Nations voluntarily sign treaties that they are then "expected" to treat as binding upon them. Each nation has its own mechanisms for approving, enacting, enforcing and withdrawing from treaties it chooses to adhere to.

Nations voluntarily contribute resources to UN missions. Some of these missions are authorized by the nations of the UN - in open session - to use force under specific rules of engagement. (The US has a history of demanding unusual levels of autonomy for forces we choose to contribute.)

If a nation signs a treaty and then violates it, there are international laws that can apply with sanctions of various means if the nation doesn't cooperate adequately. As AH says, it's mirky.

What is NOT mirky is some special level of threat to sovereignty posed by the UN. Thinking the UN is a threat to American sovereignty is a classic conspiracy theory.

That's what Libya thought.

Yes, and Iraq in 1990. If the United States pisses off enough of the rest of the world that they unite in the UN to apply sanctions, then the UN is a threat to our sovereignty. In this respect, the US is not exceptional. Fortunately for the US, no rational scenario can include a sufficient number of enemies to pose a credible threat.

For Americans to think that the UN poses a threat to this nation's sovereignty is simply irrational.

By contrast, the US has used UN mechanisms to enact many major elements of our foreign policy.

If you take a closer look, you will find that the current US administration is using UN mechanisms to enact, not only foreign policy, but, domestic policy, education policy, energy policy, social policy....

So, excuse me if I sound irrational. Our leaders have a responsibility to the US people and it's constitution, not UN doctrines and agendas.

I recently started a thread about the shutdown of US coal plants because of global warming and CO2 output. This comes from the UN and the IPPC, and these EPA mandates threaten to destroy our economy.

Despite the title of this thread, Larry, (the OP), claimed to know the IPCC scientists personally, and that none of them were certain about any human contribution to global warming, which proves that the report is a sham....if Larry can be taken at his word.

The US should not be making policy decisions, based on anything that comes from the UN.

Now I am seriously puzzled! Is this the freedom that was mentioned earlier, that is enjoyed in the USA under a constitution, bill of rights? Where a United Nations dept is running the country?

Educate me here please, for I am very confused now about the freedom the Americans have or prerceive to have. Perhaps I shall offer a new topic, as I would really like to understand this freedom idea.

We should do it in the breakroom.

I'll bring the cream buns, put the kettle on and tell me where the break room is!

http://cr4.globalspec.com/announcement/688/New-Area-for-Off-Topic-Discussion

AGW is the basis for a purely political agenda, and is better discussed over here. Obviously lots of people want to talk about it, and I can get into things like the real reason that the president got a Nobel prize...it wasn't because of any great accomplishments.

I'm happy to take a closer look. Or, was the bulk of your message supposed to provide that closer look?

It is not possible for any person/body to use UN mechanisms - as I understand the term - to enact US policy. Seriously, consider your own words! "Enact...policy."

I propose an exercise: Define "policy," and describe how is it enacted in this country.

Which of the mechanisms deployed by ANY president in recent history qualifies as a "UN mechanism?" And why would you choose that nomenclature over "American mechanism?" I ask because it is in fact only Constitutionally-created mechanisms that are effective at creating US policy, and I do not consider the US Constitution to be a "UN mechanism."

Well, lets see...

We have a bunch of IPCC scientists that all received a Nobel Peace prize for writing literature on AGW.

Larry has confirmed that none of the scientists he has met, has any certainty about AGW.

We have a US president that received a Nobel Peace prize for speaking out against AGW, and that it must be stopped.

We have the EPA writing law, in accordance with the IPCC reports, which are written by uncertain, Nobel winning scientists.

Seeing a pattern here? Look at the last blog, about new water heater mandates.

You see...mandates are laws.

I'm not trying to argue.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is

now evident from observations of increases in global

average air and ocean temperatures, widespread

melting of snow and ice, and rising global average

sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}

.....................................................................

Despite the fact that warming has stalled, the agenda is moving full steam ahead.

This is the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. (That means the people in charge.)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Asserting that enacting policies that are consistent with a world view you disagree with, based on uncertain science (albeit with wide concensus among those involved in the work), is a far cry from a "UN mechanism." It's no stupider than having the FTC regulate nutritional supplements, instead of the FDA, for example.

