Thursday, October 29, 2009

Up Yours Ban Ki-Moon

This is in response to your "We Can Do It" article in the "news" paper New York Times.

I will not sit idly back anymore and listen to you, a man living over 5000 miles away, tell me, my city and my country how to live. Come on, I don't even agree with how President Obama is running the country. How on earth, literally, can we be expected to all agree to this treaty in Copenhagen? How can we divert our sovereignty over to a bunch of power greedy men such as yourself? Well, ok, perhaps you are just a puppet for all the international offshore bankers, but still you have some pull.

Its difficult enough to get some point across at my local city, let along my county seat of government. Then I try working with my state government of California, take for instance the DMV, and holy cow, they really make things difficult. In trying to talk with my particular federal representative, they are for the most part just downright nasty and some of them wont event talk to us. Senators are elevated to almost godhood, and they complain about "security" every time a constituent actually has a complaint, god-forbid we might actually have something to say about the way they represent us. So you're telling me, that by putting a global governance in place, we the people will actually have some say about what is going on? I hardly think so.

The U.N. was created in the United States by self-proclaimed internationalists like the Rockefellers. I don't see the relevance of your organization, nor do I believe the world is any better for it being around. I am pretty sure the world was doing pretty good before the U.N. was founded in 1945. Holy Toledo, you mean America actually did all its really great industrial building, traded with world partners and became an unbelievable country before the U.N.? That is certainly amazing to me. America became the greatest nation on the planet, traded with tons of countries, was worldwide known for its generosity, was feared, and its citizens were actually respected.

Along came a bunch of greedy men under the disguise of international bankers and really screwed the whole system. Our Federal Reserve central bank, nothing more than a criminal cartel [1] of these same bankers was formed in 1913. We have been at war, in some kind of depression or recession, and the world has been at each others throats ever since. I mean just look at history, open your eyes, am I wrong? Sure there have been problems out there, but things really started going down hill when we adopted a central bank over here. Do you think that could be the cause of the problems in the rest of the world [1] [2] [3]? Perhaps other countries have had the same problem too, it would be something to look into. Put some of your top men on it, and I bet you find yourself the answer.

The new administration of the United States under Barack Obama has handed out more money and power [1] [2] [3] to Wall Street, international bankers/traders, insurance companies, and commercial banks than any other administration combined [1] [2]. We see Al Gore continuously following this agenda of the "world is going to end" if we don't tax our carbon output. Hello, but if we really did have a big problem with carbon emissions, then perhaps we should cut them back, drill for oil over here in North America, find better technology for solar and geothermal power. How is taking my money away from me and sending it overseas going to help?

What we don't want is to take our money and start sending it over to third world countries, expecting this is going to solve anything [1]. What on earth is a beet farmer in Venezuela going to do with my money? Is it going to stop global climate change? Wow, and I thought that perhaps the Sun had something to do with the Earth warming up. Heh Al Gore, did you know the sunspot activity on the Sun has been basically on the decline? Did you realize the temperatures in the solar system are dropping [1] [2]? Or are you simply too stupid to pick up a paper or read technical journals? Ban, you may want to re-evaluate your idea that Al Gore is intelligent and start listening to scientists and not politicians at the IPCC [1] [2].

I agree that climate change is a problem; I agree that when it gets too hot I start sweating; I agree that when it gets too cold my wife wants to rub her really cold feet on me. Does that mean we have to create carbon trading businesses, use the force of government for compliance, and once again regulate a bunch of business that doesn't need it?

If you haven't heard of what Carbon Dioxide is, let me educate you on a few facts. Plants breath it. Wow, you're saying to yourself, "I didn't realize plants use a toxic gas that is killing the planet". What about oxygen? We breath it, but it kills plants, thats really strange. You probably wonder how on earth we are still living, despite the fact that every living creature on this planet who breathes air, exhales Carbon Dioxide. There is good news. Plants breathe in Carbon Dioxide. They use it, along with the Sun (by the way that is the big yellow ball of gas in the sky that creates heat and light) to create a process called photosynthesis, which is a big boy word for food. Plants take this food, process it, and become bigger and stay alive. Now, the most amazing process about that is the fact they actually exhale or give off Oxygen. Wow, once again you're saying to yourself "how on earth can plants take in a poison gas that is killing the earth" and actually keep on living, and amazingly they create oxygen from sunlight.

I know, I was stunned myself, when I learned about this in 1st grade. I am not sure what your schools in Korea teach, but over here in America, even with the national education system the way it is, we teach our kids about plants and such. So to wrap up that little educational session, Oxygen-->Good, Carbon Dioxide-->Good. We breath oxygen from plants, we exhale Carbon Dioxide, plants take that gas along with the big yellow sun, and create oxygen to complete the cycle. Oh yeah, and the "greenhouse gases" thing needs to be looked at again too, because your numbers simply don't match with reality.

I even heard from my son, who is in 2nd grade, that the plant population actually grows when it gets warmer, go figure. Sea life population seems to grow too when the plants in the sea grow, who would have figured? Basically, listen to the scientists over at the OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine).

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).

Unfortunately, all these years of your buddy Al Gore preaching these "climate sciences" he keeps using a chart [1] talking about how Carbon Dioxide emissions create the warming trend. The interesting thing about this, is the charts are never put together so you can see the peaks and valleys together in the same chart. If his presentation would include a neat side-by-side comparison of warming and C02 emissions you would find that C02 follows warming cycles. Amazingly this is because the warmer it gets, carbon dioxide levels seem to increase, causing even greater warming. Human activity isn't causing this, its caused from the Sun and radiant heat from the solar system, and yes, extra C02 also warms things up more [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

Should we pollute the atmosphere? No. Should we recycle? Yes. Does it make sense to keep businesses from polluting? Yes. Should we reduce smog, and increase air quality? Yes. Lets start by getting rid of diesel buses and forcing ourselves to use electric and/or hybrid buses. I hear they don't have to pollute the air and they are quieter. Have you ever been behind a bus? It really smells bad, and I can't stop from coughing and choking. Can you imagine what airplanes and war ships produce? Coal produces 54% of our power and is pretty dirty too [1]. Perhaps nuclear power can work wonders for us. I heard something about wind power, and power generated from water too. Is that even possible? I mean I see all these damns holding back water, perhaps they can be useful for creating power too. Those windmills look really pretty when I drive by them but I wonder since they are spinning anyway perhaps power can be generated from them too. The Sun is pretty bright, I can barely look at it, can we use solar power too? The options seem endless.

What we don't need to do is create yet even more government to regulate and control these things. We need our existing government, a smaller government, to gets off its collective self, and use existing law to protect its citizens. Over here in America we have this old document called the Constitution, and it (and our declaration) talks about how a limited government is here to protect the rights of man. It talks about how government is the problem, and it needs to be controlled. It talks about if a government gets too big and full of itself we are supposed to shut it down, and rebuild it. What does Korea have to say about this? I am pretty sure that its my right to live and breathe air, so perhaps the government can do its job and get rid of diesel engine pollution. Oh yeah, that would really screw up the oil industry, sorry, I forgot about that. The oil industry is one of those things thats "too big too fail" over here, so we all have to stop eating as much and pay more taxes to make sure our buddies over at BP and Shell make their profits for the quarter.

Ban, you talk about needing an "equitable and ambitious deal in Copenhagen". Can you define equitable? How about ambitious? I mean could ambitious mean to enslave those people who don't agree with you? Should we go to someones house and taser them if they don't comply? Perhaps fining them $1000 a day so they basically become homeless and can't eat anymore? Would that be good enough for you? Could it mean to tax citizens of 1st world nations at 75% levels so developing nations get the benefit? Wait, you talk again of "can we help to protect the most vulnerable nations from the effects of climate change". What nations are more vulnerable to climate change, you mean the ones closer to the Sun? Right now I vote to add a tax of $1 a year for every 1st world nation tax payer and send the money directly to the the people of "Kathmandu, Nepal", "Karimadbad, Pakistan", "Wenzhuan, Tibet", "Himilayan foothills, Nepal" and like "La Rinconada, Peru", there that solves our problems, and the Copenhagen thing isn't required. They could really use the money since they are closer to the Sun than any of us. All I ask is that they provide some really cool exports to us.

You talk about an "equitable global governance" structure. What the heck does that mean? According to Wikipedia, Global Governance is supposed to mean world governance, or globalization. Wikipedia suggests that "global governance is not global government", but it also says "global governance would not be necessary, were there a world government". What do you mean by equitable?

If all the nations are merely getting together from time to time and telling each other whats going on, then you can all come over to my house for tea and lets talk. I mean I can certainly entertain at least 30-40 heads of state every once in a while and break out the barbecue. The secret service and translators can swim in my neighbors pool. I only speak English, but I am pretty sure most heads of state speak English anyway, and come on, we can get the point across for those really passionate subjects.

We are not your slaves, you don't own us, got it?

written by Sean Ackley

No comments: