Agenda 21: Death by Sustainability?

It’s a Friday night in 2021, and you’ve had a long, hard day. Your job of stamping codes on malaria pills bound for developing countries is unsatisfying, but until a position in another section becomes open (and assuming you pass the myriad Fairness Tests for it), it’s where you are. Right now, all you want is to be in your Home Unit, off the clock and enjoying Dinner Paste #7 (real meat flavoring is a weekend treat, after all.) The electric bus drops you off at Building 844 in Downtown Zone G12. You walk in and notice it right away. The light in the bathroom. You left it on. Panic grips you as you run to turn it off. Maybe they didn’t notice. Maybe they don’t know.

Then you hear the knock on the door. They know. Four blue-helmets stand there, armed to the teeth. One of them hands you a slip of onion-skin reading “CITATION 36-H53.1: LEFT BATHROOM LIGHT ON DURING WORK SHIFT.” And without a word, you go with them. There’s no need to pack and no point in protesting. By nightfall, you’ll be farming wind at a Work Camp 100 miles outside of the city, and nobody will say a word about the new code-stamper at the factory on Monday. Because they don’t want to be next. And in the North American Continental Sphere, anyone can be next.

This horrifying vision of an Orwellian nightmare future is what some fringe authors, conspiracy theorists and an increasing number of political extremists in the United States think awaits us if Agenda 21, the United Nations’ nefarious plan for world domination though social engineering at the local level, is fully implemented. Under its myriad laws, penalties and dictates, the entire American way of life will be subverted and destroyed, replaced by urban serfdom and “smart growth.” Citizens will be crammed into city-wide “stack ‘em and pack ‘em” towers located in urban human habitation zones, with public transportation required, suburban growth banned, personal choice abolished, freedom to travel restricted, family planning mandated and environmental impact put before human happiness. Countries will be abolished and freedom will be a relic.

Secret, yet freely available

Secret, yet freely available

The end result will be a great depopulation of the planet with the survivors turned into little more than slaves of an environmentally-obsessed world government, with the UN at the head of the snake. And all of it was crammed down our throats without any oversight or ratification by Congress. Or so they say.

While its opponents look at Agenda 21 as a road-map to death by sustainability, the truth is much less nightmarish. Let’s take a look at what Agenda 21 is, what it represents, and most importantly, what it’s not.

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, unenforceable, voluntary policy paper, developed in 1992 and signed by 178 countries, including the United States. It is, at its core, a long-term plan for environmentally-healthy development, more efficient use of land and resources, improved urban planning, promoting health, combating poverty and reducing our impact on the world around us. Much of it is tailored to assisting the developing world, but it can be carried out at any level, from the local township to entire countries. It has no penalties for noncompliance, no enforcement arm and you can put into practice any, some, all or none of it. It’s not a treaty, a law or a charter, hence why it was never ratified by Congress. And, unlike most secret plans for world depopulation and domination, it’s available online in its entirety, in a variety of languages.

The entire document is over 300 pages long, and split into four large sections, so it’s hard to summarize all of its many suggestions and ideas. But even a glancing read will tell you that is has no provisions for banning travel, seizing your property, taking babies away, plowing the suburbs under, curtailing gun ownership (the word “gun” never appears in the document) or turning the civilized world into a UN police state/wildlife preserve. Some of what it does deal with can be found in a random sampling of chapter headings:

Promoting an international trading system that takes account of the needs of developing countries
Encouraging data collection and research
Promoting sound economic policies
Enabling the poor to achieve sustainable livelihoods
Encouraging greater efficiency in the use of energy and resources
Meeting primary health care needs, particularly in rural areas
Control of communicable diseases
Reducing health risks from environmental pollution and hazards

While Agenda 21 might be overly reliant on vague buzzwords like “sustainable” and “local,” these are lofty, and in many cases, life-saving goals. Shouldn’t we be striving to use our land and resources better? Shouldn’t we be committed to lifting developing nations out of crushing poverty? Shouldn’t we be combating urban blight and soulless suburban sprawl? Haven’t we all sat in traffic long enough?

According to a loose coalition of conspiracy theorists, Tea Party activists, John Birch Society anti-one-world-government types and opponents of all things United Nations, the answer to all of those questions is a resounding “no!”

Despite the plan being over 20 years old, the anti-Agenda 21 movement is a fairly recent phenomenon. It appears to have been almost non-existent until late 2011, when Glenn Beck began talking about it regularly on his various media platforms, portraying it as a liberal elite conspiracy to herd us into giant Soviet-like apartment buildings and turn the Earth over to the UN. Other conservative outlets picked up the story and ran with it, and soon, a series of voluntary suggestions was seen as a crusade against the suburbs, industry, capitalism, humanity in general, and most importantly, America.

There are now thousands of anti-Agenda 21 organizations, websites, blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter handles. Fueled by panic and rumor, cities and states across the country are passing vague “anti-Agenda 21” resolutions and laws, declaring that they WILL NOT be part of the UN’s takeover of our precious strip malls and golf courses, despite the option never having actually been presented. Language decrying Agenda 21 even made it into the Republican Party Platform for 2012. For a conspiracy theory, it has an astonishing amount of mainstream acceptance.

Subtle and discreet

Subtle and discreet

Portions of Agenda 21 are meant to be implemented at the local level, coordinated by a United Nations subsidiary group called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Subsequently, that’s where a good deal of the protesting has occurred – much of it in the form of heated arguments at normally dry affairs like planning commission seminars, city council hearings or board of supervisors meetings.

These protests have become a serious problem for communities trying to deal with a host of issues, from zoning to septic tanks to adding bike lanes to roads. All of which, according to the conspiracy theorists, are tentacles of the great UN octopus, slowly squeezing our freedom. According to a 2012 article from the New York Times:

In Maine, the Tea Party-backed Republican governor canceled a project to ease congestion along the Route 1 corridor after protesters complained it was part of the United Nations plot. Similar opposition helped doom a high-speed train line in Florida. And more than a dozen cities, towns and counties, under new pressure, have cut off financing for a program that offers expertise on how to measure and cut carbon emissions.

With such a disparate group of people backing a conspiracy theory that’s fairly new, it’s not surprising that the paranoia over Agenda 21 has grown so quickly and loudly. But like most of the other conspiracy theories we look at, it falls apart once critical thinking is applied. For one thing, Agenda 21 doesn’t actually contain any language advocating any of this. It’s about better use of what we have, not cramming us into “human habitation zones.”

It’s also absurd to think that the mighty United Nations is taking over the world one urban planning commission meeting at a time through ICLEI, which isn’t actually part of the UN. It’s a small independent nonprofit devoted to solving land-use and environmental issues on micro levels. Like any legitimate nonprofit, you can read its financial information for free.

If the UN really did have a plan to eradicate the meddling influence of human beings by killing billions, would it really be hatching such a plot out in the open, free for anyone to read? Would it really be discussed at city council meetings? Just like Illuminati hand signals or vast government conspiracies, to accept Agenda 21 as a destructive plot to is to believe that it’s being done in plain sight over decades, with thousands of people in the loop about it.

And as with the vast majority of conspiracies and pseudoscience, someone is making money off it. A quick look at Amazon shows about a dozen anti-Agenda 21 books and DVDs available for purchase, with Glenn Beck’s own novel/polemic Agenda 21 the top-seller. While the people protesting Agenda 21 might truly believe it to be a vast plot against freedom, it seems just as likely that it was something new for Beck to cash in on. And cash in, he did.

So is Agenda 21 a road-map to the future or a blueprint for tyranny? Read the document and judge for yourself. But realize that those railing against it have an agenda all their own, and it’s likely to be based on nothing more than misinformation and fear.

About Mike Rothschild

Mike Rothschild is a writer and editor based in Pasadena. He writes about scams, conspiracy theories, hoaxes and pop culture fads. He's also a playwright and screenwriter. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/rothschildmd.
This entry was posted in Conspiracy Theories and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Agenda 21: Death by Sustainability?

  1. mud says:

    This is skeptoid???? Maybe I need Klog’s dog to enlighten me a bit further.. I just fear the hangover..

    “Its a long, long way to Pasadena” suddenly makes a Whole lot of sense.

  2. bilbo says:

    I love when Skeptoid cross-posts from the Daily Kos. It just makes me feel all egalitarian inside.

  3. John Grey says:

    For the record, Beck didn’t actually write Agenda 21. Harriet Parke heard him talking about it on the radio and went to research it to prove him wrong. What she found apparently convinced her that he was right, so she wrote this post-Anthem/Brave New World/Hunger Games dystopian novel and mailed it to him. He liked it so much that he hired her through his publishing imprint, tinkered with the book a little, and then published it with his name prominent so it would have bigger sales.

    While this sort of Patterson-esque “my name on your novel” thing bugs me, I’m sure Parke is just thrilled with her royalty checks….

  4. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    I’m sorry, this is the worst debunking prose I have ever read. Paradoxically most of what is written is probably true with regard to vested interest and not been explicit but it misses by a million miles. Does the word nuance mean anything to you?

    No, I’m no conspiracy nut and I am a confirmed skeptic of over thirty five years. I’m just like you and have read countless editorials and books on countless weird and wonderful things but Agenda 21 is something else. I’ve agreed with virtually everything that I have ever read of Brian Dunning’s and agree that as much as we would like to believe in UFO, aliens and hauntings ect there is almost always a logical reason behind them. It’s naive in the extreme to dismiss peoples fears over Agenda 21 though.

    Why do I think this? Well, the British aren’t quite as excitable as you Americans, so often we can be naturally skeptical. My problem with Agenda 21 is what I’m seeing on the world stage in politics and business.

    Britain has almost lost the right to govern it’s self. Under the guise of a so called common market we have ended up with an unelected, unaccountable and immune to prosecution tyrannical super state that is in the process of dismantling sovereign states therein.

    The Cypriot government has just raided the bank accounts of everyone in it’s jurisdiction, foreign national or not under the direction of the EU in order to subsidise the bailout that it is receiving from the EU. No notification, you just wake up in the morning and hey presto they have taken some of your hard earned cash.

