Global Warming - A Second Look : Jack Allis.

[Guest guest]

GLOBAL WARMING – A SECOND LOOK Environmental Apocalypse or Tool of Manipulation? Searching for the Truth in a Minefield of Lies & Confusion By Jack Allis Before we begin to tip toe through the minefield of this, probably the trickiest political issue of them all, the environment, it’s necessary to state one of the central themes of what’s forthcoming. I must do this in order to prevent you, the reader, from jumping to a lot of unwarranted conclusions about

what I’m about to say before I even say it. Invariably, people fall into the trap of polarized thinking, where they label things as politically “left” or “right,” and once they do, they assume they know everything about you, based upon whichever category they’ve plugged you into, and how they understand that category. This is very unfair and

frustrating for those of us who think independently, who are neither left nor right, and who attempt to evaluate issues objectively, and come to conclusions based on their merits. It always infuriates me when people assume I’m a liberal because I oppose the war in Iraq, and I have long hair. Here’s the statement: if ex-Vice President Al Gore’s theory on global warming, as presented in his smash hit documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, can be proven to scientifically incorrect, this does not mean that humanity on planet Earth is not currently facing an environmental crisis of life-threatening proportions. We are – just not that one. Please read that over a few times, and let it sink in.

When the topic of an environmental crisis comes up, it’s stunning how virtually everybody leaps to the conclusion that you must be talking about global warming. Clearly, this idea has subliminally taken root in the mass consciousness. This is hardly surprising when you cannot turn on the TV or open a newspaper without hearing some mention of it. It’s also equally disconcerting when you don’t accept the validity of Gore’s theory, how people automatically assume you must be one of those heartless right-wingers, who doesn’t give two figs about the environment. This too does not necessarily follow. At the conclusion of this article, I am going to refer you to another documentary film, which I believe pokes enough holes in the orthodox theory of global warming, as presented in Gore’s film, to turn it on it ear. Until I saw this film, in mid-March

of 2007, I had been stuck in the mud on the issue of global warming. I didn’t know what to believe. Getting to the bottom of global warming presented several unique dilemmas. Intelligent, well-intended people on both sides of the political

spectrum, right and left, seemed to make credible, convincing cases supporting their points of view, and at the same time, both exhibited serious blind spots. It was difficult to trust either. Plus, this is a topic that requires a level of scientific analysis that is far beyond that of the layperson. I do not possess this level of knowledge, nor does Al Gore. Somebody else was going to have to do the scientific legwork. Before plunging more deeply into this dilemma, I think it would be helpful to present a few of the premises from which I approached the topic. I learned a long time ago from the philosopher Ayn Rand that endless confusion can be avoided on any topic, if you simply state your premises at the outset. If you don’t accept these premises, then there’s no point in reading on. Premise number one: never believe anything you hear anywhere in the mainstream media. It is all propaganda, which is carefully designed for the purpose of frightening people into believing that the world is a dangerous place, far beyond the ability of the individual to cope with, and that people need bigger and bigger government with more and more government controls in order to protect and take care of them. Turn off your televisions! And if you buy an

establishment newspaper, skip right to the sports section or the funnies. Premise number two: the government and the established political system are total scams. The governments of all the major nations of the civilized world are owned and controlled by a global elite, which consists of a relatively small group of the richest people in the world, who own the huge international banks, the huge multi-national corporations, and all the major media outlets. The global elite operates entirely behind the scenes,

and the established two-party system in the US is one of their crucial tools for wielding their power. The two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, sold out to the global elite a long time ago, at least since the end of the civil war. They no longer serve the people, as they pretend, but rather their masters at the top of the pyramid of power. They have basically sold their souls to the devil. This is why nothing ever really changes in Washington, regardless of who’s in power. The Republicans and Democrats are simply two different masks covering the same duplicitous face, with both serving precisely

the same agenda: higher and higher taxes, and bigger and bigger government, which always endeavors to exercise more and more control over the private affairs of its citizens. The Republicans are

the party of warfare and the Democrats are the party of welfare, but the end result is identical. More recently, there is a new twist to this common agenda, and this is the erosion of US

sovereignty, and the movement toward global consolidation and fascist world government, or New World Order, which we see taking shape around us at such a shocking pace. In light of the horrific atrocities perpetrated by the Bush administration, this premise might not appear to hold up as well. The Republicans might look like the bad guys and the Democrats the good guys. Don’t be fooled by appearances. The elitist, big brother agenda

will continue to move forward, regardless of who’s in power. It did under Slick Willy, and it will under his wife, or whatever Democrat is elected in 2008. It’s all one big club, and the game is rigged. Nobody rises to power without being selected and blessed by the global elite. There are no exceptions. Well, one – Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who remains as pure as the day he was born, and who, by the way, is running for President in 2008.

Haven’t heard much about that in the mainstream media, have we? With this backdrop, it’s pretty easy to understand how those of us who don’t trust traditional politics smelled a rat when Al Gore

surfaced, or resurfaced, with his documentary film on global warming. After all, here is a man who served as Vice-President under Bill Clinton for eight years, and came within a hanging chad of being elected President. An Inconvenient Truth revolves around two main themes. The first is that the Earth is currently in the midst of an unprecedented period of warming, which, if it continues at its current pace, will cause geophysical and climatic events of such a catastrophic nature that they pose a serious threat to the survival of human civilization. The second is that this warming is created by the industrialized world through the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Excessive quantities of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere trap significant amounts of the electromagnetic radiation from the sun, which would otherwise be reflected back into outer space, thus causing the warming. Dilemma number one consists of confirming or refuting scientific data and conclusions from an untrustworthy source. I had been reading reports for quite some time, which seemed credible, from my sources on the right side of the political spectrum, which maintained that global warming was part of a natural, cyclical process, and not man-made. They didn’t so much dispute the existence of global

warming as its cause, and they seemed to be pretty evenly divided on whether or not this warming was even a problem. However, this presented as much of a dilemma as Al Gore. These

right-wing sources couldn’t be trusted either. They had a serious blind spot. This was the fact that they tended to be anti-environment, or at least anti-environmentalism. They had a major ax to grind with liberals, and they tended to lose their objectivity and credibility due to their obsessive need to prove that liberals were always wrong. Global warming aside, the folks on the right tend to deny that there is currently an environmental crisis on any kind. They believe in the primacy of humanity over nature, and that anything that is in the best interest of human progress and the advancement of civilization is OK, and any effects on the environment are

secondary. In my humble opinion, this gives conservatives a huge black eye, and deeply affects their credibility across the board. Anybody who does not recognize that the civilized world is poisoning its soil, water, air and food supplies, to the serious detriment of the health and welfare of its people, is seriously missing the boat. The civilized world is currently experiencing levels of sickness and disease of epidemic proportions. This is one of the primary reasons.

From an even broader perspective, this disconnection in the civilized world between people and the environment is the source of all of our problems. Civilized people have lost their

connection with life’s vital energy and with its natural rhythms and flow. Native Americans, prior to their conquest, had this connection, as did indigenous cultures spanning the globe, for whom sickness was the exception, not the rule, and for whom civilized diseases like cancer and heart disease were non-existent. There is a fundamental rule of life that can never be violated. It is imperative for human beings to live in harmony with their environment, not to exploit it. It they don’t, it is only a question of time before they perish. However, my dilemma was compounded by the fact that the folks on the left had a few blind spots that were almost as bad. Blind spot number one is they continue to believe that since the Republicans are the bad guys, then the Democrats must be good guys. They see the big-time liberal Democrats as honest and virtuous people, as opposed to the puppets of the global elite that they really are. The Democrats are simply the flip side of the same rotten coin, serving precisely the same big brother agenda, which leads us to blind spot number two. The left-wingers never seem to get it, as far as the harmfulness and ineffectiveness of bigger and bigger government. They are way too trusting that big government programs, administered by Democrats of course, are the most effective

way to solve our problems. They fail to see that big government is the problem, with its ever-increasing controls over our individual freedoms. Think about it for a minute: if human beings are so nasty and greedy that they need to be regulated, what sense does it make to trust government to do this regulating, when government is run by these same nasty, greedy people? Who’s going to regulate the regulators? Blind spot number three of the left-wingers is crucial in understanding what Al Gore might be up to with his global warming theory. The left-wingers fail to see how environmentalism, or any issue that appears to be humanitarian, can be used by unscrupulous politicians for the purpose of their own big government agenda, or ultimately to further the global elite’s agenda of world fascist government. It’s an old, tried and

true formula: hop on the bandwagon of a popular, emotional issue, fan the flames of fear through your propaganda machine, and then propose the only possible solution for a helpless humanity, which always means more power in the hands of the government. The sad fact of the matter is the environmental movement was infiltrated a long time ago by hoards of individuals and institutions that don’t give two figs about the environment. The list is long and infamous, but let’s just take a look at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example. The EPA is notorious for its reams of silly, meaningless regulations, like denying building permits in order to preserve an endangered species of field mice, which stand in the way of reasonable human progress, and which makes environmentalism, in general, look frivolous, and gives it such a bad name in the eyes of

