JohnBirchSociety

The consolidation of ownership you give as examples were all government facilitated. The government, in each case, facilitated the monopolistic practice. Rockefeller, et. al, used the government to allow their monopolies. They were not free-market adherents. Adam Smith would not support Rockefeller or the government sanctioned monopolies.

1) Please demonstrate that man is causing deforestation of the scale that "environmentalists" claim (For instance, in the United States we have more trees then we had 200 years ago, by some estimates). Then, please demonstrate that the deforestation is causing a global climate change. 2) Nuclear Waste disposal is safe. It is being blockaded by "environmentalists" that realize that if Nuclear Power is actually used, many of their "issues" will disappear. It is about power over man. Electrical Nuclear Power generation is the safest form of energy production in American history. No person has ever died from a nuclear accident at a power generating plant. Storage of waste is very simple, and very safe. We place the items in containment vessels, then store the vessels in the safest geological areas known to mankind (salt-mines). 3) The polar ice caps are melting? Hmmm...another false claim. Here's the data to show what I mean: Are the ice caps melting? ? The Register So again, there is no global climate issue caused by mankind.

I would not have done the bail-outs. At the same time I would work towards are reasonably timely return to the real money standard of the Constitution. The Gold / Silver Standard. I would also in a reasonably timely manner, return a free market environment.

There has never been an unregulated monopoly.

You confuse theft (government assisted, as well) with capitalism.

What is my agenda? It is to avoid the destruction of human enterprise through the imposition of globally mandated regulations that are based on fraud. Sir, I've not just denied what you've written. I've given examples of why it ain't so. The primary example is the Sun and our orbit around it. The impact it has on our climate is total in comparison to even the gravest of planetary events (catastrophic volcanic eruption like Mr. Pinatubo in 1991, or Krakatowa in 1883). To assert that the efforts of mankind, that in no way compare in number to the SUN (statistically irrelevant) is to miss the most important (and by all available measurements, the only long-term) denominator in global climate change / status. That's my agenda. If you cannot debate on the basis of fact, then maybe your assertions are wrong, like those of Mr. Gore and company.

I have not just made sweeping statements. I've stated clearly why such statements are valid. Let's take the most pertinent one to global climate, namely, the SUN. The SUN emits 3.86*10^26 Watts of power per second ("The Sun" at nineplanets.org). That's 386 Billion Billion Megawatts per SECOND. Of such energy the Earth receives approximately 1.740*10^17 Watts per SECOND, or 1366 Watts per square meter of surface exposure per SECOND (The Solar Constant). Nothing that man does, including the atmospheric detonation of atomic weapons (our most powerful devices) even comes close in magnitude to these numbers. In fact, even the most powerful of natural forces on the planet, such as large scale volcanic eruptions do not compare. The increase / decrease of the energy received, and at what part of the planet it is received, over time, impacts our global climate. That is why it is cyclical (See: Milonkovitch Cycles). These cycles have resulted in the ice ages and the counter to them. It has been happening long before we arrived on Earth and will continue after we leave. In one second, the SUN emits more energy than all of humanity has emitted through its' activities in all of human history! Yet we think that we are contributing (even miniscully) to the climate variations that have always occurred on our Earth? Now that's pride! Speaking globally, it is all about the Sun and our orbit around it. It has nothing at all to do with our feeble (in comparison) activities. Oh, darn, there goes another sweeping assertion (preceeded by the facts of the case)!

Ah, those darn monopolies. Hey, you might want to find a monopoly that was not government created. As for Anti-Trust, that's just for the monopolies that the government doesn't like.

Monopolies only exist through government intervention. They cannot exist in a free market. You might want to dig a bit deeper on the Microsoft concept about monopolies. There are no man-made global environmental issues. I live in California. China is not polluting us, other than with their bad quality products. You've found what isn't so about the JBS. That says a lot about your ideas. Look. This is about global, man-made environmental / climate issues. On every count, there is not a single man-made global environmental issue. Throughout this thread I've shown the actually absurdity of even making the assertion that there are. The science cannot be clearer on the matter.

I think there are common sense things we can do to improve our environment. It isn't an either/or issue. But we've been commanded to be good stewards of this earth, and I don't think we've done a very good job of it, at times. It sickens me to walk along pristine paths, only to find some idiots have raped and scarred it with trash, beer bottles, and cigarette butts. In the last 5 years I've lived here, just a few dozen yards from a creek and wonderful walking/biking paths, I've seen teenagers toss a shopping cart and a bicycle into the creek! When trying to explain to them the importance of the environment, several of them displayed a lack of caring. One called me an environmental whacko. When I asked them to think about saving a nice place for their kids and grandkids, one teen said he didn't care what we left any of them. That kind of attitude is prevalent in our greedy and materialistic world today. And it will pollute our souls, as well as our planet. I never said man has no affect on environment. Since we are part of the environment, we affect it. We do not, however, globally affect it. I'm talking about the false science / position that we globally affect our environment. Actually, Chernobyl was the only melt-down. Interesting that it had graphite bricks for containment. Three-mile Island was no where near a melt-down. Not even close. American / European commercial electrical generating Nuclear Power Plants are nearly immune from any terrorist attack. I have been in the containment vessel of a Nuclear Power Plant (Berwick, Pennsylvania, USA) and short of a Nuclear Bomb going of right on top of it, there is no force available to breach the containment vessel / building. If a gang of terrorists broke into such a site, they MIGHT possibly be able to breach the coolant facilities / mechanisms and cause a very localized radiation leak. But this is so unlikely as to not really warrant not building Nuclear Power Plants. Again, no person in the United States has died as a result of a Nuclear accident at a commercial electrical generating Nuclear Power Plant. It is the safest form of electrical generation in the history of the world. Spent nuclear fuel can be completely, safely stored in underground salt mines, which are the most geologically stable regions of the world (by their nature). This poses NO problem, and in no manner is it global. Oil spills cause a good deal of localized damage to industry and life in the ocean. They are not global in scale, and they abate, naturally in a few short years. Again, not a global problem. The largest source of methane release is the Ocean, by hundreds of thousands of magnitudes more than mankind. After that, animal / insect life releases more than man dreams of doing. This is again, not a human issue, and not a global human issue, by any stretch of the imagination. There's no indication that the mecuric levels in naturally harvested sea-food have risen due to the activities of mankind. Rather, mecury is naturally released in the Oceans of the world. Again, not a global problem or a human problem. Coral Reefs are dying, and growing. This is the nature of life. There is no indication that man causes this at an accelerated rate. Global climate changes are determined by the Earth's orbit, and Sun activity. Period. Sorry, flurocarbons are heavier than air and water vapor (tis why they are so useful in refrigeration). They cannot get into the Ozone-layer. The Ozone is made by UV radiation from the SUN interacting with Oxygen in our atmosphere. There is nothing we can do to stop it, our speed it up. Again, it is entirely dependent upon our orbit around the Sun and Sun activity. Irresponsible pollution is bad. Greed is bad. Selfishness is bad. They are all bad. We agree on these things. The point of this thread is that there are no GLOBAL environmental issues caused by man. THEREFORE, there is no need to implement global governance oversight on these supposed matters. The GLOBAL environmental movement is another name for Communism.

Nothing man does pollutes the atmosphere in a global manner. If you are worried about radiation, what is the source of the radiation you are worried about? Surely not commercial Nuclear Power Plants, which do not contribute radiation to their environments. Surely not above ground nuclear explosions? We've had over 700 of them is 60 years, with no radiation problems (other than localized). Uranium mining can be very dangerous, for the LOCAL miners who breathe in the dust. That is a local problem, to be resolved through local action. It has no global impact. Long-term storage of waste is a simple matter. Underground salt mines. They are the most geologically stable areas we know of. As we remove the salt, we put in the waste, in containment vessels that are sealed in reinforced and lined concrete. There are no global environmental problems. Nations that allow pollution, like China, have extreme local problems. They need to fix them. There are no global environmental problems.

