FSB, Climate Cabal expand power and wealth, by targeting financial and insurance industries
Foreword:
A powerful international organization, the Financial Stability Board, includes a task force that is helping to coordinate numerous attacks on financial, investing, insurance and other firms … and their clients … in the name of preventing dangerous manmade climate change. By locking up centuries of fossil fuel reserves, the FSB’s army of agitators hope to benefit immensely – at the expense of ordinary people everywhere.
The vice-chair of the FSB’s climate disclosure task force says the world will have to spend $93 trillion over the next 15 years on “renewable, sustainable” energy and low-carbon infrastructure programs, as part of the Climate Crisis, Inc. plan to de-carbonize and de-industrialize the planet. Naturally, most of that money will flow to its crony corporatist allies. Their ultimate goal is to enrich and empower themselves … and fundamentally transform the global economy – to our detriment, and especially the detriment of the world’s poorest families – using our taxpayer, consumer, and investment, retirement, insurance and pension fund money!
The $1.5-trillion Climate Crisis industry is not about to go quiet into that dark night, or to strut but an hour upon the stage, to then be heard no more. In these desperate times, it is unleashing even more sound and fury, and assaulting new targets, in a frantic effort to expand its heavily subsidized global empire.
The Donald Trump Administration and Scott Pruitt EPA continue to emphasize fossil fuels, job creation and economic growth, and deemphasize the Obama obsession with climate change. News headlines hail the shale revolution’s new world order, a huge oil discovery in Alaska and declining OPEC clout. As German industries head to foreign shores and 330,000 Deutsch households cannot afford electricity due to soaring prices, its Chancellery Minister announced to thundering applause that Germany would no longer pursue its unilateral climate, CO2-reduction, energy efficiency and renewable energy policies.
Britain and Australia are also second-guessing their wind, solar, biofuel and climate commitments. China, India and a hundred other emerging economies continue to build more coal-fueled power plants, expand vehicle fleets, and import more oil and gas, to modernize and improve living standards. The future of the Paris climate semi-treaty and Global Climate Fund wealth redistribution scheme are increasingly in doubt.
That’s why, as the July 2017 G20 economic summit in Hamburg, Germany draws near, the Climate Cabal is in overdrive. Alarmist scientists, politicians, activists, industrialists and financiers are ramping up their rhetoric about the massive, imminent climate crisis allegedly facing our planet, unless we slash our carbon dioxide emissions, by keeping centuries of oil, gas and coal reserves locked up in the ground.
That means companies that own those reserves, finance or insure fossil fuel projects, or hold investment interests in those reserves or projects will end up with trillions of dollars in “stranded assets” – energy that will be made permanently off limits, once the world has shifted to a totally “decarbonized” global economy. In fact, selling off holdings in fossil fuel enterprises will not be nearly enough. “The freed-up assets must be redirected to more sustainable businesses.”
At least that is the view of AXA Insurance climate and sustainability director Christian Thimann – who also serves as vice-chair of the international Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure. He intends to harness the FSB’s significant power and influence to advance his ideologies and investments – doing so in league with an unbelievable army of like-minded interests, all of whom have enormous political and financial stakes in the outcome of this global policy battle.
Among them are UBS Financial Services and the $5-trillion BlackRock global financial management firm, which now has an index fund for people and organizations that want to divest from companies that BlackRock, AXA and the Cabal have targeted with their anti-carbon campaigns. The tax-exempt anti-carbon pressure group Natural Resources Defense Council has put $70 million into the fund.
Former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg – having given millions to tax-exempt anti-fossil fuel agitator groups – is now chairman of the FSB’s Climate Financial Disclosure Task Force. Not surprisingly, it is allied with the state attorneys general who spearheaded the nasty campaign to silence and punish energy companies and think tanks that dared to question the “97% consensus” on manmade climate chaos.
Also onboard are state and city comptroller and treasurer offices (CA, CT, NY, PA, RI, VT), various state and city employee pension funds, the Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk, and numerous radical environmentalist groups like the Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists and Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, notes E&E Legal senior fellow Chris Horner.
They will all “profit off environmental policies that they advocate with very close friends in government,” while “amassing wealth in large part through government contracts,” Horner observes – adding that his organization will “work aggressively to reveal the unethical actions” of every party involved.
The unethical behavior begins with claims about climate cataclysms that are not happening in the real world. Dangerous, unprecedented, runaway warming is not occurring. Seas are rising at seven inches a century, not 20 feet. Hurricanes and tornadoes, floods and droughts have not increased in frequency or intensity. There is no proof that manmade CO2 drives climate change or that it will be catastrophic.
Equally deceptive are claims that the technologies and business interests advocated by the FSB, Climate Cabal and their political comrades are in any way “sustainable.” As any rational analysis demonstrates, the metals and other raw materials required, human rights affected, cropland, habitat, wildlife and human health impacts involved, and massive taxpayer and consumer subsidies needed for wind and solar power, ethanol, biodiesel, wood pellets, anaerobic digesters and other “renewable” energy schemes make one thing absolutely clear: the entire sustainability concept is politicized, agenda-driven and unsustainable.
All these inconvenient truths notwithstanding, the FSB has announced that it is going to establish protocols that will supposedly improve the financial sector’s ability to “incorporate climate-related issues in financial reporting” and “enable stakeholders to understand concentrations of carbon-related assets in the financial sector and the financial system’s exposures to climate-related risks.”
Translated into plain English, this means the FSB will help pressure groups with a political/financial stake in the outcome to identify, target, stigmatize, harass and intimidate any entities that they deem are too involved in fossil fuels or insufficiently invested in renewable energy and sustainable businesses. It plans to work with the above-identified activists to secure “voluntary disclosures” and other compliance.
In practice, this means relying less on the federal government and more on friendly international, state and local governing bodies, agitator groups, organizations like the Climate Accountability Scorecard, and the so-called “Equator Principles” that financial institutions “should follow” in energy investing. Their primary targets for these “name and shame” campaigns will likely include the World Bank, private banks, insurance providers, institutional investors and their advisors, pension funds and universities.
The California Insurance Commission has helpfully launched a Climate Risk Carbon Initiative, a searchable database that will make it easy for attack groups to develop target hit lists. A primary tactic will be accusing targets of having inadequate “plans on climate change preparedness and sustainability,” to justify efforts to damage stock portfolio values and demand defunding or divestment.
Meanwhile, major financial and debt issues are growing for numerous nations, states and cities. The FSB and Climate Cabal want us to ignore them, focus on climate change – and have the G20 do likewise.