    The EU formulate 75% of our laws. What ever political party we vote for makes no difference as our government is impotent.

    Every time I hear the misnomer “sustainability” I wince. It’s is widely attributed to misguided left wing greens that encourage the pouring of endless taxes into so called green projects which are far from sustainable or desirable. Often blinding the well meaning but gullible into their web of deceit with a guilt trip over the consumerist legacy we are leaving for our children.

    For the record, nothing is sustainable, me, you this website or indeed the Earth.

    I don’t see Agenda 21 as some benign road map to the future but a very cleverly unassuming document with insidious overtones. This is way the EU started out and the phenomena that is control through AGW scaremongering. I can assure you this has happened in the UK as the environmental agency had to apologise and withdraw an alarmist TV advert that was literally scaring children with tales of dying animals and dried up rivers here in Britain.

    If I’m wrong about Agenda 21 then in twenty years we can all breath a sigh of relief and you are welcome to have a good laugh at my expense. I fear at some stage in the not too distant future we will be crying though.

    I respectfully suggest that Mr Rothschild goes back and opens his eyes, taking a long hard look at what is going on in the world.

    I’ll leave you with a question. Just what are those murals about at Denver airport? At best they are inappropriate and at worst, well it doesn’t bare thinking about.

    • Carl Palley says:

      You spelled “itself” as “it’s self,” therefore your entire argument is invalid. On with Agenda 21!

      :)

      • Peter G Brooksbank says:

        I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that we where playing scrabble or is it dungeons and dragons. Do I get £200 if I pass go.

        • modernlifesurvivalist says:

          You guys get 200 pounds sterling?! In the US, we only get $200, which is only like $115 if the exchange rate is what it used to be!

    • mud says:

      and the above bloke is a skeptic????

      How so?

      • Peter G Brooksbank says:

        And I quote; Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. Do you get irony?

        • Jacob says:

          Yes I do…the irony of someone who uses that definition believes in this bull only based on personal accounts and shows no evidance…

  5. Freke1 says:

    Everybody wants to save the planet, but no one wants the one world government that can actually do it. This inconsistency in logic is very popular. “I want to be safe, I’ll buy a gun”. And when everybody does that people get killed. We are consuming 1.5 earth’s but we only have 1. There is no long term policy, no sustainability, no logic. Just growth, growth, growth and everybody knows what happens in a closed enviroment with unlimited growth. Who thinks about the earth in 500 years, let alone 1 million? Nobody. Yet it is the most important issue. Every day we are polluting the land, burning energy that it took 50-300 million years to create, enhancing the greenhouse effect etc. Back to nature, that’s where we are going, but no willingly.

    I like this picture of peak oil:
    http://8020vision.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Peak_Oil_2.png
    kinda puts things in perspective (we are right at the top (2005-2008)).

  6. HardRain says:

    This writer is naive. Simply reading the UN Agenda 21 document is like reading the former Soviet Union’s Constitution. It sounds pretty good until you see its implementation. The overwhelming legislative infusion of Agenda 21 principles into Federal and State laws and regulations raises this “non-binding” document to the force of law. It is an outgrowth of communist re-distribution of wealth dogma.
    As one who has extensively researched United Nations Agenda 21, the WHY of it, and compiled almost 100 pages of history, cited materials with live links and amassed significant quotes from world leaders, my studies have compelled me to conclude this Agenda 21 is a much more ominous worldwide plan than merely destroying private land ownership and rewilding the globe.

    UN commissioned scientists known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA have declared a global emergency…terminal Climate Change caused by humans. That decision has already been made and the elites are working on implementing the solution. The climate change pitch is via United Nations Agenda 21, whether scientifically sound or not. The real problem has been officially declared as over-population. The vehicle to solve it is Agenda 21.

    The bottom line is this:
    It’s “sustainability” basic theme relies on the CO2 Climate Change argument. It has everything to do with the “accepted” scientific conclusion that overpopulation will kill the Earth by 2050. Even if CO2 emissions fall to zero the plague upon the Earth will remain: us…. you and me.

    The UN commissioned Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, page 773, calls for a population reduction to 1 billion people. (An exception is provided: if the world is de-industrialized (meaning pre-1765), a peasant population of 4- 5 billion is to be allowed). http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/Unsustainables_UN_Global
    The Report’s bottom line is clearly stated:
    “Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere.”

    Population will reach 10.8 billion by 2050. 15.8 billion by 2100. To feed it, food production must increase in the next 37 years by upwards of 100%. See:
    http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm
    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

    CO2 emissions must drop to zero immediately to keep PPMs below 450 and keep average temperature from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius, the allowable ceilings. (A much bigger and imminent threat recently identified is the release of gigatons of methane now taking place due to Arctic ice melt and projected methane release from thawing of the Russian tundra permafrost.) But in order to feed so many, CO2 would have to drastically rise, not fall. So the only conclusion is we must depopulate now by 5-6 billion and slash CO2 fossil fuel emissions to zero. The iron fist of communism is needed to make it work. We are already essentially there. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
    And that is exactly what is being undertaken, with help from UN Agenda 21 and well known billionaires, who contribute huge sums to a broad array of UN and other population control programs. It’s all there if you do the research, as I have. See UN World Economic and Social Survey 2011 for a very explicit summary of this whole non-fiction agenda: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_archive/2011wess.pdf

    NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laborartory has confirmed all of the above. See the presentation of Dr. Riley M. Duren, Jet Propulsion Institute Director, Climate Change/Solar Radiation Management/Mitigation/Aerosols/Capture
    February 14, 2013
    Population “change” and CO2 emission energy use emergency.
    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29293171

    Also see Final Keck Report/Duren contributes
    http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/geoengineering/geoengineering_final_report.pdf

    So what is really meant by UN Agenda 21 “sustainability” is simply that you and I are not “sustainable”.

    I’m so glad I already had a fantastic ride in what used to be America but I fear for my daughter and grandson. As a Bronze Star Medal recipient commissioned officer who fought communism in Vietnam and as a Constitutional attorney for 38 years, it is uniquely disturbing to me to see this Fabian Socialist (Fascist)/Communist program being seamlessly sewn into world, federal, state and local governments and the cultural mindset.

    This helps in exposing the cancer. Congratulations and thank you but….
    ‘the pellets of poison are flooding the waters’. “Hard Rain’s Agonna Fall”, Bob Dylan.

    How would you handle this massive overpopulation problem?

    This is not a joke.

    Good luck, Comrades…

    • The UN has never called for the reduction of the population to 1 billion. The quote you’re using has been debunked as a false interpretation of a line from an 1150 page scientific manual called “Global Biodiversity Assessment.” It has nothing to do with the UN or killing billions of people. Read more here: http://metabunk.org/threads/170-Debunked-quot-we-must-either-reduce-the-earth-s-population-to-1-billion-quot

      • Peter G Brooksbank says:

        I hope your right but whats happening on the ground say’s not.

      • Me (Alive and Well) says:

        This “has been debunked” thingamajig is cheap talk and doesn’t work on most people anymore.

        • jonnykaa says:

          C’mon -writers at sites like Metabunk etc do research ,take the time to fact check quotes and citations to verify if they’ve been falsified or fabricated. Unlike what you are doing , just throwing out some unfounded accusation. Lazy!

      • Jacob says:

        “It has nothing to do with the UN or killing billions of people”
        While I agree that the ‘reduction to 1 billion’ IS bunk, the problem is that as HardRain points out, the report was comissioned by the UN…I am surprised you made that mistake

      • Peter Leyshan says:

        You are correct. The population will not be reduced to 1 billion. It will be reduced to under 500 million.

        Most people in Germany were blind to what Hitler was up to as well.

        People need to open their eyes and also listen. Every time something like “Sustainability” is mentioned in the main stream media, they are actually referring to “UN Agenda 21″. We then need to speak up and expose the evil truth about this.

        Most people however will do this instead: “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.

        • Noah Dillon says:

          No, every time “sustainability” is mentioned in the media it’s done to attract viewers who equate the buzzword with moral virtue. Sustainability is stupid, not because of population control, but because it’s an impossibility. You can’t keep any ecosystem the same over long periods of time, whether humans are involved or not. Sustainability is an empty token of environmentalism, not a watchword for genocide. If anyone’s trying to exterminate the human race they’re doing an awfully lousy job at it: we’ll hit 9 billion people pretty soon. But, yes, certainly please do continue to bury your head in the sand of paranoia.

  7. HardRain says:

    You say The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report (annually updated for the UN) has nothing to do with the UN?

    Here’s a quote from the UN:

    “The Global Biodiversity Assessment completed by 1500 scientists under the auspices of UNEP in 1995 updated what we know, or more correctly how little we know, about global biological diversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels (Heywood, 1995).”
    http://www.un.org/earthwatch/biodiversity/assessment.html

    I suppose you could read the following UN quotes as benign. I don’t. There are thousands of such quotes.

    UNFPA calling for “a sustainable world population.”
    From UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) website:

    “Five steps back from the brink”

    “Immediate mitigation—rapid reductions in emissions—is a complex and politically sensitive challenge. It is the major topic before the negotiators in Copenhagen in December 2009. It is possible that population growth in developed countries, and conceivably in some large and rapidly developing ones, will arise as among the factors to be considered in setting goals for emissions reductions. The long-term effort to maintain population-wide human well-being in balance with atmosphere and climate will ultimately require sustainable patterns of consumption and production that can only be achieved and maintained in the context of a sustainable world population. Over decades and centuries the trajectory that world population follows will help determine the levels of per capita emissions of greenhouse gases that will be consistent with a stable atmosphere and climate.” The route to a climate-sustainable human population therefore lies in the removal of barriers to the use of family planning and the rights-based population policies envisioned by conferees in Cairo in 1994.”
    http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/ch6.shtml

    “UNFPA supports key population, environment and sustainable development activities at global, regional and national levels. These include policy dialogue, planning and research relating to population, poverty, environment and sustainable development. UNFPA also provides support for institutional capacity building to improve data collection, analysis, research and dissemination, and promotes population and sustainable development information, education and advocacy.
    UNFPA�s work in the area of environment and sustainable development is guided by the 1994 ICPD Programme of Action (chapter 3), UNCED�s Agenda 21 (chapter 5) and the 2002 WSSD�s Plan of Implementation. Population dynamics, poverty reduction and better management of the environment are central to sustainable human development. UNFPA raises awareness of the interrelationships between global population growth, demographic dynamics, the environment and sustainable development. It is also committed to helping countries achieve the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the United nations Millennium Declaration, including MDG 7 in ensuring environmental sustainability.”
    http://www.unep.org/un-env/Default.asp?gegid=29

    UN Programme of Action of the International
    Conference on Population and Development (1994) Major Policy paper.
    1.11. Intensified efforts are needed in the coming 5, 10 and 20

    years, in a range of population and development activities, bearing

    in mind the crucial contribution that early stabilization of the

    world population would make towards the achievement of sustainable

    development. http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conferenchttp://uctcriminology.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/bill-gates-co2-p-x-s-x-e-x-c/e/offeng/poa.html

    UN WEBSITE: Rio+20 Comprehensive Statement of Goals
    Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future:
    “1. Introduction
    The total population of the world has just passed seven billion and is continuing to increase. Everywhere people aspire to higher living standards and higher levels of consumption. There is growing concern about the capacity of the world’s natural resources to provide food, energy and other materials to sustain this growing demand. At the same time the growing scale of human activity is threatening to cause dangerous levels of climate change, increased levels of pollution, destruction of natural habitats and biodiversity.” http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&nr=286&type=510&menu=20&template=529&str=Sustainable consumption and production (SCP)

    • Jacob says:

      Here is something from one of your links:
      “Outmoded attitudes about “population control” have been replaced by more holistic, rights- and health-based views about population dynamics and their relationship to climate change. In December 2008, the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians for Population and Development stated, “There are strong linkages and correlation between population growth and emission of greenhouse gases that cause climate change, and … communities experiencing high population growth are also most vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change, such as water scarcity, failed crops, rise in sea level, and the spread of infectious diseases.” The parliamentarians—representing 20 countries—called for efforts to “support and empower poor and marginalized people” in combating climate change, and the integration of “gender perspectives into climate policymaking to ensure outcomes benefit both women and men equally and equitably.”
      &
      “Since the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), however, the world has learned that trying to “control” human population risks depriving women of their right to determine how many children to have and when to have them. What we can work toward instead is environmentally sustainable population dynamics that are characterized by safe childbearing, long life expectancies and freedom for individuals to make their own reproductive health decisions. We can also step up our efforts to support young people so they may live productive lives and fully realize their rights to education and health.”
      Really, these statements contradict what you are trying to say…do you even read these things fully?
      None of these things explicitly or even implictly talk about depopulation or population control at all
      not here: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_archive/2011wess.pdf
      nor here: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&nr=286&type=510&menu=20&template=529&str=Sustainable
      or even here: http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/Unsustainables_UN_Global (notice that there is nothing from that link)…it sounds like you are cherry-picking things that vaguely sound like they support this ‘conspiracy’

      • modernlifesurvivalist says:

        “…rights- and health-based views about population dynamics and their relationship to climate change…” and “environmentally sustainable population dynamics.” Sounds like rebranding if I’ve ever heard it.

        It’s pretty scary, because they’re basically saying they don’t have to worry about overpopulation, because we’ll accept all the measures they’ve already taken (in healthcare through prescription drugs) to make us sterile.

  8. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    The involvement of the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not good. I’m highly skeptical of all they do.

    • Freke1 says:

      Yes they are very conservative. Climate change is happening much faster. But I guess that wasn’t what You meant.

      They have though updated the 2 degree C temperature rise to 4-5 degree C by the year 2100. The difference between the last iceage and now was approx. 5 degree C. When there was a 3-4 km (2 mile) ice sheet over USA. So climate change is not just more sunny days for everybody. It’s drought, tornadoes, floods, refugees and skincancer.

      And the only way to stop this is to shut everything down. Which will only happen as we run out of (easy to get) oil. The biggest oil field discovery in 25 years was recently found in Brazil. It’s amazing! There is enough oil to power the planet for a hole 3 months.
      No worries mate 😉

      • Peter G Brooksbank says:

        Oh I’m not worried by sunny days, what are they? I’m concerned about a unaccountable, unregulated organisation with a leader that leads an hedonistic life style and makes spurious claims. The snow cap on mount everest ring any bells? And they accuse me of not been skeptical!

  9. Carl J says:

    Dear Mike:

    Please write a followup article addressing the citations brought up by HardRain. I can’t be bothered to click on all those links.

    • I’m not a big fan of proof by verbosity.

      • Carl J says:

        So you will not do any more research? You will stop thinking about the issue right here? There is no possibility that you might be only thinking from one perspective? There is literally nothing more to say on the matter, case closed, anyone who disagrees is a “denier?”

        I kid. It’s obvious from the way you equate Glenn Beck with “extremists” and “conspiracy theorists” that your political stance is set in adamantium. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your worldview does not foster trust in your skepticism.

        • Why is the research so important for me to do, yet not important enough for you to do? If you can’t be bothered to click on links, why should anyone else?

          I read Agenda 21, and I didn’t see any evidence of a conspiracy to depopulate the planet or cram all of us in urban shoe boxes. Posting additional links from various UN-based sources that also don’t contain evidence of such a conspiracy doesn’t further the cause of those who do believe in such a conspiracy.

          • John Bluespoons says:

            It can also be argued that there’s no evidence in ‘Mein Kampf’ that millions would eventually be slaughtered by a dictatorial regime.

            But yes, you’re right, there’s no real evidence in Agenda 21…..

            Interestingly, there’s no real evidence that unregulated population growth and human development is ‘unsustainable’ either, though we’ve been indoctrinated to believe it.

            It’s not a real crisis, only a speculative one, but the UN’s Agenda 21 is crystal clear: humans are the problem, and regulating humans is the solution. Regulate and control, regulate and control.
            Eco-fascism marches on……

        • Jacob says:

          Mike is right…why don’t you get off your ass and look at these links? Why do you need someone else to do your thinking for you?

  10. HardRain says:

    Or research……….

  11. Anonymous says:

    Your article is proof of quintessential “verbosity”.
    Did you look at any of my links? I’ve got a hundred pages of ’em…..

    • I looked at some of them. And what do they say? That the planet’s population is skyrocketing, and developing nations are struggling to feed and clothe their people? That many poorer countries are struggling with environmental issues? This isn’t news, nor is it evidence of a conspiracy.

  12. HardRain says:

    They aren’t going to announce genocide so that everyone of us gets the message loud and clear but here are some pretty loud messages…the last is my favorite by John Holdren, Obama’s Science czar, co-author of Ecoscience with Paul Ehrlich. His “Planetary Regime” just might be Agenda 21. Anyway, Mike, food for thought, huh?

    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

    The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.”
    Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER

    “One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
    Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline would be ideal.”
    Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major United Nations contributor

    “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” – Prof. Paul Ehrlich, in his book The Population Bomb.

    “The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

    • Some out-of-context quotes, many of which are decades old, are not evidence of a conspiracy. They’re only evidence of disagreeable (and abhorrent, I might add) ideas, none of which appear to have been acted on.

      Since between 1980 and 2010, the planet’s population grew by 2.5 billion people. If the UN is going to depopulate the Earth, they’re sure taking their sweet time about it, and making their “job” a whole lot harder.

      Also, Holdren made it quite clear during his confirmation hearings that he doesn’t support the ideas he’s written about: http://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/right-wing-attacks-on-science-adviser-continue/

      • Jacob says:

        I believe you, but could you please explain a little more about the quotes…especially the one from Ted Turner.

      • modernlifesurvivalist says:

        “…none of which appear to have been acted on.”

        Mike, do you not understand the concept of “soft kill?” Have you noticed that people all over are collapsing from cancer (or any number of chronic illness)? And if they’re not dying slow horrible deaths, they’re sterile. And if they’re not sterile, there is a 1 in 4 chance (if not yet, we’re getting there) that their kids are autistic and not very functional. Do you even pay attention to what’s going on around you?

        You’re just willfully ignorant of these things that are obviously going on, and you justify their existence by saying cancer is a natural thing that happens genetically. It’s not. It’s relatively new (you’ll probably disagree I’m sure). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320507/Cancer-purely-man-say-scientists-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html

        There are countless examples of carcinogens that are being willfully proliferated. But I’m sure you would find a way to debunk every single one of them, even when they’re admitted.

        The government does crap to create chaos and for insidious reasons involving their agenda. Look at Fast & Furious, as well as the plot of “Kill the Messenger” about Gary Webb and how the CIA basically ran the drug war in the 80s/90s. They admitted that. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-media-destruction-gary-webb/

        But of course, I’m sure you have some snarky comeback about all of this. Skepdorks always do.

        *bashes head against wall repeatedly in frustration*

        • Eric Hall says:

          So – If we are all being killed by the government – who will be left to pay taxes to support their lifestyle?

          And if we are all dying of cancer, why is it my parents are still alive in their 60s?

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            Taxes just go to pay off interest on the national debt. They get a lot of their money through overpriced healthcare, which is now draining us more and is more like a tax through the Affordable Care Act. My guess is that the government/PTB are getting most of their money through the management/mismanagement of illness, that’s why it’s so darn expensive, as well as why they’ve put so much effort into hijacking the insurance system (it’s a really good racket, and the prices for coverage are double what they used to be—obviously a conspiracy theory, even though my premium would’ve doubled, and countless others have had the same experience (providing they have an income over $50k a year)).

            Not everyone has cancer. Some people are sick and they don’t even know it. But if you did labs and looked at their inflammatory markers you’d definitely see terrible imbalances. A lot of stuff is autoimmune. If they’re not outright sick, they are probably pre-diabetic, diabetic, overweight, obese, or morbidly obese. What do your parents look like? I bet you they’re obese. Almost all old people are. Please open your eyes.

