NEW
YEARS' RESOLUTIONS FOR GLOBALISTS
PART 2 of 3
By
Jon Christian Ryter
January 15, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Changing the term "global warming" to "climate change" was a wise diversion on the part of the greedmongers who were now scrambling to find a plausible explanation how the carbon dioxide atrium affect of global warming was now triggering the coldest temperatures in over 500 years. The climate scientists who have been stifled by the media and by the universities and foundations that finance all of the climate research have finally found their voices. And, those voices are now being heard loudly and clearly over the Goreite shouts that the debate is over.
Prior to 1492 all of the world's brightest scientists insisted if a ship sailed beyond the horizon, it would fall off the edge of Earth. When Christopher Columbus didn't fall off the edge of the world, the scientists insisted he simply hadn't sailed far enough to fall off. Polish astronomer Niklas Koppernigk (known to the world as Copernicus) proved that man's known universe was not geocentric (Earth-centered) but was, in fact, heliocentric (sun-centered). Copernicus' peers did not hail his discovery as an advancement of scientific knowledge. They not only ridiculed him, the scientists of the day appealed to the Pope to condemn Copernicus for heresy. Faced with a choice of recanting his theory or facing excommunication and being burned at the stake, Copernicus publicly withdrew his scientific finding and apologized to the Church for his heresy. Keep in mind in these instances, it was not Columbus or Copernicus who were wrong. The "establishment" scientific community was wrong not because their research suggested, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were right, but because as far as the establishment was concerned, without their examining any real scientific evidence, the debate was settled. They simply refused to consider anything that would force them debate the merits of their point of view.
Scientists today insist that man is a product of evolution. There are thousands of textbooks written on the subject. Yet, with the millions of written words explaining how this species evolved from that one, there has never been a single transitional fossil found that shows a mutation from one species to another. The "scientific theories" on evolution, like Gore's climate fallacies, begin with a conclusion rather than a premise. The laws governing the establishment of scientific proof have never been applied to the theory of evolution, nor to the theory of man-induced global warming.
As shocking as this may seem, evolution requires a much greater leap of faith than creationism. Think about it. The idea that nature (which is completely inanimate) could, and would, selectively isolate specific plants and animals and set them on an evolutionary spiral to advance life suggests that nature (Gaia) has both an intelligence and a master plan. Like the ecoalarmist who created the global warming models, the evolutionist constructed an imaginary phylogenetic model to support an evolutionary linkage between the various life forms. Yet, with the existence of over 500 million prehistoric fossil records which can be physically examined, there is not a single fossil that supports the factless supposition that any species evolved into some other species.
Evolutionary "science" and climate "science" were fictitiously manufactured by wealthy foundations with a utopian, global agenda. Christians believed that all basic humans rights are God-given, thus they are inherent. If God is a myth, then the inherency of human rights are also a myth. Climate science textbooks, written by the Ph.D's who are funded by the foundations of the barons of business, the princes of industry and the masters of the New World Order, like the books dealing with evolutionary science, begin with a conclusions based on fabricated premises. Anyone who believes that flatulating cows, sweaty old men with irritable bowel syndrome who inhabit a world with too many people, young and old, are the primary cause of global warming deserve the fate that is in store for them. The rest of us, who clearly understand that we are being illegally manipulated by crooked politicians who are being legally bribed by greedy thieves and liars, don't.
When we sufficiently reduce carbon dioxide, the world's deserts will double or triple in size, rainfall will cease, the abundance of food growing in the world's farms will experience the dust bowls of the 1930s, and mass starvation will begin. When that happens, the ecoalarmists will jump on their soap boxes and shout they warned us this was coming, but we didn't listen. And the carbon taxes will increase to get rid of even more of that nasty carbon dioxide. And of course, then, the rest of us will die—and Earth will join the rest of the dead planets in their silent journey around the sun in our solar system.
Advertisement
Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the orbital mechanics of the solar system knows that planetary heating and cooling of the inner planets, particularly Venus, Earth and Mars, are caused by solar eruptions that cyclically increase and decrease the temperatures of the inner planets in our solar system. Advocates of global warming who insist that flatulating cows and sweaty fat old men with irritable bowel syndrome raise the ground temperature on Earth, deliberately ignores the fact that flatulating cows and sweaty fat old men with irritable bowel syndrome don't exist on Mars or Venus—which means the claims that humans cause global warming is just so much bovine excrement from flatulating cows. In point of fact, the ecoalarmists who claim that mankind is responsible for 99% of global warming simply ignore the fact that Venus and Mars both experience the same heating and cooling cycles experienced by Earth. All of the temperature fluctuations in the solar system are caused by solar cycles that vary from 11 to 231 years in duration.
There's a sinister reason for claiming that carbon dioxide is the culprit behind global warming. David Rockefeller, the patriarch of the Seven Sister's oil clan, like old John D., Sr. is convinced that oil is a fossil fuel (which means since there are no more dinosaurs and prehistoric fauna to decay), that we are running out of oil. Thus, raising the price of crude oil to force people use less of a commodity they need but increasingly can't afford is smart business. Standard Oil has been doing that in small degrees since 1870, and in a major way since the formation of OPEC in the 1970s. From 1950 to 1960 oil remained static at roughly $2 barrel. Five nations (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Venezuela) formed OPEC in 1961. The price of oil rose to $3 barrel. With the help of environmentalists and the far left Congress beginning in 1977, the Seven Sisters began closing both oil wells and refineries in the United States. US oil companies bought every oil lease available on Alaska's North Slope but did not develop any of them. Planned shortages were on the way. Oil rose to $30 barrel. While the Seven Sisters own half of all of the oil pumped from all of the active wells in all of the OPEC countries except Venezuela and Iran, which simply nationalized the US oil interests, the Standard Oil Seven Sisters under its Exxon flagship, not only owns 50% of all of the oil pumped from the under the sands of the Saudi Peninsula, it also owns a large percentage of the oil being pumped in Siberia in a partnership deal with Russian Lukoil. Exxon is now also refining the oil from Kazakhstan's Baku oil fields which John D. Rockefeller could not get from Tsar Nicholas II in 1880.
The oil strike near the Caspian Sea, which was controlled by Baron Alphonse Rothschild and the Swiss munitions maker Alfred Nobel was the largest oil strike in the world at that time. The estimated oil reserves in the Baku Oil Field dwarfed the combined reserves of Standard Oil in the United States. (That would change when oil was struck in Texas and Oklahoma—and. today, with the latest oil discoveries of a massive pool of oil locked in shale under Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Geologists estimate the extractable oil in that site is three times the total oil available under the Saudi Peninsula.) In 1880, Rockefeller was convinced that oil existed only in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kazakhstan, Sumatra and Java.
Today, we know oil is a global commodity with the largest oil find to date discovered in a joint IPO by Exxon and China Oil in the Pacific Ocean, stretching from the Hawaiian Archipelago to the Mariana Archipelago. This is the most important oil strike since crude oil was first discovered at Oil Creek, Pennsylvania in 1862 and in the Baku Oil Fields in Russia in 1873—and it dwarfs all of the oil found in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] Alaska and the recent discovery of oil in the western United States. The problem with the rising price of crude and gasoline has nothing to do with shortage of oil. It never did. It has always been due to the belief of the Rockefellers that oil is decayed dinosaur carcasses and decayed prehistoric fauna. Not even finding more oil under the oceans of the world than they have found on land has discouraged that thinking.
It's this twisted utopian Rockefeller thinking that influenced the far left conviction that there are too many people on the planet. Eventually, David Rockefeller, who funded the distribution of the 1968 Paul Ehrlich book, The Population Bomb, that expounded the erroneous views of an essay written by 18th century botonist Thomas Robert Malthus in 1798. Malthus, living in a world which had no knowledge of 20th century architecture or agriculture, was convinced that as the population grew, it would simply spread out—building single family dwellings across the landscape—devouring all of the farmland as the population grew. Malthus estimated that by the year 2000. Without adequate farmland, there would be not be enough food in the world to maintain even a fraction of the population that would exist by that time, and what population that survived the wars fought for what food was left would ultimately die of starvation. David Rockefeller made sure that Ehrlich's book was placed in every secondary school, college and university in the country.
Malthus wrote his essay two decades before the industrial revolution and a century before the development of chemical fertilizers which increased crop yield...and with enough population growth to increase God's natural plant food—carbon dioxide—that spread forestation, increased rainfall and made a richer atmosphere for all living creatures to breathe Malthus was convinced these hordes of unwanted people would die from mass starvation.
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Thus, Utopians and other ecoalarmists who believe that Ehlrich wrote a factually researched book instead of merely plagiarizing Malthus' flawed 18th century data, are doing mankind a favor by aborting the unborn at the onset of the chain of life and euthanizing the old who today drain the resources needed by the rest of us to survive. Malthus had an excuse for his flawed logic. He couldn't see the future. Ehlrich has no excuse since he lived in the future Malthus could not see. For part three click below.
