THERE IS NO GOD BUT GLOBAL WARMING, AND ALGORE IS HIS PROPHET
“The earth has a fever! And the fever is rising…[Something] basic is wrong. WE are what is wrong…If we continue at the present rate, virtually all the species of fish in the ocean will be extinct in the next 50 years…sea-level increases of 20 feet or more worldwide…We have seen the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees from an environmental crisis like Katrina. Imagine 100 or 200 million!” – Al Gore
So the fanatical haters of humans and industry would have us believe: coal-fired power plants, our barbecue pits, and our very breath have brought us to the Brink of Disaster. Poor Gaia, prostrate Mother Earth, ravaged by a cancer called humanity! Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by burning ex-plants, whether renewable wood or “fossil” fuels, is causing temperatures to rise. Too many people on the planet! Their breath emits more of the pollutant CO2! Their vast herds of cows and other food animals fart potent clouds of methane into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases (GG) trap incoming solar heat to the earth, temperatures rise, Catastrophe Looms: rising temperatures beget rising oceans that release yet more GG that traps more heat, and voilá! runaway Global Warming. We get cooked. And drowned. The planet dies.
Harass your Senator with calls, emails, letters. Sign a petition to stop Congress from crippling us based on falsified alarmism: here (1.8k signatures), here (70k signatures), here (179k signatures).
If you meet the qualifications (degree in science), sign this high-impact Global Warming Petition and send it in. Congress MUST be stopped from enacting Cap-n-Trade, the EPA must be stopped from its contemplated regulation of Greenhouse Gases, and Obama's Copenhagen Treaty must not be ratified by the Senate.
“Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination.” – Al Gore
Cattle (1.5 billion worldwide) are “responsible for 18% of “human-related” greenhouse gas (hrGG) emissions, more than all transportation combined, according to Livestock’s Long Shadow, a 2006 “report” from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Actually, it is 4% of hrGG, but various formulae transform cow flatulence and manure into a threat greater than jets and the internal combustion engine. And those ruminants produce 64% of “human-related” ammonia, which – get this – “contributes significantly to acid rain.”
Well. Ammonia is a base. It reduces acidity, acts to neutralize acid, for those who missed high school chemistry. And, how strange that the enormous population of cows, buffalo and bison (500 million – 1 billion) in the 1800’s didn’t give us Acidified Oven Earth…
“The planet has a FEVER! If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action!” – Al Gore
The European Union (EU) is hot to take action! They are pursuing a new Emissions Trading Scheme Item for Cow Farts.
At $175 per cow, it matches that under consideration by the EPA here. Dairy and beef operators would face bankruptcy if these regulations go into effect, and prices will have to increase to keep solvent. Add the effect of increased oil prices baked into Carbon Tax legislation, and we will pay even more: $6 per pound MORE for meat, more for milk (get ready for $8/gal), butter etc., and pay EXTRA in other ways to fund the offsets the industries will surely get Congress to pass.
All farmers would be affected: “Crop production emits nitrous oxide from fertilizer and methane from rice production, and fields that emit 100 tons of carbon would also be subject to permitting requirements as well. Any Florida farm with 500 acres of corn, 250 acres of soybeans, 350 acres of potatoes or only 35 acres of rice would be forced to obtain Clean Air Act permits.” And forced to buy Carbon Credits. And pay Goldman-Sachs hefty brokerage fees to trade them. And pass the costs along to us. Bread at $9 a loaf. Low-cost, mass-produced American beer at $17 per sixpack.
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” – Al Gore
The outrageous exaggerations and outright lies in his despicable propaganda "An Inconvenient Truth" are ubiquitous. Congress and the EPA are enacting laws based on that prairie pizza. Schoolchildren across the world BELIEVE. They have been successfully indoctrinated and some are already VOTING. In England, the High Court ruled that 9 errors were so serious that the movie could no longer be shown in schools without an accompanying presentation of its fallacies. The Court ruled that
"if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
The major exaggerations and lies are rebutted, soundly, scientifically, in Lord Monckton's 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie. And yet the MSM continues to spout the Religionist lies. Algore was awarded an Emmy, Oscars, and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (shared with the infamous IPCC) for this pack of poop. Liberals, Statists and One-Worlders are very keen to continue the push toward UN control of nations by Treaties promising to fight "Climate Change." At the Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference on Friday 10/23/09, Monckton noted that:
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it."
The tactics and goals of Islamofascist Jihad and the Global Warming Pushers mesh perfectly. Read Have we no Hannan, no Wilders?. Note the warnings of Geert Wilders:
It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: "Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance", and "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace", and "We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress". End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!
President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic 'Barbary' states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.
The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?
Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members. The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.
As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: "Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society" - end of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it's a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.
As Algore has become the Prophet of the GW Religion, the UN has become its Temple and repository of the Sacred Writings. The UN is the premier Institutional peddlar of the Global Warming Scam through its creature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, chartered in 1988 under UN Resolution A/RES/43/53 entitled “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.” The resolution states in plain doublespeak the UN’s “concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels,” and directs the IPCC to “provide internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic response strategies.”
In plain English, the UN is already sure that Global Warming is occurring, that its consequences will be bad, and charges the IPCC to document global warming, predict its timing and consequences, and recommend what the UN should tell governments to do to stop it.
The IPCC has issued four “Assessment Reports” (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007) with increasingly alarmist tones that promote the following notions:
1 The climate as of now (or that of 1900) is optimal. We must not let it change. We can stop it changing.
2 The planet is warming. Global Warming = Climate Change.
3 The warming is wholly or mainly anthropogenic (caused by Man).
4 Man and his activities emit greenhouse gases (GG) that cause the warming, the worst being carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, which turns into CO2 over time in the air.
5 If we do not reduce CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise past the “tipping point” and runaway self-reinforcing Global Warming will occur.
6 Observed temperature and sea-level increases, and glacier / polar ice decreases, indicate that we are at or near the “tipping point.”
7 Runaway Global Warming will result in:
a massive, killing air temperature increases (5–20 ºC)
b massive, fish-killing sea temperature increases
c flooding, tidal waves, 20-ft (Algore) or 2-ft (IPCC) rises in sea level
8 Life – plant, animal, human – will suffer horribly, die out to a great extent, and the planet will essentially be killed
9 Valiant, forward-thinking and Earth-friendly Ecowarriors can best fight hrGG emissions by instituting Carbon Taxes. (“Taxes” being unpopular, most countries use Carbon Reduction Plan, Cap-and-Trade, or other PC terms).
10 Those who do not join #9 to stop #2–8 above will hasten the day #8 arrives and deserve any mistreatment and will go straight to HELL. Convert, or die.
The Global Warming Religionists claim that the “science is settled.” Debate is pointless, “there is a scientific consensus.” Those who raise questions or present opposing evidence are publicly hounded, ridiculed, blacklisted. Scientists such as Dr. Alan Carlin, an EPA science analyst, are being stifled. He was told by his superior at the EPA in March 2009 to stop all work verifying or questioning IPCC reports. An email was sent to him:
The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
The Administration has suppressed Carlin’s report, banned him from writing or speaking about climate change, told him to forget about attending any meetings that addressed his main job function—climate change—and gave him a new assignment: updating a grants database.
As a Ph.D. chemist, I know damn well that Science is not Law, and terms like “consensus” and “settled” are PC doublespeak, not scientific terminology. As a historian, when I hear “that person is out of the mainstream,” I think of Galileo. I think of Alfred Wegener, ridiculed by the “scientific community” of the early 20th century for his theory of continental drift, and who died disgraced. The theory was later realized to be sound, and is now taught in high school as Plate Tectonics.
The only thing that counts in science is EVIDENCE, and it better be verifiable and reproducible. If a theory or hypothesis is found unable to account for certain facts, it is WRONG. If it does fit all the facts currently known, but makes predictions that turn out to be false, it is WRONG. And even where the theory fits the facts, and makes a few predictions that are verified, it is still not proved. Not ever. It will always remain theory, a working hypothesis, and subject to being disproved if new facts come into evidence.
And so, with respect to Global Warming and the Religion preached by Algore and sanctified in the United Nations, does the theory fit the facts? Should we cripple our economies to stop Climate Change, especially since China, India, Russia and others will not go along? Is it even within Man’s reach to guide the climate of a planet, or is that some hefty hubris?
Most of the following information was known when the IPCC published AR4 in 2007, and all of it was known when the U.S. Congress passed its Climate Change bill. All of it and more is known to the delegates to the Copenhagen Conference in this coming December. The science is flawed, in some cases falsified, and in all cases evidence is insufficient to pursue Climate Change Legislation. But the push is on, harder than ever.
What everyone agrees on: not much. Temperature measurements showed a net global increase of ~0.8 ºC from 1898–1998 (land-sea surface temps), with a 0.4 ºC (land-sea surface) to 0.6 °C rise (satellite) from 1980–1998. From 1998–2009 global temperatures dropped below the 1980 mean (satellite). The year 2009 has not been one of the warmer on record across the world. And measured CO2levels are increasing. Anything else? No. Are surface temperature measurements reliable? How about sea-level changes? Long-term temperature forecast? No.
Pro-Global Warming Graph using only "value-added" surface temp measurements
[note that the record low temperatures of 2008 and 2009 are not depicted, nor has the erroneous peak of 2004 been corrected (yet); 2004 was in fact below 1998, nor have the faulty forcing "value-adding" algorithms, based on cherry-picked tree-ring data, been removed; see the graphs following]
Less-adulterated (left) and unadulterated (right) surface temp. records
[Nota Bene: these are country records, not global ones. Since Hadley CRU now admits that they dumped all the original temp data back in the 1980's "to save space," (Climate change data dumped) and offer only the "value-added" data that has already been processed, we will not know the "unadulterated" global surface temperatures until someone else does the laborious task of re-gathering all the original data from the hundreds of measuring stations around the world.]
NASA: USA corrected (2007) to re-admit 1934, 1921 etc. highs Australia temperature record showing "value-added" Temps
Satellite Temperature Measurements (no satellite measurements before 1979)
Carlin’s report discusses six developments that render the IPCC AR4 report suspect, and notes that these are but a few of the new developments:
1. The 1998–2009 rapid cooling even though hrGG levels increased and emissions accelerated, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has now turned negative (meaning lower temperatures to come for ~30 years);
2. Consensus on hurricanes changed from supporting the idea that GW is causing more frequent and intense storms to neutral: GW has no effect;
3. New results indicate no evidence for, and some evidence against, the operation of processes that would cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice;
4. The amount of actual hrGG has far undercut IPCC assumptions;
5. A new 2009 paper disproves the critical IPCC assumption concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor, and shows the feedback is actually negative;
6. A new 2009 paper (Scafetta and West) finds the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures, and that solar changes could account for 68% of the increase.
Relevant excerpts from the literature that debunk the IPCC position on the three main points: Temperature Changes, Greenhouse Gases as a Cause of Warming, and Sea-level Rises. Much more information is available from downloadable .pdf full articles.
1. Temperature Changes
Global Warming: A Classical Case of Alarmism
[Note from TL: This graph uses observational data that appears to match the "value-added" surface-temp data so favored by the AGW pushers, but stops at 2000. The red dot / green arrow note the correct position in time (2009) but not the observed decline in global T since 1998 (–0.2 to –0.3 °C, according to the AGW Religionistas, –0.7 to –0.8 °C according to satellite measurements. The deviation from projected IPCC temperatures is therefore much larger than depicted and is actually well below the depicted mean (straight dashed line).]
This is a Guest Post by Dr David Evans
The big temperature picture. Graph and insight from Dr Syun Akasofu
(2009 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 2009).
The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter; the last time it froze over was 1804). On top of the trend are oscillations that last about thirty years in each direction:
1882 – 1910 Cooling
1910 – 1944 Warming
1944 – 1975 Cooling
1975 – 2001 Warming
In 2009 we are where the green arrow points, with temperature leveling off. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030.
There was a cooling scare in the early 1970s at the end of the last cooling phase. The current global warming alarm is based on the last warming oscillation, from 1975 to 2001. The IPCC predictions simply extrapolated the last warming as if it would last forever, a textbook case of alarmism. However the last warming period ended after the usual thirty years or so, and the global temperature is now definitely tracking below the IPCC predictions.
The IPCC blames human emissions of carbon dioxide for the last warming. But by general consensus human emissions of carbon dioxide have only been large enough to be significant since 1940—yet the warming trend was in place for well over a century before that. And there was a cooling period from 1940 to 1975, despite human emissions of carbon dioxide. And there has been no warming since 2001, despite record human emissions of carbon dioxide.
There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence. Although the models contain some well-established science, they also contain a myriad of implicit and explicit assumptions, guesses, and gross approximations—mistakes in any of which can invalidate the model outputs.
The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030
Furthermore, the missing hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern observed during the last warming period proves that (1) the IPCC climate theory is fundamentally broken, and (2) to the extent that their theory correctly predicts the warming signature of increased carbon dioxide, we know that carbon dioxide definitely did not cause the recent warming (see here for my full explanation of the missing hotspot). The alarmists keep very quiet about the missing hotspot.
No one knows for sure what caused the little ice age or for how many more centuries the slow warming trend will continue. It has been warmer than the present for much of the ten thousand years since the last big ice age: it was a little warmer for a few centuries in the medieval warm period around 1100 (when Greenland was settled for grazing) and also during the Roman-Climate Optimum at the time of the Roman Empire (when grapes grew in Scotland), and at least 1°C warmer for much of the Holocene Climate Optimum (four to eight thousand years ago).
Click on the title of the article for the full text and additional graphs.
--------------------------------------------
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Cause for Warming
From Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
Greenhouse warming is distinguishable from other forcings
hPa - Left hand side
km - Right hand side
Zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change (ºC per century, 1890-1999), from two natural causes, three anthropogenic causes and one combined cause, simulated by the UN’s PCM model. The “hot-spot” signature of greenhouse warming is visible in (c) and (f). (IPCC, 2007, p. 675, based on Santer et al, 2003. See also IPCC, 2007, Appendix 9C).
The UN’s diagram shows the pattern of zonal mean simulated atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999, in °C per century from six causes –
(a) natural radiative forcing from changes in solar activity;
(b) natural radiative forcing from changes in volcanic activity;
(c) anthropogenic radiative forcing from emissions of CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases;
(d) anthropogenic radiative forcing from changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone;
(e) anthropogenic radiative forcing from pollutant sulphate aerosol particles emitted to the atmosphere; and
(f) all natural and anthropogenic forcings combined.
These six plots, from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa barometric pressure (left scale), equivalent to 0-30 km (right scale), demonstrate that anthropogenic emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases, whether on its own (c) or combined with all other natural and anthropogenic forcings (f), is predicted to produce a signature distinct from that of other forcings alone. The reason why the combined-forcings plot (f) appears so similar to the greenhouse-gas forcing plot (c) is that the UN’s computer models predict that the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on temperature is greater than that of all other forcings.
This instantly-recognizable “hot-spot” on the altitude-versus-latitude plot of predicted rates of temperature change is the unmistakable signature or characteristic fingerprint of greenhouse warming which we have been looking for. The warming which the computer models predict will arise from growing emissions of greenhouse gases is visibly distinct in its magnitude and in its altitudinal and latitudinal distribution from any other cause of natural or anthropogenic warming.
|
All five of the computer models whose plots are shown above unmistakably predict the characteristic “hot-spot” signature that UN’s graphs show to be unique to warming of the atmosphere caused by emissions of greenhouse gases. But does observation demonstrate what the models predict? 
–0.6 –0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.3 +0.4 +0.5 +0.6 ºC
No “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic “greenhouse warming” appears in the record of real-world temperature observations. Source: HadAT2 radiosonde observations, from CCSP (2006), p. 116, fig. 5.7E.
-------------------------------------------------
3. Sea-level Rises From an interview with Dr. Nils Axel Morner,
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6, 2007 for EIR.
EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?
Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it’s a matter of physics. So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.
Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully.
Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow— I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don’t do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it’s not the first thing.
Projected Sea-Level Rise in the Maldives
So there we are. Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a drop in sea level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, “Yes, you are correct, because we remember”—things in their sailing routes have changed, things in their harbor have changed. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the sea, I drilled in lakes, I looked at the shore morphology—so many different environments. Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something. Not a change in volume or something like that—it was a rapid thing. The new level, which has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years. You can trace it so very, very carefully. No rise at all is the answer there.
Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear because they’ve put out too much carbon dioxide. There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it’s 30 years. And again, if you look there, absolutely no trend, no rise.
So, from where do they get this rise in the Tuvalu Islands?
Japanese pineapple industry which subtracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water availible from precipitation, rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring sea water into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much fresh water and in came salt water. And of course the local people were upset. But then it was much easier to say, “No, no! It’s the global sea level rising! It has nothing to do with our subtraction of fresh water.” So there you have it. This is a local industry which doesn’t pay.
You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji— there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising.
And again, where do they get it from? They get it from their inspiration, their hopes, their computer models, but not from observation. Which is terrible. |
109 Comments
Freebird
All of this information is useful but doesn't seem to make any dent in the Loony Leap to Subjugation. The proposed Treaty is especially scary - for us.
therealevil
Overpopulation is a problem. As a saying circulating the Intertubes goes, If there is a bathroom for every person in a household, you take it for granted that there's a Right To The Bathroom; if there are many people for each bathroom in a house, the bathroom privilege has to be rationed. You have lost that right due to overpopulation.
What I think you're going to find is that after the planned Kill Off, the restrictions on our liberties we accepted as inevitable during the period of overpopulation won't go away.
rennerstump
The sky is falling! The sky is falling, because its' fall you all!
slowsmile
I have read some of the very same articles and seen the same charts that you quote here. I've also delved into the arguments against Global Warming, and this evidence seems to speak for itself as well as easily convince -- we appear to be in a cyclical change, not a permanent dangerous change. Between 1944 and 1975 there was a cooling of the Earth, during one of the most accelerated bursts of industrial development and therefore CO2 increases in history. For me just this evidence, in itself, is enough to thoroughly disconnect CO2 from any CC hypothesis or debate.
Also consider that the IPCC was solely created to deal with the Climate Change problem -- so if CC is not true, all those astute scientists that work and are so well paid by this organization would be out of a job. Therefore, their judgements and hypotheses concerning CC would seem to contain bias and cannot be trusted as far as I am concerned. In one article that I read, by a reknowned scientist arguing against CC, he bluntly stated that if there was any dispute between an unproven theory or hypothesis and observable evidence, then logic dictates that observable evidence must always win the argument. But he also claimed that organizations such as the IPCC had been promoting directly the opposite.
The only problem with the CC theory is that the fear of Climate Change has been so actively and so efficiently promoted. Logic always seems to have a problem eradicating fear in these arguments, Al Gore being one of its richest and greatest perpetrators.
I liked your article, very thorough indeed.
TLaCour
"How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it."
Obamao already signed on as co-sponsor with Egypt of the infamous resolution banning speech if "offensive to Islam." The tactics as well as the rhetoric of the Global Warming crowd mesh perfectly with Jihad.
Read the treaty at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
You will find that none of the Islamic states will have to cut diddly-squat, but instead will receive billions in payments from the U.S., Australia, and Europe.
Sean
Very interesting article.
There are 2 issues. Is the climate warming. What is the cause. These are 2 separate issues. It does not follow that if the climate is warming it must be due to man made GH gas emissions. By the way did you know the principal GH gas was water vapour?
It does not deal with the ice sample evidence though from which we can date Co2 concentrations going back 100s of years.
In short these show that during the middle ages medieval warming period, the Co2 increases occurred after the increase in temperature not before. An increase in temps warms the oceans and the ocean releases Co2 when it warms. It absorbs co2 as it cools.
( According to the IPCC theory, the increases in co2 come first - as now - a green house effect is created, and this then causes the increase in temps. This is accepted as gospel).
The ice sample data is just one of many pieces of evidence which contradicts the ICCP theory. But it's a case of ignoring the evidence which does not suit the faulty argument - as is also well demonstrated in the article above.
There is little doubt that Governments see the co2 and other G/H gas reduction needs, especially the high taxing Europeans who are the main drivers of the greenhouse gas reductions, as a very useful new stream of tax revenue. They are not going to give up green house gas taxes lightly.
Nor is the ICCP going to admit they have got it wrong - especially now - despite the evidence disputing their claims. The tactic is to attack and discredit those who dare question. There are many many people who earn a living from perpetrating the currently accepted theory. There is a whole industry out there and they don't want to lose their precious jobs.
The bottom line is that man made green house gasses will increase despite any efforts of certain nations to reduce. The world's population is increasing and demand for materials that produce gasses to manufacture and transport will also increase. The emissions will just be created/shifted to countries which do not limit themselves. With the advent of new or higher GH taxes, there will be a new incentive by businesses to shift all forms of production to these countries. Costs will be lower as GH gas charges will not be levied. India and various countries in Asia will benefit. China, for one, is gleeful at the prospect of taking on even more of the world's production as such production is shifted at a faster rate to economies with the lowest overall costs of production. China and others are happy to build even more coal fired power stations,steel mills, aluminium smelters, industrial and consumer goods manufacturing plants etc etc to meet ever increasing foreign demand.
I recently saw one exasperated EU politician expressing the view that unless China, India, Brazil and others fall into line and reduce their GH gas emissions, the world is wasting it's time on the issue as there will only be net increases.
Well mate, China, India and others are going to ensure they benefit big time from the economic pain European countries and other nations inflict on themselves with GH gas restrictions and taxes so you might as well give up now.
And one last thought. It's amazing how a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians think they are so powerful that they can actually affect the world's climate. It is really is laughable. It's even more amazing how many stupid people there are out there that won't even question them or their motives and blindly accept whatever they are told.
Socratease
Media Ignore Al Gore's Financial Ties to Global Warming ...
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
March 2, 2007 - 10:58 ET
Yet, if America’s press would take some time out of their busy schedules covering the earth-shattering details surrounding Anna Nicole Smith’s demise, they might find a deliciously inconvenient truth about the soon-to-be-Dr. Gore that is significantly more fascinating and diabolical than anything likely to emerge from that courtroom in Broward County, Florida.
As reported by Dan Riehl (emphasis mine throughout):
Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.
Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be all over this tonight? Regardless, that was just the tip of the questionably melting iceberg as reported by Bill Hobbs in Nashville, Tennessee:
[H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.
Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself.
Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science.
Isn’t that special?
Yet, it is not clear that Gore’s money is going to purchase carbon offsets at all. Riehl reported:
Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.
AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC
According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns.
Putting this in perspective, for years the left and their media minions have posited that George W. Bush started war with Iraq to benefit the company Vice President Dick Cheney used to run, Halliburton, as well as Bush’s oil tycoon friends. In fact, there have been times when you couldn’t swing a dead cat in any pressroom in this nation without hitting a reporter working on such a story.
Yet, as the former Vice President continues to plug global warming as a coming crisis in need of immediate attention, the same media completely ignore his obvious financial conflicts of interest.
No liberal media bias there.
However, as Riehl pointed out, this story is even juicier:
To add insult to injury, Gore chose Peter S. Knight, an old friend and colleague some are sure to recall, as the US President of GIM.
Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.
This would be him: Reno Rejects Inquiry Into a Clinton Aide
Atty Gen Janet Reno decides against any further investigation of Peter Knight, Pres Clinton's 1996 campaign manager in connection with office building development in nation's capital; such an investigation could have led to naming independent counsel to look further into activities of Knight, who is also former top assistant to Vice Pres Al Gore.
Yes, thanks to Janet Reno, no one ever found out how $20,000 in stock turned up in an account for Knight's then 13 year old child.
Dispute over Democratic Party campaign-financing shifts to Zachary Knight, 13-year-old son of Peter S Knight, Clinton-Gore campaign chairman in 1996, who was given $20,000 in stock by William Haney 3d, chairman of Molten Metal Technology Inc; Republicans believe gift, which came after father was named chairman of campaign, was really payment to Knight, who had worked as $7,000-per-month lobbyist for company; Knight denies involvement in any impropriety; photo
Riehl accurately asked:
If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in? And given the history of Gore and Knight, are these people we should trust to drive a re-vamping of the world economy at the same time they're lining their pockets because of our much smaller carbon footprints?
Riehl marvelously concluded:
If Al Gore is successful with this latest scheme, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more $green$ than most of the earth. And the only green in this for you and me is the kind that accompanies envy as Gore trucks around on private jets putting dollars to offset his extravagance into a cash machine generating profits on the backs of the middle class with misrepresented science that doesn't deserve to be called science at all.
Meanwhile, a complacent media, rather than hounding Gore over his financial conflicts of interest, continue to shill for this conman’s junk science.
When you add it all up, this is a flimflam of epic proportions:
America -- what a country!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.chan
Friends of the Earth, a non-profit think tank on environmental policy, asks a good question in a report and video. Given what we’ve seen in the mortgage market, where heavy-handed government intervention created distortions that crashed the economy, why would we want to emulate that same model in carbon emissions? Think of cap-and-trade as the ultimate derivative market, based literally on vapor.
It’s the exact same mechanism Congress mandated on subprime mortgages in the late 1990s in order to incentivize lenders to make loans to customers who normally wouldn’t have qualified. It resulted in a major bubble in the housing markets, both in lending and in construction, with irrational expansion of home values that wound up getting highly leveraged.
Waxman-Markey and other cap-and-trade bills propose the exact same system, but instead of having real estate at the center of the derivatives — which has some value at all times, no matter how unclear the actual value may be — this system gets built on carbon dioxide. It’s vaporware in the most literal sense. In fact, it’s not even based on CO2, but on the absence of CO2. When it collapses, the derivatives will have absolutely no actual value at all, which would make a resultant economic collapse even worse than what we’re experiencing at the moment.
Anonymous
and here I thought H1N1 was the only god ..... oh well, back to the TV.
Freya
I've printed the Form, I was a Business Major but Paul's degree is in Math, he will submit it. He saw a show over the weekend which listed a particular Mathematical study postulating that if Man shut down All forms of CO2 emissions over the entire planet over the next 30 years, Global Warming would decrease by 1 degree.
Algore
Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) is a London-based investment management firm with an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on sustainability factors, including social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is chairman of Generation, and David Blood — previously chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management — is CEO. The pair has given the company its nickname, "Blood and Gore."
Generation Investment Management LLP is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the UK. Generation has built a global research platform to integrate sustainability research into fundamental equity analysis. The firm focuses on the economic, environmental, social, and governance risks and opportunities that can materially affect a company's ability to sustain profitability and deliver returns.
According to the GIM website they have sponsored a full energy efficiency audit for each employee's residence, including suggestions for ways they can make home energy improvements. In February 2007, a conservative think tank cited a report by the Nashville Electric Service that showed Gore used an average 16,000 kilowatt hours a month for an average monthly bill of $1,206 in 2006. The typical Nashville home uses about 1,300 kilowatt hours.[1] Since then, Gore "has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly."[2] Kim Shinn of the US Green Building Council said of the renovations: "Short of tearing it down and starting anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher" for sustainable design."[3]
TripleBlack
As a lot of you know, I'm in the science fiction trade, and therefore I hang out with some pretty strange - but smart - free thinkers. Some of them have phd's (some several), and many of them have resumes that include places like JPL, NASA, TRW and GE as employers.
