Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

This is a follow up to the previous video "Why Big Oil Conquered the World".
It concern Agenda 21 (Agenda 2030). Make sure you watch the end, this can be beaten, but only if we are informed. Please get informed!

What Is Sustainable Development?

"Agenda 21 (Agenda 2030) is the action plan, the blueprint to inventory and control all land, all water, all plants, all minerals, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, all education and all human beings in the world."

"It's a stealth plan, and it's operating in plain sight."

"It has its root in prior meetings of the united nations in 1972 and again in 1976, the habitat 1 and 2 determine that land, privately owned land is actually a threat to the social equaty of people on the planet."

"We have to remember that we ourselves are our most important private property and this plan actually enables domestic surveillance, the National defense authorization act, drones and control of all our activities on the planet."

- Rosa Koire, author of "Behind the Green Mask : UN agenda 21

From the book...
"Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by a globalist governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off of the land and packed into human habitation, as they are called in the UN Agenda 21 documents."

This has already happened there have been many indigenous peoples run out of their tribal native lands for the development of environmental development projects headed by the WWF. The video dedicates a significant portion to this and gives several examples.

To quote Edmund De Rothschild -
"Ladies and gentlemen, every country has it's problems, ie., It's indigenous people and it's wildlife, This international Conservation Bank must know no frontiers; no boundaries"

James sums it up.
"It's a resource grab, on a global scale and it is about monopolization of the worlds resources for the benefit of a very few at the expense of humanity"
 
I got to say the more I have learnt about this issue compels me to think that an admission from the IPCC like this is very unlikely. The saving grace may come from the rest of the scientific community and major journals, it will take time. Yep interesting times.
From my experience, I would not put too much faith in the rest of the scientific community, unless perhaps they see the present craziness as discrediting them.

Some years ago I was briefly in contact with a physicist from Oxford University. I contacted him because he had intervened in one of the internet discussions about GW - pointing out the obvious really - but he had clearly stuck his neck out, and he signed with his full name and a link to his website. From our email exchange, I felt that he would like to have said a lot more, but felt constrained not to do so.

Even so, I think the best made plans of mice and men can come unstuck, and I am still reasonably optimistic that we will see a change. I see the 'populist' movements - growing in every country - as the key to this at the political level. I find it weird that the other side labelled us populist, which I think of as a rather attractive label.

The worst mistake is to think of these people as all powerful.

David
 
Last edited:
From my experience, I would not put too much faith in the rest of the scientific community, unless perhaps they see the present craziness as discrediting them.

Some years ago I was briefly in contact with a physicist from Oxford University. I contacted him because he had intervened in one of the internet discussions about GW - pointing out the obvious really - but he had clearly stuck his neck out, and he signed with his full name and a link to his website. From our email exchange, I felt that he would like to have said a lot more, but felt constrained not to do so.

Even so, I think the best made plans of mice and men can come unstuck, and I am still reasonably optimistic that we will see a change. I see the 'populist' movements - growing in every country - as the key to this at the political level. I find it weird that the other side labelled us populist, which I think of as a rather attractive label.

The worst mistake is to think of these people as all powerful.

David
For sure, maybe I am too optimistic but there does seem to be some cracks emerging that were suggested in light of particle forcing and the increasing amount of papers published on the subject. That is the reason for my remark there. Personally I think the full impact of the grand solar minimum may well occur before any possible tipping point in the science. One way or another time will reveal the truth.

I was invested in this topic several years ago, starting of as a believer then as a skeptic, I found myself in a extreme minority so it seemed. Then for years I paid no attention to it, I really didn't care. Years later I became invested in it once more, the first thing that was apparent is the growing shift in skepticism. Things are different now. This is my perception at least.
 
Let's assume I can't, and you make it explicit.
I am not the best at containing my frustration and in rereading some of my posts... I see too much emotion and I apologize. Its just that I cannot stand to see folks being taken advantage of like appears to be the case on the world stage.

Also, I have been a member of a few forums since 2012 and have learned that typing words back and forth with others misses so many positive elements of direct, face to face communication and in cases that can't be done in person, at least video conferencing and then, in cases that is not possible, voice communication.

In a world where this five sense reality is, for so many, the only reality... this sets up exactly what we have today. LoneShaman has brought this out in several posts. Before I explicitly supply the answer, I want to build the case for the answer.

Whatever word one wishes to use for our shared reality... this world we experience through the five senses, some call it "the material realm," some call it "physicality," I have come to call it "hard physicality" to imply that which may be beyond this five sense world, where individualized experience in form is still the underlying dynamic, because it still involves form, is still physical, but, from the perspective of many like myself, who are anchored in hard physicality, we could view the other possible realms of physicality differently. And this difference, from this perspective, seems... less dense, ephemeral, dreamlike and thus I call that soft physicality.

So when I consider what might be the mindset of my fellow Earthlings who view hard physicality as the only reality, I see they share that common belief that all there is is just this one life. Within this group is a range where the emotion of compassion is high all the way down to non-existent. Those who lean far to the compassionate extreme yet have no room for the possibility of their own soul and all the possibilities an eternal journey might imply, so often become your social justice warriors, your passionate leaders or participants in all sorts of, on the surface, altruistic causes. But on the other end of the spectrum are those who appeared divorced from all sense of compassion for others (save for cases where they sense this for some family members and/or others who they perceive share their core views and by working together, could achieve their goals in implementing their preferred reality based on those views). And these are so often the uber-wealthy and/or uber-powerful who fund these well-meaning, passion driven, folks when these folks are dedicated to causes and the goals of these causes this power group wants implemented (but not for the reasons of "saving the world," instead to be able to further increase their power in running the world).

And so, it makes sense that within this reality I call "hard physicality," those who have less scruples with regards to what lengths they (and those who share their views) are willing to go have a decided advantage. It makes sense that as this iteration of "the Earth Game" emerges from a dynamic of pockets of cultures here and there to the one world we see today (populism a current inconvenience, nuisance). And that these "less scrupulous" achieve greater organization facilitated by all sorts of forms of instant communication available today. Its a no-brainer to understand how they are able to identify the passionately driven and then facilitate their rise in all areas of life which they unwittingly work from in ways that step by step remove power from the individual and place it in the hands of the few who again are these "less scrupulous." I am being delicate in my word choice but perhaps this article which synchronistically appeared in my e-mail inbox this morning helps -

Now That We've Incentivized Sociopaths--Guess What Happens Next

To simplify... and I say this as someone who would handicap an upcoming sporting event.

We are in an interesting time where three components converge to point to a likely outcome -

We have a range of types of human beings that are "five sense world-centric."

The world is moving towards a one world government facilitated by all sorts of instant communication

You have a significant increase in the numbers of humans who are restricted by the five-sense world sub-reality within grander reality. (And I must add, much of those who are not of this group but hold to all forms of religious devotion that are not mystically centered... these folks unwittingly assist the five-sensers, especially the eschatologically inclined).

And so the elephant in the living room (IMO) is humanity and the dynamic of the day. The game is fixed. There is almost no shot what you suggested above can happen.

So let's go line by line

AGW is a real problem.
Right there, you and I share zero common ground but for two completely different reasons. You seem convinced by the science you have been attracted to. I am not convinced either way but am very suspicious of the forces trying to push humanity to buy into this thesis.

The solution is to minimise our carbon emissions.
To see that as a solution requires one first to buy into the idea AGW is a "real" problem. But even if it were somewhat a problem, you still must be convinced it is driven by human activity (which I'm not) and you must be convinced human actions can "change" this trend (I am not).

One minimally invasive way to do this is for each sovereign political entity...
Your view may really believe there are sovereign political entities (and so many of us wish there were), but my own view is the appearance of sovereignty is greatly exaggerated. And this is where "the elephant" enters the picture.

