You are viewing meltdown101

Previous Entry | Next Entry

 

One could not help but notice the constant emphasis, during and since the Obama campaign, on Climate Change and Green energy programs. The world has a real need to develop more oil independent energy sources and halt the wholesale rape of Mother Earth. However, hearing these pleas from Washington to London from the highest offices in the land only demand more thorough investigation. When one remembers that these same high offices have been responsible for the Iraq War, The Afghanistan War and the destruction of the economy, taking anything at face value is a precarious enterprise.

As in all schemes brought to life by Government office, the first question that begs to be asked is Qui Bono? When a Carbon Tax or a Carbon Cap and Share program is announced the one thing that can be assumed is that it will be designed to make money for those who usually make the money all along. To believe that Washington or London have developed a more altruistic nature and suddenly want to save the world, is to deny decades of Political and economic history. The road to discovering the real truth behind the plan is to follow the money, the players and the science.

On the Change.gov website there was a news release about the Bi-partisan Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, California. Among the attendees were Governors Rod Blagojevich (IL) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA). (The Terminator and The Auctioneer were playing their part in the birthing of the new “impending disaster” just as much as Condi Rice, Bush and Rumsfeld played their part in creating the “Mushroom Cloud” scenario with Iraq).  Mr. Obama had prepared a speech to address the conference via video. From the speech:

“Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”

We are presented with a doomsday scenario that seems to pale in to insignificance compared to the current Financial Armageddon which is approaching with ever greater speed. Action must be taken or otherwise we will be paddling canoes to the food shelter next year. The statement is meant to scare the population in to accepting more control over their lives by presenting themselves as the Saviors.  The statement is actually a motley collection of disproved assumptions. The consensus on Global Warming is seriously fragmented and former IPCC scientists are coming out of the organization in droves. They attest to political manipulation, gross misrepresentation of scientific studies to comply with the official line and a Heretic hunt for the unbelievers reminiscent of the Dark Ages. Climate skeptics have been likened to “Flat Earthers”. The irony in this is that the Earth was found to be round by using scientific deduction whereas Global Warming has been concocted through the selective manipulation and outright falsification of scientific data.

The recent Global Warming conference in Poznan in Poland was visited by 650 eminent scientific minds to refute the very basis of the Global Warming debate. Though Al Gore had said previously that the facts are in and the debate is over, it would seem he has a long way to go before he convinces everybody. The statements of these scientists have been compiled in to a minority report on the U.S. Senate committee on Environment and Public Works. Here are some of quotes..

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”  - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico  

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.  

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Look at the report linked above to see all the observations made on the current debate which Al seems to think has been settled. A group of these scientists also sent a letter dated 14 July this year to the U.N. Secretary General to “ask you to redress the lack of scientific integrity of the UN’s Climate Change Panel (IPCC) and to stop making reactionary and futile ‘Climate Change’ recommendations that hold back the developing world.” As an addendum to the latter data is included that disproves the assertions of the IPCC and exposes grave manipulation and outright fraud. Yes Al, the facts are in and the debate is far from over.

If we assume that Global Warming is indeed a political potpourri of half truths and lies, then we have to see why so much trouble has gone in to its creation. One simple answer?  Money. When we look at the campaign donors to Obama’s campaign, you could be forgiven your inevitable cynicism when we see the list contains the biggest players on Wall St. (Click image to enlarge)

 


JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley have already benefitted enormously from the T.A.R.P...
JP Morgan Chase used some of it to buy Washington Mutual for $1.9 Billion and Bear Sterns $1.1 billion. JPMorgan along with Goldman Sachs control the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation which is responsible for reporting on the derivatives market. Citigroup after receiving Billions in taxpayer money to try and get them out of a hole, have been using the money to create new derivatives that will be overseen by the DTCC. The interdependence between these Wall St. giants and their revolving door with Government power has been amply demonstrated by the policies of Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson. While there was unlimited money for the banking giants, the taxpayer was ignored and robbed. These are the same players who financed the new administration and packed the ranks of Obama’s transition team with its acolytes.  Remember Obama voted without hesitation for the Bailout Bill and encouraged his fellow democrats to do likewise. So what does Obama owe his benefactors?

By ignoring the real science and perpetuating Al Gore’s fraudulent disaster scenario Obama has taken up the torch and will carry it high for the profit of those who bankrolled him in to office. It will come as no surprise that Goldman Sachs has bought in to the Carbon offsets business. That is exactly what it has become; a huge business opportunity that will bring enormous potential for profit. The article sums it up quite succinctly “that banks buying into the offsets business could benefit if a federal carbon-trading system took hold in the United States. President-elect Barack Obama favors such a system, but some experts think that the financial crisis will cause Congress to delay passing a cap-and-trade bill.” So now we can see the dots connecting between a project which started as a “Save the Planet campaign” to a lucrative business venture. Obama’s insistence that Global Warming is top priority only goes to show just how quickly he intends to make good on his deal with Wall St.. Even Al Gore himself has his own investment in the Carbon Trading scam through his firm Generation Investment Management. Everybody except the general public, whose welfare, we are told, is such a top priority, is getting on the latest Investment gravy train. They tapped out the taxpayers by bleeding them until they were dry so now it’s time for a new investment opportunity that will cause untold hardship for the poor, impose a tax burden on industries trying to get to their feet after being knocked flat and inject another poison arrow in to the real economy.


