No, actually the data shows that there is NO global warming. I have posted the data curve and asked you to tell me what your issue with the data is, and as of yet, you have not.
Why?
Because, as indicated, I believe that the mainstream climate change debate should be replaced by a mainstream debate centered on the phenomenon of chemtrails and the geoengineering proposals currently being floated. If I started involving myself in discussion of the mainstream climate debate with you I would be going contrary to my own political recommendations.
OK, so you refuse to look at the data because you have a philosophical exemption.
"1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility."
Ignorance is never a good thing.
To propose that we ignore (and allow to perpetuate) the foundational lie that geoengineering (chemtrails) is based on - global warming - is outlandish.
It's much more reasonable to eliminate the perceived need for geoengineering than to engage in safety arguments.
Hegel is one of mankind's great philosophers and it is a travesty to reduce his thought to this caricature, as if the people who use the technique you are calling "the Hegelian dialectic" are the masters of history. The Hegelian dialectic exists in history qua history, not history as perceived by a certain specific cabal of would-be manipulators.
So, you believe that there is no such thing as revisionist history?
Quote
I think the ETC group scientists are not corrupt.
Yet, they have just posted this new report on their website:
"Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering examines the high stakes involved in the rapidly advancing field of geoengineering – the intentional, large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s systems by artificially changing oceans, soils and the atmosphere. More than a set of climate altering technologies, geoengineering is a political strategy aimed at letting the industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt. This report will help civil society organizations navigate the coming global debates over the science and politics of climate-change techno-fixes."
They are simply setting us up to use the Hegelian Dialectic.
Simply stated, they may (appear to be trying to) get the nations to concede that spraying the atmosphere is not a good idea, but they are doing this at the price of "letting the industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt".
As I stated previously, this is a setup for global treaties that completely override national governments in order to centralize power to solve a problem that does not exist.
Your proposal to trust these ideas are nothing more than a legal trap that provides the clear route to give a few corrupt corporate politicians global power.
In short: A Very Bad Idea.
Quote
After all, H.O.M.E. right from the outset secured the support of Bill McKibben. That was a clever political move on their part.
Bill McKibben: Globalist, global warming alarmist, writer of a constant stream of books promoting the claims of global warming and the responsibilities of nations to work globally to solve this non-existent problem.
Sporting the support of political pawns is not admirable and is much less advantageous.
---
In summary, the tactic of allowing dangerous politically-charged unscientific lies to continue is a tactic that could only be proposed by someone who is either very deceived, or working as counter-intelligence.
---
Again, you avoided (once again) the question about how you are going to "ask" your UN representative why global warming has not stopped after the moratorium.
---
Several videos explaining the global warming fraud:
