Taxing the air we exhale, rationing human necessities, a global one-child policy, geoengineering (high-altitude chemical spraying), and now nuclear war have all been proposed to combat global warming. Have climate theorists lost their marbles, or just their humanity?
There has not been much middle ground found between global warming believers and the “it’s a hoax” crowd. I started as a believer after watching An Inconvenient Truth. I struggled to even look into the alternative view because the establishment had so successfully made the deniers seem insane.
However, having now done extensive research, I can attest that the “hoax” crowd has just as much, if not more, compelling evidence on their side as believers do. Furthermore, most global warming deniers won’t disagree that the climate is changing or shifting in some noticeable way, only that man-made CO2 is not the primary cause.
This article is not intended to debate the questions surrounding the man-made global warming theory, but rather the proposed “solutions.” Most believers genuinely care about the environment and view deniers as selfish “takers” who care not for mother nature. This is not the case at all. In fact, I would argue that most deniers feel just as passionately about environmental issues as believers. The difference seems to be that deniers focus their energy on tangible and measurable problems in the environment like water, air and soil pollution, GMO food, excessive pharmaceuticals, chemical spraying, and results from oil spills and gas fracking to name a few.
None of these very real threats to human and environmental health are addressed by the global warming crowd, save for possibly air pollution. When one dissects the proposals to combat global warming, it seems clear that the environmental movement has been hijacked by CO2 propagandists for an ulterior motive. Even though hardcore believers seem to have a healthy distrust for bankers, corporations, and their puppet politicians, they have a very difficult time challenging the establishment’s science or solutions pertaining to global warming. They seem too busy defending the theory to make the connection to what they’re actually supporting — which is a cabal of big banks, big oil, and big brother seeking further control of society by hyping unprovable environmental threats that they never actually intend to fix in the first place.
At the very least, eyebrows should be raised since “hacked” emails exposed that the science data had been manipulated to fit the theory. Alarm bells should go off when we learn that, as Vice President, Gore designed the proposed Cap and Trade system with Enron’s criminal CEO Ken “Kenny Boy” Lay years before the global warming theory had been introduced to the public. And for progressives, a full blown revolt should take place knowing that the scandalous international Banksters and Big Oil have shaped Cap and Trade to line their pockets. Finally, as with any modern legislative proposal, it is designed as a Robin-Hood-in reverse scheme where provisions appear to tax personal human choices, while major corporate polluters are exempt.
Regardless of what we believe about the man-made global warming theory, it certainly appears that the establishment’s fix fits their problem-reaction-solution model of social engineering where many proposed solutions distort humanity’s moral compass. Below are 5 proposals to combat global warming that should make all environmentalists and humanitarians cringe with embarrassment for supporting them:
1. Taxes to International Bankers: Does anyone still trust the international bankers after their wholesale looting of the general public? Do genuine environmentalists actually believe it’s a good thing to have this criminal institution in charge of collecting and regulating carbon taxes? The thought of being forced to give more power and more money to the banks seems utterly foolish to support, no matter what environmental catastrophes we may face. The carbon market is almost entirely voluntary and is still in its infancy, yet there is already major financial fraud occurring which is par for the course for the banksters. We should be ashamed to promote them as any part of a solution.
2. One-Child Policies: After vilifying China’s one-child policy since its inception, the Western world is now warming to the idea to combat CO2. In fact, Canada joined China in publicly calling for a Worldwide One-Child Policy during Copenhagen climate talks in 2009. Forcing this type of law on a previously free society will surely result in forced abortions and other horrific consequences. It is the epitome of tyranny for the State to take away such basic rights to life. It seems that the numerous heavyweights pushing this agenda are hell-bent on population reduction in spite of the global warming theory. If forcing your friends and neighbors into a one-child policy makes sense to you, you may have already lost your humanity to a theoretical fear.
3. Geoengineering: The AP reported during the 2010 Cancun climate talks that “we may need geoengineering as a ‘Plan B,’ if nations fail to forge agreement on a binding treaty to rein in greenhouse gases.” Geoengineering (sometimes referred to as chemtrailing), is high-altitude chemical spraying. They are the unnatural crisscrossed long white trails left by planes that take days to dissipate. Their patents are high in nanoparticle aluminum and barium, both of which have been found in dangerously high concentrations in otherwise pristine locations. For decades this program was top secret, and environmental activists were called conspiracy theorists for questioning it. Now, it is being promoted as the savior to global warming, claiming the extremely poisonous chemicals reflect sunlight away from earth. To learn more about what you would be advocating for as ‘Plan B’ to stop global warming, please watch the very reputable new film What in the World are They Spraying?
4. Rationing: At the COP16 climate meeting in Cancun during record cold temperatures this winter “Some climate change experts say World War II-style rationing in developed countries may be needed to bring down carbon emissions to fight against global warming.” We all know who is most affected by rationing: the average little citizen. I’m reminded of the character Winston Smith in 1984 getting his allotments of fabricated coffee and fuel-like alcohol while the controllers lived in the lap of luxury. Perhaps, if we’re lucky, the State will take control of local farm harvests for rationed distribution circa the Soviet Union. Ahh, freedom is on the march with this proposal.
5. Nuclear War: Last, but certainly not least, the idea has been floated that a small nuclear war may save us from the global warming bogeyman. Yes, for the good of humanity and the environment, let’s blow a couple of million people to smithereens and radiate thousands of square miles to force the cooling of the earth. This is not some fringe group proposing this, but instead NASA, the National Geographic and Ted Turner-owned Time magazines floating the idea. They say, “Models suggest that though the world is currently in a warming trend, small-scale war could lower global temperatures 2.25 degrees F for two-to-three years following war.” It seems this scenario will do nothing to reduce CO2, but simply block and absorb heat from the sun. In fact, they admit it may add carbon into the atmosphere. If you can’t tell how wrong this concept is on multiple levels then perhaps it’s more appropriate to refer to you as a world-is-flat Neanderthal.
Despite differences in theories, can’t we all agree that these proposals seem downright tyrannical, if not evil? They all seem to further crush the poorest among us, while eliminating basic individual rights, to openly promoting reducing the human population. And that means you too by the way. Believers won’t be exempt from the darkest wrath of these proposals.
And worst of all, none of these proposals will do anything to solve authentic environmental degradation, or even CO2 concentrations for that matter. So, it’s all right to believe any theory you wish, but just be more informed and honest when defending the establishment’s proposed solutions. They are not designed or intended to protect you or the environment from global warming.