New World Order, a plan, not a conspiracy theory.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Let me know when will you be providing the readers with evidence to prove why I'm wrong.

Being confused about what I've said doesn't equate to anything other than being in a state of confusion.

You need to refute what I've said.

Does that seen like something you can do?

No, unfortunately that is not how it works. You have made the claim, you have to support it. It's not possible for anyone to prove a negative.

You have not explained why your interpretation is correct or likely.

dense wrote: »

And see if you can find the WBGU saying its had a change of position and is no longer going to pursue it's published ambition which will require the transcending of sovereignty for a global common.

And again, you need to outline what you believe this actually means.

How would they be transcending sovereignty?
How is it similar to what conspiracy theorists claim about a New World Order?

Have you now also dropped your original claim that they plan on installing an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

No, unfortunately that is not how it works. You have made the claim, you have to support it. It's not possible for anyone to prove a negative.

You have not explained why your interpretation is correct or likely.


And again, you need to outline what you believe this actually means.

How would they be transcending sovereignty?
How is it similar to what conspiracy theorists claim about a New World Order?

Have you now also dropped your original claim that they plan on installing an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments?

Wash, rinse and repeat.

See my above.

Let me know when you think you've assembled the evidence you need to produce to refute my interpretation.

And the evidence that you need to produce to permit you to stand over your assertion that the people I have named are engaged in or are intending to engage in nefarious activities.

I wonder are they reading this?
It is public after all, yes?

They might feel like forwarding your unproven allegations to their legal advisors.

Laters?

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Wash, rinse and repeat.

Maybe you could answer my very direct and simple questions that you have dodged for the 5th, 6th time now?
I think it's apparent that you are unable to answer these questions, since your position does not have any merit.

dense wrote: »

And the evidence that you need to produce to permit you to stand over your assertion that the people I have named are engaged in or are intending to engage in nefarious activities.

What assertion have I made? I am very specifically not accusing them of anything. I just don't accept your interpretations of what they say.

You seemed to be claiming many things and have contradicted yourself and backpeddled several times.
So I'm asking you to clarify your assertions.

You claimed That they wanted to install an unelected position of power that would dictate things to governments.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106205530&postcount=13
Are you now abandoning this claim? If so, say so.
If not, please explain where you are getting this notion.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

Let me know when you think you've assembled the evidence you need to produce to refute my interpretation.

The onus is on the person presenting the theory to back it up with evidence

Also the theory seems pretty vague and subject. If I am to get this right, the people you've named are linked by environmental concerns? And the "New World Order" part due to the phrase they used in a speech discussing changing attitudes (e.g. governments, leadership) towards the environment

From there, it seems to be a debate centered around your personal interpretations and semantics

Every group of environmentalists wants to naturally change the world (stop pollution, etc) and recently more governments around the world have been paying more attention to this (e.g. China) and taking stronger measures toward setting goals, reaching targets, cutting emissions in regards to those environmental concerns

Overheal

Let's be clear, this isn't a courtroom, so I don't know why there is this much bickering going on. There's nothing to win.

@Dense: clearly you've done nothing to convince any of the readers and contributors here that your interpretation is correct. Either we can leave it at that, or, you can try and support your interpretation further. It is your interpretation - your claim - and your burden of proof. I could say "there is a teapot made of solid gold in geostationary orbit on the dark side of the moon." It is not rational at all to presume that I am right because others find difficulty in disproving this - it would rationally be up to me to prove the existence of said golden teapot satellite.

"And see if you can find the WBGU saying its had a change of position and is no longer going to pursue it's published ambition which will require the transcending of sovereignty for a global common."

This isn't what the document actually said, which was as follows:

"Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons."


This is not, as you seem to be suggesting the way you've misquoted it, as getting rid of the notion of sovereignty altogether and making everything global common. It is in the context of the document referring to the notion that the climate is not impacted by sovereignty: CO2 emissions for example do not care about where the border is drawn. It is referring to the long-term availability of global commons such as clean air. It's right there in the document, in its full context.

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The onus is on the person presenting the theory to back it up with evidence

I'm not presenting a theory.

I'm presenting you with reality.

The lady said what she said.

We're open to interpreting it differently.

I said that earlier. Twice.

The WBGU said what it said.

