I believe that this global warming or climate change scam, is being used as a vehicle to lower the living standards of the Western world.
If the goal of a "new world order" or international central governance is what's afoot, what better way is there than to create a global so-called crisis, such as the survival of the planet?
The end goal IMO, is to level the playing field across the world. If that is so, the way to do it, is to redistribute the wealth of successful countries, bring us down and take control on a global basis.
To make people accept it, a crisis of world wide proportions had to be devised, and this is it.
Along with it, is a socialist agenda which purports to be "fair" to everyone, when in reality, it keeps the masses in their place and under the control of a central govt. all in the name of "saving the planet"
Of course this is a pipe dream which won't work, there will still be the ruling class(international power brokers), wars, cultural differences, chaos, and more poverty, not less.
Bottom line, if this agenda is successful, we lose.
Z: More poverty, that's for sure..........and, the people trying to fight this ridiculous onslaught of fakery, like the Tea Parties and Conservative experts in the field, are maligned and insulted by the leftwing, which is so duped they don't even know what they'll miss when they find themselves no longer in the America in which they were raised. One expert being Lord Monckton (by the way, you will laugh yourself silly at the hatchet job Wikipedia's done on him because he doesn't follow their line....the inferences and the debunking of his credentials are absolutely hilarious...but, of course, he's such a dummy that THIS happened at Oxford, but never mind:-)) who was Al Gore's partner in this obfuscation until he did enough research and woke up.
I hope all this subterfuge isn't taking the eye off the ball of things we CAN do like keeping oceans clean and protecting trees, etc.......
z
33 comments:
Nothing that is happening is surprising. We came out of WW II thanks to FDR's plan as the only economy standing. The profits were rolling in, business was corrupted, labor was corrupted, it was unsustainable.
So other nations started building up with more efficient plants and we lose the edge.
Now we face the inevitable. The world cannot provide any but a small number with the Western lifestyle. The commodities aren't there. Not the least, basic stuff like water and energy. People will start eating more meat which will pressure the food supply.
The interesting thing about Pris's paranoia is that it's so wrong. In order to limit the slippage in lifestyle we are going to have to use less energy (or bomb the crap out of people who want their share, an acceptable right wing plan).
So rather than get on with it, Pris is throwing her lot in with Kapital which wants to wring every last penny out of the oil supply. The heck with the future.
The so called privileged nations should be ashamed.
Who let Ducky out of his cage?
read it again, Ducky, and respond to her excellent point; we don't need to have false and even dishonest, harmful 'fixes' screw up America or any other Western society, but we're allowing it to happen because of the ridiculous leftwingers and their constant drumbeat of PC and misinformation which their media's breeding and propagating....
Thanks to FDR? :-)
What developed nations weren't developed on PROFIT, Ducky?
I missed the part where Pris suggested bombing the crap out of anyone for energy; if we were inclined to do anything like that, we'd be invoicing Iraq now and taking the money or oil we should be getting instead of their giving it to Iran to help in Iran's help of Assad in Syria.
Talk about paranoid, Ducky... You REALLY buy into that 'mea culpa' thing, don't you :-)
America should feel ashamed for all she's done for others around the world? wow
The world cannot provide any but a small number with the Western lifestyle.
lol!
Nuclear power could provide EVERYONE in the world with a "Western" lifestyle PLUS. But the green diaper p*ssers will NEVER allow nuclear power to take hold. Because they're rather have the EPA Regulate us into technological obsolescence, than force the EPA to develop the technologies needed to recover from nuclear catastrophe's and remediate contaminated areas like Chernoble or Northern Japan. Luddites.
Progress for mankind is ONLY possible if we develop greater energy density sources, not "solar" or "wind" or "tidal" or "geothermal". That means enriched plutonium fuels, NOT uranium.
Yes, the technology needs to be made even safer. But we can't ever do that IF we never build any new reactors.
We need to get back to counter-cultural capitalism... ;)
No more feel-good carbon credits! Let the government generate nuclear power AND dispose of the waste.
...or even better. Let private industry produce nuclear energy, and make the government clean up any resulting mess. Give them a stake in producing workable regulations.
Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, is a well known skeptic of man caused global warming. Long ago, he made the statement that the leftists took over the environmental movement. Here is an interview with Moore on Fox News.
The money quotes are in this interview.
This is thought provoking stuff once you get past the commercials.
Ducky brings his mythology,
"We came out of WW II thanks to FDR's plan... That's what a lot of people say except the economic historians. It was WWII that brought us out of the soup. Prior to WWII, unemployment was going UP in spite of FDR's probrams. Federal spending did very little except fund a bunch of temporary construction jobs.
