Tag Archive: global warming



The War on Consciousness & Modern Warming

To understand the history of global warming is to understand the cycles of the Sun as well as to understand and observe the impedance of deceitful legislation on human development, proposed since the days of Margaret Thatcher, that would cause further hinderance to the wellbeing of humanity and the ecology alike. Do not get tricked into supporting legislation that will continue the lies and avoid the real truth of the matter; the current state of extreme weather and warming is caused by the Sun and not by trace gas elements.

A war on the consciousness is another way of saying there is a war on the perception of the way we see our Earth, as well as the Universe that surrounds it; which greatly impacts the wellbeing of all life on this planet and causes a great detriment in the physical and mental development of the human race. The reasons for this aren’t always as nefarious as some “conspiracy theorists” would have you believe, but in the course of this 3 part series, “The Weather Wars: The Global Warming Fraud, The Chemtrail Experiment, & It’s The Sun Stupid!”, I will thoroughly explain the use of politics and perception to sway the consciousness of the people away from the reality of the Earth and its relative neighbors in space.

the sun from space

Weather Wars Part 1: A Look Into The Facts & Fallacies of The Global Warming Fraud
By Eric Anthony Crew, originally written September 2011

By now everyone with a television or computer is familiar with the terms “global warming,” “going green,” and of course “carbon emissions,” but what do these words actually mean?The theory of global warming reaches as far back as the 1880′s according to historical record.  The natural conclusion of climate specialists was to factor in the impact of human evolution on the changing of the climate, but belief in this theory requires the omission of important data that must be incorporated to better understand the entire scope of this topic. The Earth has been in a cyclical pattern of heating and cooling for millennia and we need to look no further than our nearest star for the proof. The problem of global warming is not that we need to create more laws and restrictions, rather that we need to revise the entire structure of how we view this issue and its source cause.

The hypothesis of global warming began as one of many uncertain scientific hypotheses, specifically stating that the burning of fossil fuels would increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere which would in turn enhance the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect was then calculated to create an exponential increase in temperature if CO2 emissions continued unimpeded. This hypothesis was regarded as unfounded for almost a hundred years in the scientific community because the original calculations from the 19th century indicated that the average global temperature should have risen more than 1° celsius by 1940, which did not happen.

As Prime Minister of the UK in 1979, Margaret Thatcher returned the hypothesis to the public and attempted to make it a major international policy issue. This issue would set the tone for years to come for all aspiring politicians, whether they believed in the theory or not, so as to not appear weak on protecting the environment. However, her reasons for doing so have come into scrutiny, as the 2008 ABC documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” has described in great detail. Her position was a reflection of her political affiliation’s goal to endorse nuclear programs without international backlash. The way to accomplish this task was to alter the public perception of nuclear technology, which the UK’s Conservative Party desired for ulterior reasons. After the General Elections of 1979, the majority of the coming Cabinet members were former members of the government that lost to the campaigns sanctioned by the National Union of Mineworkers in 1974. The returning politicians sought then for any excuse for reducing the power of the coal industry and their forerunners. A solution came in the revelation that coal-powered stations gave off CO2, whereas nuclear power did not. Global warming contributed the perfect excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.

nuclear_power_plant

That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were also required for the proposed upgrade of the UK’s nuclear weapons program, which the rival Labour Party vehemently opposed. Yet, after the accidents at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, public opinion of nuclear technology was severely damaged. That and the privatization of the UK’s electric industry, which held stake in coal remaining the dominant energy source, disclosed the fact that nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Thus, global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons.

Therefore, Mrs. Thatcher and her associates created the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, and the newly appointed councils were encouraged to place priority in garnering climate-related research. The Hadley Centre persisted as an influential component to this movement and later developed into the well-known and respected IPCC, or International Panel of Climate Control. All of the research and data compiled by these scientists have been funded directly from the government via public taxes. With economic systems beginning to wane, research funding began to lose importance to the public, but global warming remained as an important concern of  the world’s leading governments. Therefore whenever monetary support was needed, politicians would include fearful references to global warming if possible to scare the public into acceptance of further funding.

Understanding the history of global warming’s political influences is an important factor in balancing the views on how society should deal with legislation concerning waste and pollution. Superficially, the essence of global warming was an issue of environmental protection and saving the earth, and so the environmentalist and conservationist movements also began to endorse the effort to stop CO2 emissions. Public opinion was swayed from fear based rhetoric and thus man-made global warming was now the most influential international political topic of debate. The possibility of potential risk became undisputed “facts” in the form of proposed legislation to restrict CO2 emissions. It wasn’t until the Kyoto Summit in ’97 that we would see America truly jump aboard this issue, alongside UK political champion Tony Blair in proposing actions to have nation states commit to the limitations.

Global_Warming

The outcome of these legislations resulted in serious economic damage. The industrial and economic growth of any nation requires an abundance of available energy supply and whatever obstructs the supply and usage of energy will then reduce the economic exploits it is based upon. The governments were pressured to reduce their “carbon footprint” to nearly half of their emissions averaged in 1990.

However, there are those that believe that man is not the main cause of this change. To verify this claim, the rise and fall of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as well as temperature change need to be observed and cross-examined with each hypothesis. Records of atmospheric levels of CO2 since 1940 show a continuous rise, but during this same time the global temperature decreased until 1975 when the temperatures began to rise again.  All models of greenhouse effect suggest a temperature increase indicates warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. However, both NOAA and NASA’s websites release graphs showing that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model. Instead these empirical findings show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

Another part of the theory of green house effects suggest that the Earth’s temperature will change in accordance to the increase or decrease in CO2 levels, however details released by NASA indicate data for the complete opposite. As the Earth cools the oceans begin to absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide. Although because of the very large mass of the world’s oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register with the oceanic mass. Thus, studies conducted by scientists at drilling stations in glaciers, such as the Vostok station, show changes in the level of atmospheric CO2 follow changes in global temperature at around every 800 years. This does not fit the government and media endorsed postulate that our recent Industrial Revolution is the cause of climate change.

greenhouse

To fully comprehend what comprises the theory of green-house effect we must also understand the catalysts for the argument, namely what CO2 really is and does. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 0.054% of the Earth’s total atmosphere. The Earth’s atmosphere is but only one part of the total Biosphere, or all of the areas of living and non-living organisms within the Earth.  According to the American Institute of Physics, humans are responsible for less than 1% of that, or around 6.5 gigatons of emissions each year. While that number may sound staggering, these numbers pale in comparison to the 150 gigatons of emissions caused by other plants and animals annually. Decomposing leaves produce even more, volcanoes more than double the average emissions caused by man, and the ocean remains the largest producer of emissions in history. Therefore, collectively analyzing the data thus far indicates that man-made emissions alone cannot be causing global warming.

Even with all of this data being available to the public, there is still a majority of opinion that wants to believe in the notion that man is responsible for a sudden change in our global climate.To get a better idea of why this is, we must return to the panel of scientists that evolved from Margaret Thatcher’s Hadley Center, now known as the International Panel of Climate Control, or IPCC. By using the data findings released by the now infamous, “Fourth Assessment Report’s Working Group I Summary for Policymakers,” we can assess the opposition to this theory and where the relative science has led them. The report, which has been referred to in nearly every piece of global warming legislation since its release in 2007, finds that it is “very likely” that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.”

The United Nation panel, the IPCC’s “Fourth Assessment Report’s Working Group I Summary for Policymakers” combines certain scientific understanding of global warming and then predicts what the climate changes will be in the future if not maintained. The Working Group I included the input of more than, “1,200 authors and 2,500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries.”  The report concludes that it is irrefutable that Earth’s average temperature is rising exponentially, stating that it is proven from what is “now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.” The report also concludes that the two most important heat-trapping gases, carbon dioxide and methane, “exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.” Finally naming that the industrial revolution is the prime source for the start of this cycle which is “very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years.” Other important points expressed by this report claim that 11 of the last 12 years rank among the 12 hottest years on record and that in the last 50 years, “cold days, cold nights, and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.”

ipcc-chart-web

This is all very compelling information if only examined in itself, especially if not double-verified which is what is supposed to be attempted in accordance to the Scientific Method. To re-examine the above claims by the IPCC, we should also evaluate their disclaimer made directly under the aforementioned information. The scientists, after quite a lot of controversy in the refutations of certain findings, decide to create an addendum for their use of the word “likely,” even going so far as to create a graph of what “likely” entails. When the IPCC associates the word “likely” to a scientific finding, the term is merely a reflection of a specific range of certainty as defined by a chart on their own homepage, therefore it is not a Universal truth if they create the definition of their information.

