LibertyCalls Forums
HomeHome  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 


Go down 

Male Number of posts : 26
Age : 62
Registration date : 2009-05-07

PostSubject: WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART ONE   October 31st 2009, 00:51

This is Part One of "World Government and Climate Control?". This is the introductory section to inform citizens of the so-called "justifications" for a climate control treaty sponsored by the UN and signed by world leaders (including our President), if we allow this to happen. This is the educational section; Part Two will be the discussion behind the real politics of having a climate control treaty and why We, the People should be informed and concerned. All references in Part One (and Part Two; tomorrow's post) are vetted and factual.

In December, 2009, at Copenhagen, Denmark, the latest markup of the United Nations Climate Control Treaty will be deliberated by world leaders, with a potential for resolution of any conflicting ideals and approval by the leaders of the various nations of the world (developed and underdeveloped), including President Obama. China and India will probably not be present and/or not sign into the Treaty; their positions in this matter will be discussed in PART TWO. Recall that any treaty signed by the President MUST be approved by 2/3 of the Senate present (Article II, Section2 of the Constitution of the United States). There has been great concern that this UN “treaty” has the aspirations of forming a one-world government. In order to understand this concern, one must first understand why this “Climate Control Treaty” is of such importance to the UN, along with other influential people, and why the UN has felt that this “Treaty” is justifiable.
This current markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) is a result of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on May 09. 1992. This Convention was followed up by “scientific” studies by the UN’s AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action) earlier in Bonn, Germany, Copenhagen, Denmark and has its roots in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which occurred on Sept. 16, 1987.
Many claims by this current markup are centered around the assertion by the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 4th Assessment Report of 2007 that warming of the environment is a consequence of human activities (with no consideration of nature’s processes which release carbon dioxide and other gases naturally). These “human activities” resulted in an increase of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. These “increases” are therefore inhibiting the natural release of natural radiation from the earth’s surface thru our atmosphere and into space. Hence, per these claims, a significant amount of natural radiation released is diverted back to the earth’s surface resulting in increases of temperature of the earth’s surface which raises the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. From a physicist’s point of view, if the amount of natural radioactivity from the earth’s surface was 100% reflected back (as opposed to releasing into space), the amount required to increase the temperature of the earth’ entire atmosphere one degree Farenheit in one year(by this additional heat energy emitted by the earth’s surface due to the 100% reflection) would equate to the amount of heat energy created by the equivalent of over 100 “Hiroshima” atomic bombs, strategically placed around the world, ignited at one time, and repetitively ignited once a week for four weeks.
Throughout all of these previously mentioned studies, all conclusions have been derived based on postulated evidence as opposed to actual scientific data. Some of the “conclusions” include:
1. Claims that our environment has warmed up “significantly” because of human activities since 1750, without any reference to actual scientific (data-based) studies. Besides, does anybody believe that accurate environmental studies were performed on temperature change trends in the 18th and 19th centuries?
2. Claims that the temperature of the world environment has increased by a rate of almost 0.5*F per year since 1990; however, no scientific studies with legitimate measuring models are provided as proof.

3. Claims that this “increase” in temperature to our environment is due to naturally emitting radiation from the earth’s surface which is reflected back by a buildup of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, thus warming up the earth’s surface, which results in a trending increase of temperature in our atmosphere. Again, no legitimate studies using real-time scientific data to substantiate this claim are directly referenced.

However, scientific studies based on years of actual data collection and use of modern measuring tools (e.g., weather satellite data for atmospheric testing of temperature changes at different elevations) have debunked all of these assumptions. These scientific studies have been performed since the 1970’s by the Hanley Center of Forecasting (in England) and the National Climate Data Center’s studies in the U.S. (as examples). Scientific models, such as the Clausius-Calpeyron relation (which is basically the relation of change of heat and it’s effects to the change of volume (rise in temperature results in rise in water vapor volume, which would cause an increase in atmospheric pressure, resulting in increases of atmospheric temperature; based on the laws of entropy).

So the question becomes :
If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?

(The real politics behind the UN Treaty and why WE, the PEOPLE MUST be Concerned)
Back to top Go down
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
LibertyCalls :: Liberty or Death-
Jump to: