Freedom 21 National Conference Day 1 Part 2
Okay I’m still playing catch up here as day 1 was ALL new info and most of day 2 was much of the same.
Session 3:
Dr. Michael Coffman : Global Governance
Summary:
Agenda21 has 40 chapters that document and cover all the aspects of the global citizens lives. Specifically the 2nd section is “Conservation & Management of Resources for Development”. In essence this section focuses on how to protect the environment from us, the citizens of our country. There is a map that actually shows how the United States would lay out with the institution of Sustainable America.
With Agenda21 positions this would strip about 1,000,000,000 people of their property. This would be the ability for them to control the land to govern the people and take the wealth in the preservation of the environment. Right now in America where we have the most free land policies from our governments intervention the per capita is $47,000 as apposed to $37,000 in the European nations that have more restrictions on land policies. Russia’s per capita in 1995 was $1,000 and now is $10,000 with the lifted restrictions on land policies.
The United Nations wants to give the governments the control by using “Smart Growth”. This gives city planners the blue prints and ability to control the property, not he Free Market. Which really Smart Growth is not so smart.
In the 9th chapter Protection of the Atmosphere, is the basis for Global Warming. So far only 60 scientist have researched into the Global Warming theory and 4 have agreed it is a problem. Sounds pretty evident doesn’t it? Not when 31,072 scientist 9,021 with PHDs have refuted Global Warming.
One theory is that the temprature rise correlates with the Solar Activity as seen in the chart below. (Site: http://www.discerningtoday.org)
If we push Obama and the UN agenda to get new solar and wind power, as well as force Cap and Trade we will lose 2.2 jobs. Spain has done this and is now suffering an unemployment rate of 17.9%. Now even if we get wind power in place, wind isn’t guaranteed, we’re at mother nature’s mercy. Solar power is still inefficient with current technology with 50% day light and the unpredictable cloud formation and movement. Coal plants will have to run as back ups to wind and solar power. So we’re still polluting the air just as much. The infrastructure just isn’t there for this serious jolt Obama and the UN want to do.
The Heritage Foundation has predicates that the Cap and Trade will cost a family $2,100 to $6,800 a year. Once the carbon taxes reach the normal citizen it will be about an additional $4,600 a year. We will have 7 million jobs loss and $9,500,000,000 of debit over the next 24 years.
Share this Post[?]
I would not support something which strips people of land ownership. I believe land is the most valuable thing a person can have.
On the other issue though, the NAS and the AAAS have both declared Global Climate Destabilzation to be a valid threat. They are THE organizations when it comes to what we know to be valid science. Their stuff is thouroughly studied and peer reviewed before they release their statements. It equal to asking the Pope what being a Catholic is like. The scientists who disagree usually fall into the category of ‘yes I am a scientist who may have a PhD, but no I do not practice in that field’ and are equivalent to any of us giving our opinions…they are just opinions backed by their personal beliefs and not any actual scientific testing that they have actually done or commissioned.
You should really check out this guy who has done a lot of logical reasoning on how we should reach decisions on this issue: http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42?blend=2&ob=1
I concur. But I would say this, some of the alternative suggestions for the cause of temperature changes LOOK much closer to reasons why. We’ve been in a 10 year cooling period while the CO2 emissions are growing at an incredible rate.
That’s why ‘Global Warming’ is an outdated term as it denotes the air. What’s more important is actually the sea temperature and its affect on everything else by changing and/or stopping the ocean conveyor system. This problem actually leads to a cooling effect as a bunch of crap that I can’t remember right now happens prior to the point of no return. ‘Global Climate Destabilization’ is a much more accurate term for what is believed to be the eventual result as well as better reflecting the varied problems that are currently happening across the globe.
I will say that nobody knows how our complex world really works. I personally haven’t seen the cause to SPEND millions on these projects. Because one thing I know we’d see is less money in our pockets and a destabilization of our economy and currency. This is an affect of going crazy on this Global Client Destabilzation theory. Because spending money isn’t a theory, it’s a reality and a proven science.
Ocean temperatures are not destabilized or going up, because our planet has been in a cooling. So that doesn’t make me buy into that theory. All of it is speculation. Even the solar activity is theory, but it’s the one that makes more sense to me right now.
Thanks for your alternative view and send any data or links my way. I am a thinking man
That youtube channel for wondermind42 is probably the most compelling thing I can offer. However AFTER that, here is a link to the AAAS webpage on this topic (I haven’t read it yet, but they are the among the biggest eggheads we have).
I don’t think we really have to conclude it’s man-made or not to decide to do something. Even if we have absolutely nothing to do with it (hard to believe we are blameless though), I don’t want to take nature’s wrath sitting down. Not sure what would take so much money to do though. What we really need is just some regulations pushing us to develop and implement the technologies we should already be doing so with. We did it with Freon, we can do it with this. I actually believe we are doing stuff already without having reached the ‘final answer’ on the subject anyway. My home is all CFLs and it’s hard to find new appliances that aren’t energystar compliant. I’ve never understood what the big debate is really about. We should be moving towards alternative energies and better efficiency as quickly as possible ANYWAY *shrugs*.
I think alternative energy is a good move. But “FORCING” these on the American people in troubling times, is not a good move either. Why not give grants to scientist or developing companies for research? I will comment more later. Busy day at work today.
What’s your thoughts on this ( http://bishop.house.gov/display.cfm?content_id=403 )? ‘Global Warming’ aside, if we are going to have an alternative energy bill, is this one so bad? The .11/day that 69% of D-2 is projected to see, is less than $4/mo. I think I could live with that to help get us off of our reliance on oil. HR 2454 has passed the house, and is on to the senate. Thoughts?
Split post due to spam blocker…
Ok, regulation is bad (took me awhile, but I’m here). It would be better to simply subsidize the move to energy efficient stuff. So, instead of cap and trade, I’d like to see more energy tax credits and refunds. Stop forcing people and businesses to do stuff, and start offering good reasons to do it on their own. Lead with the carrot and not the whip.
On the other issue, I have found the following resources (mostly from the actual Wildlands Network website) about their conservation agenda. It’s scary to know that we were actually about to vote in the Treaty which would have done this stuff back in 1994!
Wildlands Network website: http://www.twp.org/cms/index.cfm
The wildlife corridors which will ‘conserve’ half of America: http://www.twp.org/files/pdf/reconnecting_map.pdf
In other words, it will become preserves: http://www.twp.org/files/pdf/spine_map.pdf
Only three links at a time, seriously??
Not so far fetched since the government already owns a bunch of it: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/images/map_showing_fed0001.jpg
Thank goodness for Senators with half a brain: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/crhutchison.htm
Scare yourself silly here: http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wilderness/wildlands_project.htm
On a personal note, I have been trying to find a high-res image of the bio-diversity map, but I have been unsuccessful. Any know where one is? Anyone interested in buying one ( http://discerningtoday.org/wildlands_map_of_us.htm ) and scanning it?