I just skimmed over the thread, but there's one thing I'd like to point out:

A global currency is impossible under our current system. For a global currency to work properly and not be undermined there would to be global standards on things like Rates of Interest - which would be impossible, as these rates are determined by a nation based on what is in its current best interest. Different countries would need different RoI at different times depending on where they were in the trade cycle, the objectives of the current in-power Government, and just the general development of the country.

A global RoI would not be able to work with that. I mean, look at the Euro, only a small number of countries use that at the moment, and the lack of control that the nations have had over their money has caused some things to be worse in some Eurozone nations during this recession then what may have been.

There's a reason why Spain, and other Eurozoners, are so far up the shitter.

Even if anthropogenic Global Warming is exaggerated. Wouldn't it be a good idea to prepare to some degree? I live in California and I know that we are (maybe were) the large produce producing state, but the American Southwest is prone to droughts. Couldn't that be exacerbated by climate change and wouldn't we run the risk of having famines in areas where food was a-plenty.

I don't think that it would necessarily cease to exist, but it would be along the lines of the European Union. The only problem with this is that , it makes it that much more easier to have a global currency and even the possibility of global government.

Now a "peaceful" global government wouldn't be that bad of an idea, the only problem is that they create financial collapses, stage false flag attacks ect in order to try to establish this.

It's not necessarily going to be implemented rigfht away to replace a nations currency. For example most countries trade with the dollar at this point( yet still use their own currency's in thier countries). What they want to do is create a supra national currency to replace the dollar. Then as currencies around the globe start to loose thier value even more, they'll push towards every coubtry adopting the new currency as their own.

Oops, looks like someone forgot to tell you that man made global warming is a scam and that it was actually the sun that was causing it.

While I agree with you, humans being the cause of the global warming is a giant scam, I would like to point out that there are certainly upsides to this fight for reducing CO2 emissions none the less.

We are starting to run short on fossil fuels, and any push towards less CO2 emissions, will bring a push for sustainable energy with it. And when one part of the environment is being taken care off, I think other parts start getting better taken care off as well.

First of all, Glenn Beck is an idiot. Second of all I'm not a conservative and niether is the newsite who published the article.  They were one of the biggest critics of the Bush regime so before you use typical Left Wing banter, get your facts straight.

I can't let this go.

As for volcanoes: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

As for the sun: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

As for the other planets, we have very little data, most of it coming in the past couple of decades.  We really have little to no clue about the climatological cycles of the other bodies in the solar system.  On the other hand, we have mountains of data for Earth.  I think we should be using data about Earth to make conclusions about Earth, not using data about other planets to make conclusions about Earth.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last point.  The current models are pretty good.  Model A is only natural forcings, Model B in human activity, and Model C is everything combined.  As you can see, Model C is pretty good.  Here is were the picture is from: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

As for what is affecting the climate, it is not carbon by itself like you mention.  Here are some links and the pictures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/        http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm

These also show how low the effect of the sun is compared to other things.

Alex Jones is conservative just not neoconservative. He's paleoconservative.

I personally think he's more of a libertarian conservative. I believed he endorsed Chuck Baldwin last year of the Constitution Party (which had a pretty good platform)