The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor

After reading as many state climate change documents as I have there's one conclusion that can definitely be drawn:  these people want us poor.  I realize that this sounds dramatic but you kind of understand their position.  I don't agree with it, but it makes sense, if you think like them.  If you truly believe that pretty much all of human technological progress (cars, airplanes, air conditioners, farming equipment, etc.) is causing irreversible damage to the planet, then it would make sense that policies should be pursued and enforced that ensure humans are using less of these innovations.  Policies that discourage the use of technological innovations, though, have a direct effect in lowering our standard of living.

The fact that these climate change policies have a negative effect on our overall standard of living is not lost on the social engineers designing this system. The document titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000" published in 2003 details how the United States did not agree to an international plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, "citing concerns about the economic impact of reducing GHG emissions on the time scale required under the agreement."  This is a clear indication that there's an understanding among government officials that these Greenhouse Gas Emission reducing policies can have negative effects on the economy, and yet many of these policies are still pursued.

One easy way to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions is to charge people more money for things like gas and electricity, so that they use less.  In a 2007 state progress report on Climate Change the topic of gasoline consuming motor vehicles causing greenhouse gas emission is discussed and it's stated that "elevated consumer gasoline prices of mid-2006 indicate that increased fuel prices may act to restrain consumption".  They also attribute a 3.7% increase in bus ridership to this increase in gas prices.  See high gas prices are good for their agenda because high gas prices will reduce the amount of gas used,even causing some people to give up their car and use the bus.  Actually, increasing the cost of driving in general is good for their agenda.  As documented in part three of this series The War On Cars, they want us out of our cars and onto public transportation.

Even our ability to keep our house cool is under attack by the social engineers of this system.  A 2006 report bemoans the fact that "[t]oday, most homes are air-conditioned", saying "[t]he increased use of residential air conditioning adds considerable demand during daytime peak periods" and that "[t]hese peak periods coincide with unhealthy air quality days in the summer."  Suggested solutions to this problem include having your air conditioner connected to a "smart grid" that allows an outside grid operator to control your output.  The topic of the smart grid and smart meters deserves, and will receive, its own analysis in the near future.

The way that we heat our home is also being manipulated, creating an extra financial burden.  In a 2013 document put out by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) it discusses the topic of people who use oil or propane to heat their home, and laments the fact that oil and propane home delivery services are not regulated by the state.  The DEEP recommends that policymakers consider a "dedicated fund supported by fuel oil and propane customers to provide robust efficiency programs" and that "oil and propane heating customers will need to be assessed higher co-pays for use of the State‘s electric efficiency programs."   In other words, tax you more money under the guise of "efficiency".

Being poor is also good for reducing solid waste generation.  In a 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health"  it is stated that "Connecticut currently is at or has surpassed the capacity to manage its own solid waste ".  It follows with the statement that "while the economic downturn has been positive for solid waste generation because people produce less solid waste per capita when the economy is poor, the eventual economic improvements will continue to strain capacity in future years."  Therefore, when people don't have money, they don't produce as much trash, and this is good for the environment, but if the economy improves, and people have more money, they will produce more trash, and this is bad.

Knowing that poor people are good for the climate change agenda, it makes sense that in 2014 when the state celebrated meeting their initial green house gas reduction goal, they credited "the economic downturn" as one of the instrumental factors in reaching that goal.

If we follow the path that these policy makers are creating to its logical conclusion, the majority of the world will be living in destitute conditions, with little to no technological innovations, similar to what we are told is the living conditions of the average citizen of North Korea.  Surely not everyone involved with propagating these climate change policies understands the disastrous consequences of such policies however that doesn't make the disastrous consequences any less likely to occur.  As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut

 

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) (Click here for .mp3 download of this analysis.)

President-Elect Donald Trump has apparently picked Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.  In a previous video I discussed how Trump had Myron Ebell, a well known "climate change skeptic", lead the EPA transition team, and speculated how this might reverse some of the disastrous climate change policies that have been propagated by the federal government.  Trump's pick of Pruitt is another good sign that there might actually be some change in the EPA's overreaching policies.  Pruitt hasn't fallen for the global warming scam saying that the climate debate is "far from settled", and even joined a coalition of state attorneys general that sued the EPA over their restrictive policies.    

Another good sign of this Pruitt pick is the group of people in Connecticut that this upsets.  All of the people and groups that for one reason or the other have been pushing this concept of smart growth, sustainable development, the anti-car agenda, etc., are all outraged over the new head of the EPA.

Governor Malloy put out a press release calling the Pruit pick "deeply unsettling", saying the pick raises many questions about whether the EPA will continue to support the climate change policies that Malloy has been instrumental in implementing in the state.

Even the Rockefeller-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that push the anti-car agenda in the state like the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) are worried, putting Pruitt in the "losers" section of their blog saying that he is "someone who has spent his career fighting environmental regulations for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry".

Another Rockefeller connected NGO pushing similar policies, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, called for the Senate to firmly reject Pruitt's nomination saying "[t]his isn’t just letting the fox into the henhouse, it’s handing the fox the architectural blueprints and a stick of dynamite."

The founder of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment is Fred Krupp.  Krupp is a very interesting character that deserves his own analysis, as he was actually on President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which was conceived in order to formulate recommendations for the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 in the United States.  Krupp is still very much active in the environmental movement as the President of the highly influential Environmental Defense Fund, and called Trump's pick of Pruitt to head the EPA "deeply troubling".

As I said in the previous video on this topic, while all of this seems promising, we have to wait and see.  The Trump presidency could just be getting rid of the whole climate change , green energy scam, and replacing it with a new scam.  I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open, and documenting as much as I can.  Thanks for watching, subscribe to the channel, and watch the related videos for more information.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

(download .mp3 here)

An important point that needs to be made when discussing Connecticut climate change policy is that it was not some grass roots movement that began pushing for climate change legislation in Connecticut but instead the push comes from the international level at the United Nations.  This fact can be easily documented by reading through the various Connecticut climate change papers and viewing the numerous citations to the United Nations and related organizations.

One early example of th e United Nations direction into Connecticut climate change policy can be seen in the agreement made in 2001 between the Governors of New England and the Premiers of Eastern Canada known as the "2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan".  In the action plan it is stated that "The ultimate goal [of greenhouse gas emission] mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  The UNFCCC would then go on to be cited multiple times in the Connecticut climate change papers .

Signatories of the 1992 UNFCCC have agreed to adopt policies that help fight "climate change", encourage the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere", and "promote sustainable development." (To get a better understanding of the UNFCCC read A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).) 

It should also be noted that at the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio where the UNFCCC was presented , another important UN document, Agenda 21, was also presented and accepted by President George Bush on behalf of the United States.  Even though, to my knowledge, Agenda 21 is not directly referenced in Connecticut Climate change documents, it is important to note because being a much larger and more detailed plan than the UNFCCC, it lays out a more specific agenda on how "sustainab le development" is to be carried out.  It is highly recommended to any interested reader on this subject to read A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action.

 The 2001 New England Governors agreement would go on to form the foundation of Connecticut climate change policy, and as just explained, its goal mirrored that of the United Nations.

The following year, 2002, the Connecticut Governor's Steering Committee met to further discuss the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as agreed to in the 2001 New England Governors meeting.  Important to note about this 2002 meeting is that it was held at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.  The Rockefellers have multiple connections to the United Nations, including donating the money for the land on which the U.N. stands today.  (For a more comprehensive analysis of the United Nations - Rockefeller connection check out the 4th part in this series titled The Rockefeller Connection, as well as the presentation titled The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection.)

In the paper which derived from that 2002 meeting, and several times after that, the organization ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Enviornmental Initiatives, is cited as a group working in Connecticut to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, several cities across the state have become members of ICLEI at one time or another.  ICLEI, today known as Local Governments for Sustainability, is a major non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been highly influential in spreading the concept of "sustainable development", and other United Nations programs, across the world.  ICLEI was founded at the United Nations and is cited in the United Nations program of action, Agenda 21, as one of three non-governmental organizations active in the field of propagating sustainable development policy.

Finally, we get to the "scientific" body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  State officials rely heavily on information put out by the IPCC to justify their "climate change" programs, citing their reports throughout the Connecticut Climate Change papers.  And of course, the IPCC was established by the United Nations.

Further connections could be presented, but the point is made.  Connecticut Climate Change policy is being influenced and ultimately directed by international organizations, specifically the United Nations.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Will President-Elect Donald Trump Put An End to Agenda 21?

(This is a video version of the following analysis.)

Under the guise of fighting man made climate change and reducing carbon emissions, the United Nations Agenda 21 program of sustainable development seeks to lower the standard of living of Americans.  These sustainable development policies have been, and are being, slowly enacted across the United States, including in the state of Connecticut, as documented by previous reports.  While the continuous march of this Agenda 21 program seemed to have no slow down in sight, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States may prove to be the ultimate hurdle for the success of Agenda 21.

Trump has been a big critic of the idea of man-made climate change saying he is not a "big believer", even calling it a "hoax" on multiple occasions.  This is huge as the whole Agenda 21 program revolves around the idea that the planet's climate is being severely affected by everyday human activity like driving cars or eating meat.

To further show that Trump is serious about putting a stop to the climate change hysteria, he reportedly appointed Myron Ebell to run the EPA transition team.  Ebell is a well known skeptic of the theory of man made climate change.  He has spoke in favor of Congress prohibiting any funding for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and once labeled the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an "organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response."

Even better than that, Trump has shown signs of shunning the UN altogether.  At a campaign speech at an AIPAC conference in 2016, Trump criticized the UN for its "weakness", "incompetenece", even saying that the UN is "not a friend of freedom".

While all of this seems promising, we can't start counting our chickens just yet.  Trump has a history of flip-flopping.  On the global warming issue, Trump and three of his children put their name to an advertisement in the New York Times in 2009 urging President Obama and Congress to take action on climate change.  Furthermore, contrary to his recent remarks about the United Nations, Trump testified in front of Congress in 2005 and said that he is a "big fan of the United Nations and what it stands for", though he then goes on to rebuke the United Nations for its incompetence.

Some would brush off Trump's past public positions as nothing more than a business man saying and doing what he has to in order to play the game.  While others would say that Trump is an opportunist with no real principles.  We are going to have to wait and see.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.  Click here for an .mp3 audio version)

In this part of the series of 'The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy' we are going to take a look at many of the groups behind CT climate change policy, and their curious connection to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which will be referred to as RBF from this point on.  We are going to start by following the timeline of the implementation of Connecticut climate change policy.

The first action taken by the state in regards to "global warming" was in 1990 with the passing of Public Act 90-219 "An Act Concerning Global Warming", but we will start this analysis in the year 2000 as that is when the state's focus on climate change and global warming began in earnest and significant action began to be taken.

In the year 2000 an alliance of New England Governors met with Premiers from Eastern Canada to adopt "Resolution 25-9 concerning global warming and its environmental impacts."  These New England Governors were brought together through a forum named CONEG, or the Coalition of North Eastern Governors. According to their website, "CONEG works with the governors and their staff and policy advisors to examine current and emerging regional issues, develop effective solutions, and undertake cooperative actions that benefit the individual state and the region."  CONEG polices are identified, formulated, and carried out by their staff at the CONEG Policy Research Center Inc.  Various official documents from the RBF show that they were funding CONEG Policy Research Center Inc. from its inception in the mid-1970's through the 1980's.  Therefore the RBF has had an influential connection to Connecticut climate change policy from its inception.

In 2001, this coalition of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers came together once again to create a Climate Change Action Plan for the region.  This plan called for each state to create their own climate change plans, programs, and policies.  As a result, the governor of Connecticut at the time, John Rowland, in 2002, created a Steering Committee "to coordinate Connecticut’s actions on climate change."

The same year that Governor Rowland created the Steering Committee, the Commitee met at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

At this meeting it was stated that one of the first steps that Connecticut needs to do to address climate change is to have an inventory of "greenhouse gas" in the state.  It was announced that Connecticut had approached the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop this greenhouse gas inventory for the state, and in 2003 NESCAUM released their report titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000".

NESCAUM is an organization cited throughout the state documents in relation to climate change.  The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given multiple grants to NESCAUM, funding various studies put out by the organization.

In the 2003 report on Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory, written by agents of NESCAUM, the origins of the concern over "greenhouse gases" is detailed, and they cite the starting point when "[i]n 1992, the United States joined more than 160 other countries in signing and ratifying the [United Nations] Framework Convention on Climate Change. [UNFCCC]"

As detailed in the report Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut, the UNFCCC was a specific aspiration of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as they admittedly "organized and funded some of the earliest meetings of advocates addressing climate change."  One of those early advocate organizations that has played, and continues to play, a leading role in the climate change debate is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and has been a highly influential organization propagating the belief that man-made global warming is a real and serious threat.  The IPCC is known as an "internationally accepted authority on climate change."  IPCC reports are cited  throughout the many Connecticut official documents relating to climate change policy.  The IPCC was co-funded into existence by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)
(Click here for an .mp3 download of this presentation)

In the first two parts of this series we discussed the fallacy that man-made global warming is a fact, as well as how the methodologies that the state is using to calculate its supposed effects are not accurate.  We are now going to examine one of the proposals that is constantly offered by state officials as a combative action towards fighting man-made global warming; the reduction of private motor vehicles.

