Columbia Citizens

No response. Your message on its face smells of wacky conspiracy theories, no? I'm sure you have your own dedicated venues for those. I doubt anyone here even took the further step of clicking on your links.

Thank you.

If we choose to disagree out loud, let's try to advance ideas instead of scorn.

If you think something isn't worth a response, then by all means… don't respond.

I take your point and withdraw my unhelpful comments.

Thanks for withdrawing your comment, Light. Scorn only discourages people from contributing. Plus, the Supreme Court decision to allow local governments to take over property for any reason, not just government functions, probably was not part of a conspiracy but it really happened. And locally Mayor Nickels tried to get the entire Southeast declared a blighted area which would give the city even more power.

To advance knowledge on this topic, I invite readers to turn to page 75 of The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome, By Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=8RNKHGbzUuAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

The common enemy of humanity is man.

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. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

In case you are not familiar with the Club of Rome, visit http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/
AND
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

Founded in 1968, the Club of Rome describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe. Members include Al Gore, Kofi Annan, the Dalai Lama, David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, and so on.

Still believe this is a conspiracy theory? In any case, this has trickled down to the local level in a big way. Just a heads-up… self-educate and prioritize what's important to you and your loved ones.

To those who are offering superficial feedback without doing any level of examination of the information provided, please refrain prior to reading. You'll only be sticking your foot in your own mouth, for all to read — and on a very important topic, indeed.

Some additional information worth discussing here… since this Wiki is used for the Sustainable South Seattle discussion forum (which I did not know until I checked out their web site the other day).

The folks who are privately funding this movement at the top, are anti-Christian, apparently… blaming Christianity for most of Earth's environmental problems.

See http://www.green-agenda.com and then read the four pages related to "Green Religion"

Other potentially troublesome aspects are that they see a need to reduce the world population down from 6+ billion to under 1 billion in the next 100 years, by any means necessary.

And that the SmartGrowth project associated with this seeks to move people to the city, where all food will be grown locally, and private property will be a thing of the past and part of the "collectivist" state (this is especially troubling since the US Constitution is based entirely on the concept that property ownership gives us basic rights, such as the Bill of Rights — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.).

The associated Wildlands project seeks to make most of America's natural areas completely off limits to people.

All transportation, food, education, health, and religion needs are discussed in detail, under Agenda 21. The idea that people adopt this and adhere to it without any public discussion of what Agenda 21 is — even accept being audited annually at the local level to ensure compliance — is confusing and troubling, IMO.

Why does the world need to be co-opted under a farily "secretive" plan (i.e., Agenda 21 not discussed in the mainstream media) that purportedly seeks to make life better for everyone, and the people at the top who are funding this are the same people who gave us the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the US Federal Reserve? The very capitalists that one would think are anti-environment.

Does anything seem fishy to you? I'm not sure there's anything anyone can do to change this, anyhow, since this is now a worldwide effort and the funding behind it is absolutely incredible.

If you want a position of power in the near future, become involved in this stuff. This is where all the good jobs are going to be.

The following web site was created by someone who works within the movement and has documented it in detail (with their own opinion added, of course) — see http://www.green-agenda.com

Read the source documents for yourself. They're directly from the UN's own web sites, most of it. I'm just the messenger, interested in seeing discussion on this, rather than zero discussion and then mass acceptance, which is where this is going right now.

Can we tag this thread as spam yet?

I don't think it's spam as there's no commercial benefit.

I think we can give a thread or two to unusual ideas. Three posts from A Good Neighbor in a month all contained in a single thread doesn't seem like abuse. In fact, it seems pretty responsible.

I see, my ideas posted here are merely "unusual ideas." The only thing unusual here is the religious-style zeal of the owner of this forum (Scott) and of a handful of his fellow "sustainable development" fanatics who post here in defense of their carbon-reduction brain-crap. This fanaticism focuses on their insane belief that mankind is — scientificaly, without a doubt — causing global warming.

However, none of these people who are so hell-bent on making the information I have been posting seem worthless can provide any shred of fact or support to suggest what I have posted is incorrect.

The entire crux of their argument is, in fact, based on your belief that these folks are infalllible and perfect, and that anyone who challenges what they deem to be the "status quo" is a nut job.

How convenient for them to be able to argue their points this way. Don't deal with the information at hand — far better to simply call it the work of complete nutjobs and lunatics.

