Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Climate Change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    Any efforts made by Canada to greatly reduce emissions is in vain without the real producers stepping up to the plate but you'll never see that happen; you won't see the likes of China, India or Russia de-industrialize. You won't see poor countries dieing to be like us de-industrialize either.
    Has Canada really stooped to the point where we are looking to CHINA for our ethical cues? Damn. I hope not.
    Canada is in the Top 5% of Modernized Socities in terms of access to alternative Technologies, and yet right up there in terms of polluting as well. "Be the Change you Want to see in the World".
    It's absolutely silly, in my opinion, to say "China and Russia aren't doing anything, so why should we?"


    Apollo wrote: View Post
    I'd also ask you what is reasonable? Who determined what is reasonable? How do they know it is reasonable? What is their basis for everything?
    Well there's the Kyoto Protocol, which has all but been ignored, but was agreed to be "reasonable" at its outset; and there's The Copenhagen Accord, which was drafted by the US and China and many of the Worlds top Emmissions contributors as well. If Canada didn't feel the requirements were reasonable, they shouldn't have signed it. Buut they did. And then backed out.

    Apollo wrote:
    There are studies out there which indicate that perhaps the solar system may goes through warming and cooling cycles due to the Sun and all the planets may be heating up due to these cycles. Of course, these are theories without doctored data slam dunking them through the truth bucket.
    I'm well aware of these theories, and to a degree, I don't disagree. But again, I pose the question why does the Earth need to be visibly dying in order for us to wake up and realize the way we treat our planet is NOT sustainable? So regardless of whats causing Climate Change, can we all not agree that taking better care of our Planet will do nothing but make things better for everyone? We have rivers completely saturated in Toxic Sludge. We have an island of garbage in the middle of the ocean the size of Manhattan. We have a frigging hole in our stratosphere that has been linked to Human activities, and yet people are concerned about is some physicist who never even had a history of Climate Research, making claims that go against 99% of the Scientific community?
    Last edited by Joey; Wed Oct 7, 2015, 02:38 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      It should also be noted that the APS responded to his Letter, and refuted every single one of his claims ...
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...ge-accusations

      Comment


      • #18
        Joey wrote: View Post
        Has Canada really stooped to the point where we are looking to CHINA for our ethical cues? Damn. I hope not.
        Canada is in the Top 5% of Modernized Socities in terms of access to alternative Technologies, and yet right up there in terms of polluting as well. "Be the Change you Want to see in the World".
        It's absolutely silly, in my opinion, to say "China and Russia aren't doing anything, so why should we?"
        This isn't a matter of taking the higher ground, I told you a reality. Canada's carbon footprint on the world is dwarfed and all the work and all the expense will be irrelevant without the top dogs doing something. I'm not telling you what Canada should or shouldn't do but the reality of it all is that it's futile without the top dogs getting on board and I think we all know China doesn't care about Canada's initiatives. They sure do care about developing Canada's resources though.

        Another idea is for us all to self police our homes: turn down the heat and put on a sweater. Unplug all your electronics when not in use. Boycott all products which hurt the environment during production. Start a garden in your back yard. Sell your car, buy a bicycle. I can go on and on but most people won't do this, even those who want Canada to lead the charge in shutting down plants.

        Joey wrote: View Post
        I'm well aware of these theories, and to a degree, I don't disagree. But again, I pose the question why does the Earth need to be visibly dying in order for us to wake up and realize the way we treat our planet is NOT sustainable?
        If you don't disagree to a degree then why take the time to frame leading questions?

        Joey wrote: View Post
        So regardless of whats causing Climate Change, can we all not agree that taking better care of our Planet will do nothing but make things better for everyone?
        Clearly in my posts I put it to bed stating I have the belief that certain areas can do more for the health of the planet but to elaborate, that doesn't mean all areas are equal. In Japan for example, they should be taking nuclear offline because they reside on fault lines, are high risk to tidal waves, have all their plants precariously located on the coast and currently are still battling one of the worse environmental disasters the planet has ever seen which is still dumping 100's of tonnes of nuclear waste into the ocean per day. Another example is the great pacific garbage patch, all those countries feeding that and all those company's of vessels traversing through should take ownership and implement a plan to remove it and proactively prevent it in the future. There are many issues, no doubt. Too many to address in a quick forum post. Everyone can do more, everyone has their own problems and at varied degrees. There is no cookie cutter answer to this all.

        yet people are concerned about is some physicist who never even had a history of Climate Research, making claims that go against 99% of the Scientific community?
        No, people are concerned about an agenda being force fed to the people which is backed by doctored data. We're not talking about one disgruntled employee rocking the boat here. These people got caught with their pants down and it calls the whole thing into question. This scientist's letter is merely a tidbit which started the conversation.

        Joey wrote: View Post
        It should also be noted that the APS responded to his Letter, and refuted every single one of his claims ...
        http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...ge-accusations
        It's unfortunate all those emails leaked however, huh? It hurt the cause slightly.

        Comment


        • #19
          Apollo, do you think that the global community has any responsibility to ensuring the earth can sustain future generations?

          I don't think it is arguable that the earth functions on the balanced flows of finite resources.
          I don't think it is arguable that humans have the largest, most condensed impact on these flows.
          Therefor, human activity can be considered a disturbance to the functioning of the earth, which we fundamentally rely on for our existence.

          You can argue that Canadas role in this is small in comparison to China or India, however, by becoming sustainable ourselves we force the improvement of technologies and organizational systems which can then be exported at larger scales to those countries.
          We can either yell at China to quit emitting, or show China how it's done.

          You may want to argue against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), and the specific system of models used to predict the future outcome of the earth, thats fine. Models are simplifications of realities that attempt to give us quantified ways of expressing what we know of a system. Our knowledge is not perfect, but it is only rational to behave based on our current knowledge. The thing with Carbon emissions, is that AGW is not the only concern.

          Acidification of the Ocean is one of my greatest concerns when I think of Carbon emissions. Most of the worlds population survives by relying on Ocean resources. Many physiological studies on fish, shellfish, etc, populations show that subtle increases in Ocean pH will diminish their stocks. It is a fact that the Ocean sequesters a lot of the Carbon from the atmosphere, and it is also a fact that Carbonic acid results from this sequestration, and it is also a fact that Carbonic acid increases the pH of the Ocean, and it is also a fact that increases in pH affect the growth and sustainability of the entire Ocean ecosystem.

          If we recognize the existence of this chain of phenomenon; what then is our political role on the global stage? What do you suggest we do, if anything, about the risks inherent in unregulated Carbon emissions?

          [BTW; Scepticism is always healthy. No one should be punished for voicing their doubt. Scientists are constantly doubting and then improving climate models. However one must delimit a standard for their scepticism when it comes to making political decisions. We never have 100% truth, so how then do we decide our next steps? We have to be pragmatic and work with the best available knowledge, which should constantly be questioned.]
          Last edited by enlightenment; Wed Oct 7, 2015, 03:39 PM.
          The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

          Comment


          • #20
            First question: yes. Read what I said.

            Comment


            • #21
              Apollo wrote: View Post
              First question: yes. Read what I said.
              I am sorry, I felt that you delegated global responsibility to individual responsibility in your previous comment. However, I do now notice you outlined some examples of global responsibility (such as Japan needing to turn off their nuclear grid).

              I feel the letter you posted to start this thread is about the want for open debate on a certain organizations stance on climate change, but it really begins with the presupposition that global warming is some kind of scam (what kind of scam, im not sure; whose benefitting, I cant tell).

              Eitherway, none of what has been posted is mutually exclusive with the need for global responsibility toward sustainability. I think where the conversation really begins to get interesting is to what extent and kind this global responsibility should take shape.
              The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

              Comment


              • #22
                I don't have all the answers but doctored data should raise eyebrows or do you just go with the flow on everything?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Apollo wrote: View Post
                  I don't have all the answers but doctored data should raise eyebrows or do just go with the flow on everything?
                  Doctored data is a criminal offense and needs to be dealt with. If it occurred then that data needs to be thrown out, and the scientists and persons responsible need to be punished.

                  However, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. As long as we can point to knowledge that is legitimate to make claims, then it is irrelevant that there is illegitimate facts that may also agree with these claims.

                  The Piltdown man is a famous paleoanthropological hoax, where someone forged bone fragments from an Orangutan and parts of a human skull and claimed it was from the same gravel pit and presented it as evidence for a newly discovered early human ancestor.
                  The fact that the data was illegitimate did not mean that all of paleoanthropology is illegitimate. It simply meant that you can not use these bone fragments when reconstructing our knowledge of human evolution.

                  If I can make claims about climate change, and other environmental issues, without using doctored data, then the existence of doctored data that agrees with me is irrelevant, and bringing it up would be disingenuous, except in the context that you are extra sceptical and need to confirm my data was not doctored.
                  The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Apollo wrote: View Post
                    I don't have all the answers but doctored data should raise eyebrows or do you just go with the flow on everything?
                    I dont believe anyone interested in the truth of the matter would disagree. To be honest I was not up on the "climate gate" controversy until I started reading this thread. Since this matter occurred about 5-6 years ago I imagined there would have been some serious investigations started (including police). Apparently there have been 6 (that I find). The following links can provide further details on the individual investigations.

                    If any poster is skeptical of the investigatory bodies. methods or even motivations used to come to the conclusions they did I would be interested in hearing of these. Thanks. The manipulation of data in science is totally unacceptable.


                    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l#.VhWait9Viko

                    http://www.c2es.org/blog/gulledgej/s...ate-scientists

                    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...ils-hacked.htm

                    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Bendit wrote: View Post
                      I dont believe anyone interested in the truth of the matter would disagree. To be honest I was not up on the "climate gate" controversy until I started reading this thread. Since this matter occurred about 5-6 years ago I imagined there would have been some serious investigations started (including police). Apparently there have been 6 (that I find). The following links can provide further details on the individual investigations.

                      If any poster is skeptical of the investigatory bodies. methods or even motivations used to come to the conclusions they did I would be interested in hearing of these. Thanks. The manipulation of data in science is totally unacceptable.


                      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l#.VhWait9Viko

                      http://www.c2es.org/blog/gulledgej/s...ate-scientists

                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...ils-hacked.htm

                      http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/
                      Thanks for these Bendit. To pull a few quotes from their Investigations:
                      Some news organizations have misreported critical aspects of the stolen email story. There is no evidence scientists did anything with temperature data they weren't already doing openly in peer-reviewed papers.

                      At this time, there is no evidence that scientists "fudged," "manipulated" or "manufactured" data. These unsupported claims, based on taking the emails out of context, are being promoted by long-time anti-science opponents of climate change legislation. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the University of East Anglia and Penn State University are separately looking into the contents of the stolen emails to assess these claims.

                      While the emails have raised some concerns, the email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

                      Source
                      In a February 18 report to Senator Inhofe, the Inspector General said, “In our review of the CRU e-mails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data … or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.”

                      Apart from how NOAA researchers conducted their science, the report found that they inappropriately used NOAA computers and work time to poke fun at climate change deniers, including Senator Inhofe. The report also found evidence that two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were not fully executed and recommended that NOAA return to those requests and perform a more thorough search for responsive documents.

                      Senator Inhofe’s statement about the report seems to indicate that he accepts its findings. Having been denied an opportunity to use the CRU emails to claim that scientists have manipulated data or squelched scientific debate, the senator limited his remarks to issues of foot dragging on FOIA requests.

                      Because climate change is so politically charged, scientists involved in climate research need to conduct themselves in the most transparent manner possible and avoid acting out in frustration. This is true even if many of their critics are motivated by ideology and profit rather than by an honest reading of the science. The emails demonstrate that there is room for improvement in this regard.

                      That said, in my experience climate science is already more open and transparent than most other scientific fields, with gobs of data publicly available and many assessment reports and other climate science products intended specifically for public consumption. No other field I can think of has been laid so bare to public scrutiny.

                      Source

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Joey wrote: View Post
                        Thanks for these Bendit. To pull a few quotes from their Investigations:
                        Dont mean to derail the serious aspects of the thread but I blame it on you for mentioning Sen. Inhofe. This guy is actually head of the Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works. And of course has all manner of power over policy on the subject. So, I cannot help but offer a comedic interlude here...


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The sun operates in cycles. We are heading for a freeze.

                          The new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat.