          • Eric Hall says:

            Nice assumption – but no. I might say you should look at your own writings more carefully – you would see that from an outside view you are constructing your own narrative and really have trouble seeing the high bias filter through which you pass everything. It isn’t that we don’t all have a filter through which our own biases enter, it is just your filter is very thick.

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            Your attack is ad hominem. Anyone could say that about anybody who seeks out the truth. My truth seeker defense: It just so happens that once you go down the rabbit hole, you start to put together a puzzle of the corruption that surrounds you. It’s really easy to come across even upon a cursory glance.

            Someone on here accused me of being interested in the maintenance of status quo. No, I want change. I’m sick of the status quo that is corruption and manipulation leading to sickness and subjugation. You and the rest of the skepdorks, like all of us, are being lied to, and your programmed response (and your OBVIOUS bias) is always that if someone tells you that the story presented to you by the majority is wrong, you question it immediately, when you should actually be interested, knowing that there’s obviously something wrong. I think skepdorks make that choice because they’re content where they are and enjoy the comforts provided them by modern living/government subsidies/healthcare/GMO foods/etc. You’re lucky, because your body hasn’t completely tanked due to these things that are ravaging your immune system. I feel sorry for you when it actually does, because you will have spent so much time debating those who know the truth behind what’s making them sick (along with a whole slew of truths about what is wrong with society that they’ve learned from going down the rabbit hole), you will not ever (out of pride) consider changing your mind and looking into those ideas you once fought against.

            I know myself, my heart, and my soul better than you. I know my motivation, and that’s to help people see the truth, because I do not wish for people to suffer. I don’t think your motivation is noble, because you’re attacking things that truly work for people. What is your mission? Is it self importance? Is it seeking the truth? Is it undying snarkiness? I don’t know, but I do wish good things for you, and if you’d look at the things I say and at least start making some changes based on that knowledge, you’d be healthier and happier. It makes me very sad that I can’t convince you, but I guess that’s my burden. For what it’s worth.

          • Eric Hall says:

            So why do you get to be the arbiter of what is truth? We might share a common mistrust of the government, but we differ vastly on our evaluation of their ability to actually do the things you accuse them of doing. The government is a pretty blunt instrument, and anything nefarious the government does is quickly revealed. You seem to think they do all this secret stuff and want to kill us – I think they do secret stuff, and usually get caught – and the stuff they are doing isn’t to kill the people in the US – How anyone can find it logical that the government is trying to control us by secretly killing us? How does it benefit them to do that? Secret killing offers no psychological control. Killing a large segment of the population doesn’t offer them any long-term advantage – who would then do the labor of serving their needs if everyone is dead?

            Finally, why is it we see more people reaching 60, 70, 80, 90, 100+ than ever if we are being killed off? In 1900, it would have been a miracle to be 100 years old. Now we have thousands of people reaching 100. It is estimated 50% of people born after 2000 will reach 100. If the government is trying to kill us, they are doing a really terrible job at it – much like many other things government does.

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            Length of life is increasing, but quality of life is garbage. However, with drugs that dull your senses, it is arguable that quality of life isn’t so bad. Depends on how you look at it. I personally believe that “unnatural peacefulness” from narcotics is not good, even if you feel alright and function fine. Taking it to a spiritual level, it is destroying your soul.

            I don’t think it’s necessarily the US government that’s trying to kill us slowly. First of all, they want to sterilize us and anesthetize us more than anything else so that we follow their will. The anathema of what they want is essentially the U.S., which stands for liberty and self-determination, which is codified in the Bill of Rights, most notably in the First and Second Amendments. There are some US figures in on it, but just enough in the dark that they’re able to plead ignorance. However, the man behind the curtain is most certainly whoever is behind the money, which would be a group of foreign banks that control the world. That’s what most people who’ve actually done the research for years and years (I just became awakened) have gotten it down to. The Rothschilds are probably the closest thing to the true man behind the curtain we have figured out as far as real individuals go.

            Their motivation is pure domination. They have all admitted they want the population reduced to a much lower amount. It is all in the name of environmental protection, but their true motivation (while unknown) is mostly control. Also it behooves them to have a population that constantly needs drugs, like I said in my last post, because they can sell those to us and also put extra stuff (to experiment on us or administer even more substances that make us docile) in them just for kicks. It’s just easier to control a populace that doesn’t reproduce as readily and that accepts everything at face value as long as it comes with some sort of convenience (not unlike yourself). They’re very good at appearing like they have no power. I mean, look at Congress. It’s actually pretty hilarious the charade that they’ve got us and even intelligent people (not unlike yourself) believing. You just have to start thinking laterally, and it all comes into view pretty well, with a few unsolved mysteries that will stump people (not unlike myself) and ultimately keep us from truly making a change (sadly). Perhaps you’ve got the right idea in thinking they have our best interests at heart, because we are in a way ultimately powerless. I prefer to be optimistic, though, because that liberty and independence is what has fueled Americans in their prosperity throughout our history. We should hold out for as long as we can, and I urge you to join the movement!

          • Eric Hall says:

            You could make an argument for over-population in certain parts of the world, but the United States is certainly not one of those places.

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            Amen… to the second part.

            I don’t think overpopulation has been sufficiently proven anywhere to be honest.

          • Eric Hall says:

            And my attack was not ad hominem. I did not attack your character nor anything unrelated to your writing. I specifically disputed your writing in that the style in which you used shows a high level of bias and constructed narrative. We all do it to a certain degree, but my evaluation of what you have written is it has a high degree of bias, and is not a good evaluation of the evidence. That is not a logical fallacy, it is an evaluation of your conclusion. If I said you are crazy, that would be ad hominem. I did nothing of the sort.

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            Then your attack on my writing was ad hominem. ;-P

    • Jacob says:

      Many of Prof. Paul Ehrlich’s predictions haven’t come true, despite his claims to the contrary, Mike has debunked your quote from Holdren, among other things.

  13. eric says:

    I think we are making some good steps towards sustainability. Coal usage in the U.S. is down, renewable energy is up considerably, and were looking at a future where maybe we can phase out coal, and possibly nuclear in a couple of decades. Also a report just came out that pointed out we can reduce our carbon emissions in this country by 80 percent if we all start adopting hybrid, electric, biofuel, clean diesel, highly efficient cars etc… This is all with current technology. So I think this is all up to us to do something and make a difference as far as sustainability goes. It’s not a State or U.N. solution I think it’s an individual solution.

    • John Bluespoons says:

      Eric, one of the things I was surprised to learn when I started studying the science of global warming is that the vast majority of reputable skeptics of dangerous global warming believe in the greenhouse effect. What they dispute is how sensitive the climate system is to additional CO2. To date, all the evidence, not just some of it, but all of it, indicates that the climate system is not as sensitive to CO2 as originally feared. In other words, human activities don’t have a dangerous impact on the climate.

      It can also be argued that addition CO2 is actually beneficial, since there’s solid scientific evidence confirming this, which is in sharp contrast to what we’re being told. I encourage you to do you’re own evidence-based research since there’s so much BS coming from the media, politicians, and environmental groups.

    • modernlifesurvivalist says:

      Carbon emissions. Do us a favor and reduce your CO2 emissions by stopping breathing. *pukes as he reads this*

      Okay, I’m not that mean. You’re an okay guy I bet. Sorry.

  14. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    Jesus wept, I cant believe what I’m reading on here. For crying out loud, nothing but nothing is sustainable, its all relative. We have people on here that with no sense of irony quote green neo-marxist rhetoric that points to green solutions creating as many environmentally damaging technologies as they replace.

    People who state the oceans are rising but there is no evidence to support this. Where are the oceans rising exactly?

    All this started off by someone who thinks agenda 21 is benign just because it doesn’t implicitly state its the UN’s intention to bring about mass depopulation.

    I think this site should be renamed Gullibleoid instead of Skeptoid.

    I offer no answers and no solutions in the interest of encouraging the questioning of everything as a healthy skeptic should do.

    Take nothing as read, I aren’t saying agenda 21 is a diabolical road map to wiping out the masses but I’m not saying it isn’t.

    I will quote Charles Fort but to be honest I feel its a wast of time. This is for you all but especially for Mike Rothschild:

    “The outrageous is the reasonable, if introduced politely.”

    I ask again, can anyone tell me, Just what are those murals about at Denver airport?

    • From the Skeptoid episode about the Denver Airport conspiracy:

      “In fact those two creepy murals were each half of a diptych, a two-part mural, each depicting a hopeful message of man’s journey from brutality to peace. They were made by Chicano artist Leo Tanguma, one of several artists commissioned to paint similar murals throughout Denver International. The Children of the World Dream of Peace shows a menacing Nazi-style soldier wreaking havoc and fear, and includes a poem written by an actual child who died at Auschwitz. In the second half of this diptych, the soldier is dead, and the children of all nations come together over his corpse and beat the world’s swords into plowshares, inspired by the Bible verses Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3.

      Tanguma’s other mural, In Peace and Harmony with Nature, shows the Earth suffering from exploitation, and some species extinct and now found only behind museum glass, mistaken by the conspiracy theorists for elite species being protected from the Apocalypse. The alleged Mayan reference to 2012 is simply a small piece of carved stone with Mayan-style decorations held by one figure in the mural and representing the decline of indigenous populations. (Tanguma himself is a Mayan.) The second half of this diptych shows children from all nations gathering at the flowering tree of peace on a rejuvenated Earth.”

  15. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    Ok, thanks for that. I take your explanation at face value. It all seems a little heavy for the location it is displayed, macabre to say the least. It may have been made with innocent honest intentions but its more suited to an art gallery than an airport. Its what they would say in Scotland as something to keep the bairns (children) away from the fire. Its certainly thought provoking though.