Submit to Delicious Digg It Reddit StumbleUpon

News & Media Blog Directory




website statistics


Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
tribal_thrash
Dec. 20th, 2008 07:45 pm (UTC)
I have to ask, do you support the view that global warming is a myth? Or are you saying that it's not as bad as the politicians make out, because some of those quotes point at a refusal to believe in climate change... For me the debate about whether man-made CC was real or not was settled long before I read an article in 2005(?) in the Independent which crushed Exxon's final stand, because it turned out the calculations from a weather balloon in the troposphere were incorrect due to a heat transfer coefficient being forgotten. Once corrected, the data correlated with the majority of other predictions.

I am skeptical of climate skeptics, because many of them represent the vested interests of oil companies (e.g. David Bellamy). With politicians this makes me doubly suspicious. Admittedly the IPCC was accused of political manipulation, but this happenned in both ways, pro- and anti-fossil fuels. They also admit that this is not a definite answer (the predictions are far too widespread to come up with an "accurate" result anyway), merely an educated guess of today's environmental scientists. Either way, there are plenty of other good reasons to reduce emissions and ff consumption, such as the destruction of natural ecosystems, respiratory problems, etc. Also the question has to be asked, if we are unsure of the severity of climate change, how can we afford not to be sure?

I for one don't believe we can accurately model planetary geophysics at least until we reach a state where we have begun colonising other planets, but I do believe we can make an approximate estimate of the way things are going, hence the IPCC.

There are many benefits to a massive environmental campaign, wind turbines create much needed manufacturing jobs and carbon capture coal-fired stations (for the UK at least) reduce dependency on foreign oil & natural gas (NB: I'm fucking scared of Russia's clout), improved transportation will reduce congestion and create jobs... there are so many reasons.

When it comes to carbon caps, I agree caution is critical. Giving away permits to polluting industries rather than 'making the polluter pay' is complete bollocks (thank you Gordon and Angela). However, a GLOBAL cap with country division by population to prevent a determined level of CO2 equivalent concentration in the atmosphere is IMO a very sensible plan, and *could* include a trading system. National policies and interventions are important of course, but only in the context of a global plan, something that Kyoto failed miserably to produce.
meltdown101
Dec. 20th, 2008 08:00 pm (UTC)
The one thing that separates myth from fact is Fact. Period. If half the world's climatologists are saying it's one way and the others are saying the opposite then that is not a consensus. If the half that are saying that it is true are funded by Governement funds and vocally supported by same, then I get suspicious. When the likes of George Bush, Tony Blair or Gordown Brown stand up and tell me that I should be worried about global warming, my first question is Whats this guy's angle. When you read the article, there are too many interconnections between Government, funding, Banking and dissent. There is something grave going on here and on balance I am inclined to side with the non government connected independent scientists who have nothing to lose by voicing their opinions. These are the guys to listen to. If Politicians have lied to us constantly about everything else, why on Earth shoulod we believe them because it concerns Mother Earth, for which these guys have happily participated in the rape of her thus far ?
tribal_thrash
Dec. 20th, 2008 08:54 pm (UTC)
Sure, climate science is not always fact and much of it is in dispute. But how can you falsify something like air temperatures and sea levels? A few may do it under pressure or after being bribed, but I think it is fair to assume that the majority will complete the task for the sake of their career and credibility in the eyes of their peers. The result is a marked increase in both since the industrial revolution.

The problem with adding a government-suspicious filter (which I do, very often ;) ) is that you're likely to miss the motivations of the other parties, including more dangerous, private companies such as Exxon, Shell and BP, who have everything to lose by the world taking serious action against climate change. How can you be sure these 'independent' scientists/politicians are not influenced by research grants or campaign contributions?

Take George Monbiot (Guardian columnist) for example, branded a CC scaremonger by many, but a huge thorn in the government's side. Would you be more inclined to trust his opinion that Browns?

Funding for the IPCC has to come from somewhere, but I would be more inclined to read their report knowing that it wasn't underwritten by Big Oil. Sure governments will exert pressure on how the report is spun, but none can reasonably demand the scientists change the data, and me, being a simple creature, I see rising temperatures and sea levels, decreasing snow cover, accelerated melting of the arctic shelf and I believe. What the impact/extent will be I cannot say and I don't pretend to, but knowing that CO2 traps energy, and the increase in CO2 concentrations since Ind Rev I think it makes sense.

One thing that makes it really hit hard for me personally is the lives people are living here in rural areas of Ethiopia. You see the state of the crops you know there's a problem. Rainfall here is at a critically low level, and the WFP is seriously struggling to feed the world's poor, and this looks set to worsen. Having met and spoken with these people I can't bear the thought of not erring on the side of caution.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow