Freediving vs. The Earth

[Kars]

Dear Jee,

Thanks for you questions, I shall try to expand upon my previous post because I feel the important points have not come through clearly:

I think there is Global warming.
I do not think it's made by us through producing Co2.
I think psychopathic aristocratic families control the world and have and will use any excuse to enslave mankind further.

In the intrest of time I limit myself to just giving a few links explaining several points.

On the Global warming:
- The Climate Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary...

On the aristocratic families I would recomment reading Plato's 'The Republic' where he explains the typical aristocratic believsystem. Their superiourity to the commen man, due to genetics, is in fact a social evolutionairy religeon. Who said Evolutionairy thinking is new?

On the alternative energies etc. There are many, MANY alternatives. But independance of the individual is detrimental to the intrest of those who always have and still are maintaining control. Therefore any invention that could make us more indepent is suppressed by various techniques.

Equinox - It Runs on Water (Free Energy - 1995) -...

Free Energy - The Race to Zero Point - Google...

And if you feel like doing a little handywork youself, try reproducing what a 10 yearold school girl made for het science project:
Bedini Motor test


Closing I would like to state I find it rather disturbing that while 'the goverment' wants us to limit ourselves, they happily engage in using 'depleted' uranium on the battlefield, proving grounds, allow and subsedice Genetic modicifation, spray the skies with metals, fungus and polymers to alter the weather, our moods, our abilities, our health and lifespan.

It's nice to know that many freedivers are intrested in thinking for themselves, do ask questions, and hopefully strong enough to comprehend there are psychopaths in charge of society who seek to turn the rest of us into hollow functional machines or fellow psychopaths to serve them. Cutting Through the Matrix with Alan Watt - Clearing the rubbish from the road to reality

Personally I work hard to retain in us what makes us human, what distincts us from the animals?

Love, Peace and water,

Kars

ps.
Recommended books/movies: 1984, Brave New World, Wag the Dog, Things to Come, Brazil, THX 1138, The Matrix.
In fact with close to any film there is (predictive)programming going on, but to most people it's unconscious as they concentrate on the superficial story.
It also applies for songs or anyother form of mass communication.

[Jee]

Yo Kars,

I chekcked the movie about the Global Warming, and it really looks like a propaganda film - for the fossil energy. It looks as it were made for the order of the oil companies. Some of the parts in the film are simply not true. I mean there is a part, when they show, how they make fire in the home, in the room, and how dangerous is the indoor smoke. C'mon! There is a thing called chimney - not a new thing! I could understand, that they are really poor, but making a chimney is not mainly the question of money.

I will make it clearer later..

[trux]

It is sad that the issue became politicized. And it is even sadder that people based on their political sympathies let influence their common sense by it.

Vast majority of climatologists seem to agree that global warming is indeed caused or accelerated by humans. There is only a tiny minority opposing their opinion telling that's just a natural cycle (until recently many of them even claimed there is no global warming at all - but that's already no more possible due to a very good evidence in statistical data). I am not a climatologist, have not sufficient knowledge about it, but from what I read and see, I tend to believe that the human activity is at least partially responsible for the disaster. I am aware though that I may be wrong, and that the main stream climatology may be wrong too.

I am not telling that the tiny opposition cannot be right. But even if the global warming is just a natural cycle, who cares? The problem of the warming is here and it must be coped with. Emissions definitely accelerate, and do not reduce the warming effect, hence it will be necessary to limit them regardless if they were the primary trigger or not. Additionally CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel are always bind with releasing other pollution and toxins poisoning our atmosphere, ocean, food, and our own bodies. So tell me now, you opponents of emissions limiting, why are you against it? Why are you permanently arguing that GW is just a conspiracy of aristocrats, or communists, or Gore, or Democrats, or China, or Europeans, or Greenpeace, or whoever else? It is just because you fell in the trap of those who really do have interest in keeping on burning fossil fuels as long as possible. It is not in your interest, you can be sure.

The Kyoto Protocol in 1998 was the first political step trying to slow down the GW process. And you are misled by the propaganda if you think it was aimed against you as the small consumer. If it was really applied, it would be especially the big corporations that lose - they would need to invest giant amounts and create many new workplaces for the research. Well, it is undoubtful that the final bill would be paid by the end consumers, as usually, but the real reason for the opposition against the Kyoto protocol was definitely not the fear about the small end consumer. It was the resistance of the big corporations. You are terribly mistaken if you believe the opposite.

Since at least the 50's of the 20'th century it is clear that getting energy from fossil fuels is very bad not only for the environment, but that it is a quite limited source of energy and will soon run out. Researches of efficient alternative methods of energy production were started in that time (for example nuclear fusion (not the classical fission), but also many others), but most of the projects were either stopped or quite limited due to insufficient funding.

The refusal of the USA, the world-wide biggest polluter, to sign the Kyoto Protocol, to start reducing emissions, and lead the research and development of new technologies was really tragic, but not surprising. The US government, instead of focusing on supporting and funding new progressive technologies, decided to launch wars for taking control over the last remaining resources oil. The most paradoxical is that these wars, not only directly drive the consumption and wasting of the oil, and other ecological damage during the war, but especially that only a tiny fraction of the war costs would be more than sufficient for countless research projects. The cost of the useless war in Iraq is now at half a trillion of dollars and is expected to reach 1T ($1,000,000,000,000) at the end of Bush's term. Even the biggest mammoth research projects (like for example the over-bloated ITER fusion reactor built in France) cost just a tiny fraction of that. Many very promising projects that were frozen by Bush's government, could have survived with less than the cost of one single day of the war.

So please stop opposing ecological proposals, and investment into better technologies. Stop supporting the fossil fuel industry. Stop supporting killing for oil. You do nothing else by denying the necessity of a reaction to the Global Warming, and to the closing end of fossil fuel. Instead of fighting for the few of it remaining, and burning it, we better spend our energy and skills in inventing better technologies and polluting less!

[Jee]

Thanx trux for saving me to type something similar in.
Kars, I (think I) know your motives, and respect for that, but I think in this specific question you're not right with your theory. Just because the most people state that, it doesn't mean, it is not true, and it is the trick of the group, who ownes the power. I hope you understand what I mean. I grew up in a socialist (not the western type socialist!) system, and I had to know how to choose the tiny bits of truth from the flooded state (communist party) ruled media. I experienced a lot of tricks. What I think is, that this "denying the Global Warming as a minority, who is depressed" is also such a trick.You know, double denial.. Actually now I experience the same tricks, as the actual leader party (the descendant of the ex Communist Party) uses a lot of tricks to reach it's targets.. but this is offtopic here.

What I meant is: it is not always gold, even though it is glowing.

[naiad]

Originally Posted by trux

Additionally CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel are always bind with releasing other pollution and toxins poisoning our atmosphere, ocean, food, and our own bodies.

I agree. Reducing pollution has to be a good thing, whether or not it is responsible for global warming.

[Kars]

Thank you Jee, you made me smile

Currently I'm reading this piece: Political Ponerology: Andrew M. Lobaczewski

Though I do not have the notion from the replies I got that my input was read carefully I would like to add something to it.

Personally I live of a very modest income, and live by the idea 'waste not, want not'. Eating biological vegan, having no car etc. I hope you understand I don't advocate any spilling and nor wasteage.

To just show you a technique of populationcontrol, let me introduce you to what is now called the 'Hegalian dialectic' in tendem with just one additional sophisitaction called 'controlled opposition'.

When you seek to get to a specific point, lets say to '5', there are several methods of getting the sheeple to that. First it's key understand that people don't like changes because that brings uncertainy in their already too complicated and bussy lives. Starting your campain (a militairy term) you bombard the audiance with fear presented by the black and/or white priests/experts. You aim for 10. At the same time you understand people will resist, but to be sure of the final outcome you've also created the opposition groups. 'Their' leaders say al the right things, and scoop up the opposing people. In the public debate is settled for 5 instead of 10, a nice compromise, and everyone is happy, but most of all you because you've met your goal exactly: 5.

The dynamics of groups and individuals are very well understood for many ages.

Please do read my previous post carefully, there is a lot in it, a lot.

Kars

*ps recently I was offered a paid leadership position in a foundation (NGO) 'for peace' but declined to the offering realising they were in fact a form of controlled opposition. The road to hell is paved by people with good intentions.

[trux]

I believe your post was read well, Kars. The problem is that you probably do not realize that you are contradicting yourself. Being against over-consumption and wasting, and in the same time opposing anti-GW initiative trying to reduce emissions, simply makes no sense to me. Whether GW is caused by humans, by the Sun, by Gore, or by ET's is completely irrelevant in that matter.

[Kars]

Trux allow me to clairify furter.

I'm against a global tax.

Such measure will open the door to more UN taxes and the creation and expansion of a VAST UN burocracy, effectivly the birth of the global police state aka as the Global Plantation. Read the writings of 'philantropist' like David Rockefeller, Maurice Strong and Jaques Mayol and discover what these 'benevolent nature lovers' have in mind for humanity, celabrating the 'Chinese experiment' and advocating a worldwide 90% population reduction without blinking their eyes. 90% of 6,500,000,000 people is 5,850,000,000 need 'to disappear'.

It's not a coincidence the NGO's scientist, foundations are funded by the same people funding every industry, standardising the world, printing nations into debt, etc. That is part of what I've explained in the post above.
Interdependence is the 'way of the future', a total dependancy upon the state, the world state that is.

I would like to advocate caution to following any 'leader', and consider that your good intentions have been used to determent of one's fellow man, just like Hitler used West Europeans to fight Communism, and East Europeans to fight 'Capitalism', both failing to see they were merly expandeble pions in 'the sport of kings'.

Don't panic, realising India and China are exempt in the Kyoto Treaty.

Love, peace and water,

Kars

[trux]

Kars, you really like mixing apples with oranges. It is new to me that Kyoto protocol advertises slaughtering off 90% of population. Although I am far from being that naïve to believe that the Kyoto Protocol will solve the problems, AFAIK it is still about the best international initiative that tried to do something. If you know about any better, more efficient, and especially more realistic way, please let us know.

And BTW, it's a big mistake that China and India did not sign the Kyoto protocol - unlike the USA they both did sign and ratify it. See the list of signatories here:
List of Kyoto Protocol signatories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As for their exemption - it was justified by their low emissions to these days. As soon as they start producing high emissions, there is no reason why the exemption should stay in place.

You may also want to actually read about the Kyoto Protocol, before starting to spread unjustified perjuries about it. And as I told, I know it is far to be the perfect solution, but so far there is nothing better.
Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Fondueset]

The Earth is my bitch! Yeah baby..

[naiad]

I don't know if this is useful, but I found this site on environmentally friendly boating...
The Green Blue | Making the environment second nature

[uw_ikarus]

When the Greenhouse debate helps us to think in a general way about how we use our resources, this suites me fine. I don't like, however, the fanatism with which it is ongoing in this moment. Indeed, there are blacklists of scientists and institutions who argue against a man-made gobal warming. For anybody working in research this shoud be an alarm. Uncomfortable voices must be listened, contrary opinions dicussed openly in the scientific comunity. Michael Crichton's book "state of fear" may be quite instructive, it is a thriller, but seems to have a sound scientific background.
Well, I'm not a climatologist but working in geosciences for some decades I got some experience on how many screws you have to make your model fit to your ideas. What on earh means a "90% significance" when in statistics it is a common practise to REJECT a hypothesis unless reaching a 95 or 99% level ?! I agree - we should be careful in anything what we do, and there are many technical solutions around which will help us save resources and environment, at the same time maintaining a decent lifestyle. I'm a bit afraid when a scientific discussion becomes a political issue, which often hinders an objective view of all aspects of a problem. Sometimes the single, uncomfortable opinions are the more interesting ones (-> Galileo Galiei)...

[Fondueset]

It's rebound - scientists were blacklisted and fired for even saying there was global warming. Here in the states our government has cleverly attached pollution to the debateable idea that global warming is man made (first it was to the idea of global warming at all - but they lost that one) - thus creating a debate about even controlling pollution. It has been a way to shift attention from pollution as a problem.

[LastOneOut]

The computer you are using to read this, the keyboard you are typing on, ext. ext. cause way more raw energy consumption and pollution than diving.... if everyone just held their breath for another 5 seconds every two minutes….

[gaiadiver]

Wait I don't understand. My local abortion clinic uses oil heating and the daycare center bus runs on gasoline. The hospital and the ambulances all use oil. So isnt killing for oil like really killing for abortion clinics and the daycare center and the hospital? Even my ex boyfriend who works for PETA uses a gasoline van to save the animals so he needs oil, so killing for oil is saving these animals I think oil is definitely worth to kill for. absolutely.