    I do see things moving on a global scale, GM food, contingency plans for national emergencies and the threat to world peace from certain countries, religions and organisations. Mainly the ineptitude of governments worries me including the US and Great Britain. I have lived long enough to witness the moral and social decline of Britain and I would go as far as to draw a parallel with George Orwell’s 1984. Not literally but the use of sport, sex, drink and drugs to control the masses. Thats why I’m wary of Agenda 21, these things are played out over a long time scale. We are talking decades.

    I can tell you that the marxist left under the green banner would sacrifice the lives and welfare of people today in a bid to stave off an imagined future that is based on maybe’s and is by no means certain. They are doing it now in Britain with green taxes and laws that are strangling or business and standard of living while huge nations pollute with impunity.

    Just for the record I have had a life time of interest in the unknown and strange phenomena. I work as a college lecturer, teaching business studies and functional skills. I also write and have had articles published internationally but only on health and safety. This is split with working as a health and safety consultant, this is where my highest qualifications lay as well as expertise.

    I am wary of conspiracy theorists but am also wary of governments. I am extremely wary of worshipping at the alter of science. Some of my friends and colegues are scientists and they laugh at the blind faith that some put in them. Having standing in life or a lofty profession doesn’t make anyone less fallible or human than anyone else and that includes me.

    Take it easy, the truth is often somewhere in the middle and remember, even people who are consistently wrong will be right once in a while. They found that out when Winston Churchill’s voice in the wilderness was finally vindicated at the eleventh hour. Lets not leave it so late next time.

  16. It’s frustrating and amusing that the same people who think the government couldn’t organise buying a beer in a pub are convinced the UN can subvert the whole world with dystopia plans of global genocide and reverting civilisation to the stone age. If you believe that we can blithely continue to chew up resources at the current rate you’re living in a fantasy. The earth is a closed system with finite resources and you need look no further than Easter Island for the classic example of what happens to a civilisation that treats a system as having no limits.

    Educating a population, especially the girls and women, generally brings rampant population growth under control, so no need for UN death camps and global poisoning of Homo sapiens. A mix of renewable energy sources, possibly with some nuclear and small numbers of gas backup generation, and large scale recycling means you don’t have to destroy our current level of technology and it’s benefits. Indeed it’s more likely to advance technical innovation and improve living standards sooner than continuing to use oil, coal and gas.

    Of course we can keep the status quo and ultimately do a global Easter Island and let some other species fill the niche once held by us.

  17. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    I also find it amusing that the same people who trust scientist on climate change don’t trust them on GM crops. You have a point but it depends who’s pulling the strings. I would have a look at common purpose.

  18. Damien Morgan says:

    Interesting isn’t it that here in Australia, we have heard very little opposition to Agenda 21 programs. Two reasons I think: we seem to have a far more relaxed and egalitarian outlook to life than many other countries, and we don’t see as much of Glenn Beck

  19. Doug says:

    The output from the Magic World Population Clock – the business case for Eugenics – is entirely bogus. From there the deceptions worsen. Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil… It is these travesties we chronicle and cast a light upon!

    Coerced volunteered self extermination is one of these…
    http://beyondprophecy.blogspot.ca/2013/05/volunteered-self-extermination-our-new.html

  20. It seems as though misinformation and fear-mongering have become the strategy of choice for those who have something to gain by opposing any move that might make the planet more habitable.

    • modernlifesurvivalist says:

      If government’s goal was to make the planet more habitable, they would attack the proliferation of WiFi, which is making people sicker and crazier. They would also ban the use of pesticides, GMOs, and plastics as much as humanly possible. These are legitimate things that could make the world a better place. I’d be all for this, but I’m not for sequestration from wildlands that they want to claim for themselves, ONLY to repurpose these lands for corporate purposes anyway. You’re the one who is a victim of misinformation and fear mongering if you believe their intentions are to protect the environment. It is nothing but fear-mongering and manipulation that drives these initiatives. It is possibly the biggest lie they’ve ever told.

        • modernlifesurvivalist says:

          I guess I was freestyling a bit heavy there. Best current example this repurposing of lands under the guise of environmental protection is the Bundy ranch situation. From what I understand, it turns out they were apprehending cows who roamed and grazed the land freely in an effort to make room for a Solar Farm. http://www.infowars.com/flashback-sen-reid-breaks-ground-for-nevada-solar-farm-near-bundy-ranch/

          Grazing cows, responsibly kept and raised, are actually incredible for the environment, and much more sustainable (http://grist.org/sustainable-farming/farmer-responds-to-the-new-york-times-re-sustainable-meat/) than soy and corn which the UN is always pushing to repurpose land for. (Soy and corn also happen to be heavily subsidized corporate commodities that are publicly traded like silver and gold… it’s ridiculous). Back to cows, as long as they aren’t CAFO, they and their products (milk, cheese, butter) are usually harvested for the local economy (TRUE sustainability anyone). Grassfed beef is not publicly traded.

          And solar farms are not non-profit organizations. Yes, they arguably “help” the environment by providing a more “sustainable” energy source, but most of these companies (even though subsidized like corn and soy) end up capsizing pretty quickly, and “solar farms” end up taking up a ton of land (again, not unlike corn and soy) and falling to ruin because they aren’t generating profit. Their tendency to be subsidized by Federal Government makes me wonder if their true purpose is to effect more sustainable energy or to just sap away our tax money and push a greater agenda to bankrupt the U.S. (kind of like ghost cities and bridges to nowhere).

          I know this concept is difficult for people to grasp, but it’s quite simple. They’re counting on your being confused, because it takes a couple of mental hop, skips, and jumps to arrive there. It’s kind of like thinking a few steps ahead in chess. It’s hard to think like that unless you’re a chess player, magician, an actor, or a politician.

          More regularly, China repurposes “federal lands” for corporate use like every day, and that’s where I see us going. They stifle media coverage of anything negative to conceal these kinds of actions. They first force a family or group of families to leave their farms in the name of conservation (or just because its the government and you have to do what they say), allow a business/corporation to develop the land (or even build a whole “ghost city” http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-ghost-cities-in-2014-2014-6), and then subsequently suppress any coverage of this travesty. They may have become free market, but they have maintained their stranglehold on the media, which is a perfect recipe for the unholy union that is the collusion between government and corporations.

          The U.S. hasn’t gotten this far yet, that we know, but I’m sure we’re getting to that point pretty quickly. Believe me, if corn and soy are being subsidized, it’s still going on, and it’s not for the environment. Corn and soy fields are almost devoid of life (http://www.twisted-tree.net/articles-links/native-plants-food/), which is not environmentally friendly. Please do your research. I only provide quick links here, and I hope they get you in the right direction, but there’s endless information about this problem out there. Maybe I’ll post some more later.

          • Eric Hall says:

            Ok, government policy is one thing we could find alot of agreement on. But, you are trying to say wifi is making people sick (it’s not) and that all pesticides, GMOs, and plastics are bad.

            This question may seem unrelated – but let me ask – do you use a cast iron pan for cooking?

      • asydhouse says:

        Since you start off with ignorance or lies about wifi, I can and do dismiss the rest of what you say as paranoid and ignorant conspiracy theorising.

        Fear-mongering, as faithanncolburn said. Well done for confirming her assessment of the behaviour of the ignorant people who have jumped on this ridiculous anti-Agenda 21 bandwagon. As an old hippy counterculturist, I am very disappointed in the quality of thinking represented by contemporary “New Age” proponents of hysteria and mystical bullshit which passes for “alternative” these days.

        Scientists are looking for truth, as any decent human being should be, and they are by and large not working to undermine the knowledge and well-being of humans or the planet. If you distrust bureaucrats, fair enough, but science is the underpinning for Agenda 21 and its assessments and suggestions for how we can improve the lot of all of us. Your paranoid propaganda is a hindrance to truth and progress. Get over yourself and learn what science is (a method for getting rid of self-delusion).

        And stop parroting bs like you started with about wifi. It’s lazy and ruins your credibility.

        • modernlifesurvivalist says:

          http://www.emfanalysis.com/research/

          Don’t be so out of pocket with your dismissal of WiFi dangers. Read all of the studies that are cited on that page and tell me you don’t think there’s a possibility that WiFi/cell phones/radio waves don’t make people sick. I know you won’t, because you prefer to live in your ignorant bubble, but if you did, you’d realize just how horribly wrong you were.

          I implore you to look into the safety of these devices. Don’t buy what you’re being fed, because most of the research that says it is safe is funded by corporations selling this technology. Use logic and intuition to make these connections, because the scientific elite will appeal to your skepticism to control you (as they’ve apparently done to everyone who subscribes to the “Skeptoid” mentality).

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            *change “don’t make people sick” to “make people sick.” Got a little double negative there.

          • Eric Hall says:

            What are the wavelengths employed by WiFi? Do those wavelengths interact with the molecules in our body? How much energy is in them? Are there sources of those types of waves outside of those produced by electronic equipment? Start with that.

          • asydhouse says:

            “The scientific elite” LOL. You really are off on one! You’ve never met any scientists, or spent any time with them, have you? Your fantasies about scientists are unrecognisable in the real world.

            Also, your link is to a campaign site which is a dishonest site. Years ago I was impressed by the sound work done by Friends of the Earth to ensure that they never made stupid claims like this one. Check out what they have to say about it. I haven’t even checked, and I do hope they are still as careful and sound as they used to be, because if they are you will not find them worried about this “issue”.

            For sound information about anything to do with health, check out the Science Based Medicine site. I went there just now and found this assessment of one of the items on your website link above. If you have enough integrity to go there and read it, and reassess your misinformed opinion, you will be able to stop worrying and spreading false information to other ignorant and gullible people.

            Do you have that much integrity?

            http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/picking-cherries-in-science-the-bio-initiative-report/

        • modernlifesurvivalist says:

          asydhouse,

          I’m sure that some of the studies they linked to on emfanalysis were off, but would you v denture to say that all were not from credible sources? Do you have the dedication to read through all of them?

          I distrust conventional medicine and science based on personal experience. They are geared towards and funded by Big Pharma, whose drugs (snake oil) treat only symptoms (if that) and cause complications beyond the problems they were meant to treat. I will check out your linked site, but I’m assuming I’ll be seeing stuff not unlike what is presented by mayoclinic and webmd. I hope you don’t trust those sources, as they are most likely being funded by Big Pharma as well.

