40 year deadline to cut carbon emissions in half!

Kel Varnsen · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

how the hell did CANADA end up with a right wing government?

To be fair a right wing Canadian government is a far cry from a right wing US government.

DriftingByTheStorm · July 2008

polaris wrote:

1. All those articles are published by the global elite - there is NO peer-reviewed scientific journal that suggests climate change is not what it is.

2. What are the causes of climate change? Fossil Fuel use (Oil and Gas) - they are founding members of the corporatacracy.

1. i don't think this was intended, but your contention is a self-referencing truth. Since climate change must necessarily be what it is, it does make statistical sense that scientific journals would not, being empiricaly minded, suggest that something is not what it is.

That pretentious comment aside, i am curious what you mean by "what it is".
What is the current climate situation ... with reference to man?

2. And these issues (1 and 2) really intertwine severely when you examine the ACTUAL "evidence".

Here. From the Solar Center at Stanford University is an article ...
read it, think about co2, and think about the sun.

Now click on the graph.
Okay. Don't look at the THICK lines.
Look at the thin lines that show shorter term average lows and highs.
Notice that as co2 levels make a moderate rise between 1860 and 1960, yet both solar activity and global surface temperatures go DOWN.

Now, what confuses the issue is that co2 levels do indeed go up drasticaly starting around 1960. But notice what was happening with sunspots starting around the mid 1940s! They started going off the chart.

You can't look at that an really say that just because co2 is going up, co2 is the cause.

As for your assumption about motives behind scientific distortions alleged by you against the fossil fuel industrialist ...

remember that the targets for co2 reductions dont necessarily mean shit to the bottom line of the "oil men".

Think about this.
Besides the fact that the oil industries are generally owned by the same people as the large banks ...

One of the most desired methods for alleged co2 reduction is going to be global carbon taxes, and global carbon EXCHANGES. Carbon credits will be an exchangeable commodity that will make bankers RICH. Filthy fucking rich.

Beyond that.
The actual tax is going to tax USERS of energy, primarily.
WHO IS THE BENEFICIARY OF THOSE TAXES?
Surely it is the same people!

Finally,
the restriction of carbon emissions, if it ever does occur at the PRODUCTION level, will simply result in an offsetting adjustment in the demand-supply curve. Ie - PRICES will go UP. WAY UP.

I don't think the 'fossil fuel industry" (simply another veil of the wealthiest of the wealthy) is too concerned about this process of co2 regulation.

They are THRILLED by it.
Fucking falling overthemselves, cumdrunk, in love with the notion.

Any delay, perceived delay, or roadblock in this process is likely just the result of infighting over how best to structure the measures, who gets control, who sets the standards, who runs the markets, etc.

How much, if any of the above, makes sense beyond my allegedly conspiracy-riddled brain?

DriftingByTheStorm · July 2008

Here is Fox News, of all places, reporting on alleged Global Cooling.

Yep.
Wikipedia says this has been bunk since the 1970s.
But this article is from 2008.
Funny shit.

article wrote:

California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

now i'm no scientist,
but if that is true,
it is funny.

article again wrote:

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

polaris · July 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Edited for space ...

How much, if any of the above, makes sense beyond my allegedly conspiracy-riddled brain?

1. Climate change and its impacts are exactly what all the leading scientists say - caused by man with dire consequences as we are seeing already - the impacts are already here.

2. All one needs to do to understand climate change is caused by man is to study the greenhouse effect. If you believe that the greenhouse effect is in fact real - then you must accept that man is the leading cause of climate change.

As for the oil companies - here in Canada, there is a carbon tax shift proposal. Taxes currently derived from goods and services would be removed and replaced with a carbon tax. I don't see how banks would benefit directly on that. Having said that - if the global elite wanted to manufacture a crisis - why are nations like the US and Canada not playing along?

DriftingByTheStorm · July 2008

polaris wrote:

if the global elite wanted to manufacture a crisis - why are nations like the US and Canada not playing along?

because North America is in the FIRST global financial sector.
Check it out.

That means the elite think of America alternately as their biggest enemy and as their homebase.

It is a bit paradoxical,
but until they bring it to its knees in a controlled implossion,
America must stand as the controller of all the rest.
Dollar Hegemony is real.
Fading, but real.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · July 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

It is a bit paradoxical,
.

to say the least. sounds more like you are trying to shoehorn everything happening today to fit into Alex Jones' world view , no matter how poorly it fits.

DriftingByTheStorm · July 2008

MrSmith wrote:

to say the least. sounds more like you are trying to shoehorn everything happening today to fit into Alex Jones' world view , no matter how poorly it fits.

You have very few people left in the upper crux of American politics that are still fighting or even concerned about American soverignty, currently.

You have a global group of fat cats whose preeminent concern is the preservation of their own wealth, and the furtherance of their own power structure.

The person who is really trying to "shoehorn" the world to fit their own view, is he who erroneously thinks that it fits in to two neat little opposing dualities.

There is a lot more grey than black or white.
Global politics is complex,
and summing it up in a few sentences probably isn't very indictative.

It does not, however, mean that the assertions i presented aren't a rough approximation of truth.

The elite HAVE infact put North America in their FIRST region of globaly categorized "economic regions".