so many. Another case in point is the United Nations. The UN currently is playing the preeminent role worldwide in environmental programs and environmentalism, in general. The UN is

also one of Al Gore’s closest allies in embracing the notion that global warming will soon result in monumental environmental catastrophe, with CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in the industrialized world the culprit. Gore and the UN also agree upon the solution – an all-out attack, both domestically and internationally, on CO2 emissions. This, of course, means more regulations, both on corporations and individuals, more taxes, and more government bureaucracy. Because global warming is viewed

as a global problem, beyond national boundaries, this would also mean more authority in the hands of the UN and its various environmental agencies, as well as in the hands of the new breed of international institutions, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization, which are playing such a powerful role in the modern world. These global institutions are the creation of the global elite. They are autonomous, non-elected, and not a formal part of any national

government. They answer to no one, except themselves, and they have basically bribed the US and the other major governments of the world into following their lead. Now the question begs to be asked: should we trust the UN any more than we trust Al Gore? The answer is a resounding, “No!” I realize this begins to sound like a broken record, but such is the nature of the illusion of the modern world. The UN was created by the global elite, and it is a puppet of the global elite. It poses as one thing, when its true purpose is quite another. It poses as a union of the nations of the world, dedicated to humanitarianism and peace, and providing a forum to resolve problems that are beyond the scope of individual nations. In fact, the UN is a mechanism and a stepping-stone to the ultimate prize of the global elite: a centrally controlled world government, under their control. This is an area where those on the far right, the Libertarian and the John Birch types, have one up on the far left. On the far right, the true nature of the UN is common knowledge. It’s a given. On the far left, still stuck in the mud of trusting big-time liberals and big government, they’ve never heard of such a thing. So, this is the spot where I was stuck on global warming and the environment. I

was determined to find the answer, but doing the scientific research myself was not an option. Fortunately, as it turned out, I was not alone. There was a bunch of other people in exactly the same boat, and searching for the same answers. There was also a

batch of renowned, independent-thinking scientists worldwide, who also smelled a rat in the orthodox global warming theory and in Gore’s film. Unlike me, they were competent to do the research, and did. The result was a 74-minute documentary film, produced by the BBC, and aired on Channel 4 in the UK in early March 2007, entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle. I invite you to watch the documentary, and judge for yourself. At the time of this writing, this video was still available free on the Internet. You may click the link at the conclusion of this article to watch. However, be advised it may not be there for long. If that’s the case, I’m certain you can do a search, and find out how you can purchase it on DVD. The film does not dispute that the Earth is warming up, but takes the position that this is nothing unusual. It also presents a credible scientific analysis, by numerous credible scientists, which concludes that there is no connection between this global warming and CO2 emissions from

humanity in the civilized world. The pivotal point of their analysis, as well as Gore’s, deals with the findings that were derived from digging deep holes in the Arctic ice cap. These findings show, over a 600,000 year time span, that there is a correlation between the

fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Both sides are in agreement up to this point. Gore’s scientists then conclude that this correlation must mean that the levels of CO2 are the cause of the temperature fluctuations. This is where the scientists in the BBC documentary say he misses the boat. First of all, the fact that there is a correlation in this, or any, scientific data does not mean there is causation. There might be, but not necessarily. More proof is needed. Secondly, they claim Gore errs in not looking more closely at this data, and other data. A closer examination of these fluctuations shows that there is a time lag of a few hundred years between the rises in the temperature and the CO2, with the CO2 always lagging behind. Therefore, it is more reasonable to conclude that the temperature fluctuations are actually the cause of the CO2 fluctuations, just the opposite of the orthodox, Gore theory. Furthermore, they explain this by including another critical variable: the significant part that is played by the Earth’s oceans. When the Earth warms, the oceans slowly warm also. When they do, they emit massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. This also explains the time lag because it takes time for the oceans to warm up due to their immense volume. In addition to poking these holes in the Gore theory, these scientists are also in

agreement regarding the primary factor that is responsible for the Earth’s warming and cooling over the millennia. This is solar activity in the form of solar flares, which is currently heating up the rest of the solar system as well,

most notably Mars, where CO2 is not a factor. So, where does all this leave us? I’m certain we have not heard the last of this debate. A liberal friend of mine, after having heard the case against An Inconvenient Truth, replied that if any good could come from the film, such as people buying hybrid cars or living in a more environmentally harmonious fashion, then it was a good thing. It’s difficult to argue with good, but let’s take a look at the bad that could come from the film. To repeat: we are currently facing an environmental crisis of life-threatening proportions on the planet Earth. If we don’t get our act together, and learn to live in harmony with our environment, as opposed to exploiting it, we will reach the point where the Earth will no longer sustain us as a species. I don’t feel the need to expound on that any further. If you don’t get it, you’re part of

the problem, regardless of where you stand politically. As we have already discussed, global warming can be used by unscrupulous politicians to advance the big brother agenda, both domestically and globally, at the expense of our precious freedom. Just because something is dressed up to look humanitarian doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. In addition, if the orthodox, Gore theory of the cause of global warming is incorrect, then the solution, a big brother attack on CO2 emissions worldwide, will divert our focus from the real environmental problems – the poisoning of our water, soil and food supply, and the fact that humanity in the civilized world has lost its connection with its lifeline – the environment in which it lives. Another message I hope I have conveyed here is the critical importance for us all of learning how to look at the world through our

own eyes, and not the eyes of the media or the government, or through the eyes of this polarity thinking, whether left versus right, us versus them, Christian versus Muslim, up versus down, or any of various forms it takes. The issue of environmentalism vividly demonstrates how polarity thinking leads us down the wrong track. This is not an all black or all white issue, and thinking about it in this manner leads to endless confusion and mistakes. Polarity thinking also leads us very quickly into the trap of the “divide and conquer” scenario. “Divide and conquer” is one of the most powerful techniques of the big brother manipulators to keep us under their thumb. As long as we are divided into mutually exclusive camps, we become easy prey. It’s all really very simple: united we stand – divided we fall. The world today is a crazy, mixed up place, and those in power serve their own interests, not ours. If we have any hope of taking back our world, and creating a

better one, it all starts with waking up to how we’re being deceived and manipulated for the purpose of being pawns in somebody else’s game, and uniting in this understanding. This single issue eclipses all the others. And then the next step is reassuming responsibility for our world, and learning to trust ourselves again, rather than relying on big brother to do our thinking and solve our problems for us. To watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, Produced by the BBC, and aired on Channel 4 in the UK in early March, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170 & q=global+warming+swindle JACK ALLIS Personal Growth & Awareness Teacher & Author THE HARMONY OF THE MIND, BODY & SPIRIT www.harmonymindbodyspirit.com PO Box 132, Okauchee, Wisconsin 53069-0132 (262) 569-9873, 1 (800) 995-0796, Ext 9486 (Message Center) jackallis US: 1 in 150 children has Autism US: 1 in 6 children suffers a developmental disorder New Jersey: 1 in 94 has Autism UK: 1 in 86 has Autism China : Over 20 lakh autistic children,India : No authentic figures, expected 40 lakh +AUTISM IS NOTHING BUT MERCURY POISONING.THERE IS MERCURY IN VACCINES!!

Don't pick lemons.

See all the new 2007 cars at Autos.

[Guest guest]

This is one debate that seems like it would never die. And more and more people want to believe that we have nothing to do with global warming and can continue the business-as-usual (consumeristic) lifestyle.

 

I did read (and watch partially) about the " The Great Global Warming Swindle " . The video makes superficially convincing and compelling arguments to an well-intended viewer who wants to believe that we (humans) have nothing to do with this global warming and wants to believe that all this is part of a " natural " cycle. But many of the arguments made in the video are untrue (even scientifically). Suggest the interested reader to read: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle & code=MON20070318 & articleId=5104 which clearly illustrates what is wrong (or mis-stated) with the video.

 

 

Yes, natural cycles of the earth have resulted in previous warming and ice-ages cycles and atmospheric variation of CO2. But those have not been due to human activity. But this current trend of the cycle has been special because we (humans) have been releasing a lot of " stored and hidden " CO2 (by burning fossil fuels). And though the amount of CO2 released by this activity (of humans) might seem very small compared to those occuring naturally (like humans breathing out CO2, or animals giving out methane and CO2), it is this small amount that is causing the damage (or in other words accelerating the CO2 emissions and global warming).

 

(A crude example to illustrate it: Imagine a weight scale in balance. Irrespective of the amount of weight on both sides, a very small (even if it is 0.1% of the weight on the scale) increase in weight on one side would tilt the balance. This is exactly what is happening. The small increase am talking about is the CO2 released by human activity. And the balance has been the one that is part of the natural cycle).

 

On 4/8/07, Jagannath Chatterjee <jagchat01 wrote:

GLOBAL WARMING – A SECOND LOOK

Environmental Apocalypse or Tool of Manipulation?

Searching for the Truth in a Minefield of Lies & Confusion

By Jack Allis

 

Before we begin to tip toe through the minefield of this, probably the

 

trickiest political issue of them all, the environment, it's necessary to

state one of the central themes of what's forthcoming. I must do this in

 

order to prevent you, the reader, from jumping to a lot of unwarranted

conclusions about what I'm about to say before I even say it. Invariably,

people fall into the trap of polarized thinking, where they label things as

politically "left" or "right," and once they do, they assume they know

everything about you, based upon whichever category they've plugged

you into, and how they understand that category. This is very unfair and

 

frustrating for those of us who think independently, who are neither left

nor right, and who attempt to evaluate issues objectively, and come to

conclusions based on their merits. It always infuriates me when people

 

assume I'm a liberal because I oppose the war in Iraq, and I have long

hair.

 

Here's the statement: if ex-Vice President Al Gore's theory on global

warming, as presented in his smash hit documentary film, An

Inconvenient Truth, can be proven to

scientifically incorrect, this does

not mean that humanity on planet Earth is not currently

facing an

environmental crisis of life-threatening proportions. We are – just not

that one.

Please read that over a few times, and let it sink in. When

the topic of an environmental crisis comes up, it's stunning how virtually

everybody leaps to the conclusion that you

must be talking about global

warming. Clearly, this idea has subliminally taken root in

the mass

consciousness. This is hardly surprising when you cannot turn on the

TV or open a newspaper without hearing some mention of it.

It's also

equally disconcerting when you don't accept the validity of Gore's theory,

how people automatically assume

you must be one of those heartless

right-wingers, who doesn't give two figs about the

environment. This too

does not necessarily follow.

 

At the conclusion of this article, I am going to refer you to another

documentary film, which I believe pokes enough holes in the orthodox

theory of global warming, as

presented in Gore's film, to turn it on it ear.

Until I saw this film, in mid-March of 2007, I

had been stuck in the mud

on the issue of global warming. I didn't know what to believe.

Getting to

the bottom of global warming presented several unique dilemmas.

Intelligent, well-intended people on both sides of the political spectrum,

right and left, seemed to make credible, convincing cases supporting

their points of view, and at the same time,

both exhibited serious blind

spots. It was difficult to trust either. Plus, this is a topic that

requires a

level of scientific analysis that is far beyond that of the layperson. I do

not possess this level of knowledge, nor does Al Gore.

Somebody else

was going to have to do the scientific legwork.

 

Before plunging more deeply into this dilemma, I think it would be helpful

to present a few of the premises from which I approached the topic.

I

learned a long time ago from the

philosopher Ayn Rand that endless

confusion can be avoided on any topic, if you simply

state your premises

at the outset. If you don't accept these premises, then there's no

point

in reading on.

 

Premise number one: never believe anything you hear anywhere in the

mainstream media.

It is all propaganda, which is carefully designed for

the purpose of frightening people into

believing that the world is a

dangerous place, far beyond the ability of the individual to cope

with, and

that people need bigger and bigger government with more and more

government controls in order to protect and take care of them.

Turn off

your televisions! And if you

buy an establishment newspaper, skip right

to the sports section or the funnies.

 

Premise number two: the government and the established political

system are total scams.

The governments of all the major nations of the

civilized world are owned and controlled by

a global elite, which consists

of a relatively small group of the richest people in the world,

who own the

huge international banks, the huge multi-national corporations, and all the

major media outlets. The global elite operates entirely behind the scenes,

and the established two-party system in the US is one of their crucial

tools for wielding their power.

 

The two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, sold

out to the global elite a long time ago, at least since the end of the civil

war. They no longer serve the

people, as they pretend, but rather their

masters at the top of the pyramid of power. They

have basically sold

their souls to the devil.

This is why nothing ever really changes in

Washington, regardless of who's in power. The Republicans and

Democrats are simply two different masks covering the same duplicitous

face, with both serving precisely the

same agenda: higher and higher

taxes, and bigger and bigger government, which always

endeavors to

exercise more and more control over the private affairs of its citizens.

The

Republicans are the party of warfare and the Democrats are the

party of welfare, but the end result is identical.

 

More recently, there is a new twist to this common agenda, and this is

the erosion of US sovereignty, and the movement toward global

consolidation and fascist world government,

or New World Order, which

we see taking shape around us at such a shocking pace.

 

In light of the horrific atrocities perpetrated by the Bush administration,

this premise might not appear to hold up as well.

The Republicans might

look like the bad guys and the

Democrats the good guys. Don't be

fooled by appearances. The elitist, big brother agenda

will continue to

move forward, regardless of who's in power. It did under Slick Willy, and it

will under his wife, or whatever Democrat is elected in 2008. It's all one

big club, and the game is rigged.

Nobody rises to power without being

selected and blessed by the global

elite. There are no exceptions. Well,

one – Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas,

who remains as pure

as the day he was born, and who, by the way, is running for

President in

2008. Haven't heard much about that in the mainstream media, have

we?

 

With this backdrop, it's pretty easy to understand how those of us who

don't trust traditional politics smelled a rat when Al Gore surfaced, or

resurfaced, with his documentary film on global warming.

After all, here

is a man who served as Vice-President under Bill Clinton for eight years,

and came within a hanging chad of being

elected President. An

Inconvenient Truth revolves around two main themes. The first is

that the

Earth is currently in the midst of an unprecedented period of warming,

which, if it continues at its current pace, will cause geophysical and

climatic events of such a catastrophic nature that they

pose a serious

threat to the survival of human civilization.

The second is that this

warming is created by the industrialized world through

the emission of

 

carbon dioxide (CO2), as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.

Excessive quantities of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere trap significant

amounts of the electromagnetic radiation from the sun, which would

otherwise be reflected back into outer

space, thus causing the warming.

 

Dilemma number one consists of confirming or refuting scientific data

and conclusions from an untrustworthy source.

I had been reading

reports for quite some time, which

seemed credible, from my sources on

the right side of the political spectrum, which

maintained that global

warming was part of a natural, cyclical process, and not man-made.

They didn't so much dispute the existence of global warming as its

cause, and they seemed to be pretty evenly divided on whether or not

this warming was even a problem.

 

However, this presented as much of a dilemma as Al Gore.

These

right-wing sources couldn't be trusted either.

They had a serious blind

spot. This was the fact that they

tended to be anti-environment, or at

least anti-environmentalism. They had a major ax to

grind with liberals,

and they tended to lose their objectivity and credibility due to their

obsessive need to prove that liberals were always wrong.

 

Global warming aside, the folks on the right tend to deny that there is

currently an environmental crisis on any kind.

They believe in the

primacy of humanity over nature, and

that anything that is in the best

interest of human progress and the advancement of

civilization is OK,

and any effects on the environment are secondary. In my humble

opinion, this gives conservatives a huge black eye, and deeply affects

their credibility across the board.

Anybody who does not recognize that

the civilized world is poisoning

its soil, water, air and food supplies, to

the serious detriment of the health and welfare of

its people, is seriously

missing the boat. The civilized world is currently experiencing

levels of

sickness and disease of epidemic proportions. This is one of the

primary reasons.

 

 

From an even broader perspective, this disconnection in the civilized

world between people and the environment is the source of all of our

problems. Civilized people have lost their

connection with life's vital

energy and with its natural rhythms and flow. Native Americans,

prior to

their conquest, had this connection, as did indigenous cultures spanning

the globe, for whom sickness was the exception, not the rule, and for

whom civilized diseases like

cancer and heart disease were non-existent.

There is a fundamental rule of life that can

never be violated. It is

imperative for human beings to live in harmony with their

environment, not

to exploit it. It they don't, it is only a question of time before they perish.

 

 

However, my dilemma was compounded by the fact that the folks on the

left had a few blind spots that were almost as bad.

Blind spot number

one is they continue to believe

that since the Republicans are the bad

guys, then the Democrats must be good guys.

They see the big-time

liberal Democrats as honest and virtuous people, as opposed to

the

puppets of the global elite that they really are.

 

The Democrats are simply the flip side of the same rotten coin, serving

precisely the same big brother agenda, which leads us to blind spot

number two. The left-wingers never seem

to get it, as far as the

harmfulness and ineffectiveness of bigger and bigger government.

They

are way too trusting that big government programs, administered by

Democrats of course, are the most effective way to solve our problems.

They fail to see that big government is the problem, with its

ever-increasing controls over our individual freedoms.

Think about it for a

minute: if human beings are so nasty and greedy that they need to be

regulated, what sense does it make to trust government to do this

regulating, when government is run by these same nasty, greedy people?

Who's going to regulate the

regulators?

 

Blind spot number three of the left-wingers is crucial in understanding

what Al Gore might be up to with his global warming theory.