Even though it is already overly complex, the current financial reporting system works. It deals with real, measurable, familiar risks, and helps countries address and overcome those risks. Politicizing the system, and forcing it to refocus on conjectural, exaggerated and fabricated climate and sustainability risks would upend the entire international energy, insurance and financial system. It would bring disastrous results for jobs and families – but no climate, environmental or sustainability benefits. And it would do absolutely nothing about the unreliable energy, health risks, environmental impacts, child labor and other problems embedded in the renewable and sustainable schemes the Cabal promotes so passionately, and deceitfully.
But the rewards of this FSB/Climate Cabal deceit are enormous – incomprehensible to normal people. Says Thimann: “Over the next 15 years, an estimated $93 trillion will be needed for investments in low-carbon infrastructure.” That’s five times the size of the entire 2015 US economy!
Perhaps worst of all, these FSB and other government officials, unelected bureaucrats, industrialists, and tax-exempt pressure groups are colluding to enrich and empower themselves … and fundamentally transform the global economy – to our detriment, and especially the detriment of the world’s poorest families – using our taxpayer, consumer, and investment, retirement, insurance and pension fund money!
Congress, the Trump Administration and responsible state officials need to investigate, terminate and punish this deception, self-dealing, extortion, and incalculable harm to businesses, workers and families that rely on reliable, affordable carbon-based energy (and will for decades to come).
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.
Draining the climate change swamp is going to take some time it seems. Sigh.
Each journey starts with a single step. They may be slow hesitant ones; but still steps. Onward.
You’ve got to admire them. Usually with these scams they are susceptible to investigation by level headed accountants financial investigation authorities and even politicians and journalists.
But as soon as you call it “science” … they’re all locked up and you’re only dealing with gullible fools from academia.
D’accord, Tom. Sigh.
Sometimes tired of America.
Can anyone translate Johann’s comment for me? I have no idea what his incomplete sentences mean.
Louis–“d’accord” is French for “I agree”.
“Can anyone translate Johann’s comment for me?” Louis–“D’accord” is French for “Agreed.”
Its taken 50 years for the Marxists to infiltrate every sphere of public life, and for them to finally team up with Big Trough, so the reversal of this will take another 50…
When the dot com boom came to an end and the financial crashes started, I remember commenting that we would be in a systemic depression for at least 20 years, that being how long a new generation of people forced to be uber realistic by circumstance, would take to grow up and start to supplant the rent seeking snowflake generation.
We are just beginning to see the start of that process.
Its a pretty long bow to call these guys Marxists isn’t it??
“I remember commenting that we would be in a systemic depression for at least 20 years,”
The funny thing is, it’s the left and the warmists (but I repeat myself) that are feeling so depressed these days. Me, I’m feeling a lot more optimistic than I have felt in a long time!
(and if I ever feel down and need a good laugh, I just go read something some lefty has written about Scott Pruitt, Slayer of Worlds)
No
Actually, Marxist is too constraining. I like collectivist better as it covers all the Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Fascist bases.
Marxists? Marxists? Oh yes, I vaguely remember Marxists from 60 or more years ago. Leo, you mean to tell me there are still some around? Tell me, how are those last six getting along on their pensions?
It’s a lot more than 6, the universities are still churning them out by the thousands.
MarkW
Perhaps a lack of funding may have an influence on their perspective. We can only hope so.
Gee, another undemocratic, supra-national (AKA like the UN) group of unaccountable bureaucrats & has-been politicians doing a cram-down based on their personal beliefs.
(Yawn).
Except this crap costs all of us real cash money (among other things).
The best cure foe this secret crap is sunshine. Go get ’em, Trump.
FSB ? I thought that was the Russian security service …
Financial STABILITY Board is a bit of a misnomer. Where were they in 2008?
That’s what I thought also…FSB is the Russian Security Service. I hope Trump gives them serious and deadly trouble. We must defy all the unaccountable organizations – they must not be allowed to have any power at all.
If a group like this succeeds in gaining financial control, they still will need some form of government to maintain their elite status. That is where the UN comes into the picture. Although a puppet for the financiers, the UN could control the “folks”, both by force and regulation. This what Agenda 21/30 is all about. Maurice Strong laid it all out long ago.The CAGW theme was just the bait to get the fish swimming in circles – and frightened.
Common garden variety rent-seeking on a large scale.Use the government to ensure your special situation, and claim it is for a higher purpose. A scam that has been described as long ago as the Canterbury Tales in the story of the Pardoner. Selling forgiveness for your sins, as defined by the seller.
It is yet another reason, though, to seek an indictment against Michael Bloomberg, who seems to use his fortune in various and sundry malign causes.
The BBC has gone into hyper-drive these past couple of months with its “environmental” & “climate change” stories…..and it gets worse day by day. Their doom & gloom news on everything from the Great Barrier Reef, effects of climate change on volcanism, how green policies cut consumer bills, biofuels for aircraft, plastic pollution, China’s “airpocalypse” (and how melting Arctic ice has caused it), etc. etc. It’s all too painful to read but clearly their agenda is to get as much of this propaganda out there as they can. Desperate times! The problem is that too many people actually rely on such MSM outlets for their news and just take it at face value!
I love the Great Barrier Reef nonsense. Modern CO2 and SSTs are still less than when the GBR formed in the Oligocene or Miocene.
Insanity!
Chimp, first let me congratulate you on an entirely appropriate name. Now down to business.
I flew down the entire length of the Great Barrier Reef just three weeks ago, coming down from New Guinea to Brisbane. The top two thirds are dead. Kaput. Ceased to exist. The remaining one third is dying.
Further, one thousand kilometres (that’s 600 miles for those who live in the past) of mangrove forest down from Cape York to Mackay has died virtually overnight. Both ecosystems reached their tipping point and expired. The devastation is appalling. Don’t try to pretend it hasn’t happened, I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. If you don’t believe me just come over and have a look.
The sole, only cause of this disaster is climate change. All of Australia has been severely affected by climate change over the past forty years. The capital city where I live is now utterly dependent on desalination plants for water, such has been the decline in rainfall.
The whole nation has seen both unprecedented severe bush fires and devastating floods. Many people have died. The weather patterns have changed completely. It is no longer possible to obtain flood insurance and in increasing areas fire insurance as the costs of these disasters and the risk of their continued occurrence is too high.
To call what has happened to the Great Barrier Reef “nonsense” is frankly nonsense.