Regular readers of The Goodman Chronicle are already aware that the state of Connecticut has a policy of reducing private motor vehicle usage.  A recent example of this happened on December 3, 2014, when Connecticut state officials met with "transportation advocates" to discuss the future of transportation in Connecticut.  The discussion mainly focused on ways to further restrict private motor vehicle ownership, and usage, through measures such as an increase in the gasoline tax, toll roads, and more.

This analysis will show, using Connecticut climate change documents, how this anti-car philosophy in the state is derived from the idea that man-made global warming is a real and pressing issue in our society.

(It should be pointed out in the beginning of this analysis that this desire to reduce the amount of private motor vehicles is only one part of a much larger plan to concentrate people into highly regulated, dense neighborhoods, with public transportation being the main form of transportation.  This type of centralized planning is known as "smart growth", and will receive its own analysis in a later section of this multi-series report.)

The state believes that they need to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) by one million metric tons per year, over the next forty years.  According to their calculations this is equivalent to the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year.

One option that the state has considered to deal with the GHG coming out of vehicles is to increase the taxes on cars that emit high levels of GHG, and offer tax breaks to consumers who purchased low GHG emitting vehicles.  This is known as a feebate program.  As a result of this policy, governments hope to encourage auto manufacturers to produce cars with less GHG emission.  Connecticut has yet to pursue this policy, however the federal government does have a similar program that offers tax incentives to consumers of "eco-friendly" cars.

Encouraging car manufacturers to make cars with less GHG emission is an option that the state continues to pursue, however they admit that this will not be enough to reach their target goal, in terms of passenger vehicle GHG emission:

"Connecticut’s increasingly cleaner cars will be overshadowed by the fact that we continue to drive more"

Because making cars "cleaner" will not be enough to reduce GHG emission to the level that the state would like, they pursue a policy of forcing people out of their cars and onto public transportation.  This is done by increasing the cost of driving:

"Implement a tax on driving (gasoline, toll, or mileage-based insurance) that would be channeled in its entirety to a dedicated fund to subsidize mass transit, walking, and bicycling."

Throughout the Connecticut climate change documents, there are various tactics recommended to state agencies in an effort to discourage the use of private motor vehicles.  One of these tactics includes adding tolls to roads.  Formulas have been developed to calculate how much of an increase in the cost of driving is needed to reduce private motor vehicle trips, as can be seen by this excerpt taken from a 2004 state document pertaining to climate change:

"A recent Connecticut report completed an analysis of travel demand mode shifts that would result from a value-pricing toll of $0.20 per mile in the southwest Connecticut corridor.  ConnDOT’s travel-demand model predicted that this pricing measure alone would create a 6 percent reduction in drive-alone trips, an increase in new rail trips of 72 percent, and an increase in bus use of 25 percent. The results are consistent with the results of the 1994 COMSIS Transportation Control Measure study, which indicated that a highway value toll of $0.10 per mile was expected to reduce VMT by 3.5 percent." 

The 2005 Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan states that getting us out of our cars will not only be good for the environment, but it will also improve our health as a society.  The idea seems to be that if the state can get people to use their bicycle or walk instead of taking their car, this will have health improvements for the individual.

"Health benefits from increased mobility. Auto­centric development patterns have  decreased mobility among adults and children, reducing opportunities for walking and  bike riding. The Surface Transportation Policy Project released a report this year  demonstrating a statistically significant correlation between sprawl, obesity, and  hypertension. Research suggests that people in compact, mixed­use areas reap benefits from increased opportunities to integrate walking and biking into their everyday  routines.  Smart growth seeks to encourage centralized, mixed­use communities with well­ developed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Given the myriad health costs associated with inactivity, creating opportunities for increased mobility through smart  growth has a clear (although unquantified in this analysis) economic value."

Of course taking your bicycle, or walking, to the park, on a nice sunny day, instead of using your car sounds like a nice idea, but when it is raining, cold, or snowing, and you have to get work, school, appointments, etc., waiting around for public transportation would be a terrible scenario, and in many cases, unfeasible.  The many positive benefits of having your own private motor vehicle is never stressed in these documents.

The possible list of quotes and citations from these Connecticut climate change documents pertaining to the reduction of private motor vehicles is nearly endless.  We could go on, but you get the point.  The state of Connecticut has taken the position that the Earth is warming, humans are causing the warming, and reducing the number of cars on the road will help stop the warming.

In the next analysis we will take an inquisitive look into the groups behind the creation of these policies and their curious connection with Rockefeller family-related organizations.

Previous reports on Connecticut climate change:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

In the first part of this series we discussed the question of whether man-made global warming was as factual as many of us are led to believe, and concluded that this was not the case.  In this second part, we are going to take a look at the different admissions made in the Connecticut climate change papers, as to the inaccuracies in their reporting and predictions.

Throughout the hundreds of pages of Connecticut climate change policy papers, the writers are forced to vaguely admit that the "scientific" information that they are presenting is not entirely accurate, and is subject to change.  In 2003, the state attempted to determine the level of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) produced in Connecticut from 1990-2000, and added the caveat to their findings that the process was "time and labor-intensive" and, as a result, "it was prohibitively difficult for states to produce inventories for more than one or two years."  In the same report it is stated that "[m]ethodologies for estimating GHG emissions are constantly evolving, and key conversion factors...change periodically in response to current scientific guidance."

Three years later, in 2006, they still did not have an accurate way to measure GHG levels, as they were forced to admit:

"The third barrier [to meeting 2010 GHG Reduction Goals] relates to the very tools and analytical methods used to assess current and future GHG emissions reductions. Some methods now in use are either not appropriate or very accurate when used to measure GHG emission reductions. This is due in part because the tools and methods developed to assess direct GHG emissions reductions either do not adequately account for indirect reductions (especially those for energy efficiency) or the assumptions used to verify the reductions are not as precise." [emphasis added]

Gathering accurate data continued to be a problem as exhibited in the 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health", put out by the Governor‘s Steering Committee (GSC) on Climate Change .  The GSC created an Adaptation Subcommittee, consisting of four working groups, to evaluate "the projected impact of Climate Change in the state."  The working groups stated that they could not make any specific conclusions using the data provided:

"All of the recommendations from the Adaptation Subcommittee workgroups centered on the need for additional research and monitoring programs to determine more precise risk, including the true financial risk of climate change. Many of the workgroups also found it difficult to completely account for all of the features in their assigned universe, prompting the need for further definition"

After making several specific predictions and scenarios of what may occur in the agricultural sector, as a result of climate change in the state, the report is forced to concede that "...it is difficult to accurately predict the many changes that will affect agricultural productivity in the next few decades."

Some of the statistics and predictions are presented in such a way that they can't be wrong regardless of the true income.  For example, they say that global warming will increase rainfall, but they also say that it will increase the frequency of droughts.

"Precipitation may increase by 5 to 10% by the end of the century. ...Droughts may increase in frequency, duration and intensity."

Therefore, whether there is massive rainfall, or a drought, these planners can refer back to their "predictions" and claim they were right, and that the change in weather is a result of global warming.

Finally, in the ultimate hedge on their predictions, the adaptation subcommittee essentially says that their reporting and predictions could be way off, and in the future, change dramatically:

"Change is the most certain element of our future climate. The climate impacts used in this report are based on the best available information at this time, but these projections will certainly change, and possibly very dramatically, as we gain a better understanding of uncertainties in the climate system (e.g., timing of melting ice sheets, tipping points, feedback loops). Therefore adaptation strategies must continuously evolve and flexibility will be critical."

So far in this series we have determined that not only is man-made global warming not a fact, but the way governments are measuring its supposed impact is not accurate.  In the next part in this series we will take a look at one of the changes that the state of Connecticut would like to focus on in its efforts to fight "carbon", and that is to force people out of their private motor vehicles, and onto public transportation.

Ten Documentaries about Undercover Police, the Rockefellers, 9/11 Truth, the United Nations, Scientology, Money, and more

A random collection of ten documentaries, with my description of each.  I post a different documentary, every time I watch a new one.  To prevent my documentary page from taking an extremely long time to load, I create separate pages for older documentaries.  This is page 3.

9/11 - Press for Truth  (added 10/20/13)

It is always a good idea to, every once in a while, watch one, of the many, documentaries that examine the events of September 11, 2001.  There are many inconsistencies with the official story, and "9/11 - Press for Truth" exposes more of them.  This film follows six women who had their loves ones killed in the attacks, and the fight they have lead to try to get the complete truth of what really happened on that day.  "9/11 - Press for Truth" is a well put together documentary, with news clips, and source material to corroborate the information discussed.  Recommended.

(Backup Link 1) (Backup Link 2)