One of my friends has an analogy that posits the earth's carbon cycle as a large SUV. Carbon dioxide is a large and important chunk of that cycle, and there is no denying that Man has a much smaller piece of that "chunk"...
Extending his numbers, which are really and literally "planetary" in size, he has computed that out of the entire corpus of the carbon cycle SUV, Man's total ongoing contribution to CO2 emissions is less than one of the SUV's lug nuts - in fact, just a few THREADS on that lug nut.
We are literally immaterial to the carbon cycle, PART of it,yes, but very much along for the ride rather than driving the SUV.
As for gauging the downstream EFFECT on something like Global Warming, which is itself only affected in part (and that a small part) by CO2 levels, the human effect is diluted a lot more.
Here is a very good article by one of my friends on this topic:
www.ldsmag.com/ideas/0...
This strikes at the roots of the fraud.
Swashbuckler
Al Gore is an extremely intelligent, warm and considerate person. Who always puts the interests of his beloved country in front of his own, regardless of how serious the conflict may be between the two. He is beyond the level of patriotic statesmen. Sainthood surely awaits. Finally, let me add in closing, to please look for Bernard Madoff to be pardoned in the next 12 months, and then landslided into the Presidency as a write-in candidate in 2012. And expect Tennessee and Saint Louis to play in the Superbowl this January. Respectfully, Swash.
InspectorBoyle
When we want to know what's really going on, we follow the money. Seems clear from the article and comments that the financial beneficiaries of this SCAM are the UN, its cronies in the IPCC and the pseudoscientists they give grants, the "developing countries" that include Syria, Egypt and Iran but not Israel, Saudi Arabia but not Australia, and Algore & Co.
Since in the US it will be Cap and TRADE, I wonder if anyone has figures on what they stand to make brokering the trading?
TLaCour
JimQ, you're savvy on financial stuff. Do you have any idea why GS has been pushing Cap-n-Trade since 1999 or early Oh-Oh's, or any figures on what trading they've locked up?
Goldman Sachs and the Real Global Warming HoaxArtfuldodger
Good work, TL. Thank you for it!
I wish I could disagree with it, but sadly cannot.
As I have written on other posts, the US is thus doomed to end as so many empires past: the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite, Troyite, Hellenic, Macedonian, Israelite, Karthaginian, Tuscan, Roman, Byzantine, Hapsburg, Dutch, Persian, Viking, Spanish, Ottoman, French, Romanov, and English—fallen and forgotten.
TLaCour
OK, did a little research, and am satisfied Senator Joyce is probably a straight-shooter. So good for him for bringing up the elephant in the room, the likely demise of the U.S. Dollar. No question Australia will feel the tsunami that follows.
From one of his articles (http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=134&Itemid=296)
Joyce
"The Australian Emissions Trading Scheme is merely a policy, a political statement, a gesture. The cost to the Australian citizen of this massive new tax associated with it, is very real however.
If you are involved in the emission of carbon, which might be from anything as obscure as ironing your clothes, cooking dinner, putting fertiliser on your field or pouring a concrete slab for your house, you will pay the tax. You may not see it but you will definitely pay it.
The removal of wealth from your life and transferred to the Treasury will be discernable, with the commission going to stock brokers and bankers on the way through.
I have to query, is the purpose of the Emissions Trading Scheme to cool the planet, which clearly it will not do, or is it to prop up a parlous state of our Government finances? The more I hear, the more I am inclined to the latter.
Australians will deliver tens of billions of dollars to the Treasury by reason of this tax in the near future.
There is far more empirical evidence in what it will cost you, the resident of Australia, than any scientific evidence that an emissions scheme will do anything for the climate."
TLaCour
Have you read Inside The Great American Bubble Machine? I can't vouch for Taibbi, but he raises some interesting points regarding Goldman-Sachs (GS):
Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they're the profitmaking slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief of staff.) Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank's environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson's report argued that "voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate change problem." A few years later, the bank's carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that cap-and-trade alone won't be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further public investments in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World Technologies) and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy. As Paulson said at the time, "We're not making those investments to lose money."
The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utahbased firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There's also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in greentech … the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energyfutures market?
"Oh, it'll dwarf it," says a former staffer on the House energy committee.
Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe — but capandtrade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private taxcollection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected.
"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedgefund director who spoke out against oilfutures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."
Mayascribe
I come from an archeology and anthropology angle about the falicy of global warming. I have written several times before here on SA that the oceans have risen by one meter during the last thousand years, proven by a study from Heather McKillop in her book titled "Salt: The White Gold Of The Ancient Maya," where she found pottery sherds and evidence of charred wood in one meter of water off the coast of Belize.
These in situ sites were put in place by working ancient Mayans as they converted sea water into brine salt for trade, again underneath one meter water.
I've met Heather and she has had a large impact on the implications of mankind's impact on the environment. Unfortunately, nobody who makes decisions is listening. But as a group, for the most part, the intellects who work to better understand the ancient Maya, know that the theory that global warming is caused by mankind is a farce.
You can read more about her work here (or just skip to the second paragragh):
findarticles.com/p/art.../
By the way. Terrific article. You should forward this basket of insightful basket of knowledge to the White House, every senator, and every representative.
Also, you may want to forward your article to freedomworks.com
optionsgirl
Germany's Merkel was at the White House 11/3, and supports international climate change agreements. Oy, gee.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20...
TripleBlack
Freya, feel free. There's a link to my recent artwork which is on my website at stanbruns.etsy.com on my SA profile. I just focus on the artwork there - I've bailed out of the illustration gig pretty much, the wages kept dropping and the work kept getting harder and harder to find (and as one grows older, one's tolerance for fools starts to wear thin)...
But over the decades I've met a LOT of the SF and F luminaries. I know Anne McCaffrey personally, spent time shuttling her around Atlanta the last time she was here (in a Mustang, naturally) - I've done work for Michael Moorcock (great fantasy author) - I've met Dean Koontz, know Janny Wortz, met Ray Bradbury, shared a podium with Tom Clancy, etc, etc. I am in NO way famous but in my own limited way, I've had some good days. I was also a worker in the SF&F Fandom fields. I ran the DragonCon artshows for 10 years - the World Science Fiction Convention show once - the World Fantasy 3 times, and World Horror twice. You get to meet lots of working professionals that way.
When I talk about discussing global warming with experts, folks like Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven spring to mind, though I will also never forget being in the room when Robert A. Heinlein informed the crowd that he WAS an "environmentalist" - but that "Humans ARE a part of the environment". It miaght have been "Technological humans...", but the other line is the famous quote.
I also moderate at another website which is dedicated to a hobby of mine, cars: allfordmustangs.com where I go by tripleblack as well - check the Hot Zone if you want to see a ton of political debate. I'm a Libertarian, btw. Before that I was an Objectivist (big Ayn Rand fan, of course), which predates the Libertarian Party which didn't get cranked up until the 70's.
I do not consider ANY of this as all that germane to investment advice, however. I'm just another noobie who's trying to figure things out, and smart folks like yourself are the ones I AM listening to.
optionsgirl
Diane Sawyer interviewing Al Gore:
newsbusters.org/blogs/...
optionsgirl
British cowards:
www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
ReverseEngineer
This idea is plain stupid. Carbon emissions will fall because we have less fossil fuels left to burn anyhow. W already have clathrates in the Arctic Ocean melting, so we passed the tipping point already anyhow, and any climate change can't be stopped now regardless. The world is ALREADY a polluted cesspool, its too LATE for any of this to make a difference.
In any event, by the time they get this ball rolling, the Monetary System will be Toast, and there will be nothing to credit here. Its a non-issue.
RE
Artfuldodger
Friends, I promise you will learn a lot if you watch both of these videos; they will provide you with the ammo you need to refute the Warmers. AD
Really Good Film Showing How World Temperatures Were Warmer Before the Industrial Age and Even After World Temperatures Were Going Down---And More! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLQWPCmvcIA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbhM9bXk8qo&feature=relatedFreebird
The US-Egyptian resolution must be seen for what it is, a piece of the Edifice with the cornerstone the Copenhagen Treaty. The goal of global domination still rests warm and hale in the hearts of the commies-cum-socialists, those running things in the US, Europe, and throughout the Islamic world.
TLaCour
GREAT finds, Artful! Fun and enjoyable, thanks a lot! I'm a-going to watch all 5!
They got the part about northern England's thriving grape-growing, wine-making industry in 1300, but they missed Sctoland's similar industry in 1100. There was a substantial climate change (cooling) all over Europe, North Africa, and the Near East / Middle East beginning in 1200. By 1300 Scotland was too cold to grow grapes. By 1500 not a vineyard was left on the island.
We're not even as warm as 1000 A.D. yet. I HOPE we CHANGE to a warmer climate :))
hic.
FreeMadoff
The use of Global Warming to distract from real problems has a long, successful history. Remember this from before the Implosion?
Law.com - Tough Talk on Countrywide Mortgage SuitsSan Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre says he wants to remain legally untied from AG Jerry Brown because the attorney general isn't pursuing the best sanctions against Countrywide's new parent company, Bank of America Corp. Aguirre, backed by several consumer and community groups, is seeking a quick moratorium on Countrywide home foreclosures as well as a deal that would rework certain subprime loan terms to link borrowers' payment rates with their net income.
Robert Gnaizda, general counsel of the Greenlining Institute, a Berkeley, Calif.-based lobby for low-income and minority communities, said Brown's stature and legal position has enticed Bank of America to negotiate with him only and not with Aguirre or other groups that want more sweeping concessions.
Gnaizda said Brown listened politely to the leaders' concerns and then "said the problem that really concerns me is global warming." Brown continued to talk on the topic for approximately 40 minutes, Gnaizda said, and then the meeting ended.
"People left there scratching their heads," he said.
Faith Bautista, the executive director of Mabuhay Alliance of San Diego, a Filipino-American nonprofit, said she, too, attended the meeting and corroborated Gnaizda's version of events.
"When something was mentioned about global warming it was like suddenly [Brown] was awake," Bautista said. "I didn't feel like he had any concern about what we were saying."
TLaCour
The i-Nazis continue to gain power, both real and potential. They are a clear and present danger. Remember the Town Hall meeting where a gang of SEIU thugs beat a black conservative into the ER? No charges, like none against the Black Panthers "patrolling" polling places in Philadelphia, THANK YOU Asshole-General Holder.
They enjoy taking credit even where it is questionable whether they were more than marginally relevant. The demise of Ken Lewis at Bank of America is widely touted on the Left as being due, not to poor financial management, but to Green Activism. In a "dispatch from the Youth Climate Movement (April 29, 2009):
Blue-Green Alliance Rallies to Oust BofA CEO Ken Lewis « It's ...Ken Lewis Ousted as Chairman of the BofA Board, Remains CEO
Environmental activists showed up to draw the connections between Bank of America and the build out of new coal fired power plants (including Duke’s Cliffside plant).
Protest pictures here
Activists from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) rallied as part of an ongoing “Fire Ken Lewis” campaign. Clergy, former Bank of America employees and union leaders called up the shareholders to end Lewis’ tenure as Chairman and CEO of the struggling bank.
Kinda weird? If the shareholders oust Lewis it will be unprecedented for a Fortune 500 company. Usually CEO’s get 99% margins of approval from their shareholders on such resolutions.
jeb
As requested, here's relevant information on the Global Warming scam.
Here are the set of links to Bob Carters talk on "Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?" - (Part 1 of 4, Part 2 of 4, Part 3 of 4, Part 4 of 4) and his more formal talk on testing "Climate Change - Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2" (Part 1 of 2, Part 2 of 2).
His specific talk affords me the limited comprehension I have on this complex topic. At it's core are a number of scientifically backed statements. Such as, "Most of the public statements that prompt the dangerous human warming scare are made from a position of ignorance.", and goes on to explain climate alarmists garnering media coverage are doing so with no more scientific knowledge than that possessed by, 'Chicken Little'.
Also found anew and reviewed are the following:
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Part 1 of 2 & Part 2 of 2
TLaCour
Nicely researched article, WiserNow, thank you for the work. Lewis has a very solid reputation, well-earned, but I hadn't seen this work, so thank you for yet another nail in the Scam-n-TradeToEnrichAlgoreAndGoldmanSachs coffin being built.
Temperature rises precede increased CO2 by several hundred years, and that pattern has been verified over many millions of years worth of ice-core and plant-fossil data. The entire notion of high CO2 leading to high temperatures is exactly wrong and backward. This alone ought to put the lie to the GW Religion, but the evident tie-in to global fascism of militant Islam, and the extremely dirty and self-serving nature of Gore the PU$HER, make clear WHY they still push the propaganda.
The notion that control of the entire planet and its climate is hubris. To consider that such control is beyond Man's reach, at least with current or near-future tech, is correctly realistic if not laudably humble.
To see science executed properly, as Dr. Lewis does in Cap & Trade: Another Step by the Obama Government ...
, is a refreshing change from the voodoo practiced in the dark halls of the IPCC. Or will be dark, if their agenda is adopted. These International Socialists (Iazis, or Yazis) must not be allowed to perpetuate the propaganda that CO2 reductions can achieve their stated goal of climate stifling. To see proper scientific analysis used to completely debunk the Hubris of the Yazis is so refreshing that it merits a full tumbler of some high-carbon-footprint whiskey.
Sean
The trouble TLC is that the IPCC view continues to retain momentum and standing despite the nonsense that it is propagating. Most Governments and their officials are buying it and are acting accordingly. No one wants to be seen to be opposing the UN and there are many hidden agendas which encourage following.
Then there is the popular media which is good at regurgitating press releases, running whatever is the current thinking, running their own agendas but little else. Honest analytical journalism is basically dead. The popular media is essentially buying the IPCC line. You see this in Europe, the US and elsewhere. They also love to run the alarmist stuff showing masses of melting ice, forecasts of sea level rises and of course the tropical storms. It sells so nothing else much matters. Every time a coral based land mass in the Pacific is inundated by sea water due to sinking and a collapse in the coral base, they are there with the cameras to proclaim that the sea levels are rising and that C02 restrictions will fix it up.
It is amazing the extent to which the media will accept, without critical analysis, whatever utterings are made by Governments on a whole range of issues from the economy to foreign affairs.
Until there is a revolt by the popular media debunking the myths being propogated by the IPCC, by Governments and by all the vested interests, and publicising the alternative view, nothing much will change. I just don't see that happening. The popular media seem to have taken the view that there is much more in it for them by going along with current thinking (the "religion" ) than by running the alternative view backed up with factual evidence. The so called "consensus view" that is constantly pushed in our faces is just accepted as fact.
LiedTo
Signed all three petitions (not the scientist one).
Called my Senators' offices (Sherrod Brown, George Voinivich). Both offices, same reply:
1. "The Senator has not taken a position on the pending Climate Change legislation."
2. "We are not aware of any final treaty under discussion."
Both are reported at Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/multimedia/video/39752-1.html) speaking very WARMLY of the bill's chances.
fatvito
Just sayin, what if you all are wrong and they are right. Only time will tell. Is that not why we buy insurance? I admit to being semi clueless. I do know I want clean air and water and am willing to pay extra and am pretty sure I already do. I have two kids with severe asthma, so while I can not speak to Global warming, but if the effort helps to clean up the air we breathe, I am in.
mjs034
I am sure everyone wants clean air and clean water. But do want it at ANY cost? Do you want it at the cost of your freedom?
TLaCour
RE, I only now saw your comments, and think them important to address. I will repost this in the main, because this thread has become buried.
RE, you wrote "How it all ends up affecting the overall climate is anyone's guess, but its unlikely to be quite the same as it is now in a century or so. Meanwhile, we have more pressing problems of economic and social collapse, which might very well be followed by Global Thermonuclear War. This is something we CAN do something about, so its more worth pondering on."
Maybe you skipped the parts of the article that agree with your first sentence, and conclude that the GW thing is a) not affectable by us, b) a scam run for money and power, and c) those pushing the scam are seeking money and power to advance an oppressive agenda. It follows that D) this push is a clear and present danger that we CAN, and had BETTER, do something about. If we permit its imposition here on this society - or worse, impose it globally - the resulting economic and social problems will be exacerbated, and collapse rendered more imminent and of greater viciousness.
The point of the article is exactly that this is something we CAN act on, with effect.
TLaCour
fatvito, your points are well-taken. I think all of us who are awake, aware Free Citizens, want conservation, and clean air and water. For your kids, for ours, for ourselves, but most of all because it is the Right thing to do. It is part of the duty of good husbandry. But our bodies are evolved to handle CO2 concentrations several times what we currently have, and its presence in the air is nutritious, not polluting. CO2 has no effect on asthma at those levels. CO (carbon monoxide) does, but that is a different question.
It is critical to be honest about the effects we have, or don't have, and what we can accomplish. CO2 reductions as pushed by the GW Religion are a scam, and will NOT stop the warming that is natural and has been going on since the bottom of the little ice age (1750). Reducing pollution, yes I am down with that. But CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the basis of the food chain, as any plant will gladly tell you.
ReverseEngineer
Per TLCs request, I am posting this in the main thread:
As long as Carbon Tax Credits will be a source of Profit for the Squid, we CANNOT do anything about this until we take down the Squid, aka Goldman Sacks the Taxpayer.
Haven't you grasped by now that Da Goobermint is NOT responsive to your emails, your petitions, your protest marches OR your votes? Welcome to the Fascist State of Amerika, a Fully Owned Subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.
TLC also is of course aware of this, I was merely making the point that although I consider many environmental problems to be VERY real and not merely a ploy and disinformation, its not really all that relevant because either way, the main problems are in who is running the show in the here and now. Whether or not you think Climate Change is anthropogenic or not isn;t the crux of the issue. The important point is ho this is used as a means for controlling and maintaining the power structure of the Oligarchy. I tend to focus down more on the source of the problem, and IMHO the climate arguments are a distraction ecause you get into discussions of whether this is or is not really happening. It doesn't MATTER. What matters is how you are being ROBBED, not just of money but of your rights as well.
RE
TLaCour
RE, you wrote:
"As long as Carbon Tax Credits will be a source of Profit for the Squid, we CANNOT do anything about this until we take down the Squid, aka Goldman Sacks the Taxpayer.
Haven't you grasped by now that Da Goobermint is NOT responsive to your emails, your petitions, your protest marches OR your votes? Welcome to the Fascist State of Amerika, a Fully Owned Subsidiary of Goldman Sachs."
YES! I get that, I just don't admit they CAN NOT be fought. I only admit that they cannot be defeated under the current electoral system and the current Constitution. They CAN be fought in a holding action, or slow retreat, until fresh troops arrive.
I have argued for a long time in these pages that the "corruption" described by Jefferson with respect to Hamilton's manner of controlling the Legislature is so well-entrenched, so embraced finally by most of the Founders, and so easily defensible in the Constitution as written (that's why Hamilton wrote it that way, unlearn the Useful Myth that Madison is the Father of the Constitution) that to change it would require a new governing document, as I called for in Can a Constitutional Convention Fix This?. For a working draft of the most critical of the requisite changes, see A DESIRABLE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The current (and most former) Congress and President are not wholly insensitive to petitions, calls etc. SOME response is seen: witness the slowdown on the hurry to pass National HealthSmear and the current poor prospect of the Climate Change legislation. They know that they are still THEORETICALLY vulnerable to defeat at the polls. They are also generally insensitive and arrogant , because they know that we ACTUALLY operate under ELECTIONS DESIGNED TO FAIL. This situation was fluid until LINCOLN, FRENEMY OF LIBERTY, and has since become ALMOST unbeatable.
But it is not yet omnipotent, as the misguided Republican landslides of 1980 and 1994 show. It is therefore possible, however unlikely, to elect a Congress willing to go for a redo. Returning Republicans to power would be pointless - no, worse, it would be counterproductive. Either a great wave of independents, as GOOOH proposes, or a series of minor parties that coalesce into a new one is required. That is how the Republicans became a major party in the first place, after all.
My view is that all support of the thinking, aware Citizen should be withdrawn from the Republicans. They are dirty and compromised at the core, and it will not change. That is why Palin and Paul are treated as they are. That is why Reagan was not allowed the nomination until he was "safe." Reagan 1980 was smoke and mirrors, as were Gingrich and Bush that followed. They are Statists, and will always be so. Goldman-Sachs may currently contribute more to Democrats than Republicans, but it is all show. Hank Paulson was Bush's Treasury Secretary, for God's sake, is anybody AWAKE out there?
Congress has been derelict in its duty to honor Article V for a century. It has received more than the requisite State applications for a Convention several times over (754 at last count, http://www.article-5.org/). A not-Democratic, not-Republican House would honor that duty, and the hapless turds in the Senate, in fear for their reelection, would acquiesce.
What happens then? Well , we might win. I'd rather fight to win, and lose, than sit here on this board with a pile of complainers and never know.
ReverseEngineer
The dereliction of duty by Congress is palpable and beyond measure at this point. However, as you yourself have written, this situation has been going on since the time of Lincoln, and as I have tried to demonstrate it goes further back than that, well prior to the American Revolution.
So, given the HISTORICAL FACT that not even the VIOLENT means of the American Revolutionary War OR the War for Secession (if you prefer this to Civil War as a Title for that conflict) were able to effect real change in who was running the show, upon what basis would you consider it possible that a non-violent coallescence of minor parties and "voting the rascals out" could POSSIBLY work here to rectify this situation? I do not see any sound basis for such an argument, moreover I warrant you that all of History argues otherwise, including of course the Seven Days in May of 1917, the Day that will Live in Infamy AND the Assassinations of Archduke Ferdinand, John and Robert Kennedy et al.
I see no possibility whatsoever that these conflicts will be resolved by peaceful means, moreover even by violent means the problems are so entrenched that expunging the system of the Evil which infects it is quite difficult to do. It hasn't been successful here in about a dozen or so attempts over the last 300 years , and only now might it just be possible because of resource depletion, which undermines the will toward Global domination by TPTB. By no means will it occur peacefully however, so really you can only try to hold tight with those you care for until the Big Show comes to a Theatre Near You. And come it will, I GUARANTEE it, to even the most remote places on earth like the one I live in. The writing is on the wall for all to read. You just got to be READY for it when it comes, and when it does, you got to know which side of the line you stand on. This one is really the BIG one coming down the pipe. Its the fight for the SOUL AND SURVIVAL of the Human Race. I wish you and all those who will fight the good fight the best, and I will meet you on the Other Side when we all Go to Glory. I condemn all those who will fight against us to Everlasting Damnation Burning in the Fire and Brimstone of HELL. That is the way I see it.
RE
Socratease
Tyranny on the rise here since before 1776. True. But it DID have a setback in the Revolution.
As an example of real improvement in WHO was running the show, as well as an improvement of the show itself, the Revolution should not be dismissed for less than it was. Some improvement from the situation of 1765 did occur. That it didn't last beyond the Articles of Confederation, or beyond the Presidency of Jefferson (or Lincoln, wherever you choose to draw the line), does not mean that durable improvement is "not possible" as RE suggests.
It only means that it has never been done. Of course, the revival of a decaying Republic has never been done. So? Until this American experiment, intentional, voluntary construction of a Republic had also never been done. 1st time for everything.
Socratease
GW is the latest but not the last of the power-grab scams. Let's not forget Universal Health Care.
TLaCour
"So, given the HISTORICAL FACT that not even the VIOLENT means of the American Revolutionary War OR the War for Secession (if you prefer this to Civil War as a Title for that conflict) were able to effect real change in who was running the show, upon what basis would you consider it possible that a non-violent coallescence of minor parties and "voting the rascals out" could POSSIBLY work here to rectify this situation? I do not see any sound basis for such an argument, moreover I warrant you that all of History argues otherwise, including of course the Seven Days in May of 1917, the Day that will Live in Infamy AND the Assassinations of Archduke Ferdinand, John and Robert Kennedy et al."
RE, I'll have to defer answering in full until I know to what the two events you call "Seven Days in May of 1917, the Day that will Live in Infamy" refer.
As to the assassinations mentioned, they seem to me irrelevant to any serious attempted roll-back of tyranny. Thinking people know better than to imagine that single-shot assassinations change political tides for the better. Booth's execution of Lincoln, or even Brutus' killing of Caeser, should be sufficient to impart that lesson.
But I disagree with your initial assertion regarding the American Revolution. I concur with the post of Socratease. The HISTORICAL FACT of that Revolution was an INCREASE in liberty, temporary though it may have been.
TLaCour
I thought so, just wanted to be sure. OK, we agree that Pearl Harbor and the assassinations did nothing to change "WHO was running the show," nor of course the nature of the show. OTOH, to assert that the Bolshevik revolution changed nothing is laughable. It's like asserting that the French Revolution changed nothing. In both cases, both the who and the nature of the show changed drastically - not for the better, but certainly changed.
If one of my personae were proposing that a little coup, or even a big one, using the sword would change the nature of the show itself, another would laugh at the naivite´ - and apparent disregard of history - so evident. But a peaceful alteration toward smaller government and greater liberty has never been tried, to my knowledge, much less effected. I believe it is an experiment worth running.
ReverseEngineer
"The HISTORICAL FACT of that Revolution was an INCREASE in liberty, temporary though it may have been."
Pretty darn temporary IMHO. The First Bank of the US was pushed through the first Congress in 1791 by Alexander Hamilton. The Revolutionary War lasted from 1775 to 1783. So for 8 years of massive bloodshed, you got a big 8 years of "Freedom" before the country was sold right down the same toilet to the same Pigmen.
Insofar as the Bolshevik Revolution making big difference, I would agree that it made a difference for Ruskies who had lived under the totalitarian rule of the Romanoffs, but in the end they just traded that for totalitarian rule courtesy of Trotsky and Lenin. Besides, its pretty well established that the Bolsheviks got their funding from Banksters who were pissed off at the Romanoffs, who never let them control that market, which of course is a proximal reason why Russia was impoverished. The French Revolution also in no way unseated the Banking cartel from power either.
Insofar as a "peaceful transition toward smaller goobermint and greater liberty" goes, I'd argue that it has been tried many times, as most often people do just Demonstrate Peacefully and Pamphlet to overthrow Tyranny at the beginning. Basic problem here being that TPTB just don't LISTEN. Oligarchs don't give up Power and Priviledge willingly by virtue of great arguments and common sense being thrown at them. They tend to be quite dense, and you have to hit them over the head with a Sledgehammer before they listen. When people start hauling the Guillotines out and heads start rolling, THEN they listen. Of course this is a many headed Hydra, and cut off one head and other ones spring up in its place, so its not so easy to kill this Beast. Not to say though that Ingenuity and Invention can't solve this problem. Maybe we could use some of Henry Ford's ideas and create a Production Line Guillotine? Industrialization has to be good for SOMETHING, right? LOL.
RE
Freebird
Good exchange of political history and analysis going here. Bit off topic? Not really, since my read of this article is that the whole point of the GW scam is political and money POWER. It is a grab for more power couched in the old "for your safety and security" canard.
My pessimistic (realistic?) side leans toward RE in this debate. What TLaCour proposes is something that has never been done, although i'd have to agree that it has never been seriously tried. But RE has a tough question - just how does one SERIOUSLY try to effect such a massive, basic alteration in the Pigman-Government relationship that has so many hundreds of years of liason?
