What Al Gore Hasn't Told You About Global Warming

[Fifth Way]

(I tried to put this as a comment on the article http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/a...+Al+Gore+Hasn't+Told+You+About+Global+Warming but it wouldn't let me. Whenever I hit the comment button the little "thinking-wheel" comes on but the comment does not follow.)

When has someone ever delivered such an ominous message to such tumultuous applause?

In my possibly uneducated opinion the people are cheering because it seems that for once a top politician does not lie.
Right!

Hmmm. Does he not? As we learn in the above article Gore's solutions are: Put on a sweater. Use more efficient light bulbs. Turn the thermostat down 2 degrees. Drive less.

We must ask. What exactly is he doing?

It seems to me that he is doing most classical COINTELPRO:
Drop lots and lots and lost of inconvenient truths to appear credible, then slip in a huge falsehood to be swallowed with the rest.

He goes: Fact a., b., c. d., e. ...and so on and at the end:
fact w.: World population exploded in the last century (shows graph)
fact x.: energy consumption exploded in the last century (shows nearly identical graph), therefore:
fact y: w=x which means that the so called "over"-population causes the over-energy-use, that causes global warming.
fact z.: The FINAL sub-conscious messages in your mind: To save the planet we need to get rid of the people. Right?

WRONG!

Overpopulation happened and happens in the Third World while over-energy-use happens in the First World, the US. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other (...well they do - but nothing in the context with global warming. It is a LIE!)

How can Gore, having studied this so hard not know this?

I think the final agenda is: He is softening the ground of Kissinger's "End-Solution": Solve 94% of the problems on this planet by killing 94% of the planet's population. Hey they got to go anyway - because of global warming.

In the end Gore is another "13th protocol" just like M. Ruppert was.

I want to point out that I too loved his film. I too was so happy to see a top politician for once to say it like it is.
...Until he dropped the LIE.
And I only picked it up because of the training one gets on this web-site!!!

 

[Laura]

Your comment is there... maybe it takes a minute or two for it to show up. Not sure myself since I am just learning the system like everyone else!

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

More people = more energy use = global warming? Hmm...

I agree, population is growing. But the other 2, they are not conclusive, they are fuzzy - especially that last part. I'd say that basically more people does mean generally more energy use, assuming an average "western world consumer" lives in a house and has a "modern" lifestyle more or less, and requires a certain amount of energy each day and night. But so what? Does he provide evidence that energy use is in fact what is causing global warming? And is it necessarily energy use, or the method of production of said energy? And what about other possible factors, like maybe it is something cyclical and "mankind" has little to do with it at all? And the part that mankind DOES play - perhaps with certain "emissions", and if he really wants mankind to NOT play a role in this at all, what about the solution in terms of cutting down these "emissions"?

His solution is basically like saying "The sun is bright, and if you stare at the sun too long, you can damage your eyes. The solution? Let's blow up the sun so it won't be there anymore and won't hurt our eyes when we stare at it."

Although where this analogy fails is that - it is actually true - the sun really is bright. In his case, whether mankind is in fact causing global warming - THAT is not necessarily true. So while in the analogy blowing up the sun WOULD get rid of the "problem" (ignoring the obvious introduction of a few new problems this results in), in reality, killing mankind might not slow down the global warming. And hypothetically speaking, IF mankind was the sole reason for global warming, the assumption is that mankind cannot possibly NOT do whatever it is doing that causes global warming, so it MUST be depopulated. I beg to differ.

 

[Fifth Way]

Your comment is there... maybe it takes a minute or two for it to show up. Not sure myself since I am just learning the system like everyone else!

...And learning is waht it is all about.
But on my two Macs the comment still does not show up - even after reseting Safari?

 

[anart]

But on my two Macs the comment still does not show up - even after reseting Safari?

It's not showing up on my mac either - fwiw.

 

[Ruth]

Hmmm. Does he not? As we learn in the above article Gore's solutions are: Put on a sweater. Use more efficient light bulbs. Turn the thermostat down 2 degrees. Drive less.

In some sectors of the global community this could be classified as being too little, too late. I'm not sure the exact amount of time it takes for all the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere since 1800 and more recently since the 1950s, but I think it is a while.

fact y: w=x which means that the so called "over"-population causes the over-energy-use, that causes global warming.
fact z.: The FINAL sub-conscious messages in your mind: To save the planet we need to get rid of the people. Right?

WRONG!

