Okies, here comes part 2.
But because of the vested interest associated with climate
change solutions,
the corporate media has largely taken a one-sided point of
view. Why else would the BBC delay the release of the story
despite knowing of it a month before the emails were leaked? Why
would CNN waited 6 days after the emails were released before
reporting on it? Moreover, the first reports by the MSM focused
largely on data theft or omitted the implications of scientific
fraud. Given the MSM's history of reporting skewd information over
the last decade, its surprising there is still so much trust in
such a failed institution.
Wait. Ok i had a look at the link you posted. It was written on
28 Nov 2009.
I see BBC had an article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
That was published on Friday 20 Nov 2009. In the article it said
the files were leaked on Thursday.
On CNN it seems their first response was 25 Nov. While i don't
know why CNN would release it after 6 days, your claim that BBC
delayed the release for a month don't seemed to be accurate
Fox News, it seems was actually faster than CNN.
As I have said again and again, even if the science for a
warming is concrete, the solutions being pushed are completely a
scam. By all means, I'm for environmental protection and the
full utilisation of renewable energy methods. Even the prominent
pro-climate change scientist James Hansen has voiced opposition to
such a scheme. Not only did he called for the failure of the
Copenhagen Summit:
It
would be better for the planet and for future generations if next
week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in
collapse.
but he also recognised that the cap-and-trade scheme would just
be business as usual for the corporatocracy:
You know the funny thing is? The man actually believed in
global warming.
He disagrees with how Coperhagen is going to deal with it, but
he believes in man made global warming.
So can you be consistent here? Do you disagree with the man made
global warming or you disagree with how we're dealing with it?
[Phasing out coal emissions would] require nothing less than an
energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy
sources. Alas, we won't get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a
monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic
insemination by special interests.
For all its "green" aura, [the] Waxman-Markey [climate bill]
locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a
Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme.
Now, we don't know what's coming out of coperhagen. What
Washington wants Washington may not neccessarily get.
In case you haven't been paying attention, the direction of the
world is no longer decided by just America.
No offence, but I think you're being extremely naive to believe
that a concerted effort by governments and the corporatocracy to
regulate carbon emissions would also threaten their own interest
for the sake of environmental concern.
The Energy and
Natural Resources Committee heard statements from leaders
representing eight big energy companies, including General
Electric, Shell, and the two largest owners of utilities in the
U.S., Exelon and Duke Energy. Six of the eight said they would
either welcome or accept mandatory caps on their greenhouse-gas
emissions. Wal-Mart too spoke in favor of carbon caps. The two
outliers from the energy sector, Southern Company and American
Electric Power, delivered pro forma bids for a voluntary rather
than mandatory program, but they, too, broke with tradition by
implicitly acknowledging that regulations may be coming, and
offering detailed advice on how they should be
designed.
No , but i'm realistic enough to believe they would act if
their own interest was going to be threatened. Not really good
business if alot of your Third World labour are going to be
suffering from drought/flooding/hurricanes yes?
Believing that government and corporations are inherently
selfish seems to be a lot less naive than believing that they're
inherently evil.
And of course, don't forget Goldman Sachs, which has both hands
in Obama's pants, and especially Al Gore, are all set to profit
immensely from a carbon derivative market (Who says the bankers
have learnt their lesson?). Rather than "shoot their own foot", its
going to be the middle and lower classes that will be bearing
the
financial and social costs of such a policy. Do we really need this
to teach us about elite double standards when history is full of
it?
That's the sickness with society. Problems only get 'solved'
when its profitable to do so while getting mixed up with all kinds
of vested interests, just like the present situation. As George
Carlin put it:
Anything we don't like about ourselves, we declare war on it!
We don't do anything about it! We just declare war on it! It's the
only metaphor... the only metaphor we have in our public
discourse, for solving problems! Declaring war! We have to
declare war on everything! We have the war on crime, the war on
poverty, the war on liquor, the war on cancer, the war on
drugs... Did you ever notice? We got no war on homelessness!
No war on homelessness! Do you know why? There's no money in that
problem! No money to be made off of the homeless! If
you could find a solution...! ...you could find a solution to
homelessness with the corporate swine, and the politicians
could steal a couple of million dollars each...you'd see the
streets of America begin to clear up pretty goddam
quick! I'll guarantee you that!
Now see here, i don't make my opinions solely based on
what America's doing.
I look at what China and India are doing because they would be
the worst hit if quotas on carbon dioxide emissions are
implemented.
They are both developing countries and are highly dependant on
cheap coal energy to power their economies. If they have to give
that up, they give up the economy growth and accompanying social
stability. The number of the lower classes that would be affected
from the carbon cuts probably outnumber the whole of America.
And see here, unlike America and India China's leadership
comprises mostly of trained engineers so they would probably
understand the hard Maths of global warming personally far more
than the politicans of any country. Whether they respect human
rights or not is a different can of worms.
They, who are so dependant on coal fired power plants are
willing to commit to 40-45 cuts on carbon intensity (based on 2005
levels).
Europe, short of the UK are also committed to emission cuts. It
seems the biggest portions of global warming unbelievers reside in
America and the UK. Now, i wonder why ?
Shows a lot on what they think of global warming, isn't it ?
To you, a TVP solution where we use our immensely advanced
technology to free ourselves from the shackles of money and jobs,
ushering in a new concept of freedom, and which would (God forbid!)
create an egalitarian society where we all shared with each other
obviously wouldnt work because as everyone knows, the free market
is the only system that can promote human concern and progress.
I know I've rambled long enough and I hope you still have the
energy to cover one last (short) point.
With statements like "2009 is... the first year of global
governance" and that "The climate conference in Copenhagen is
another step towards the global management of our planet" by first
EU president Herman Van Rompuy, its obvious which outcome is the
one supported by huge vested interests.
While that isnt concrete enough to prove anything, it highlights
the question as to whether MSM coverage and the moulding of the
public consciousness is affected by such conflicts of interest.
You know, i think you would make a great journalist at Fox
News.You're very good at making me mean something that i don't.
No one's stupid enough to say no to the TVP if it was evenly
remotely viable or realistic. No one's going to say i don't want
freedom.
However, much like everything in life everything has a
price.
If the TVP's first place to build one of their fancy new society
in rural Africa for the tribal Africans, with the West providing
the labourers i would gladly sign up. I bet that's not what
the planners had in mind with their fancy dream.
Oh sure, say no to global government.
Continue to let the USA do whatever they want, after all their
citizens seemed to know what's best for the rest of the world
wouldn't they ?
There's no inherently good or evil in a global government, you
used that phrase as if it's supposed to imply anything by
itself.
