Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil (44 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-...

    I wonder if Alex Jones has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil.

    A group promoting skepticism over widely-accredited climate change science has a web of connections to influential oil giant Exxon-Mobil, Raw Story has found.

    The organization is called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), apparently named after the UN coalition International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An investigation into the group reveals its numerous links to Exxon-Mobil, a vehement opponent of climate legislation and notorious among scientists for funding global warming skeptics.

    "Exxon-Mobil essentially funds people to lie," Joseph Romm, lauded climate expert and author of the blog Climate Progress, told Raw Story. "It's important for people to understand that they pay off the overwhelming majority of groups in the area of junk science."

    The NIPCC's signature report, "Climate Change Reconsidered," disputes the notion that global warming is human-caused, insisting in its policy summary that "Nature, not human activity, rules the planet." Many of its assertions have been challenged by, among others, the scientists' blog RealClimate.

    The report was released and promoted this summer by the Heartland Institute, a think tank that claims to support "common-sense environmentalism" as opposed to "more extreme environmental activism." It alleges that "Global warming is a prime example of the alarmism that characterizes much of the environmental movement."

    Posted 8 years ago #
  2. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    My personal note: It'd be fair to say the oil companies fund both sides. Are we really expecting action on "man-made climate change" from those who carried out 9/11? That they aren't setting the taxes, treaties and agreements to benefit them?


    The sources for this article are within this URL: http://alethonews.blogspot.com/2009/10/internation...

    International day of climate change funded by.....

    Kenny's Sideshow October 24, 2009

    Anytime there are world wide organized demonstrations urging action on global warming/climate change, my first question is who funds them and who really benefits.

    The Wanaka Wastebusters gather at a local ski mountain in New Zealand to call for 350 to protect their snow.

    From seabeds to mountaintops, people around the world were staging a day of demonstrations Saturday to call for urgent action on climate change.

    The events were being coordinated by a group called 350.org, whose name refers to the parts per million of carbon dioxide it considers the safe upper limit for our atmosphere.

    The group said it wants to "inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis" ahead of the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

    In all, more than 5,400 rallies and demonstrations were scheduled to take place around the world, all of them centered on the number 350, the group said. {more -CNN}

    So if you guessed the name Rockefeller as the major known backer of 350.org, you would be correct.

    '350' is a subsidiary of the Sustainable Markets Foundation, an offshoot of The Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

    In 2006, David Rockefeller Sr. made a $225 million bequest to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a foundation he formed with his four siblings.

    This is the same David Rockefeller whose quotes have been well publicized and have exposed his agenda.

    We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries.-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991

    This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. Sept. 23, 1994

    "For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will.

    If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." from David Rockefeller's autobiography 'Memoirs'

    So I'm thinking that anything that has to do with Rockefeller's money is never in the best interests of people or the earth. Do these tens of thousands participating in the '350' social engineering 'events' really understand the background of their financial leaders or are they, as Rockefeller's buddy Kissinger might say, 'useful idiots?'

    Question: Where are you at the antiwar rallies? The pentagon is the largest polluter on the planet.

    A comprehensive list of Rockefeller Brothers Fund grants over $200,000 which in some way aim at “Combating Global Warming”:

    • Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, Inc. 6/18/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
    • 1Sky Education Fund 6/18/2009 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 6/18/2009 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Evangelical Environmental Network 6/18/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • American Council on Renewable Energy 6/18/2009 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Sustainable Markets Foundation 3/12/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc. 3/12/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Aspen Institute, Inc., The 11/20/2008 $600,000 Sustainable Development Global
    • American Council on Renewable Energy 11/20/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • President and Directors Georgetown College (Georgetown University), The 11/20/2008 $700,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Center for American Progress 11/20/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 10/7/2008 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Resource Media A Nonprofit Corporation 6/19/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Corporate Ethics International 6/19/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Earth Island Institute 3/13/2008 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • 2030 Inc. 3/13/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Better World Fund 3/13/2008 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Ceres, Inc 3/13/2008 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives U.S.A. Inc. 3/13/2008 $650,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Regional Plan Association, Inc. 3/13/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
    • 1Sky Education Fund 12/13/2007 $1,000,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • American Council on Renewable Energy 12/13/2007 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Corporate Ethics International 12/13/2007 $250,000 Sustainable Development Canada
    • Public Interest Projects, Inc. 12/13/2007 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/13/2007 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Better World Fund 10/11/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Rocky Mountain Institute 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • National Environmental Trust 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Regional Plan Association, Inc. 6/14/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
    • National Wildlife Federation 6/14/2007 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Rainforest Action Network 6/14/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Arabella Legacy Fund 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Clean Energy Group 3/15/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • SmartPower Connecticut, Inc. 3/15/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • National Religious Partnership for the Environment Inc. 12/14/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/14/2006 $550,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • National Environmental Trust 10/12/2006 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 10/12/2006 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Resource Media A Nonprofit Corporation 6/15/2006 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Earth Island Institute 3/9/2006 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Ceres, Inc. 3/9/2006 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Better World Fund 3/9/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • American Council on Renewable Energy 3/9/2006 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc. 3/9/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Climate Change Organisation, The 12/15/2005 $300,000 Sustainable Development Global
    • Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/15/2005 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Rainforest Action Network 6/9/2005 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/16/2004 $225,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • World Resources Institute 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development Europe
    • SmartPower Connecticut, Inc. 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • Clean Energy Group 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development Canada
    • Climate Change Organisation, The 6/9/2004 $750,000 Sustainable Development Global
    • National Environmental Trust 12/11/2003 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
    • WWF-UK 10/9/2003 $400,000 Sustainable Development Global
    • Climate Institute 3/13/2003 $200,000 Sustainable Development Caribbean
    Posted 8 years ago #
  3. christs4sale
    Administrator

    One of the key issues of this debate that I think gets lost is: what are the solutions and visions that both sides are advocating? The people who are against the ideas of peak oil or global warming, in most cases, just feel that we can go to sleep, stay centralized and keep up with infinite growth and that our problems are not even really political, but mostly criminal. Just smoke out the criminal cabal in charge and we will be fine. The other side, in what I believe is a debate with a limited spectrum, wants green capitalism. Just go out and buy green light bulbs and other green products and the world will be saved. To use Mark's term: sustaina-BULL. Neither side in the mainstream, but portions of the environmental, peak oil and global warming movements, advocate a decentralization of the economic, agricultural and political systems, a locally-based society where people are directly connected to the production of their needs and a truly sustainable way of life for the sake of human survival.

    Also, I should note that taking the Rockefellers and the Eastern Establishment out of context and blaming everything on them is Birch Society-rooted propaganda that has been given way too much legitimacy by the not-very-well-read followers of the not-very-well-read Alex Jones. I am surprised people's bullshit detectors do not pick up on this agenda in a more wide-spread way. Three sources I highly recommend on this topic are:

    • George Seldes' book Never Tire of Protesting, which shows that the Birch Society was funded by big money with its own agenda.
    • Mae Brussell's article "Who Killed Congressman Larry McDonald?" from February 1984 Hustler.
    • Gerard Colby's and Charlotte Dennett's incredible and rare book Thy Will Be Done, which is a real book on the Rockefellers. A portion of this book shows how the far right agenda against the Rockefellers began around the turn of the century when the John D. Rockfeller Jr. abandoned the Christian missionaries, that were being used for capital penetration, for secular foundations.
    Posted 8 years ago #
  4. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    Absolutely. Well said.

    I'm all for renewable energy and a clean environment but at the expense of personal freedom?

    The whole notion that Co2 is a pollutant is astounding to say the least and that it drives temperature. Co2 never has driven temperature.

    Which makes the whole push for a price on Carbon dioxide quite absurd.

    Human beings certainly factor into negative environmental outcomes but are we really to believe that we can affect a billion year old climate system?

    Immediately if you doubt man-made climate change your denounced as a "Denier". What I see is an emotive connatation to holocaust denial which is disgusting beyond belief. The other is that I'm in bed with vested interests while they ignore all the trust-fund kiddies heading up UN-funded organisations eg. AYCC (Australian Youth climate coalition).

    And they conclude that I do not want a clean environment or to progress into the future with advanced energy technologies. I say let's have the electric car! Oops that was scuttled. How about light-rail? Oops the Government couldn't be fkd.

    What about clean water, toxic waste, habitat rehabilitation? Greenpeace, WWF, Earth First say in a matter of speaking: "OMG Runaway catastrophic climate change is happening, this is the ONLY issue to cover now!"

    I'm surprised people take those "organisations" or businesses seriously anymore when it concerns the environment. It's more to do with de-industrialisation and the attack on their favourite vodoo doll: Capitalism. It ain't perfect by ANY measure but sure beats collectivism. It's a pickle :|

    However in this debate it seems your either for or against which is sad. There's no compromise or opportunity to explain your complex point of view. Your either a denier or alarmist.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    I'm all for renewable energy and a clean environment but at the expense of personal freedom?

    Absolutely. Our personal freedom isn't worth more than our ecosystem. We will either regulate ourselves, or the planet will regulate for us. If your personal freedom leads to apocalypse, it needs to be squashed.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  6. truthmod
    Administrator

    ObiWan, the Satyagraha is not with you. You live in an interconnected world; your personal freedoms do not exist in a vacuum. If you think it is your personal freedom to exploit the earth and it's resources to your heart's desire, you may find that other people, animals, and the earth itself may exercise their personal freedom to stop you from threatening their personal freedom to live. Maybe you believe in the law of the jungle--whoever can eat the other first, wins. Well then, we'll be meeting you on those terms, but only so that your dead-end philosophy does not prevail. As a modern human, you eat way more than your share, and we aim to starve you to death if you refuse to be fair.

    http://www.truthmove.org/content/environment/

    Maybe it is time to write the Environment Disinformation page.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  7. mark
    Member

    The environmental movement was more interested in the limits to growth when the world had 3.5 billion people than it does not when we are approaching 7 billion.

    Capitalism and socialism are both parts of the problem, as Martin Luther King said we need to transcend both of those paradigms.

    Big oil bought the big environmental groups a generation ago.

    But that doesn't mean the glaciers are not melting.

    It's a similar "fake debate" as the media focus on 9/11 - either you believe 9/11 was a complete surprise to the government or you believe a missile hit the Pentagon and the WTC was blown up, as if there are not intermediate points of view that are far more damning to the official story.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  8. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    Truthmod please,

    Your putting words into my mouth.

    "As a modern human, you eat way more than your share, and we aim to starve you to death if you refuse to be fair."

    I'm at a loss for words... Instead of constructive criticism and advice you resort to this b/s? I'm not looking for Gaian scripture here, I'm here to offer my opinion no matter how different or right / wrong it is to yours comprende?

    "If you think it is your personal freedom to exploit the earth and it's resources to your heart's desire, you may find that other people, animals, and the earth itself may exercise their personal freedom to stop you from threatening their personal freedom to live."

    Where did I propose or endorse that? How can a simple individual like me living within his means threaten someone else's chances for a clean and healthy lifestyle / environment?

    Geezus.. I've never felt so devalued in my entire life when I'm lowered to the level of a pathetic useless eating virus who's sole purpose is to pillage, plunder and strip this planet bare.

    Sorry chief but I'm not the person you try and make me out to be. I don't own a car (therefore no oil), have solar panels on my house, recycle and take public transport often. If that's not good enough for you, NGOs and Environmental groups who wish to impose a stricter lifestyle on me through enforcement then hey, they have my address.

    Until such time I will continue my meagre efforts to be the best person I can be.

    And if you don't think as Mark said, that Big Oil hasn't co-opted the major Eco-groups and espoused their globalist propaganda then I say good luck to you in living your life, it is yours and yours along and I for one won't dictate to you how it should be lived.

    Freedom of choice isn't freedom to lawlessness, I agree Truthmover.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  9. mark
    Member

    nearly everyone in our society uses lots of oil in the growing, processing and transportation of our food. that is probably a bigger issue in the long run than personal transportation.

    sure, the big environmental groups are cowardly, but the conspiracy media is just as compromised, either directly or indirectly.

    I don't know anyone in our culture who is living "sustainably," although some have made efforts to be less unsustainable and more efficient in using fossil fuels.

    We need global consciousness based on peaceful cooperation, not a global mega corporation of militaristic dominance. We're all here together on Spaceship Earth.

    It is curious that most of the Bircher types (Alex Jones, ad nauseum) rarely talk about corporate power, but instead promote xenophobia.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  10. mark
    Member

    "Environmental Disinformation" is a more important topic than the demise of the 9/11 Truth (sic) Movement.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  11. truthmover
    Administrator

    "As a modern human, you eat way more than your share, and we aim to starve you to death if you refuse to be fair."

    I'm at a loss for words... Instead of constructive criticism and advice you resort to this b/s? I'm not looking for Gaian scripture here, I'm here to offer my opinion no matter how different or right / wrong it is to yours comprende?

    Well, heavens to mergetroid and my stars, you seem to have your nickers in a bunch.

    We don't want to talk about the "global warming hoax." Not here. Go somewhere else to have that conversation. Your freedom of speech can be exercised where people are more interested in marginally informed opinions about essential issues. AboveTopSecret. Democratic Underground. You have so many options.

    Human beings certainly factor into negative environmental outcomes but are we really to believe that we can affect a billion year old climate system?

    It ain't perfect by ANY measure but sure beats collectivism. It's a pickle :|

    The first statement sounds like some kind of silly framing technique that works on people without much education. I mean, are we really to believe that humans descended from apes? YES!!! Humans can affect our global environment. How is it that I've seen so many facts pointing to that while you have not?

    The second statement suggests that you support free market imperialism which underlies most global suffering over the past couple hundred years. 'It could be worse' is not a valid dodge for the evils of our system. You may be doing as good as you can. You are likely still enjoying the privileges afforded by being fairly close to the top of the global pyramid.

    Listen, I am a part of the problem. I'm not exempting myself. But I'm certainly not exempting you either. Is climate politics shady? Yes. Does that have anything to do with the negative impact we are having on this planet? Not really.

    "Global Warming" is largely a red herring used the industrial media to distract us with a useless debate. Regardless of whether the globe is warming or why, people need to be very concerned and very active about our future.

    If you are here to have this false debate with us, you will find that we are not willing. If, on the other hand, you really want to talk about real problems and solutions, we welcome it.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  12. mark
    Member

    Most glaciers in the world are in obvious retreat.

    Most indigenous people in the world, far from industrial science, report lots of changes in their ecosystems (new species found from other climates). People who live close to the land generally have more awareness of the natural world than climate change skeptics who spend more time looking at electronic screens than natural systems.

    Climate destabilization is a threat to industrial agriculture that keeps megacities fed. Look at what happened in Georgia in the past few years -- record drought (Atlanta came close to running out of drinking water) followed by record flood. If you eat food from farms this should be a concern.

    Finally, oil depletion is also accelerating and the best evidence is we are past the peak of oil extraction, with future oil being more difficult to extract, more expensive, more energy intensive, more polluting and in more remote locations. Peak OIl and Climate Change amplify each other, and need to be considered together.

    There's a difference between the corruption of big environmental groups and understanding ecological collapse. Most of the big "green" groups are mere appendages of the Democratic Party (and similar entities in other countries). But looking at their conflicts of interest won't teach anything about mass extinction of life on this planet. Most of the environmental movement is a limited hang out. And most of the "conspiracy" movement is merely echoing disinformation from three letter agencies.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  13. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    So essentially Truthmover if my disagreements regarding climate change don't revolve around differences in solutions to supposed man-made climate change rather than differences on whether man causes overall climatic changes then this isn't the place for me?

    Just seems like a forum for the converted then doesn't it? (No religious-climate change pun intended).

    The assumptions run high here. I don't condone or endorse raping this planet, living beyond my means or advocating that global warming is a hoax. It's as hollow an argument as saying climate change doesn't exist, well of course climate change exists. The climate always changes.

    My difference of opinion is whether human beings contribute to the majority of warming which is attributed to Co2, which I firmly dispute does not drive temperature at all.

    That's where people often get hot under the collar and start ranting on about how your eating too much etc etc. There needs to be a separation of the debate around 'man-made induced climate change' and man's effect on the environment as a whole.

    As for those two forum recommendations; Thanks but no thanks. ^_^

    Posted 8 years ago #
  14. truthmod
    Administrator

    ObiWan, your logic is extremely poor. Unless you improve your reasoning skills quite quickly you'll probably be banned from this forum for wasting our time with ignorant/disingenuous posts. Your attitude is thoroughly transparent and your appeals for a tempered debate on the environment are suspect.

    Do you care to explain to us the current phenomenon of Mass Extinction? What about the capitalist concept of infinite growth on a planet of finite resources?

    So let’s not allow ourselves to be distracted and keep our eyes on the main prize: our right as free, sentient citizens not to have $45 trillion worth of economy-destroying taxes and regulations imposed on us by big government in the name of a problem that quite likely doesn’t exist.


    I don't condone or endorse raping this planet, living beyond my means or advocating that global warming is a hoax. It's as hollow an argument as saying climate change doesn't exist, well of course climate change exists. The climate always changes.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  15. truthmover
    Administrator

    ObiWan, your logic is extremely poor. Unless you improve your reasoning skills quite quickly you'll probably be banned from this forum for wasting our time with ignorant/disingenuous posts. Your attitude is thoroughly transparent and your appeals for a tempered debate on the environment are suspect.

    Agreed. ObiWan, whether you realize it or not, your method of approach has raised most of our red flags. And really that's me being nice because you seem to be using the old playbook. The one that we here are VERY familiar with.

    I'm at a loss for words... Instead of constructive criticism and advice you resort to this b/s?

    Every three to six months someone registers to our forum, not immediately revealing that they are here to challenge us on an issue we have little interest in discussing, generally something off topic to this forum and often something we explicitly dismiss.

    And every time we call them out they serve up that cliche surprise and indignation you nailed perfectly above. It would take me a while, but I could find at least five examples of nearly the same sentence in nearly the same situation we are in here.

    Could you possibly be honest about what exactly inspired you to register here without yet more histrionics?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  16. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    I registered to comment on articles, documents & videos relating to 9/11 and then I found the site's interesting topics of Peak Oil, Global warming so I had to check it out and ask question from an opposing perspective which seems to go against the grain here seeing that it's a one-way street in terms of views you need to express to stay un-banned here.

    "And every time we call them out they serve up that cliche surprise and indignation you nailed perfectly above."

    Paranoia leads you to believe I'm cointelpro, sigh.

    So how would you expect someone to respond to this: "As a modern human, you eat way more than your share, and we aim to starve you to death if you refuse to be fair."

    No, no your right. I'm a useless eater who needs to be sterilised and have a carbon ration for the good of the planet all the while the upper echelons of the elite live like Kings not giving a damn about you or me.


    "Unless you improve your reasoning skills quite quickly you'll probably be banned from this forum for wasting our time with ignorant/disingenuous posts. Your attitude is thoroughly transparent and your appeals for a tempered debate on the environment are suspect.

    Do you care to explain to us the current phenomenon of Mass Extinction? What about the capitalist concept of infinite growth on a planet of finite resources?"

    It's your site, do as you wish.

    Whatever man, you've been amongst yes-men for too long to understand that those in stark contrast to your views don't always have an agenda or goal to distract, divert and divide.

    Your really missing my point about man-made climate change.

    Is Co2 a pollutant? Does Co2 drive temperature? Do humans contribute to the majority of Co2?

    Does mass extinction fit in with my opposition to the theory of AGW. If so please advise.

    It's certainly not a preferrable concept at all. What would propose?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  17. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    I have a question for you:

    Can you foresee when Carbon trading will be more lucrative than oil? Where is your opposition to the exploitation of such a system where so-called environmentalists and Oil companies push the theory of AGW yet benefit from lucrative carbon trading schemes throughout the world with no environmental benefit whatsoever.

    To believe that Big Oil rails against "Action" on man-made climate change is delusional. That action however is purely financial in the form of a carbon tax or carbon trading system. Climate change is a business now and many have vested interests to keep it alive no matter what the cost to legitimacy within the eco-movement or politics.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  18. truthmod
    Administrator

    Please explain your concept of Mass Extinction. I'm sincerely curious to hear it.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  19. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    I haven't looked into Mass Extinction so I don't have a concept.

    I wish I could be the universal man and cover it all but I cannot.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  20. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    Shell calls for derivatives on carbon trading http://www.theage.com.au/business/cfd/shell-calls-...

    Exxon chief backs carbon tax http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/10/exx...

    Posted 8 years ago #
  21. christs4sale
    Administrator

    The following believe in human-influenced climate change, but do not support cap and trade:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/...

    http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/11/copenha...


    The oil majors in this country and Europe (Exxon Mobile and other Standard Oil derivatives, BP, Royal Dutch Shell) are highly invested in cap and trade and green capitalism. But the big oil is not monolithic and Texas-based independent oil men, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom are the other side of this. They are largely not invested in cap and trade and I believe that they are largely behind the anti-GW campaign. Actually, ExxonMobil has connections to many of the leading man-influenced climate change skeptics so it looks like they are playing both sides of this or different portions of the company have different goals.

    You cannot deny that the anti-GW campaign is just that. A well-funded media campaign. So it is really the elites fighting it out with one side seeing where the chips are going to fall and capitalizing off of it and the other side wanting to resist it entirely both largely due to their investments. So it is merely a case of elite factionalism.

    Also cap and trade is different than oil. You see it as the next elite (as if the elite is monolithic) scheme to try to make money after oil. Oil is a physical material that is energy dense, has no equivalent, is completely required to grow food at current yields to feed the current world human population, is locked at the hip with our transportation and economic infrastructure and is required in this current system to make the economy grow. Cap and trade will cause less energy usage if anything and therefore will hurt economic growth. What it could result in is a wealth transfer from the less green businesses to the more green businesses.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  22. JohnA
    Member

    the fact that business models - be they legitimate or utterly sleezy - are already being formulated in conjunction with cap and trade concepts in no way negates the factual data being presented by the scientific community.

    you can call these people the environmental equivalent of war profiteers if you like. but one of the unfortunate realities of disasters - man made or not - is that people will attempt to profit from it.

    where your logic fails is that you attempt to make the LEAP from these sleezy business ideas to 'hoax' - as if the vast majority of the scientific community is working in collusion to create a worldwide hoax - including Russia and China and the entire industrialized world - that a worldwide environmental crisis is unfolding.

    well - that's just not reasonable logic.

    the science is pretty iron clad at this point - and pointing at rogue elements of the scientific community who claim that 'intelligent design' is a legitimate alternative to the theory of evolution does NOT negate the 99.999999999% of scientific evidence to the contrary.

    this is not just a handful of scientist working out of a single university we are talking about. LOL!! we are looking at the worldwide scientific community from nations around the world that include Climatologists and meteorologists and geologists and avian studies and wildlife migration studies and oceanographers and the science of coral reefs and satellite imagery and the study of the arctic and Greenland and glaciers and the collapse of entire ecosystems and the study of insects and the spread of diseases and micro-organisms and marine biologists and botanists and every other kind of biologist and mountains of data and statistics and the study of ice cores dating back hundreds of thousands of years and – yes – even common sense.

    Rarely has the world ever SEEN such a collaborative process of diverse disciplines worldwide finding common evidence all pointing in the same direction – such as we see on the issue of CO2 and the overwhelming evidence that it directly affects climate change. Its just not debatable anymore.

    So – then – men of reason – such as the moderators of this forum are forced to look ‘elsewhere’ for explanations when posters such as yourself display irrational logic in addressing the issue.

    No one here accused you of cointelpro – yet you used the word yourself. I personally do not believe you are. But, I do not think it is inappropriate to question your motivation and attitude.

    Personally I think that you are one of the unfortunate few who have been seduced by the propaganda of special-interest groups that continue to create absurdist conspiracy theories – presented by charismatic personalities - that have created a cult of pseudo-intellectualism and stilted pseudo-hip-activism that revolves around corporate-designed lobbying of the uneducated. I think the term is “useful idiot”

    Posted 8 years ago #
  23. truthmover
    Administrator

    Personally I think that you are one of the unfortunate few who have been seduced by the propaganda of special-interest groups that continue to create absurdist conspiracy theories – presented by charismatic personalities - that have created a cult of pseudo-intellectualism and stilted pseudo-hip-activism that revolves around corporate-designed lobbying of the uneducated. I think the term is “useful idiot”.

    Well said.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  24. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    Your right, I'm wrong.

    I'm a virus, I'm not capable of contributing to society because I eat too much, live above the poverty line and have a sceptical view of the effect man allegedly has on the Earth. So that makes me a stooge of vested-interest propaganda.

    Personally I think that you are one of the unfortunate few who have been seduced by the propaganda of special-interest groups that continue to create absurdist conspiracy theories – presented by charismatic personalities - that have created a cult of pseudo-intellectualism and stilted pseudo-hip-activism that revolves around corporate-designed lobbying of the uneducated. I think the term is “useful idiot”.

    I could spin that right back on you.

    Everything you detailed can be applied to both sides. Qui Bono? Who really benefits from Carbon trading? The Oil Companies: Yes, Governments: Yes, unelected bureaucracies: Yes.

    So I ask you a question: Do you feel that a monetary solution can fix an environmental problem?

    If not then what do you propose we do to solve 'man-made climate change'?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  25. JohnA
    Member

    actually - everything cannot be applied to both sides. sometimes there is just a right side - and a wrong side. some things are just not debatable.

    you apparently ignored everything i wrote - choosing to still dwell on who may or may not benefit from proposed carbon trading legislation.

    but - i'll entertain you anyway.

    Do i feel that a monetary solution can fix an environmental problem?

    at this point i feel the problem is so severe that i have my doubts that humanity will be able to reverse these climate trends - at all! i am truly alarmed. 40% of the arctic is gone - with the rest projected to disappear in a decade. so i'm not sure ANYTHING can fix this problem.

    but - i do know we need to start SOMEWHERE!!!

    people like YOU advocate doing NOTHING - and live in a little plastic bubble of denial. people like YOU claim the solution is to voice sarcasm about the very problem itself - and cast doubt on whether the problem exists at all - and tear down ANY attempts at rational discussion about solutions. in MY opinion - THAT is TRULY dumb.

    i may not know how to solve the problem - but i know STUPID when i see it.

    i do feel that government is RESPONSIBLE for regulating corporations to ensure that we - as a people - do not befoul and squander our only natural resources. they are finite afterall. do you get THAT much at least??

    we should no more allow the unchecked unregulated pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere than we should allow the unchecked unregulated dumping of mercury and heavy metals into our fresh drinking water.

    duh.

    is this really such a radical idea? keep our water and air clean.

    duh.

    it is my opinion that governments worldwide MUST regulate carbon emissions.

    but there are people like YOU who poo poo the idea that the world is even GATHERING to discuss the problem - hanging your hat on conspiracy theories and claiming it is all a hoax and espousing Alex Jonesian bullshit that has no place in a RATIONAL ADULT DISCUSSION.

    get this: Alex Jones is not a scientist. do you get that? he's an internet conspiracy theorist making a living selling DVDs and claiming that Obama does not have a real birth certificate.

    why don't you just put on a tin foil hat and trot out some puppets as your scientific experts?

    Posted 8 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.