Hardly even. What's "the UN" anyway? Most UN agencies compete with each other for funding.... from governments.
There is no real unified "UN".
the climate change scam
- Thread starter kinglear
- Start date
Hardly even. What's "the UN" anyway? Most UN agencies compete with each other for funding.... from governments.
There is no real unified "UN".
Exactly. If they were these powerful elites, they wouldn't be trying to do shit. It would already be done.
The World Economic Forum Talks About “Mind Control Using Sound Waves”
The World Economic Forum – one of the most powerful elite organizations in the world – recently discussed the emergence of remote mind control technology. And it admits that it could be used to turn humans into mind-controlled slaves.
Published 22 hours ago
on November 13, 2018
By Vigilant Citizen
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is one of the most influential elite organizations, alongside the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg group, and the Trilateral Commision. Every year, the forum brings together some 2500 top business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists to discuss world issues.
The Board of Trustees of the WEF is composed of some of the powerful people in the world. Here are some of them.
- Mark Carney, Governor, Bank of England
- Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001); Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management LLP
- Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank
- Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
- Indra Nooyi, Chairman, PepsiCo
- L. Rafael Reif, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
- Ursula von der Leyen, Federal Minister of Defence, Federal Ministry of Defence of Germany
- David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman, Carlyle Group
Not unlike other powerful organizations that claim to “help the world”, the WEF is accused of actually promoting the interests of the world elite.
The Transnational Institute describes the World Economic Forum’s main purpose as:
“To function as a socializing institution for the emerging global elite, globalization’s “Mafiocracy” of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own.”
Far from actually solving world problems, the WEF is accused of simply shifting the blame from governments and major conglomerates to regular citizens.
“A study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, investigated the sociological impact of the WEF. It concluded that the WEF do not solve issues such as poverty, global warming, chronic illness, or debt. They have simply shifted the burden for the solution of these problems from governments and business to “responsible consumers subjects: the green consumer, the health-conscious consumer, and the financially literate consumer.” They merely reframe the issues, and by so doing perpetuate them. Gore is singled out as a prime example. Gore’s speeches deliberately shift focus away from the problems of unregulated markets and corporate activities to one of moral pathologies, individual greed, etc. In doing so he is actually promoting the creation of new markets, and hence perpetuating the same old problems in a new guise. New markets will follow the same patterns as the old ones because the core problem of corporate governance is never addressed.”
– Markus Giesler Ela Veresiu, Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes and Consumer Subjectivity
Remote Mind Control
The WEF’s Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils took place on November 11-12 in the United Arab Emirates. One of the topics discussed was “mind control using sound waves”. The WEF’s official website published an article entitled Mind control using sound waves? We ask a scientist how it works where University of Oxford Professor Antoine Jérusalem describes the technology and the issues related to it.
Controlling the brain with sound waves: how does it work?
Well, to get straight to the science, the principle of non-invasive neuromodulation is to focus ultrasound waves into a region in the brain so that they all gather in a small spot. Then hopefully, given the right set of parameters, this can change the activity of the neurons.
If you want to get rid of neurons that have gone wild, for example in epilepsy, then you might want to crank up the energy to essentially kill them. But if you want to selectively promote or block the neuronal activity, you need to fine-tune your ultrasound waves carefully.
In other words, there’s a difference between ultrasound stimulation used for removing tissue, and ultrasound neuromodulation, which is aimed at controlling neuronal activity without damaging the tissue.
Ultrasound neuromodulation is something that definitely works, but that we still don’t understand.
https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestn...m-talks-about-mind-control-using-sound-waves/
there is a 'populist' push back against their agenda across the west right now but the elite have many of their assets in key governmental positions
for example brexit is currently being derailed because the elite want britain tied into the corporate elites EU project which is a stepping stone to world government
part of the agenda of the EU is to create an EU army to police the european population and to impose quotas of migrants on member states to water down national identity to speed up the dissolving of nation states
cue the carbon dioxide scam where the elites try to say that the problem is not them and their polluting corporations but rather YOU the consumer who must be controlled by them to solve the crisis they are creating
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
So they achieve this by funding studies to deny climate change?