This is indicative of their preference.
[you can argue this, but you are wrong. North America, Europe, then on down the line, all the way to poor old Africa, who is dead last]

They prefer America, because they have a sizeable amount of control over it via their corporations, lobbyists, and political influence (CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral ... none of which are fantasy, or jokes) ...

But just because they currently rule the nest from the USA, does NOT mean that they don't have other plans for it outside of its currently crumbling soverign state of pre-eminence.

They would love to (and are working to) put us back in check with the rest of the globe.

The reality is, the global elite don't realy need a supreme nation-state empire anymore.

They area GLOBAL elite.
All they need is a pervasive system that entagles ALL nations.
I don't think we need to go down the road of proving their ambitions of World Government (or more recently, "Global Governance") any more. It is a truth of our times.

Beyond that, they actually DESIRE an equalibrium of power between the industrialized nations. America currently has that equation out of balance, and that imbalance jeopardizes their efforts by insipring revolt against the entire system by the "lower" nations.

It also allows the US, via the nature of its preminent power to escape the full graps of its tentacles, and to cause serious setbacks to their plans.

An example of a setback would be the current infighting that started with the invasion of Iraq, and is continuing with discussions behind the scenes about invading Iran.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has come forward saying that Bush's handling of Iraq has set their goals back by 10 years or more. This self-conflict stems from the problem (perceived by the elite) regarding America's soverign self-interest in maintaining power.

I'm sure some of them saw a need to invade (in both cases, as Iraq, like Iran wanted off the dollar for oil) due to enormous negative pressures that a Euro based oil bourse would have posed on the dollar and on American political hegemony.

But some saw it as folly. A country fated to go the way of the Roman empire, simply delaying the inevitable ... stirring up too much controversy, conflict, and political awakening among the masses to be worth the trouble.

I'm pretty sure, that is where Brzezinski was coming from.
It wasn't some beautiful, pure inner desire for global peace and happy-dappy dreamy bullshit.

I KNOW THAT HAD FUCK-ALL TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT,
I just thought i would address the pervasive, but inaccurate, notion often invoked around here to defend some weak perception of realtity, that the world is somehow wrapped in a little happy left right paradigm, or that simply because something is complex and fraught with contradictions between itself means that it is necessarily not true or valid.

Marxism sure as hell existed.
And it sure as hell was fraugth with both internal and external contradictions.
Life just isn't made up of simplicities.

angelica · July 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well, i don't know too many who would dispute that.
However, the fact remains, one must question why the titans of politics are pushing for this like life hangs in the balance.

What are their true motives?
What are their real intentions?

Is carbon emissions reduction,
and carbon taxation,
simply a scheme for the further transference of wealth,
destruction of local economic control (transference of power),
and the possible reduction of population?

Remember that such drastic changes in carbon emissions means a severe restucturing of industry and transportation. This could pose an undue burden on the global food supply, not to mention the pocket books of humanity.

Given the statements (and evidence) that suggests that "global warming" is NOT a matter of grave peril, one has to question WHAT poses the greater threat of population "destabilization": climate change itself, or the questionable reactionary policies of a global elite?

Dude, I totally agree with you. I don't trust this global warming thing, and it's potential abuse, at all.

edit: my concern isn't as much a 'global elite' as a anyone using global warming as a tool to wield/use/abuse power. Which is not to say that people aren't often well-intended. And yet, people, when either unconscious of their power struggles, or very conscious of a need to control and wield inauthentic power...abuse power in any way they can.

I see examples of this with people wielding global warming fear on this board, as a way of "winning". It's human nature. It's rampant. And those capitalizing on and milking this fear is what my concern is with.

angelica · July 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The person who is really trying to "shoehorn" the world to fit their own view, is he who erroneously thinks that it fits in to two neat little opposing dualities.

There is a lot more grey than black or white.
Global politics is complex,
and summing it up in a few sentences probably isn't very indictative.

It does not, however, mean that the assertions i presented aren't a rough approximation of truth.

Again, I want to go on record saying I totally agree.

And I know nothing about Alex Jones. I come at this from a completely different view, and see these very same basics as you do.

polaris · July 2008

uhhh ... again ... it's not hard to comprehend if one wants to learn ...

the greenhouse effect - they teach it in schools so, it can't be that crazy a theory ...

eyedclaar · July 2008

polaris wrote:

uhhh ... again ... it's not hard to comprehend if one wants to learn ...

the greenhouse effect - they teach it in schools so, it can't be that crazy a theory ...

Why bother trying to change anyone's mind? Science is the last thing they are going to understand.

polaris · July 2008

eyedclaar wrote:

Why bother trying to change anyone's mind? Science is the last thing they are going to understand.

i have time cuz i'm trying for night 2 ev tix ... got shut out of night 1 ...

he still stands · July 2008

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_us/cheney_climate

further evidence that our leaders aren't doing enough to reduce carbon emissions and regulate greenhouse gases. To the contrary...

Cheney's office also objected last January over congressional testimony by Administrator Johnson that "greenhouse gas emissions harm the environment."

Cheney's office and the White House Council on Environmental Quality worried that if key health officials provided detailed testimony about global warming's consequences on public health or the environment, it could make it more difficult to avoid regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases

The White House deleted six of the original 14 pages of Gerberding's testimony, including a list of likely public health impacts of global warming

40 year deadline to cut carbon emissions in half!

Comments

Categories