Friends,
For those who think the science of this matter is
settled, and for those who don't as well, I
recommend this article, sent to us by
'Alchemike', whose message is at the end of this
posting.
23 Mar 2007 - ALEXEY N. DMITRIEV: PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2353&lists=newslog
Current PlanetoPhysical alterations of the Earth are
becoming irreversible. Strong evidence exists that these
transformations are being caused by highly charged material
and energetic non-uniformity's in anisotropic interstellar
space which have broken into the interplanetary area of our
Solar System. This "donation" of energy is producing hybrid
processes and excited energy states in all planets, as well
as the Sun...
____________________
re/politics:
8) What is the effect of media coverage re/global warming?
9) What kinds of 'responses to the
crisis' can we expect from Western leaders?
10) What are the likely consequences of those responses?
11) Who is likely to benefit from the orthodoxy and the responses?
____________________
Despite a scattering of dissenting material, much
of which -- but not all -- may be oil-company
propaganda, the primary message being given to us
by the media (including Hollywood films) is that
global warming is a serious threat, and that it
is caused primarily by human-caused CO2
emissions. The US government lagged behind other
nations in accepting this orthodoxy, but has now
joined the bandwagon. Legislative measures are
being introduced throughout the world, allegedly
in response to the threat. Some percentage of the
general population, symbolized by SUV owners, may
scoff at this orthodoxy, but in general public
support is strong for these 'response' measures.
Governments have more or less a free hand, as far
as public opinion is concerned, to implement
stringent measures of their own choosing.
Personally, I don't think the science is at all
settled. Furthermore, I think the science is
largely irrelevant to the design of policies that
will move us towards sustainable societies and a
healed Earth. Even if there were no global
warming, and no climate changes, our usage
patterns of fossil fuels, automobiles,
long-distance transport, pesticides and other
pollutants, industrial agriculture, etc., are
unsustainable, ecologically destructive, and
highly wasteful of our natural resources. Drastic
reduction of CO2 emissions would be an inevitable
by-product of sustainable policies, if such were
ever to be adopted.
But does anyone really believe that the
'responses' being planned by our governments are
going to make any real difference to climate
change, or move us closer to sustainability? I
certainly don't think so. Carbon taxes, for
example, might slightly reduce the rate of
increase of CO2 emissions, but CO2 effects are
cumulative, and carbon taxes are like band-aids
on a serious wound -- to the extent CO2 emissions
are a problem.
And does anyone really believe that governments,
in particular the UK and US, are moving toward
'carbon punishment' because of public pressure? I
certainly don't think so. If public opinion were
so influential, why don't we see government
opposition to GMO crops or the destruction or the
rain forests? Why do we see continued escalation
in Iraq and Afghanistan? We need to recognize
which is the cart and which is the horse, as
regards governments and public opinion. When an
establishment crony like Al Gore fans the flames
of public opinion re/global warming, then we can
be sure that there is an agenda afoot, and that
public opinion is being manipulated in support of
that agenda. And whatever that agenda is, it is
clear that it has nothing to do with moving
toward sustainability or reducing climate change.
Let us now continue with representative message that you have sent in...
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:53:24 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: Cameron McLaughlin <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: global warming science: dissenting views
Sorry, folks, but much of this content is
cleverly planted disinformation by various front
groups who have a vested interest in discrediting
the overwhelming body of evidence about global
warming. You've been had. The jury is in, and
there is no legitimate refutation of the now huge
body of data.
Cameron McLaughlin, PhD
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:12:46 -0700
From: •••@••.•••
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: global warming -- the science
Hi, Richard.
I'm looking forward to the other post that you
mentioned. I tend toward believing that global
warming is a hoax. I wouldn't have if I hadn't
listened to and read Jeff Schmidt's book,
"Disciplined Minds," that discusses the political
nature of professionalism in all fields including
the hard sciences. Jeff Schmidt's contact
information follows.
Jeff Schmidt
3003 Van Ness Street NW #W406
Washington, DC 20008
http://disciplinedminds.com
•••@••.•••
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "M.A. "Omas" Schaefer" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Global Warming Leaders on Big Nukes payroll?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:58:11 -0400
If we all weren't going to die before this post,
we certainly will now. We might make it through
next week, but I doubt it.
The worst "offender" of all? The burning of
hydrogen fuels! And look at all of the
environmental groups lined up like ducks in a row
promoting hydrogen. So now we see a very
interesting contradiction. The environmentally
conscious people who wanted to save the planet
with clean-burning hydrogen (pure H2O vapor out
the tailpipe)
have some explaining to do. How can they support
human-induced global warming while also
supporting the introduction of water vapor into
the atmosphere? Oops!
I believe in equal opportunity bashing. If the
global warming crowd is going to accuse every
dissenting scientist of being on Big Oil's
payroll, then it is only fair to accuse them of
being on the Big Nukes payroll. The first wave of
environmental leaders is already publicly
floating the idea that we need a massive nuclear
power plant construction program in order to save
us from, you guessed it....certain doom! Frankly,
and I don't say this jokingly, I think it is safe
to assume that these key environmentalists have
secret bank accounts in Lichtenstein. Does anyone
care to ponder the untold TRILLIONS of dollars
that will be spent on the construction of a new
generation of nuclear plants? What better way to
create a demand for these plants than to make the
burning of carbon-based fuels a big no-no.
I've been a vegetarian for 31 years, so I walk
the walk. If Al Gore and his cronies really
wanted to cut down on greenhouse gases, they
would be leading the way by becoming vegetarians,
and promoting vegetarianism to everyone else
after they (the elite) have done it themselves.
Methane from grazing cattle far surpasses the
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and power
plants.
----
Hi Omas,
I don't know what the effect of grazing cattle
is, but I do know that the British government is
moving toward nuclear power as a 'solution' to
global warming and peak oil. I'm sure that the US
will soon follow. Nuclear power may in fact be
the heart of the real 'response' agenda. We'll
find out when they replace Bush with their
Democratic-brand puppet. Hillary -- or whoever --
will need a 'grand new mission' to entrance us
with, and that may be turn out to be nuclear
power. She'll need public support, and as you
say, the CO2 hysteria helps a lot.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "M.A. "Omas" Schaefer" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: My reply was Politically Incorrect
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:48:04 -0400
Judging from the responses you passed on
(certainly not mine) I can now see that the left
does not even pretend to engage in rational
discussion. Your readers cannot be accused of
having open minds, that is for sure. They are
excellent Stalinists and when they get into
power, will probably round up and execute global
warming deniers.
---
Hi again,
Thanks for staying around, even though you may
feel you're not among friends. There's more to be
gained from dialog when everyone's not in the
same choir.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Macgregor" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: global warming science: dissenting views
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:04:06 -0000
This is great dialogue you've generated, Richard
and the very fact that Bill Engdahl is so
skeptical and dismissive of the orthodox view is,
for me, a strong indicator that it could all
indeed be elite generated bullshit.
jim
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Philip Snow" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Is global warming a hoax?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:56:42 -0000
I'm surprised you didn't mention the worst aspect
of the film - lots of unscientific, fascist
Greenies denying development to the so-called
'Third World'!!
When the most deaths every yr [c4 mill kids, +
many adults], & from one of the worst pollutions
- indoor wood smoke - is caused by lack of
electricity! And not the feeble, unreliable power
from the solar panels & windmills we graciously
allow them!
And of course the natives are forced to deforest
very last bit of veg from the sub desert regions
- which are growing annually.
Philip Snow, "The Design & Origin of Birds", DayOne Books, 2006.
"Light & Flight - Hebridean Wildlife & Landscape Sketchbook",
Brown & Whittaker, Mull, 12/06.
