Andrew….the obvious similarity being pointed out between what you are referring to as free-market ideology and this push for cutting back on energy consumption is the creation of artifical scarcities as a means of control. Another words, same old same old, and the exact opposite of what your conclusion was saying it was.

The third quote is from Al Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance”, where “Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, EVERY TACTIC AND STRATEGY, every plan and course of action – to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment . . . . ” hmmmmmm.

The fourth quote about Strong, is also from the same web sight:
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/rapid-reaction99.htm

“His true plan for UN reform is documented in Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN Commission on Global Governance, which Strong helped write. Like “Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations”, this report calls for a volunteer UN army under UN command, with UN police stationed in every region of the world:

“In many of today’s crises, it is clear than an early intervention could have prevented later negative developments…. This underlines the need for a highly trained UN Volunteer Force that is willing, if necessary, to take combat risks….This would be particularly useful in low-level but dangerous conflicts.
Such an international Volunteer Force would be under the exclusive authority of the Security Council.” hmmmm that ole central organizing principle thingy again huh.

Well, if that’s the goal, how about this:

Controlling the flow of information(man made global warming ring any bells?) is vital to the envisioned global management system. To this end, each nation must fund and implement its part of the massive global information and monitoring system. In the following section of Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations, notice the reference to Information Management.

“The types of technologies which could play a greater role in peacekeeping operations are: surveillance technologies, communications equipment and enhanced information management systems….

“An attractive technology for a variety of peace operations is aerial reconnaissance of ground activity. Access to satellite capability… may have great strategic potential.

“The ability to locate, identify and monitor virtually all vehicular movement… has obvious applicability to monitoring, surveillance and control missions.

“….surveillance technologies and information management systems could be integrated into an organization-wide system to enhance contingency planning….” (pages 56-57)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

well it shouldn’t. haven’t you ever noticed that deniers of anthropogenic global warming theory, and low tax – small government right wingers are the same people?
they simply have to dismiss agw theory in order to maintain their free market ideology, since they can’t recognize the existence of a problem which must be dealt with on a governmental, global scale.

global warming has been known about for over a hundred years. the global cooling fad was just a temporary flash in the pan. global warming deniers like to give it far more importance now than it ever had before, to make it seem that global warming theory is a new fad & a complete revolution from previous thinking. it’s not.

gerrit it may be desirable to reduce carbon build-ups in the atmosphere a little, but you must see that once it has reached a certain level, matching emmission & absorption must be the long-term goal. even if you don’t see that, it doesn’t change the economic dynamic that if credits are becoming abundant compared to emmission, thus driving the price of credits down, this means the mechanism is working. i don’t see how you can remain blind to that.
you originally made out your problem was with gore buying credits from his own company. now you have explained that your objection is the lack of auditing for his company. this doesn’t make his company or him guilty, it just reduces our certainty that it is doing its work properly.
again, buying something from one’s own company is not a problem.
carbon credits are a fabrication of mankind & purely mythical? so is money, so are patents, goodwill etc. fortunately 21st century minds are sophisticated enough to comprehend intangibles

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

P.S. have you got your tin foil hat yet?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

2) “All very interesting from a historical point of view, not very useful.” There we have it, historical points of view that don’t fit this agenda are not very useful…or as BucolicOldSirHenry put it, “deny the problem and you become irrelevant”….yes, and you can kiss any funding and advancement goodbye. Another irrelevant historical point of view is that the people who formulated the global cooling crisis back in the seventies and were interwined in J Carter’s administration; provided the framework, which they have helped update, for the reponse to this latest climate crisis…
3) “Your analogy between anthropogenic global warming and neo-liberal economic ideology has me completely stumped.”
….”As a result a mass of legislation is being turned into law, subjecting any activities that increase greenhouse gas emissions or are seen as ‘crimes against nature’ to severe financial penalties…. It won’t be long before all households feel their effects.”…Paul Johnson, “The Menace of the Lobby,” Forbes, 4-23-07

Gore calls for “a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily.” Hmmmm, a central organizing principle hmmmmm….Then he warns us that…

“Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”[7] (page 274)

Appeasement is usually used when referring to an enemy by the way, that enemy being the public in this agenda.