                          It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

                          Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

                          The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

                          During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

                          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-plummet.html

                          Climate models have been wrong for 18 years in large part due to:

                          The computer models design for the global warming are seriously flawed. They (1) fail to take into consideration the fluctuation of the energy output of the sun fluctuate significantly as illustrated above, (2) the polar ice caps expand and contract with the seasons, (3) the magnetic poles shift as well while on the sun they reverse every 11 years (which i went into detail in the Mayan Report), and (4) the polar ice caps actually MOVE! They will move away from Canada and into Russia at the current pace. When the poles flip, that is the chaotic move abruptly.

                          http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/22293

                          Some of the irregularities......

                          But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?

                          In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.

                          It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.

                          In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.

                          Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

                          So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared. This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.

                          Why should it do this? Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being the impression of much faster warming.

                          They draw their conclusions accordingly.

                          Naturally, if the US temperature records are indeed found to have been manipulated, this is unlikely to greatly affect our overall picture of rising temperatures at the end of the last century and a standstill thereafter.

                          The US is, after all, only a small proportion of the globe.

                          Similarly, climatologists’ difficulties with the sea ice may be of little scientific significance in the greater scheme of things.

                          We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.

                          But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.

                          As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…

                          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-failure.html

                          Then there was the time that Al Gore predicted ice would be gone in Arctic by 2013......

                          Hey, don't look now, but former Vice President Al Gore, whose championing of "global warming" and "climate change" has made him fabulously wealthy, has been lying to you all along about just serious the "danger" is from these manufactured global "crises."

                          Because the process has been co-opted by hard Left progressives, Gore was given a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his yeoman work in promoting "solutions" to the phony problem of global warming (remember, President Obama was given one just months after taking office, though he'd yet to do anything to advance the cause of "peace," save for a delivering a few speeches apologizing for America's past greatness).

                          Yeah, about that scary prediction...

                          During his speech, Gore said that unless the U.S. and China made bold climate change moves, we would "stand accountable before history" for failing to act.

                          "We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency - a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here," he said (Gore shared the prize that year with Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, another crackpot institution used to fear-mongering for gain).

                          "It is time to make peace with the planet," said Gore, whose own home in Tennessee uses 20 times more energy than average homes in the same region. "We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war."

                          In his speech, dubbed, "Earth Has A Fever," Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

                          He went on to say that "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now."

                          And Maslowski himself told members of the American Geophysical Union the same year that the Arctic's summer ice could completely disappear within the decade.

                          "If anything, our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer... is already too conservative," he said.

                          Fast-forward to the present day.

                          Per CNSNews.com:

                          [I]nstead of completely melting away, the polar icecap is at now at its highest level for this time of year since 2006.

                          Satellite photos of the Arctic taken by NASA in August 2012 and August 2013 show a 60 percent increase in the polar ice sheet, more than half the size of Europe, despite "realistic" predictions by climate scientists six years ago that the North Pole would be completely melted by now.

                          Climate-change Gore: The $200 million man

                          Unlike the dire predictions of phony "peace prize" recipient Gore and his cadre of "expert" scientists, instead of polar ice caps shrinking and drowning the world in a sea of water, the caps - as verified with official NASA photography - are growing in size. "The thick layer of summer ice, which currently stretches from Canada to Russia, is preventing ships from using the North-West Passage," CNSNews noted.

                          NASA spokesman Steve Cole told CNSNews.com that the space agency is in charge of monitoring polar ice "as part of our Earth sciences" mandate.

                          "We have a number of different satellites orbiting the Earth and observing the ice sheets and a lot of other things around the clock, and we are funded to collect that data," he said.

                          If anything, Gore should apologize for using his phony climate change shtick to help him amass a $200 million fortune.

                          http://www.naturalnews.com/042074_Al...dictions.html#


                          Now who else has to gain, besides Al Gore? How about the Goldman Sachs?

                          While we hardly have to remind readers that it is Goldman that conceived of the carbon-credit market, and was behind cap and trade, here is an (in)convenient summary of who the true puppetmaster is behind the worldwide infatuation with stopping "global warming", and who stands to benefit the most as the world is manipulated into doing everything to kill global warming dead in its tracks, courtesy of Matt Taibbi:

                          …Fast-forward to today. it’s early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs – its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign – sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.Gone are HankPaulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm’s co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits – a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade.