The clock is ticking on this one. The people who warned about the danger of setting up the UN are being proved prescient, even as Brutus was proved prescient about his warnings not to adopt the Constitution. It is late in the game to stop this.
As my favorite football commentator so famously says, "tick, tickticktiiick!"
ReverseEngineer
"But RE has a tough question - just how does one SERIOUSLY try to effect such a massive, basic alteration in the Pigman-Government relationship that has so many hundreds of years of liason?"
Three things make it more possible now than ever before, though by no means is it a done deal that these things will prove to be a necessary and sufficient condition. I will however delineate the reasons why I think a Final Solution (thank you Adolf Hitler) to the Bankster Problem can be achieved THIS TIME.
Number one on the hit list is Resource Depletion. As I have argued previously, the entire Banking System and Cpitalist structure depends on Growth happening SOMEWHERE. In the past, Pigmen were able to move their Capital (Gold mostly in da olden days) from one location to the next and operte in relative safety. Nowhere on earth does such a place exist anymore. Just like there is Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide for J6P from the Coming Storm, so also is it true that there is NO safe place to park your money anymore. US Treasuries as the "Flight to Safety" Haven? That is just a bad joke. Gold as a Safe Haven? I've argued that misconception a few times, I won't belabor it here.
Second reason is the Internet and the Dissemination of Knowledge of How it Was Done. By far, more people now JUST on this website ALONE know and understand the nature of Fiat Money than EVER understood this at the time of the OGD, and certainly more than understood it at the time of the First American Revolution. Jack into that equation everyone who reads Denninger on Ticker, everyone who reads Ilargi and Stoneleigh on Automatic Earth, everyone who reads Kunstler and Orlov and every last Piglet who reads Zero Hedge, and you just have a LOT of folks who now UNDERSTAND the problem quite well. The first step in a solution to any problem is UNDERSTANDING the problem. Trust me, when TSHTF here and it all goes south, some folks from these websites WILL be engaged in the process of making sure it doesn't happen again in the same way. Nobody knows who they are right now, but they will emerge from behind their pseudonyms. It might be Joan of the Arcnet. Some 16 year old girl who writes under a pseudonym at Zero Hedge. You just don't know here, but leaders always do emerge in times of great crises. Who knows, it might just be the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. LOL. One can only hope for the Pigmen's sake its not me who ends up as Chief Justice and Lord High Executioner here in the Inquisition. Head will roll like Bowling Balls, to be sure. After due process of Law, of course :-)
Finally, the MOST important reason this one is different is because its not JUST a small collapse in one location, its a MASSIVE collapse of an ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. The best anlogue remains the Collapse of the Roman Empire. Currency debasement will eventually lead to failure in the ability to pay the Military, which TPTB need to maintain power. The Nation States will fracture here as they never have in the 300 years since this system became paramount. This is without any doubt in my mind a classic example of a One to the Many devolution. In such scenarios, central control agencies like the UN or the World Bank simply cease to function. Of course without those things, you have a potential for great Anarchy, which also is a danger in and of itself. Striving against this outcome is the main task of each individual in his or her own location when the Big Show comes to a Theatre Near You. Your own local connections with others, your friends and other members of your own community are who you have to deal with and come together with in a One to Many Devolution. Your comunity is one of the many, and for you it is the One. For no man is an Island, unto himself. In the words of John Donne:
""All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
RE
JimQ
How about Andrew Jackson? He was a real ball buster.
ReverseEngineer
"As in 1775, not one but Many leaders will emerge here - isolated, if the Collapse you see happens as quickly as you imply - or able to work together to build a New Republic, if the timing is more like that of Rome (decades / centuries). In the latter case, we will need all the Madisons and Jeffersons we can muster. All will have feet of clay, of course, but that's ok, it's their Heads I'm interested in."
I'm bringing this one back to the main from the subthread above, because it impacts the total dynamics of the collapse, which includes the climactic arguments made in the OP.
We have 3 different time periods up for comparison here, the time of the Collapse of the Roman Empire, the time of the Formation of the US Nation State and finally our own time which appears to be the Collapse not only of this Nation-State, but ALL Nation-States which have consolidated through the Age of Oil. Why did Roman collapse take so long, why did US formation happen more rapidly, and how fast or slow can we expect this collapse to take place? I'm going to make a relativistic argument here based on parameters existing in each time period to explain why I believe this collapse will occur much more rapidly than the past changes we saw in social, political and economic organization.
The main reason Roman collapse happenned so slowly is the most obvious one. EVERYTHING happenned a lot slower back then. Communications in particular, it could take months for a message to get back from a battlefield to central command in Rome. Currency debasement also was much slower. It happenned mainly as a result of mixing base metals in with precious metals to create more coins. Just to mine, smelt, coin and distribute out money took as long or longer than battlefield communication took. If you are a real good thinker, this should explain to you the impossibility that Gold or even Silver could EVER make a comeback as a currency medium, but I'll leave that for another post. A thought experiment for you to imagine is just how long it would take to REALLY print the Trillions Helicopter Ben is distributing out to the Banksters and then diffuse it into the hands of the population. Of course the US Mint could print easily $1B FRNs and distribute those out to banksters fairly easily, but to then break those up into more say $1000 bills for J6P to use would take quite some time and a LOT of Ink and Paper.
Of course that isn't necessary now, $1B can be transfered to a bank balance sheet in the Blink of an Eve, and in another blink the bank can credit those digital bits to your account, which you can then pay for stuff with using the same plastic card you always did, you don't even need new plastic. So currency debasement NOW can happen virtually instantaneously, though that so far is NOT occuring because in fact the money is NOT transferred in the final step into individual accounts. Its mostly just sloshing round as a liquidity reserve on the balance sheets of the big banks, which is where it stays for the near future anyhow. Until some means of distribution of the money being created out of thin air by Turbo Timmy and Helicopter Ben can find its way OUT to J6P, in the real economy you cannot have Inflation, you can only have a deflationary depression.
Third reason Roman collapse took so long was because their resource depeletion took so long. The amount of goods taken by the Empire through conquest only gradually diminished over time, and this was mostly the result of long supply lines very vulnerable to attack, not because the various regions Rome controlled were actually OUT of resources. Rome however simply could not get these resources back to Rome after a while. This is NOT the case today. Our ability to move the resources around the entire PLANET isn't seriously diminished here, what is seriously diminished are the resources themselves, for the combined reasons of exponential growth in the population base, available energy cresting its Peak and climactic change affecting a variety of the growing regions of the world. It doesn't matter whether you accept a "Global Warming" hypothesis or even if its Anthropogenic in nature. The fact remains clear that large swaths of formerly well watered locations are becoming desertified. This is happening in China, in India and in the Midwest and Southeast of the US. So this collapse can occur MUCH faster than Roman collapse, because just a few factors can send food production off a cliff here. Oil used for both fertilizer production and for pumping water from depleted aquifers can quickly become too expensive or simply unavailable at any price. HUGE areas of land currently in production could go offline virtually overnight, certainly in the course of one growing season. Ag land in CA is a prime example of course. It takes a HUGE amount of energy to pump the water over the mountains to irrigate CA desert. That water is also necessary for the drinking and sewage systems of major cities, Los Angeles being the best example there. I cannot see that system lasting more than another decade.
So, on about all levels, you can see why this Civilization collapse can and likely will happen much faster than the collapse of the Roman Empire. When I say Civilization collapse and not US Collapse, its because all the systems we are using here are mirrored in all the developed countries of the world, and most of the developing ones also such as Brazil and China. The Chinese cannot succeed in developing an industrialized model here to keep feeding their population, because NOBODY can succeed in doing this due to available energy depletion worldwide. So they are set up for a damn big crash here, and anybody who invests in China as a long term bet is an idiot of astounding proportions. Talk about your One to Many devolutions, that one will go down in the History books for sure as a massive shitstorm.
How the Leadership question plays out in the situation of relatively rapid collapse compared to that of relatively rapid integration is one that is almost unanswerable based on History, because there is no historical parallel for this that is well known. We don't really know the genesis period of Rome all that well, it somehow formed after the Babylonians bit the dust, but it took probably a millenia for it to form up sufficiently for conquest. The entire period though we know began somewhere around 8,000 years ago, and then it took perhaps 300-400 years for Rome to collapse on itself from its apex. So, if collapse is a linear function (which it likely is not, but its a simplifying assumption to help understand the timeline questions), you could theorize it takes 1/20th the amount of time to collapse a civilization from its buildup time. If you consider the buildup time of this civiliation to have begun with the enlightenment and the beginnings of modern banking in the Medici Period inthe 1500s, 500 years/20 gets you a 25 year collapse period, more or less.
