The television network Current TV was recently purchased by the international news outlet Al Jazeera. The transaction will leave $125 million in former vice-president Al Gore’s pocket. Gore, who is a green living advocate, ironically sold the company to a news outlet owned by Qatar – an oil rich country.
Posts Tagged ‘Al Gore’
21st Century Wire says… This website had successfully debunked the mythology of climate change and global warming as far back as 2009, when we ravaged Al Gore & Co.’s get-rich by charging for air theft model in Copenhagen, leading to the collapse of his Chicago Climate Exchange carbon stock market – a total failure because it was based on lies and completely made-up science. Now they are simply paying off people with taxpayer money in order to get them on board…
One thing which I have learned over the years is that Marxists never give up willingly. Their socialist philosophy is extremist in nature, where political survival depends on the preeminence of the state to regulate every aspect of life.
The only way to stop them is to cut them off their ideological air – and the only form of political oxygen they have is their collectivist ideology. It’s not easy to do as we will find out. We have a Marxist-Fascist ideology that is still pervasive in our culture today – it’s called Climate Change, and in this scenario the Marxist masses are working to advance ideas which will ultimately profit elite fascist corporate elites.
So who benefits? The carbon neutral gravy train was chugging along nicely for a while, until it went off the rails. Like with Wall Street, a lot of people were making a lot of money off doing very little. This working model is the essence of any good scam, and what could be better than regulating air?
It’s quite astonishing that almost no advocate of anthropogenic global warming or “climate change” (it’s quite a semantic luxury they have, being able to shape-shift between two different names) will appear in public or on TV anymore to extol the virtues of their half-baked ‘Kinder Surprise-science’. That’s mainly because they have run out of rope for their argument.
“The science is settled”, as Al Gore once proclaimed, only he lost the debate and the IPCC was exposed as an multi-million dollar fraud – and exposed over and over again. Even the Royal Society in Great Britain finally dumped it in 2010.
But that hasn’t deterred the collectivists and social engineers behind the great global warming swindle. While they lost the scientific and logical debate, they quietly moved ahead on their ‘flat Earth’ political/policy making front – to devastating effect.
Their goal from the beginning, has been to pull out as much middle class and working class wealth away, through their fake crisis which was package initially as man-made global warming. The War on Terror has cost already between US and Europe’s expenditures upwards of $4 Trillion in 10 years. Many could argue a higher figure. All the money spent on that fake crisis landed softly into the hands of an exclusive collection of corporations. The same is happening with their ‘War on Climate’.
Now that the collectivist criminal cartel have failed in convincing a cooling world that man-made global warming exists, they have simply ignored their failure and moved on with their policy of using the made-up threat of climate change in order to push forward globalist, world government-oriented policies onto weaker nations – as well as their own.
Climate Bailouts for Corporations
US Foreign Aid has been an oxymoron for decades now – it’s essentially a taxpayer-funded bailout for selected government contractors who will be supplying goods and services to third world countries – paid for by the magical “foreign aid”. It’s dollar laundering on a mass scale. This pre-selected group of corporations are normally the very same ones who have lobbied tirelessly for the US Federal Government to institute an “Aid” program. What else is it, but a scam?
It’s ultimately about controlling ideas. Now the collectivist/communist leaning leaders of the West have decided to use the foreign aid system to achieve, using the likes of known CIA front organisations like “US AID” and other bent corporate and ‘NGO’ players, in order to bribe third world/developing world nations with new “Climate Foreign Aid” and thus accepting the elite’s derived mythology that CO2 is somehow driving global climate change.
As with all expensive foreign aid which is sent overseas, almost none of the money handed out actually goes towards the intended cause (see Washington Post article below). That’s simply business as usual.
Very sad to see the US government having to scrape to a level – where their last resort is to bribe the developing world’s leadership so as to accept a disingenuous ideology created by elite collectivist European Think Tanks like the Club of Rome (inventors of man-made global warming theory in the 1970’s), and the Club of Budapest to name only a few.
Their goal is global government – and nothing less.
Desperate, to say the least. But how stupid are Americans to fall for it – and pay for it?
Let’s watch and see…
(SEE THE PROOF BELOW)
‘New U.S. climate aid reaches across globe’
By Juliet Eilperin
At NASA headquarters, part of a map of Kenyan waterways blinks repeatedly in blue-gray, indicating where stream flow is heaviest and likely to cause flooding over the next 72 hours.
Halfway around the world, officials at Kenya’s Ministry of Water and Irrigation can see the same data, which they use to try to reduce the loss of life and property from increasingly frequent floods linked to global warming.
The mapping technology is part of a collaboration by the space agency and the U.S. Agency for International Development that helps cash-strapped nations deal with the challenges of a changing climate. Over the past three years, the United States has ratcheted up support for foreign countries to cope with global warming, spending nearly $1.4 billion. A small slice of the total, $18 million, has transformed the satellite-based mapping program, called SERVIR, from a modest effort targeting seven countries in Central America to one serving 32 countries worldwide.
But even as spending rises, a central question remains: Are rich countries, which bear the historic responsibility for putting carbon dioxide into the air, doing enough to help the poorest nations prepare themselves for the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions?
In 2009, the world’s leaders — including President Obama — promised to give $30 billion between 2010 and 2012 to a “fast-track finance” program to help cut the emissions worldwide and make the most vulnerable nations more resilient in the face of global warming, a process called adaptation. That same year, they pledged that by 2020, they would mobilize $100 billion for the two goals.
The United States has provided $7.5 billion in international climate aid over the past three years, nearly $1.4 billion of which has been spent on adaptation.
David Waskow, who directs Oxfam America’s climate-change program, praised the United States for ramping up the assistance, but he noted that while leaders agreed to a balanced division between cutting emissions and helping poor countries adapt to climate change, only 19 percent of the funding has gone toward adaptation.
“The percentage of what’s going to adaptation is not adequate,” Waskow said, noting that it is often hard to tell how much of the climate assistance is money that the United States and other countries would have given as foreign aid anyway…
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here’s the chart to prove itOctober 15, 2012
Editor’s Note: Just letting readers know that we haven’t forgotten about the running fraud of ‘global warming’, a lie which is still sucking billions out of our pockets and pushing prices of regulation, goods and services gradually upwards. When are we going to knock this scam on the head?
- The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
- This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
Graph: global temperature changes.
Research: The new figures mean that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’
Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.
Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.
At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.
Flawed science costs us dearly
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.
The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.
They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.
Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.
It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.
This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.
But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.
‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.
‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect:
‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
21st Century Wire
September 20, 2011
You can always gauge the level of desperation in a political movement by its inability to maintain a coherent message. This usually happens when the reality visible in the world runs contrary to the reality being professed from their pulpit.
In the final days of Nazi Germany, elite officers were all huddled in their Berlin bunker, eating foie gras and drinking champagne, as the Red Army closed in on their capital. Even in the 11th hour, Hitler was convinced that the righteous armies of the Fatherland would regroup and stem the Soviet tide. After all, Germany had achieved so much in such a short time, and they had no reason to think that their epic revolution of “National Socialism” would not succeed.
It seems now that, in the face of more and more record-breaking winters, increased polar ice cover and an endless string of academic scandals, that Al Gore and the global warming/climate change movement are having their own Berlin bunker moment.
Having watched Gore’s recent 24 Hours of Reality internet media show this past week, I could see that very same level of desperation present in all of the day’s presentations. I saw a level of incoherence not seen before in the climate change crusade. I saw a faith-based movement clearly facing a rapidly unraveling ideology. Even traditional global warming activists have been wary of having anything to do with Gore’s telethon, where presenter upon presenter attempted in vain to cherry pick any extreme region weather event on the globe and connect it to man-made global warming.
One of the more disturbing thrusts of the presentations streamed that day was a rallying call for academics and education professionals to do a better job in delivering their message of man-made global warming and climate Armageddon… to young children. In other words, there appeared to be a need to indoctrinate kids at a young age if the movement is to survive. Presenters were quite vocal about their disdain for “deniers”, upset about the scourge of intelligent adult skepticism. One presenter even called on children to ‘put pressure on their parents to be more responsible’. One last propaganda blitz before the fall.
I could not help but feel here that global warmists must be feeling as Joseph Goebbels did, faced with the horror of his dream of a Utopian Reich disintegrating before his eyes, a man whose final move was a campaign to mobilize children, getting the kids to man gun posts in hopes of repelling the inevitable Soviet advance towards ground zero. When educated adults are finally coming to their senses, gathering enough courage to go and look outside, and determine for themselves that the sky is not falling, then it is perhaps the most cynical and ruthless area of exploitation for a fundamentalist movement to target the innocent minds of young children to do their bidding.
A real dose of reality is on the way however, one not apparent in Al Gore’s media montage. If you live in the Northern hemisphere, you can expect record-breaking cold spells this winter, including early blizzards… and a string of sub zero temperature events.
In past years the UK’s official weather forecaster, the Met Office, has come under heavy fire from critics having failed to predict with any level of accuracy a succession of record-breaking freezes in their country. As a result, municipalities failed to stock up on grit for the roads, allocate money for snow ploughs and other key provisions. This had dire consequences- a number of deaths last winter in the UK were related to unforeseen weather conditions. This year appears to be different as weather experts, in a bid to salvage their credibility and distance themselves from the likes of the IPCC’s failing projections and scandals like Climategate, for the first time in years are sounding the cold alarm.
As a recent Daily Mail report explains, forecasters are warning that Britain is about to experience an early winter, with snow expected to arrive as soon as next month. The Met Office now admits that we can expect cold temperatures as early as October, and Weather Services International agrees, saying that in October, November and December we will be hit with temperatures approximately two degrees lower than the average.
James Madden of Exacta Weather also agrees, “I expect to see the first signs of some moderate to heavy snowfalls as early as October or November in certain parts of the UK. Huge swirly low-pressure systems also offer the potential for widespread disruption from heavy snowfall across many parts of the UK including the South, as they clash with the predominant cold air.” Madden also added that Scotland and the North would face the worst weather, including possible ‘blizzard-like conditions’ brought on by snow from the Arctic for prolonged periods.
Another vocal opponent of Al Gore and the climatist fundamentalist movement is Weather Action, a UK-based long range weather forecaster led by scientist Piers Corbyn. Weather Action has also issued a stark warning that four major storms are coming in the next 6 weeks and that it is very important that emergency services are aware of what is over the horizon. The organization has worked out, with about 80% accuracy, what are the real factors that drive climate on this planet, namely, a combination of solar activity, lunar cycles and changes in the earth’s magnetic fields.
Weather Action has also identified that cold weather can have disastrous consequences for agricultural production if farmers are not prepared. For instance, in the production of Maize, frosts forecasts means the crop should be planted late, and those who planted early lost out. In Dairy production, a cold spring forecast means that grass would be late so it would be worth spending on fertilizer.
Weather Action’s calculations and forecasts are based on the use of mathematics and physics, unlike the IPCC’s elite group of ‘climate scientists’ who have been basing their apocalyptic predictions of the future on a collection of rigged computer-modeled projections. Herrs Gore, Strong, Hansen, Mann and Jones relied on these sacred computer-modeled climate mock-ups to get their initial gravy train going, and it worked. Now the wheels are beginning to come off that gravy train.
As global temperatures have declined since 1998, one can only deduce that the alarmist tone of Al Gore’s self-styled “scientific consensus” has already been discredited, and people and their governments around this planet should move back on track with reality as soon as possible.
The most bizarre turn of green ideology is that many top climate zealots have been claiming“that global cooling is caused by global warming”. It’s a rather bizarre idea that has been successfully implanted into the minds of a faithful flock, but it is quite obviously the death pangs of a flock who have lost their way.
In this twisted zone of eco-spin, millions could perish from famine or a spike in food prices brought on by early frosts, and elderly residents might die trapped in their homes without sufficient heat, and yet, climate fantasists will tell you that this is all down to man-made global warming, in much the same way that Pat Robertson told us that Hurricane Katrina and and the Haiti earthquake were brought on by God’s vengeance for those peoples’ sins. Climate fundamentalists, whether they are cognisant of this or not, are operating on the same level of misdirection as Pat Robertson.
Still there are millions of dollars a day around the globe being spent researching quack Victorian science fiction ideas as ridiculous as a man-made simulated volcano in England, or a giant cold blanket to cover Greenland’s glaciers.
The longer mainstream society entertains the sort of intellectual indulgence that the Man-Made Global Warming movement is offering out, the more valuable time and money we continue to waste on an ideology that was actually never based on real science- or hard facts. The whole ideology fusing man-made global warming and an illusion of climate crisis was always based on one main element- fear, followed by a powerful politically correct idea of collective guilt. These were deployed against populations in order to achieve the end goal, which was the collectivization and control of society through various legal and economic instruments like carbon emissions trading, an expensive process which will ultimately end in a redistribution of society’s wealth upwards.
Meanwhile, after 10 years and hundreds of billions in precious public and private money spent on an ideological crusade to save the planet from a nemesis that never existed, real environmental threats have gained ground on mankind. The consolidation of genetically modified food production, the introduction of cross-breed chimera species into our ecosystem, the continual dumping of toxic waste and chemicals into our oceans and water supplies, known carcinogens being spread via popular consumer products and the mass release of radioactive pollution through a series industrial incidents- all of which actually threaten mankind’s place and progeny on the planet, and still we see little progress made in pushing them back to truly safe levels.
In the end, Gore’s “24 hours of Reality” only reinforced my belief that there is no “climate crisis”- therefore we should do nothing to solve it, let alone fight it. Still, his CEO and President for the media event, Maggie Fox, implores her troops to soldier on. “It is up to you to continue to stand up for reality and share the truth about the climate crisis. We will succeed because we must.”
That sounds a lot like Goebbels and Co down in that Berlin bunker.
By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
June 20, 2011
As oil is positioned to surge again this summer, intelligent and informed members of society will want to reconsider our crack-like addiction to this black gold which seems to drive the price of everything, along with all major wars, famines and other world events.
We can take a look back to yesterday, 1996 to be exact, and revisit the killing of the electric car by the now defunct General Motors (GM). This was an important link in a chain of events that has placed us where we are today, and in the same boat we were back in 1978.
As a social-consumer group, Americans will believe almost anything they hear from “official sources”. No matter how outrageous or unfounded a mainstream mantra may be, like sheep, they will almost always follow the larger flock, regardless of which way it may be headed. In terms of consumer adoption in the 20th century, the litany of disinformation is endless and includes popular myths like:
- GMO’s are safe to grow and eat.
- Nuclear power is green and safe.
- Fluoride is good for you and helps fight tooth decay.
- Mercury in vaccines is not harmful.
- Battery technology hasn’t advanced enough to support an electric car industry.
Let’s look at that last one. Batteries just weren’t good enough to power cars and free households from dependence on oil companies, right? Wrong. The battery problem had been largely solved and not just in theory, but even in 1990’s production. Then GM bought its way in as a condition for using US inventor Stan Ovshinsky’s battery in its cars. Through a legally dubious move, it sold its share in the company to Chevron/Texaco. And now the battery is gone.
This move was made possible by a team comprised of GM, Chevron/Texaco, and your elected and appointed career members of the US Federal Government, a move that undoubted pushed back the adoption of a mass electric car by a further 20 years or more.
But Washington’s impressive legacy of collusion and corruption doesn’t end there.
As far back as 1974, Vanguard-Sebring’s CitiCar mad its debut at the Electric Vehicle Symposium in Washington, D.C. It had a top speed of over 30 mph and a reliable warm-weather range of 40 miles. By 1975 the company was the sixth largest automaker in the U.S. but is dissolved only a few years later. Two years later in 1976, the US Congress had passes the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. The law was passed in order to help spur the development of new technologies like batteries, motors, and other hybrid-electric components. It also passed because the public will was there and innovators were ready to run with it. Sadly, Federal career-oriented politicians were not up to the task, running the risk of ruining their chances to serve on the boards of these same major industry players.
An Auto-Oil-Fed pincer move was then applied in order to bury all renewable technology trends in 1980 when Washington, under Reagan’s watch, sunk a growing popular national movement towards renewable energy research, development and commercialisation, pushing the electric car back another 20 years.
Prior to that, numerous engineers in the US, Canada and Europe had indeed developed combustion engine prototypes that exceeded 100 miles to the gallon or more, as far back as WWII. Still today, motor industry touts cars that get 30 miles per gallon as “economical” and “fuel efficient”. The famous 200 MPG Pogue Carburetor was just one example of these.
Prior to WWII, clear back to the 1920’s, the electric car was neck and neck with the gasoline-gusselling combustion engine cars. But the gas monsters eventually won way back then. Not much has changed up until today.
Again, we hear that Sad Ballad of the corporate monopolists’ victim, Stan Ovshinsky and his car battery in 1996, we can only look back and wonder, “what if”…
GM and Chevron colluded to kill progress, namely Ovshinsky’s advances in electric car battery technology.
EV1 vs the Hummer: thanks to Federal government interference in the market, he Hummer won.
How the Federal Government bends to the will of certain corporations.
Mary Burgess wrote on the dawn of GM’s bankruptcy debacle:
“In the documentary Wally E. Rippel, a research engineer, points out that there is still about a trillion barrels of oil in the earth. “At $100 a barrel, that’s $100 trillion of business left in the ground”. The fat cat oil companies have so much to gain from prohibiting new technologies from taking over our current consumption of oil and gas, and they have the power to make it happen. Their pressure on the government, and the car companies, including GM, ensured that the EV1 would not survive. Under these pressures GM chose the gas gusseling Hummer over the EV1. Ironically now, GM owes over $1 million for every Hummer on the road.”
The timing of Obama’s Federalist hacking of GM was uncanny to say the least. The irony here for the clueless American voter is that many Democrats saw their Messiah as a “Green” President, and a champion for Mother Earth. The reality of course, is nothing like that. He is just another CEO on the payroll of his corporate board. Burgess continued:
“General Motors dropped from DOW today as it filled for bankruptcy this morning. The Obama administration is to purchase the remains of the suffering company for $30 billion, with the Canadian government chipping in an additional 9.5 billion for the Canadian branch of the company. Together the two governments and the remaining GM staffers will have an arduous task of restructuring the giant company in to a leaner organization in the hopes that it can again rise to be a profitable employer to thousands.
Almost prophetically the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? was broadcast on TV the night before GM officially filled for bankruptcy. The documentary details the story of the EV1, GM’s electric car that was released in 1996… They didn’t let people buy the EV1, leasing was the only option to procure the vehicle. They even put A-list celebrities such as Mel Gibson through lengthy questionnaires prior to letting them lease an EV1. in 1999 when GM stopped production of the EV1, they pulled all of the EV1s on the road and destroyed them, an action that was made possible by their lease only policy…
GM put an inferior battery in the first edition of the EV1, even though they owned a controlling interest in a company that had a patent for a far superior battery invented by Stan Oshinsky . Sadly GM only released 200 second generation EV1’s that included the superior battery, and later GM sold it’s shares to Chevron/Texaco who were free to suppress the innovative technology.”
So this a clear, defined history of collusion between the three main players in the energy game: manufacturers, oil companies and, of course (the one we always forget to mention), your altruistic Federal Government. In this world, trends are not allowed to develop and history is diverted to an alternative reality, one which we find ourselves still on today.
Still, naive voters, activists, and green crusaders harp on about energy policy and tax hikes on fuel, as if it were the only way to reach a cleaner, more efficient future. They speak of man-made global warming and climate change as if its something real, and not a psuedo-science invented and promoted by politicians and career charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice Strong and John P. Holdren. The reality is that its nothing more than another trillion dollar rent-seeking, corporate pyramid scam designed to enrich its elite circle of crafty progenitors.
The problem my dear Watson, is right there in front of your nose. It’s an age-old problem. The elephant in the front room that Americans, particularly for those self-professed “Liberals” in this society. The weak-minded and castrated members of your Federal government have time and time again interfered with the true free market and the natural progression of innovation in technology, in order to fix the game for their biggest corporate donors and their bookies on Wall Street, who in turn will secure the financial future of their federal government legislative fixers.
As the solar industry struggles to be born again, with the help of Ovshinsky’s latest battery technology, the Sad Ballad of Stan Ovshinsky plays on in the background.
It’s not just a song now, it symbolises a bona fide crime against humanity that deserves the most swift and harsh execution of justice.
Green industries? What a laugh. Not until we grow a pair. Until then, the only green industry is in the bill-clip.
By Andrew MacKillop
21st Century Wire
February 26, 2011
Top and bottom, or truth and beauty quarks interest nuclear physicists, but the mutually assured destruction of both the top and bottom, namely- both the North and South parts of the global economy. It came very close indeed, programmed and running to schedule right until the end of December 2010.
Using the lever of nuclear power and the ‘creative’ financial assets generated around them, the intended mechanism featured a massive finance bubble driven by a construction spree of new, industry standard, Chernobyl-sized (900 MW and over) reactors right across the Southern emerging and developing countries, scheduled to take place between 2010-2020.
The lynchpin target for this so-called “Nuclear Renaissance” was the entire Middle East and North African region– the Arab world, including outlier countries such as Sudan and the Central Asian muslim republics. As late as mid-year 2007, France’s President Sarkozy could crow about French success in selling its nuclear power to his respected, or at least petrodollar-flush fellow head of state, received with pomp and circumstance at the Elysee Palace(with tent and gorilla bodyguard)… Mr Muammar Gaddafi.
INFLATING THE BUBBLE
The nuclear bubble plan originated inside a small, shadowy core group of global finance and geopolitical players. The earliest coming out the so-called plan to build more nuclear reactors through 2010-2020 than in any previous period in history, took place at the UN’s Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009. Upon exposure, the first plan experienced its first defeat. Even as vaguely sketched out, or alluded to by the four heads of state of leading nuclear suppliers- Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy and Brown (succeeded later by Cameron), it was promptly met with disbelief and outright hostility by leaders of China, Russia, India, Brazil and others.
Bruised but undeterred by this first failure to sell the scam, its pilot group continued its work through 2010. Their members included the likes of George Soros and his foundation, the World Shift Network, including pro-nuclear activists like Al Gore, nuclear boomers coordinated by the WNA (World Nuclear Association) and by a string of finance industry and institutional players led by the IMF, World Bank, the US Ex-IM Bank, as well as some notable major Ponzi scheme finance operators like Goldman Sachs Co. and its finance industry allies. They were frequently joined by the other three heads of government of the top 7 core nuclear industry supplier countries. Together they comprise the present 46-nation NSG-Nuclear Suppliers Group, hatched in 1974.
UNDERSTANDING THE NUCLEAR BUBBLE
Understanding why the attempt at floating a massive nuclear finance bubble – one which is approximately 10 to 50 times the size of the US sub-prime housing bubble – was doomed to either economic failure, or financial failure, or government debt and monetary failure- or all three, one only needs a flashback to the nuclear industry’s first finance bubble and meltdown, the period around 1974-1979. But at least as important, we have to add another cause of near-certain failure, along with the potential menace of massive loss of life, almost open-ended economic loss, and the ensuing environment damage.
Until the Arab youth revolt started sweeping the entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region in January 2011, the key geographic region for selling nuclear reactors and creating the new “Nuclear South” – was MENA. One may ask the question: who in their right mind, 6 weeks later at end-February 2011, would suggest it is still a nice, progressive and productive, secure and useful idea to sell industry standard, Chernobyl-sized nuclear power plants to countries like Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Syria,Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iran, the Central Asian republics, or any other civil war-prone country of the region, like Sudan ?
At this moment in time any fast forward scenarios for the MENA region remain cloudy, but above all, they are troubled. Today, few could tell you the sell-by-date for remaining regimes in place in these countries.
Apart from minor details like nuclear power plants being likely early collateral damage in civil wars of the region with massive destructive potential, the collapse of friendly dictators in the region heavily weakens another basic need of the nuclear bubble scam – for the borrowing parties to remain inexistence throughout the life of this global Ponzi scheme that was going to be operated, using nuclear assets in the South as the underlying security. Why the plan or scheme to off-load, dilute or dissolve unpayable OECD debt with this scam had to be big- and would have started big, is as simple to understand as flipping through debt and deficit statistics and forecasts for the leading economies of the OECD group. Any so-called “reserve currency” or money, whether in paper dollars, paper euros, paper yen or any others, today faces mortal threat of meltdown. The traditional central banker’s game of turning the printing press and crossing one’s fingers has been shaken to its core of confidence by the global financial and monetary meltdown- a disaster which was triggered by the US sub-prime housing scam.
NUCLEAR SUB-PRIME DWARFING THE HOUSING BUBBLE
The nuclear sub-prime bubble, we can be sure, was schemed as an operation tens of times bigger than the global housing bubble. The scheme was promoted as an “energy independence” and/or low-carbon plan for emerging and developing countries of the South, but under the table featured a huge off-load of debt from the OECD super-debt countries which could supply the necessary nuclear tech, fuel and engineering services – and above all the finance packages.
The scam would have spread its wings the encompass government debt, currency and credit default swaps, SIVs (Structured Investment Vehicles) and a string of interest rate and other derived products, only limited in size and arcane complexity by the same cynical imagination of the nimble minds who gave an unsuspecting world the US sub-prime bubble – and crash.
THE FIRST ASSET BUBBLE
In market jargon anything that goes North is growing and profitable, while going South means losing money, likely going out of business. Turning this around in geographic terms, the nuclear sub-prime scam was conceived with a Southern base, but for the world nuclear industry ‘going south’ already happened- its first asset bubble still remains as a trace memory, haunting analysts and industry advocates. The first time the industry almost died on its feet started exactly when the NSG was first founded by the original 7 pro-nuclear OECD countries, including the 3 Western members of the UN Security Council. Between 1974-1979 the industry rode a massive upsurge in asset values with reactor costs rising almost daily as the whole nuclear supply chain from uranium mining, enrichment and fuel fabrication, through reactor building and waste handling suffered double-digit annual inflation. By 1978 US Westinghouse (now Toshiba-Westinghouse) was forced to declare force-majeure on its uranium fuel supply contracts, and then on all of its new orders, reactor building and completions.
POPULAR NUCLEAR MYTHS
Elsewhere in the NSG world, financial meltdown became a threat, followed by a reality much more dire than core meltdown– as the core business of nuclear industrial players became too hot to handle. The reason was simple. The 1973-1974 oil shock generated a wave of panic in decider mindsets right across the developed OECD North, at a time when the only users of nuclear power along with communist Russia and communist China. The atom in economic folklore became the quick fix silver bullet able to shield their oil-based economies from oil price rises, despite the fact that an average intelligence child with a two-dollar pocket calculator could show, and can show today, that nuclear power saves little oil- or indeed, no oil at all.
Uninterested by such tiring details, governments and corporate deciders stampeded into their farcical attempt at saving the economy with atomic power. Reactor orders exploded. Inflation followed, and financial meltdown naturally ensued, creating what the nuclear industry still calls its ‘nuclear winter’ – stretching from the early 1980s until the late 1990s, during which a single reactor order or completion was a hailed and rare event!
So looking back we can see clearly that through 1974-1979 the exploding track of reactor and nuclear costs was exactly the same as what has happened through 2006-2011 to date. Selling nuclear salvation from high-priced oil to know-nothing heads of state, was then, and still remains today, an easy task in the run up to, and after-glow from the recent all-time high barrel price for oil (US $ 147 on the US NYMEX in 2008). This, we can note, was likely goosed by Goldman Sachs Co. The record price peak also included a 15-20 dollars special GS Co. premium specifically designed to bankrupt its client and victim, Semgroup Holdings, which was advised to bet, and lent funds to bet on falling oil prices… by Goldman Sachs.
READY, STEADY… OOPS
Primed and ready for the second nuclear asset bubble – this time a super-production – the world finance industry teamed with a mix and match of new-time, and old-time nuclear boomers through the years 2006-2009. This new Atomic Rat Pack ranges from the loony fringe of global warming hysterics like Jim Lovelock, James Hansen and Al Gore, to Whole Earth Catalog changeling and businessman Stewart Brand, completing his coming-out by discovering he’d always loved nuclear power all along but had been too shy to say it.
More important for the hard-sell in the South, heads of state of the 7 key NSG countries, Sarkozy and Merkel, soon joined by Obama and Brown, fell over themselves to sell the atom to literally any country at all– in Sarkozy’s case to his friend and highly respected head of state Muammar Gaddafi back in 2007. The list of nuclear-possible or likely countries in the South at end 2010 makes a lurid read. In all cases the projects include (or included, as of end 2010, the probable end of this scam) big or very big civil reactor orders, for industry standard 900MW and larger power reactors.
Apart from the MENA and the Muslim world, we find a bizarre array of crumbling dictatorships, one party states tricked out as democracies, and banana-or-oil republics, such as: Nigeria, Ghana, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Belarus,Pakistan and Indonesia. Through year 2010, in a flurry of mostly closed-door meetings, the nuclear industry boomers headed by the WNA and leading lights in the world finance industry honed down their strategy for building and launching the ultimate asset bubble.
The reason for Southern tilt was not only the lack of debt and sometimes current account surpluses in these countries, but simple facts of life in the North. In the North, environment militants, knowledge and fear of nuclear power, high costs, and the many alternatives to the atom which now include vast reserves of unconventional gas, made their sales pitch a no-go… compared with the home run in the South. In the background, this was further powered by IMF-coordinated attempts to create new mechanisms for re-indebting the emerging and developing countries, and use the South as a place to offload OECD nation debt into a massive new pool of financial paper riding the nuclear asset bubble. Also add here a rather flagging green energy asset bubble.
Perhaps the biggest reason we have to thank the cellphone-wielding Flash Mob youth of the Arab world is this: the potential for launching the new nuclear finance scam is now almost zero in the MENA region – the lynchpin for this attempt at out-doing the US sub-prime bubble. The life expectancy of such a scam today is not much more than that of a quark – about 10 to the minus 25 seconds.
COPYRIGHT ANDREW MCKILLOP 2011
Andrew McKillop is guest writer for 21st Century Wire. He has more than 30 years experience in the energy, economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University College, he has had specially long experience of energy policy, project administration and the development and financing of alternate energy. This included his role of in-house Expert on Policy and Programming at the DG XVII-Energy of the European Commission, Director of Information of the OAPEC technology transfer subsidiary, AREC and researcher for UN agencies including the ILO.
By PETER SISSONS
January 25, 2011
Institutionally biased to the Left, politically correct and with a rudderless leadership. This is Peter Sissons’ highly critical view of the BBC in his new memoirs, in which he describes his fascinating career over four decades as a television journalist. Here, in the latest part of our serialisation, he reveals how it was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change . . .
My time as a news and current affairs anchor at the BBC was characterised by weak leadership and poor direction from the top, but hand in hand with this went the steady growth of political correctness.
Indeed, it was almost certainly the Corporation’s unchallengeable PC culture that made strong leadership impossible.
Leadership — one person being in charge, trusting his or her own judgment, taking a decision and telling others what to do— was shied away from in favour of endless meetings of a dozen or more people trying to arrive at some sort of consensus.
At the newsroom level it became impossible to discipline someone for basic journalistic mistakes — wrong dates, times and numbers, inaccurate on-screen captions and basic political or geographical facts — for fear of giving offence. You’d never see anyone, to use a technical term, get a b*****king.
There’d be whispers about them. They might even get a black mark at the annual appraisal with their line manager. Sometimes, they might even be promoted to a position in which they could do less harm.
But what really concerned me was when the culture of political correctness began to influence what appeared on the screen. Soon after I started on News 24 in 2003, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal returned from the Gulf to a traditional welcome from families and friends at Portsmouth. TV reporters closed in to interview crew members, the vast majority of whom were men.
Of the five vox-pops that featured in the BBC News, four were with women sailors. During my stint of presenting that day I complained about this and asked if we could have some more balanced interviews, but in vain.
I have always been in two minds about the value of vox-pops. They can give texture and interest to a story, but unless they are selected with scrupulous impartiality by a conscientious producer, they are worse than a waste of time — the viewer is deceived, as they were that day.
For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC — global warming (or ‘climate change’, as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998).
From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents.
These, without exception, accepted the UN’s assurance that ‘the science is settled’ and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say . . . ’ would get on air unchallenged.
On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.
On one occasion, after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in 2009, the science correspondent of Newsnight actually informed viewers ‘scientists calculate that he has just four years to save the world’. What she didn’t tell viewers was that only one alarmist scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, had said that.
My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don’t. It is close to propaganda.
The BBC’s editorial policy on climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.
The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.
But the Trust continued its pretence that climate change dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’
In reality, the ‘appropriate space’ given to minority views on climate change was practically zero.
Moreover, we were allowed to know practically nothing about that top-level seminar mentioned by the BBC Trust at which such momentous conclusions were reached. Despite a Freedom of Information request, they wouldn’t even make the guest list public.
There is one brief account of the proceedings, written by a conservative commentator who was there. He wrote subsequently that he was far from impressed with the 30 key BBC staff who attended. None of them, he said, showed ‘even a modicum of professional journalistic curiosity on the subject’. None appeared to read anything on the subject other than the Guardian.
This attitude was underlined a year later in another statement: ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.’ Those scientists outside the ‘consensus’ waited in vain for the phone to ring.
It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.
Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists.
Yet the cream of the BBC’s inquisitors during my time there never laid a glove on those who repeated the mantra that ‘the science is settled’. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.
Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre.
His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its environment correspondents downplayed its significance.
At the end of November 2007 I was on duty on News 24 when the UN panel on climate change produced a report which later turned out to contain significant inaccuracies, many stemming from its reliance on non-peer reviewed sources and best-guesses by environmental activists.
But the way the BBC’s reporter treated the story was as if it was beyond a vestige of doubt, the last word on the catastrophe awaiting mankind. The most challenging questions addressed to a succession of UN employees and climate activists were ‘How urgent is it?’ and ‘How much danger are we in?’
Back in the studio I suggested that we line up one or two sceptics to react to the report, but received a totally negative response, as if I was some kind of lunatic. I went home and wrote a note to myself: ‘What happened to the journalism? The BBC has completely lost it.’
A damaging episode illustrating the BBC’s supine attitude came in 2008, when the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, Roger Harrabin, wrote a piece on the BBC website reporting some work by the World Meteorological Organization that questioned whether global warming was going to continue at the rate projected by the UN panel.
A green activist, Jo Abbess, emailed him to complain. Harrabin at first resisted. Then she berated him: ‘It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics’ — something Harrabin had not actually done — ‘Please reserve the main BBC online channel for emerging truth. Otherwise I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated.’
Did Harrabin tell her to get lost? He tweaked the story — albeit not as radically as she demanded — and emailed back: ‘Have a look and tell me you are happier.’
This exchange went round the world in no time, spread by a jubilant Abbess. Later, Harrabin defended himself, saying they were only minor changes — but the sense of the changes, as specifically sought by Ms Abbess, was plainly to harden the piece against the sceptics.
Many people wouldn’t call that minor, but Harrabin’s BBC bosses accepted his explanation.
The sense of entitlement with which green groups regard the BBC was brought home to me when what was billed as a major climate change rally was held in London on a miserable, wintry, wet day.
I was on duty on News 24 and it had been arranged for me to interview the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas. She clearly expected, as do most environmental activists, what I call a ‘free hit’ — to be allowed to say her piece without challenge.
I began, good naturedly, by observing that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment, and that we were having a particularly cold winter while carbon emissions were powering ahead.
Miss Lucas reacted as if I’d physically molested her. She was outraged. It was no job of the BBC — the BBC! — to ask questions like that. Didn’t I realise that there could be no argument over the science?
I persisted with a few simple observations of fact, such as there appeared to have been no warming for ten years, in contradiction of all the alarmist computer models.
A listener from one of the sceptical climate-change websites noted that ‘Lucas was virtually apoplectic and demanding to know how the BBC could be making such comments. Sissons came back that his role as a journalist was always to review all sides. Lucas finished with a veiled warning, to which Sissons replied with an “Ooh!”’
A week after this interview, I went into work and picked up my mail from my pigeon hole. Among the envelopes was a small Jiffy Bag, which I opened. It contained a substantial amount of faeces wrapped in several sheets of toilet paper.
At the time no other interviewers on the BBC — or indeed on ITV News or Channel Four News — had asked questions about climate change which didn’t start from the assumption that the science was settled…
21st Century Wire
Jan 4, 2010
The new year has passed and with it another annual news cycle for 21st Century Wire. During this time we have posted over 100 stories, covering a range of challenging subjects including new & emerging technology, the global economy, climate change, 911, the War on Terror, internet freedom, the Wikileaks phenomenon and the music industry.
By far, the subject which dominated our hit counter was global warming and climate change which accounted for over 50% of our traffic on the site, as well as hundreds of thousands of more views through syndication on other larger more popular sites like Infowars and Climate Depot. We thank the editors of those and many other sites who carried our stories online this past year.
One story generated more hits than any other in 2010 and no wonder- 21st Century Wire was credited by some for predicting the (eventual) collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX) in our August 28th feature, and certainly we had our share of doubters back then. Not that it was difficult to predict, what with carbon emission prices dropping faster than your Chinese pirate DVDs.
Journalistic instinct and some street smarts also paid off in December with our small punt on the FIFA World Cup-Russian Spy series of articles, a story that the mainstream media has refused to touch since, but whose details will no doubt be revealed in due course. That said…
Here is a list of the most visited stories during the past year 2010:
As 2010 was our first year on the web, we would like to thank all our readers and RSS subscribers for helping to make it a very successful launch year. We look forward to an even better year in 2011, with new site features, new staff writers coming on board and a broader scope with which to analyse a wider variety pressing issues facing the world today. Expect more challenging subjects and even better research links in the months to come…
Introducing Gonzo Town
For those who crave a occasional break from the usual blanket of seriousness, perhaps with a bit of satire and dry grit, we will be launching www.gonzotown.com which will house a new slate, with new writers who will be able to do certain mental gymnastics and hardcore political hacking (not like the Onion, we’re doing gonzo)- stuff that 21st Century Wire cannot always perform in good faith. With talented writers like Basil Valentine and Stoney Pinkerton, this new site will definitely make some waves in cyberspace, so look out.
Happy New Year from everyone at 21st Century.
Patrick James Henningsen
21st Century Wire