Posted by Planning4aCrash on 01/02/09
Last updated 06/16/09

Most of us have had climate change pounded into us, through school, with images of a planet in a greehouse, through the entire media So why is it that ice caps are now growing, as reported by the Australian News? The London Telegraph reports that the world's top sea level expert denounces claims of rising sea levels, dismissing them as innacurate computer models. Paul Joseph Watson, reports, citing mainstream sources, that artic ice has grown 30% in a year and that UN scientists have, again, been caught lying about climate statistics. to support their policies.

31,478 Scientists have, as stated by London Telegraph, covered by Congressman Dr Ron Paul in a recent congressional speech, denounced claims that man is responsible for climate change. The petition includes 9,029 people with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org. Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

------------------------------
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
------------------------------

For those who don't like being decieved, note the London Telegraph's report, that Polar Bears thrived during the recent warming period. Contrary to what media and school teach us, Polar Bears are the greatest swimmers of all land mammals. They like to sail ice flows and routinely swim hundreds of miles, hunting Beluga Wales in arctic water. Increased sea ice is infact more likely to close off sea hunting grounds, and cause migrations and a reduction in polar bear populations.

------------------------------
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

------------------------------

The London's Guardian Newspaper, explains what is happening. They report that a "Cooling Sun brings relief to sweltering Earth", explaining that climate change is caused by the sun, and its long term, and 11yr sunspot cycle. The sun's recent reduction in activity explains ice cap growth. This follows a period when, as reported by the BBC, sunspot activity was at its highest for over 1000yrs.

In the BBC article above, the BBC admit that the little ice age, between 1645 and 1715 was associated with a period of very low sunspot activity, refered to as the Maunder Minimum. During this period, the River Thames in London froze over to allow the wonderful frost fairs, that were written about by Jane Austen. That cold period preceeded a very warm period during the middle ages, when vines and olives were grown in Britain. We are no where near those high temperatures today, and the warming appears to have reversed, as it always does, in natural cycles. But now, in a rediculous game of doublethink and deception, our leaders now claim that we must destroy the environment to save it.

With these mainstream articles in mind, it is important to re-consider what we have been asked to do, to "save the planet". You may have been pummelled with childrens TV shows, where Superman, Spiderman, etc, etc, ad nauseum, save the planet, but have we been conditioned to be unrealistic about threats? Were we inundated by stories of superhero's in childhood, and more believable hero's in adulthood movies, to condition us to jump when told to do so, with the excuse of saving the planet? Are we captive of conditioned arrogance in a program of mass mind control?

Re-consider, that we have been asked to reduce our populations, stop driving, pro-creating, and, in the midst of a depression, pay crucifying carbon taxes to the very central banks that caused the economic crisis. Take note, that the taxing and regulation of carbon, means that governments everywhere can tax and regulate every single activity, because we are carbon based life forms. This is of course the dream of countless despots. And note, that the only way of dealing with these issues, is world government, also dreamed of by the nastiest of despots, from Alexander the Great to Hitler. So we have a duty to our children to question every word said by those pushing this agenda.

There is also an alternative. It is called freedom. For more on the free market approach to the environment, and we don't currently have free markets, check out this audio chapter of A New Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard.

Here is a great 10min podcast on climate change that is convenient to share and provides, towards the end, a refreshing solution to the crisis:

This is a great clip from Congress on the implications of government forcing us to use mercury filled CFL lightbulbs. Just goes to show the falacy of the central planning of lightbulbs! So there goes the joke, how many governments does it take to screw in a murcury filled lightbulb? Two, China to provide cover up the dirty industrial practices required to make it profitable and the Federal Government to create the propaganda to sell it to the public.

If you enjoyed the first podcast, have a listen to this, from the Mises Institute. Here is a text article if you prefer to read.

----------

In questioning the globlal warming scare, Al Gore must be exposed as the charlitan that he is. He owns an oil company for goodness sakes and is worth over $100million. He is Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria and, you guessed it, he has financial links with Goldman Sach's who just stole over 12.8 trillion from US taxpayers, as reported by Bloomberg. It is they who would manage any futures market in carbon. That bailout is now larger in cost than all America's wars, ever, and some big government programs combined.

