If scientists want to continue working or to even keep breathing they must go along with the scam and do what they are told by the evil elitist scumbags. Bio-weapons and vaccines will be used to cull the masses to desired levels. The media is owned/controlled these scumbags, so the sleeping idiots will never know what is happening until it is too late, they will have already taken the poison vaccines or have been sprayed by the chem-trails. If we could actually gain control of our government from them we could kill them all at the next Bilderberg meeting with a single high powered bomb, then track down all of their relatives and convict them of treason. These scumbags are the true terrorists, they actually are responsible for the attacks on 9/11, the USS Liberty and many other false flag events. Our true enemy Israel is directly tied to most of the Bilderberg members. Israel bribes our congress with over $300 million every year, this does not include the numbered foreign bank accounts, cash and gifts.

Many people think because they have a few million that they are included in the elite. This is a deadly mistake for them, this group will only have about 1000 members. The elite will not have a need for useless chair warmers demanding huge salaries. One good thing to come from this is that welfare queens and their criminal spawn will no longer exist as there will be no need for useless eaters anymore. No longer will we have elections, so ACORN won’t need to register the same voter under numerous names to steal elections.

Originally Posted By NotSureJust so we’re clear, we’re really accusing a worldwide coalition of scientists of deliberate deception for financial gain/political pull?

To all the scientists who have posted here, I ask: would YOU openly support a claim in your field that you KNEW to be false? If not, do you believe a lot of your colleagues would? What would it take to get 99% of the people in your field to agree publicly on something they knew to be not only false, but also dangerous and politically motivated? Perhaps all the scientists are being tricked by someone way smarter or more powerful than all of them. I don’t know. I’m not a scientist, I’m a teacher.

I ask because accusing a global scientific community of conspiracy and intentional malfeasance is pretty big potatoes – I’m not sure that it’s ever happened in the history of mankind! (Galileo is not a parallel to this situation – that was a victory of science over faith.)

I also fail to see how any politicians would gain in the long run by my reducing consumption, i.e. buying less.

Reply – Quote

All of the data that most scientists base their conclusions on in the arena of global warming comes from three sources. We now know definatively that at least one of those sources rigged their data. A large number of climatologists do indeed question Climate Change. It is only the vocal supporters of climate change that are given airplay by the media, and some of them are indeed corrupt as they intentionally modified data in order to fit their pre-determined hypothesis.

To all the scientists who have posted here, I ask: would YOU openly support a claim in your field that you KNEW to be false? If not, do you believe a lot of your colleagues would? What would it take to get 99% of the people in your field to agree publicly on something they knew to be not only false, but also dangerous and politically motivated? Perhaps all the scientists are being tricked by someone way smarter or more powerful than all of them. I don’t know. I’m not a scientist, I’m a teacher.

I ask because accusing a global scientific community of conspiracy and intentional malfeasance is pretty big potatoes – I’m not sure that it’s ever happened in the history of mankind! (Galileo is not a parallel to this situation – that was a victory of science over faith.)

I also fail to see how any politicians would gain in the long run by my reducing consumption, i.e. buying less. Could someone tell me who’s taking advantage of me now that I never use a single plastic grocery bag, ever? (just an example)

Debate is productive, and the solutions are not black-and-white. Could someone maybe explain this to me without calling names? That makes your argument more personal and guarantees a negative response. It also makes is look like the strength of your argument is weakening. Both sides are guilty of this.

Thanks!

By definition these people add nothing productive to the world and they cost huge amount. Why doesn’t the world governments/leaders sure they want to reduce CO2 and execute these people. Tax and cutting jobs isn’t the only way to cut CO2.

who s with me and how do I get Al Gore to back my brilliant idea.

The former US vice president is in line to make a large profit from a firm producing smart meters which monitor household electricity use.

He is a partner in a Silicon Valley venture capital firm which invested £45 million in Silver Spring Networks, a small California company which has been developing technology to monitor household power use to make the electricity grid more efficient.

Last week the US Energy Department announced £2 billion in grants and a proportion of that, thought to be more than £305 million, will go to utility operators with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The venture capitalists who invested, including Mr Gore, now look set to receive a handsome return.

Since leaving office Mr Gore has campaigned relentlessly on green issues. His 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth”, which followed his attempts to educate people about the dangers of global warming, won an Oscar for best documentary. It showed Mr Gore giving comprehensive slide shows about the catastrophic effects of climate change. He has presented the slide show more than 1,000 times.

Mr Gore, who won a Nobel Prize in 2007, has also just published his latest book on global warming “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis” which advocates new energy saving technologies and policies.

Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million.

He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories. He has also invested in non-climate change related investments, including putting money into Google and Apple.

Mr Gore said yesterday it was “certainly not true” that he was going to become a “carbon billionaire” and that the suggestion came from global warming deniers.

He said: “I am proud to put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years. And though that is not the majority of my business activities, I absolutely believe in investing in accordance with my beliefs and my values.” At a hearing earlier this year on clean energy legislation, Mr Gore was challenged by Republican congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, over his investments.

She said: “The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?”

Mr Gore said: “I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it.”

He added that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection, which campaigns for solutions to climate change.

In a heated exchange Mr Gore said: “If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”

Mr Gore said he was “proud” of his record of investing in green technology.

But global warming sceptics are not convinced. Marc Morano of climatedepot.com said: “Al Gore wants to become the first carbon billionaire and he is poised to do it.

“As much as Gore’s made now, it is going to be a piker league compared to what he is going to make in five years if all these new carbon trading mandates go through.”

Read up first, then make statement you think are true!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34114537/from/ET/?beginSlide=1
Mountain Pine Beetle

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html
Acidic Oceans

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Surface Temperature (NASA)

Some quick reading for you all.