Thread: Global Warming Agenda

I can assure you that I have not made any rash opinions based soley on one source, I have researched this for a while now. Whilst I have not nor do I intend to examine the raw data my self. The reluctance of the scientific community to release their data suggests they have something to hide (I am referring to the leaked emails here). You can find the computer code that these models were built on and see for your self what they did here .

The fact still remains that there is a no statistically proved link between CO2 and climate change, makes a mockery of the man made propaganda. And that is the major focus of this agenda and their policy decisions. There is noway to seriously prove what is causing it, you can only be agnostic on this issue. And I'm lost now whether we're in agreement on this or not.

The banks are looking to make a killing on carbon trading. The same woman that invented Credit Default Swaps, Blythe Master, is now heading JPM's carbon trading efforts she says

"banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix"

The UN's climate change conference in Cancun finished recently much the same as Kyoto, non binding. What it did step up is that the parties decided to establish a Green Climate Fund under the authority of the Conference of the Parties. Requiring USD 100 billion per year by 2020. IMO this seem to be the first step towards creating a global tax.

On the oil thing, I'm sure the drilling, refining and transportation process of getting the Oil produces CO2 somewhere along the line. Is this wrong?

To sum up, I looking to talk about who benefits, and possible agendas behind all of this, given that man made climate change is a lie knowingly put forward. It seems to be more about the money, and slowing the growth of developing countries than anything else. But everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

I'm not quite sure what's happening to 'save forests' over the world, especially in Brazil and in Congo.
The beautifull concept of replanting a tree everytime you cut one down, isn't reality. Again, the problem is not using wood. It's 1) using too much of it. and 2) not replanting them.
But most importantly, destruction of the amazon forest cannot be "undone" by planting new trees.
the amazon forest and congo forests are a huuge ecosystem with a lot of biodiversity, which is killed after the trees are being cut down.

Okay, well you are clearly convinced that man-made climate change is a lie. So I'm not going to argue the point any further.

As for theoretically why they may be putting the lie forward? There doesn't seem to be any real reason. Who would gain money out of this? The larger corporations as you claim. But that doesn't any country. Large corporations, for the most part, have become separate entities from the countries they happen to inhabit. Most have cheated taxes and moved their headquarter to tax havens. So I don't see how helping those corporations would help any country.

As for slowing developing countries. Wouldn't attempting to push those developing countries towards better sources of power help them in the long run? They'll be able to skip over a century of oil dependence and move straight to other renewable or at least better sources of energy. Not only that, but how can any country slow China's development? They hold too much power over the world. No country can bully them into working on cutting emissions. If anything China could bully other nations into doing what they want.

So, I don't see where your argument is going? Why would anyone falsify these claims if there really isn't any benefit? If anything is happening, oil companies and corporations dependent on the sale of oil products are putting out propaganda to make you believe that mad made climate change is false. Think about it. If we start moving away from the use of oil, their industry dies. They will no longer be the powerhouse corporations that they are now. That seems to make more sense. Especially, since there is evidence that large oil companies have in the past done similar things when it came to new forms of energy or more efficient usage of oil.

Hey, I'm just trying to remain agnostic on the causes. But until I see un-manipulated scientific evidence saying CO2 is causing it. How can you but assume that they are lieing to further some goals.

Yeah I agree large corperations have become seperate entities from countires, but is that not how the world is? The large corperations have no country loyalty, you can see this in the crisis were in now multinational banks get bailed out people get cuts.

As for the developing countries, helping them had never been the goal throughout history the IMF and the World Bank work to keep them in a state of constant debt ridden poverty. Not allowing developing countries cheap sources or energy like the ones the western world developed on, and pushing them to relativly expensive renuwable enegries is slowing the growth. It's all the more easier to steal resources from a poor country. And of course no one is telling China what to do, goes w/o saying.

I think there is no doubt that what ever agreement happens OPEC and the oil companies will continue to drill for oil untill it runs, out no conference is going to stop that. We will use oil whatever, its just whether the consumer is paying an added tax on top of that or not.

Okay, you view actions that are being taken in one way and I view them in another. It's clear this argument is going no where. How do you know that the manipulated scientific evidence that is being found isn't just being manipulated by the ones who are putting it out to the public? Or are only releasing the information that makes the other side look bad? It's too easy to become biased on this issue. I haven't seen anyone that hasn't been. So I won't bother with it anymore.

As I said I'm trying to remain agnostic on the issue. The information out there in is baised, you only get research grants for one kind etc etc.

What can be analyzed is the effects that the proposed solutions will have. And the potential winners and losers. Ne way i'm late for work..

It's still difficult to know how proposed solutions will affect things. There are lots of variables that come in to play, one of the most important and least understood being the human factor. I could say that the proposed solutions will help out developing countries with reasons like allowing them to skip over the fossil fuel era. You could say the proposed solutions will hurt developing countries with reasons like stymieing their development by forcing them to take the more expensive route of alternative energy. My reasons are long-term, yours are short-term, and neither of them have 100% justification. It's difficult to know how anything will affect a nation's economy and development. That is clearly evident in the stock market crash a few years ago.