PHILIP SNOW BA
------
Hi Philip,
Thanks for bringing in the third-world angle.
Along with nuclear power, this appears to be a
major component of the real 'response' agenda.
Preventing the colonies from developing has
always been at the core of imperialism. The
trading of carbon credits, for example, keeps the
third world in poverty, while enabling rampant
energy wastage to continue in the West - despite
so-called CO2 reduction measures. And due to the
CO2 hysteria orthodoxy, good-hearted NGOs
cooperate in suppressing third-world development,
falsely assuming they're doing something about
global warming.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:46:30 -0500
Subject: Is climate change a hoax?
From: Mary Mackie <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Richard,
While I and my family have always been concerned
for the environment, I have felt suspicious of
the SUDDEN realization of the imminent danger of
climate change.
This suspicion hardened when I came upon the
information -- while tracking the unpopular
"sale" of B.C. Rail to U.S. interests -- that
there is a plan in place for a so-called NAFTA
SuperHighway. There's a North American
SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), a North American
Centre for Transborder Studies (NACTS).
(Ref. http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/).
It means a 10-lane superhighway running
fast-tracked from Mexico to Alaska for heavy
trucks, trains, pipelines.
It's clearly done with the knowledge of those who
advocate for strict controls on personal
activities ... and it's impossible to reconcile
those two positions.
So on that basis, I am beginning to think that
Climate Change is indeed another cynical ploy.
WAR is one of the planet's worst polluters, yes?
WAR makes the changing of my light bulbs a
pitiful sham, by comparison.
M. Mackie
Canada.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Claudia Rice" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>
Cc: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: global warming science: dissenting views
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:38:42 -1000
Hi all- the one thing we know for sure is that
desertification has been progressing right along
with organized human activity. Didn't see any
mention of wholesale deforestation that continues
along with pollution.
The other thing I've noticed is that "orthodoxy"
for once seems to be on our side. I'm as
suspicious of it, or more, than most. But it
seems to be a strange time to bring up that
argument, don't you think?
Claudia
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:25:04 +0100
To: •••@••.•••
From: Prospective Internationale <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Is global warming a hoax?
Dear Richard,
I have to say that I have been very concerned by climate change on two levels.
The first one was when I asked myself: "What have
we done to our planet?" as many of first world
citizens did...
Then, as a professional analyst of mass
communication, I asked myself "Why is this sudden
panic about climate change?"
Things turned from some few tenths parts of
degrees and centimeters of sea level to several
degrees and meters of water above all cities on
sea shores...
As usual, I tried to figure out who can benefit from that panic.
And the answer is, once again, the big industry!
Why?
Because industry knows that they will face a
shortage of "easy oil" extraction and need to
shift, soon or later to new ways to power
engines. This change, as any new industrial
shift, requires huge investments to produce new
engines and cars that will cost more than the
ones already under production.
So what can push "responsible" citizens to invest
in new engines better than feeling guilty because
of the CO2 their own cars produce?
For wealthy people and public decision-makers,
fighting a, so far, potential global warming,
will lead them to invest on hybrid cars and push
regulation laws against greenhouse gases.
Climate change might be a real threath for
humanity, but it is used as a way to make
citizens pay for research and development of new
engines at their expenses instead of seeing
corporations taking this charges at their
expenses.
Some days ago, a huge industrial meeting took
place in Brussels, gathering the highest
decision-makers of the bio-fuel market. Al Gore
participated to it but made his speech
exclusively for industry representatives, press
was not allowed to assist. This clearly shows who
are his real friends!
http://www.greenpowerconferences.com/wbm/index.html
So, Al Gore is also a representative of the big
transnational companies, particularly car and oil
industries. One of his functions consists on
pushing people to get scared of climate change
and invest in new technologies that are much more
expensive than the existing ones.
I'm not pretending that climate change will not
happen, I'm just saying that some clever
money-makers are already surfing the wave of
change!