Why not ask King Mob to present their evidence to back up their claim that the people I've told you about are engaged in nefarious activities?

Different rules for different people?
AKA Double standards?

Seems like it.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

I'm not presenting a theory.

You are. It's your own personal theory, interpretations and opinions.

1. Did X person say the phrase "New World Order" in a speech? Yes

2. Does it mean what you personally think it means? Up for debate, your opinion isn't fact

Likewise, the other poster who believes in a different "New World Order". That's also a personal theory.

Overheal

dense wrote: »

I'm not presenting a theory.

I'm presenting you with reality.

No, you're presenting an opinion based on a selective reading of some material you came across. In your own words,

"Don't the aims appear consistent with what any New World Order aims would consist of?

Global control of citizens and nations, by a new single power seems a prerequisite.

I'm simply taking the speaker at face value"

"her very clear message, one heralding the ushering in of a global New World Order of economic control"

Which contradicts your latter statement:

"I didn't mention one world government."

Furthermore you seem to suggest that the stated aims of the German Chancellor and the WBGU is global control of citzens and economics, but the document only uses the term "control" or any derivation thereof, 5 total times, none of them to declare any stated aims to control the global economy or citizens. Those instances are as follows:

1. Karl Polanyi (1944) referred to this process, too, as a ‘Great Transformation’, and showed that stabilisation and acceptance of the ‘modern industrialised societies’ were only successful through the embedding of uncontrolled market dynamics and innovation processes into a constitutional state, democracy and the creation of the welfare state – i. e. through the emergence of a new social contract.
2. Several countries are currently planning to increase their use of nuclear energy. The WBGU urgently advises against this, above all because of the not negligible risk of serious damages, the still unresolved issues concerning final storage, and the danger of uncontrolled proliferation.
3. The financial challenges of the transformation are significant, but controllable.
4. The great transformations the human race has so far experienced were, for the most part, the uncontrolled results of evolutionary change.
5. As far as the as yet unregulated, short-lived radiative forcing substances such as soot particles and ozone-forming gases are concerned, there could be separate agreements directly related to national air pollution control.

Similarly the document mentions citizens 12 times:

1. One key element of such a social contract is the ‘proactive state’, a state that actively sets priorities for the transformation, at the same time increasing the number of ways in which its citizens can participate, and offering the economy choices when it comes to acting with sustainability in mind.
2. The idea of a new social contract refers to the necessity of humankind taking collective responsibility for the avoidance of dangerous climate change and other dangers to the planet. For one thing, this needs a voluntary capping of the usual options for economic growth in favour of giving the people in those parts of the world already suffering the consequences of our irresponsible behaviour, and particularly future generations, room to manoeuvre. For another, the transformation needs a powerful state, counterbalanced by extended participation on the part of its citizens.*
3. The new social contract is an agreement to change: the global citizenship consents to expecting innovations that have a normative link to the sustainability postulate, and, in exchange, agrees to surrender the instinct to hang on to the established.*
4. A central element in a social contract for transformation is the proactive state with extended participation in a multilevel system of global cooperation. It entails two aspects, frequently thought of as separate or contradicting: on the one hand empowering the state, which actively determines priorities and underlines them with clear signals (for example with bonus/malus solutions), and on the other hand, giving citizens more extensive opportunities to have a voice, to get involved in decision-making and to take a more active role in politics.
5. A powerful (eco-)state is often thought of as restricting the autonomy of the ‘man in the street’, whilst at the same time, any meddling on the part of the citizen is viewed with misgivings as a disturbance factor to political administrative rationality and routines.
6. A precondition for a successful transformation policy, though, is the simultaneous empowerment of state and citizens with regard to the common goal of sustainable policy objectives.
7. The WBGU recommends the approach of these goals on four interconnected levels: substantive through provision of climate protection targets in climate protection legislation; constitutionally, through the setting of a respective national objective regarding climate protection; procedurally, through extending the opportunities for citizens and civil society organisations for public participation in decision-making, access to information and legal protection; and institutionally through mainstreaming the climate policies of government institutions (for example, by way of the establishment of a joint ministry for environment, climate and energy).
8. Statehood transcends national borders and sovereignties, particularly as far as climate, energy and the environment are concerned; this aspect also requires new supra- and transnational institutions. One prime example for such improvement, in the opinion of the WBGU, is the European Union’s network of institutions, as the EU, after all, will also benefit from impulses for a deepening of its integration through joint, citizen-friendly climate, environment and energy policies (bundle 3).
9. The EU obliges its member states to give its citizens access to information on environmental issues, to give them the chance to participate, and to make legal remedies available to them.
10. Exemplary for mobilisation of the global community is the Aarhus Convention, so far limited to Europe, which obliges its member states to advise their citizens of environment-relevant projects, and provides them with ways in which to participate, obtain information, and legal recourse.
11. The drawing up of a ’Charter for Sustainable Development‘ that codifies the joint responsibilities and duties of all states and their (global) citizens regarding the protection of the Earth system would be a significant step towards a global social contract.
12. Therefore, the social contract addresses future generations in two ways, as it is they who will participate in bringing about the change in future. Above all, however, it is also in our young citizens‘ interest to rapidly accelerate the transformation and to stop impeding it – now.
    