To dissect the data released by the IPCC was a complete career killer for both politicians and scientists alike, whom would receive no further support if public statements or questions were made. This continued until the release of the leaked emails and subsequent book entitled, “Climategate,” by Brian Sussman. The “Documents” folder in the enormous data-file released by a whistleblower within the IPCC contains many segments of computer program code used by the IPCC that indicates intentional doctoring of the Climate Research Unit’s global temperature series. The data-file also contained a 15,000-line commentary by programmers concerned that the code and the data used by the scientists were fabricated to substantiate their original hypotheses. In one section titled “seldom-tidy code,” the immense number of filtering, processing and altering programs used on the raw data is unsettling at the least. Alterations that were so blatant included the removal of proxy data that inadequately correlated the measured regional temperatures, and even showed a complete replacement of proxy data altogether with forgeries to conceal the discrepancies between what the proxy data actually showed and what the IPCC wanted it to show.

Within the emails, The team’s programmers even admitted that they were artificially adjusting or “correcting” the proxy data from tree-rings. In the “tech world,” a programmer’s comment following data produced by mathematical algorithms is usually preceded by the statement “REM” for “remark,” indicating that the text on the line following the word “REM” should be ignored by the data collector that compiled the research at a later time. One of the remarks most often included in the program fragments disclosed by the whistleblower stated, “REM Uses ‘corrected’ MXD [proxy data from tree-rings] – but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.” Even going so far as to continue by saying, “These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.” These are statements made by the authority on the subject of global warming, with an admission that the data are being routinely tampered with for the sake of making the proxy data comparable to the instrumental temperatures.

global_warming_hoax

In one of the most revealing and controversial emails leaked, Professor Phil Jones of the CRU wrote to the authors of the highly popularized “hockey-stick” graph used in many arguments supporting the global warming hypothesis like the documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the emails the authors of this graph, Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, admitted to falsely abolishing the medieval warm period to continue with current beliefs. Professor Jones wrote, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” These are statements made by the chosen experts on the subject of global warming, showing they are at least perverting their findings, which is fraudulent and should be addressed as such. It is disconcerting to think of all the time, energy, and money that has been wasted just to support hypothesis that, when examining every supporting claim, falls short and even contradicts itself.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period between 900 A.D. and 1300 A.D. and period that followed called the “Little Ice Age” of around 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the sport’s utility vehicles or the industrial activity that could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, current research shows that the Medieval Warm Period saw the Earth to be much warmer than today and going so far as to claim the Vikings even were able to grow crops in Greenland.

The manipulation of public opinion and funding aside, there has been some positive changes that have occurred thanks to this global myth. People have become more responsible in their daily contribution toward the pollution of our planet. Even though our carbon emissions are not enough to cause the claims of catastrophic and irreversible events, it only benefits the Earth and it’s inhabitants to limit our waste potential. We all share the same air, water and earth on this planet and would be wise to continue to understand that there is always a reaction equal to or greater than the cause of an event. Yet that does not merit the manipulation of the world’s citizens into believing a theory for the sake of legislation and carbon taxes alone.

There are over thirty-one thousand scientists that disagree with the UN’s global warming claims by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), released by the National Post, which proves once and for all that this is not a view shared only by an uneducated populace. In fact, each of the 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The claim by most media-fed propaganda that only a “few conspiracy theorists” refuse to believe in the myth of man-made global warming completely contradicts the “31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhD’s” that signed the petition. The world needs accurate reporting on scientific claims, as well as accountable representatives as the figure heads for the experts that we are to rely on. By allowing legislation to be passed based on faulty, inaccurate and intentionally misleading information we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated into whatever laws will best suit the political endorsers of this claim.

CONCLUSION

The world now needs new representatives and experts to trust, ones that will base their new research on all of the sides of the issue and without the omission of data that detracts from proposed taxes. By revising our view on the cause of global warming, from the byproduct of the dangerous machinations of man to that of a cyclical process inherent in nature, we will be creating a future free of fear-based propaganda and misinformation. Mankind should continue to limit his contribution of detrimental pollution for the betterment of all living creatures and not for the propositions that will end up only benefiting of a handful of wealthy elitists. The Earth will continue to have cycles of rising and falling temperature and CO2 and in discovering this to be fact we need to correct our perspective regarding our personal impact on global warming.

Now that the political history has been explained we can continue the examination with Part 2 of “The Weather Wars – The Chemtrail Experiment” before ending this 3 part series with the evidence for the actual cause of global warming and cooling; the waxing and waning of the cycles of the Sun in the article, “It’s The Sun Stupid! How Solar Cycles, Solar Flares, & CME’s Cause the Extreme Weather on Earth”, (a semi-literary response to the Bloomberg Businessweek propaganda article, “It’s Global Warming Stupid!”

