Global Warming: A Pollution Ponzi Scheme?

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off gives very good scientific information on the subject, seldom found.


Over the last few years, how many times have you  heard the following questions: Are the temperatures we're experiencing unusual? Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme? What role does human activity play in the current global warming trend? Does global warming even exist?

Well, in answer to the last question, if it does exist, it's probably not anthropogenic (man-caused) according to Glaciologist Jorgen Peder Steffensen, curator of the Neils Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, and scads of other scientists who up until recently, were under a gag-order.  As Steffensen said, those who came to the "global warming is man-made" conclusion, conducted an extremely poor experiment.  They started observing meteorology at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years - only 140 years ago - so, of course, the 20th century temperature spike looks like an anomaly.  Moreover, when you start following the money (carbon trading: potential multi-trillion dollar business), it becomes all too clear as to why the "global warming is man-made" conclusion was constructed.

Steffensen, extracted ice core samples from Greenland, which bear the fingerprints of climactic conditions over the last 120,000 years. From that sample, the temperature data revealed longer periods with much higher temperatures than we experience today. The coldest point occurred 140 years ago in what they call the "little ice age". Other core samples, from Greenland and elsewhere around the globe, in addition to using other methods such as carbon-14 dating from organic matter from peat bugs and tree-rings confirm the pattern. In other words, major fluctuations in climate are normal, and the recent warming may be a natural consequence of leaving the little ice age in 1875, the lowest point we've had over the last 10,000 years.

Former senior official of the United Nations and billionaire industrialist, otherwise known as the Godfather of the international environmental movement, Maurice Strong,  who played a major role in organizing the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972, thus launching the "Green movement" is the "wizard behind the curtain" regarding the global warming scam.

He organized the U.N. sponsored conferences, including Kyoto, Japan in 1997 (Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, aimed at fighting global warming) and he was instrumental in establishing the IPCC  (International Panel on Climate Change). In 2005, Strong stepped down from his UN post because he was involved in the food for oil scandal. Evidence later showed that Strong, in 1997, while working for Kofi Annan, endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to “Mr. M. Strong,” issued by a Jordanian bank.   Strong is also one of the nine directors on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)which describes itself as “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”  Climate scientist, Dr. Benjamin Santer, supposedly Strong's right-hand man, altered a crucial United Nations report on climate change to convey the misleading impression that there is a "discernible human influence on climate".

And we can't forget Al Gore, appointed poster boy and expert on global warming. Not only is Gore a partner in  Hara Software, who helps companies manage their "carbon footprints," and who admittedly stands to rake in between 10% to 50% of the trillion dollar business its supposed to become in the next few years, but he and David Blood (former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management) co-founded Generation Investment Management (GIM), in 2004 “to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating global warming”.

In November 2009, Gore minimized the significance of the so-called "Climategate" scandal that grew out of confirmed reports that the top scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England, possessor of the world's largest temperature-data set, had secretly and repeatedly manipulated scientific evidence in order to conceal or destroy data that contradicted their claims.

Links:

The Hockey Stick Illusion

Read more...

20,000 Years of Change Will Occur in the 21st Century

How is this possible? According to Ray Kurzweil, the answer is exponential growth, as seen in the hockey stick graph below. We are naturally inclined to "see" our future from a linear perspective. That is, we use the last fifty years as a model for the next fifty years. We overlook the exponential pace of change...the explosive nature of exponential growth. This alters our ability, significantly, to perceive things accurately.

Dr. Chris Martenson gives an excellent crash course online, explaining our economy and the major changes that are just beginning to take place. I tried to consolidate an example of exponential growth into picture form (above) from the one Chris Martenson offers from his chapter on, Exponential Growth.

Unlike compound interest, exponential growth, as Martenson points out, does not equal prosperity. When we chart world population, oil consumption, money creation (hyper inflation), debt, species extinction, etc. we can see how explosive growth translates to lower our standard of living.

However, as we transition from a past characterized by small population, low level of technology, energy consumption, etc., to a future where population, level of technology and energy consumption is beginning to explode, it's important to keep in mind that when evolution creates a capability or generation of technology, it then uses that capability to evolve the next stage. In other words it exponentially accelerates the tools and/or the rate at which we become proficient to deal with the more "pathological" escalation that would interfere with our standard of living.

The runaway acceleration of technology is a clear example of exponential progression, as information technology has already deeply embedded itself in almost all of our activity so much so, that it's hard to imagine how we managed without it. Peak oil is a good example of how the exponential growth of consumption of this nonrenewable resource could lead to catastrophic results. However, all that means is that one paradigm for energy has reached its limit...hit a wall. It does NOT mean the end of energy. Once we see the end of the road one paradigm, it motivates researchers to create the next paradigm. It's very likely that the evolution of our capabilities will solve the energy consumption problem, perhaps by using the inexhaustible source of energy, sunshine.

Take our latest financial crisis as an example. This is not a problem of exponential growth or evolution, but society's mismanagement and refusal to direct the path of that growth. Instead of channeling the exponential progression of our financial sector in ways that would benefit humanity, we chose to "regulate" it to benefit the greedy, hoping one day we would also benefit, after all, this is America where anything is possible.

Now, even the greedy recipients may not even prosper, and we, the people, will instead of one day reaping the benefit, will end up paying the ultimate price. Remember, we voted in these greedmeisters, we looked the other way, we immersed ourselves in the distractions they created for us to forward their own agenda, we immersed ourselves in the lives of the rich and famous, and lastly, we agreed to let those either without good fortune (sick and the poor), or those designated as "misfits" (gays, other minorities and other countries) to serve as scapegoats. Are we not just as guilty as they?

Our problem is not due to a lack of technology, energy, material resources, knowledge etc. Rather it's due to the unwillingness to examine our predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize how we function as a society and the rigidity to let go of outdated or destructive paradigms.

Albert Einstein said, "The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest."

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
-- Dr. Albert Bartlett

Read more...