That billionare headline was funny in a pathetic sort of way. Talk about a simple trigger. And the riggies jump. What a hoot.
Yes, yes, lets look at how it is this narrative was created and how it is maintained.
But I dare say, the following will not likely serve as evidence for those that already hold strong ‘beliefs’ on this matter.
That is our problem.
So unless and until you can change my mind about the relevance of the following in respect to its impact on the larger context, I will not cede ground to the dogmas of a new goddammed church. Get it?
An stop calling my people tards.
http://www.theforgottenstreet.com/Enron ... Kyoto.html
Ken Ring claims that the Kyoto Protocol to bring global management of climate change was cooked up behind closed doors at Enron as a way to cripple the coal industry and steer more industries toward natural gas, of which Enron was the United States’ biggest producer.
Two decades ago, Enron owned and operated a network of natural gas pipelines and had become a leading commodity trader buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas and electricity.
Because the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments placed caps on how much pollution a fossil fuel plant could emit, Enron helped create a market for EPA’s sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today’s carbon offset scam.
As Enron’s stock shot up, the company next turned to creating a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide. The only problem was that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant (despite what the senile members of the Supreme Court may think). As a result, EPA had no authority to cap CO2 emissions.
With the advent of the Clinton administration in 1993, Vice President Al Gore set out to create an international regulatory system that would manage carbon dioxide. Enron immediately began to lobby Congress and the administration to give the EPA regulatory authority over CO2.
In addition, Enron began to cultivate new friends in the environmental community. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation gave nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promoted global warming theories. Another $1.5 million was donated to other groups advocating international controls to curb global warming, including Greenpeace.
In 1997, Enron set about to promote an international treaty to impose cuts in CO2 emissions while allowing emission rights trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and it would help Enron’s growing commodity trading business.
As the push for a treaty gained more support around the world, Enron CEO Ken Lay and other business leaders wrote to President Bill Clinton on September 1, 1998, asking him to create a bipartisan blue ribbon commission that would essentially shut off the scientific debate on global warming and discredit those scientists who opposed the treaty and did not support the global warming theory.
Simultaneously, Enron commissioned an internal study of global warming science, only to find the results did not support the theory. In conclusion, the report noted, “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.”
A primary consultant for that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, the very same scientist who now castigates the Bush administration for its stance on Kyoto and who trashes scientists who dispute global warming as being in the hip pocket of big business. That certainly did not keep Mr. Hansen from cashing Enron’s check.
Ring’s investigation, as reported in Investigate magazine, notes that “…coal-burning utilities would have had to pay billions for permits because they emit more CO2 than do natural gas facilities. That would have encouraged closing coal plants in favor of natural gas or other kinds of power plants, driving up prices for those alternatives. Enron, along with other key energy companies in the so-called Clean Power Group – El Paso Corp., NiSource, Trigen Energy, and Calpine – would make money both coming and going from selling permits and then their own energy at higher prices.”
Confirmation of Ring’s story is found in a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, written by Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mr. Horner provides extensive documentation of Enron’s involvement behind the scenes with environmentalists (including Theresa Heinz), Bill Clinton, Al Gore and other greed-driven businesses.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/ ... ation.htmlWhile nuclear industry lobbying is widespread and aggressive, its impact is not always readily apparent. Take, for example, the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, which the Senate is expected to debate this summer. The bill—also known as S.2191, or America’s Climate Security Act—does not mention the word “nuclear” once in its 200-plus pages. Yet an aide to Senator Joe Lieberman called the measure “the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the United States,” according to Environment & Energy Daily.
One section of the Lieberman-Warner bill says that “25 percent of all the funds deposited into a new climate change worker training fund shall be reserved for zero and low-emitting carbon energy that has a rated capacity of at least 750 megawatts of power,” notes Tyson Slocum, the research director of Public Citizen’s energy program. “That’s a huge threshold, so that’s going to exclude wind and solar right off the bat. . . . The only thing that could possibly meet that target would be nuclear power.” Similar language in another section of the bill effectively reserves another half a trillion dollars for the nuclear industry, according to Slocum.
“It’s hard to imagine an industry that’s more brazen in its quest for ever-larger federal subsidies,” says Environment America’s Anna Aurilio. “They already get their waste completely taken care of, they already get a guaranteed cap on liability in case of an accident. . . . Any problem that could happen with the nuclear industry, the U.S. taxpayer is ultimately going to have to pick up. And yet, they keep coming back to Congress for more and more and more.”
Diane Farsetta is the Center for Media and Democracy’s senior researcher.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/glo ... royal.htmlWednesday, June 20, 2012
Globalists Switching Gears: Royal Society Lecturer Says CO2 Not Affecting Earth’s Temperature
Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post
Fritz Vahrenholt, a German green energy investor, says he has reassessed his position on man-made climate change.
Vahrenholt has been a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg since 2009. He served as a senator for the environment in Hamburg, Germany between 1991 and 1997, and was a member of the “sustainability advisory board” to chancellor Schröder and Merkel in 2001 to 2007.
Speaking at the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society in London, Vahrenholt was representing RWE Innogy, one of Europe’s largest renewable energy corporations.
Vahrenholt, who reviewed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most recent report on renewable energy, noticed that there was an obvious lack of scientific data to support their assertions. A prominent member of Greenpeace, a UN propaganda arm disguised as a proponent of environmental concern, edited the final version of the IPCC’s report. The IPCC’s report, according to Vahrenholt, is littered with falsities and a complete disregard for natural factors that would be considered in a fluctuating climate such as Earth.
Also please note;
As Paul Feyerabend writes in Against Method at the end of chapter three. (Great book, the footnotes alone make reading this book worth the effort.)
Mills views and Bohr’s procedure are not only an expression of their liberal attitude; they also reflect their conviction that a pluralism of ideas and forms of life is an essential part of any rational inquiry concerning the nature of things.
Or to speak more generally: Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a rigid church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge. And a method that encourages variety is also the only method that is compatible with a humanitarian outlook. (To the extent to which the consistency condition delimits variety, it contains a theological element which lies, of course, in the worship of ‘facts’ so characteristic of nearly all empiricism.)
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