Claiming some extra-constitutional shenanigans are afoot just because you're not convinced is merely sloppy rhetoric. It doesn't advance the discussion.

There's nothing left to discuss. Global warming has stalled; the computer models were wrong; the AGW crowd is continuing to push the warming scenario, and all that's needed to dismiss them, is a simple thermometer.

I would round them up and throw them in jail.

It is most enlightening to see how fixed in mind set many of our correspondents are- so here is my View

Nature, climate and geology has been changing and swinging since the earth was formed- some manifestations of those swing are evident today- whether our involvement has augmented or modified these is really what we are discussing.

There is no doubt also that mankind has had some impact on the climate and what we see today ascribed to global warming- although nature is, and has the best hand, we need only look at deforestation, land and sea pollution, additional gases from Manufacture, garbage and perhaps species depletion that would have had some effect added to nature-, flatulence from crop animals probably balances with wild herds that used to exist.

One factor that puts me outside the debate is the continued use of initials to describe either an agency, group or occurence- most of which I have no idea who is what.

Lets get real- both nature and man have some effect- how much either will really change things is the question, lets make the changes we can and let nature do the rest-

"The earth will do it's own thing...with or without humans."

Wow, uncharacteristically logical for you.

Let's do away with all the "franking" hysteria and admit we don't really know.

Here's what I do know. The air is dirty. Really dirty!!!!!! The air is killing people every day, slowly!!!!!!!!!! Just look at China!!!!!!!!!!!!

Human activity IS THE CAUSE OF ALMOST ALL THE AIR POLLUTION we have in the world today.

So, The earth will kill us, or not.

The dirty air will definitely kill us, slowly.

My bet is still with Yellowstone!

Yellowstone is still getting hotter. A major eruption would certainly put CO2 on the back burner.

Air pollution is an entirely different subject. China's a mess, but I don't think CO2 is killing people every day.

Took me a second read to sense the implications...careful what you wish for ! Lenin and Marx had such visions...

No more guns in private hands; only the enforcers would be armed.

True equality...no more rich and poor people. Sameness in economic outcome, regardless of skill or education (with a politburo to oversee and enforce this?)

Get America to agree that this is the way to go, (regardless of cost), and use her military might to bring the rest of the world in line.

You wish to be the USSA ? (United States of Soviet America)

This is what's happening. AGW is just another means to an end. Complete control.

Witches, warlocks, wizards were all alchemists. Clever people who knew how to work with nature and psychology! Is there any difference today? Yes. We call them scientists and we should all be impressed, no doubt.

Not being negative nor jealous, and certainly not Or what, at all. But if you had pulled this scam on the world and had gotten caught out, I guess you would be in jail right now. So why not these guys? Sorry silly of me, of course, they 'thought' and they were instructed by a 'faceless man' to save the world from ourselves.

Working everyday with 500 000 Volts +, makes one a realist, but you may think it is cynical.

Good point!!

Let's see, all the engineers in this forum should be able to help a dummy like me...

1. Oh horrors, all the ice is melting!! And all of the vast expanses of seaborne ice we see floating around are going to melt and raise the global mean water levels..
2. But 90% of that floating ice is under water! So it will be 10 times as bad as we sink!!
3. But that 90% is already underwater anyways, and according to those inconvenient laws of nature the remaining 10% is displacing it's equivalent weight anyways...
4. So in the end it comes down to the question of whether melting of glacial and other land borne ice masses is going to exceed the increased moisture holding capacity of a warmer global atmosphere to see if the ocean levels actually go up, down or sideways??

Not to say that climate change isn't happening- it's literally been happening forever- but this seems a bit like a fruit fly blaming itself cuz the apple it was sitting on fell out of the tree.

I do find it interesting that in the 50 or so comments there are few supporters of what is in the latest data, analyzed by our leading scientists, from 39 countries - all with their own unique needs and cultures......??? Perhaps we should look for the truth by going to the website of the Democrats, or Republicans, or Tea Party and survey their constituents for the "truth" about climate change.

In all seriousness, I am a little disappointed by the political overtones (and attack dog mentality) that seems to prevail rather than discovering and discussing the facts in a constructive, open manner which would yield positive steps forward (but would be less fun)

That's the spirit!

We're all about fun here.