Then, Mr Ducky says, "So other nations started building up with more efficient plants." Historically, we call it the Marshall Plan which not only cost us a truckload of money, but gave us huge, expanding markets to sell our stuff. Rebuilding Europe and Japan brought the greatest period of prosperity in the history of the world. We've done pretty good, overall, competing with our former enemies. Too bad the Federal Government is anti-business. We have the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, and it is taking its toll on our economy.
Ducky launches additional inanities like "The commodities aren't there. Not the least, basic stuff like water and energy." Even Wikipedia knows we do not have an energy crisis is the production of electric power . Additionally, we have the same amount of water on the planet that we had a million years ago. It may not be in all the right places, nor as clean as we want, but that is an issue we can handle.
Capitalism is the only system in modern history to produce wealth for all participants. South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, and Western Europe all owe their prosperity to the United States of America and Capitalism.
Bob, the video on those money quotes is astonishing and I think I might blog it soon.
Did the leftwing media cover this, do you remember? I'm doubting it, but they just simply can't be THAT dishonest, can they? (yes, they can)
Man, my headline of this post was "Priscilla nails it.." but I didn't know how MUCH she nailed it and I knew she had fabulous instincts but this REALLY proves it!!
Z:
The press conveniently ignores inconvenient news. If it goes against their agenda, you won't hear of it.
It would be interesting to see if the NYT and WAPO review Moore's book.
I'm betting this guy is in the pockets of big oil or coal. There are really idiots out there who still disbelieve? Hell, even Bush did!
Tell ya what. If you believe climate change is a scam, write a litter indicating as much and put it in a safe place for future generations to find. I'm betting you will be regarded as the idiot of the family! Lol!
Big oil, bd?
Or big trash?
Oh, wait... our Democrat Governor in Maryland is in the pockets of "Big Wind"
lol!
Burning "Big Trash" is even dirtier and more harmful to the atmosphere than burning coal... but burning trash is okay, right Bd? I mean, if a Democrat says it's okay, who cares about the environment? Unlike oil or coal, Trash is a "renewable" energy source. That "good", right? lol!
It's all about "what's right for the people"... and Democrats always presume to know exactly what that is.
Bob, that will be interesting to see.
Bd..nobody doesn't think there are changes in climate. There have been changes in climate since the earth started to turn. Conservatives just don't feel people should DIE or lose futures because the Left and good science have been duped.
Bd contributes his part by repeating 20 year old commie talking points by saying, "I'm betting this guy is in the pockets of big oil or coal. "
Do you have any more of these legacy talking points? Do you realize that Greenpeace, WWF, and Sierra contribute a hundred times more money to their phony climate change cause as ExxonMobile and the fossil fuel industry does in total opposition? As a matter of fact, if you don't trust ExxonMobile more than you trust Greenpeace, you are truly an idiot.
Like most real Americans, I own stock in our oil and coal companies either directly or indirectly, and I am proud of it. I understand that
ExxonMobile and other corporations only spend money to make money, and I can live with that because I have a voice in the governance of the corporation. Think about it.
Greenpeace and their fellow Marxist travelers spend money on an agenda that nobody has any control or influence over. They appeal to mentally disadvantaged people for their contributions and support, and have been successful in that endeavor.
One thing you don't realize is that the best and brightest of our scientific college graduates, including PhD's, go to work for corporations. The least capable go to academia or government. It is no accident that the advocates of catastrophic anthropogenic golbal warming are government funded scientists, the bottom of the scientific food chain. It is all about government funding, and they own that spigot.
By casting your lot with Greenpeace or WWF, you have branded yourself as incapable of rational thought, or of making a rational statement.
Bob, very WELL SAID, thanks for that.
BD you do realize Obama's in the tank with the freebies....creating slush funds for which they can turn around and deposit in his campaign coffers?
Ever heard of Solyndra?
Duhkky leaves out the fact that we could be drilling our own oil and natural gas.
nobody doesn't think there are changes in climate. There have been changes in climate since the earth started to turn.
Z,
That's true. It changes due to forcings, some mechanism. Glacial and interglacials are due to Milankovitch cycles, variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun. There are observable mechanisms, eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, that cause changes in climate. The changes take place almost imperceptibly over millennium and from the paleontological record, are as regular as I am (Grape Nuts, everybody).
The change we're seeing now, .7 degrees C over the last century, may not seem like much but it is unprecedented in geologic time outside of a massive meteor strike or super volcano.
Z, since you are well enough versed in the subject to reject it out of hand, you or Bob or any Denier can come up with a forcing that explains the change you agree is happening. Other than increased concentrations of CO2. It ain't solar activity.
In fact, we are currently on what should be the cooling end of the Milankovitch Cycle. Find me a forcing than is overtaking that. Greenhouse gases and the laws of physics are the only explanation we currently have. Science is open to another cause but you got to bring the evidence.
We have the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, and it is taking its toll on our economy.
True, but U.S. corporations effective tax rate is second lowest of all 34 OECD countries. Lower it to 25% with NO deductions or loopholes. I'm sure the Plutocrats will be on board.
...the best and brightest of our scientific college graduates, including PhD's, go to work for corporations. The least capable go to academia or government.
Just the kind of unsubstantiated, meaningless, emotion based statement I've come to expect from you, Bob.
It is no accident that the advocates of catastrophic anthropogenic golbal warming are government funded scientists
Except for the ones who aren't;
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming...But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted. Source
As a matter of fact, if you don't trust ExxonMobile more than you trust Greenpeace, you are truly an idiot.
Bob, At your next shareholders meeting with Exxon, you might bring up this heresy,
Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. From Exxon's website.
Craig: Ducky's perfectly able to defend himself. I did not address any comments to you, but it seems to be acceptable to wannabes and Democrats to interfere and talk loud to get attention. It's bad manners, but this is a public blog and I will observe a modicum of restraint in answering your off-topic and other remarks.
Note: I made no reference to agreement or disagreement with ExxonMobile's policies. The point is that it is pure ignorance to assume that a corporation is evil as opposed to an entity like Greenpeace that is responsible to no one. With corporations, like governments, we can have a vote, no matter how small that inmfluence is. Greenpeace and WWF (and other greenies) are resonsible to no one, and represent cancers on the face of American politics in that they foster agendas which can only be classified as anti-American. Emotional? You bet, but it is accurate.
"... the best and brightest go to corporations." Not emotional, just factual. It is a fact that corporations offer more money to get the best, and they usually succeed. It is a fact that people will go for the money. Similar to gravity this is a basic law. It is in economics, of course.
"U.S. corporations effective tax rate is second lowest of all 34 OECD countries." www.oecd.org tells you that the real US corporate tax rate is 39.2 %, KPMG says our rates are the 4th highest in the OECD at 40%. The other nations have been consistently lowering their rates over the last 20 years, but we haven't. Your statement is in desparate need of support.
Since you brought it up, there is no empiracle evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of climate. There are lots of cute computer based projections purporting to show otherwise, but they have never been verified.
The current warming is not unprecendted in modern history, There are two periods of warming in the 20th century with roughly the same rate. The first was from the early 1900's through the 1940's, and this period is generally thought to be warming without anthropogenic CO2. The other period was in the 70'snd 80's. Do you really think that the late 20th century increase was solely due to CO2? That's a simplistic position.
There are multiple episodes of global warming in this interglacial period. The Midieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Minoan Warm Period were warmer than today's temps, The evidence is eclectic with scientific studies, archealogical evidence, and historical evidence.
All this global warming happened without the help of humankind's carbon emissions.
Having said all that, I am for decreasing usage of fossil fuels, but not for all the popular reasons. I want to save fossil fuels for future generations. There will always be a need in industry and medicine. It will take a long time to find economical substitutes for these precious natural resources.
Sorry, Craig; but this is ridiculous "Z, since you are well enough versed in the subject to reject it out of hand"
Yes, my husband had done more research on the subject than anyone I've ever heard of but I myself am certainly no expert and never professed to be. And, like I said, nobody denies there's climate change.
Trust me, your "lessons" here aren't going to change my mind nor the minds of the scientists who don't walk lockstep with you :-)
Maybe you can concentrate on Pris's excellent points which, coincidentally, are echoed in the video I linked on my post, too. Time to start taking in ALL viewpoints, THEN we can stop ruining our economy, getting grants for leftwing liars, and REALLY helping our environment; which is what I believe I suggested at the bottom of my post.
OR we can keep investing billions in failing solar panel companies who backed Obama though we know that technology isn't quite what some thought it would be.
Bob...thanks. GOod information...
Solyndra was a perfect case in point. Half a BILLION dollars to a company that went BANKRUPT -- then ANOTHER half a BILLION of GOVERNMENT dollars considered in order to prop up the first BILLION.
This is nothing more than governmental SELECTIVE success and failure. And despite all that, Solyndra FAILED in the free market.
Next point: ETHANOL!
Let me state this now: ethanol production via corn simply deprives the United States and the rest of the world of CORN. There are people starving in various nations around the world because US corn production is mostly now diverted to ethanol. Thank you, Mr Obama, for killing people globally so you and others of the Religious Left can "feel" GOOD about yourselves. You have BLOOD on your hands.
And, by the way, ethanol is LESS energy efficient than gasoline and provides less energy in combustion and FEWER miles per gallon. What? No one tells you that?
BZ
BZ: I agree with you on both the Solyndra scam and the ethanol problem. Chemically, I don't care what we do for fuel, but it seems to me to be immoral to use food in our fuel tanks when the price of food is skyrocketing all over the world. The very people we need to help are getting it in the belly, as in empty stomachs.
I can't blame Obama for all this, especially when my hero, G W Bush, started it. Using food to generate motor fuel is a mistake we can correct, now. It just takes the political will to do it, and I wouldn't bet on it with Obama.
It is a fact that people will go for the money.
Take a look at Nobel Prize winners in the sciences. They are overwhelmingly from research universities and government institutions. The best and the brightest aren't driven by cashing in, they're driven by doing their work.
The other nations have been consistently lowering their rates over the last 20 years, but we haven't. Your statement is in desparate need of support.
Effective tax rate is the tax corporations actually pay. Loopholes, deductions, no penalties for off shoring headquarters to a P.O. box in the Caymans are all reasons a Co. like G.E. can get away with paying no tax. Most OECD countries have a Value Added Tax which is missing when these comparisons are done.
Like I said, I'd be in favor of lowering the rate as long as they all pay it. Bottom line, U.S. corporate taxes as a % GDP is about 1.7%. Rock bottom among OECD and about half of the European countries that average about 3.5%.
Since you brought it up, there is no empiracle evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of climate.
There is empirical evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Like methane, ozone, water vapor, etc. Increased CO2 would explain the current warming. If you have a better explanation, bring.
There is no evidence the warming periods you named were global and all reliable evidence shows that those regional changes were no warmer than early 20th century temps.
Having said all that, I am for decreasing usage of fossil fuels, but not for all the popular reasons.
I don't think we can stop burning oil tomorrow. Coal is probably the worst. For that reason I'm all for development of 4th gen. fast breeder nuclear reactors. Safely of course. A little worried about encasing in metal sodium. It could be an answer to our current nuke waste problem.
Z, really?
Trust me, your "lessons" here aren't going to change my mind ...Time to start taking in ALL viewpoints
No contradiction there.
Prisc.....Thank God for women like you...and Z.... Reasoning, factual and always...RIGHT.
Always opposed to the irrational, immature, insane, emotional BULLSHIT that is being passed off as "reason" among the slithering, snide, asinine, mentally defective, degenerate, narcissist, hedonistic, useless pukes and above all...treasonous scum...that these silly 99% as....":INTELLIGENT - ENLIGHTENED" purveyors of "justice" see themselves as.
There is...hope for America...so long as women who give their children up to fight for....and defend America for stay the course.
Of course...the "bd's..the duckshits and the sues can't and won't realize what sacrifices have been made for them.
They suck the country dry.
Craig insists, " Most OECD countries have a Value Added Tax which is missing when these comparisons are done."
Thanks for bringing up the Value Added Tax (VAT) that most of our trading partners have. When foreign companies export goods outside the host country, the VAT is rebated to the company, thereby leaving almost a ZERO tax rate. When the goods cross the US border, there is NO TAX imposed.
When dealing with export goods, the US does not rebate any of the corporate taxes charged US corporations, but these same corporations have to pay the VAT when their goods cross the border of the country to which they are exporting. The US goods are, effectively, double taxed.
This is why some US corporations move various operations overseas. They can actually manufacture overseas and import into the US market cheaper than they can manufacture in the US.
Once again, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, either statutory or effective.
Craig continues by intelligently proclaiming, "There is empirical evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas." Of course it is, Craig. I never said otherwise. So, please refrain from the strawman business.
My statement was, "there is no empiracle evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of climate." This is nowhere near the words you put in my mouth. Factually, CO2 can contribute no more than about a 1 to 1.5 deg C increase in average global temp in the 300 years at the present rate of CO2 concentrations (for 2XCO2). That's the science, and everybody agrees with that basic number.
The other fact is that there are no empirical studies showing any radical feedback that would force temps higher than that. So, my statement stands. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 is the driver of climate, it is just a bit player.
This is not the first time in history that the science establishment has gone stupid. There are many precedents. However, I favor the idea that establishment is not so stupid in that they obey the same economic behavior as most other people. They are predictable.