‘The top two thirds are dead. Kaput. Ceased to exist. The remaining one third is dying.’
Lolz.
Yeah, until next time they die again.
Deevo,
“All of Australia has been severely affected by climate change over the past forty years”
All of Australia has been severely affected by climate change over the past forty-million years.
Perhaps Deevo below should have read this before he posted.
Great Barrier Reef dying beneath its crown of thorns
April 15, 2012
Jon Brodie Senior Principal Research Officer, James Cook University
Disclosure statement Jon Brodie receives funding from Australian Government, Queensland Government, WWF, Canegrowers.
“……. Coral-eating crown of thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) (COTS) have caused widespread damage to many coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific over the past five decades as population “explosions” have occurred at regular intervals. On the GBR the greatest cause of coral mortality in recent decades is COTS ahead of other major causes such as cyclones, bleaching and coral diseases. COTS were probably the major cause of coral mortality in the period from 1960 to 1985 also but our data is less complete for this period. Kate Osborne and her co-researchers found that COTS were responsible for 36.7% of the coral damage above all other causes including storms (33.8%), disease (6.5%), bleaching (5.6%) and unknown or multiple causes (17.4%).
There have been three major periods (“waves”) of COTS outbreaks on the GBR: 1962 – 1976; 1978 – 1991; 1993 – 2005; and it is now accepted that we are at the beginning of the next wave which appears to have started off Cairns in 2009. Each wave started near Cairns and spread through larval dispersion up and down the GBR generally as far as Princess Charlotte Bay in the north and Mackay in the south. If the current wave moves in a similar way we can expect starfish populations to progress throughout the central GBR over the next 10 years or so.
The impact of outbreaks on the GBR is a major concern to the multi-billion dollar tourism industry. Over a number of years, there was an outbreak on reefs between Cairns and the Whitsundays which was estimated to cost tourism operators, and the Queensland and Australian Governments about $3 million a year for control measures.
The cause of the outbreaks remains a controversial issue despite years of research. Hypotheses have included that (1) population outbreaks are a natural phenomenon due to the inherently unstable population sizes of highly fecund organisms such as COTS; (2) outbreaks are due to anthropogenic changes to the environment of the starfish with a range of possible anthropogenic causes including: removal of adult and/or juvenile predators; destruction of larval predators e.g. corals, by construction activities on reefs; and larval food supply (phytoplankton) enhancement from nutrient enriched terrestrial run-off.
It is now well established that the large scale outbreaks seen on the GBR since 1962 are most likely to have been caused by nutrient enrichment associated with increased discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus from the land due to increased soil erosion and large scale fertiliser use. Increased nutrients drive phytoplankton blooms with increased biomass and also a shift to larger phytoplankton types more palatable to COTS larvae as food. Removal of predators (especially fish) is also implicated as a secondary cause.
There is some evidence that the increase in the area of no-take zones in 2004 has had significant success, as COTS numbers on closed reefs are lower than on reefs open to fishing. Site specific management (through removal) has been successful at a local scale, although it is very labour intensive. With the initiation of the fourth wave of outbreaks now confirmed it is clear that water quality management under the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (implemented in 2008) has not had time to prevent further outbreaks.
However further water quality management will be critical to minimise future outbreaks.
In conclusion we can state unequivocally that COTS remain the greatest threat to the coral of the GBR and thus also indirectly to coral reef fish, although obviously of lesser threat to seagrass, dugongs, and some other megafauna.”
The full article is here:
http://theconversation.com/great-barrier-reef-dying-beneath-its-crown-of-thorns-6383
Deevo, not according to the scientists who actually study the GBR.
Perhaps Solomon Green you should have referred to something a bit more recent? Talk about intellectual dishonesty, Solomon you take the cake! The COTS was the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef until the two latest coral bleaching events, which have been far more devastating that COTS ever were. You must have seen the reports on that and yet you chose to ignore it. That’s simply contemptuously pathetic. What little credibility you had is now gone.
Deevo , bullshit !
Two thirds of the reef dead , the other third dying ! How much Rodney ? How much?
Do you believe what you’re saying or did you read it somewhere like the oz ABC .
It was kind of hilarious to see some of the BBC crew get on Etna and had a first hand look at “climate change” earlier today.
It’s the real life version of running around with their hair on fire. 🙂
I hope no one was seriously hurt, but perhaps It’ll stop them running around the planet to obscure destinations in uninhabitable areas then holding up little bits of ‘evidence’ that the world is melting. Well…..in this case it is, but it’s supposed to be.
Actually the BBC crew were there doing a documentary on volcanoes. You need to get better informed.
Deevo March 17, 2017 at 7:51 am
Actually they were there being utterly stupid.
The BBC is desperate because they’ve probably realized that if the US drops out of the Climate Change Cheerleading Squad, then China will give up on it quite quickly. Once China and the US are out, then India is free to say “screw it, we ain’t doing that” and at that point, you’ve got half the population of the planet that will have officially given up on the idea.
And remember that most of the 3rd world is only in on the game for all the payoffs they were promised, not for anything they were expected to do. That means we are rapidly approaching the moment where the UK and the EU are going to be in the position of Saving the World all by themselves. The problem is that their economies can’t take that hit, and in fact will just empower the internal populist forces even more.
The UK and the EU are going to have to find a way to do the Big Climb Down from their warmist positions, and they’re still stuck at Kubler Ross stage 2.
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance.
Just like all people who deal with loss, the sooner they get to stage 5, the sooner they can heal.
Why would China bail? They aren’t required to do anything for at least the next 13 years.
wws, it strikes me that you’re still stuck at stage 1.
EU and Merkel will fight until Endsieg.
The new intellectual aristocracy has no mercy for the basket of deplorable taxpayers.
The BBC is desperate because £8 billion of their pensions are tied up in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change
£8bn BBC eco-bias
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/156703/8bn-BBC-eco-bias
BBC My Pension
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/aboutthescheme/responsible
Follow the Money: BBC Exposed in Biggest Climate Racket on Planet
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/14373.html
Fake Stream Media: “It’s Our Job to Control What People Think.”They aren’t even trying to hide their”Fake news
If I actually believed in conspiracies, this would fit in perfectly with what appeared to be a plan to drain the Middle East of it’s oil under the simple idea that “he who has fossil fuels last, makes a boatload of money“
I’ve advocated that for some time. We can afford to pay $100/barrel now if we can sell ours later at $200/barrel. Just requires patience.
