Posts Tagged ‘UN’

About:

The “worldwide AIDS epidemic” is largely a fictional construct created by the pharmaceutical industry. AIDS front groups want to keep spreading fear in order to unlock more fundraising dollars which of course boosts the profits of pharmaceutical and prescription drug companies.

The mainstream media isn’t asking the tough questions anymore… it has already surrendered its soul to Big Business. There’s no room for independent thinkers in our global corporate propaganda machine, and those who attempt to ask reasonable questions will always be condemned for stepping out of line and daring to challenge the status quo. You’re either “on board” with their current AIDS vaccine mythology, or you’re ostracized and shunned by the whole crowd.

Deep down inside you knew that we are all controlled by fear. By our governments and the corporations, they all want us scared because a scared public is easier to control, keep that in mind next time your watching the God box.

You should also take a look at the documentary named “Origins of Aids” and get educated in how the virus came to be.

WOG out.

From the article:

According to a report set to be adopted today by the UN’s Human Rights Council, anti-filesharing provisions such as those outlined in the UK’s Digital Economy Act are disproportionate and should be repealed. The provisions, which include disconnecting Internet users for violating the rights of the music and movie industries, breach human rights, the report concludes.

According to a UN report published in May and set to be adopted today, tough provisions in the UK’s Digital Economy Act and France’s ‘Hadopi’ legislation breach human rights.

The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression details concern for measures being put in place by various governments to punish online copyright infringement. In many cases those measures include the draconian step of denying citizens’ Internet access.

“While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely,” says the report.

“The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of
the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

Finally someone that didn’t take that side of big business, it’s a small step in the right direction but it’s not even close to where we want to be.

But a win is still a win.

Original site.

WOG out.

From the article:

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.
Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

So basically the IPCC  pulled the numbers out of their collective asses to “show a trend” and the big difference  here between Dr Mörner and the IPCC  is that Dr Mörner going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world something the IPCC don’t do they follow there climate computer model like so religious zealot without actuly looking at the science in the real world.

That’s why they are wrong.

Original site.

WOG out.

From the article:

The British lawyer who last week called for introducing international laws through the United Nations which would make it a crime against humanity to question the reality of man-made global warming has close ties with the Club of Rome – the ultra elitist organization which openly bragged of how it invented the climate change scare as a means of manipulating the global population to accept world government.

British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins (pictured top) recently launched an initiative to have the UN put pressure on national governments to pass laws that would declare the mass destruction of ecosystems a crime against peace, punishable by the International Criminal Court.

Under the guise of going after big corporations and polluters for the war crime of emitting the gas that humans exhale and plants breathe, the proposal would actually target individuals and people who merely express skepticism towards man-made global warming.

“Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change,” reported the London Guardian.

Some respondents to the Guardian article agreed that merely questioning whether man-made climate change was real should be criminalized – literally calling for the establishment of a UN-run thought police that would prosecute anyone who expressed dissent against the AGW belief system.

“Would be nice if corporate-sponsored climate change denial was made an offense,” wrote one.

“Think about that lineage and possible development of a war-crimes-style trial: Come up with an issue that will fit the bill to terrify the public into accepting the strictures and governance that you demand out of fear of overpopulation (and a general control fetish), then follow that up with putting those who challenged you in the dock,” writes Planet Gore.

That’s just fucking great, another witch hunt this time on the prime of our great world the skeptics.

With out the skeptics the world be full of blind and gagged sheep following their government/religion like some fucking tail, no one would as the questions that needed to be asked, in my book all the skeptics are fucking hero’s, they are democracy incarnate.

Original site.

WOG out.

The article:

A 2006 study, Livestock’s Long Shadow, claimed meat production was responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions – more than transport.

Its conclusions were heralded by campaigners urging consumers to eat less meat to save the planet. Among those calling for a reduction in global meat consumption is Sir Paul McCartney.

However, one of the authors of the report has admitted an American scientist has identified a flaw in its comparison with the impact of transport emissions.

Dr Frank Mitloehner, from the University of California at Davis (UCD), said meat and milk production generates less greenhouse gas than most environmentalists claim and that the emissions figures were calculated differently to the transport figures, resulting in an “apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue”.

The meat figure had been reached by adding all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production, including fertiliser production, land clearance, methane emissions and vehicle use on farms, whereas the transport figure had only included the burning of fossil fuels.

Pierre Gerber, a policy officer with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, told the BBC he accepted Dr Mitloehner’s criticism.

“I must say honestly that he has a point – we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn’t do the same thing with transport,” he said.

“But on the rest of the report, I don’t think it was really challenged.”

He said a more comprehensive analysis of emissions from food production was being produced and should be available by the end of the year.

Dr Mitloehner told a meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Francisco that producing less meat and milk would only result in “more hunger in poor countries” and that efforts should be focused on “smarter farming, not less farming”.

Earlier this year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apologised after wrongly claiming the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years.

Wow this is turning out to be a weekly occurrence, the Church of Global Warming is wrong about something again. When people are going to wake up and smell the shit in front of them.

Original site.

WOG out.