume (joules per mole) and minimized weight (moles per liter).

Nature's optimization of hydrogen in hydrocarbons is the carbon atoms act like a glue which holds the hydrogen atoms more densely in space. And carbon-hydrogen bonds break in presence of oxygen with heat, thus creating energy through burning (where fast rate of burn means explosion), then get H20 and CO as outputs, with the platinum catalytic converter in a car to turn the CO to CO2.

For example, the air car, hydrogen, or any other gas based fuel will require too much volume to be practical for randomized mobile use. Methane (natural gas), which has one of the best densities of any practical gas fuel, works for fleets which have a regularized refueling pattern (thus the limited range of the volume limitation and the scarcity of refueling stations isn't inhibitive). Hydrogen gas will never be viable as a randomized, free market fuel, because it's density is so sparse (I think 1 hydrogen atom per liter if uncompressed). Hydrogen fuel is a way to centralize control over fuel, as the individual relies very heavily on the hydrogen distribution network or the electricity distribution network. Whereas, hydrocarbons enable an individual to decentralize distribution and thus free market of useage patterns. Flywheels are impractical for mobile applications because efficiency is obtained only with vacuums, tight tolerances, and outrageous rotational speeds (so outrageous that steel flywheel disintegrate), which could not function and would explode with force of deadly bomb in a mobile environment. Battery fuel technologies are impractical from a weight and volume standpoint. Hybrid cars are not battery cars, but rather hydrocarbon fueled cars with battery smoothing over the duty cycle.

If you work through all the details of the myriad of alternative fuel options, including studying the detail research of using acidic metals to form hydrogen into solid fuels (etc...), you come to realize that nature chooses hydrocarbons (hydrogen + carbon) as it's fuel for the earth, because it is the optimum fuel, and nothing else comes close for dispersed, randomized (mobile) applications:

This is because Hydrogen by itself as a gas is one of the highest energy states, which is why it never occurs naturally as a gas, as it is quickly bonded with either oxygen and/or carbon to form a lower more stable energy state.

So we can burn (release energy via oxidization reaction) hydrocarbon. This creates get carbon monoxide or dioxide (CO or CO2). Via photosynthesis CO2 is converted to sugars like glucose (hydrocarbon + oxygen), by extracting energy from sunlight. Then microbes (fermentation) can remove the oxygen from the sugars (providing energy to the microbes to survive), thus yielding hydrocarbons without oxygen. Then the cycle of life can repeat again by burning the hyrocarbons (back to beginning of this paragraph).

So hydrocarbons are not evil. They are the gift of life from God. They are the perfect RENEWABLE fuel due the repeatable cycle in the prior paragraph. Global Warming is an attempt to turn humanity away from God's life giving fuel towards fuels that are inferior and will fail, leading to dispair, poverty, and failure.

If one digs into the various technologies and research, there are already commercially viable means for converting coal and natural gas to diesel and gasoline. And there is promising research on converting C02 to back to hydrocarbons. There is no reason that man can not learn to emulate nature's RENEWABLE photosynthesis process.

The problem is that the supply of accumulated hydrocarbons is growing more scarce or expensive relative to the global demand for burning hydrocarbons. We are indeed headed for the peak in CHEAP hydrocarbons.

But given the immense power stored in radioactive elements, e.g. uranium & thorium, or the fusion fuels used by the sun, we have the energy to create our own photosynthesis, and if the prices of accumulated hydrocarbons rise sufficiently, then I am sure that man can harness the radioactive energies in order to produce glucose from CO2 (see also this and this). Also, there is a possible Russian theory that oil is a self-renewing adiabatic process. I think there are a huge deposits of methane trapped under the ice in Siberia. There may be huge reserves in the Florida everglades.

As I have said many times, the cheap price of accumulated hydrocarbons has disincentivized man from harnessing other means of producing hydrocarbons.

Once the price of hydrocarbons rises enough to this coming peak of cheap hydrocarbons, then I am confident man will be incentivized to the unlock the secrets of nuclear ---> photosynthesis which naturally gives life on earth.

In the meantime, if you are seriously worried about the availability of hydrocarbons for your own personal usage, and if you feel that investing in precious metals won't keep you sufficiently ahead of the coming price peak for hydrocarbons, then you can produce your own methane or ethanol fuel at about the gasoline energy equivalent of 0.5 to 1 gallon per day per acre of land. But heck, let someone else do that, and just buy silver and gold to make sure you can pay them enough to do it for you. After all this is what the free market provides for us.

Hopefully this will be my last post for a while. Need to work on some more productive activities. I hope over the past months, I have done my part to educate myself and others about some the important realities that are being obfuscated by MASS DELIRIUM (mania or hallucination or vested interests or whatever you want to call the ignorance of popular "wisdom").

I hope someone with more market reach, spreads this information out so that more people can relieved of their DELIRIUM (mania or hallucination or vested interests or whatever you want to call the ignorance of popular "wisdom").


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

UK Government Sued Over "Inconvenient Truth"

Post  Shelby on Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:34 pm

Originally posted by NZ_Andy in the Hommel forum in October 2007:

And "Inconvenient Truth" found to have 9 points that are not founded including that CO2 causes global warming, just as the Great global warming swindle said!

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

sane thinking

Post  Shelby on Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:42 am


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

CO2 nonsense

Post  Shelby on Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:47 pm


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Warming data admitted to be tampered

Post  Shelby on Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:14 am

In light of this, consider what we have recently learned from the scandal that has blown the cover off the "scientific side" of the global warming scare. In his column of 20 November, James Delingpole begins with the following warning to investors: "If you own any shares in alternative energy companies ... start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has been suddenly ... exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet." Here was proof of conspiracy and fraud. For example, statistical tricks were used to hide a recent decline in global temperatures. Other data was fudged or cherry-picked. When the public sought more specific data, information was withheld and legal requests were evaded.

Even more interesting, L.D. Breen published a piece on 27 November titled "White House Science Czar Involved in Climategate." It seems that the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, has been caught in the scandal. As it happens, Dr. Holdren was Al Gore's global warming advisor, and apparently wrote e-mails that reveal a totally unscientific approach to climate change.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Carbon is the fuel of life and life is renewable

Post  Shelby on Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:12 pm

> i listened to one of our church reps last night speak a bit about
> economics, global warming hoax, oil. Most of this I had already
> known about. But two things were new to me, oil is a replenishable
> resource and the intended one world currency. I'd read all about the
> different currency theories, Euro, Amero, etc.
> It was the fisrt I'd heard of Carbon Credits. Though in existence for
> some time now and traded heavioly at London stock exchange, it was
> explained to us how Carbon Credits is to become the new "dollar" per
> Rothschilds imosition at the latest banksters conference on global
> warming recently held I believe in either Copenhagen or Stockholm.
> The other thing I'd not heard abour priorly was the lie that there is a
> finite amount of oil. I'd known about large oil reserves and discoveries
> and always knew that oil prices were based upon lies about "how much is
> currently available". But it now appears that the basic huge lie is that
> oil is a fossil fuel. There has been much scientific evidence
> (suppressed of course) that demonstrates that oil is a byproduct of the
> earth's internal combustion process. This was first discoverd by Russian
> scientists. It seems they had a large well that was depleted of all its
> oil and when they examined it 20 years later they found that the well
> have filled back up. And upon investigation they learned that oil is
> being replenished. It is not a finite thing, only finite to the degree
> that there is no more internal combustion of the planet.
> I am now reading more about abiotoc and other data on this all.
> Bottom line is that the oil cartel, oil companies, banks and govts have
> been keeping the lie that oil wells fill back up over time, that oild is
> still being generated by the Earth. Just as natural gas is constantly
> being generated by the Earth.

I had known all of this since about 2007, and I was writing to you about it, but I guess it got buried in all the stuff I was writing about (too much noise on my part). Of course you started me on this knowledge quest back in 2002/3 when you explained that Afghanistan invasion was a conspiracy. Actually I had started to realized on the day of 9/11, and then when we went into Afghanistan, that is when I knew something was corrupt.

Not only in Russia, but I think they have found it to be true at an island in Gulf of Mexico too (the name escapes me at moment...I think Gull Island?).

Also there have been major natural gas discovered in past couple of months in USA, now we basically have enough natural gas to become self-sufficient and natural gas can be converted to oil.

Also there is enough methane has under the ice in Siberia for 100+ years. And there is enough coal for 100+ years. Entire mountains in Colorado are shale oil and coal, etc..

Of course carbon fuels are renewable. Wikipedia the "Carbon Cycle". It is the cycle of life. It is how plants and living things exist. Also the oceans absorb and release carbon (which is what causes the changes in carbon in atmosphere, not man) due to heat changes from sun.

Bottom line is that carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are the fundamentals of life (which by definition is renewable).

So of course, yes, the way to get more control over life, is to create a tax on the fundamentals elements of life.

It amazes me people are so stupid to fall for this, but all we have to do read about 1 Samuel 8 and 1 Samuel 15 to understand how people demand this outcome:

Also watch former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura's videos on the global warming hoax:

I have said many times that it is possible that Matt Simmons is planted by the elite (oil industry), to spread this false hysteria about peak oil, and afaik he was a banker or attorney and oil industry insider. As Jesse Ventura says, "follow the money" and has anyone researched who is funding Matt Simmons?


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Cap & Trade treaty is scuttled by China

Post  Shelby on Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:07 pm

China says "no":

Lord Monckton details the fraud of global warming:

Only 45,000 have signed his global petition so far:

More on the climate gate scandal: (summary of emails) (incorrect measurement) (more summaries) (warming proponent was originally warning of coming Ice Age catastrophe)

Possible trade war as a result:,1518,668635,00.html (could the failure of Swine Flu pandemanic cause R&R to go for trade war?)

ADD: This is the first thing I have seen since perhaps since Perot in 1992, Reagan in 1980s, or Kennedy before my birth, that seems to be a real threat to the plans of Rothschild, Rockefeller, CFR, etc.. This has really made me think a lot about my stance that cabal was in control of the outcome for NWO (I've always hoped they would make a mistake, their hubris to think they could control the data and lie about global temperature!). I have been able to view the spreading awareness of the truth about 9/11 and neocons, as planned mayhem (sacrifice of the neocons, bigger fish eat big fish) by the inner cabal. But so far, I am unable to think how the above defeat would be part of their plans.

Recent statements by China about inability to buy all the Treasury debt (and Willie's chart showing they stopped buying even short-term Treasuries in summer 2009), points me to the idea that China is demanding reform of the world's financial system. In other words, I do not think the NWO is dead, but rather China wants a seat at par with Rothschild. This is a dangerous time. Rothschild could either declare war on China, or there could be an abrupt capitulation to a new reserve currency.

One thing to keep in mind is the importance the internet played in this, and that bodes well for freedom going forward, because the PTB will shoot themselves in the foot if they try to shut down the internet. And in fact their recent push to centralize the control amongst popular large "free" content websites (e.g. YouTube) is opening massive profit opportunities for people like to me to dismantle YouTube by distribution (I will not explain my strategy right now for competitive reasons).

Also note that the true story is not known to the masses (did Glenn Beck cover this on Fox?). The truth is only on the internet and thus like the 9/11, it will take some time for the truth to propogate to a critical mass of people, but this time around, I think much less time than for 9/11. The internet is rapidly gaining a reputation over the mass media. This is catastrophic for Rockefeller and his information control machine. I think China might be playing this to their advantage, as their method of dealing with the internet has been to censor it, and China may feel they can maintain better control that way, but the truth is people like me are already and are going to further blow giant holes in China's censorship capabilities and render them impotent.

Are the people winning? It is a slow process, mainly because the boomers are so brainwashed and self-absorbed already.

However, I want you to note how clever Rothschild and Rockefeller are. They may have sacrificed the League of Nations, while the furor was dispersed on that, they were getting the Fed and income tax set up in USA. This time they lost the quick big treaty for Cap & Trade, but they got a commitment for rich nations to give money to poor ones (which could build a larger group of people financially dependent on Global Warming), and this could all be a trap for China, making China think they are winning if they can get the IMF SDRs as a superior reform for the reserve currency. I really don't think the R&R were stupid enough to believe that a group of bumbling idiot scientists, could fool the whole world about temperature data. I think this might have been a planned misdirection to trap China in the NWO currency system. I do think R&R often feign loss of unrealistically quick moves to NWO in exchange for slow undetected gradients in that direction-- they have a very long-term view, which makes them the winners in nearly every plan they formulate.

One idea is that R&R plant numerous seeds, then they harvest or kill off, depending on how things are progressing. I have an idea that when the global temperature started to turn against that plan in 2000, they opted for the 9/11 and global terrorism option. They probably left the group of corrupt scientists to fend for themselves, and this would explain why those scientists got so desperate. In other words, if you want to serve R&R, then you compete to see who can best serve their aims, and if you succeed you get rewarded (temporarily), but if you fail, then you are expendable. Due to compartmentalization of knowledge about overall plans, these failures are not a threat to the inner core. Or another way of thinking about this, is many factions competing with each other, some with more flexible with long-term focus, and other groups with a more narrow and near-term hail mary pass.

ADD: another thought is the moneymasters accomplish their goals insidiously, so I think the circus at Copenhagen and the UN is to misdirect our attention or for some other insidious chess move.

written to a friend in Africa

Shelby wrote:There was a small group of powerful scientists who were changing the
global temperature data to lie about warming, when in fact the earth has
been cooling:

Those scientists were recently proved to be lying and preventing the other
3000+ scientists from disagreeing with them in the news and journals.
This proof was obtained when someone hacked into their emails and
published their emails to the internet:

Apparently those corrupt scientists were being funded by the United Nations and by
the global bankers, who wanted to use Global Warming as a way to set up a
global tax system (at the recent Copenhagen convention last week) in order
to enslave all the people of the world financially. China said "no" to
the Copenhagen Treaty meeting in Denmark last week, so for now the corrupt
plan failed.

If you watch the video I sent you, then you will really understand,
because Lord Monckton is an expert on this corruption and he explains it
in very simple way. He shows all the charts and data and explains how the
corruption was done.

You may be prevented from viewing the information, because the Ethiopian
prime minister (your president) is a proponent of Global Warming, meaning
that he is corrupt and is being paid by the global bankers to lead your
people into financial slavery. So it will be difficult for you to hear
the truth inside your country, because your leaders are preventing the
truth from entering your country.

Realize that all of the government leaders in Africa are being paid by the
global bankers. This is why Africa is so behind economically. And the
African people are not able to learn the truth. This is why most of the
Africans believe Global Warming is true, even though it is absolutely
false and a lie. Your people are being fooled.

Also most of the Americans are also being fooled. The truth can only be
found on the internet. If you watch the TV or read the newspaper in USA,
then you will read mostly lies, because the global bankers own all the TV
and newspapers of the world.

The global bankers also own the large websites, such as Google, Yahoo,
YouTube, etc. The truth can only be found on small independent websites.

There are 3,000 scientists that signed a petition saying that Global
Warming is a lie. Afaik, this was never stated on TV!!!

One thing that the corrupt scientists did was they deleted the global
temperature data, and substituted their own fake data, to prevent people
from realizing that global temperature has actually been cooling since
2000. They also caused scientists to lose their jobs, when ever the 3000
scientists tried to speak the truth. They used many dirty tricks to
prevent the truth from coming out.

Last edited by Shelby on Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:29 pm; edited 4 times in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Climategate coverup

Post  Shelby on Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:28 pm


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Ban water

Post  Shelby on Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:12 pm


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Peak sanity

Post  Shelby on Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:26 pm

So add "Alien Hope", to "Global Warming" and "Peak Civilization" (Peak Energy) set of delusions.


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Up-to-date debate

Post  Shelby on Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:44 am

The AGW side appears to have lost the debate: (use your mouse to copy this link and paste in your browser's address line)

AGW = global warming caused by man.

GW = global warming not necessarily caused by man

Last edited by Shelby on Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:52 am; edited 2 times in total


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Excellent explanation of junk science warning signs

Post  Shelby on Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:55 am


Since I am banned for posting a comment to your blog in praise, I will amicably do so in private email. I will be linking to your excellent essay. Thank you for writing it.

This is not done to entice you to allow me to post to your blog. That would encourage me to waste my time.

You may find a few morsels of useful data in something I hastily wrote (warning: crammed in sleepless mental mode) this week, and which was published by and

I only wish I could compose prose as well as you do, even when I allocate sufficient time to write coherently:

Shelby Moore III


Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Warming Nonsense

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum