|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
 please, for the enjoyment of us all, could you please identify which financial or corporate elites are �manufacturing consent� in regards to global warming news? The problem with people that think like you is that global warming isn�t in anybody�s interests, most certainly not those who have the most to lose by environmental reform. Since these people (read: corporations) are the same ones that you believe control the upper echelons of government and all mainstream media, to what goal are they manipulating the information in regards to GW science? How do they benefit from maintaining the man-made global warming zeitgeist, when in reality that zeitgeist is telling everyone that big business needs to change their habits?
What you have said makes exactly zero sense. |
Cap and Trade will benefit companies that sell carbon credits, esp existing, large companies like GE. Those trading Carbon Credits stand to make a lot of money. Regulation and taxation will be very tough on new and growing, smaller businesses. Cap and trade will cost both home AND business owners an arm and a leg, all based on BAD SCIENCE.
The Missing Hotspot PDF An excellent 25-page critique of the climate change 'problem'.
From page 22:
| quote: | The Money Connection
So what is going on here? In time-honored journalistic fashion, follow the money:
- The amount of money spent on anti-AGW activity by organizations is around US$2 million per year, primarily from Heartland.
- The amount of money spent by pro-AGW organisations on research is about US$3 billion per year, about 1,000 times larger. It mainly comes from big government spending on pro-AGW climate research and on promoting the AGW message, and from the Greens.
- Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest ―commodity‖ market in the world�larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% � 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it.
Presumably therefore it is the finance industry that is driving the carbon emission permits agenda. Notice that a carbon tax, which would be simpler and fairer, would not benefit the traders and is not being put forward by governments. It is not that the ―science is settled‖ (a fine piece of anti-science propaganda!), but that the science is simply irrelevant now because big money interests are in control.
Who benefits? Emission permits are created by government fiat, out of thin air, yet have value. Trading favors the well-informed and those who can move the market, so big financial firms will routinely plunder the pockets of smaller market participants. The rest of us, one way or another, will pay for both the government-issued emission permits and the trading profits of the finance industry.
A former Chief IMF economist explains that the finance industry is now so powerful that it can sweep aside objections to its profit-making activities, no matter how ruinous they will be in the long term.
But these various policies�lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership�had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial sector�s profits�such as Brooksley Born�s now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998�were ignored or swept aside.�
From www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200905/imf-advice (and see also www.321gold.com/editorials/wilson/wilson050509.html):
―
I have met carbon emissions traders who say that they are well aware that carbon emissions almost certainly do not cause global warming. But that they are riding the trading for all it is worth while it lasts, because it is good business. They told me that that view seems to be widespread among carbon traders. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
"tens of thousands"? surely you would be able to point us to all the peer-reviewed articles that undermine accepted global warming science? For you to be so sure of yourself (considering the complexities of the science are far beyond what you are capable of understanding without intense study) there must be an equal amount of literature that supports your view? We'd all love to read it. |
Certainly 
Please enjoy
Petition signed by 31,478 scientists
The number of signatories with PhDs alone represent 15-times those seriously involved in the UN IPCC process.
List of All Signatories by State
12 pg Peer-Review Research containing 132 cited sources
Why Doesn't Anyone Mention the Record Growth of Sea Ice Around Antarctica?
Last edited by D-res on Jul-08-2009 at 06:36
|
but anyway, is it your assertion that the ruling class (whomever they might be) have distorted and/or controlled the evidence related to GW in a quest for personal gain? which is really what we're talking about here. d-res is arguing that GW is all about the elite controlling us and "manufacturing consent" (primarily) through their ownership of media (and presumably any and all scientific publications).