1) Needless deforestation is devestating to local / regional areas, but does not affect global climate. 2) Are you kidding me? Down-wind? You must be kidding me. If you were involved with science as you say, then I'm astonished! I recommend you read the book "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear". And, again, no person has been harmed in the United States as the result of a nuclear accident at an electrical generation Nuclear Power Plant (commercial, not experimental)... 3) Yes, oil spills are costly. Especially for the lost oil. However, there is no long-term effect to them. 4) Agreed. I believe Termites produce a great deal of the stuff... 5) We are not noticeably polluting the oceans in other than a very localized manner. Remember, I'm talking about global issues. 6) Actually this is not true. The ice-caps are not melting at an alarming rate. In fact, we have more ice this year than last year. 7) Ozone is produced by the interaction of the UV energy from the Sun and the Oxygen in our atmosphere. There is nothing we can do to stop it or increase it. It is patently cyclical in nature. Global climate changes have solely to do with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the energetic activities of the Sun in respect to the Earth. There are local environmental problems. They should be addressed. There are no global environment problems.

Free trade is simple to define. The individual is free to trade with whomever they wish, and anyone can trade with that person. If one of the parties is exercising unfair competition, whether by government assistance (theft) or collusion of individuals (theft) then it would be appropriate for our government to intervene to prevent / punish such theft.

The science is not incidental when it is false, and is being used to demand Anti-American, un-elected, globally run regulations. That's the problem with this "global" nonsense. I don't believe in being gluttons. You are right on that. Using government force to manipulate free markets is wrong. As a Latter-day Saint I'm sure you know that GOD has told us in Scripture that the is enough, and plenty to spare, on our Earth. We ought not waste. We ought not needlessly pollute. None of that is global. None of that demands the abdicating of the United States Constitution to un-elected, supra-national, regulating bodies that are regulating based upon false science.

I've quite obviously stated the position that we've not caused climate change, and rationally couldn't. So I'll not go farther on that with ya... I've not advocated the reckless use of anything. That's a straw-man argument. I'm advocating against the restriction on productivity and standard of living imposed, based upon false, fraudulant science. Yes we do have an impact, on a local, and rarely, regional scale. For example, the air quality in Los Angeles is not good. As bad as it is, it has no effect on global climate. Instituting regulations aimed at combating something to which man does not contribute (scientifically proven) is insanity... Nuclear power in the US has been so expensive because of "environmentalist" road-blocks that make it impossible to build. Once built, even with the unnecessary and costly "environmentalist" absurd requirements, they make money. Monopolies only exist through Government intervention, so you point is not valid. Standardization is a good thing, and natural, to an extent, in the free market.

I think you've misunderstood the thread. What this is about is false science. If man does not impact the global climate (and he does not, he is incapable of doing it) then demanding a global response to "global climate change" by mankind is WRONG. It is a means to lower the standard of living of mankind. Pollution problems are local, and rarely regional. They should be prevent / solved by the local, elected, representatives. Having grown up in Pennsylvania, USA, I'm aware of the local effects of pollution on the air quality. Pittsburgh was horrific for air quality. Now it isn't. I applaud those efforts. They were local in scope. They were done by elected people, locally. The fact is that there is no "global" environmental problem. Therefore, so called "environmentalists" that demand "global" solutions and regulation are WRONG. There is nothing, however, wrong with a free people deciding to not be wasteful. Nothing wrong with keeping you air clean, or water clean. Nothing wrong with efficiency of vehicles and lessening the use of fossil fuels. If you want to walk to the store / work or ride a bike there, that's good for you. Demanding by government force that I do the same in the name of the "environment" is tyranny. Hope you see the difference? As for oil slicks, like the Exxon Valdez...I'm not saying we should intentionally create them. They do cause short-term, localized effects on shore-lines. But they are not Earth shattering events that take "decades" to clear up (unless government idiots get involved). Oil naturally evaporates, and, is a natural product. I'm not for oil-slicks, but I am against the unfounded hysteria that environmentalists engage in about them.

Friends, just the volcanic activity in Central America releases 10,000 metric tons of Sulfur Dioxide into our atmosphere PER DAY! Every day! With NO effect on global temperatures. Thats 100,000,000 metric tons per YEAR! We don't come close to that. Yet, we are to believe that we are changing our global climate?