Problem is, they apparently set out to prove the politically correct view, so they used data that pleased them. They seem to have ignored:

o The theory that C02 is the RESULT of global warming, not the cause.

o What about global warming on Mars? Did we do that, too? Or could warming be the result of (gasp!) solar activity?

o Some glaciers are expanding, some are contracting.

o The theory that the entire eastern U.S. and the UK are in for terrible winters because of the shifting Gulf Stream. Global cooling?

o Scientists that think what's happening is perfectly natural, and there's nothing we can do about it.

To me, it's all a trillion-dollar hoax. I could be wrong. I wish we could have some UNBIASED research done to prove it either way.

Read post 15. There is your fact in direct reply to the graph that was in the original post.

It has been said that the temperature of the oceans is rising. This would have an impact on the pH measurement. Has this been considered when presenting the Data?

The fact that more CO2 will change the pH value is known as much as if I put more water in my glass I will have more water in my glass. What has been omitted is that pH is logarithmic and in order to rise the Ph value you have to change the ingredients ten fold. This compared with what is already in the oceans means that what men contributes to the so called acidification is peanuts! Get real. The data is miss presented the conclusions follow an agenda.

Also have a look at the link in post 30. Or just google Tony Abbot (PM of Australia) and see which way its going. Looks like governments still have to ability to think and make decision despite the "facts" from the IPCC.

If you find it interesting what is been said in reply to your post then you should read a little bit of science yourself which will probably be even more interesting. At least for me it is.

pH is logarithmic and in order to rise the Ph value you have to change the ingredients ten fold

Hate to remind you, but we're talking about it dropping. Semantics aside, the equilibrium constant of a weak acid like that formed from CO2 means you need more than 10X for a pH point shift- even without allowing for any other form of complexing.

Jupp, I corrected it in on of my other posts but this one slipped through!

Just while you say this I looked up the acidity strength (if thats what it is called in English) and found that H2SO4 is 4 time more potent than H2CO3. Not seen ay comments about this. This is part of the complexity you talk about. It is not even touched in the IPCC report.

For me it reads more like some 5 year old explanation of Coke and the bubbles that come out there.

Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) actually has a disassociation constant (pka) more than 5 magnitudes greater than carbonic acid. Both of these are diprotic acids, and the second (weaker) constant of sulfuric is about 400,000 times greater than the first for carbonic. The overall result is like comparing a Daisy air rifle to a 20 MT nuke.

Now you obfuscate everything with scientific facts spiced with some political statements - reads almost like the IPCC report . . .

Well, at least your climate change tact worked.

Like moths to the flame.

I'm not going to spend much time doing all of this again; but these are some of the people that were absolutely positive that their models were right, and contributed to the IPCC reports.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html

For anybody that might be interested, I had this saved from one of our previous climate change debates. It's interesting.

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

Thanks for bringing this back into the ongoing discussion on climate change.

It is real data, analyzed by leading scientists/engineers. Discussing theories, principles, procedures used in gathering the data, etc is what the best posters bring to this discussion.

Anyone can express an opinion, but without facts and valid theories, is wasting all our time.

Sure. It should be noted; that Rutan had absolutely nothing to gain. He got tired of hearing these arguments, and went off on his own to find answers.

I trust his results to be honest.

...did most of their info come from these guys?

Now! You are touching a very sensitive point here! I am still working throught the "The Physical Science Basis" and still need an answer if Physics does include Chemistry and Mathematics.

No. You got it backwards. Mathematics does include Physics and Chemistry.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/16/burt-rutan-engineer-aviationspace-pioneer-and-climate-skeptic/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/03/stunning-pictures-al-gores-new-9-million-mansion-media-totally-ignore

Oh the irony.

If you look at EPICA temperature data taken from ice cores. There has been a cycle of warming about every 75,000 years. This cycle has warm no more drastically then any other. The last four cycles peaked out warmer then it is now.

So what did we do back then to cause global warming?

....as mud.

Pay to Publish Journals Exposed By SolarEagle in General Discussion; CR4 discussion of late. Perhaps this is the full sum of the debate which is occurring here.

Clearly, if the panels, committees, authorised bodies were dissolved and the money spent on actually clearing up the garbage, this would be money better spent. After all, some of that money the 'researchers' obtain is your money. Surely, you have a public say and investment in all of this?

Personally, I think the scientists were able to convince themselves that they had a clear conscience, because they were told to find evidence of AGW, and present it.

