Comments on: Global Warming or Global Governance?

By: Aidan Skillings

Aidan Skillings — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:50:00 +0000

Oh please. The evidence for global warming is staggering. Weather is far more extreme. From droughts, to hurricanes to Canada just having a terrifyingly warm winter. I think this is pure propaganda in the interests of big, environment ruining corporations.

By: kyle w

kyle w — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:45:00 +0000

What are the motivations most governments in the world have for reducing global emissions? It’s obviously not economic since most governments are losing money trying to reach reduction targets.

However, the maker of this film (Sovereignty International) does have economic interests in dispelling climate change. They do not make their financial records public, but they do state that they believe in “the maintenance of the foundational principles of individual freedom, inalienable private property rights, free markets and national sovereignty.” In other words, they believe in resource exploitation–from water to oil to land.

Similarly, the other producers of this documentary are The Eagle Forum whose mission is to “enable conservative and pro-family [anti-gay] men and women to participate in the process of self-government and public policy making so that America will continue to be a land of individual liberty, respect for family integrity, public and private virtue, and private enterprise.” In other words, cheap oil, jesus worship, and free trade.

Global governance is right. It’s not from the IPCC, however, but from PR companies like Sovereignty International and the Eagle Forum who are undoubtedly headed by large corporate interests.

By: man100001

man100001 — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:08:00 +0000

could not disagree more.

By: man100001

man100001 — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:29:00 +0000

frightening docu. frightening comments. since it was mentioned in this film, here is a discussion on “global warming swindle”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL36D52804BA905C6B

By: David

David — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:56:00 +0000

Trying to find James Burke’s ‘After the Warming’ and suspect I can’t because it was made in the early 90′s and was so full of dire predictions for the next fifteen years that never came true and was the first I heard of the carbon credits. Sorry panickers, I’ll post again on Dec 22′nd after the world doesn’t end either. Remember Y2k?

By: David

David — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:22:00 +0000

And, by the way, this is a planet, not an asteroid, there are enough resources even if we all DO live like Americans. It’s bigger, richer and more resiliant than you think or can imagine. We are simply the current inhabitants and not so important to Her as we think. Not so much as a flea on a Brontosaurus. Our progeny will laugh at our arrogance that we could affect an entire world when they try, try, TRY to terraform Mars.

By: David

David — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:06:00 +0000

That was Goebbles, Hitler’s propaganda minister, not Hitler. “If you are going to lie make it a big one. If you make it big enough and tell it often enough, people will believe it. Fine vineyards were growing in the south of England in the 11th and 12th centuries, they produced some very sweet and fruity wines which they exported to, of all places, France. Now it’s too cold and the
English all drink beer. We’re just warming up from the Little Ice Age that lasted from @1300 to @1850. Why does Al Gore live in a seaside mansion (ocean levels are supposed to rise) that leaves the carbon footprint of a small village? Because he knows the truth: If he can panick the masses they will hand over their money.

By: racheerae

racheerae — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:57:00 +0000

it reminds me of hitler, I hate to quote him but, he said something like this, —-’If you make a lie big enough, and simple enough, and keep repeating it, people will believe it”.

By: racheerae

racheerae — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:54:00 +0000

There are enough resources to go around if we DONT ALL LIVE LIKE AMERICANS

By: racheerae

racheerae — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:53:00 +0000

not safe when we are spraying ourselves with a heavy metal neurotoxin, Aluminum oxide aerosols, in the name of global warming and geoengineering.

By: racheerae

racheerae — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:46:00 +0000

Oil reserves will not dry up. Bill Gates assures that when he spends millions every year to fund geoengineering experiment known to warm the planet-See “solar radiation management’ and “sun screening”. In the 50′s they said such experiments would warm the planet, they knew it then and they know it now; the problem is that a warming is very convenient for oil and mineral exploration.

NOAA even has a geoengineering website –that shows what we see in the skies today, persistent trails left from jets meant to reflect sun light—but there is a problem. These plumes cause high cloud cover, cirrus clouds,,,which have a net warming effect. On this site, there are some bright people, but not too bright>—take a look outside and look at the govt. documents, and look at contrail science.

By: racheerae

racheerae — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:42:00 +0000

Your answer lies in the fact that we have been geoengineering the planet for over ten years. Watch “what in the world are they spraying”. Condensation trails have a net warming effect, as verified by NASA. Persistant contrails are “solar radiation management” and “sun screening programs”. Designed to “curb” global warming, however; evidence shows this program is having a net warming and guess what? Corps. can now stake a claim for oil in the north! how convenient.

By: Mr_Canada

Mr_Canada — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 03:17:00 +0000

This doc was nothing less than shear torcher to get through (water boarding may be more desirable). I watched it the first time through and had to shut it down at the last 20 minutes when it really went off the tracks. Then I went and did some Google searches and read some sh#t for about 2 hours about global warming. Then I went back and watched again from the beginning and still have 10 minutes to get through.

Who the F are these scientist anyway , its seems given Canada’s size (population) Canadian universities seem to be greatly over represented here. Carlton, Guelph, Winnipeg, Ottawa, these institutions are not even big science schools even in Canada. So we have 1) an American group with 2) far right wing American politicians giving their extreme biased views and 3) a disproportionate representation of Canadian and foreign scientist from back water institutions, giving their opinions.

Another thing I noticed was they would string these experts opinions together. One guy would say the first part of a sentence then another guy from a totally separate back ground will say the next part and another guy would sum it up. I wonder if what the individuals where actually saying was the same as what was strung together to give a different meaning.

I feel sorry for some of these guys, I’m sure when they gave their thoughts they probably thought this documentary was about global warming when it was actually about the new world order. They were totally used and may have been censured because of their participation.

On second thought what was probably done was they were taken as sound bites from other videos and totally misrepresented. That’s why they relied heavily on foreign content because if they had used American scientist in this fashion they would have gotten their butts totally sued off (I’m really into the word totally today). Also many Americans don’t know where Carlton, Guelph, Winnipeg and Ottawa Universities are and would probably assume these guys were Americans.

Keeping what I have said you should watch the video again to see if you agree with me.

This is not a documentary. It’s a blatant attempt to manipulate one idea to support a totally unrelated idea. A feel it is extremely biased.

By: ptburgess

ptburgess — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:23:00 +0000

What you are saying is partially correct. Temperature does increase CO2 immesions naturally. But it is a perpetual system. It is started either by solar influx, cloud density, and/or green house gases. Glacial ice rings and solar readings have shown us that all these have influenced climate change in the past. What science tells us now, not opinion but facts, is that the sun is not heating up, clouds density hasn’t changed significantly enough in hundres of years, but the percent of carbon in the atmoshpere has increased rapidly. So when science points to three variables that will determine the climate, and one of those three is an outlier, the facts point to the outlier as the major cause. Not only is it Science but Math as well. One in the same I suppose. On your point about the tiny percent of Carbon in the atmoshpere and the large amount of water vapor. Carbon absorbes radiation nearly four times as much as water vapor. So take that 3% and increase that four times over. Oh… and no scientists are saying it’s getting colder. This myth is based off of the early 90′s satellite data that was found to be incorrect due to the satellites change in orbital distance from the sun. Debunked and new readings show only warming and getting warmer. They aren’t scientists anymore if they still argue this, just your typical skeptic.

By: CBDenver

CBDenver — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 00:32:00 +0000

CO2 is not a pollutant.