Yours friendly,
Georges Drouet
--------------------------------------------------------
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:21:25 EDT
Subject: Re: global warming science: dissenting views
To: •••@••.•••
global warming is a misnomer and a
super-oversimplification...planetary climate
change is a better representation...planetary
change is better yet...
the truth of the matter is that NO ONE knows what
the hell is happening on this planet...and the
furious modeling attempts of scientists and the
babblings of know-nothing politicians like al
gore (how much did he make from occidental
petroleum last year, by the way???) and talking
head spooks like tom brokaw are nothing more than
whistling past the graveyard...
it's all the same old story...arrogant monkeys
who think they've got it all figured out, what's
wrong, and just what to do to make things right...
the earth is changing...simple as that...the
details of which will not be televised...
there are many forces at work...and the synergies
beyween those forces are absolute unknowns...it
may 'seem' imperative to reduce greenhouse
emissions, even if we actually could...but that
doesn't mean it IS imperative...
what about methane??? the release of methane from
decomposing matter under the ocean floor, not to
mention a tremendous increase from termite
populations is a fully natural phenomenon...what
about it's contribution to climate change...what
about it's combined synergistic relationship to
increased co2???
what about all these other forces at work and the synergies between them???
what about the SUN??? this is the occams razor
answer...increased activity from the sun has been
big talk in astrophysics for over 10 years
now...and the straight men and women in that
field tell you the same thing...that they have no
idea what is going on...only loose theory and
more modeling...
there is a similar phenomenon occurring
throughout the entire solar system...the amazing
russian physiscist, dr. alexey dmitriev stunned
the world with his work, THE PLANETOPHYSICAL
STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE in
1997...unfortunately, it never made it into
western intellectual circles because it doesn't
fit with their own model...regardless, it is
astonishing and should be digested by any who
attempt to debate this topic...i'll include the
link and the introduction below... [see beginning
of this posting - rkm]
of course i agree that it would be wise to move
into clean, renewable energy sources and i
applaud those who are working in those fields...
but for we as a species to be 'responsible for
our actions' we must first have clarity before we
act...right now the global warming/climate change
issue is as clear as mud and we are completely
incapable of knowing the outcomes of further
actions which may be meant to 'help'...my
attitude is not one of 'what me worry?'...i just
worry about the things i have clarity on...and
global climate change ain't one of 'em...
some who claim we must do 'something' use the
'precautionary principle' in their argumentŠ
they're right, they just don't understand their
own language...not ONE of the proposed solutions
to climate change has ANY chance of proving that
it is safe...further, technology is NEVER
safe...it is the wisdom of the people and
cultures which employ the tech that are safe or
unsafe...two way streets on all sides...
certainly we all use energy and i agree fully
that we as individuals should do whatever we can
to live in a sustainable and respectable
manner...and recognize our impacts...that is a
far cry, however from blaming the whole of
humanity for a disastrous situation and
shouldering everyone with the fate of the world...
because we don't know...the situation may not
even be a disastrous one...so why look for the
sky to fall???
what if the co2 levels increased to a point where
there was a spontaneous activation of 'junk' dna
which was designed to catapult our species to the
next evolutionary level??? preposterous???
maybe...maybe not...
who could know??? the scientists and their models???
the butterfly effect is REAL...and NO ONE knows
what the outcomes of all of this stuff might
be...so for me, it's just as easy to envision a
miracle as it is to envision an apocalypse...so i
opt for the former vision...
i see the earth as a LIVING SELF REGULATING
ORGANISM...ALIVE...she has HER OWN WAY...and
humans just like to think they control what
happens on her...
as my friend dennis mckenna says, 'the monkeys
just THINK they're running things...'
when gaia is ready for her next step, the human
monkeys will either be brought along or not...but
it is, in my opinion, only a participatory role
that we play...and we are privileged to play it...
we just need to let it down and stop thinking
we're so all important to everything...
as always, just my thoughts...
o)<
mike
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
