ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING

.

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land.

Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years.

Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety.

Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time.

A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

Read it all

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/28/climate-change-fanaticism-is-all-about-government-power-reader-post/

Morg
.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Codex_Alimentarius

Controversy

The controversy over the Codex Alimentarius relates to a perception that it is a mandatory standard for food - including vitamin and mineral supplement - safety. Supporters of the Codex Alimentarius say that it is a voluntary reference standard for food and that there is no obligation on countries to adopt Codex standards as a member of either Codex or any other international trade organization. From the point of view of its opponents, however, one of the main causes of concern is that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.^[2][3] Proponents argue that the use of Codex Alimentarius during international disputes does not exclude the use of other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection.
It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.^[4] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.^[4] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4 - July 9, 2005.^[5] Among the many issues discussed were the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements"^[6], which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines.^[7] This text has been the subject of considerable controversy, in part because many member countries may choose to regulate dietary supplements as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category. The text does not seek to ban supplements, but subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that the guidelines are "to stop consumers overdosing on vitamin and mineral food supplements." The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the guidelines call "for labelling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements." The WHO has also said that the Guidelines "ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals." ^[8]
Similarities have been noted between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.^[9]
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has said that the Central American Free Trade Agreement "increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public." ^[10]
Additional controversy has been expressed by proponents of ecologically and socially sustainable agriculture and food systems, such as the Slow Food movement^[11], who view the Codex Alimentarius as antithetical to this goal. According to the Manifesto on the Future of Food, the Codex Alimentarius has "codified policies designed to serve the interest of global agribusiness above all others, while actively undermining the rights of farmers and consumers".<sup>[12]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------</sup>

I honestly don't know what to make of this short film. I tend to see things the same way, but I really don't have the knowledge to decide one way or the other. All I have is a "gut feeling" that the film is pointing me in the right direction.

So please, here is one occasion where your comments are valuable. Especially so if you have some knowledge about the topic.



Here's the original web site I found it on - it's definitely worth a read. And from the little I know I'd say it sounds about right.

http://ukwebspider.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-are-you-tired-what-is-it-thats.html

Readers: please speak to us.

Thank you

Morg
.

BBC

.
The Bullshit Broadcasting Conspiracy has a systematic bias in favor of Islam and Muslims and against all other religions, especially Judaism and Christianity:
http://biasedbbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=articlesFor example...

Does anyone remember 'White Girl'?
The BBC Metropolitan elite hate and despise the Northern English working class. Their attitude (like Jack Straw and Harridan Harm-men) is that of the Party Members to the Proles in Orwell’s 1984.

‘White Girl’ illustrated this attitude to the extent that the programme virtually became a parody of itself. It was a crude exercise in Da’wa, Dhimmitude and Taqiyya. It started with the inevitable ‘It’s grim oop north’ opening cliche and then went steadily, tediously and predictably downhill for the next 90 minutes.

The Northern English were portrayed as squalid, drunken, junk-food eating, smoking, gambling, child-abusing, sex-mad, illiterate, intolerant, wife-beating, drug-dealing chavs - whereas the Muslims were simply wonderful.

http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/bbc-appeasement-self-loathing.html 

Just so you know, folks, what they think of you.

Do read it all to find out about BBC bias.


That's YOU.


"The take-home message was that the Northern English working class are a bunch of debased, degenerate scumbags and Islam is the only answer to their problems."

Morg

.

WIGAN ...

.
 ... has up to now escaped this sort of thing:

http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/muslim-street-jihad.html

Wait until the new mosque arrives in Marsh Green.

Morg
.

AS YE SOW ...

.

Read the previous two posts before reading this one.

Violence is happening now , I have many times said that the growth of violence in the UK concerning Muslims is inevitable, this is because of the complete lack of action by the government to address the concerns of the British population regarding the exponential rise of Islam in the UK.

When a people see no solution to their anxieties and concerns, at a national level, coming from their government, they the people, will take measures which they feel go someway to solving their dilemma.

This situation will get worse because the violence shown to the British population by the Muslim community is far far greater, the purpose of the violence is clear and unequivocal we want to destroy you, this in effect is a declaration of war, that these people are going to be violent against us whenever they can, therefore is is only logical that there will be a response from the British people.

There are many forms of "violence" I consider it an act of violence against me to have to tolerate Hijabs, Burkas and other such modes of dress, I feel that my neighbourhood has been violated by the presence of a mosque.

Many people feel intimidated and threatened by the numbers of "Asian" gangs that roam the streets calling us names, harassing young girls and in many cases raping and  gang raping them Tory MP claims ''barbaric and medieval'' views about women have been imported into Britain

 ... rape is not uncommon, as we all know in the North of England there has been concerted efforts by Muslim gangs to get young white girls into prostitution - usually by raping them first.

There is no two ways about it Islam is attacking our country and our culture, this is violence, it may not be physical violence against a person but violence none the less.

The Muslim community will continue to play the victim role, they will continue to yell foul if they are challenged, and yes they will become victims in the true sense of the word, people will fight back in the only way they know how, for some that will be a physical way, for others it may be by use of language.

The use of language is what has annoyed the new "research centre" they are working towards censorship in the UK, all they want is their versions of what is or is not - There is no free democratic press in Islam, they want to see the same here in the UK - now that really is violence and a direct attack upon our freedoms.

Go read it all, including following the internal links:

http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2010/01/28/muslims-complain-of-rise-in-violence-towards-them---as-ye-sow--so-shall-ye-reap.aspx

BTW, I know this blogger personally. He lives in London and works in a very high-grade job in public service.

Morg
.

"HATE SPEECH" ...

... would appear to be one-way traffic only. Anyone can use it except indigenous Britons. This is Manchester.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8489137.stm

Found it here

http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2010/01/31/the-twisting-of-young-minds-in-manchester.aspx

Morg
.

HAMMERS AS WEAPONS ...

... seems to be becoming commonplace with Muslim gangs.

http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2010/01/30/facial-reconstruction-for-brothers-bludgeoned-in-muslim-gang-hammer-attack.aspx

Doesn't seem to be a lot of police activity regarding hammers. However, if you're related to a BNP member, it might be best if you avoid calling a Paki "Paki".

Doesn't apply to me, of course.

Morg
.