* In reference to a new 'social contract':

1. Because of progressive economic and cultural globalisation, the nation state can no longer be considered the sole basis for the contractual relationship. Its inhabitants must responsibly take transnational risks and natural dangers, and the legitimate interests of ‘third parties’, i. e. other members of the world community, into account.
2. Traditional contract philosophy presupposed the fictitious belief that all members of a society are equal. Considering the disproportionate distribution of resources and capabilities in today‘s international community, we must have effective, fair global compensation mechanisms in place.
3. The natural environment should be given increased consideration when revising the social contract.
4. The contract has to bring two important new protagonists into the equation: the self-organised civil society and the community of scientific experts.

None of which jive with your assertion that the proposal here is for a global economic-controlling citizen-controlling new world order. The document mentions economy 23 times, I will let you Ctrl+F that at your own leisure. Since you married economic and citizen control to one another I feel sufficient that by disproving one of those couple claims I have succinctly disproven your other.

So you are in fact offering a baseless interpretation of what the stated aims of the document in effect are, having demonstrably not taken any time to read through it yourself.

So I'll ask again: what do you think is going on here, what is your interpretation, and what is your basis for that opinion?

dense

Overheal wrote: »

Let's be clear, this isn't a courtroom, so I don't know why there is this much bickering going on. There's nothing to win.

@Dense: clearly you've done nothing to convince any of the readers and contributors here that your interpretation is correct. Either we can leave it at that, or, you can try and support your interpretation further. It is your interpretation - your claim - and your burden of proof. I could say "there is a teapot made of solid gold in geostationary orbit on the dark side of the moon." It is not rational at all to presume that I am right because others find difficulty in disproving this - it would rationally be up to me to prove the existence of said golden teapot satellite.

"And see if you can find the WBGU saying its had a change of position and is no longer going to pursue it's published ambition which will require the transcending of sovereignty for a global common."

This isn't what the document actually said, which was as follows:

"Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons."

Sorry Overheal, but isn't an unprecedented transcending of sovereignty still required, whatever way you look at it?

Regardless of what it's in favour of?

The answer is obviously yes.

So I correctly paraphrased the requirement.

Overheal wrote: »

This is not, as you seem to be suggesting the way you've misquoted it, as getting rid of the notion of sovereignty altogether and making everything global common. It is in the context of the document referring to the notion that the climate is not impacted by sovereignty: CO2 emissions for example do not care about where the border is drawn. It is referring to the long-term availability of global commons such as clean air. It's right there in the document, in its full context.

Again, I didn't misquote anything, I accurately paraphrased that an unprecedented transcending of sovereignty is an aim of the WBGU.

Now, in relation to my OP, and particularly in relation to the claim I linked to which reported that Maurice Newman alleged that climate change was being used to introduce a new world order, the full, 400 page WBGU document (I linked to the summary for convenience) says, and I quote

"Managing the International Power Vacuum


The international power vacuum associated with the trend towards the multipolar restructuring of global politics and the resultant barriers preventing intergovernmental cooperation must be overcome

(Section 5.3.5). Geopolitical alliances, coupled with strong political leadership, can take on a defining role in this respect to progress towards the international policy quadrant of cooperative global governance in a decarbonised global economy (Figure 5.3-1).

The WBGU believes that a geopolitical strategy, using climate policy decidedly as the groundbreaking vehicle for establishing mutual trust between the global superpowers, and for the constructive development of global interdependence, serves best here"


http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_en.pdf



There you have the WBGU (German Advisory Council On Global Change) clearly stating that it has decided to use climate change as the vehicle upon which it will fulfil it's ambition of rectifying an international vacuum of power which it has apparently identified, and which will require an unprecedented transcending of national sovereignty in order to do so successfully.

Which in my opinion amounts to them saying they'll be trying to use climate change as an excuse for an unprecedened transcension of national sovereignty (for whatever admirable reasons).

Overheal

sovereignty concepts, not sovereignty itself. Big difference, in fact.

So no, you have no correctly paraphrased.

And yes, rectifying international power vacuums caused by multipolar interests (eg. US vs China, is actually given as an example, Russia v the EU or the conflicts in the Middle East would be others), is not a nefarious goal. It is actually one of the purposes, QED, of the United Nations, to get nations to come together and have a dialog via the elimination of barriers to such dialog (eg. by having a general assembly). This doesn't mean that the US and China and Russia are all going to be answering to a single ruling body. If that's what you got out of that, I cannot help you. What you should have gotten out of that, is that they want superpowers to cooperate on issues that transcend sovereignty concepts, like global climate change, and pollution. That is not 'New World Order' by the colloquial definition of a plot or a plan to rule the world from a single governing or bureaucratic body.

dense

Overheal wrote: »

sovereignty concepts, not sovereignty itself. Big difference, in fact.

So no, you have no correctly paraphrased.

What???

So, no, you incorrectly accused me of misquoting the document, not incorrectly paraphrasing it.

Do you realise there's a difference?

If I've paraphrased it in a manner that's not to your liking, sorry, that's just a difference of opinion and proof of nothing.

Overheal

Then you have incorrectly interpreted the document. Hope that clears up confusion about my statement.

dense

Overheal wrote: »

Then you have incorrectly interpreted the document. Hope that clears up confusion about my statement.

So we just have a difference of opinion.

No biggie.




BTW, "nefarious" is King Mob's take on it all, not mine.

I expect you'll address him about his misinterpretation too?

dense

Anyone up for disputing that a new world order is much the same as what's in the quote below?

New:unprecedented

World:global

Order:established sovereignty concepts

Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons.

#ticksallboxes


http://www.wbgu.de/http:///fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf

Overheal

It ticks all the boxes for wanting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

Not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

Which is what many posters have been trying to get across to you now.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Anyone up for disputing that a new world order is much the same as what's in the quote below?

New:unprecedented

World:global

Order:established sovereignty concepts




#ticksallboxes


http://www.wbgu.de/http:///fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

he New World Order or NWO is claimed to be an emerging clandestine totalitarian world government by various conspiracy theories.
The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which will replace sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda whose ideology hails the establishment of the New World Order as the culmination of history's progress.

You've said repeatedly that your theory does not involve anything clandestine.
You have also said that you don't believe that it's a secretive powerful elite and you got upset when we asked if your believed they were trying to establish a one world government.

So in what way is your theory like the conspiracy idea of a new world order?

You keep saying that I'm accusing these people of being nefarious. This is not true. Please point out where you think I have done this.

Also, you seemed to have missed my question:
You claimed That they wanted to install an unelected position of power that would dictate things to governments.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...0&postcount=13
Are you now abandoning this claim? If so, say so.
If not, please explain where you are getting this notion.

dense

King Mob wrote: »

You keep saying that I'm accusing these people of being nefarious. This is not true. Please point out where you think I have done this.

Here:

King Mob wrote: »

So again, what have these people you are selectively quoting done that indicates that they are working towards this nefarious purpose?

Maybe you forgot you posted it.......

Have any representatives of the people I quoted been in contact with you about that completely unfounded allegation yet?

That their purpose is nefarious?

After all, that is exactly what you have alleged.

dense

Overheal wrote: »

It ticks all the boxes for wanting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

Not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

Which is what many posters have been trying to get across to you now.

Thanks.

It does tick all the boxes, doesn't it?

My error was linking to the "conspiracy theory" version of Wiki's New World Order take on the subject.

What many posters have been trying to get across to me is that the plan I linked to IS a conspiracy theory.

One even believes it's being done for nefarious ends!

So as I said at the outset, there are plans in the open for a New World Order, it is not a conspiracy theory, and as Newman said, climate change is being used as the reason for needing to implement it.

You've cleared up the whole thing.

Thanks again.

I had wondered why I'd been advised to discuss in the CT forum!

The problem I see is that if this New World Order OP had been posted in a Political Forum it would have bern swiftly moved out to the CT forum as it has been from the Climate Change thread.

The subject is a real hot potato

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

So as I said at the outset, there are plans in the open for a New World Order, it is not a conspiracy theory, and as Newman said, climate change is being used as the reason for needing to implement it.

The phrasing is what's causing trouble here - it reads like you are against these various environmental individuals and groups and their aims

Various phrases don't imply anything sinister or negative. In this context, it's a general term for changing the world for the better and the environmental policies being enacted around the world to help that goal

Ajsoprano

What’s wrong with a new world order?

The only people who would not profit from it are the few at the top who have everything.

Was this conspiracy started by them?

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Here:



Maybe you forgot you posted it.......

Have any representatives of the people I quoted been in contact with you about that completely unfounded allegation yet?

That their purpose is nefarious?

After all, that is exactly what you have alleged.

I am not accusing anyone of anything there.
Tellingly it seems that it is because you have misunderstood or misinterpreted what was written.

I was asking you to clarify what nefarious purposes you believe they are working towards. I was and am unsure if what you believe in this regard as you are being very vague and very contradictory. I asked this as the definition you provided implied the accusation of nefarious purposes.

At no point did I ever indicate that I believed that the people you are refering to are involved in any such nefarious purposes.

Now again:
You claimed That they wanted to install an unelected position of power that would dictate things to governments.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...0&postcount=13
Are you now abandoning this claim?
If not, please explain where you are getting this notion.

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The phrasing is what's causing trouble here - it reads like you are against these various environmental individuals and groups and their aims

Various phrases don't imply anything sinister or negative. In this context, it's a general term for changing the world for the better and the environmental policies being enacted around the world to help that goal

If "various phrases don't imply anything sinister or negative" where did you get the idea that the phrasing is what's causing trouble here?

I stated that there was no conspiracy and nothing criminal being done.


How did King Mob end up accusing people I quoted in the OP of being engaged in "nefarious activities"?

Nothing to do with anything I said. And completely off the wall.

I set out to see if what Maurice Newman said about climate change and a New World Order was right, and it very much looks like it is.

And as someone has just said (I thought no one would dare say it) what's so wrong about a New World Order?

Anyone I've ever spoken to who is passionate about rectifying climate change and introducing "climate justice" denies all knowledge of CC being used as a vehicle to introduce a New World Order.

You'll see evidence of that in the Climate Change thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057828857

This thread shows that there's a strong link and one that climate change experts and those who wish to create "climate justice" should not be denying.

Ajsoprano

dense wrote: »

If "various phrases don't imply anything sinister or negative" where did you get the idea that the phrasing is what's causing trouble here?

I stated that there was no conspiracy and nothing criminal being done.


How did King Mob end up accusing people I quoted in the OP of being engaged in "nefarious activities"?

Nothing to do with anything I said. And completely off the wall.

I set out to see if what Maurice Newman said about climate change and a New World Order was right, and it very much looks like it is.

And as someone has just said (I thought no one would dare say it) what's so wrong about a New World Order?

Anyone I've ever spoken to who is passionate about rectifying climate change and introducing "climate justice" denies all knowledge of CC being used as a vehicle to introduce a New World Order.

You'll see evidence of that in the Climate Change thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057828857

This thread shows that there's a strong link and one that climate change experts and those who wish to create "climate justice" should not be denying.

But you haven’t answered the question. What I get from that post is

“To anyone saying what’s wrong with a world order I will tell you that they will say it’s for the good of climate change.

The way the free market runs at the moment countries compete to use up the earths resources and pollute the world.
With one government we wouldn’t have to advertise a new car or phone every six months there would be no need for war on the scale that it happens now.

Just saying it’s bad doesn’t make it bad.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

Anyone I've ever spoken to who is passionate about rectifying climate change and introducing "climate justice" denies all knowledge of CC being used as a vehicle to introduce a New World Order.

I think we're still deep into semantics here

Do you support these people's efforts (Bianca Jagger, etc) or no? and reasons why

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I think we're still deep into semantics here

Do you support these people's efforts (Bianca Jagger, etc) or no? and reasons why

As you've asked, I think it's a crock of shït designed by eco fascists to appeal to gormless wannabe socialists who want everyone to have everything for nothing, based on UNIPCC scaremongering using highly dubious "climate science".

Here's more of it, from a different angle, victims of weather, seeking "climate justice":

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/stop-climate-change-open-borders-180223144922968.html


See the Climate Change thread for more information on my views if interested.

I will not be expanding on them here.

What part of your acknowledged existence of their efforts has got to do with my attitude towards them?

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

As you've asked, I think it's a crock of shït designed by eco fascists to appeal to gormless wannabe socialists who want everyone to have everything for nothing, based on UNIPCC scaremongering using highly dubious "climate science".

Here's more of it, from a different angle, victims of weather, seeking "climate justice":

What part of your acknowledged existence of their efforts has got to do with my attitude towards them?

Then you believe this group is spreading lies/false information/etc for their own ends?

King Mob

dense wrote: »

As you've asked, I think it's a crock of shdesigned by eco fascists to appeal to gormless wannabe socialists who want everyone to have everything for nothing, based on UNIPCC scaremongering using highly dubious "climate science".

Here's more of it, from a different angle, victims of weather, seeking "climate justice":

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/stop-climate-change-open-borders-180223144922968.html


See the Climate Change thread for more information on my views if interested.

I will not be expanding on them here.

What part of your acknowledged existence of their efforts has got to do with my attitude towards them?

Sounds pretty nefarious to me.
And the idea that climate scientists are engaged in an elaborate hoax sounds like a pretty silly conspiracy theory to me...

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Well if this group representing man-made climate change is false/fiction according to yourself, that would mean that you clearly believe they are a nefarious group (spreading lies, etc)

You didn't answer my question at all but never mind, you've asked another one.

Did you see this during the week?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-22/snap-royalty-kylie-jenner-erased-a-billion-dollars-in-one-tweet

It shows how stupid people follow stupid things.

I think we are becoming more stupid and less intelligent.
We appear to have dumbed down in the last number of decades.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=global+intelligence+levels+falling&oq=global+intelligence+levels+falling&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3..41.7299.9761.0.10468.15.10.0.0.0.1.194.927.8j2.10.0....0...1c.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..7.8.706.kMtgX-srdvQ

The vast majority of people are unable to critically analyse what they're being told.

Do you remember the hordes of clowns that attended foreign property exhibitions during the Celtic Tiger and were sold dreams by "experts"?

The constant news that our academic standards are lower than ever?

You would have a hard time proving that a criminal act is being perpetrated by those who have a bit of intelligence using their intellect to take advantage of it by trying to persuade an increasingly thick society that has lost the ability to critically analyse the claims that are made by politically motivated UN sponsored climate scientists.

That's why nefarious is the wrong term.

We don't try politicians who we might later claim have lied in their manifestos


Similarly, those of experimental socialist leanings who are using climate change as a means of introducing a new experimental world order, which, in order to work includes the requirement that national sovereignty will be transcended cannot be accused of being engaged in nefarious activities.

You cant blame them for chancing their arm to promote their political ideologies.

They can always fall back on the fact that "climate science" is not actually settled, and the dumbed down generation should have been aware of that when they start complaining of paying more and more taxes to fight climate change, and start wondering why they're staring at more wind turbines than they've ever seen, along with complimentary rises in their electricity bills.

I look forward to the government explaining that they have no say in that anymore because of their disposing of sovereign power in favour of a new world order.

It's already here in some respects.

You only had to look at Richard Boyd Barret on Prime Time last week to know that he hadn't got a clue why he was promoting the new Climate Emergency Measures Bill.

His uninformed virtue signalling must have embarrassed even the other radical socialists pushing it.

The thing to remember is that "climate science" as we have read here is a political hobby horse, as opposed to being a science.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

I look forward to the government explaining that they have no say in that anymore because of their disposing of sovereign power in favour of a new world order.

Where did any of the people you are accusing of all of this say anything about disposing of sovereign power?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Where did any of the people you are accusing of all of this say anything about disposing of sovereign power?

By transcending sovereignty to whoever those who want it transcended want it transcended to.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

By transcending sovereignty to whoever those who want it transcended want it transcended to.

Disposing of sovereignity is not the same thing as what was actually said in any of the things your quoted.
At this stage, you are completely contradicting yourself and simply inventing things to support your conspiracy.

Claiming that a select group of organisations or people are faking the idea of climate change and/or falsifying climate science to gain power is a conspiracy theory. And it's a particularly silly one too.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

You would have a hard time proving that a criminal act is being perpetrated by those who have a bit of intelligence using their intellect to take advantage of it by trying to persuade an increasingly thick society that has lost the ability to critically analyse the claims that are made by politically motivated UN sponsored climate scientists.

What the above indicates is that you believe the politicians/individuals who are promoting global action to tackle man-made climate change - are doing so for nefarious or underhand reasons

And likewise that climate scientists are also doing it for unethical reasons

Basically a conspiracy between both sides..

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Disposing of sovereignity is not the same thing as what was actually said in any of the things your quoted.
At this stage, you are completely contradicting yourself and simply inventing things to support your conspiracy.

Claiming that a select group of organisations or people are faking the idea of climate change and/or falsifying climate science to gain power is a conspiracy theory. And it's a particularly silly one too.

Why?

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Why?

Why what?
Why is it a conspiracy theory?
Why is it silly?
Why would I answer your question when you've done nothing but dodge mine?

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What the above indicates is that you believe the politicians/individuals who are promoting global action to tackle man-made climate change - are doing so for nefarious or underhand reasons

And likewise that climate scientists are also doing it for unethical reasons

Basically a conspiracy between both sides..

No, it indicates that nefarious is a term I would not endorse the use of in this context.


Anything else that you're not clear about?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Why what?
Why is it a conspiracy theory?
Why is it silly?
Why would I answer your question when you've done nothing but dodge mine?

Sorry, I thought you had all the answers.

If you're not able to explain why what I said is silly that's OK.

I kind of expected that.

All you've been doing is asking questions.

Nothing wrong with that, if we don't ask we don't learn.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

No, it indicates that nefarious is a term I would not endorse the use of in this context.

I think we're getting back into semantics again. Nefarious, unethical, immoral, underhand.

Deliberately misleading people to pursue a hidden/nefarious/unethical/etc agenda

Anything else that you're not clear about?

According to you, are these politicians/individuals willfully and deliberately misleading the public about climate change? (and why?)

Likewise, are climate scientists deliberately and willfully misleading politicians/individuals/public about climate change? (and why?)

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you had all the answers.

If you're not able to explain why what I said is silly that's OK.

I kind of expected it.

All you've been doing is ask questions.

I've been asking questions to get you to elaborate and explain your conspiracy. So far you have been very evasive and frankly, less than honest.

Your conspiracy theory is silly simply because the scale of it.
There is no way to do something like fake the entirety of a field of science.

Further, it assumes that somehow, the green energy industry and environmental scientists are much more influential and powerful than lobbies like the fossil fuel industries and hostile governments like the US.

I can't really be more specific, as you are refusing to be more specific.

Overheal

dense wrote: »

By transcending sovereignty to whoever those who want it transcended want it transcended to.

That’s literally not what any of the document said at all. And I’ve tried to explain that to you at least twice already. Neither are the comments about global commons being a plot to give everyone everything for free.

I applaud everyone’s patience with you.

Cheerful Spring

From what I remember the new world order was about corporations involving themselves more in everyday lives of humans. I think that has happened? Politicians are just there, to make ordinary people feel comfortable. Reality is very different.

dense

This is from an interview with "The Man Who Coined the Term ‘Global Warming’" published in the New York magazine.

It covers the same ground that we've already read about from other sources.

Interviewer:I saw recently that Stephen Hawking was saying we need to find a way to colonize other planets within 100 years.


Wallace Smith Broecker:

Well … I mean, it’s going to be pretty hard to devastate the Earth to the point we can’t live on it.

But if we’re ever going to get this thing solved, we’re going to need an international group that has a lot of authority.

It’ll have to be like the Fed, but to manage carbon. That would mean we’d all have to give up a lot of our sovereignty, but I think that’s the only way it would happen.

It couldn’t be the U.N., because the U.N. doesn’t have the power.

They’d have to be able to penalize, they’d probably have to have an army, because cheating would be very, very lucrative.


I’d say it’s one chance in a thousand. I mean, we may get to that.
Maybe China will get so powerful that it can start to dictate.

That’s what we need. Our democracy is shot, I think.

It just doesn’t work.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/man-who-coined-global-warming-on-worst-case-scenarios.html

Dohnjoe

Good interview. Basically this man is echoing many experts from around the world in explaining how ****ed we are and the extreme measures future generations are going to have to consider to combat climate change

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Good interview. Basically this man is echoing many experts from around the world in explaining how ****ed we are and the extreme measures future generations are going to have to consider to combat climate change

Yes it really corroborates what I outlined at the beginning, except it adds in a New World Army to police fossil fuel usage and suggests that China might be in charge of a global dictatorship.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

Yes it really corroborates what I outlined at the beginning, except it adds in a New World Army to police fossil fuel usage and suggests that China might be in charge of a global dictatorship.

Your initial claims are your own personal theories. Likewise this man has his personal opinions of hypothetical situations in the future

It doesn't mean either "plan" exists and is being formally implemented

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your initial claims are your own personal theories. Likewise this man has his personal opinions of hypothetical situations in the future

It doesn't mean either "plan" exists and is being formally implemented

I see, it's just a big dream, and it's all in their heads.

And they let it accidentally spill out every so often eh?

Do you think they sound like nutters?

Especially this man, whose interview you said was very good?

Sounds like a complete lunatic doesn't he?

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Yes it really corroborates what I outlined at the beginning, except it adds in a New World Army to police fossil fuel usage and suggests that China might be in charge of a global dictatorship.

Where in the hell are you getting those notions from?
Please point to where these people have outlined their plans for an Army and to hand all the world's governments to China?
Or is that all based on these off handed comments from one guy? (Which you don't seem to actually understand.)

Also, are you now going back on yourself when you said that they weren't planning a one world government and weren't up to anything nefarious?
Why did you claim those things in the first place?

Are you still pretending that you are not proposing a conspiracy theory?

dense wrote: »

And they let it accidentally spill out every so often eh?

Are you also now suggesting that they are keeping their full plans secret?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Where in the hell are you getting those notions from?
Please point to where these people have outlined their plans for an Army and to hand all the world's governments to China?
Or is that all based on these off handed comments from one guy? (Which you don't seem to actually understand.)

Also, are you now going back on yourself when you said that they weren't planning a one world government and weren't up to anything nefarious?
Why did you claim those things in the first place?

Are you still pretending that you are not proposing a conspiracy theory?


Are you also now suggesting that they are keeping their full plans secret?

Also, just read the "good interview" and make up your own mind?

Have fun doing that but don't break anything.

Look at the nice colors.
Laters.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Also, just read the "good interview" and make up your own mind?

I have. There is no way to connect what was actually said and what you claim.
At least without completely misrepresenting what was said or making huge, silly leaps of logic.

So again, what leads you to believe that there are plans for an Army and to hand all the world's governments to China?
Is it based solely on that one interview and those quotes?

Are you again reverting to ignoring questions you don't like?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

I have. There is no way to connect what was actually said and what you claim.
At least without completely misrepresenting what was said or making huge, silly leaps of logic.

So again, what leads you to believe that there are plans for an Army and to hand all the world's governments to China?
Is it based solely on that one interview and those quotes?

Are you again reverting to ignoring questions you don't like?

Try reading it again maybe?

I've highlighted some words using nice colors to make it easier for them to jump out at you.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106418271&postcount=92

He does sound nuts though, doesn't he?

Or not, because it's a "good interview" apparently.

Toodle pip.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Try reading it again maybe?

I've highlighted some words using nice colors to make it easier for them to jump out at you.

He does sound nuts though, doesn't he?
Or not, because it's a "good interview" apparently.

Toodle pip.

Yes, I have read it. What you claim does not match with reality.
No where in the text you quoted or elsewhere does he mention that anyone plans to create an army or hand power over to China.
Nowhere in the text does he corroborate any of the claims you made earlier in the thread.
There is no possible way to reach your conclusion without complete dishonesty or without a complete lack of comprehension.

I have asked you several questions you are ignoring. Would you like me to highlight these for you?