...to implement a fee-and-dividend scheme, which taxes carbon emissions but returns those taxes to the people who paid them in the first place.
Even if the largest portion of the taxes would be returned to "the people" (which I don't believe for a minute, and I am saying this based on the example of the entirety of this iteration of human history) do you really believe it would be distributed correctly, fairly? If so, China and India alone would rapidly become bankrupt save for the unbalanced treatments of these nations based on the Paris accord. Why would any "sovereign nation" agree to an unfair accord like the US did when Obama was president? Because sovereign nationhood is rapidly becoming a known myth and anyone that tries to buck that reality is rapidly smacked down (Trump and Brexit, two great examples of how "rebellion" is handled).

Other minimally invasive ways include public education and social incentives to change carbon-intensive practices.
Yes, public "indoctrination" that results in new mid-level "new world order" enforcement would do the trick.

None of that (all of which I endorse), it seems to me, involves "handing over" anything.
When one understands that the goal of this movement (as stated by AOC's chief of staff) is aimed at a takeover of the "entire economy" and you are no longer an innocent human being that believes in "the good" of humanity will always win out (humanity as it exists today on this planet), well... in speaking for myself, I "smell a rat."

If power elites demand unreasonable solutions which are only going to entrench their power further, then I oppose them.
My concern is this - without a major and immediate consciousness shift widespread across humanity, the few who do wake up won't have the tools needed for any real opposition to make any real difference. Great, a guy like me can type my opposition to this or that on a forum... I sometimes wonder why I even do so... I think its just my way of dealing with my own guilt for how clueless I was most of my life and for being in a position now where I am still, in different ways, dependent on the system and perhaps even assisting the system.

Such is the dilemma we all face within hard physicality (well, that's just my opinion and I also opine that most are unconscious of this).

So, where, exactly, is the political problem, and how, exactly, am I a minion?
I don't think I called you a minion. If I did, I apologize.

But having said that, in my prior comment, I essentially called myself a minion still... just less of one than I was in the past.

(Metaphor here) - My focus is in rising above that seamless line in soft physicality where below that line, my soul is in the grips of the Demiurge.
 
Last edited:
To see that as a solution requires one first to buy into the idea AGW is a "real" problem. But even if it were somewhat a problem, you still must be convinced it is driven by human activity (which I'm not) and you must be convinced human actions can "change" this trend (I am not).
Yes - this is an aspect of the problem I don't often bring up because I am less sure I know who to believe, but certainly the graphs of CO2 over geological times show huge variations. Now one might say that people haven't been around that long, but (if you accept some version of evolution) our ancestors certainly were, and of course they were basically open to the elements.

David
 
I am not the best at containing my frustration and in rereading some of my posts... I see too much emotion and I apologize. Its just that I cannot stand to see folks being taken advantage of like appears to be the case on the world stage.

Also, I have been a member of a few forums since 2012 and have learned that typing words back and forth with others misses so many positive elements of direct, face to face communication and in cases that can't be done in person, at least video conferencing and then, in cases that is not possible, voice communication.
Hey Sam,

Thanks for this. I get caught up too - it seems crazy to me that folk would want to deny a real problem and thereby get in the way of a solution. That's essentially why I post on this subject. I don't really care what somebody personally believes about AGW, so long as they don't spread disbelief so as to discourage us all from seeking and implementing a solution - because the stakes are high. And I agree that face-to-face communication is very different from communicating in words alone on a forum: the latter misses so much, and makes it easier to be unkind in ways that we would not be in face-to-face comms (and I include myself in this).
 
Hey Sam,

Thanks for this. I get caught up too - it seems crazy to me that folk would want to deny a real problem and thereby get in the way of a solution. That's essentially why I post on this subject. I don't really care what somebody personally believes about AGW, so long as they don't spread disbelief so as to discourage us all from seeking and implementing a solution - because the stakes are high. And I agree that face-to-face communication is very different from communicating in words alone on a forum: the latter misses so much, and makes it easier to be unkind in ways that we would not be in face-to-face comms (and I include myself in this).
I am sure you are sincere, but I can reverse what you have said with equal sincerity.

It seems crazy to me that folk would want to promote an imaginary problem and thereby cause enormous - probably deadly - problems for society. That's essentially why I post on this subject. I don't really care what somebody personally believes about AGW, so long as they don't spread false belief so as to discourage us all from seeing that there is nothing of concern - because the stakes are high.

I accept that you are sincere, but you need to realise that we are too. As I suppose we agreed in a very different thread, modern science can simply become detached from reality.

Unfortunately it is all too easy to see evidence of climate change were there really is none. One example is the fires in California. The truth as I understand it, is that environmentalists wanted to stop wood being taken from these forests, but they went too far and stopped even dead wood being removed. That creates a big fire risk, but Nature's way of handling this, was that small fires caused, I suppose, by lightening would burn away the brushwood. However, because these forests were too close to expensive homes, this was not acceptable, every small fire had to be extinguished as soon as possible. This lead to a huge build-up of brushwood that lead to uncontrollable fires.

I wonder if something similar has happened in Australia.

You must have seen enough by now to realise that the claimed temperature rises are minute - a fraction of a degree C since say, 1980. Now you don't need to be a scientist to realise that this could not be the cause of all those fires.

Maybe in Australia you don't realise what really cold weather is like. Temperatures of -10C in Britain can easily kill if the heating fails, and a globally warmed temperature of -9.5 C would do almost equal damage. Some people in North America and parts of Europe have to endure far more cold than that. When we have destroyed our fossil fuel power stations (they aren't mothballed, just destroyed), and the wind fails in winter time, huge numbers of people may have no option other than to sit and freeze to death.

There is a lot of hydrocarbon fuel available now, and I think it is the best way to fuel the world until a better alternative becomes available. When we think about methane extraction, I even wonder if left alone that methane might ultimately escape into the atmosphere, and methane is an even more potent 'greenhouse' gas than CO2 - thus burning it for fuel might be preferable even on CC arguments.

Arguments about CC are intrinsically one of the least interesting subjects we discuss here. The only real interest - to me - is the danger this nonsense poses to civilisation, and the way it exposes the vulnerability of modern science to hysterical fads and scams of all sorts.

David
 
Last edited:
Yes - this is an aspect of the problem I don't often bring up because I am less sure I know who to believe, but certainly the graphs of CO2 over geological times show huge variations. Now one might say that people haven't been around that long, but (if you accept some version of evolution) our ancestors certainly were, and of course they were basically open to the elements.

David
Taking this a little further, the biggest explosion of life occurred over 500 million years ago during the Cambrian when Co2 levels where at their highest at maybe 15 times the levels they are today! Rather than acidify the oceans and making sea life unlivable, the sea actually exploded with life. It took billions of years for single celled organisms to terraform the planet to create the right conditions to allow for this to this to occur. life is carbon based after all.

Then there was a point where life became perilously close to being wiped out during the ice age when frigid oceans sucked most of the Co2 out of the air to around 180 ppm. Most plant life was eradicated. Not just because of the cold but because there is a point of low Co2 where plants will just shut down. Humans only barely scraped through. The Earth was merciful and a warming began but it was not lead by a rise in Co2, that happened some 800 years later after the initial warming. Co2 follows temperature not the opposite. Co2 is crucial for life.
 
Last edited:
Just as a bit of FYI - I was shocked at Venice Italy's latest high Acqua Alta tide peak this week, "a key sign of climate change causing ocean flooding in the streets, shocking tourists and bringing tears to the eyes of locals" who see this as reminiscent of Germany's occupation of France in 1940.

"The mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, said he would declare a state of emergency, adding that the flood levels represented a wound that would leave indelible marks. “We ask the government to help us. This is the result of climate change,” he said, putting the damage in the hundreds of millions of euros." - The Guardian, Two people die as Venice floods at highest level in 50 years

Being a climate change proponent myself, of course I immediately ascribed this to Global Warming in my mind when I read the articles. Perhaps the carbon polluters should then pay for this via a tax.

However, I decided to conduct a little challenge to my anchoring bias thinking there. So I reeled in my disdain for all those industries out there causing this... and decided to see if this was 'a real climate change element' or just a media charade.

Here is the result. I mapped out the high water in cm over the last 100 years of Acqua Alta events and found that they have not increased in mean water height, rather have borne a very slight decrease of about 3/100th's of a centimeter per century. This 'decrease' is certainly within the chaos of geogravitic dynamics and error of mean high water measures...

So no - this latest Acqua Alta in Venice has little to do with at least recent climate change and everything to do with the location of the Moon during a winter Perigrean Spring Tide for Venice and timing with a major storm downpour.

The key is this If the media is going to put on easily detectable charades to promote a correct message, do not accuse those who begin to develop a mistrust of this, as being 'deniers' - when it was your own cheerleaders who are a major part of the problem.

Acqua Alta.jpg
 
Last edited:
However, to counter balance this - I took the Mean Sea Level (MSL) measure at a station which I trust, the Tidal Station 8575512 in Annapolis Maryland at The United States Naval Academy, and compressed their table for MSL into a graphic below.

According to this trend since 1978, we need to evolve gill slits and obtain beat up old catamarans, cuz Annapolis will be submerged and uninhabitable in a mere 80 years. We probably should start budgeting for a new Naval Academy now...

This roughly matches (is a bit larger, 7 versus 5 inches) the global sea level rise benchmark of 1/8 inch per year (per NOAA-NOS; https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html). What bothers me is that the seasonal range of the MSL is also increasing.

A mere rise in MSL will not produce this increase in range. I have to think about this a little...

Acqua Alta2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I accept that you are sincere, but you need to realise that we are too.
I realise that. It only makes the situation even more bizarre.

Unfortunately it is all too easy to see evidence of climate change were there really is none. One example is the fires in California. The truth as I understand it, is
...probably picked up from conservative news sites like Fox (which you take as gospel) and not entirely reliable.

I wonder if something similar has happened in Australia.
It hasn't. From where I write, smoke fills the air as the state from which I write battles severe bushfires. Several national parks nearby are going up in flames. It is a tragedy. And it has nothing to do with bad management - or, at least, with management any worse than it has been since Europeans invaded.

You must have seen enough by now to realise that the claimed temperature rises are minute - a fraction of a degree C since say, 1980. Now you don't need to be a scientist to realise that this could not be the cause of all those fires.
And you don't have to be a logician to realise that yours is an argument from incredulity...

When we have destroyed our fossil fuel power stations (they aren't mothballed, just destroyed), and the wind fails in winter time, huge numbers of people may have no option other than to sit and freeze to death.
So, you don't trust the authorities in charge of the power grid to maintain a reliable grid as the mix of input energy sources changes, but why should the rest of us pay for your lack of trust?
 
Hey there again T.E.S

I was thinking a bit about the Venice situation. It occurred to me, as like some other locations on the globe the rising or lowering of sea levels could also coincide with the rising or lowering of the land mass. A quick search did reveal this.

Venice Menace: Famed City is Sinking & Tilting
https://www.livescience.com/19195-venice-sinking-slowly.html

Sea-level rise isn't the only thing that has Venice's famous canals rising ever-so-slightly every year: The city is also sinking, a new study shows, in contrast to previous studies that suggested the city's subsidence had stabilized.

The study's findings also showed that the Italian city is slowly tilting slightly to the east, something scientists had never noticed before.
Although this has been calculated at a very small rate per year, only mm's, maybe an abrupt shift has occurred or it has accelerated?

The last big flood was 1966, this could very well overtake that record. So it is not a regular thing by any means. Only 6 times in 1200 years that flood waters have reached inside the St Mark's Basilica. Rare but it has happened before. The gradual rise of sea level, that has been occurring for many hundreds of years, combined with increased ship traffic that erodes the marshes and mud banks, (further causing the land mass to sink) and rains with an area of low pressure bringing more water, all coinciding with a full moon. It's a difficult nut to crack. Just some thoughts and a brief bit of investigating.
 
Last edited:
While we have had high temperature heat waves, we have also had record setting cold for the past few years. Some say the heatwaves out number the cold. But keep in mind the weather stations gathering this data are mostly in violation of the parameters set for them. With many in dense urban heat islands, and irregularly situated across the landmass of the globe. There is no way we can truly get an average global temperature this way. Satellite data is the most accurate.

Despite the many, many failed predictions that the arctic would be ice free over the past decade and more, and despite failed predictions of an impact on the ski industry, and claims that winters will be getting warmer, and the next generation may never see what snow is....

This has not stopped the newer claim that global warming, (yes they changed the name but the phenomena is still the same) causes extreme cold.

This basically boils down to warm air entering the arctic and disrupting the jet stream, well OK. But this is a new excuse in contrast to what was previously projected. It is ad hoc after the fact. It is in stark contrast to those older projections and talking points. If your theory predicts both the positive and negative, both ends of the scale, what does it actual predict? Well it can predict anything and nothing.

So what about the polar vortex? Can there be other possibilities. Well get a load of this, No one talked about this except a independent magnetic field observatory. At the same time the polar vortex was disrupted at the beginning of the year. The North magnetic pole split into two! And the antartic pole has now moved away from Antarctica! This is huge! And no body said a thing! Except for this one independent observatory. We are in the accelerated stage of geomagnetic reversal. The geomagnetic models where updated around this time yet again, because this was not foreseen. There may be only a couple of decades left, the end of the next Gleissberg cycle. Maybe even sooner. You'll wish we had the luxury of human influenced climate change when this goes down. The powers that should not be are well aware, they know what is looming.



A Birkeland current connects to the pole, here we may have a split in that current. Two of them. A new discovery shows that the structure of a birkeland current is made up of counter rotating shells or sheets of charge. It is far too simplistic to say warm air enters the arctic, from where? Why? There is much more going on here. Yes we are having whether extremes. Climate scientists no nothing of the electrical interactions with the Sun and the earth and the plasma atmosphere the Earth dwells in. This is where particle forcing comes in.

So alarmists, be alarmed. But it should not be about Co2!
 
Last edited:
Hey LS

Yes, very good input on the Venice situation. It is difficult to take one location and use that as a measure, because landmass can sink and rise, yes. But you bring up a key point here, which I do not think that science has addressed fairly (despite its claims to have):

For this reason, tonight I took a blend of 3 long term tidal reporting stations with which I am familiar, on the US East Coast. These three things are still bothering me.

1. the three taken together represent around 7.2 inches of Mean Sea Level increase since 1972. That is 47 years of ocean level increase, averaging about 2/13ths of an inch increase per year, about 23% faster increase than the global average.​
Why would there be a 25% scale variance in the rise of oceans globally? The same differential physics plays out as it always has. The only way oceans could vary that much in rise is​
- we are moving closer to the sun​
- the moon is moving closer to us​
- there is significant annual movement of mantle underneath various locations on Earth
2. the sea level, just like the carbon ppmv measured by the Mauna Loa climate station, is rising by a mild square law. Our economic contribution of carbon and methane to the atmosphere, is linear - so again, we see an unjustifiable square law contained in the mathematics of this phenomenon.​
These phenomena should mimic the release in carbon on the part of mankind. They are not. This means there are TWO carbon contributors at play. The second carbon contributor could be as large as mankind's contribution, and the candidates are​
- tundra CO2 release​
- trapped oceanic methane and hydrates release​
- increased heating of deep oil formations, from mantle movements under them - releasing methane
3. the annual range of Mean Sea Level (MSL) at all three locations below, MSL Range has risen anywhere from 10 to 25%, with a lesser increase in both MSL and Range of MSL as one moves higher in latitude.​
Mean Sea Level Ranges should not rise in this data. Climate models do not offer a mechanism to MSL Range increases. Yet they did increase, and substantially. These MSL Ranges cannot expand simply because of global temperatures melting polar ice caps. These bands expand because of three possibilities:​
- we are moving closer to the sun​
- the moon is moving closer to us​
- there is significant annual movement of mantle underneath that location

Three Station Master MSL Data.png
 
Last edited:
The plot thickens! Very interesting. I'll give it some thought.

Where are those tidal stations exactly if you don't mind me asking? I got some ideas, but I don't want to jump the gun.
 
"Agenda 21 (Agenda 2030) is the action plan, the blueprint to inventory and control all land, all water, all plants, all minerals, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, all education and all human beings in the world."
At 12:58 Rosa Koire quotes Habitat 1&2 'privately-owned land is a threat to 'social equity' and says this is an "attack on private property ownership". Also "we are our own private property" leading to threat of surveillance drones and control of all activity on the planet. The UN's Agenda 21 (2030) sounds a lot like Communism. The thing is:
We already don't own vast tracks of land (haven't for a long time)
We already do live in 'human habitations' called towns and cities.
The surveillance cameras are in place and there is already monopolised use of the planet.

It is the same 'globalist' cronies because they've been doing this for centuries. This is not a new policy, it is an old one with a new name. And 'being informed' of our condition still does not stop it. Protecting individuality is a mistake; it is isolationist -so, weak. I fully believe there is an Agenda and tapping in to climate alarm will be the means of coercion, but contending it with a (Capitalist) claim to right of private ownership is out-dated. As is dissing the global collective concern for climate change by the public, getting stuck on defending CO2 levels. It is undermining an opportunity to discover our huge capacity to challenge this violent and selfish hierarchy. Without sharing mutual interest by true collective ownership, we can all be individually 'picked off' and unwittingly 'herded'. The analogy of 'one stick can be broken, while a bunch can't' comes to mind.

Real change requires collaboration between us. First we refuse to kill and then we learn to share.
 
At 12:58 Rosa Koire quotes Habitat 1&2 'privately-owned land is a threat to 'social equity' and says this is an "attack on private property ownership". Also "we are our own private property" leading to threat of surveillance drones and control of all activity on the planet. The UN's Agenda 21 (2030) sounds a lot like Communism. The thing is:
We already don't own vast tracks of land (haven't for a long time)
We already do live in 'human habitations' called towns and cities.
The surveillance cameras are in place and there is already monopolised use of the planet.

It is the same 'globalist' cronies because they've been doing this for centuries. This is not a new policy, it is an old one with a new name. And 'being informed' of our condition still does not stop it. Protecting individuality is a mistake; it is isolationist -so, weak. I fully believe there is an Agenda and tapping in to climate alarm will be the means of coercion, but contending it with a (Capitalist) claim to right of private ownership is out-dated. As is dissing the global collective concern for climate change by the public, getting stuck on defending CO2 levels. It is undermining an opportunity to discover our huge capacity to challenge this violent and selfish hierarchy. Without sharing mutual interest by true collective ownership, we can all be individually 'picked off' and unwittingly 'herded'. The analogy of 'one stick can be broken, while a bunch can't' comes to mind.

Real change requires collaboration between us. First we refuse to kill and then we learn to share.
I will be buying land next year, I will have to pay rates but it will be mine. I will be passing to my kids, and they will own it.
It will be outside of a town or city, in what would be an exclusion zone.
There will be no cameras watching me.

Under this plan this could not happen. (my country has already signed up) I don't know what you are talking about with all due respect.

This is a combination of "1984" and "A Brave New World". Things are bad but not that bad. It is the very same violent and selfish hierarchy that is behind it, You obviously did not watch, "Why Big Oil Conquered the World" Or any of the other information I have presented. Research it yourself, it is not in the news but it is also not hidden to obscurity. It is a fact.

I do agree with the collaboration between us bit. That was how it was overturned in the Alaskan town. But only if you know what it truly means can people be motivated.
 
Where are those tidal stations exactly if you don't mind me asking? I got some ideas, but I don't want to jump the gun.
It's in the chart - Bar Harbor, Maine - Montauk, New York and Annapolis, MD. I selected these because they run along a longitudinal axis, are long established - and I am familiar with those tidal patterns and histories, having sailed and navigated there. This is inductive consilience matching about 4 other factors I have examined and is a claim to sponsorship, not proof of course.
 
Top