How much has the US / UK / Australian / Canadian government contributed to this grotesque quango, since when, and on what basis?
Wow, just wow. Anthony if this is all true then I’ve been mistaken for many years. “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “Climate Disruption”, “Extreme Weather” is not founded in religion or science. This is organized crime on an international scale.
Indeed it is, a grab for global power through deception, in a word,,,evil!
Doug, it has been for decades, remember the ozone scare, the 70’s “Ice age ” is coming and the acid rain thing, those were just trials to see where and how to do to it.run-ups to “Global Warming” and now Climate Change.
Scams. One and All.
In a word Obama!
That’s a great observation…totally agree.
The thing to remember is that the actions of all government can best be understood as a self-legalising protection racket.
That is what it started out as, and its fundamental purpose has never changed.
All governments started out as the strongest bandits in the region.
BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
“. . . this is organized crime on an international scale . . .”
Ding Dong.
It must be resisted at all hazard. Destroy the stupid FSB.
I think that fact that this is a Paul Driessen rant should have been said in the heading. Guest post etc. What was that “huge climate deceit”?
One day you might open your mind to reality, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
There is the real, and then there is the model of the real, perhaps Nick thinks the models of reality are more real than the reality the models are meant to represent?
Ben D: That seems seems to be a very common belief among global warming advocates—the models ARE reality.
On the formatting point, Nick Stokes is correct: the author’s name should be below the headline. On his question, Nick Stokes should read the article.
/Mr Lynn
Take the red pill, Nick
War has been declared. You just don’t take away a multi trillion dollar shearing of the masses from the masters without them getting pissed. A small subset of families run the world. They believe that they are superior to the masses. They can either skin us or shear us.
We were NEVER in their club and we are about to enter the global phase where they will teach us a lesson or two. The good news is that if the masses stand up and give them the high hard one we can win.
The first part is correct, about the Masters being pissed, etc., but the masses will never stand up against them. For most part the masses are deceived, and for the rest who have more understanding, they can not really be conflated with the ‘masses’. The only winners will be those who are prepared to live according to the principles that reflect actual truth, not mere belief in politics of one side or the other. Go Donald….
TY for reply. Many like to think they are not part of the masses including the agents and gems of the masters. Gems are picked from the tail end of the bell curve. Agents are typically compromised ppl via sex money or power. The masters have no use for those that do not carry their blood or provide a useful temporary service.
The founding fathers were well aware of this dynamic and were the most recent best example of rebelling. They tapped into a relative minority of the masses to join them. The masters have been at it since to gain back what slipped thru their fingers.
My personally biased idealism believes that that relative minority of the masses will stand tall again and the human defect of monkey c monkey do will be used in freedoms favor. We shall see. Trump is that movements current on stage point man w several gifted backstage strategists.
As I’m sure your aware CAGW has very little to do with science. It’s 97% 🙂 shearing.
But what’s the worry? Nothing is set in concrete. The world is, in fact, slowly changing its policies. India, China and now Germany and the US are blithely ignoring this cabal. I am sure they are worried – because their knavish tricks are being frustrated. Let them rant and rave.
I am glad to see The Sierra Club makes the list of radical environmental entities, which they are. I don’t know if they have always been that way or were just real good at hiding their intentions from the beginning but they should be outed, and done away with. They are of no use to anyone but their own self serving enterprise of alarmist lies. Thanks, Anthony. As always, right on the button!!!
The climate parasites are bold enough now to simply come out and openly call for their xenocidal all consuming hatred to be made real. How far and how quickly we have fallen.
WITHDRAW
Pat Ch
That avoids babies. Sometimes.
Auto.
Mods – if too close to the knuckle, please don’t publish.
I think it is advice.
But it may be an instruction to hunter, or Steve Lohr, or Andy E . . .
My own professional accountancy body, the ICAEW, has fallen for CAGW hook, line and sinker. The meme is supported by many arms of the establishment and will not go quietly into the night. Follow the money.
As has mine,. the RICS !
Remarks on the launch of the Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
– Mark Carney – Chair of the Financial Stability Board; Governor of the Bank of England
“Public policy, consumer demand and technological innovation are all driving a shift towards a low carbon economy. A year ago in Paris, 195 countries committed to limit the rise in global average temperatures to less than 2°C, with 117 countries having now ratified that commitment.
So citizens, consumers, businesses, governments, and international organisations are all taking action. And entrepreneurs are developing disruptive technologies that will create and destroy value.
But which financial institutions are best positioned to gain and which to lose from this transition? Which companies and industries are most, and least, dependent on fossil fuels? Which businesses are most vulnerable to potential damage from rising physical risks? In every case, which firms have the governance, resources and the strategy to manage, and profit from, these major shifts?
At present, the challenge is that investors currently don’t have the information they need to answer to these questions. This must change if financial markets are going to do what they do best: allocate capital to manage risks and seize new opportunities. Without the necessary information, market adjustments to climate change will be incomplete, late and potentially destabilising.
But with the right information, financial markets can smooth the transition to a 2-degree world. Risks to financial stability will be reduced if the transition to a low carbon economy begins early and follows a predictable path.”
So they are creating an enourmous bureacracy and costs enforcing companies to report on fictional risks in line with the ortodoxy by the climate alarmist establishment.
“The Utopian attempt to realize an ideal state, using a blueprint of society as a whole, is one which demands a strong centralized rule of a few, and which is therefore likely to lead to a dictatorship.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
“It can’t happen here” is always wrong: a dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Is that a comment on Donald Trump? Very appropriate.
Too many have joined the granfalloon; it’ll be like cult de-programming.
And Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy has taken hold almost everywhere.
People need to realize that it is Us, that is the normal taxpayer, that foots this enormous bill. If this waste of valuable resources is plugged, world economies will soar.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
“the FSB’s army of agitators hope to benefit immensely – at the expense of ordinary people everywhere.”
The modern global culture.
I’ve never read such a load of claptrap in my life. Come and live in Australia and then try to deny there’s climate change. Everyone would just laugh in your face. It’s here and it’s disasterous. Get your heads out of the sand. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Of course the climate changes, that’s what it does. It will not stay the same for very long no matter what humanity does. Just be glad that it’s getting warmer and not cooler. THAT would be a disaster.
Paul Penrose, getting warmer is already a disaster for Australia. A long series of disasters actually. Your comment is both flippant and stunningly ignorant. You need to get better informed.
Deevo wow. Lolz again.
Funny how the data never supports the alarmists. At least not until they cook the books.
Recess is over; back to class. There’ll be nap time in a couple of hours, and after lunch everyone gets to go outside but you all will have to hold onto the rope, OK?
Deevo , You’ve made a lot of strong claims .
Your observations of the Barrier Reef are counter to others I’ve seen and particularly counter to this tweet by Patrick Moore :
But , first some facts , please . What’s the total change in mean temperature for Australia ( global is irrelevant ) over the decades ? What’s that as a portion of the normal diurnal and seasonal temperature ? Is it rational to consider that change a driver of all these other phenomena ?
Do you know Beer’s Law ?
I’m not your bloody mother Bobbie! Do your own homework.
Oh all right, a bit of a start being as you’re so incapable.
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
CSIRO – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
And if you can’t understand all the big words, Wikipedia.
I think you’ll find these somewhat more accurate than some twit’s tweet!
And surely you mean Beer-Lambert Law? Yes, I recall it from my university chemistry.
If you understood it you would know this ancient thing is hardly applicable to meteorology.
For a start it is only useful for measuring the absorbency of a single compound in solution.
Interesting how you seem to be relying on a technique that is over 160 years old.
We have lasers these days Bobbie, and photospectrometers! That will give you a proper answer!
And yes, I did get that degree!
No Deevo, you are not his mommy, but you are obviously an Eco-Nut that ignores reality so that you can live in a fantasy world of Unicorn Farts !!
Beers-Lambert is wrong because it was discovered a long time ago.
I love the way kids these days think.
MarkW , That was Deevo’s “argument” that got me the most . “Old” physics apparently has an expiration date .
Found Sou’s new sockpupet. She really can’t help but out herself. ~¿~
Yes, it requires one to drink Coors.
I just finished “flying” over the Great Barrier Reef on Google maps, it looks alive and well to me at 5000 feet above sea level.
If your country had not spent all the tax money on desalination plants they might have built reservoirs to store the water from last years floods in South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland. They were told that rain was a thing of the past by your climate “experts.”
Better luck next time.
Howard, try it in real life at 500 feet! That’s what we did. Charter flights have advantages like that.
What a silly notion you have put forward. Firstly desalination plants are cheaper than reservoirs, and this’ll burn you, they’re solar powered! No input fuel costs therefore very cheap to run. All paid for.
Secondly we don’t have the geography or geology for any more dams.
Thirdly Australia is a wealthy country. Global financial crisis? What global financial crisis? The “socialist” Labor Government set up the economy and steered us through it such that it had no impact on this country. 25 years of continuous economic growth. Our deficit is $45 billion, all incurred by the present “conservative” Liberal Government, but to put that in perspective, my member-owned superannuation fund has assets of over $100 billion!
And lastly we are well served by our scientific institutions and are perfectly aware that climate change would involve flooding as well as extreme heat. You really should stop making things up. What we are going through is an extreme exaggeration of climate conditions that have existed in this country.
“I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains.”
Dorothea MacKellar 1904
Better luck next time!
Is there any comment of yours anywhere Deevo that contains any truth or are you like most trolls and just make stuff up to suit your needs .
Deevo, if you want to convince anybody that you are more than uttering mere nonsense you might want stop the personal attacks. That is the tactic of the intellectually bankrupt. Please answer two questions. These are real ones, not rhetorical. 1) How can you tell from an airplane that the reef is dead, and the percentage thereof? 2) How can you tell from an airplane what caused the demise? Oh, and one more. 3) How can you tell by living in one place that CAGW is real and is catastrophic?
Despite it’s size and resources, there’s a reason virtually no-one lived in Australia just a short few hundred years ago. THE CLIMATE.
Long periods of drought, huge deserts, incredible rainstorms followed by floods, no easy food. If you want to live there so be it, but don’t make up stories of climate change in Australia given that the climate now is the same as it’s been for thousands if not millions of years.
SteveT
Of anyone is interested in how lobby groups acting through the media have affected political discourse, this is an article well worth reading. Usual caution, if you are a sensitive Conservative with high blood pressure it may be wise not to read it.
http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php
Gareth,
Last time you tried to derail a post with an irrelevant attack on Trump, you ridiculed Ben Carson for categorizing slaves as “immigrants.” But you said nothing about Obama doing exactly the same thing. You should apply for a job as a “journalist” with the establishment media. I could imagine you as a regular guest on the Rachel Maddow show.
I did warn you Khwarizmi ! Hope you are ok.
I’m not sure you are correct in that has no connection to the thread. The initial article is regarding how governments can fall for lobbying resulting in resources being diverted . The Harvard research shows how the media is just as capable of achieving the same ends. I think it’s an important point with relevance to the discussion.
Would you have been equally upset if the Guardian or New York times had been the media outlets given such attention? Trump is also mentioned in article as he often is, so it seems reasonable that he continues as part of the debate. Hopefully you don’t want to debate in an echo chamber.
Most people read “1984” as a warning. Progressives read it as a training manual.
It really is funny the way Gareth actually seems to believe the lies he’s told to propagate.
Possibly MarkW, you could show me where I am wrong? Where the Harvard study is wrong? Or is that just a bit too much of a challenge?
After all. it’s much easier to go for the Ad Hominem attacks eh !
I wonder who you think is telling me to propagate lies, are they paying me ? If so, I want my cash !
Nothing like a good conspiracy to back up Ad Hominem tactics 🙂
There’s not enough time in the day to fully discredit all the phoney “studies” you guys come up with.
Then again, you are still convinced that the Guardian only gives accurate news.
Gareth,
There is nothing in that “study” to make anybody’s blood pressure go up, except maybe the poor saps that paid for it. Just because it was done at Harvard does not lend it any credibility. All they did was mine the Internet for a bunch of data on who linked to what, then throw up a bunch of busy charts and make subjective conclusions based on their own definitions of common terms, and there you go. What a load of crap. If this is all you can bring to the debate, then I truly feel sorry for you.
You may not agree with the study Paul, and I accept that as a good Conservative these things will upset you. But can pick holes in the study? is the methodology wrong? Are the results unlikely to to be replicable?
You may not like those things, but just remember, for 8 years solid, and even now Obama was attacked on this and other sites day in, day out. Now the boot is on the other food and you have a President who is a hard right Conservative, you are suddenly shy about seeing him and his party criticised. Incidentally, the post was critical about the right wing media, not primarily Trump.
Learn to live with it Paul, you ain’t seen nuthjin’ yet.
And if you are really unable to debate without howling in rage because you do not agree with a post , can I suggest other sites which do not allow differing opinions or have rigidly control comments? I won’t link them here, but I’m sure you can find them. I tend to avoid the Lefty sites as I hate echo chambers. You should test yourself sometime. Try debating on sites which are not overwhelmingly conservative brave boy. It’s real challenge.
“Just because it was done at Harvard does not lend it any credibility.”
Actually, in the real world it does! Maybe not in your internal world, but in the world the rest of us live in.
Gareth,
You have me all wrong, maybe you are just projecting. But I’m not howling in rage, or blowing gaskets at your comments. I’m laughing at you and your pathetic attempts to appear erudite. And I’m not a Conservative either, at least not the way you mean it. I don’t follow any specific ideology, I’m a free thinker and make up my own mind.
Why am I not surprised to find that Deevo measures accuracy based on who produced the “study”. Appeal to authority, it’s all they’ve got.
In just what alternate universe could Trump be considered “a hard right Conservative”? A life-long Democrat and contributor to Democrat campaigns, he made a run in the only party whose National Committee hadn’t already decided who the nominee was going to be regardless of the wishes of their actual – you know – voters.
I’ll give an example. The Trump administration seems to be fine with going along with the “repeal and replace” idea for Obamacare. A true “hard right Conservative” knows this is just playing into their opponents hands. By taking on the burden of “replace”, your opponents have already won the argument. A true Conservative would repeal. Then ask that everyone meet like adults to discuss what comes next.
… how lobby groups …”
Were lobby groups actually mentioned anywhere in the article?
“In just what alternate universe could Trump be considered “a hard right Conservative”?”
Hullo ? Planet Earth calling. are you receiving us?
Apparently, just about everyone has been wiretapping Trump, despite the complete lack of evidence and the furious back peddling by the administration. At least the UK got an apology, which is more than Obama will get. Maybe everyone is just trying to lobby him to maintain UN funding or whatever he has decided to defund today. 🙂
@ Paul Penrose
“And I’m not a Conservative either”
Apparently no-one is. Not even Trump, not even the Republican party. It’s getting like the mad hatters tea party.
To be honest, there is nothing more pathetic than someone who is ashamed of their own political beliefs and seeks to hide them in bluster. Paul, like many secret Conservatives, you are just sad. Surprisingly as a committed lefty I have a lot of respect for Conservatives who are open and argue their case. That is honesty and has to be respected. But people who say ” I am not right wing but………” I have absolutely no time for.
That’s why I am here , on this site. no-one hides the fact they are sceptics and argues their case. I may not agree, but I have the utmost respect for that position.
D J Trump is not conservative on either social policy or economics. He is, however, not a socialist or a green, so some will call him hard right anyway.
@ Tom Halla
“D J Trump is not conservative on either social policy or economics. He is, however, not a socialist or a green, so some will call him hard right anyway.”
Nice one Tom ! We need a bit of light hearted relief.
By the way, GCHQ agree with you and confirm he sounds like a real lefty in his private conversations 🙂
“In just what alternate universe could Trump be considered “a hard right Conservative”?”
“Hullo ? Planet Earth calling. are you receiving us?”
I think this is funny. First, before Trump was nominated, all the conservatives were saying Trump was not a conservative, and now he is being called a hard-right conservative.
I would like to know what is considered “hard” right. I’m a conservative, but I’m not sure I’m “hard-right” so would like a definition of hard-right.
“Apparently, just about everyone has been wiretapping Trump, despite the complete lack of evidence and the furious back peddling by the administration. At least the UK got an apology, which is more than Obama will get.”
Trump is just trolling the MSM and the radical Left, and the Never-Trumpers. Trump says stayed tuned more things will be coming out about wiretapping in the near future.
I heard someone say the other day that NSA data (not sure if raw or processed) is shared with British Intelligence, and there was speculation that Obama could have requested Trump’s electronic communications from British Intelligence without leaving a paper trail.
I’m not sure how enthusiastic the British would be to receive a request to wiretap one side of an American election, or what they would do if they did, but that’s the theory.
Trump doesn’t seem to be worried about the controversy at all. He looks to me like he has something up his sleeve besides his arm.
To add a little to the British wiretap story, the U.S. shares its NSA data with several other nations besides Britain, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand. A coaltion of western, English-speaking nations.
This climate revolution is all based on the idea that CO2 has a high global warming potential and that somehow climate change is responsible for extreme weather evernts and rising sea levels. However:
1. The original calculations of the climate sensivity of CO2 are too great by more than a factor of 20 because the calculations neglected the fact that doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause a decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So rather than a climate sensivity of CO2 being 1.2 degrees C it is really less than .06 degrees C, not including feedbacks.
2. Then there is the idea that because warming causes more H2O to be in the atmosphere and H2O is also a so called greenhouse gas, that H2O provides a positive feedback and amplifies CO2’s global warming effect by roughly a factor of 3. However H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than that dry lapse rate which is a coolant dffect. The feedback has to be negative for the Earth’s climate to have been stable enough for life to have evolved. So that rather then amplify the effect of CO2, H2O attenuates the effect of CO2 by, for sake of convenience the same factor 3 so that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really less than .02 degrees C.
3. The warming effect of the atmosphere can be explained by a convective greenhouse effect provided for by the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the depth of the atmosphere, and gravity. The warmth provided by the convective greenhouse effect, as derived by first principals, works out to about 33 degrees C and 33 degrees C is all that has been observed so there is no additional radiant greenhouse effect and hence the AGW conjecture must be incorrect. Based on the fact that a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system, the climate sensivity of CO2 must be equal to some very small number close to zero.
4. If CO2 did affect climate, one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. According to this obsrvation the climate sensivity of CO2 is virtually zero.
5. Claiming a “scientific consensus” is an act of desparation. There is no such consensus because sceintists never regiatered and voted on the mater and such a consensus would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of ligislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process.
6. From the work performed on climate modeling one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans as it must have been for hundreds of millions of years. There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate.
7. Another realization is that extreme weather events and sea level rise are all part of the current climate and stopping the climate from changing will not help matters any. The optimum climate has yet to be indentified so even if we could cause the climate to change we do not know what to change it to.
Your fundamental assumption is incorrect. Let me make this simple so that you can understand.
Carbon dioxide is the trigger, methane is the bullet.
The trigger has done it’s work and as of now billions of tonnes of methane are being released into the atmosphere. We are now facing runaway climate change. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Extinction looms.
Why don’t you just have a beer as students usually do. Marry, get a child, and you’ll be a better person.
Wow , is that dumb . Totally innumerate .
Willful , right ?
Hugs, I have two children and four grandchildren, and I have a suspicion I’m already a better person than you’ll ever be. At least I care if they’ll get a chance to grow to my ripe old age.
Bob Armstrong, would you like to expand your comment at least to the stage where it actually starts to make some form of sense?
Maybe you’re not a person at all but just a trolling project.
Go get a beer and a life.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate so it does not trigger anything. During the previous interglacial period temperatures were higher than today with higher sea levels and more ice cap melting and hence more release of methane held by permafrost yet no tipping point was ever reached and the the last ice age followed.
Small problem, methane isn’t being released into the atmosphere.
Regardless, the methane band is so small that even if it were to saturate it would be hard to notice.
Deevo cares. For most socialists that’s all that matters.
1) Even if the absolute worst happened, your kids would live, they might sweat a tiny bit more, but that’s all.
2) Of course you want to impoverish those kids and force them to live in a dictatorship. But it’s better than having the world warm up by a few tenths of a degree.
You can always tell when the weak-minded are losing an argument – they resort to ad hominem attacks. Frankly you bore me. I’m not going to waste any more of my time with you. Goodbye.
The “clathrate gun” hypothesis is a fun sci-fi plot but is only that, and even now is being debunked. But if we are already facing extinction I might as well drive my Hummer to the beach, sit back and have another beer. But then why are we spending all this money on solar.
Thanks Willhaas for your summary. My first and maybe last comment here. Please can you support your science statements with your favoured peer reviewed references. I need to follow up to improve my understanding.
regards,
Nick Perrin
I am worried that The Donald will just defund what he can defund and leave it at that. I agree that something more concrete, like investigations and convictions, is necessary to make it obvious to everyone that CAGW is completely bogus.
I don’t know that one can prosecute for this. Imagine if we decided to prosecute every official position that turned out to be grand larceny of taxpayers. We would tie up courts for centuries. Plus, the government tends to exempt itself from prosecution. Defunding it may be what we have to settle for. Defunding tends to take away media coverage and people forget. Look what happened to the Clinton Foundation when one could no longer buy influence. AGW may go the same way. The rich want to be richer, not forgotten. They’ll find a new scheme—they always do.
Now your talking Bob
It’s the greatest financial scam in modern history. Defunding is step one. Keeping the pressure on w a crack forensic accounting team is step two. Watching these out to lunch asset reallocation mandates bankrupt these misguided funds would be a joyous victory.
Perhaps (fond hope) an anti-climate cabal Snowden like figure will emerge with a huge stack of emails, documents and communications stolen from the hard drives or the cloud that exposes actual conspiratorial conniving between NGO’s, financial institutions, government figures and UN figures. Something akin to the Climategate exposure, but including some of the private capital groups identified above. The general public will not believe a global conspiracy without a smoking gun.
They probably don’t need to be actively plotting. It’s something like the way an oligopoly works.
Everyone involved knows the rules and behaves accordingly. They don’t need to discuss it with each other. I’m afraid that Climategate is as good as it gets. 🙁
climate cabal deceit
A handy mechanism is de “filter bubble” caused by “personalized algorithms” that profiles users of search engines like google and social media like facebook. It is related to the echo-chamber phenomenon: the feedback from like minded pals substantiates and invigorates your opinion and thus the polarization between opposing views gets stronger and stronger.
“Big data” companies like Google boast from just say 5 measured items of your behavior they can make a pretty robust prediction of your taste and preferences, and thus bring together potential client and seller by targeting ads to the benefit of both.
At face value this may sound useful and harmless, but I think this is only half of the story. Because of this “filter bubble” mechanism. What I see really happening is a self-fullfilling feedback loop by presenting data in such a way that people within this “filter bubble” are being manipulated into precooked choices without them being aware of it. This is similar at what magicians are good at: diverting your atention and wrong footing you. In other words: clever manipulation.
With “big data” it is about buying and selling, with the “climate cabal deceit” it is about opinion and political choices. The mechanism is the same. Profiling people and creating these “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” creates a handy divide and conquer option, in which groups of people steadily conditioned to become like-minded are easily moved around and manipulated by the big players.
Sorry for the small typos like “profiles” should be “profile” (1st al.) and “this is similar at” should be “This is similar to” (3rd al.)
The company you’re thinking of is Cambridge Analytica. Guess what? It’s hokum. Complete bulldust.
As for Google, their algorithms are pretty much trash. Ever notice how they continue to serve you ads for products that you’ve researched and already bought? Quite pathetic really.
Thanks Deevo, my intuition is with you here, “commercial hokum” from companies selling a product.
From my own observation the existence of “filter bubbles” or “echo chambers” may be real though. Maybe just a modern variation of group-dynamics and people developing a “we-feeling” nurtured by – sometimes fierce – discrimination between insiders and outsiders (this is standard social psychology talk I guess). But maybe in part also the result of conscious targeting from outside players. Possibly a mix of both. I don’t know.
Some friends of me have the opinion you should avoid internet altogether as a source of good information because of these bubble and echo phenomena. Let us hope this is just because of some filter-bubble of their old-style media they themselves are trapped in temporary…
How exactly would the algorithm know that you have already bought the product. That’s priviledged information between you and the company doing the selling. The only information the algorithm has is your search history.
Is there anything else you wish to prove your ignorance of?
MarkW, you’re asking for a lot. Deevo/Sou could fill a whole blog with the things she’s ignorant of. In fact, she already has. ^¿^
Sounds to me as if a very deep RICO investigation is called for.
That worked out so well for certain other industries. Be careful what you wish for.
Friends what Paul lays out here has been in the making for a long time as you can see. When Climategate surfaced I thought “surely” the politicians and others pushing this have good science that is alarming them. This coming from someone with a skeptical approach to those shouting loudest in the public square.
What an education I got at that time. Months of digging revealed the abuse of science, leftwing politics, and financial engineering behind what was then called global warming. All of the institutions Paul names have been busy aligning politics with money grubbing at the expense of ordinary citizens for years. Climate Change politics seeks to harness greed to misplaced idealism achieving societal change outside democratic processes.
Those who have educated themselves on this are not cranks yapping endlessly about black helicopters. We fight fiercely because we understand the stakes. We have made an honest effort to understand what the right thing to do is. Knowing that we can do no other.
Kleptocracy as practised in “The Civilized World” requires the big Lie, theft by persuasion.
Parasites will not voluntarily give up, before they are bloated ,as ticks, and must fall off.
It is their nature.
These people are religious zealots and flat-out nutters. They are every bit as deluded and evangelical as the swindlers who papered the world with the mortgage-backed garbage that gullible fools swallowed.
(I am a business-schooled, CFA-ed, “buy-side” investment researcher with a long perspective and experience of “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds” )
It astounds me that any rational adult would pay the slightest bit of attention to their crackpot ideas.
I agree with that analogy John. In many cases they are the same people and institutions.
I’ll bet they are all taking short positions in fossil fuels and looking to make a killing by driving the stock prices down.
Ah. The malevolence of benevolence rought in fine detail. The wolf in sheep’s clothing finally made transparent. The entire crowd, not just the boy, can see the emperor’s tallywhacker. The wool pulled down over our eyes has gotten itchy…ok I’m done.
Why is energy efficiency being lumped in with renewables and and anti-carbon policies? Improving energy efficiency of things that use energy is good, regardless of whether or not manmade climate change is going to be a problem.
More sanity otherwise lost in the politicized-ideology manipulation-noise. Thanks…
Depends on how much the efficiency improvements cost.
Other than that, spot on.
You can’t ‘mandate’ improvements to efficiency. Just as Obama’s 50mpg was a stupid and impossible fantasy, trying to demand improvements to energy efficiency are pure madness. If it’s possible to increase efficiency then it will be done, for perfectly normal economic reasons. If it isn’t then no amount of law or regulations will change that.
“The Donald Trump Administration and Scott Pruitt EPA continue to emphasize fossil fuels, job creation and economic growth, and deemphasize the Obama obsession with climate change.”
Just found out that Obama worked for the Joyce Foundation in his earlier days and this organization helped create the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX which had Gore and Maurice Strong in it).
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7526
Goldman Sachs purchased a 10% stake in the CCX in ’06.
In 2008, a Bloomberg article said: “May 30 (Bloomberg) — The world market for carbon-dioxide emissions may be worth as much as $20 trillion a year within a decade, according to Richard Sandor, chairman of Climate Exchange Plc, owner of emissions markets in London and Chicago.”.
And then Blythe Masters, who “developed and marketed credit derivatives” in the 90s also was working on derivates for carbon:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-12/blythe-masters-jpmorgans-credit-derivatives-guru-is-not-sorry
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/the-howling-wilderness-of-carbon-credits/70817/
Looks to me like rich people saw a huge opportunity to score huge $$$ rent for decades from us at our expenses. Unfortunately, they still see AGW as an opportunity to garnish us of more of our wealth.
And to top it off, many people and organizations are calling for a carbon tax with the revenue in part being helped to fund government programs and deficit reduction. In other words, they want the middle class to pay the brunt of taxes to the US treasury so they can keep more of their wealth. This is the same thing with obamacare, its set up so that the middle class is funding the brunt of the program and paying for the poor’s healthcare.
Never thought I’d change my mind on going after the rich’s wealth. I’ve always been and always will be a conservative who has nothing against the rich (those who have earned their wealth by their own hard work). But when I see the rich trying to pass on the costs of social programs to us middle class, then that makes me want to increase their taxes massively so that they fund the brunt of these programs. And believe me, they want these programs because if they didn’t exist, there would be social strife and riots going on that would prevent or make it harder for them to enjoy their wealth. They aren’t stupid, they just don’t want to pay with their own money (well, they do pay but the proportion of what they pay is like most people here dropping a dime in a salvation army pot).
Nooooow your getting the gist of it. Its NOT an attack on the rich for the sake of being RICH. Its the selling out of their LOYALTY to our country that is the issue. The country needs to base its wealth on REALITY not some make up socially engineered AND MANDATED scam program. CAGW is a spoke in the wheel of social engineering. It has no basis in reality. The RICH in collusion with NGOs are pushing and FIXING the system to FAVOR the execution of a contrived mandate.
It has to to stop or we will no longer have a valid country based on reality.
Bring on a TASK FORCE as one would do for an RICO style cabal and seize the momentum that this election has given us.
I HATE monopoly in any form – the Financial Stability Board is simply that, a monopoly.
How is the FSB not a global conspiracy, involving hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of people. All of them pretending concern for the environment, while enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of humanity. Can we officially declare that tin foil hatters aren’t crazy.
Gee, no gas for heating or cooking? If the power goes out in a storm in the summer, it does’t matter quite so much. But in the winter, if the power goes out I can still light my gas stove with kitchen matches, and start a fire in the Franklin stove to keep warm since the furnace won’t run. So if I’m not able to use gas for heating or cooking, or burn wood in the Franklin stove in an emergency, does this mean I’m supposed to just freeze and starve to death?
Ha! Not gonna happen. I think those bozos like Bloomberg, et al., need their own planet – and soon, too.
Deevo March 17, 2017 at 4:51 pm
“Perhaps Solomon Green you should have referred to something a bit more recent? Talk about intellectual dishonesty, Solomon you take the cake! The COTS was the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef until the two latest coral bleaching events, which have been far more devastating that COTS ever were. You must have seen the reports on that and yet you chose to ignore it. That’s simply contemptuously pathetic. What little credibility you had is now gone.”
Deevo, Is this report sufficiently up to date? Please note the Authority that issued it.
The Nature Conservancy
Last updated August 30, 2016
“COTS Outbreaks
…..However, anthropogenic and other stresses combined with more frequent COTS outbreaks can result in significant damage to reefs, and
COTS are now considered a main source of coral mortality on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia.
COTS outbreaks appear to be increasing in frequency over the last several decades…”
“What Causes COTS Outbreaks?
Scientists are not sure what causes outbreaks of COTS, but one of the most widely accepted hypothesis is that COTS outbreaks are predominantly controlled by phytoplankton availability. Nutrient enrichment from agricultural land run-off may lead to COTS outbreaks because elevated nutrient levels cause phytoplankton blooms which provide a necessary food source for COTS larvae.
For example, in the Great Barrier Reef, doubled concentrations of large phytoplankton were linked to nearly a 10-fold increase in larval development, growth and survival of COTS.
Other scientists believe that COTS outbreaks are linked to the timing of El Niño events or are driven by removal of COTS predators.”
Resources
Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS): Crown-of-thorns research
The AIMS Long Term Monitoring Program Surveys
Crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef (pdf, 356k)
Case study on community-based COTs management in the Philippines (pdf, 2.8)
Copyright © 2016