The

left-wingers fail to see how environmentalism,

or any issue that appears

to be humanitarian, can be used by unscrupulous politicians for the

purpose of their own big government agenda, or ultimately to further the

global elite's

agenda of world fascist government. It's an old, tried and

true formula: hop on the

bandwagon of a popular, emotional issue, fan

the flames of fear through your propaganda machine, and then propose

the only possible solution for a helpless humanity, which

always means

more power in the hands of the government.

 

The sad fact of the matter is the environmental movement was infiltrated

a long time ago by hoards of individuals and institutions that don't give

two figs about the environment.

The list is long and infamous, but let's

just take a look at the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), for

example. The EPA is notorious for its reams of silly, meaningless

regulations, like denying building permits in order to preserve an

endangered species of field mice, which stand in the way of reasonable

human progress, and which makes

environmentalism, in general, look

frivolous, and gives it such a bad name in the eyes of

so many.

 

Another case in point is the United Nations.

The UN currently is playing

the preeminent role worldwide in environmental programs and

environmentalism, in general. The UN is

also one of Al Gore's closest

allies in embracing the notion that global warming will soon

result in

monumental environmental catastrophe, with CO2 from the burning of

fossil fuels in the industrialized world the culprit.

Gore and the UN also

agree upon the solution – an

all-out attack, both domestically and

internationally, on CO2 emissions. This, of course,

means more

regulations, both on corporations and individuals, more taxes, and more

government bureaucracy. Because global warming is viewed as a global

problem, beyond national boundaries, this would also mean more

authority in the hands of the UN and its

various environmental agencies,

as well as in the hands of the new breed of international

institutions,

such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World

Trade Organization, which are playing such a powerful role in the modern

world. These global institutions are the creation of the global elite.

They

are autonomous, non-elected,

and not a formal part of any national

government. They answer to no one, except

themselves, and they have

basically bribed the US and the other major governments of the

world into

following their lead.

 

Now the question begs to be asked: should we trust the UN any more

than we trust Al Gore? The answer is a resounding, "No!" I realize this

begins to sound like a broken

record, but such is the nature of the illusion

of the modern world. The UN was created by

the global elite, and it is a

puppet of the global elite. It poses as one thing, when its true

purpose is

quite another. It poses as a union of the nations of the world, dedicated

to humanitarianism and peace, and providing a forum to resolve problems

that are beyond the scope of individual nations.

In fact, the UN is a

mechanism and a stepping-stone to

the ultimate prize of the global elite:

a centrally controlled world government, under their

control. This is an

area where those on the far right, the Libertarian and the John Birch

types, have one up on the far left. On the far right, the true nature of the

UN is common knowledge.

It's a given. On the far left, still stuck in the

mud of trusting big-time liberals

and big government, they've never heard

of such a thing.

 

So, this is the spot where I was stuck on global warming and the

environment. I was

determined to find the answer, but doing the scientific

research myself was not an option.

Fortunately, as it turned out, I was

not alone. There was a bunch of other people in

exactly the same boat,

and searching for the same answers. There was also a batch of

renowned, independent-thinking scientists worldwide, who also smelled a

rat in the orthodox global warming theory and in Gore's film.

Unlike me,

they were competent to do the research, and did.

The result was a

74-minute documentary film, produced by the

BBC, and aired on Channel

4 in the UK in early March 2007, entitled The Great Global

Warming

Swindle.

 

I invite you to watch the documentary, and judge for yourself.

At the

time of this writing, this video was still available free on the Internet.

You

may click the link at the conclusion

of this article to watch. However, be

advised it may not be there for long. If that's the

case, I'm certain you

can do a search, and find out how you can purchase it on DVD.

 

The film does not dispute that the Earth is warming up, but takes the

position that this is nothing unusual.

It also presents a credible

scientific analysis, by numerous credible

scientists, which concludes

that there is no connection between this global warming and

CO2

emissions from humanity in the civilized world. The pivotal point of their

analysis, as well as Gore's, deals with the findings that were derived

from digging deep holes in the

Arctic ice cap. These findings show, over

a 600,000 year time span, that there is a

correlation between the

fluctuations in the Earth's temperature and the levels of CO2 in the

atmosphere. Both sides are in agreement up to this point.

 

Gore's scientists then conclude that this correlation must mean that the

levels of CO2 are the cause of the temperature fluctuations. This is

 

where the scientists in the BBC documentary say he misses the boat.

 

First of all, the fact that there is a correlation in this, or any, scientific

data does not mean there is causation. There might be, but not

necessarily. More proof is needed. Secondly, they claim Gore errs in

not looking more closely at this data, and other data. A closer

 

examination of these fluctuations shows that there is a time lag of a few

hundred years between the rises in the temperature and the CO2, with

the CO2 always lagging behind. Therefore, it is more reasonable to

 

conclude that the temperature fluctuations are actually the cause of the

CO2 fluctuations, just the opposite of the orthodox, Gore theory.

 

 

Furthermore, they explain this by including another critical variable: the

significant part that is played by the Earth's oceans.

When the Earth

warms, the oceans slowly warm

also. When they do, they emit massive

amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. This also

explains the time lag

because it takes time for the oceans to warm up due to their

immense

volume.

 

In addition to poking these holes in the Gore theory, these scientists are

also in agreement regarding the primary factor that is responsible for the

Earth's warming and cooling over the millennia.

This is solar activity in

the form of solar flares, which is

currently heating up the rest of the solar

system as well, most notably Mars, where CO2

is not a factor.

 

So, where does all this leave us?

I'm certain we have not heard the last

of this debate. A

liberal friend of mine, after having heard the case

against An Inconvenient

Truth, replied that if any good could come from

the film, such as people buying hybrid cars or living in a

more

environmentally harmonious fashion, then it was a good thing. It's difficult

to argue with good, but let's take a look at the bad that could come from

the film. To repeat: we

are currently facing an environmental crisis of

life-threatening proportions on the planet

Earth. If we don't get our act

together, and learn to live in harmony with our environment,

as opposed

to exploiting it, we will reach the point where the Earth will no longer

sustain us as a species.

I don't feel the need to expound on that any

further. If you don't get it,

you're part of the problem, regardless of where

you stand politically.

 

As we have already discussed, global warming can be used by

unscrupulous politicians to advance the big brother agenda, both

domestically and globally, at the expense of our

precious freedom. Just

because something is dressed up to look humanitarian doesn't

necessarily mean that it is. In addition, if the orthodox, Gore theory of

the cause of global warming is incorrect, then the solution, a big brother

attack on CO2 emissions worldwide,

will divert our focus from the real

environmental problems – the poisoning of our water, soil

and food

supply, and the fact that humanity in the civilized world has lost its

connection with its lifeline – the environment in which it lives.

 

Another message I hope I have conveyed here is the critical importance

for us all of learning how to look at the world through our own eyes, and

not the eyes of the media or

the government, or through the eyes of this

polarity thinking, whether left versus right, us

versus them, Christian

versus Muslim, up versus down, or any of various forms it takes.

The

issue of environmentalism vividly demonstrates how polarity thinking

leads us down the wrong track.

This is not an all black or all white

issue, and thinking about it in this

manner leads to endless confusion

and mistakes.

 

Polarity thinking also leads us very quickly into the trap of the "divide

and conquer" scenario. "Divide and conquer" is one of the most powerful

 

techniques of the big brother manipulators to keep us under their thumb.

 

As long as we are divided into mutually exclusive camps, we become

 

easy prey. It's all really very simple: united we stand – divided we fall.

The world today is a crazy, mixed up place, and those in power serve

their own interests, not ours. If we have any hope of taking back our

 

world, and creating a better one, it all starts with waking up to how we're

being deceived and manipulated for the purpose of being pawns in

somebody else's game, and uniting in this understanding. This single

 

issue eclipses all the others. And then the next step is reassuming

responsibility for our world, and learning to trust ourselves again, rather

than relying on big brother to do our thinking and solve our problems for

us.

 

To watch The Great Global Warming Swindle,

Produced by the BBC, and aired on Channel 4 in the UK in early

March,

 

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170 & q=global+warming+swindle

 

JACK ALLIS

Personal Growth & Awareness Teacher & Author

THE HARMONY OF THE MIND, BODY & SPIRIT

www.harmonymindbodyspirit.com

 

 

PO Box 132, Okauchee, Wisconsin 53069-0132

(262) 569-9873, 1 (800) 995-0796, Ext 9486 (Message Center)

 

jackallis

US: 1 in 150 children has AutismUS: 1 in 6 children suffers a developmental disorderNew Jersey: 1 in 94 has Autism

UK: 1 in 86 has Autism

China : Over 20 lakh autistic children,

India : No authentic figures, expected 40 lakh +

AUTISM IS NOTHING BUT MERCURY POISONING.

THERE IS MERCURY IN VACCINES!!

 

 

Don't pick lemons.See all the

new 2007 cars at Autos.