          • asydhouse says:

            “Big Pharma”! Science Based Medicine is run by a couple of medical doctors who care so much about their fellow human beings and truth that they spend their own time unpaid to look into and report on so many aspects of health, and the scams that are run by ignoramuses like the Food Babe and supported by the likes of that truly awful pusher of fads and bogus products Oprah Winfrey.

            If you bother to check it out and get past your prejudice, you will see intelligence and educated ability to do real analysis of published studies. This facile accusation of prostitution to “Big Pharma” is a lazy and insulting throwaway dismissal which is paranoia and prejudice.

            One thing you would realise if you were more serious about looking for real knowledge is that your personal anecdotes of what you interpreted of your experiences are no foundation from which to draw sound conclusions. People: we fool ourselves all the time. That’s why science was developed, to create mechanisms and procedures to eliminate self-delusion.

            By the way, body-building is not the basis of good nutritional health. You may be okay for awhile, burning fat, but might not be sustainable into old age.

            Good luck.

  21. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    Unfortunately the only way this can end is in tears. Its about time people learned to balance their needs with the possible needs of future generations in a more realistic manner, granted.

    Something that is virtually impossible given that human nature dictates we are basically selfish and logic dictates that we could be depriving people in the here and now when as yet unknown technological advances or future wars and disasters could render all our efforts obsolete.

    There is also the moral dilemma of why should people pay the price now when in reality its those that have the least that bear the brunt of sustainability.

    The planet is habitable now but the population explosion and the destruction of our wild places is a trend that doesn’t bode well.

    Over the last fifty years I have seen many of Britain’s natural places destroyed or squeezed and the government still wants to build more to accommodate an ever increasing influx of people we cannot afford to support. Its often the small areas that existed in beautiful isolation that have gone forever.

    I have been visiting India for fifteen years and in the last five I have seen the same happening there.

    There is neither the political will or enough of a desire in our populace to precipitate change. The older I get the more I see politicians falling by the way side caught up in various scandals that makes a mockery of democracy. What chance have we got when almost all have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?

  22. kennie says:

    Very good article I must say I liked it and I think it’s a good platform for rebuilding.
    Thinking of all the vacant buildings just in the Cleveland area and homes, they could be removed for green space, and used in so many different ways.
    And cutting down on our carbon footprint by car polling, or building better mass transportation, why is building a better world such a bad thing.
    However lol I haven’t read Ahenda 21 so now I must in order to make an informed decision as to weather or not I like it.

  23. leticia finley says:

    Just for fun, I tried clicking on soney of the links. Glenn Beck is off limuts and do are others. Do my h for reading both sides if tge coin@

  24. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    Visit UK Column, so many come together because they know something is wrong. The British are not known for their excitability or wild imaginations. It’s just that, they know something is wrong with our world view.

  25. Is this guy just naive or devoid of irony? Rothschild probably isn’t the best name to post under in defence of Agenda 21. It’s advisable to read agenda 21 with your 3D glasses and double speak brain filter on; like looking at one of those pics where you have to shift brain/focus to see what’s hidden behind/within.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Mike Rothschild is a dumb shit! You even state the truth from this video and then deny it’s a problem, you have to be the most stupid person I have ever had the displeasure of reading comments from! Your a waste of cyber ink!

  27. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them. George Orwell. Agenda 21 is one of them. Its real, it’s happening now and the signs are everywhere. by the time most have woken up it will be too late.

    • Anonymous says:

      correlation is not causation. just because some things appear to follow the conspiracy theorists view that this or that was caused by agenda 21(or any like conspiracy item) does not at all mean the two are related.

  28. robbes7rh says:

    Frankly, your comment is one of the most bizarre rebuttals to a thoughtful and persuasive debunking article that I have read. Does the author’s prose really strike you as coming from someone who doesn’t comprehend nuance? Perhaps you could benefit from a long and thorough revisitation of rational thought and reading comprehension. Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. Pretty scary stuff, alright. Surely, the best way for nations to progress into the future is to ratchet up the present rates of deforestation, population growth, fossil fuel dependance, stressing fresh water sources… All 300 pages of the document have been available to the public since 1992. It’s as straight forward and benign an endeavor for the U.N. as one can imagine. I’m not aware of it having a deleterious influence on children’s sleep over the past 22 years.

    Now, you may be on to something with the murals created for Level 5 of the Jeppesen Terminal at DIA, by the Chicano mural artist, Leo Tanguma. He is known for painting themes of childhood courage and idealism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, and socially-conscientious spirituality. It has become a tradition that when a NEW WORLD ORDER is poised to assert absolute global domination, that they provide a “heads up” to the populace via publicly displayed mural art. Naturally, a left-leaning Chicano from humble beginnings in rural Texas is ideally suited for this task. As these murals are named, “Children of the World Dream of Peace” and “In Peace and Harmony with Nature,” there can be no doubt about the message they impart: a cold, calculating cabal of reptilian/humanoid hybrids, intends to destroy human culture and systematically kill or enslave every human on the planet. Children who are spared death will serve as sex slaves and babies blood will be drunk in debauched Satanic rituals. Hey, cheer up! I mean, you were always gonna die anyway. Now, the uncertainties surrounding death will be resolved sooner than you had ever imagined!

    • modernlifesurvivalist says:

      Way to Wiki, there, Robbes! “Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.” Yeah, that’s the first sentence of the Wiki. Which I wouldn’t normally mind… but the verbiage there is extremely deceptive. It’s about as voluntary as smart meters, which you can actually pay to opt out of, but most don’t want to do that.

      The only way to “opt out of” Agenda 21 would be to be active in local government, and protest the “bike paths and carpool lanes” (a straw-man symbol of sustainability that distracts from real problems like proliferation of Federal Lands and the loss of property rights across the board) that Rothschild keeps poo-pooing. This then would make you a pariah (and yes, an underdog—not among the majority) in your town. It isn’t voluntary if special interests and government are ramming through the legislation under the radar, tucked discretely into other bills that are supposed to be for God knows what else.

  29. modernlifesurvivalist says:

    Skeptoid, you are the epitome of everything that’s wrong with the Internet, and a perfect example of tyranny through majority. I never understood skeptics. Shouldn’t they be the first ones to question the story that’s being pushed by the mainstream? You act as if you have the upper hand by “debunking” these supposedly popular notions, playing it like you’re some sort of outlier or you’re somehow going against the grain. Yet you’re defending the position of the UN and those in power, and further condoning the actions of the real majority who are (in accordance with the wishes of those who would force tyranny on us) blissfully ignorant about these matters. Shame on you for criticizing those who are looking deeper and are active in their local government. You are anathema, and you’re wrong.

    • We’re the majority? that is news to me, but thanks I hope so.

    • Peter G Brooksbank says:

      Amen to that, my sentiments exactly regarding skeptics of which I count myself as one. Question every thing but don’t fall into the trap that if its mainstream or the accepted version it has to be wrong. I know he’s a fictional character but as Sherlock Holmes said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” The problem is eliminating the impossible.

      I have been watching this game for twenty five years, two years before Agenda 21 became public and before I fully realised what I was seeing. I still think, hope, wish that I’m wrong and question myself and then another bit of the puzzle drops into place that says we are set to take a fall.

      There is one question that constantly nags. If Agenda 21 is about sustainability, after all this time why don’t we see any evidence that confirms positivity? Even at local level here in the UK with local authorities who have a department or at least one person who is supposed to engage with ethos of Agenda 21 why do their actions do nothing to promoting sustainability? I see much lip service and little else.

      • modernlifesurvivalist says:

        It’s so amazing to hear your perspective from across the pond. It gives us a peak at what it might be like in 5-10 years here in the U.S. Thanks for your dedication to a thorough analysis and to spreading the word to people like Mr. Rothschild here, who blithely take for granted what freedoms they have left as they get slowly stripped away in exchange for entertainment and convenience.

        I am not a skeptic, I admit, but I do usually doubt the mainstream (which as we’ve agreed is the opposite of a skeptic nowadays). It all started with my obsession with indie music (because mainstream music sucked so bad). I used to be an evangelist of sorts for Sonic Youth, Pavement, and the Pixies. Then when I got sick and conventional medicine failed me, I started to completely discount anything that they recommend for health. Turns out I was right, and doing the exact opposite of what mainstream health advice recommends got me feeling and looking much better. (They recommend a low-fat, whole-grain diet, with aerobic exercise as “activity”; I go high-fat, low-carb, and only strength train). You have to experience change to believe it. This is why I consider myself an “intuitive” person who interprets the droves of information thrust at me in a decently wise manner.

        Peter, I need some good content on Agenda 21. I wrote two articles talking about Snowpiercer and Agenda 21, and I’d like you to read them and let me know what you think. Would you also consider contributing an article about some of this stuff from a UK perspective on my site? You’ve almost got a whole article just from content you’ve posted so far on this site. Perhaps a few links, and we could call it done. :)

        http://www.modernlifesurvivalist.com/film-snowpiercer-agenda-21/

        http://www.modernlifesurvivalist.com/snowpiercer-film-agenda-21-part-2/

        Contact info is on my site.

        Glad Rothschild is putting up with our cohorting in disagreement.

      • “If Agenda 21 is about sustainability, after all this time why don’t we see any evidence that confirms positivity?”

        I love this. Activists are up in arms over all of the sweeping changes Agenda 21 is making to our lives, yet at the same time, you can’t see any evidence of it changing anything.

        How can it be harmful and doing nothing at the same time?

        • modernlifesurvivalist says:

          Mike,

          That’s why it’s so subversive and effective. The changes are only significant enough for people to just barely detect them. The few that do and understandably protest knowing where this is all leading just seem loud and obnoxious. The rest who act as if it’s not happening are (to use a cliché) frogs in a boiling pot. They observe the lack of change juxtaposed with the obnoxious activists and see nothing but nonsense, just as you have. It’s a perfect crime.

          Before you know it, you’re in an apartment, and all you do is play video games, eat GMO food, take SSRIs, and look at porn on the Internet. And you’re happy as a pig in slop.

          If I haven’t painted the picture well enough for you, the agenda is willful enslavement. After the whole Nazi thing and the communist thing didn’t work, they realized they could get us by convincing us to submit willingly. The best example is the trade off of a cell phone for your privacy. You know the thing watches you, records everything you do, and tells them where you are at all times, yet you still are willing to submit because of the convenience. With Agenda 21, you also have the incentive of “protecting the environment.” Some people are actually willing to sequester themselves from the beauty of nature because of their hardcore belief in the evil of man that necessitates this separation. Well, maybe they don’t particularly wish this on themselves, but essentially they believe this, and ultimately the result will be their quarantine, along with the rest of the evil humans. See Dr. Eric Pianka for a perfect example of someone who espouses this attitude.

          I’m really glad you’re conversing with us on this. Super cool of you.

    • Oh, if only skeptics like me were the majority. Everyone would be vaccinated, Food Babe wouldn’t have a platform to spout nonsense, and we wouldn’t have to spend our time talking down the people pooping themselves over bike paths and carpool lanes.

      • modernlifesurvivalist says:

        Oh I’m sure it’s just torture having all of those people start to wake up and actually care about their health, their environment, and their local government. I feel for you, Rothschild, I really do.

        • asydhouse says:

          Talk about Orwellian!

          Your twisted logic is that caring for the environment and people by urging a more enlightened approach to reducing population growth via improving women’s access to education is some kind of stealth genocide. That is actually completely insane!

          As for Brooksbank, who calls himself a skeptic, he’s a jingoist, harming British business with his fear of Europe. Britain’s always been a mongrel, it’s our strength. I see no moral decline over here, I see the old hypocrisies being exposed, the immoral underpinnings of the old establishment and private suffering under abusive ignoramuses coming to light thanks to modern attitudes. The societies of the world are becoming less violent. No thanks to the Brooksbanks of the world pining for the good old moral certainties which were always a sham.

          Education and truth is what we need, not this bs about the real meaning under the words conspiracy insanity. You idiots are the tools of some rich status quo propagandists. War is Peace!

  30. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    Asydhouse, I think you may have partaken too many times. You make too many assumptions. You talk of Orwell so you must now that he despised the far left as much as he did the far right.

    As for me being in business, what has that got to do with anything? I see you are in business. How is me being in Health and safety harming anyone, quite unfounded and uncalled for noxious comment I think?

    I was a Labour activist for almost thirty years, I actually care for what happens to people and got into health and safety to try to educate people to protect themselves. I believe in health and safety because I have seen the death and ruined lives first hand. In the first three months of working in a steel complex back in the 70’s eleven men died. I would rather that not happen. What have you done lately?

    If you think that the worlds societies are becoming less violent then where is your evidence? It’s not what I’m seeing but it may look that way from your tranced induced bubble. Have you noticed that festering open wound in the middle east?

    Where is your evidence of caring for the environment? Is it the same as those councillors in the UK who run on green credentials, talk about sustainability but vote for development?

    I’m not afraid of Europe, I’m back in France in June and have being going there since 1967. I could end up living there. But I would rather not be ruled by unaccountable, unelected people. Thats something that a free thinking star child like yourself should be able to relate to.

    As for morals, you brought that up not me, you seem to have a problem with the subject, why?

    I stand by what I said, there is a slow but steady move towards if not a totalitarian state but a state of totalitarianism.

    I don’t really care if you can see it or not. As I said, you jump to too many conclusions, hold too many preconceived ideas. Ironic for someone who thinks they are a free thinker. You don’t have to be an old hippie to care about people.

    Hawkwind really? You should try Transatlantic.

    I see you like India, it is close to my heart. My friends and I have raised funds for the Railway Children of India. Are you there in March? I’ll see you on the beaches of Goa, maybe Curlies in Anjuna or in Mumbai?

    • asydhouse says:

      Well I apologise if I misconstrued your message, but in one of your early posts in this commentary thread you said something about the decline in British society, which usually means someone with rose-tinted spectacles pining for an imaginary better past that never actually existed.

      My evidence for the progression of the world’s societies towards a less violent and more compassionate mode of living is Stephen Pinker’s book from 2011 “The Better Angels of Our Nature”.

      As with any issue, personal impressions are not the best guide to go on. I haven’t read the book, but the review was extensive. My anecdotal experience does however support that perception.

      As to my comment about business, I was trying to point out that withdrawing from the EU would be bad for British business. I’m not anti-business by any means, but I’m much more suspicious of large corporations than I am of the European Parliament. But we are in danger of our British government currently colluding with big business lobbies to sign away our rights to have protection from naked exploitation by those huge corporations, giving them the right to sue our elected government if they try to pass consumer protection legislation that affects the profits of the corporations: the TTIP negotiations are going on behind closed doors right now.

      As to India, I loved it in the 70s, but I hadn’t been back since then until just two years ago (as I’ve never had any money, and since the Afghans blocked the overland route I could never go back), and I now detest the place with their caste system still a deeply horrible corruption of their culture and of the people’s minds, for instance the gang rapes that are going on so frequently. The corruption and the poverty are just too appalling. And now there’s a whole stratum of the middle classes that exist solely to hijack tourists and take them to their own hotels instead of taking you where you asked, and every other moment they are looking to siphon off your money and it’s exhausting. The old easy-going relations with the people is now impossible. I read “A Fine Balance” by Rohinton Mistry while we were there, and it opened my eyes to the true legacy and ongoing corruption of mind caused by the Caste system in “modern” India.

      Anyway, good on you for doing something to help, and I’m glad you are in a position to do so. And I confess I did not read your posts completely, or even closely, more like skimming, from which I drew the impression I responded to above. Again, I apologise if I misrepresented your position. I think Health and Safety is an extremely important thing, and I salute you for going into it. But I hope you can see that you must have misunderstood what I was saying when I said you were endangering British business by wanting to leave the EU. I personally feel that “unelected bureaucrats” meme is just a red herring. And I would gladly be in Europe under the Declaration of Human Rights than under a Tory government that wants to overthrow it!

      Enjoy Goa, I’m not jealous at all! ! )

      And good health to you.

    • asydhouse says:

      So I just now went back to see how I had misunderstood you, and find that you are a complete ignoramus over global climate change!

      You have the gall to throw around insulting caricatures (including insulting me and accusing me of making noxious comments which I did not), and then pretend that the symptoms of global warming are not abundantly clear, disingenuously asking where the sea level is rising. Are you pretending you have never heard of Vanuatu? The Marshall Islands in the Pacific are losing their arable land to the salt deposits from flooding which have forced them to abandon some of their villages/islands.

      I retract my apologies for misrepresenting you.

  31. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    So now its global warming. Islands and coasts around the world have been changing since time began. I live in an area where we have tidal drowned valley’s. We also have an Island with a raised beach on it from 15,000 years ago. My point is both movements of the sea took place long before industrial man and were quite spectacular.

    1,500 yeas ago the farmers at that time had to abandoned the hills around me. Today nothing grows there but it did when the temperatures were 2 degrees warmer all those years ago. I wont be bogged down in climate, I have known these things and more than over forty years and even a rudimentary look into historical climate change begs the question whats different now, why are we blaming man?

    Blame man for destroying rain forests, polluting the air and seas by all means but for changing something that has always been variable, no.

    I have visited the Lakshadweep out in the Arabian Sea off Cochin and they are on the move but then they always where. Lands come, lands go. We have lost many villages to the North Sea over the centuries and a whole land, a time when mans impact was almost none existent.

    Britain played with rudimentary weather control in the 50’s (well documented and admitted by the RAF) so where we are today with this is anybody’s guess. If you want to talk climate and Weather look at what the Americans and Chinese have been up to lately regarding battlefield weather and climate weapons. The only climate change I deny is man made climate change as it is just another yoke to hang on us. Green issues are also an industry to the Likes of David Cameron’s Farther in Law. He has made millions out of wind farming over the last few years. You bet I’m skeptical.

    I know India isn’t perfect and thats an understatement, but don’t you see the irony of accusing us for wanting a better Britain and then harking back to the India that you once knew? I have seen much change in both countries and not always for the better. I don’t want to turn the clock back, I want to reserve the right to govern ourselves, the right many have given their lives for. The British Chamber of Commerce says that 65% of business don’t like the restrictions the EU imposes but no one will say what they are going to do about it. That includes the Tory MEP I cornered at a Chamber meeting regarding Britain’s membership and business.

    As for Europe, did you know that it’s the big corporations that you despise who pull the strings. Put my trust in them, never.

    I’m not going to take offence, we all want the same thing, a secure place for our children and grandchildren to grow up in. How we achieve that and if we can is something else.

    Peace and Love

    • asydhouse says:

      You misunderstood my meaning about India. I loved it in my youth, because I was ignorant, and there was no section of their society dedicated to fleecing tourists then, as there is now. I don’t want their past: the sickness was there as much or more then as now, but I was looking through my naive rose-tinted spectacles at an exotic, colourful place. It was a delusion. Their culture is sick. Maybe the young generation can progress, education may bear fruit, I saw hope in the newspaper editorials decrying the stupid “godman” who had commented that the girl on the bus should have embraced her rapists as her fellow religionists, or some such nonsense. But frankly, visiting India for a holiday is unfeasible. It’s impossible to enjoy a holiday with beggars constantly sitting at your feet, imploring you for money, or perhaps worse, people insisting that you buy yet another scarf.

      I can’t be bothered with your peculiar ideas about climate change. It’s the rapidity of the change that’s one clue that this is different, but there is so much more. Do you really think that the many thousands of scientists are lying about collecting the data that proves that our release of CO2 is driving a rapid evolution of global climate change?

      Will you carry on denying reality in 5 or 10 years? It’s happening faster than the scientists were predicting a few years ago. It will only accelerate, because people like you would rather believe in a conspiracy and your own unscientific decisions to have a particular opinion than to accept the data and the need to ameliorate our harmful effects through bringing on new technologies. You think you are clever playing word games about “sustainability”, but that sophistry is just to distract from the real issue, which is that sustainable technologies will still be around millions of years after the oil has run out.

      It’s a disingenuous approach to take to such questions. Why don’t you get real?

      • modernlifesurvivalist says:

        Dude, you need to get over the fact that the polar ice caps aren’t melting. Al Gore was peddling this crap in 2006, and they are supposed to be gone by now. California is supposed to be submerged (even though he has a house or two on the coast) according to the doc. Oh wait, I guess the fact that these things are predicted in the movie is a conspiracy theory.

        The facts are: You’re the one that’s glib, susceptible to suggestion, and frankly wrong if you believe the climate change hoax. The evidence is not on your side.

        Watch the BBC once in awhile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

        Yes, they aired that in 2007 I believe. Check it out (I know you won’t).

        New York Times article from last year called “The End of Snow?” Here ya go: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?_r=0
        I guess that article being up is a conspiracy theory, too. Nope, it’s there!

        Stop making the actual intelligent people laugh and/or puke with your doomed-to-fail predictions. Please stop doing it, and do us all a favor.

        • asydhouse says:

          See, you would rather believe that one newspaper article is representative of the issue than actually look at what the scientists are presenting as the many lines of enquiry and physics and chemistry and all that demonstrate the reality. You are still going on about Al Gore! He was just the face of the movie, not the originator, and any quibbles you have over that movie are so old, and in the meantime the evidence of climate change is mounting every year. Scientists have been saying very conservative predictions, but the reality is far in excess of what the scientists have been predicting. It’s worse than they had hoped, don’t you get it?! It’s happening very fast. Arctic ice is disappearing. How can you spin that to deny it?

          Your obsession with distrusting scientists in favour of scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists is just dumb.

          I know scientists. I’ve seen the data. It’s a fact. You are a dupe of vested interests in the status quo. Sad but true.

          Do you even know that the cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris funded a bogus website with a sciencey sounding name in order to spread disinformation to confuse the issue and prevent timely action to ameliorate the damage? I can’t even remember why they did that, their reasoning is so sick. Suffice to say it was to protect the status quo. Those are the bogus “scientists” you really should be suspicious of, the one’s employed by irrelevant companies to pretend to be experts, and spread disinformation to people like you with misplaced fear of science.

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            You’re definitely a smart guy, but you’re not very intuitive, measuring the source of information for its value and truth based on the vested interests of the parties presenting it, which is much more important. Just wait until you get sick and the doctors can’t help you. You’ll find out. In the meantime, sit on your router and suck on some radiation. I’m sure you’re in perfect shape and you’ll feel just terrific.

            Also, please, by all means, keep doing pointless cardio like a hamster on a freaking wheel. In the meantime, I’ll continue to look more and more like the statue of David, doing 10 minutes of intense strength-training tops every other day.

            You have it completely backwards. Long-distance running is the thing that burns fat in the meantime but is not sustainable into old age. Most runners first get joint problems, then heart problems, then they can’t run anymore (often after having a heart attack). Some evil faction wants to suppress this information (though you can ask any former runner about it and here they have bad joints/heart problems) and they also detract from it with the genetic argument.
            This one guy responded to my tweet about cardio where I said,

            “A long-distance runner is not an athlete, but a very dedicated masochist, egged on by the prospect of glory. #paleo http://goo.gl/0HzSVf

            with the following: “@mlsurvivalist I’m not a masochist, but I would love to be able to run again. (Can’t, spinal stenosis-old age.)”

            Yes, that’s an anecdote, but even if I provided a study, you would just find some fault with it. You’re set in your ways, and you’re going to live a miserable, sick, and unhappy life. But if you want to feel better, the first two things you should do is turn off your cell phone and stop jogging. (I know by telling you this that you’ll never actually try these things, just to prove to yourself that you were right because of your obvious pride issues. So by telling you this I’m actually making you less likely to be healthy. Oh well. It’s not my fault you’re so stubborn.)

            And if heavy lifting is bad for old age, then why do they prescribe it for those with osteoporosis?
            http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2013/10000/Maximal_Strength_Training_in_Postmenopausal_Women.32.aspx

            You’re obviously intelligent, so stick to what you know. You don’t seem to know much about health or fitness, yet you try to pretend you do based on whatever Conventional Wisdom crapballs you’ve come across. I’ve been truly sick and done countless hours of actual research to cure my own acid reflux/inflammation that you would never believe or understand unless you experienced it for yourself.

            You’re the one who’s being duped, sorry. I truly feel sorry for you. Good luck to you as well.

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            How can you spin that there’s more arctic ice than ever before? There are more polar bears than ever before. That’s what I’ve read. We just have different sources. You believe yours, and I believe mine.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            So one photo from one year means that global warming doesn’t exist? You could also consult a graph of ice in the arctic: the trajectory is downwards. Say you’re on a diet and you eat or drink a little more one day than another and actually weigh, on that day, two pounds more than you had the day before when you go to weigh yourself at 7pm or whatever. Is that a statistical anomaly or does that mean that your diet doesn’t work, even if you weigh seven pounds less than you did three weeks previously? Think about it.

          • modernlifesurvivalist says:

            It’s a pretty far cry from less than 1 million, or NO ice, though, wouldn’t you say?

            In the weight loss analogy, that would be like someone telling you you’d weight 50 lbs in 8 years if you keep going like you’re going (which basically means you’d be dead), and then you weigh yourself (yes, ONE DAY) and come in at a solid 180 lbs. In your face!

  32. In January, 2011, the Australian Government’s Climate Change Department admitted that C02 rises followed increases in temperature, with a lag of about 800 years. This is the opposite of what Al Gore proposed in his infamous “An Inconvenient Truth” video. Search http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/142904/20130920-1151/climatechange.gov.au/node/1422.html .
    On page 32 of the .pdf: …Ice core studies have shown that during past ice ages CO2 levels only started to rise about 800 years after the initial temperature increase. This is because it takes about 800 years for ocean processes to transfer the initial temperature rise to an increase in atmospheric CO2. From the horse’s mouth. This is the biggest news since James Lovelock recanted his alarmism and the former Australian Climate Change Commissioner, Tim Flannery, admitted that cutting all C02 emissions would not change the world’s climate for about a thousand years.
    Brian Wilshire Radio 2GB-873 Sydney.

    • Thanks Brian! This is the science that they are calling “pseudoscience,” because it doesn’t fit the elite’s agenda. They are useful idiots who cannot bear to hear that their beloved establishment is lying and doesn’t have their best interests at heart.

  33. frank says:

    Soylent green, the future.

  34. MLB says:

    No ill start off saying I am just a simple person bad spelling and all.
    But, it Seems to me the EASIEST things to do here are OFCOURSE not brought up….STOP MAKING FUEL ran vehicles….put into place “GROW YOUR OWN Gardens” (like when water companies award those who use rain water catchers)…STOP STOP STOP giving pay raises to those WHO DO NOT NEED it…Have the POPE sell (redistribute HIS wealth) some of that FANCY EXPENSIVE GOLD N JEWLES he holds at the Vatican (after all Wealth for People of GOD is looked down upon)…STOP LETTING COMPANIES go OUT OF USA…Instead Force Rules and Regulations on them When they DO!!! BBLAH BLAH BLAH
    BUT OFCOURSE THESE THINGS would NEVER EVER be part of the solution (and yes there are MANY MANY MANY things that I cant even START to name) because then THERE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE REDISTIBUTION of WEALTH and THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE HERE! GROWTH rate, pollution, so on…Yes these are issues BUT IT FALLS INTO THE GREED of big business and Governments that WANT ALL THE POWER. Simply is NOT in their line of thought!
    Lets LOOK also at the one thing I don’t see much of in any of the above responses that I have read…GOD!!! The facts are that HE and HE alone will Control all these issues in His own time. But then OUR BIGGEST problem Is simply that isn’t it? GOD NO LONGER IS PART OF THIS LAND!!! THIS IS WHERE we FALL SHORT and Get so LOST as to Even HAVE such issues in the first Place!!!!! God teaches how to care for our home, each other, and life in general…America Use to Live by His word…Our
    Government has LOST SIGHT of GOD and therefor their so called leadership Is FAULTY AND PLACES BLAME on the everyday People who really have LITTLE control over WHAT their Government DOES!!! Most people I know would gladly drive solar powered cars and change their way off life to be more self supporting…But is it even feasible or the everyday person? Not the majority of people I know. WHY? Because cost of living vs income (when you can find a job) don’t equal out. But Government says different…THEY KNOW exactly what the are doing, exactly where they want the common person and thy have for many years! Agenda 21 is not the RESAULT but the REASON! They have made it almost IMPOSSIBLE for the common person to live a solid productive life. NOT ENOUGH PAY and NOT ENOUGH HOURS FOR HOME AND FAMILY (because we work more for more money for the basics needed to live). Simple as that! They push laws through and have total disregard for HUMAN LIFE…I am SICK of the WHOLE “we are tryin to help” BS that is backed up with nothing even remotely CLOSE to Being a direct Action on those words!
    The general population is going to pay for Our Governments Mistakes and Misleading’s….And Agenda 21 is Yet Another of their Propaganda Shows that Will Not WORK OR MATTER when all is said and Done…I hope they enjoy their POWER RIDE while here on EARTH!!! Because the are Kissing it away day by day To the powers that Rule their Greed!!! And they have managed to push their foolish ideas onto the rest of the world…HOW SICK THIS SHOULD MAKE EVERYONE!!!!

    • asydhouse says:

      God does not exist. All your defeatist blather is just a fantasy about a non-existent thing which can never be. If we do not grow up and take responsibility, instead of propagating baseless self-defeating fantasy conspiracy theories as you do here, we are condemning our descendants to a diminished future world of permanent scarcity and eventual extinction. That is what you are working towards with your defeatist fear-mongering fantasies. You sick pervert.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>