Actually, this will work. If you reduce the species that is increasing one of the major greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (humans), and you increase one of the things that pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere and places it back into the ecosystem (trees), then you get global cooling. I'm reading a book about weather change by Tim Flannery who quotes a rather interesting theory proposed by Bill Ruddiman:

He sees a clear correlation with times of low atmospheric CO2 and several plagues caused by the bacterium Yersina pestis - the black plague of medieval times. These epidemics were global in their reach and killed so many people that forsets were able to grow back on deserted farmland. In the process they absorbed CO2, lowering atmospheric concentrations by 5 to 10 parts per million. Global temperatures then fell and periods of relative cold ensud in places such as Europe.

So, maybe the 'Powers that Be' are entertaining the thought of doing this.

Overpopulation happened and happens in the Third World while over-energy-use happens in the First World, the US. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other (...well they do - but nothing in the context with global warming. It is a LIE!)

All things are connected and what is 'overpopulation' anyway? A population needs to be sustained by its environment and its environment is dependent on the climate! What we may be seeing in Africa is a group of people, who because they are poor are less able to adapt to the effects of climate change, (drought and famine). become the first victims of this world wide phenomonon.

How can Gore, having studied this so hard not know this?

I think the final agenda is: He is softening the ground of Kissinger's "End-Solution": Solve 94% of the problems on this planet by killing 94% of the planet's population. Hey they got to go anyway - because of global warming.

Maybe he's lying by omission? The same reason you don't tell the public the truth about any of the real serious stuff going on is because they just can't handle seeing it. If Gore is a member of the powerful elite (or PTB) and maybe we can assume that he is, then he most likely is aware of a plan to reduce the worlds population to a 'safe' level. It seems Kissinger is! And what would the most likely scenarios be?

1. global plague
2. wait for the space rocks.

The fact that members of the PTB simply cannot be honest about the scale of climate change and global warming tends to make these things more inevitable.

 

[Alana]

The same reason you don't tell the public the truth about any of the real serious stuff going on is because they just can't handle seeing it.

I was wondering these days what would i do if i was a president of a country. Would i tell the people what is going on? I told a friend about the 4.5 billion deaths by 2012 of global warming related causes today, and in all honesty she replied she is too involved in her microcosm dramas to care about the macrocosm prospects. I wonder if any of the non psychopathic "rulers" will ever come out and tell their people: ok guys, this is what's going on. What do YOU think we should ALL DO? I believe people deserve to know, so that they can decide on how to act if they care, those who do care. And a "ruler" that is a normal human being would feel the need to share with his/her people his own worries about things that affect us all. But unfortunately, it seems that what's coming, whether designed by psychopaths or earth'e destiny, and probably both, fits the agendas that are already on the table.

 

[anart]

I believe people deserve to know, so that they can decide on how to act if they care, those who do care.

The facts is, though, that the people who want to know are working on figuring it out - they will (and do) find out - there is a large percentage of the population who, according to all observable evidence, do NOT want to know. I have family members who fit this description - I've even asked them, if something devastating were on the way, would you want to know - they answer, "no - I'd rather be ignorant and 'happy' until it hit".

These are 'well-educated' 'intelligent' people - who do NOT want to know. It's a tricky situation, to say the least.

 

[PopHistorian]

I thought it was pretty funny to see the list of "things to do" and not see "disband all standing armies" on it. Isn't the US military the largest single customer of fossil fuels on Earth? I've heard it said that it is by far the largest polluter in America (and most of it doesn't even seem to be stationed in America. Twenty years ago I heard that the Russian military was about the same-size operation as the US's, though I don't know about now. And of course China's is growing by leaps and bounds.

I say disband all armies, and by impression I got of Gore's shifty calculations, it would buy us a few years.

 

[Ruth]

I say disband all armies, and by impression I got of Gore's shifty calculations, it would buy us a few years.

I believe the problem may be something to do with our consumption of fossil fuels since the 1950s. Our leaders are still caught in short term fantasy land of globalism, profit and war. Perhaps they represent the human equivalent of the dodo?

 

[Renaissance]

The timing of Gore's movie is pretty interesting as well. For the past years, anyone whose looked beyond their immediate environment at the preponderance of strange weather patterns would have noticed the reality of global climate change. Five years ago talk of global warming was often given the same dismissive and ridiculed reaction that 'conspiracy theories' elicit today. But now people cannot ignore the immense changes in the weather of their immediate environment. I live in New England and it reached close to 70 degrees last week. Everyday people comment on how stange the weather is. Some love it; a few here and there feel uncomfortable about it. In any case, this winter (for those on the top of the globe) has brought the some of the most intense and lasting inverse weather patterns that modern memory has experienced. So I find it a bit interesting that Gore's movie is fresh on everyone's mind while all this is happening.

 

[Fifth Way]

To go deeper into this complex subject please all read Laura's Fire and Ice: The Day After Tomorrow http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/125454-Fire+and+Ice:+The+Day+After+Tomorrow which puts it all in a 'cosmic' context.