Follow the money.
When foreign companies export goods outside the host country, the VAT is rebated to the company, thereby leaving almost a ZERO tax rate.
Only the tax due from the end user. They pay at each stage of production, every time "value is added". It's also how countries get around limits on tariffs for WTO members. They are protecting their own manufacturing and workers. Something Conservatives are loathe to do. It might upset their plutocratic overlords. Cheap labor and the freedom to pollute is why manufacturing has left the U.S.
"there is no empiracle evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of climate."
What would you accept as empirical evidence? There are no "proofs" in science. Again, what is driving the warming you agree is happening?
Factually, CO2 can contribute no more than about a 1 to 1.5 deg C increase in average global temp in the 300 years at the present rate of CO2 concentrations (for 2XCO2). That's the science, and everybody agrees with that basic number.
Maybe everybody in the Denier ranks. The peer reviewed scientific consensus is 2-4.5 deg. C. 1-1.5 has been ruled out. You're just wrong.
The other fact is that there are no empirical studies showing any radical feedback that would force temps higher than that.
Radical? No one has predicted any radical positive feedback any time soon but there are certainly observed positive feedbacks. Lower albedo due to melting ice sheets and polar ice (diminishing area and volume). Methane released from thawing permafrost. Warmer air holds more water vapor. Salt advection feedback in the thermohaline circulation.
You keep believing the charlatans if it makes you happy. I'll stick with the science.
Craig says, "Only the tax due from the end user. They pay at each stage of production, every time "value is added". Craig, we all know what a VAT is, but you need to go to the EU web site and member country sites and read about how it works.
The end user in case of exports is the entity to which the goods are exported. When goods in a VAT country are exported, the ENTIRE VAT is refunded to the manufacturer. In turn the VAT nation adds the VAT to everything imported into their country. They don't intend to have a level playing field.
Then Craig seeks ultimate knowledge when hs asks, "What would you accept as empirical evidence? " I would accept empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is data derived from real world observations. The climate boys have precious little evidence supporting feedbacks, and none supporting catastropnic events caused by CO2 induced climate change. This means that there are no credible studies showing increased extreme weather events, 20 ft sean level rises, disappearing islands, or other imagined catastrophies being caused by increasing levels of CO2.
Craig puts forth a great truth, and says, "There are no "proofs" in science." Well said, my good man. There may be some absolutes in this world, but climate science is cerainly not one. Good catch!
Craig then skillfully hurtles a challenge when he queries, Again, what is driving the warming you agree is happening?" It doesn't matter what my ideas are. It is not my professional job to research that issue. It is my personal job to know enough to throw the BS flag on the garbage issed by the IPCC and the Climate Grant Hogs.
Craig questions my science of a 1+ degree C of warming for every doubling of CO2. Sorry, that is just one of those facts. It is the number everybody agrees on for the basic influence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Where you are getting confused is the nature of feedbacks in the climate system.
Feedback The IPCC and its constituent grant hogs get their estimate of 2.5 degrees of warming from a doubling of CO2 by claiming that the basic, and proven, 1 degree is multiplied 2 to 4 times by feedback caused by water vapor. No real world data supports this viewpoint.
The IPCC gets it's feedback numbers from studies done with computer models, where the CO2 sensitivity and other parameters are ASSUMED. These studies may be peer reviewed, but they are not verified by physical observations. By definition, they are not scienctific.
The earth's climate system is a net negative feedback system. If it were a net positive system, we couldn't live here.
It should be no surprise to anyone if a particular sub-system of the climate exhibits occasional positive feedback. We see this in other physical systems, i.e., electronic amplifiers. Those positive feedbacks are always mitigated by negative feedbacks, either naturally or by design.
There are no empirical studies showing your level of anticipated warming. Pretty much all the empirical data coming in shows that CO2 generates only about 40% of the warming in the last century.
What does cause the warming?
Probably lots of things. There are legions of peer reviewed studies that show things like land use, Urban Heat Island, ocean current circulations, degrading instruments, and other factors contribute to a warming trend. Unfortunately, the warming of the last part of the 20 th century has been hyped beyond all redemption, most famously by the infamous Hockey Stick, the most ambitous scientific fraud since Piltdown Man.
In conclusion global warming is real, but not a big deal. We can use the warming to our benefit with the corresponding increases in crop harvests and vegetation caused by warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons, and natural CO2 fertilization. The earth will be able to feed more people.
Ah....well...Fook it.
My opinions...are not worth a bag of dem horsehit.
So...it's gone.
Post a Comment