Comparing that to the formation of Leaders in the pre-Revolutionary years of America, that time period probably goes from the early 1700s to 1760 or so, call it a 50 year Leadership formation timeline during integration. We likely have at BEST 25 years for leadership formation during disintegration, or collapse if you prefer. This rush I think makes it unlikely we will see cohesive leadership come together in the way it did in the pre-Revolutionary war period of the Americas. As a result, I think we will more likely see independent and individualized solutions separately rather than a collective solution amongst all these leaders. For this reason, in each individual location and community, it is important RIGHT NOW to identify people you think could be good local leaders. In most cases this is NOT your CONgress Dimwit, obviously. I would suggest to anyone who truly wishes to be active to form a Shadow Goobermint in your local community. Find business leaders, doctors, teachers and anyone with half a brain who actually grasps what is going down here, and make Plans for your neighborhood. Map out your local infrastructure, devise protection schemes and food production schemes. Be ready with these plans when TSHTF, and you likely will become your local Goobermint, because the nincompoops currently in office have no CLUE here, and will have no Plans. After that, Lord only knows how it will play out. Always best not to be caught with your pants down however.
RE
TLaCour
RE, many sobering thoughts in these latter posts. To highlight how close they are to the point of this article, and also how far, let us examine some in that context.
Context:
1. People are alerted by this article, its citations (and the many substantive comments) to the reality of a Current, Ongoing (and in my view, Defeatable) Scam. Its stated goal (Climate Stabilization) and rationale (runaway Climate Change) are scientifically disproved. The Scam is about Power / Control and Money, and we know who benefits and why they push this Scam.
2. What direct effects this will have on people's lives, and what can they do about the Scam? How can it be stopped?
A. You wrote:
"Third reason Roman collapse took so long was because their resource depeletion took so long... This is NOT the case today....It doesn't matter whether you accept a "Global Warming" hypothesis or even if its Anthropogenic in nature. The fact remains clear that large swaths of formerly well watered locations are becoming desertified... HUGE areas of land currently in production could go offline virtually overnight, certainly in the course of one growing season... I cannot see that system lasting more than another decade."
And the grim forecast could be right. If so, combatting present efforts to gather power by Gore, Pelosi, the UN, whoever, are pointless because in 10 years we'll all die, or at least most of us. Yes, it COULD be right, and one had better be well-armed with a well-prepared exit strategy in anticipation.
But what if the grim forecast is exactly wrong? People have been predicting the end of the world, end of civilization, the demise of the current system for centuries, centuries, and centuries, respectively. Many important books and much hand-wringing accompanied forecasts of the fragility and unsustainability of the current system 30 years ago. Overpopulation, bad ag practise, Peak Oil etc. but none have proved true. Is it prudent or logical to NEGLECT fighting the GW and Obamacare Scams because those predictions of Collapse will, maybe or inevitably, one day come true?
B. You also wrote:
"...in each individual location and community, it is important RIGHT NOW to identify people you think could be good local leaders. In most cases this is NOT your CONgress Dimwit, obviously. I would suggest to anyone who truly wishes to be active to form a Shadow Goobermint in your local community. Find business leaders, doctors, teachers and anyone with half a brain who actually grasps what is going down here, and make Plans for your neighborhood."
This seems eminently sensible whether one believes Collapse imminent or stoppable. I wholly concur.
TLaCour
Freebird,
There is the nub of it, well done: "just how does one SERIOUSLY try to effect such a massive, basic alteration in the Pigman-Government relationship that has so many hundreds of years of liason?"
Very tough to cut off The Trough. We had a chance in 1789 and blew it, so we'll never know if it could have been done then.
But to answer directly with my own halting thoughts in the form of thought experiments:
Would removing the power to tax directly so impoverish the Trough that the Pigmen would be uninterested? Would removing the power of the central government to so heavy-handedly unbalance (a.k.a. "regulate") the market remove Pigman incentive to buy government favor?
And, were these reforms enacted, would it so cripple the central government that it could not fulfill its basic and desired national functions?
ReverseEngineer
I do realize the OP is predicated on the idea that Climactic change is wrong, at least insofar as how its being expressed though the MSM and TPTB. I do agree that its not being expressed correctly, and I do think what is being done in the form of Carbon Credits is a horrifically stupid idea, but I of course do NOT agree that there isn't irrefutable evidence of desertification in many portions of the world. In any event, one only has to look at areas of the world where intensive agriculture has been done for millenia to see the results of that.
So, the Worst Case scenario I present could be wrong, yes. We do agree that whether its wrong or right, the kind of solutions being presented in the MSM and by AlGore are beyond stupid. Is it worthwhile though to expend that much energy and political capital to try to prevent this from coming to pass? Personally, I don't think its possible to stop this until the systems which are promoting it have been taken out by the monetary system collapse. Long as Big Money in the form of the Squid is there to take profit off the trading of Carbon Credits, no political action can be successful. What you have to attack here is not Health Care nor Carbon Credits, you have to attack Big Money. You have to take down Goldman. Not only Goldman, but JP Mortgan Chase, State Street, and of course the Bank of Rothschild. Attacking the EFFECTS of these controlling structures like Health Care and Carbon Credits doesn't remove the problem. Its diversionary and a waste of political capital. These are merely the limbs of the hydra, not even any of the heads of the hydra. Long as Big Money is in the political game, you will have such things reappear time and again, as they have for the last 300 years.
You really want Change you can BELIEVE in? CRUSH the Big Banks, and bring the Auto da Fe to the doors of Goldman Sacks the Taxpayer. It ain't gonna happen attacking Health Care or Al Gore. Small Potatoes. You have to go for the nerve center of the whole ball of wax here and you have to focus your energy on that goal. If you really want a Constitutional Republic, what you have to ATTACK here is Big Money. That is what is central to the destruction of Liberty. Andrew Jackson did not succeed in Killing the Bank, because he just didn't go far enough. The Pigmen who ran the bank were left standing, to come back again and again. I say it is TIME now to say NO MORE. The time has come for the Inquisition Against the Banksters. Let no stone be left unturned here in this Inquisition. Bring them ALL before Eternal Justice, and sentence them as they DESERVE for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Make the Spanish Inquisition look like a Sunday Picnic. Go Industrial Production Line with the Guillotine. Use every last Barrel of Oil left in Saudi Arabia to Burn them at the Stake. Let the wailing cries of Agony be heard across this Great Land so that every child KNOWS that GREED DOES NOT PAY. After Due Process of Law, of course. LOL.
RE
ReverseEngineer
"Would removing the power to tax directly so impoverish the Trough that the Pigmen would be uninterested? Would removing the power of the central government to so heavy-handedly unbalance (a.k.a. "regulate") the market remove Pigman incentive to buy government favor?
And, were these reforms enacted, would it so cripple the central government that it could not fulfill its basic and desired national functions?"
The power to Tax is what creates money in the first place, even more than debt does when you talk about a fiat money regime. Whatever currency you use, whether it is PM coins or Fiat Notes, it MUST be redeemable as payment for Taxes. Really, the ultimate point of currency failure is when Da Goobermint will not take back the Coins they Mint in payment for Taxes. This happenned during the collapse of the Roman Empire, it happenned again most recently with the CA IOUs, a form of currency in themselves.
Da Goobermint can always print more currency, but it cannot force the currency to have any value as money. It only has value as long as it is worth something to Da Goobermint itself. Its a closed loop. If Da Goobermint CANNOT make more currency, as would be the case with Gold for the most part, then Gold itself doesn't have functional ability as a currency. You have to be able to distribute out currency to the population for it to work, and there isn't enough Gold to do that with.
This explains basically why Gold never really worked as a currency in the expanding US. Not enough to go round then, even back in Da Olden Days of the American Revolution. It most certainly cannot work as a currency now with a much larger population. If it doesn't have value as a currency, then what IS its value? Its not all that useful for anything.
Anyhow, you don't have to remove the power to Tax from Da Goobermint, because it removes it from itself over time by debasing its own currency. Da goobermint is becoming impoverished here because the money they create no longer holds value of any sort. It doesn't earn interest anymore, there is no appreciation of value. Of course, along with Da Goobermint becoming impoverished, so also does everyone who uses Da Goobermint's currency become impoverished. Yes Da Goobermint eventually loses its power as a result, but most people lose their power more rapidly.
A real bear of a problem is to figure out HOW in the absence of Goobermint you could have any money in the first place. Without Da Goobermint taxing you, money holds no value. That includes Gold. Each INDIVIDUAL would have to hold value in Gold, and most do not. Only if they could use it to pay Taxes would it hold value for them. Without Taxation, Gold is just another commodity, and not a very useful one at that. Simlarly, without Taxation that lends value to the Dollar, the Dollar becomes worthless. You cannot have a central Goobermint without Money, and you can't have Money without a central Goobermint taxing you on that Money. Catch-22.
Solution is of course to operate in the absence of money. Which is quite possible of course, just society has to be a good deal smaller for that to work. Coming EVENTUALLY to a Theatre Near You. LOL.
RE
TLaCour
The OP is predicated on the notion that Climate Change is normal planetary action, and that it should be measured scientifically rather than hyped emotionally or demagogued for power/control/money purposes. Basically, let the facts dictate the theory, not the reverse. The OP takes no position on whether our Climate (global) or climates (local) are changing, but while we're there: it is obvious to any historian or scientist that climates change all the time, so in my eyes it would be quite surprising if it were NOT changing.
"Long as Big Money in the form of the Squid is there to take profit off the trading of Carbon Credits, no political action can be successful."
Demonstrably false. The Squid and the Spout have been hammering for many years to get this stuff passed and have been thwarted. So f