“But the undisputed leader of the environmental movement during the last three decades has been Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong. Though usually operating behind the scenes, Strong is no minor player in this global contest for the minds of the masses. He led the UN Environmental Programme, directed the 1972 and 1992 UN Conferences on the Environment and Development, founded Planetary Citizens, directed the World Future Society and founded and co-chaired the World Economic Forum. He has been a member of the Club of Rome, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen Institute, a member of the UN Commission on Global Governance, and the Senior Advisor to the World Bank as well as to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.”
Hmmmm..Billionaires, Bankers and a “legitimate UN” world governing body as G W Bush put it….hmmmmmm.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

even: Global warming is not simply a matter of politics. It isn’t a vast conspiracy – it’s a dangerous threat to our way of life. The science is clear. If you choose to ignore the evidence, then you are doing a disservice to everyone. The most important thing is to recognise that the problem exists, then you can contribute to the solution. Deny the problem, and you become irrelevant.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“But the Milankovitch cycles don’t explain the magnitude of the temperature change, which is much larger than the changes in solar radiation would produce.”
You truncate here, but Russ continued : “The likely positive feedbacks are Co2 and ice.”

Know what a positive feedback is, Even? I’m sure a neo-liberal economics fan must have heard of them.

What people said about global warming or cooling in the 1970s has about as much relevance to current understanding of the subject, as does cutting-edge research in computer science or biochemistry in the 1970s to the current state of the art in those subjects. All very interesting from a historical point of view, not very useful.

Your analogy between anthropogenic global warming and neo-liberal economic ideology has me completely stumped. Choosing an economic policy is clearly a subjective exercise. Depending on what outcomes you value (wealth maximisation; wealth equalisation; maximising well-being; sustainability…) you choose different policies… By contrast, the study of climate and the observation of climate change are a matter of scientific observation, with no ideology or value judgement involved.

Once we can agree on the facts, then we can decide on the policies we might want to change.

It often seems that those who subscribe to neo-liberal ideology are resistant to the facts on climate change, because they find them somehow threatening to their world view. But that’s just silly.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If i wanted to, i could bombard you all with links saying how great neo-liberal economics has worked out for people and societies, and back that up by saying that’s what the theory is in the majority of University economic courses, is what gets funded and given widespread media coverage, and use those type of sources to represent the FACTS etc etc
And some people might think(but few here) well that’s all very well and good but….that’s F#$%$N MAD!
This global push to enforce tyranny against the availability of energy utilisation for societies’ benefits and prosperity(and quite possibly for the greening of the globe ironically, which will be very advantageous when the cooling cycle starts if we really want to play God..) needs to be seen for what it is, and i hope one day it is and the price is paid.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

oh yes? by whom? have you got a reference for that?

the facts don’t show that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.gif

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Here’s a quickie response to your question :

There is no doubt or scientific dispute about the fact that, prior to the industrial age, climate change was generally a slow process driven by changes in solar radiation (variations in the earth’s distance from the sun, orbital tilt, etc). This is exceedingly well-researched and there is fairly good agreement about the length of various cycles, rate of change etc.

If those well-understood factors were still the predominant effects on climate change, then we would still be on a cooling trajectory now, as we were until the mid-20th century.

However, there have massive changes in the content of the atmosphere in the past, say, hundred years. These changes have been accelerating as more of the planet industrialises.

There are lots of different effects, and some cancel each other out. e.g. it’s quite likely that smoke, soot and dust from industry, which has a net cooling effect, contributed to the overall cooling in the mid 20th century. But in recent decades, the man-made cooling effects have been swamped by the massive emissions of greenhouse gases.

CO2 is not the only driver of climate change — far from it. However, it just so happens that, if you look at the various heating and cooling effects that cancel each other out, the net heating effect is roughly equal to the CO2 forcing. This often leads people to say, as shorthand, or to believe, that CO2 is the only driver of climate change, which is false.

Of course, the natural solar cycles are still going on. But their effect is so slow — requiring thousands of years for a minimal change — that they are completely swamped by the man-made effects, so that they can be effectively disregarded when we’re projecting climate changes over the next few centuries.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And for genuine perposes of knowledge (seriously i dont know this one). It is generally accepted that until the 1970’s global temperatures were going down, despite no coresponding decrease in carbon emmisions and all the doom and gloom merchants feared a new ice age. My question is, what is the official global warming believers explanation for this?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The lack of science on the side of those who tout this AGW theory would be embarrassing if such people had any shame.

Bravo! Perfect example of chutzpah!

Also worthy of mention: redefinition of “lack” to mean “the vast majority “

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

http://tinyurl.com/2f378e

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thanks for replying to Mouldwarp and BB.

I have come to the conclusion that some people just want to bury their heads in the sand, and will not listen to any rational argument. I think it will require the sea to actually flood these peoples houses before they consider the possibility that global warming is happening (even then, many of them would rather believe that God is sending a second flood, rather than accept humans are affecting the climate).

I am not going to waste my time refuting the likes of BB and Mouldwarp. They are not scientists, and demonstrably have very little understanding of how science works. I would rather spend my time talking to people with open minds.

Cheers.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Lets agree that global warming is happening and it is to the detriment of the human race.

Do you think carbon trading as practised by Al Gore’s company the solution to the problem?

Creating carbon credits, from dubious sources, so that emmisions can continue and using a propaganda film to promote his company (even indirectly)?

This claimed $15Trillion carbon credit industry already has a greater volume of carbon credits to trade than current emmisions.

Meaning that carbon trading will not slow down carbon emmisions nor soak up the excess carbon already in the atmosphere and causing global warming.

Some links in my previous comments explain what is hapening.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

it’s a bit US centric to only focus on US temp record and not global temp record. Global temp record shows temperature much higher now than 1934:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A2.gif

urban heat island effect on the global temperature record doesn’t exist, various different methodologies of study prove this.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/224634/48
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

the temperature record is already corrected for biases introduced by monitoring station location
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urb an-heat-island/

judge in Gore film case actually approved the use of Inconvenient Truth – it is pure spin to focus only on the “errors” he pointed out.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untru ths/

Perhaps Mouldwarp and BB need to learn how to assess the evidence?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn116 37

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So much for inexorable global warming…

And that’s leaving aside the atrocious state of the temperature measurement stations there which can’t help but increasingly overstate the temperature over the past few decades because of the urban heat island effect…

The fact is that recent warming is almost entirely due to changes in solar activity – the two charts are in virtual lockstep (I know you loudly trumpeted the supposed dismissal of this theory, but you won’t have to look too far to find the refutation of that hatchet job. And how else to explain the almost perfect correlation between temperature and changes in solar activity? Coincidence?)
By contrast, there is not the faintest short-term correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. And there was never even a shred of evidence to support the AGW theory. Not one shred.

We are now approaching a period of significant cooling. We are at a peak of warming, but perhaps not the peak of hysteria. Expect to see a long and bitter rearguard action by vested interests as the temperature drops over the next few years.

Already we know that what warming there has been is quite limited in geographical extent. The USA? Not there. The entire southern hemisphere? No, not there either. So the ugly fact is, there is no *global* warming.

And the rapid ice shrinkage in the North recently? Due to unusual wind conditions, not warming, according to NASA.

The lack of science on the side of those who tout this AGW theory would be embarrassing if such people had any shame.

It seems appropriate the Al Gore receive this Nobel award. It puts him in the same catagory as celebrity terrorist Yasir Arafat, the man who swindled the Palastinians out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Facts?…if those pushing the Global warming con used facts then they would get nowhere.
There simply are no facts that back up your argument.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)