For a "de facto world government", it doesn't seem to be very powerful. From the Guardian, July 2018 (source here):
UN 'running out of cash' and facing urgent cuts, warns chief
Letter sent to member states by António Guterres reveals $139m deficit in core budget
António Guterres, the UN secretary general, has warned that the organisation is facing an unprecedented shortage of funding for its core budget and will need to make urgent cuts unless member states pay up.
The alarm was raised in letters, seen by the Guardian and other news organisations, sent by Guterres to member states and staff.
Guterres told member states that the UN’s core budget was in the red more deeply and earlier in its financial year than it had ever previously experienced.
He added that, as of 30 June, core funding had a deficit of $139m (£106m), and said the UN had “never faced such a difficult cash flow situation this early in the calendar year”.
In a second letter sent to staff, seen by the Guardian, Guterres underlined the UN’s precarious finances.
“Caused primarily by the delayed contributions of member states to the regular budget, this new cash shortfall is unlike those we have experienced previously,” he wrote, warning the funding crisis posed a risk both to the organisation’s operations and “reputation”.
“Our cash flow has never been this low so early in the calendar year, and the broader trend is also concerning: we are running out of cash sooner and staying in the red longer,” wrote Guterres.
“An organisation such as ours should not have to suffer repeated brushes with bankruptcy. But surely, the greater pain is felt by those we serve when we cannot, for want of modest funds, answer their call for help. Guterres wrote.
The UN general assembly budget committee agreed in December on a $5.4bn core UN budget for 2018-19, which US ambassador Nikki Haley said was a cut of $285m from 2016-17. UN peacekeeping is funded separately.
According to the UN, 112 out of 193 member states have so far paid their share of the core budget. The US, which is responsible for 22% of the budget, traditionally pays later because of its budget year.
The countries that have so far failed to pay include the US, Argentina, Syria, Venezuela and Belarus.
By July last year, 116 countries had paid, compared with 98 in 2016. China, France, Russia and Britain – the permanent members of the UN security council along with the US – are all paid up for 2018.
Guterres told staff he was concerned with a broader trend. “We are running out of cash sooner and staying in the red longer,” he said, adding that the UN would take measures to reduce expenses with a focus on non-staff costs.
Haley came to the UN in January last year pushing for reform of the world body in a bid to cut costs.
“The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” she said in December, when the core budget was agreed.
Under UN rules, if a country is in arrears by an amount that equals or exceeds the contributions due for the previous two years, it can lose its general assembly vote unless able to show that its inability to pay is beyond its control.
Comoros, Guinea Bissau, Sao Tome and Principe and Somalia are significantly in arrears but have been allowed to retain their vote. Only Libya is unable to vote.
wait you can't have it both ways...
either you are saying there is 'scientific consensus' or you aren't
Yep. They even struggle to bring heads of state to UN conferences, because they don't care... Usually when they come, it's because they know they will be able to meet other heads of state... to discuss bilaterally, not multilaterally.
A top-ranking UN official today is waaaaaaay less influential than the CEO of a multinational corporation. The UN is broke!
if you think they aren't very powerful then just watch as each country imposes changes on their populations under the banner of 'sustainability' and just watch as 5G is rolled out across the world
the UN is not seperate from the corporations
both corporations and the UN are just vehicles
corporations are legal entities that act as vehicles for the business interests of the people who own them
the UN is just a vehicle for the global interests of the people who own the corporations
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Scientific consensus doesn't mean every scientist in the world reports the exact same thing.
no as some say that climate change is caused by the sun
some are saying we are heading into a period of cooling because of the solar minimum
Solar Minimum is Coming
High up in the clear blue noontime sky, the sun appears to be much the same day-in, day-out, year after year.
But astronomers have long known that this is not true. The sun does change. Properly-filtered telescopes reveal a fiery disk often speckled with dark sunspots. Sunspots are strongly magnetized, and they crackle with solar flares—magnetic explosions that illuminate Earth with flashes of X-rays and extreme ultraviolet radiation. The sun is a seething mass of activity.
Until it’s not. Every 11 years or so, sunspots fade away, bringing a period of relative calm.
“This is called solar minimum,” says Dean Pesnell of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. “And it’s a regular part of the sunspot cycle.”
The sun is heading toward solar minimum now. Sunspot counts were relatively high in 2014, and now they are sliding toward a low point expected in 2019-2020.
While intense activity such as sunspots and solar flares subside during solar minimum, that doesn’t mean the sun becomes dull. Solar activity simply changes form.
For instance, says Pesnell, “during solar minimum we can see the development of long-lived coronal holes.”
Coronal holes are vast regions in the sun’s atmosphere where the sun’s magnetic field opens up and allows streams of solar particles to escape the sun as the fast solar wind.
Pesnell says “We see these holes throughout the solar cycle, but during solar minimum, they can last for a long time - six months or more.” Streams of solar wind flowing from coronal holes can cause space weather effects near Earth when they hit Earth’s magnetic field. These effects can include temporary disturbances of the Earth’s magnetosphere, called geomagnetic storms, auroras, and disruptions to communications and navigation systems.
During solar minimum, the effects of Earth’s upper atmosphere on satellites in low Earth orbit changes too.
Normally Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated and puffed up by ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Satellites in low Earth orbit experience friction as they skim through the outskirts of our atmosphere. This friction creates drag, causing satellites to lose speed over time and eventually fall back to Earth. Drag is a good thing, for space junk; natural and man-made particles floating in orbit around Earth. Drag helps keep low Earth orbit clear of debris.
But during solar minimum, this natural heating mechanism subsides. Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and, to some degree, can collapse. Without a normal amount of drag, space junk tends to hang around.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Okay, so now let's use your noggin for once.
Some say climate change is caused by the sun.
Some have observed the sun to be cooling since 2014.
The Earth has been observed to have been warming.
Therefore...
Edit: Look if you're in the belief that corporations have been blaming individuals to protect themselves despite them being the problem. You're absolutely right.
But there is a problem.
lets use our noggins then and listen to this clip @42 mins to learn about the role the sea plays in the process:
How Bad Global Warming Science Hurts the Environmental Movement
Corbett • 10/12/2018
FROM DECEMBER 2015: Jim Steele was the Director of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus of San Francisco State University from 1985 to 2009. Having taught courses on plants, natural sciences, bird banding and bird identification, his research into the causes of the declines in local bird populations led him to the understanding that natural climate cycles and landscape changes were causing disruptions of wildlife populations. He went on to author a book, Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and a website, LandscapesAndCycles.net where he explores how faulty, over-hyped C02-driven climate change fears are misdirecting environmental researchers and activists away from the true cause of environmental disruption.
Climate Scientists Admit To Major Math Error After Global Warming Study Debunked
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 11/15/2018 - 05:05
The co-author of a widely-cited global warming study has owned up to a major math error uncovered six days after its Oct. 31 publication by an independent scientist.
The study used a new method of measuring the ocean's absorption of heat, and concluded - through incorrect math - that 60% more heat had been absorbed than previously thought.
The report was covered or referenced by MSM outlets worldwide, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others.
Shortly after the article was published, however, independent UK-based researcher Nicholas Lewis published a comprehensive blog post, claiming he had found a "major problem" with the research.
“So far as I can see, their method vastly underestimates the uncertainty,” Lewis said in an interview Tuesday, “as well as biasing up significantly, nearly 30 percent, the central estimate.”
Lewis added that he tends “to read a large number of papers, and, having a mathematics as well as a physics background, I tend to look at them quite carefully, and see if they make sense. And where they don’t make sense — with this one, it’s fairly obvious it didn’t make sense — I look into them more deeply.”
Lewis has argued in past studies and commentaries that climate scientists are predicting too much warming because of their reliance on computer simulations, and that current data from the planet itself suggests global warming will be less severe than feared. -Washington Post
"When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there," said Ralph Keeling, a scientist with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography who co-authored the paper with Princeton University scientist and lead author, Laure Resplandy. "We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...ath-error-after-global-warming-study-debunked
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 11/15/2018 - 05:05
The co-author of a widely-cited global warming study has owned up to a major math error uncovered six days after its Oct. 31 publication by an independent scientist.
The study used a new method of measuring the ocean's absorption of heat, and concluded - through incorrect math - that 60% more heat had been absorbed than previously thought.
The report was covered or referenced by MSM outlets worldwide, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others.
Shortly after the article was published, however, independent UK-based researcher Nicholas Lewis published a comprehensive blog post, claiming he had found a "major problem" with the research.
“So far as I can see, their method vastly underestimates the uncertainty,” Lewis said in an interview Tuesday, “as well as biasing up significantly, nearly 30 percent, the central estimate.”
Lewis added that he tends “to read a large number of papers, and, having a mathematics as well as a physics background, I tend to look at them quite carefully, and see if they make sense. And where they don’t make sense — with this one, it’s fairly obvious it didn’t make sense — I look into them more deeply.”
Lewis has argued in past studies and commentaries that climate scientists are predicting too much warming because of their reliance on computer simulations, and that current data from the planet itself suggests global warming will be less severe than feared. -Washington Post
"When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there," said Ralph Keeling, a scientist with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography who co-authored the paper with Princeton University scientist and lead author, Laure Resplandy. "We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...ath-error-after-global-warming-study-debunked
A Fukushima waiting to happen? Huge stockpile of nuclear waste on California fault line threatens US
Published time: 15 Nov, 2018 15:35
Millions of pounds of toxic waste are being buried under the site of a privately owned former nuclear power plant in California. The only problem? Experts warn that it sits on a major fault line — and in a tsunami zone.
The San Onofre nuclear plant, located just 108 feet from a popular beach, was shut down in 2015 after a leak was discovered. Now, the Southern California Edison energy company is burying the nuclear waste at the failed site — a move which has been approved by federal regulators.
Charles Langley, the executive director of Public Watchdogs, told RT that the situation at San Onofre is of “grave concern” because spent nuclear fuel and water “don’t mix.”
Langley claimed that research carried out by experts which highlighted the extreme risks of storing the waste at the facility was “suppressed” by the very government agency responsible for protecting public health and safety.
"There are actually fault lines that run underneath the facility. We've documented this in geological reports that were suppressed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It’s in a Tsunami zone and it’s also extremely vulnerable to terrorist attacks.”
So far, 29 of 73 canisters of waste are below the surface of the ground. Langley warns, however, that the canisters are unequipped to store the toxic nuclear waste. The warranty for the containment system is only for 10 years “and the canisters themselves are only guaranteed to last 25 years,” he said.
https://www.rt.com/usa/444089-california-nuclear-san-onofre/
Clearly they didn't store shit properly, its even privately owned which just begs for accidents to happen as privately owned companies always skirt regulation.
Nuclear waste disposal and facilities do need serious oversight. But even so the impact something like Fukushima and Chernobyl had on the environment is negligible compared to the alternative energy sources.
Also, whilst I dearly love RT, do keep in mind they're owned by who'm they're owned. Cross reference with other news outlets in other countries, to get a more accurate sense of the picture.
Next, look at what Russia is doing energy wise themselves. You have to take geopolitics in play. If america cannot meet its own energy needs because some kids protest then it will be at a disadvantage. Simultaneously, if Russia does meet its own energy needs and most likely, those of others, then it will be a major advantage.
Next please look at the storage facilities elsewhere in the world that do meet international guidelines, specifically the european ones which tend to be several sets higher in just about everything from food to machinery.
Now ask yourself. Just because one country cannot get their shit together in just about every market, does that mean every other country needs to be screwed over for that one countries failure ? Banning something because one country lacks oversight of private corporations and international guidelines, does not mean all others do as well. It is widely known across Asia and Europe that American made often do not meet european Health and Safety regulations.
So linking something like a safety hazard from america is like linking a dingy chinese fireworks factory an claiming all fireworks production is too unsafe to continue.
If you do happen to disagree, with this viewpoint, then that is alright. Just don't dismiss things without comparing them to the alternatives, even when the actual top experts in the world all seem to have reached a consensus. Because the alternative is this. the dirtiest energy productions taking the place of the cleanest option because they're the only ones who can come close in a reasonable number of facilities to meet energy demands, facilities so dirty that I'd rather build my house in Fukushima then next to one of those Coal facilities.
Oooh scary nuclear waste.
Did you know that hospitals produce nuclear waste? There are caches of it just laying around everywhere.
Did you know that hospitals produce nuclear waste? There are caches of it just laying around everywhere.