|
|
Global warming environmentalists are insistent that the world, particularly the western world reduce long term their C02 emissions from their current levels by between 60-90%.
Now firstly what climate gate has proven through the the thousand plus emails which have been leaked from the East Anglian Institute which is itself a prominent science institution, is that there is a manipulation of those figures, that there has been complicity, that data has been withheld and or deleted. The very climate models are only as good as the information which is presented to the model so if the figures are distorted then the climate models will of course represent that and therefore give a very misleading and deceiving picture of what is really happening.
I also find it very ironic that according to the surface to air temperature measurements in the last decade there has not been a rise in temperature and yet there has been a rise in C02 levels. If you look at what is now being admitted albeit in a watered down fashion, the earth is going through a global cooling cycle but they insist that once this is over, things will get oh so much worse and if we don't act now, it will be too late. I find this ironic since many of the people who are so convinced by this, are the very same people who would mock someone on any other issue with the throw away line "oh the sky is falling" "the sky is falling"!
Also consider this to, lets suppose that the much attacked notion of global cooling does come true in 2018. Now supposing that is the case, it would make great sense to be in such a hurry to ram through these changes now, because then they could claim credit for the fall in temperatures and then they could up the ante.
Now just to underline what is unfolding here Lord Monckton who is the former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher has invited these leading scientists to debate with him on the merits of climate change and yet none are doing so. This of course includes David Suzucki and anyone else you can think of and furthermore, as for Al Gore being revered as some kind of messiah by so many people, lets take note of 2 very important things, firstly he will not appear to debate when there are unknowns he only accepts pre screened questions and secondly, he will not appear before any kind of an audience until he receives a fee of 300.000. Only after those 2 criteria have been met do we seea gushing and "passionate" Al Gore and of course even the former is based upon the non partisan nature of the event, i.e. if a journalist asks him a question, which he already had warnings about, well that's fine lol.
Next, and returning to the central point raised by the environmentalist lobby, don't simply look at what the targets are for the reduction targets but with what they deem the necessary reductions in C02 have to be. This is because although it has been described before and has been dismissed, purely on the numbers alone, essentially all industry would need to be shut down for decades on a world wide scale. This is no exaggeration and I challenge anyone to look at what the UN's target reductions (in terms of tonnes are) and then relate that to the yearly output that humans are said to create. To actually implement that would of course lead to the total collapse of the economy's. This statement is rubbished by those on the "green" side and yet is simply dismissed with a refusal to back up why.
Next we have to again focus on these figures and ask, well hold on, if they want to take existing C02 levels from what they are now and reduce them by 90%, which considering they claim humans are responsible for 60% of total carbon dioxide levels, equates to a real terms decrease of 36%. The question is since the very process of life is humans breath in oxygen given from plants and in turn plants take in the carbon dioxide which we breathe out, what impact will such a marked reduction of carbon dioxide have on the plants?. Now the responses I have heard range from, that's just crazy, to plants already absorb too much C02, but in the latter case, who the hell actually decides that?
Another point to make is that there are thousands of scientists who disagree with the scientists presented to us in the mainstream. Therefore there is only a climate concensus because they choose to shut others out, or label them as a fringe group. However what are we saying here? that we should trust the scientists who presented to us on television and by the government? Well then the question is what makes them any more plausible than the other side? . One of the key rebuttals issued by the environmental pushers is that those who are arguing against this are akin to holocaust deniers or and more importantly they smear them with the label of being proxies for big oil. There is in fact some truth to that, but along with that truth masks a bigger truth and that is the funding of these scientists is now being linked to their funding of climate change and since the major governments and various foundations are intent on pushing this, there is millions and millions to be made if the "concensus" is reinforced.
Moreover we already know that governments have just become themselves a proxy of major corporations and so we must then ask well what is in it for the corporations, why are they so interested in this?
The answer to that lies in the means by which they are going to facilitate this drive, they will use a system called cap and trade. Now essentially what this means is that companies are issued with a limit on how much carbon dioxide they can produce and from there can buy extra credits. That was initially the way in which it was going to be rolled out, but of course now what they have been pushing for is a universal system in which everyone is given a carbon limit, for those who use less carbon than the limit, they can sell it and make some money, for those that don't, they can go back onto the open market to buy some. Now at this juncture this screams to me a global tax and the buildings of a true slave state economy. Just to add some context to this, in order to repay our money which has been handed over to the banks freely, government statistics though themselves watered down, are predicting a need to increase taxes in this country by at least 6% of GDP in the next 5 years. In other words in the region of 60 billion.
In doing so, they will force this country into even deeper despair and yet another tax on top, will make this all the more disastrous. However you could argue that well governments will ensure that the price will be cheap right?. This would be a misinterpretation of what this is set out to achieve and why corporations are salivating, so simply put, you will buy on the open market and you will sell on the open market. To gain some perspective of what is going on here, you read news articles which say something along the lines of this market could be worth something between 300 billion to 2 trillion. What this basically means is that a new bubble is hurriedly being formed and it will become huge and then burst spectacularly just as the dot com bubble, just as the housing bubble. The reason is that speculators, not individual speculators but financial institutions will be speculating wildly on the futures price of cap and trade and to put it simply, this is a weight of money trap, they pour so much money in to create an artificial demand for cap and trade which will in turn drive the price upwards and upwards and then other people seeing that, will piggy back it and throw in their money in the hope that this a market where will make fortunes themselves. The sad truth is because a lot of people still don't understand the fundamentals behind the overwhelming change in price and because of that, history will repeat itself and people will then scratch their heads in disbelief when the big players jump out of the market and leave the other folks carrying the bag.
Now included in the list of financial institutions who will be deeply involved in the game of speculation is of course the infamous Goldman and Sachs who most Americans will by now know very well since they have your money. Another important point to note about the futures market, is once again not only creates a bubble but a derivatives bubble, so then we will have the TNT of this derivatives bubble to stand on top of as well as everyone else. As this wasn't enough, just to compound things and add insult to injury as Taibbi spoke about in his youtube video for rollingstone, there is a sub section of the current fiance bill which is trying to clear congress which would give unlimited future "bailouts" to the top 25 banking institutions. This means they can then jump on to this game, make incredible sums of money and when it goes pop, they will rob even more from the tax payer and eventually all of this is going to have the net effect of driving living standards down for the majority of people to effectively subsistence levels.
Now you could of course argue that for this scheme to be acceptable, those who had exceeded their carbon quota limits could not simply be left to suffer and so the government would have to provide support for them. Well lets suppose that is true, when a country is dependent on the government like that, then it shows a huge gulf between the rich and the poor of the country. What the world shows us that wealth has a dramatic effect on new borns, seeing a massive reduction as living standards increase, now on the other hand when peoples living standards tumble, there is less incentive not to have kids. So with the latter coming true, those targets to cut carbon dioxide could never be met as more children are introduced. So at this point they could attempt to limit the number of children which people could have, but to do so would require a massive malevolent global law to be passed. It is important to remember that such a law just as the upcoming Copenhagen agreement, would be legally binding on the nation and we would therefore have yet another branch of global dictatorship announced in the faces of everyone. I personally would love for this to come about because people naturally are rebellious and are nearing the end of their patience now. However I don't think such a step would dare to be taken and this would of course dramatically effect carbon dioxide levels.
Would there be benefits? well that is something you have to balance out, a huge reduction in manufacturing and in the economy would lead to a reduction in pollution, but it would also lead to a terrible hard ship for the world which will make the current hard ship seem like it was a doddle. However they aren't doing away with pesticides, if anything pesticides are getting stronger, depleted uranium gets used more and more, we saw the horrible effects of white phosphorous being used in Iraq and we of course we see all the various chemicals being dumped into our food and into our seas.
So what is the long term goal? well this isn't my opinion, this is something you can google for yourself, the long term is contraction and convergence, in other words contract C02 by up to 90% and reduce the wests affluence from 15:1 against the the third world to 3:1. Or another way of putting it is this banking bailout is only the very beginning of a much longer game to destroy all of the wests wealth and of course this does not mean the third worlds wealth will increase hugely, this is part of the game of robbing because they have bled the rest of the world dry. This is an evil insidious scam to destroy any freedoms and turn us all into serfs. I know people have a difficult time digesting such statements because they see the tearful faces of those at the UN summit and see the media lovingly basking in it as if it's something wonderful but look beneath the surface and this gets very ugly. |
|
26-11-2019 04:30:44
Author