So fellas… that doesn't work on people who have brains. This is Seattle, remember? Land of the intellectual. How did you morons becomes so entrenched here?

*sigh*

People on the forums mostly get excited about great new shops opening up and ways to improve the community. It's always been a friendly, civil place.

Scott seems like a nice, stand-up guy, as far as I can tell. The Citizens site is a great service he's set up for the neighborhood.

Go troll somewhere else.

Is this forum for open discussion, or consensus building? An open discussion forum does not tolerate personal attacks (directed at a specific individual), nor does it encourage responses based in pure emotion that are not substantiated by facts, since this would not encourage open discussion. This would, however — with a little guidance from a moderator(s) — be effective toward building community consensus around an issue, and isolating those who do not fit the hoped-for consensus.

You wrote: "Speaking for myself, the issues BR raises here are interesting only in how neighbors respond to them." As the moderator, you lead by example and set the tone. Why would responses be more important than ideas presented, unless the goal is to build consensus, rather than determine the best course of action through pooling a conglomeration of ideas based in each individual's own findings?

I can see how I would regularly test the mettle of a consensus-building forum, when I am personally interested in presenting facts and having open discussion.

Nicely stated, Scott.

To give good neighbor BR his due, I did skim the Agenda 21 materials at green-agenda.com, freedomadvocates.org and so on.

My, Alex, and A Dissappointed Neighbor's concerns for the integrity of this Wiki are overblown. I now encourage all neighborhood residents and wiki readers to dip a toe into these ideas, at least.

They present a rich skein of nutjob conspiracy twaddle that should provide at least 10 minutes entertainment (at most, 10 minutes of your life you will never get back). Skim over these resources and you will be inoculated from them for life.

Good Neighbor should consider organizing a meet-up or setting up a twice-monthly study group. The library would be a good, low-cost venue for this. Alternatively, Caffe Vita where there's coffee and snacks.

Less heat and more Light, please. Columbia Citizens are ready for a different conversation. Bring it on.

I see, your amazing intellect is so much higher than mine, that no matter what I suggest here, my thoughts and ideas are completely inferior and irrelevent.

Don't you wish life was so easy… you fight like a sissy, from an intellectual standpoint. Why don't you be a man and use your brain, and present some fact-based research for crying out loud?

I refuse to be manipulated with your emotionally-based (fact-less) garbage.

This Scott Ringgold character who runs this forum works for the city government. Part of his job is to implement this UN Agenda 21 crap in this neighborhood. He'll deny this up and down, while at the same time he links his own "sustainable development" web site directly to this forum. How obtuse.

So of course he's going to do everything in his power to downplay the information I have presented here. Scott is completely biased. But Scott seems to be a complete idiot, since he can't support what he believes with any level of research of fact.

It's far easier for him to tell his buddies to post on this forum, and attack the information I presented by calling it "conspiracy theory."

Way to go, geniuses.

in summary: WAKE UP, SHEEPLES!!!111~

bad day, Brian? Please throttle back on the invectives.

Give me a call. I'll take you out to coffee.

You may be a "degreed journalist" (whatever that is) but that has no bearing on the issue at hand, nor is attacking your ideas attacking the messenger.

You make outrageous claims about whole groups of frankly far more credible people and refer us to conspiracy sites as "proof." That has nothing to do with credible investigative journalism, or with reasoned debate.

Hi Alex,

Prove to me that harmless CO2 emissions from human beings are going to cause a climate catastrophe. Show me the science that convinced you so completely. What the hell did you base this religious-fervor upon?

Before you run off with your mouth about conspiracy theories, maybe you can prove that none of this information below is real…

** March 16, 2009 — 650 international scientists, many of them current and former United Nations IPCC scientists who have now turned against the UN, wrote the latest 231-page report to the US Senate Minority Committee debunking man-made climate change. This is 12 times more than the 52 scientists who signed the UN report supporting man-made climate change in 2007.

(Source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6 )
** Petition Project: 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition (see http://www.petitionproject.org/ which requires a hand-written signature and paper form submission), including 9,029 with PhDs.
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
** Professor Mojib Latif, the leading scientist of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) has admitted that the Earth's temperature has not increased in nine years, and that we're entering a period of steady or cooling temperatures that will possibly last until 2020 or 2030.

Despite no global warming in 10 years and record-setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly. However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

When the Royal Society of New Zealand recently claimed that the earth was warming, Society member and climatologist Dr. Vincent Gray responded:

“This statement is a lie. The globe is currently cooling. ……..there are currently nine authorities currently involved in providing a dataset of monthly global temperature anomalies. They are:

NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC, GHCN-COADS)

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)

Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)

NOAA radiosonde network , (RATPAC)

Hadley Centre Radiosonde Network (HadAT2)

University of Alabama Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (UAH )

Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (RSS)

National Center for Environmental Protection Reanalysis (NCEP50)

European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40)

Eight of these authorities agree that the globe is currently cooling. Only GISS disagrees.” (Source: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm )

** Who stands to gain from man-made global warming?

March 25, 2009 — While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong (Strong has played a critical role in working with the UN to globalize the environmental movement).

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

(Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/25/obama-helped-fund-carbon-scheme/ )

** What is the United Nation’s Agenda 21, what is sustainable development, and how do these fit into the information above?

As described in this article on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation's Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on Earth.

Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups (see the Agenda 21 local planning guide at http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html ). Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate 'a Local Agenda 21.' Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” - Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3

Source: http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

RELATED SOURCES:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1646
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org

Do you have a degree in atmospheric science, or just a political axe to grind? I've studied & worked with people doing this research, and it's pretty clear to me that you're missing the basic science of the subject. Sort of like folks that go "It's cold out today! They're all wrong!"

Climate change is not a global conspiracy… sorry. Everyone in the reality-based community agrees.
Scientific opinion on climate change.(Wikipedia list)

You're going to cite James Inhofe's blog? Really? The guy is nuts. He's one of the most backwards, anti-science right-wing senators out there.

It's obvious that no one's going to convince you otherwise on this issue, and you're not winning anyone over (why resurrect a 3 month old thread?), so maybe save all the copy-pasting of bogus info for a different forum.

Can I jump into the fray?

I am a global warming skeptic. The earth is either cooling are warming; there is no "official temp". The Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, etc. all tell us that the temp fluctuates for reasons still not yet fully understood by modern science.

That said, it can't be good to release all of the carbon the earth has stored over millions of years into the atmosphere. To think otherwise is foolish. So global warming? Meh. Supporting leadership to reduce our collective carbon emissions? Sign me up. Why wouldn't you want to live in cleaner and greener America?

If you ask me the problem is that certain skeptics are coming off too heavily handed and defensive. If you want to throw down, brother, you best have a thick skin.

And just a tip…no one is going to take your relevant arguments seriously if you spout off nonsense about the eventual abolishment of private property.

CBO, thanks for showing that you can be a skeptic from a logical point of view. There is a variability in the modeling, and not every human influence works towards warming the climate. I can see why some people might be waiting for more proof.
However, the science is convincing enough to lead me to agree with the IPCC's views. In fact, their reports have often fallen on on the more conservative side, due to their limitations on publishing new data (it all has to be peer-reviewed publications, often leaving out the newest findings). The feedback loops involved, particularly with changes in global albedo and the loss of tundra & ice are the most alarming point. It's what's happening in the transitional areas that's the most noticeable.

I agree with you on this point: whatever the science, there's certainly nothing wrong with working toward more responsible uses of natural resources. It always good to leave things nicer than you found them.

So hard, well researched facts get posted here and the local pro communist contingent organizes and labels it nutjob theory without ANY level of real debate. This is the same group methodology used by and taught by Obama when he was in Chicago. Borrowed heavily from communist Saul alinsky. Immoral tactics. This information is extremely pertinent.

Creating fabricated consensus opinion is enough to influence most people's perception and opinion. The links and info posted by BR are dead on, hitting the nail on the head. The Fabian socialists on this forum are well organized and well trained in deception. They will do anything to bury the facts. The facts have already been posted, but notice how it is treated as nonsense. These people here are hardcore in their efforts to redirect your attention. Do not be fooled. Check the information posted by BR. These people rely on ridicule, half truths, and attacking the messenger. They were taught to do this. Local meetings were held in around 2004 in our community. These meeting were aimed at identifying sympathetic local leaders and training them in provocateurial tactics… The same tactics being used in this thread. This is happening nationally, in many communities. It is well documented. They ultimately represent central banking interest behind the UN that seek regional and work communist govt… Loss of freedom of religion, private property, travel, and speech. Connect the dots.

There is a lot of cuckoo going on here

Interesting matey! If you're looking for tree lopper around Townsville, book us a quote now! <a href="https://townsvilletreeloppers.com/contact-us/">Find more</a> here.