For those who don't know it yet, there is no altruism in top level politics. If anybody thought Obama was "Change you can believe in" A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission

First, lets rejoice that our progeny can inherit the earth. Next, lets dump the propaganda based precautionary principle in favor of scientific rigor, along. We can then focus in on real environmental issues, which are mainly caused by corporate monopolies that wonly exist because of fractional reserve banking, central banks, and big government. We must end the precautionary principle, returning to the old paradigm, whereby we constantly evaluate new data, and learn to weed out agenda based propaganda from scientific truth. The precautionary principle, in contrast, is the rediculous notion that we should act based on fear and probability. When those actions mean the userping of natural rights and liberty, we must become circumspect in our judgements, taking time to pause and think, whenever immediate action is demanded of us by those altruistic politicians.

Then remains the challenge of regaining our liberties, to counter the big brother surveillance state built up under the guise of carbon regulation, and to resist the debilitating effect of carbon regulation, tax and rationing, which is simply neo-feudalism, where we are tricked into giving most of our wealth to government. We must also resist the programming of our children on TV and at school and university, where they are tought that they are useless eaters who are destroying the earth. Hands up who has been convinced that they should avoid the joys of having children to save the earth, whilst government re-populates the country with foreigners to help us pay off the national debt? There realy is no pleasing these people. Remember that this education is indoctrinating us to accept stated United Nations Policy:

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

But sustainable for whom? Could it be that we are simply more manageable by corporate monopolies at 1 to 3 billion? Could it be, that the corporatist fascist model of today, and invisaged, is not capable of supporting such a high population? As we can see with the current economic collapse.

But we are not given the alternative of liberty. With liberty and freedom, the world could sustain 10x more population than we have today. Read about at Campaignforliberty and LewRockwell.com . Discover What You Should Know About Inflation, and The Cultural and Spiritual Legacy of Fiat Inflation, to discover the real reason why the economy doesn't provide for us. Just for example, look at Henry Ford's hemp car, 5x stronger than steel, didn't dent, didn't rust, but was never put into production, why? Because corporate monopolies don't want us to be wealthy and secure. They are at this point holding us back, supported by the state, that combination is Mussolini's model of economic fascism, and it can lead to the military form, so we should be countering it at every level. There are so many examples of repressed technolgy and natural technology, etc, that the mind boggles at where we would be today without state sponsored and bailed out corporate monopolies.

For a further example, Britain, with 60m people in a country the size of Florida, is self-sufficient in milk. Yet farmers are poor, why? Because milk is pasteurized, by law, forcing it into connected third party distributers who commoditize a complex product, allowing them to cream off the profit, whilst we pay more for a terrible substitute. Read about raw milk, and realize that legalized, it would cure most chronic deseases, it being the most perfect food, until pasteurized. raw-milk-facts.com

------------------------------

And finally, take one last look at the United Nations. They, as global government, have an interest in it, which is expressed in this quote, from United Nation's "Club of Rome" think tank's document, The First Global Revolution,:, Al Gore is a member.


p75 "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

---------

And the Financial Times itself ran an Editorial stating "And Now for World Government". The artical admits that it would be dictatorial and has been developed in secret.

It is now time to take a stand, to differentiate between real issues, dumping the hobgoblins put before us to unite us behind a tyranical New World Order.

We must, in the face of a non-problem, have the strength to do NOTHING, to say NO.

---------

For a more amusing, yet deadly serious look at things, visit Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Also, check out REDICULOUS statements from 1970 Earth Day, compared with equally stupid comments in 2007.

Posted by Planning4aCrash on 06/09/09
Last updated 06/09/09

London's entire underground network is being bought to a standstill by striking workers, but who is the target of the strike? And who is exploiting who? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8090608.stm

The problem with trade unions is that they take the Marxist critique of employers, that employers exploit workers. However, that is rediculous, because employers provide capital and jobs for workers.

There is exploitation, but that comes from the central bank and fractional reserve banking that causes the inflation that drives demand for wage claims. Just imagine if all workers and employers united against the central bank and fractional reserve banking?!

Who exploits who? http://mises.org/story/1687

What is Exploitation? Who Exploits Whom?
Professor Hoppe delivered this address to the Oxford Libertarian Society, at Balliol College on 23 October 2008. [1:23:45]

http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Hoppe_Oxford_10-23-2008.mp3

Posted by Planning4aCrash on 06/07/09

 
Southampton Consultation: 72% no from respondents ignored, February 2009, click here for the original article.


The Southampton fluoridation consultation process is about to be carried out in Manchester, Bristol and then London. As seen in this article, 72% of local residents opposed, but new legislation make the consultation non-binding, similar to the way that MEP votes are advisory on the bureaucracy and non-binding, so this new approach is coming down from the new dictatorial model used in Brussels. In short, only mass awareness, mass opposition, then, mass civil disobedience, i.e. non-payment (which is legal, under legislation) will bring this down. Let this be our Poll Tax moment.

Visit the National Pure Water Association and Fluoride Alert for more info.

 --------

In spite of 72% of local residents opposing fluoridation, South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) will instruct Southern Water to mass medicate 195,000 people in parts of Southampton and south west Hampshire. 

SCSHA and Southampton City PCT blatantly promoted fluoridation throughout their Consultation into the PCT's proposal to fluoridate the water supplies of 195,000 people in parts of Southampton and Hampshire, which ran from 8 September to 19 December 2008.  In spite of that, a clear majority of local people have responded that they are opposed to fluoridation.  The SHA had 10,065 written responses in total.  72% of all local written responses to the consultation were opposed to fluoridation. 

The Strategic Health Authority does not consider this consultation scientifically reliable on the grounds that people chose to reply in an ad hoc way.  As a more scientific method, they ran a telephone poll of 2060 people which was designed to be representative of the gender, ethnic, economic and work status mix in the area.  The results fell roughly into thirds with just less than a 1/3 (32%) FOR fluoridation, about 6% more (38%) AGAINST fluoridation, 19% neither supported nor opposed and the rest (10%) ‘didn’t know’. 

In the face of majority opposition, the SCSHA Board voted unanimously on 26 February 2009 to instruct Southern Water to fluoridate.  This is a disgrace which shows that, from the beginning, the consultation was a sham and a huge waste of public money.  £178,000 was allocated for the Consultation and we understand that in excess of £140,000 has been spent. 

In the DRAFT Consultation Regulations 2004, Regulation 5 states: 

"Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless the representations made by individuals affected and bodies with an interest are predominantly in support of it."

However, in the final version of the Statutory Instrument the wording was changed.   Statutory Instrument 2005 No 291 The Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations, Regulation 5, reads:

"A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority is satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding." 

The above wording was approved in the House of Lords on 8 March 2005.  Some statements made during the Lords debate are of interest.  Lord Warner, introducing Regulation 5, said: 

"Let me dispel any suggestion, however, that we have diluted our commitment that fluoridation schemes would only be introduced where the local population were in favour." 

However, he immediately qualified this with the following words: 

"Regulation 5 requires SHAs to take account of the extent of support for their proposals. They must also consider the cogency of the arguments. There is a host of disinformation put around about fluoridation, which is likely to be recycled in consultations. In the past, the department has received identical standard letters, all citing an association between fluoridation and commonly-occurring illnesses or disabilities, for which there is no published research evidence. The SHA needs to scrutinise the responses received and weigh the arguments in favour of proceeding with those against."  [Lords Hansard, 8 March 2005, Column 706]. 

Lord Colwyn, a practising dental surgeon and long-term promoter of fluoridation said: 

"When we last discussed fluoridation in July 2003, as an amendment to the Water Bill, there were many of the usual speeches from the usual suspects."  The noble Lord, Lord Warner, concluded by saying:  "We shall continue with our research programme . . . and monitor the outcome of the research conducted in other countries . . . We have made the regulations under which we want any new local consultations to be conducted".  He went on:  "In a nutshell, the amendment"—that we were talking about at the time—"provides for local communities, after consultation, and after an informed discussion, to take steps to give their strategic health authorities a clear message that they want their water to be fluoridated. On the evidence that I have heard today, I do not see a case for denying those communities that choice."  [Lords Hansard, 8 March 2005, Column 711] 

The possibility that a community would vote against their water being fluoridated seems not to have been contemplated.  Later in the debate, Lord Warner again spoke: 

"The Government have no intention of imposing fluoridation in any area. Our policy throughout has been that decisions must be taken locally, following well informed consultation on the issues involved.  

 

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised issues about the strategic health authority being required to show a majority in favour. As I have tried to say, we do not consider a head count alone is the most appropriate means of reaching a decision. The noble Earl raised the question of what happens if only 20 per cent of residents respond? The strategic health authority will have to look at the issues and weigh the responses from the interested bodies to ensure that the weight of opinion is in favour. I would argue that that is a demanding requirement."  [Column 717]

Whatever the intention of the House of Lords in approving the Statutory Instrument, the wording of it has allowed South Central SHA to disregard the views of local people and take the unanimous decision to fluoridate in spite of majority local opposition. 

Fluoride is known to cause harm to humans and animals, even at 1 ppm.  Fluoridation gives no control of any individual’s dose because some people drink more than others. 

Also some people are more susceptible to fluoride’s toxic effects.  1 ppm gives no adequate margin of safety to protect vulnerable subsets of the population. 

Every member of the SCSHA Board is responsible for any adverse effects from fluoridation.  They will not be able to shelter behind the defence that the public asked for fluoridation, nor behind the excuse that they were not  informed of the harmful effects of fluoride, especially on vulnerable subsets of the population. 

National Pure Water Association's campaign will continue until fluoridation legislation is repealed.  Together with other anti-fluoridation groups, we are considering a variety of ways in which the affected population could respond to the situation in which they now find themselves.  We are also taking legal advice and raising money to enable court action to legally challenge the thoroughly discredited practice that is fluoridation. 

Posted 06/08/09 SteveNYGuy Wormit, United Kingdom

Found this (below) and it makes for interesting reading. As an American I am strongly opposed to such actions. As a Libertarian it is an infringement of my rights and that of my family. When the government acts against the will of individuals then government is not fit for purpose. http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/environmental_health/F luoriwater.jsp

Posted by Planning4aCrash on 06/04/09
Last updated 06/05/09

Daily Mail: The cloud with no name: Meteorologists campaign to classify unique 'Asperatus' clouds seen across the world:

Whipped into fantastical shapes, these clouds hang over the darkening landscape like the harbingers of a mighty storm.

But despite their stunning and frequent appearances, the formations have yet to be officially recognised with a name.

They have been seen all over Britain in different forms - from Snowdonia to the Scottish Highlands - and in other parts of the world such as New Zealand, but usually break up without producing a storm.

------------------------------------

But, our governments have a history of spraying us from the sky, so can we honestly believe that these are natural?

Guardian: Millions were in germ war tests: Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

BBC News: New figures on spray cancer claim: Campaigners, backed by the Norwich Evening News, claim cadmium sprayed on the city during a 1963 test doubled the number of oesophageal ... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4342668.stm

BBC News: Inquiry into spray cancer claims: "There are many concerns about the possible effect of cadmium spraying in Norwich and the cancer," Mr Lamb said. Cadmium powder was sprayed ...   news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/4507036.stm

----------------

----------------

In 2001, United States Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced legislation that would have permanently prohibited the basing of weapons in space, and he listed chemtrails as one of a number of exotic weapons that would be banned. Proponents have asserted that because explicit reference to chemtrails was entered by Congressman Kucinich into the congressional record, this constitutes official government acknowledgement of their existence. But that bill received an unfavorable evaluation from the United States Department of Defense and died in committee, with no mention of chemtrails appearing in the text of any of the three subsequent failed attempts by Kucinich to enact a Space Preservation Act. For references, visit Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrails

If these clouds are man-made, they are a combination of aerosol from planes and electromagnetic manipulation of them, from known arrays such as HAARP, as reported by Amy Worthington of Global Research.

----------------

----------------

The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (Geneva: 18 May 1977, Entered into force: 5 October 1978) prohibits "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury" [1]. However it has been argued that this permits "local, non-permanent changes".

Prior to the Geneva Convention, the United States used weather warfare in the Vietnam War. Under the auspices of the Air Weather Service, the United States used cloud seeding over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, increasing rainfall by an estimated thirty percent during 1967 and 1968, in an attempt to indefinitely extend the monsoon. It was hoped that the increased rainfall would reduce the rate of infiltration down the trail.

----------------

US Code 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents unless it is for any peaceful purpose, including agricultural (weather modification?) so long as informed consent is sought. But a nasty loophole in Section 1515 of Chapter 32 allows informed consent to be suspended by executive order during a period of national emergency, a situation under which this nation perpetually labors

For the alternative view, visit: http://www.californiaskywatch.com

Film: Aerosol Crimes: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815320198655156...

Killer Chemtrails Military Secret Operation World-Wide in "Plane Sight": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdD0oqK9rgg

---------------

Posted 06/07/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Everyday technology is getting frightening so I wouldn't like to even speculate what they do in secret. However, if they have the technology to do it then they will use it and always have done. There are untold stories about military experiments on soldiers and I believe some have to be true. We are guinea pigs in their meddling everywhere else so this will lead to something 'unprecedented' again! They actually look stunning, but that's the kind of irony that lot would enjoy; what looks beautiful as actually deadly!

Posted 06/07/09 Planning4aCrash London, United Kingdom

Not as beautiful as a dynamic, white fluffy natural cloud. These buggers stay still and have no life to them. I've seen them in London, first thing in the morning, when the HAARP is used to manipulate the fake fog chemtrail fog that cuts out the sun, but allows the sun to shine through.

Posted 06/08/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Oh yeah! Duly noted that they didn't need changing in the first place! I've heard they are linking these chemtrails to swine flu as well. Just one of these things needs to be proven and the flood gates should open, but I still have a little denial with 9/11 based purely on the feeling I don't want it to be true. The experts involved in the 9/11 civilian investigation are qualified people and if we make a breakthrough with certified proof then they are likely to look at everything much closer. To start with it is dead easy to spray unpleasant chemicals across the sky, especially if you are in control of that airspace. They have the planes to fly undetected and if 9/11 is true, there isn't a problem with guilt. These are the motives of psychopaths not natural born leaders, but how do you stop the government from flying in their airspace without knowing when and where they are doing it? Judging by their attempts at bringing a permanent monsoon they are likely to have carried on their experiments in that field. I am going into the links now to gather further information, but this is another story in the main stream press that implies suspicion maybe growing, although they are rarely followed up.

Posted by Planning4aCrash on 06/04/09
Last updated 06/04/09

Global Research report that it was leaked to and reported by Le Journal du Dimanche That Sarkozy is planning forced vaccinations of the French public.

 This should come as no surprise to anybody who has read and cross referenced the relevant WHO documents. If you haven't, take a quick scan of the quotes below, and follow the links to check them for yourself.

------------

PHASES 5-6 PANDEMIC: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/extract_PIPGuidance09_phase5_6.pdf

- Designate special status as needed, such as declaring a state of emergency. [see the implications of this below]

------------

Addressing ethical issues in pandemic influenza planning DISCUSSION PAPERS: http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/cds_flu_ethics_5web.pdf

 1.2 Valid limitations on human rights Human rights have transcending value, but international law does allow restrictions when necessary for the (")public good("). ICCPR, however,

 ,, allows states parties "in time of public emergency that threatens the life of the nation" to suspend most other civil and political rights (7, Art. 4).

 ,,Thus, compulsory measures such as vaccination, treatment, or isolation would be permitted only if necessary to protect the public's health.

------------

The story becomes much darker when you cross reference with UN Biodiversity Assessment with plans to end poverty, which say that it is reasonable that only 1 to 3 billion of us should be alive, to "save the planet" (see below). Unfortunately, these people do not just make statemements, they make plans, and they carry them out. That is why they, not us, are in power. Note, that I am a global warming sceptic who thinks that the biodiversity assessment is a fraud. You can find my blogpost on that subject here, where I explain why: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=7183

 A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

Posted 06/04/09 SteveNYGuy Wormit, United Kingdom

Petrmink, Whilst I can agree with your assertions that we, as individual people, must consider our impact on the world in relation to its use vs. our numbers it is not the case that a government has the right to impose or sanction actions against us "for the greater good". If true liberty is to be then education and choice must be considered, at best, and defended, at worst. If we educate the peoples of the various countries and these people act responsibly for themselves then liberty is served. The alternative is similar to the point raised by this blog of forcing. Recently in the U.K. a medical case for vaccination to gain access to education has been suggested. It also imposes the notion that forcing someone to carry out an action is correct. It ignores both the justification and the rights of the individual for free choice. We should create understanding so that individuals can make decisions based on all of the facts... we create laws to impose sanctions on those that disagree with mob rule on such decisions.