Eric Anthony Crew

.
.
.

AP UPDATE: Free EBook/PDF Downloads

.
.
.

Screen shot 2013-06-07 at 9.23.53 AM

Click The Above Picture to Download A Copy of Daniel Crew’s, “Man Made Global Warming? Watch Your Wallet!”

Of the reference material used; the first and most inspirational for myself was when reading my father’s short paper entailing the nearly laughable sciences behind Global Warming. This paper inspired the above essay, available for free download is Daniel Anthony Crew’s “Man Made Global Warming? Watch Your Wallet!

“Today’s global warming is part of a natural 1,500-year, plus or minus 500-year, solar cycle operating for at least a million years. The Earth’s climate has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years, in lock step with the waxing and waning of the sun’s magnetic activity (Science 2001;294[7 December]:2130-2136). Over the last 1,200 years there has been a “Medieval Warming” (900-1300), when Greenland was green; a “Little Ice Age” (1300-1850), when New York harbor froze, and people could walk from Manhattan across the ice to Staten Island a mile away (in 1780); and the current global warming (1850-?). Rather than “global warming,” a better term for this phase of the solar cycle is “Modern Warming.” Since 1850, temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees C, most rapidly in 1850-1870 and 1920-1940. Temperatures in the 1,500-year solar cycle fluctuate within a 4 degree C range – two degrees above and two degrees below the norm.

The Modern Warming is not confined to this planet. Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton (Neptune’s largest moon) in the solar system are also warming.” – Daniel Crew

Screen shot 2013-05-16 at 12.29.24 PM

Click the above picture to download a free copy of, “Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!”

The scandal that blew the lid of the “science” behind this global scam. Indisputable proof these scientists have been faking evidence for years. A must have and as always, free to download from my 4Shared page here, “Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!

Large PDF Breakdown of Time Table for Climate Gate Events

Click to download – Large PDF Breakdown of Time Table for Climate Gate Events

 

Click to download – Large PDF Breakdown of Time Table for Climate Gate Events

.
.
.

Screen shot 2013-06-07 at 2.41.56 PM

Shredding the “climate consensus” myth: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

.
.
.

A STORY OF INTRIGUE, DECEPTION AND SECRECY

“On November 17, 2009 some 3,000 e-mails, software files, and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were covertly released onto the Internet. In his November 28, 2009 telegraph.co.uk article “Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation,” Christopher Booker summarized the far-reaching ramifications of what was exposed in these emails….”

.
.
.

Causes of global temperature changes during the 19th and 20th centuries

.
.
.

Global Warming Is Media-Hyped Hysteria
by James M. Inhofe. At Issue: Is Global Warming a Threat?

.
.
.

http://youtu.be/S8F7jx4H36M

April 21, 2011 marks the one-year anniversary of the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) First Light press conference, where NASA revealed the first images taken by the spacecraft.

In the last year, the sun has gone from its quietest period in years to the activity marking the beginning of solar cycle 24. SDO has captured every moment with a level of detail never-before possible. The mission has returned unprecedented images of solar flares, eruptions of prominences, and the early stages of coronal mass ejections (CME’s). In this video are some of the most beautiful, interesting, and mesmerizing events seen by SDO during its first year.

“We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention…”

About these ads

Conscientious Agriculture

Conscientious Agriculture

Eric Anthony Crew

(UPDATE: Now contains link to download free copy of “The World According To Monsanto” here.)


An essay examining the misuse, misapplication and misinformation pertaining to science of agriculture.  By  Eric Anthony Crew

Allow yourself a moment to conceptualize a pesticide strain so powerful that we could easily eliminate the need for any new chemicals to be developed. Such a world would no longer have the bothersome insects that eat our fruits, and our gardens would remain free of predators or gopher holes that irritatingly thread themselves throughout the soil. But what are the implications of undertaking these actions? Rachel Carson, author and founder of the conservationist movement, answers this question in her article, “The Obligation to Endure,” by saying that if we are to continue to kill so many life forms indiscriminately, we should expect the very real possibility of human extinction. This is because of what these chemicals are and how long it takes nature to react to its use and misuse.  The misapplication of these dangerous chemicals creates an imbalance in nature that will end up devastating all of Earth’s life forms if we do not step in and start the process of checks and balances in this generation.

The deadly pesticides and herbicides that are constantly used today are creating a chain of death that continue for years after they are applied and have far reaching detrimental affects that are often not taken into account as a whole. In this civilization deemed the “information age,” we neglect to heed the warnings of numerous specialists that often tell us the very same message, that we are killing our world at a rate that will leave nothing but destruction for our future generations. The nature of the beast we call man is to change its environment so radically and swiftly that nature has had to learn to adapt itself to us, which, by all accounts is relatively new to the external factors that influence the evolutionary process. Carson’s article gave a detailed abridgment of the agricultural development of pesticides, herbicides and even other toxic pollutants that began to sprout up just before her time in the early 1960′s. While many could argue that an article written decades ago would likely have little to no relevance for today’s booming agricultural-based society, after reading her concise points most readers are left wondering why these problems are still around today.


With the advent of any dangerous chemical also comes the possibility of its proliferation, a consideration that appears lost on most individuals that use them. The side-effects from the spraying of pesticides have become such a constant in our mass-production of agricultural goods, that most people fail to even recognize when they are occurring. These chemicals deposit into the soil and later reach our insect and animal life, gallivanting its way from organism to organism only to eventually show itself in our water, air and food supply.

To better understand how we could end up destroying ourselves by the very creations we use to subdue other living creatures, it is necessary to investigate what these pollutants actually do to our environs. The chapter entitled “Environment Pollution” from the book, Chemistry: Foundations and Applications,gives a broad overview of these pollutants are and how they affect the world. Environmental pollution is the release of chemicals or chemical byproducts that cause harm to the wellbeing of the ecology and environment. These pollutants are often divided into certain categories: H20, atmospheric and soil pollutes, which are then listed as either organic or inorganic in nature . Toxicology is the study of effects of poisons on the human body. The main assertion of toxicology states that the dosage of certain chemicals determines the overall effects and postulates that just about any chemical at high dosages are dangerous for the cellular development of any living organism (“Environment“).

Even with all of these factors now coming together about the use of pesticides and the link to toxicity and death, many people still remain unconvinced that there is a need for immediate change. However, what is not often considered is to what level these pesticide and herbicides are already ingested, breathed and lived in within our daily lives. People just assume that governments and corporations will not be constantly poisoning ourselves along with the world just to make money. It is this assumption and the negligence of observing just how deeply these pollutes have become ingrained in our world that will be our undoing.

A perfect example of how blind we have become to the overuse of these chemicals and how embedded they are in our lives is by looking at the insertion of pesticides and herbicides into the genetic makeup of the very food we eat. Certain companies have decided to combat the pest problem to the extent of modifying their crops on a wholly different level by the manipulation of genetics. Ana Campoy of the Wall Street Journal reported on a historic chemical-company merge in her article, “Seed Giants Join Forces; Corn Made by Dow, Monsanto to Fight Insects and Weeds.” In accordance to the agreement, the companies will collaborate on a seed that combines “eight different herbicide tolerance and insect-protection genes into top-performing hybrids for the most complete control ever available.” The finalized creation will be protected against any threats from both above and below the soil. Monsanto and Dow agreed to pay royalties to each other for any seeds they sell using the other’s traits. Campoy reported on Monsanto’s reaction to this, “It’s an environment where you can add things you wouldn’t have independently and create new products that the industry would not have seen,” said Carl Casale, vice president of operations for Monsanto. Campoy also continued by writing Andrew Liveris, the Dow Chief Executive’s commentary concerning this rousing new agreement, “This is game-changing technology… When you put in a couple more genes, unexpected things can happen.”

If it weren’t bad enough that these chemicals are inherent in the soil we use and the air we breathe, now we must also ingest them at the genetic level. As stated earlier with the theme of toxicology, any exposure in abundance to these poisons will negatively affect living creatures. These chemical giants are even admitting that they do not know what will happen from the merging process nor are they offering any studies of these new chemicals to alleviate any concerns.

The fact that the government is lacking a responsible effort to study the long-term effects of these inventions is alarming to say the least. In fact, the only available studies of the long-term effects of these chemicals is in its aerosol form. The Food and Drug Administration states that they have been working diligently to reduce the pesticide residue in the imports from other countries caused by these aerosol sprays. According to the article, “Scaling Up Political Ecology: The Case of Illegal Pesticides on Fresh Vegetables Imported into the United States, 1996-2006,written by Ryan E. Galt, states that the adherence to the regulations of food and pesticidal residue creates a major health concern for the entire agricultural world. The main points of the article are that domestic vegetables have lower adverse residues than that of imported products, and that there are 14 main pesticides from an allotted 476 testable chemicals make up more than two-thirds of all violations (Galt).

Now it is clear that there is not only a continued use of these dangerous toxins, but also that there is an actual level deemed safe for ingestion based on region and country. Each of these factors still remains isolated from each other, however, when looked at by specialists trying to decide how to regulate certain aspects of chemical production and use. Keeping in mind that farmers have been dealing with pests for thousands of years without the help of such potent forces, it becomes a question then of why humans are so arrogant to think that we can continue to use these products without worry of any eventual effect on ourselves, let alone the rest of the world.


The answer can be found in the lack of proper media coverage on the use of these chemicals, especially concerning the implementation of genetically modified organisms. After looking into what the word GMO actually entails and researching the topic further, we begin to get a bigger picture of why there are so many citizens that are wholly unconcerned about the subject. The website, GMO-Compass,tells us that there is a necessity for these particular developments in the scientific community, especially concerning agriculture and the supply and demand of its consumers. Such developments proposed as necessary for humanity to advance, include the invention of genetically modified organisms, or GMO’s. GMO-Compass effectively describes the laws, definitions and history of genetically modified organisms to the average consumer. The site, financed by the European Union itself, suggests that the coexistence of GMO products and natural or organic products are a necessary and pertinent part of our society’s future (GMO-Compass).

The American conglomerate Monsanto, created GMO’s with the genetic predisposition to be completely unaffected by  the use of certain pesticides, namely its own product Round Up. These Round Up-Ready organisms actually contain a protein developed from a virus cell that the FDA claims is similar in nature to the proteins that humans have ingested for millennia. If you are to look at the reports of said hypotheses, you may be hard pressed to find one that isn’t paid for by the company itself. The benefits then appear to be only for the company’s profit and production of seed; which also carry with it a unique genetic coding called the “Terminator Gene,” in which the scientists have actually devolved the crops from being able to reseed themselves annually after the fruition of the crops. This means that the farmers would have to return to Monsanto year after year for the ability to have such “pest-free” crops.

The idea behind GMO’s originated in the mass production of certain staple foods to be developed for the hungry and starving Third-World Countries, which actually called for the “deregulation” of the years of testing the effects of these organisms on human life. If you were a politician in the 80′s and even into the Clinton administration of the 90′s, you were practically considered a heretic for suggesting such tests to be conducted, these processes of which have been part of the Scientific Method for centuries. Yet after more than twenty years of application and development the notion that these creations were for the feeding of the hungry seems to have mysteriously vanished. These countries are still lacking food resources and our developed countries have actually been projecting results of over-production. If it were truly the intention for these products to assist these nations it is clear now that something that went terribly wrong along the way. It appears that the corporations would rather continue to globalize and create profit than to assist in helping humanity rid itself of the pestering element of hunger.

Returning to Rachel Carson’s “Obligation to Endure,”we are reminded to look at the bigger picture, to imagine how we will leave the future and our generations of children that will have to deal with nature’s adaptation to our maniacal inventions. Perhaps then it is not unwise to suggest that the Bill of Rights be amended to include protection of our citizens from such obviously harmful chemicals and even radiation. At least insofar as to give us the right to opt out in the vote booths as to whether or not these chemicals should be used.

At this point it is unknown as to whether or not the processes described by Carson and others are completely irreversible, but it would be wise to consider the notion that we are all part of this world and are therefore subject to the changes this world will make in reaction to us. To sum up Rachel Carson’s warning is to recount a quote by Jean Roosted, the man that inspired the name of the New York Times excerpt; stating, “the obligation to endure gives us the right to know.” If the leaders of this world want to create a responsible society in our augmentation of health, the right to know and the right to vote in these processes must be made into a necessary part of our societal evolution. Otherwise the use of toxins sprayed on our food, in our air and in the genetics of the products itself will continue to deposit the poisons into everything we know until it all becomes too much for life to continue.

Eric Anthony Crew

——

Links to check out…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU

DOWNLOAD MOVIE via my 4SHARED ACCOUNT HERE

“There’s nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it — it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”. One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.”

“Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsanto’s long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.”

http://www.livefreerevolution.com/
http://livefreerevolution.blogspot.com

——-

The Botany Of Desire
One of my absolute favorite documentaries.

“Are we controlling nature or is nature controlling us? Michael Pollan reveals his view with four examples: the apple, the tulip, cannabis & the potato.”


नमस्ते

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 561 other followers

%d bloggers like this: