GREENHOUSE WARMING: A SHRINKING THREAT

Australian Financial Review ^ | 20, September, 2000 | Simon Scott

[Carry_Okie]

It's more than that. See #20.

[mafree]

BTTT

[Rocky]

You wrote: British Petroleum, Mobil/Exxon, and Shell. They want to make money playing the carbon credit market to control the global economy, especially through tax-guraanteed investment transfers to the developing world through the World Bank and the IMF (collecting political spending money with UN Tobin taxes in the Bank of International Settlements along the way).

For those of us who are less versed in such high level financial schemes, can you explain more clearly how this works?

[Rocky]

Thanks for posting this article. I hadn't seen it before, and it sparked some very interesting and informative responses.

[Carry_Okie]

Which part? You're asking a lot of one post when half of my book is on corruption involving socialist environmental groups. Suffice it to say that the extremely rich profit when government controls property because their influence on policy can be used to control access to resources thus controlling commodity prices and raising profits. Buying politicians to cook the game is a lot safer than taking risks on honest investments.

So what do we talk about? The Tobin Tax? BP machinations behind fuel cells? The Rockefeller Foundation setting up the Environmental Grantmakers Association? Pew Charitable Trusts behind salmon lawsuits directed at hydro dams? Prince Bernhard (Shell) beind the World Wildlife Fund? The problem is that the web of investments is so mixed into everyday business that it is very hard to see.

Pacific Power and Light, for example, built a power plant in Klamath Falls, OR. That plant runs on methane generated from cattle manure (a greenhouse gas under the Kyoto protocol). Scottish Power bought Pacific Power and Light and the World Bank granted them carbon credits for consuming the methane against a loan (of largely US Tax Dollars) that Scottish Power used to build another power plant in Sri Lanka where there are no carbon restrictions under Kyoto. But that's not all! Meanwhile, Scottish Power quietly supports NGOs who fund environmental groups advocating taking out the competing hydro dam in Klamath Falls and forcing the farmers to use wells (pumps running on what?). Electricity prices will rise when it becomes necessary to buy natural gas to supplement the plant. When they hit their carbon limits under UN mandates, Scottish Power (because they are not an American company) will buy the carbon credits and charge them to local electrical bills as a cost of operations and the Governor of Oregon is just fine with that. We are thus doing Kyoto no matter what George Bush says, in part because the global power company can make a buck on those carbon credits (cheap loan capital from US taxpayers sold at high rates) so they pay top dollar for US generating capacity.

That's just one example and it is a bit bewildering. Ain't socialism grand?

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Dubious greenhouse research

Try flat-out lying.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Give an economist a project grant and they will expound on any topic as long as the well doesn't run dry.

No joke, these vermin are more than happy to destroy the government and the country in order to keep milking the cash cow. It's unforgiveable.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Q. What ever happened to the whole 'world running out of oil by 2000' tempest that was doing the rounds when I was a kid in the seventies? A. It went the same way as this 24 karat bullsh1t that educated folks like Katie Couric and Dan Rather cry so many crocodile tears over.

Yep.

Here's another good one: the winter of '77 was the coldest of the 20th century and the snowfalls were record-breaking in many areas. In the '70s and early '80s, the enviro-socialists were crying about global cooling, claiming that atmospheric pollutants were blocking the sun and driving us into another ice age. They were claiming that the world would be uninhabitable in 20 to 30 years because we would not be able to grow any food because of the year-round cold and snow.

These whacks will claim that any weather fluctuation either way is "proof" that we only have 20 years to live and will cook up the craziest theories imaginable to "prove" it.

[Bagehot]

I am unrelated to the Bagehot family, though I was inspired by a book written by Walter Bagehot called The English Constitution. He was at the time, had been, or went on to editing the Economist before it became an organ of left-of-center-left Europhile social engineers.

I'm not buying your big oil conspiracy theory though, it doesn't seem remotely plausible given their public opposition to all things Kyoto.

I think Kyoto is simply a very visible response to an illusion cooked up by crypto-communists, looking for ways to nationalize corporations by stealth (ie. allow them to operate only at the discretion of unelected fellow travellers in the permanent government raking off huge sums from the public, their customers, to pay for their ongoing incremental takeover of society). Now THAT'S a real conspiracy, and I'm afraid it's all too real.

[Carry_Okie]

I'm not buying your big oil conspiracy theory though, it doesn't seem remotely plausible given their public opposition to all things Kyoto.

It's not the oil companies themselves (although some of them now are involved and you should do some more homework there), it's the major stockholders of the founders of those companies that are the real danger when they use their tax-exempt foundations to manipulate access to resources using the environmental movement as a cover. You say some things in the rest of your response that are collinear with that assertion.

I think Kyoto is simply a very visible response to an illusion cooked up by crypto-communists, looking for ways to nationalize corporations by stealth (ie. allow them to operate only at the discretion of unelected fellow travelers in the permanent government raking off huge sums from the public, their customers, to pay for their ongoing incremental takeover of society). Now THAT'S a real conspiracy, and I'm afraid it's all too real.

Who sponsored those "communists" (also called the Popular Front, actually fascists (read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell)? You do know that land redistribution in the name of protecting "Nature" was one of Lenin's first and highest priorities (On Land)? You need to do a little more homework on the early history of Marx and his followers along with the Fabian Society, Cecil Rhodes, Freemasonry, and Gramsci. You do understand that the process of organizing environmental treaty law under the UN started before the UN itself was even formed? The environmental movement received over $3 billion dollars in corporate contributions last year, and that the money isn't just extortion or charity. You may not be convinced at this point, but if you really delve into the environmental movement, you will find the same patterns repeating over and over. Those "communists" are really the useful idiots, stooges for global corporate fascism.

[Black Agnes]

Interesting discussion here, particularly the info from carry_okie. Things to be aware of w. regard to the 'environmental' movement.

[Utopia]

To date, I have never met an astronomer who considers the greenhouse theory a credible scientific theory.

[summer]

Thanks for the flag. Interesting article here as well:

Psst! Dubya! Clinton Didn't Do Anything About Global Warming, Either! [Slate.com slams Clinton/Gore]

[Mo1]

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

[Bagehot]

There are so many matters I would love to do homework on, and I rarely if ever get around to it - I simply see the environmental movement (as it is ridiculously called) pursuing causes indistinguishable from those previously pursued by communists (different stated motive, same proposed outcome), and I think it's highly significant that this movement has gained such an established position within the permanenet government..