                          The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.



                          Here’s how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy “allocations” or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions: President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.



                          The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the “cap” on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison’s sake, the annual combined revenues of all’ electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.



                          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 profit-making 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 ofstaff.) 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 Utah-based 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 Hanis. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets, There’s also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in green-tech … 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 energy-futures 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 cap-and-trade, 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 tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.



                          Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn’t, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees – while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.



                          In short: trillions are at stake for Goldman as long as the "fight" against global warming continues. And as noted above, cap-and-trade is going to happen or "something like it will" - Goldman's future revenues depend on it.

                          In fact, the only thing that can crush this finely orchestrated plan to generate billions in private profits from the mass euphoria to "save the planet" funded, naturally, entirely by the taxpayer, is a critical piece of evidence that the data and statistics behind "global warming" has been fabricated, something which very well may have occurred had Abbott's plan for an audit gone too far.

                          And so Abbott suddenly became a major liability, if not so much for Australia, then certainly for Goldman Sachs.

                          In retrospect, while Abbott completely unexpected exit on September 14 was a shock, his Prime Ministerial replacement should come as no surprise at all: Malcolm Turnbull, as we noted, just happened to be Chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia from 1997-2001. The same Turnbull who was deposed as opposition leader in 2009 over his support for a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme, a "scheme" that, when fully implemented, would lead to huge monetary windfalls for none other than Turnbull's former employer: Goldman Sachs.

                          So was Goldman the responsible party behind Abbott's ouster? One can only speculate, however one thing is certain: any concerns and fears of "probes" or "audits" into Australia's global warming "data and statistics" are now history.

                          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...-global-warmin



                          Man has certainly caused pollution to the earth and that needs to continually be addressed.

                          However man has not altered climate.
                          Last edited by mcHAPPY; Wed Oct 7, 2015, 08:51 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                            The sun operates in cycles. We are heading for a freeze.




                            Climate models have been wrong for 18 years in large part due to:




                            Some of the irregularities......




                            Then there was the time that Al Gore predicted ice would be gone in Arctic by 2013......





                            Now who else has to gain, besides Al Gore? How about the Goldman Sachs?






                            Man has certainly caused pollution to the earth and that needs to continually be addressed.

                            However man has not altered climate.
                            Agree totally with the former.

                            On the latter, it's a statement which has a finality to it I cannot accept with the evidence presented by many eminent scientists who say to the contrary.

                            On Al Gore...he is not a scientist...he made an educational movie...and he made a mistake forecasting an event he had no business doing. Chalk it up to the typical pol hubris. Was that good science? No. But it woke up the rank & file/those uninterested in a real phenomenon. Goldman...please...lost a lot of money listening to those f---- , but these guys are agnostic re their investments. They can occasionally back the right side, no?

                            Institutionally and individually, I offer a couple ....NASA and astrophysicist "rockstar" Neil DeGrasse-Tyson (both of whom I have trouble apportioning ulterior motives to)...who would disagree with that 2nd proposition. And there are many more.

                            With my reading on the subject there is no question that man after the industrial revolution (and unintentionally at the time) contributed to global warming. Now its willful with events like the VW scandal and coal burning/purposeful forest burning all over the world.

                            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page4.php

                            http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-...use-gas-2014-4

                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...-theyre-wrong/
                            Last edited by Bendit; Wed Oct 7, 2015, 10:30 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Didn't realize investigations were completed and results were viewable. I'll have to study up on this.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                mcHAPPY wrote: View Post

                                Man has certainly caused pollution to the earth and that needs to continually be addressed.

                                However man has not altered climate.

                                To say humans have not altered climate is to say that without humans the climate would be the same. Even if other factors our models have not taken into account show a compensation to human effects, that would still be a different world than without human effects. You are trying to say that human effects are negligible to climate, but it is a fact that human effects are not negligible to CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is also a fact that CO2 is a major factor in the amount of heat energy trapped in the Earths atmosphere.

                                You can make the argument that the earth will NOT heat up because of human activity; but I don't think it is reasonable to say that human activity is negligible to the earths climate.
                                The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X