Your "international law", your "global law enforcers" (was that not your WTO?), would be the puppet masters.
As I said, "International Law" is not a person so it can't be a puppet or a puppet-master. So, are you saying that the people who created "International Law" are the puppet-masters, and Obama, the Clintons, the Bushs, the Rosthchilds, Soros, various heads of Wall St banks, Saudi Kings, owner of Amazon/WaPo with his CIA contracts, billionaire Mexican owner of New York Times and Elon Musk are the puppets?
It's a system. It has natural momentum due to basic flaws of human nature. The US constitution would not have been created as an attempt to counter this human flaw if such systems were never going to arise. Climate fears lend themselves to be exploited for these obvious ends - ends for control. We know that empires have arose and fell. Check out the Dr Jordan Peterson vid. He is not a conspiracy theorist. He is a historian, social scientist and psychologist.
Steve3007 wrote:Also, can we get back to what all these puppet-masters and puppets are doing. What do they want to do that they're not already doing? You've mentioned abolishing private property and controlling our movements. Why, in your view, do they want to do that?
-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 2:02 am to add the following --
Fan of Science wrote:The fact that in poll after poll 97% of climate scientists state that humans are causing the planet to heat up is not a hoax. You merely claiming that it is a hoax gets you no where --- at least not among people who don't accept the ridiculous claims of conspiracy theorists. How come the National Academy of Sciences in 2014 issued a statement that humans causing climate change was a fact, as much as science can ever establish something as a fact, highly unlikely to change, if there are all of these scientists questioning climate change? Name a single scientist who denies the laboratory evidence that carbon in CO2 absorbs radiation? Name one. Name one single scientist who denies the basic laws of thermodynamics that tells us if radiation is being absorbed that temperatures will rise? Name one. Name on single scientist who states that the isotopes are telling us that the additional carbon in the atmosphere is not caused by human productive activities? Name one? All you will be able to cite to are a handful of scientists who are paid a lot of money by groups interested in continuing carbon emissions who will say that the damage being done by carbon emissions is not all that bad. They are not going to deny the basic science that anyone can replicate in a lab.
Professor Ivar Giaever (Nobel Laureate in Physics)
Jay H. Lehr, PhD (senior scientist at AR Environmental Services Inc)
Dr Don Easterbrook (Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University)
.Global warming ended in 1998
.There has been NO global warming since 1998. Global warming from 1978 to 1998 has been replaced by global cooling.
-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 2:16 am to add the following --
2. How can they not be incredibly efficient for control of movement?
That's supposedly another one of the advantages. Or so I've read.
One of the supposed advantages of a country having a large fleet of driverless cars is the improvements to traffic flow. The fact that control of the cars would be centralised means that they could, for example, drive very close together, like the carriages of a train, without the danger of collisions.
At least, that's the reason they
give (Google ane the like). But perhaps the real
reason for centralising the control of all these cars would be so that the conspirators could, at a moment of their choosing, take control of them and do with them as they please. Stop them all, or drive them off a cliff or something. Take away our rights to travel where we see fit. Right?
One thing that strikes me about this though: Why? These co-conspirators get fat by owning and controlling the businesses we work for, right? We're they're cash cows, right? So why would they want us to do anything different from what we're already doing? If they take control of our driverless cars and stop us from getting where we want to go, the chances are they'll just stop us from getting to work. That's not going to help them is it?
If those fat cats are already doing very well by exploiting the labour of us workers, why not (from their point of view) just carry on with things as they are? Why make us all miserable and therefore less productive by spoiling our ability to walk and drive where we choose? If I were them, I'd leave things as they are and keep on raking in the cash. Wouldn't you?
If I were them, I'd say something like this: "Ha! Let the poor fools have their country walks and their pathetic little cars! Let them have their bread and circuses! And I'll keep raking in the proceeds of their labour!"
Conceivably any unlicensed driver could use a driverless car. So not only the disabled but also children and non-drivers generally. That would create clog far more so than now.
So many cars requires a lot of energy production. So more coal etc.
Many more roads to construct to reduce clogged highways. That is a lot of concrete. The production of cement requires coal burning.
It is obvious that all these extra non-driver drivers could not be accommodated realistically and the scale of road production needed for "freedom" would fall well short of the dream being sold.
It is my view that driverless cars will mean the opposite of freedom relative to the freedom we have now because realistic restrictions for the reasons above would mean some form of ballot as to who actually gets to use these cars and how they are used.
-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 2:37 am to add the following --
Fan of Science wrote:The fact that in poll after poll 97% of climate scientists state that humans are causing the planet to heat up is not a hoax. You merely claiming that it is a hoax gets you no where --- .
It’s Said That ‘97% of Climate Scientists Agree’ About Global Warming – But Do They?
By Neil Frank | June 9, 2017 | 1:43 PM EDT
A variety of studies have purported to find an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on global warming. However, the studies rarely specify what it is to which the scientists agree. Usually it is nothing more than that the earth has warmed since 1800 and that human activity has contributed significantly to the warming—something almost no skeptics would deny. No study—whether a survey of published articles or a survey directly of scientists—has found anything remotely near a 97 percent consensus not only that the earth has warmed and that human activity has contributed significantly but also that human activity has been the primary driver, that the warming caused by it is dangerous, and that attempting to prevent future warming by reducing CO2 emissions would do more good than harm—and those are the issues debated.
In 2004 Science published the results of a study by historian Naomi Oreskes claiming that “without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth’s surface.” But an attempt at replicating the study both found that she had made serious mistakes in handling data and, after re-examining the data, reached contrary conclusions. As Benny Peiser pointed out in a letter to Science (Submission ID: 56001) that Science declined to publish but that the Cornwall Alliance summarized in 2006:
Oreskes claimed that an analysis of 928 abstracts in the ISI database containing the phrase “climate change” proved the alleged consensus. It turned out that she had searched the database using three keywords (“global climate change”) instead of the two (“climate change”) she reported—reducing the search results by an order of magnitude. Searching just on “climate change” instead found almost 12,000 articles in the same database in the relevant decade. Excluded from Oreskes’s list were “countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change; and that climate modeling is highly uncertain.” Further, even using the three key words she actually used, “global climate change,” brought up [not 928 but] 1,247 documents, of which 1,117 included abstracts. An analysis of those abstracts showed that
only 1 percent explicitly endorsed what Oreskes called the “consensus view”;
29 percent implicitly accepted it “but mainly focus[ed] on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change”;
8 percent focused on “mitigation”;
6 percent focused on methodological questions;
8 percent dealt “exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change”;
3 percent “reject[ed] or doubt[ed] the view that human activities are the main drivers of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’”;
4 percent focused “on natural factors of global climate change”; and
42 percent did “not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.”
Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), was the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and is retired Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, Houston (1987–2008). Living in Fulshear, TX, he continues research on global climate change while serving as a Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.