Copenhagen is supposed to be the "last chance to save the world." What exactly are we saving the world from exactly? The video below; which served as the opening video for Copenhagen 15; leads us to believe that we are saving the world from ourselves and as usual this is being done 'for the children.' Is that what Copenhagen is really about though? Or is it something much bigger that many have warned us about for years now?
The so-called leading environmental scientists at Copenhagen are leading us to believe that the warming of the earth and the overall climate is greatly impacted by things we as humans beings do each and every day. This ranges from driving our cars, to running our washing machine, turning on the blow-dryer, and even eating the beef that we eat when we want a cheeseburger from our favorite fast food joint. All of these things in one way or another produce 'carbon dioxide.' A natural element in the air that is categorized as a 'greenhouse gas.' This gas is what's allegedly causing the climate change and global warming affect around the world that has been greatly increased by man's desire for freedom and our use of fossil fuels. But what exactly is Carbon Dioxide?
Carbon Dioxide is compound of 2 oxygen atoms mixing with 1 carbon atom. The formula many remember from chemistry class is 'CO2.' It's a natural compound of nature and makes up only 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is mostly used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars which in turn are consumed or used to make other raw material for plant growth and development as well as other organic compounds. It's produced by not only plants, but also by any animal or fungus that in a basic sense 'breathes.' In a cinch, if it's alive and breathing, then it produces carbon dioxide. It's literally the most naturally produced gas from living beings and organisms on the planet. Carbon dioxide is also a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels and occasionally produced when volcanoes or geysers erupt. So how is something that is so natural in nature possibly dangerous to the planet and its inhabitants?
Some scientists argue that the increased addition of CO2 to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution during the 18th century until today has caused an increase in the 'greenhouse effect,' that we may not have seen if human beings weren't producing so much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They argue the earth's average temperature has risen 0.6 degrees celsius over the course of the past century, and could be up as much as 2 degrees celsius by the year 2100. The consensus amongst these scientists is something must be done to prevent this from happening by reducing carbon emission in top producing nations by atleast 30% if not more by the year 2020. The claim is that if this does not occur, then the earth with be filled with nothing but major natural disasters such as extensive droughts and massive hurricanes year after year. These effects would in turn cause crop losses and world-wide famine. The scientists claim that their data is conclusive and in a sense if we don't do something, then we are doomed.
The funny thing about data when it comes to 'climate change' and global warming is there's no conclusive evidence of any of these things occurring as said to be. While certain places are seeing warmer temperatures, others are seeing cooler temperatures. While some places see increased dryness, the same are seeing increased wetness that used to be just as dry. How is that truly inclusive of anything? While the northern polar ice caps seem to be shrinking somewhat, the continent of Antarctica and its ice seems to be growing. Shouldn't that be something that scientists are talking about rather than pushing their focus up north? Why are some places in the northern hemisphere seeing colder than usual winters and more snowfall than they've seen. If anything wouldn't that show a decrease in temperature overall? While the far-north might be getting warmer, areas south of there seem to be getting cooler. Even China has seen in the past several years snow events that isn't even in their recent recorded history. So why the continued push even with more and more evidence going against them to get people to curve the carbon output?
The answer is simple: Control. Just as we mentioned in the health care debate on control over people, this is the next big ticket to controlling the people of the United States as well as the entire western world. The answers for 'stopping' greenhouse gas emissions never seem to have anything to do with truly producing clean-burning energy, but instead always revolve around increased taxes for carbon outputs. Governments come out with 'carbon taxes' and 'cap & trade' systems to punish those who use their cars or power plants who output carbon emissions when producing energy for the rest of the world. There are even talks of population control and limiting births in nations to be responsible and make sure no additional carbon output is done by your family than necessary. This doesn't sound much like fixing a problem as it does controlling people in their actions. Instead of researching alternatives or allowing cleaner burning methods to take place, the idea is to regulate and control people using the methods already used each and every day. The idea is literally to tax people for breathing.
Just in the UK the other week, the idea was put out for personal 'carbon credit cards' in which if you wanted to get gas or buy certain products, you had a limit on the amount of carbon producing products you were allowed to buy in any given month. If you wanted to get more, you would have to pay a heavy tax on each extra 'carbon credit' you wanted to use. As usual this is something that doesn't effect the wealthiest, but is the key element in being able to keep the poor down on their luck and to reign in the middle class and keep them from being prosperous.
Don't believe it's about control? Then think about this: Why has the EPA been given free reign to dictate what needs to be done to curve the use of greenhouse gases. Under the Clean Air Act and with the results just announced this week, they will be able to freely tell American citizens what they can and cannot do and will be able to literally shut down power plants if they refuse to cooperate with their demands. No executive authority, no congressional authority, and with a law given by the supreme court, the ability for a bureaucracy to tell average citizens how they must live their lives or suffer the consequences. These aren't elected officials or anyone that can be voted out of office. These are people who are pushing an agenda to gain control over Americans.
Control. Health Care, Cap & trade, The Patriot Act, increased government printing of money causing inflation, and Executive Authority during declared 'National Emergencies.' are all about that one simple aspect and they've all been gradually put into place within the last twenty years, most clauses within the last eight. So the question would be who indeed is the real enemy of the people in this situation? Are we the enemy in living our every day lives minding our own business, or is an out of control government the true enemy here?
There's no claim that we're scientists here or truly understand if the increase in greenhouse gases play an effect in the overall warming of the planet. From a visual perspective and from paying attention just on raw data alone, it would appear they do not. That's why more answers are needed and why all scientists need to be brought to the table. Governments only listen to those scientists who they hire to study/produce results and continuously ignore those scientists who have been proving possibly time and time again that the 'climate change' groups are wrong on their data. Why is one voice being heard louder than the other, and why is one's scientist's data valued higher than the others when some of the world's most renowned scientists even say the data is quite possibly false? That's exactly why many people are skeptical and feel this is nothing more than an element of control. When anything comes out debunking the global warming theorists, then the others get louder. The most damning of any of this, is going on in Copenhagen right now.
Why aren't opposing scientific views being heard at the conference that's supposed to be about "saving the world?" How can the world's leaders be in Copenhagen and possibly signing an accord in which they agree to do something without actually having a true consensus of what's going on? It doesn't make one bit of rational sense to have a 'climate change' agreement without having all of the data from all scientists right in front of each and every one of them. When the scientists cannot even agree, then how possibly could our world leaders agree to change something?
There needs to be truth and transparency and real evidence put forth or atleast some common ground found. If there's truly a problem, we need a way to fix the problem that involves cleaner energy and ways to output gases. We don't need bureaucrats dictating to us on how we must live our lives without coming up with a real solution.
Hopefully the American people and the western world will wake up to what's really taking place around them before it's too late. It's time we realize that whether the data is wrong or right, the solutions have nothing to do with changing things at all and are about controlling people and taking away liberty. Everything being suggested is in the name of changing the climate, but nothing is an actual solution to fix it. That is the problem and what people all around the world should demand answers to.