That was the scientific task.

I agree to disagree with you here. These scientists knew they were starting at a point that had no meaning, back up evidence or real source of data that was in fact of any meaning. They started with a false data base and continued to create further falsifications, which of course could back up the false data from the beginning. Anyone can complete this falseness and send the world off in a direction which is wrong, completely. So by following a false path, one has to wonder what other adverse effects have been created that may lurk beneath the falseness.

One can only have a solution to fix something if the foundation for fixing it is sound, truthful, good and in tact. No point in fixing a sewer line if you know you don't use it and you know it comes out at a dead end.

I recall a few years ago when the GW folks stated trees showed signs of global warming. It was a big deal and 'God honest truth' of this proof, until a researcher proved by inspecting trees around Europe, Canada, that it was all down to cows, sheep and goats, other animals, rubbing up against the trees to have a good old scratch. This had caused the growth rings on one side of the tree to be closer together, than on the other.

If I could find the article from a few years ago, that I read, there was a ships captains log that stated when he sailed in the Arctic he saw land and no ice or snow, and that it was unusual to be catching cod, (or such like fish) so far north. (Early 1800's if I recall correctly).

If scientists and big business lies about real issues, why take them seriously. They deserve a good stoning. One needs to beat the devil out of them, to let the angels in.

Global warming? Bring it on. Nature adapts quicker than people and what nature destroys on one side, she reproduces something else, elsewhere, to stay in balance. Not humans, were fixed!

Well, if that's a disagreement...it's the best disagreement I've ever had.

OTTAWA, Sept. 27, 2013 /CNW/ - "No one should trust the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report issued today," said Professor Bob Carter, Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalition and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia. "The IPCC has a history of malfeasance that even includes rewording recommendations of expert science advisors to fit the alarmist agenda of participating governments."

Help me understand your comment. Am I supposed to believe the opinion of one over the opinion of 200+professionals of the IPCC?

Yes. I do. Global warming has been a hoax since the gitgo. It's the biggest hoax since the freon hoax about the ozone hole.

I spent 4-5 hours digging into the bowels of the UN website.

AGW is a small part of a much larger agenda. It's all in there.

The US should drop out of that organization, stop funding it, and stop signing treaties that intentionally undermine our constitutution.

Pretty much only took one man: Harry S. Truman to start all this nonsense with the UN, although he may have (naively) had a higher purpose in mind at the time.

The only way to rid ourselves of all the UN nonsense is very simple. End it. De-fund it. Evict them from our land, and tell them good riddance. These are far worse than the carpetbaggers who invaded the south after the War of Northern Agression (among other names for it).

200+ so-called scientists (who are really nothing but whores) do not trump one honest gentleman who takes an unbiased look at the real data. I have had many conversations with some of these so-called scientists in the past - and to ask them an honest question is the hugest insult one could ever attempt, based upon their reaction. So you see, if one makes the mathematical model complicated enough that no one person knows what is in it, the outcome can be manipulated to be whatever the powers that be desire. That is not science, it is witchcraft, tomfoolery, or a pantheon of expletives could be used to name it, for it is LEGION. I say cast the demons into the swine, and let them run into the sea.

In simple terms, paid government 'professionals' will say anything to have the money and their long terms goals forced on the general public, who in essence, care not a jot about much outside their homes and bank accounts, PTA meetings. But when a horde of 'professionals' get together to determine my life, my future, they had better have hard facts, proof that cannot be disproved or some divine intervention that is made known to the entire world, that we may all make rectifications.

I go with the one who can prove his findings. Experts = Ex is the unknown quantity, and sperts are drips under pressure. No professionals here sir, just money greedy business people with hidden agendas and idiots following like sheep on the same gravy train. My opinion and I stick with it, until proved wrong.

But global warming....a 20th century myth.

At any rate...

AGW science is certainly unclear, and clearly uncertain.

The one thing we know for sure, is that it is not a hoax; it is a means to an end.

The end, is a relatively small group of people, looking to seize control of all global resources, manufacturing, and energy output; with them in charge, and the rest of us at their mercy.

And financed with cap and trade carbon exchanges.

Here's my storybook ending:

Al Jazeera runs an award winning documentary series, that convinces Americans and the rest of the world, that AGW was a fraud.

Having just watched an interesting program on global warming and its effects on Greenland, some interesting statements were made by an IPCC researcher. There is proof that Greenland's melting ice is caused by the Gulf Stream current, flowing up the Atlantic ocean, splitting at Greenland and flowing around Greenland. The warm Gulf Stream is flowing close to the see bottom, with the colder ice water flowing above. The warm current is undermining the glacial ice and causing it to break up and drift off. The warmed ocean current is from the Gulf Stream. No talk of Co2, people or any such likes.

The other interesting statement made by the IPCC researcher was; 'we have only been studying this for approximately 25 years and we have no real data. However, the earths tilt , (from 23.5 to 25.4 degrees), has changed weather patterns, but we do see evidence of a natural cycle of warming and cooling from ice core samples we have taken".

'It is hard to predict the actual rise in water levels, but there is something odd as new calculations show the rise would only be between 600mm and 1000mm of sea levels.

The statement that did grab me was; 'that we should be educating people and business's NOT to build on shores and not have petrol chemical plants on coast lines and only 1m above the sea level'.

Now these statements from the IPCC I can agree with and they do make a lot of sense.

The gulf stream has always been under the artic flow which comes down the coast of Labrrador and swings east to sea around Nova Scotia- at that point the gulf stream surfaces down the US coast and then does a almost 180 turn and heads to England, Ireland etc- so nothing new there- thye supposed calamity scene is that melt water from northern Canada will dilute the arctic current and divert it but methinks this has all happened before- please excuse some literary and detail license here as I am digging this from my Geological memory

And there is always the chance that the IPCC might be right by virtue of dumb luck.

It's like all those idiots that have been walking around with signs saying the "The End is Neigh" for the last three or four millenniums.

One of these days one of them just might get lucky, but I would not give them any credit for it.

All right, I'll be the straight man- just tell them to Mooooove on.

Have you thought to take your concerns with the IPCC report (or the conclusion of climate science in general) to a climate scientist directly? You're a very smart guy and the fact that you don't accept the conclusion of nearly the whole of the rest of the world is a matter of some concern. You should be able to find a co-author of the report, possibly in your neck of the woods, and you might be able to get them to answer a simple, direct question or two. I've given this topic serious consideration but not to the point of subject matter expertise, so I don't feel qualified to debate details.

Climate change, sea level rise, intensifying of weather, species extinction and migration, and all the other side effects, are VERY widely accepted by now. Your (and it seems the majority of participants on this board) rejection strikes me as more likely to be misunderstanding on your part than error or conspiracy on the part of the scientific community.

The evidence is simple.

In science we observe, hypothesize, and test that hypothesis.

The climate debate does exactly the same thing. Unlike science and in the case of climate debate, we discount the results of the hypothesis when it is wrong and award Nobel Peace Prizes for key figures that support the hypothesis.

I have no doubt climate changes. However, I have a big issue when every test (computer model) of the hypothesis turns out to be wrong and still we have leaders of the debate championing the hypothesis.

The obvious conclusion I reach (and I am not a climate scientist) is "We Don't Know!"

I am okay with that prognosis, but to claim that you do know when it is obvious you don't gets you a FAIL in any college course I know of. It is also called dishonesty in the real world.

So you can criticize my conclusion, but unlike the IPCC, I think I have a little firmer ground to stand on.

1. I thought this may be interesting. Just type in: 'how much co2 is given off by rotting vegitation' in Google.
2. What is it?
   

   Carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas. A molecule of carbon dioxide is made up of 1 part carbon and 2 parts oxygen. Therefore, its chemical formula is CO2.

1. Where is it found?
   
   
1. In our atmosphere. About 0.03% of our air is carbon dioxide.
2. In solution, (mixed in) the water of lakes, ponds, streams and oceans.
   
   
   
2. Where does it come from?
   
   
1. It is produced by almost all living organisms (both plant and animal).
2. It is given off, (exhaled) into the air every time we breathe.
3. Even organisms without lungs or gills release carbon dioxide into the environment. This includes insects, plants, bacteria, etc.
4. Plants give off carbon dioxide mostly at night.
5. All aquatic organisms release this gas into the water. Some of it bubbles to the surface, some of it dissolves (mixes in) with the water, but most of the carbon dioxide found in the water is produced by organisms (bacteria mostly) that carry on decomposition of dead material.
   
   
   
3. 
   
   
   
   
   
4. Carbon dioxide and plants - a nest relationship
   
   
1. Most of the plant material in an aquatic environment is made up of algae.
2. During daylight all plants use carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. This process is called photosynthesis - it requires light.
3. At night, the opposite is true. Plants use oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. This process is called respiration.
4. All dead plants will use up a lot of oxygen and give off a lot of carbon dioxide as they rot and decay.
   
   
   
5. Carbon dioxide and animals - another exciting relationship!
   
   
1. All animals use oxygen and give off carbon dioxide.
2. Dead animals continue to use oxygen and give off carbon dioxide as they rot and decay.

This conversation has certainly tapered off into strange little subjects. If I can figure out how to unsubscribe from it, I shall do so. When it was on topic, it was a dandy thread.

Just go to subscribed discussions, and unsubscribe from this one.

Not really off topic though. If CO2 is declared to be a poison, or even a WMD, it would be a little unsettling if UN security forces were used to enforce such a treaty.

It seem to have alright, but it is still of value to myself. learning how others see things in different countries. But I think it safe to say, we are not convinced of global warming. Natural cycle, yes. But all mans fault? Nope! At least not yet anyway.

I do wonder if all those farmers who have to pay 'flatulence tax' on their cows, sheep and goats will get a refund when global warming caused by animals is proved wrong. Fat chance no doubt, but a nice claim for them.

Without giving away the spectacular ending, I would recommend that people take the time to read Alinsky, the UN papers, (on everything), the goal of the Weather Underground, a background on our president's heroes, and how global warming, open borders, and the welfare state, all ties in.

Here's a giant hint...

The enemy isn't CO2; it's humans.

I think this is the epitaph for earth and all its Joe Public human BS.

"God helps them whom help themselves, God help them who get caught. The spineless public blogged and fought, telling children, 'All is well! Politicians laughed, sneered and jeered, their riches piling up. Joe Public thought, and followed rules, like sheep and other fools. Life was good, life was great, but so is tea and cake. So God helped them whom helped themselves, our lives were all for naught."

Do what is right for your families and loved ones, and not what is right for profiteers and politicians!

I tend to get a little frustrated, because we are approaching the biggest human genocide that the earth has ever seen.

Nobody believes that a global government would do such a thing...but they will.

A one time deal...to cut the world's population in half; at least.

Utopia.

Can you imagine what is happening with fracking? Just imagine this being 14T litres of water for processing running onto your food crops. It can happen so easily. Clearly, the SCADA system is not fully operational or the operator did not look at the readings, or the computer was down with a virus. Probably the new Trojan known as "who gives a flying....'

You need to control the companies, the government agencies supposedly in charge, not the general population.

Have a look at the spillages for the Congo. Terrible. Lakes of oil from spillages. It can never be cleaned up but pristine jungle is ruined, along with lives of people who lived off and within the environment.

It makes me quite angry, not biased, not jealous, just plain straight f*$#! angry.

Who is paying the compensation to the farmer and for how long? Of course you will, in buying the products and paying the price rises. Psychosomatic, idiopathic? Pathetic and apathy more likely. But the farmer will be richly smiling.

Thank you for letting me rant. The Dark Forces have assembled. Use the Fork Luke, use the fork!

All in all, a pretty good rant.

I'm willing to entertain just about anything, and even agree with you to a point; but the notion that the US government blew up the trade center, is insane.

I have always been troubled by the fact that the flight schools notified the FBI about those guys, and that they only wanted to learn how to fly, and not land...and it was largely ignored. Since then, our constitutionally guaranteed freedom and privacy have been melting away faster than the ice sheets.

My latest aha moment came just a couple of days ago...

I knew that the current administration was attempting to balloon the welfare class to build a larger voter base...to the point of advertising entitlement plans as far south as Mexico City. This also ties in with the refusal to secure our southern border, and amnesty plans.

With enough people voters dependent on government, all voting democrat, we would eventually become a one party system. Sheer numbers of dependents would guarantee it.

My aha moment came when I started thinking about what would happen after the single ruling party was in complete control.

We could do away with voting, couldn't we?

And millions of people would no longer be needed for them to maintain control.

CO2 is the latest bad guy, but the left has been obsessed with overpopulation for decades...and there's really only one way to thin the herd; act locally, and think globally.

Yes I am having a reconsidered day, it has gotten my goat, and my goat is fed up with it all too.

Divide and conquer. So we need wars to thin the herd. So why worry about dying from drinking too much, taking overdoses. Let people drink, smoke, drive and be happy.

Well I am off the the center of the earth now, and I shall speak to the hamsters on the big wheel and convince them to stop running and creating gravity. Death doom and destruction. My job here is done!!!!!!! But you do have time for a cup of tea and maybe a quickie and a smoke!

I fought with the Grim Reaper today. Beat him with a vacuum cleaner. I was Dyson with death. Have a grand day.

Judging from the way both sides of the isles of Congress works and votes what makes you think we do not already have a one-party system?

You mean the republicratic party?

I started calling them that a while ago, although I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has come up with the term.

Conspiracy theories aside, there are a lot of real things happening that should be causing widespread alarm. I'm sure you're well aware of all of them.

" US government.......is insane."

I think we should be questioning, maybe waterboarding some of our elected.

listened to an interview with an UL ex-employee because he questioned 'the asbestos on the beams rated them 4.5 hours at 1200 degrees, the tower collapsed in 56 minutes' he's ben ex now since months after the towers' collapse

The towers previously belonged to the 'port authority' for 30 years or so and they were paying as much as 800,000/floor for asbestos abatement

the towers were sold to investors who insured them for total destruction months before they were destroyed.

an adjacent building was also destroyed

Tried to edit and lost a page but I ask ' why do so many 'out of country' people question? I think it reeks of the same as the Kennedy assassination and we should be questioning, but everyone thinks questioning motives is 'crazy conspiracy theory'. Why was sealed info about the assassination extended another 25 years?

Being an ex Marine and familiar with primacord, I personally think beams appeared to have been cut with it. I question many things that are happening and why.

I question everything, and I could go on a prolonged rant about the stupidity of the asbestos abatement crap.

But I have lines that require proof for me to cross, and suggesting that, not only, was the trade center destruction intentional on the part of people in government, but that it was a way to collect insurance money...is insane.

Insane! If what I have just seen on CNN about what is being affected in the USA, is, in fact, true and actual, from my perspective, that is insanity.

You have been conned yet again, by your government, you will toe the line and you will do as you are told, and you will obey the government and they will manipulate your life, destroy your family, make your money useless. put you in debt, make you pay for their spending and you will believe and obey.

And Banksy will come over and paint more pictures for you to keep you amused and distracted. And the Chinese pandas will keep being traded for uranium deals.

I would qualify that as insanity.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/14/news/economy/china-panda-trade/

just a small interjection- if in fact any agency did pre plan the destruction of the WTC, by cutting beams or any other proceedure pray tell me how they we able to ensure an airliner fling into it piloted by relatively untrained pilots would result in that destruction- and I saw the plane go in- how did they practice and pre opt

Come on grow up - the evidence was in Afganistan, not the USA

Interesting question ans easily explained. Just the same way they land any aeroplane on any runway without hands on from pilots. There are several methods and one may be the use of laser guidance which is not in a very big box of tricks or by simple radio control, which is used in drones.

Are you 100% sure it was piloted by someone.

How did it fly up a restricted airspace, off a regular flight path, so undetected.

Why were there additional explosions below the crash area.

How come a lot of eye witness's have simply disappeared, firemen, public.

Why choose the WTC? Why not the Wall St, Federal Bank, White House or all three into the Pentagon, or your pertrol storage facilities. Why the WTC? It has no strategic value, (that we as the population are aware of). Correct me if I am wrong.

If an aircraft caused so much damage to a building, why on earth did a similar aircraft simply disappear as wreckage when it hit the Pentagon. And leave only a small hole.

The only aircraft in the world that can magically leave no wreckage, no trace, simply vapourise into thin air are built in America? The same aircraft fly world wide and if they do, God forbid, crash, they leave wreckage to trace, to find. Why only in this instance have your aeroplanes vapourised?

Not odd? I guess the 'untrained pilots' were very skillful indeed, if you think outsiders did this, or, they had a great deal of help.

Now that debris, dust etc., must have had some effect on the city and people for months, polluting sub stations, subway trains, and affecting the local conditions of the area.