I don't believe it because it is scientifically false. In fact, it goes beyond false, to the absurd. Friend, even if we tried to effect our global environment, using the most powerful devices man has ever devised, we couldn't. We've detonated over 700 nuclear bombs in our atmosphere with absolutely no global climate effect. The largest, most powerful volcanic eruptions in recent human history have only affected the global temperature for a few months, by a miniscule amount. They released more sulfur dioxide into our atmosphere than human activity has for decades, and they (volcanoes) do it all at once, to no long-term effect! Yet, the environmentalists would have us believe that feeble man can have a long-term effect? This has nothing to do with environment. It is about the enslavement of humanity.

I agree. Common sense agrees. But, it has nothing to do with a supposed global catastrophe...

We don't need to find cleaner energy sources when we already posses the solution. Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power Plants built to correct standards (not the absurd Chernoble) are the safest form of energy devised by man, period. In the United States nobody has ever died from a Nuclear related accident involving a Nuclear Power Plant. We have enough Uranium in the United States (we are uniquely blessed in this respect) to meet our electrical power needs for the conceivable next 1,000 years, even if demand increases by 10,000 percent. One pellet of Uranium (2cm Thick) is the equivalent of 38 TONS of Coal. We have multiple BILLIONS of tons of Uranium in the United States. Friend, we already have the answer. We don't need to spend billions on research for a solution. Build now, right now, and in 3-5 years we'd have no need for foreign oil for electrical generation (or even our own natural gas or coal, of which we have ENORMOUS reserves). Our worst Nuclear "accident" at "Three Mile Island" released radiation equivalent to less than ONE x-ray! Nobody was hurt, and nobody was even close to any danger at all.

Carbon is not the only atmospheric catalyst to change climate, according to the global warming proponents. For example, Mt. Pinatubo ejected 20 MILLION TONS of Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere in it's 1991 eruption. That is more than all of humanity released in years. This single event only lowered the global average temperature (notice that it LOWERED the temperature) by .5C for a few months. There is no human equivalent, atmospherically to this single natural event, yet I am to believe that we are effecting the long-term temperature of our atmosphere? I don't buy it. You shouldn't either.

I'll start with #1 "Our climate is affected by the activities of man" If this is true, then why didn't the nearly 700+ above ground Nuclear Detonations since 1945 have any effect on the weather (other than than the obvious and brief local change)? That's right, man's most powerful created force, nuclear weaponry, has been detonated over 700 times, above ground,in the short period of 63 years, with no noticeable global climate change. You would think that if anything we do would change the climate (remember all the "Nuclear Winter" predictions during the "Cold War") it would be detonating Nuclear Weapons in our atmosphere over 700 times. This doesn't include the underwater tests (why aren't the oceans dead by now from them?) and the underground tests that at times release energy into the atmosphere as well. Why no changes of climate on our planet by such activities? Simple, man really is not capable of changing this planet to any significant degree, even while using our most powerful devices. In comparison, the eruption of Krakatoa in August of 1883 was 13,000 times more powerful (208 MILLION KT) than the detonation at Nagasaki. That's 200 Times more powerful than the largest Nuclear Detonation of all time "Tzar Bomba" by the USSR in 1961. The result of this eruption was the following: Lowering of the temperature average, globally, by 1.2degrees Celcius for about 5 years. So, the largest eruption in recorded human history, over 200 times more powerful than the most powerful device man has ever used, lowered the temperature by a little over a degree for just 5 years. And we think that anything we do can affect the global climate? Nonsense. Even the largest of natural events in recorded human history could not accomplish the task for even a decade! When we think this stuff through, instead of swallowing the media nonsense we see that the "global warming", or as my Dad say's "Gorbal Warming" nonsense is not REALLY about the environment, it is about Global control of mankind and our industrial might / standard of living.

Do you know that in the United States, nobody has died as the result of a Nuclear Power Plant accident? You are right, we ought not destroy.

Well, here in the Peoples Republic of California, we are bombarded with advertisements proclaiming the perils of "global warming" and other such nonsense. I thought I would list the absurd, and patently false claims of "environmentalists", and then through your comments we can address the real issues / solutions. Nonsense (False): 1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man. 2) Nuclear power is unsafe. 3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters. 4) We make too much green-house gases. 5) We're polluting the oceans of the world. 6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate. 7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man. Comments?

Am I just beating a dead horse here? Isn't the issue of what real money is all about, central to the economic chaos we are now facing? It is the central issue. If you fail to understand it (and I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the issue), you will never solve the problems caused by lack of it....