 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » CEOs no longer refute climate change - Reuters - 5... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Doug Bashford... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
CEOs no longer refute climate change
Reuters - 5 hours ago
=======
CEOs no longer refute climate change
Mon Oct 19, 2009
www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59I52820091019
By Chelsea Emery
CARY, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. chief executives no longer
reject claims of human-caused climate change, putting to rest a
dispute that has raged in boardrooms for decades, said the head
of PG&E on Thursday.
Members of the Business Council, a group of executives from the
top 120 U.S. companies, have altered their beliefs about climate
change significantly, said PG&E Chief Executive Officer Peter
Darbee in an interview.
Darbee was attending the Business Council's October gathering in
Cary, North Carolina.
"No one among the group was arguing the science of climate
change," said Darbee. "That debate, at least in that forum,
appears to be over. The discussion was really about, 'climate
change is happening, it is a challenge of vast proportions and it
will require an effort on the part of mankind to respond to this
challenge.'"
................snip
The GW denialists look more silly every day, don't they?
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john fernbach... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 19, 9:05 pm, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
[quote]CEOs no longer refute climate change
Reuters - 5 hours ago
======> CEOs no longer refute climate change
Mon Oct 19, 2009
www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59I52820091019
By Chelsea Emery
CARY, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. chief executives no longer
reject claims of human-caused climate change, putting to rest a
dispute that has raged in boardrooms for decades, said the head
of PG&E on Thursday.
Members of the Business Council, a group of executives from the
top 120 U.S. companies, have altered their beliefs about climate
change significantly, said PG&E Chief Executive Officer Peter
Darbee in an interview.
Darbee was attending the Business Council's October gathering in
Cary, North Carolina.
"No one among the group was arguing the science of climate
change," said Darbee. "That debate, at least in that forum,
appears to be over. The discussion was really about, 'climate
change is happening, it is a challenge of vast proportions and it
will require an effort on the part of mankind to respond to this
challenge.'"
...............snip
The GW denialists look more silly every day, don't they?
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.
[/quote]
Yes, they do. Not "silly," however, so much as "criminally dishonest." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| o*nob... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Doug Bashford" <playing at (no spam) work.edu> wrote in
message
news:kPWdndS8z9lvkUDXnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d at (no spam) pghconnect.com...
[quote]
CEOs no longer refute climate change
Reuters - 5 hours ago
=======
CEOs no longer refute climate change
Mon Oct 19, 2009
[/quote]
ROTFLMAO
Human greed always wins out.
Wonder why no more.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
The Profiteers From Climate Alarmism, First in a
series
May 30 2009
QUOTE: An Enron-funded study that dismissed the
notion that calamity could come of global warming,
meanwhile, was quietly buried.
QUOTE: To magnify the leverage of their political
lobbying, Enron also worked the environmental
groups. Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron
Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature
Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a
leading force for global warming reform, while Lay
and other individuals associated with Enron
donated $1.5-million to environmental groups
seeking international controls on carbon dioxide.
QUOTE: "If implemented this Kyoto agreement will
do more to promote Enron's business than will
almost any other regulatory initiative outside of
restructuring of the energy and natural-gas
industries in Europe and the United States,"
QUOTE: Just as shrewdly, Enron saw the importance
in silencing the scientists who didn't accept the
alarmism that had driven the Kyoto Protocol. In a
1998 letter, Enron CEO Ken Lay, among others,
asked president Clinton to appoint a bi-partisan
"Blue-Ribbon Commission" designed to pronounce on
the science and, in effect, marginalize the
skeptics.
QUOTE: The precise commission that Lay demanded
didn't happen but the general marginalization of
scientists did, and continues to occur to this
day, with great success. Scientists who question
the Kyoto Protocol invariably find themselves
subject to public ridicule; all too often they
find they are unable to obtain funding for their
research, or even that their employment has been
terminated.
QUOTE: But if the public is to be skeptical of the
influence that big money has over global-warming
science, it should take the temperature anew, and
recognize that the biggest money interest of all
in the climate change debate lies with those
poised to cash in on the climate-change policies
of Kyoto and its successors.
In the climate-change debate, the companies on the
'environmental' side have the most to gain.
We all know that the financial stakes are enormous
in the global warming debate - many oil, coal and
power companies are at risk should carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases get regulated in a
manner that harms their bottom line.
The potential losses of an Exxon or a Shell are
chump change, however, compared to the fortunes to
be made from those very same regulations.
The climate-change industry - the scientists,
lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most
importantly, the multinationals that work behind
the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake - has
emerged as the world's largest industry.
Virtually every resident in the developed world
feels the bite of this industry, often
unknowingly, through the hidden surcharges on
their food bills, their gas and electricity rates,
their gasoline purchases, their automobiles, their
garbage collection, their insurance, their
computers purchases, their hotels, their purchases
of just about every good and service, in fact, and
finally, their taxes to governments at all levels.
These extractions do not happen by accident. Every
penny that leaves the hands of consumers does so
by design, the final step in elaborate and often
brilliant orchestrations of public policy, all the
more brilliant because the public, for the most
part, does not know who is profiteering on climate
change, or who is aiding and abetting the
profiteers.
Some of the climate-change profiteers are
relatively unknown corporations; others are
household names with only their behind-the-scenes
role in the climate-change industry unknown. Over
the next few weeks, in an extended newspaper
series, you will become familiar with some of the
profiteers, and with their machinations. This
series begins with Enron, a pioneer in the
climate-change industry.
Almost two decades before President Barack Obama
made "cap-and-trade" for carbon dioxide emissions
a household term, an obscure company called
Enron - a natural-gas pipeline company that had
become a big-time trader in energy commodities -
had figured out how to make millions in a
cap-and-trade program for sulphur dioxide
emissions, thanks to changes in the U.S.
government's Clean Air Act.
To the delight of shareholders, Enron's stock
price rose rapidly as it became the major trader
in the U.S. government's $20-billion a year
emissions commodity market.
Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, keen to engineer an
encore, saw his opportunity when Bill Clinton and
Al Gore were inaugurated as president and
vice-president in 1993.
To capitalize on Al Gore's interest in global
warming, Enron immediately embarked on a massive
lobbying effort to develop a trading system for
carbon dioxide, working both the Clinton
administration and Congress. Political
contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed
freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming
global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions
weren't curbed.
An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion
that calamity could come of global warming,
meanwhile, was quietly buried.
To magnify the leverage of their political
lobbying, Enron also worked the environmental
groups. Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron
Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature
Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a
leading force for global warming reform, while Lay
and other individuals associated with Enron
donated $1.5-million to environmental groups
seeking international controls on carbon dioxide.
The intense lobbying paid off.
Lay became a member of president Clinton's Council
on Sustainable Development, as well as his friend
and advisor. In the summer of 1997, prior to
global warming meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Clinton
sought Lay's advice in White House discussions.
The fruits of Enron's efforts came soon after,
with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol.
An internal Enron memo, sent from Kyoto by John
Palmisano, a former Environmental Protection
Agency regulator who had become Enron's lead
lobbyist as senior director for Environmental
Policy and Compliance, describes the historic
corporate achievement that was Kyoto.
"If implemented this agreement will do more to
promote Enron's business than will almost any
other regulatory initiative outside of
restructuring of the energy and natural-gas
industries in Europe and the United States,"
Polisano began. "The potential to add incremental
gas sales, and additional demand for renewable
technology is enormous."
The memo, entitled "Implications of the Climate
Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired,"
summarized the achievements that Enron had
accomplished. "I do not think it is possible to
overestimate the importance of this year in
shaping every aspect of this agreement," he wrote,
citing three issues of specific importance to
Enron which would become, as those following the
climate-change debate in detail now know, the
biggest money plays:
the rules governing emissions trading,
the rules governing transfers of emission
reduction rights between countries, and
the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy
fund.
Polisano's memo expressed satisfaction bordering
at amazement at Enron's successes. The rules
governing transfers of emission rights "is exactly
what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we
won. The clean development fund will be a
mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again we
won .... The endorsement of emissions trading was
another victory for us."
Polisano's hard work had paid off, thanks to the
many allies Enron had enlisted. Deserving special
emphasis was the environmental community, whose
endorsement was crucial to Enron's achievements at
Kyoto.
"Enron now has excellent credentials with many
'green' interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World
Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense
Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action
Network, the European Climate Action Network,
Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and
Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly
cultivated and capitalized on (monetized),"
Polisano explained.
With this company, Enron had been propelled to a
leadership position at Kyoto. Polisano had been
given no less than three occasions for speeches,
including one on the role of business in promoting
clean energy, and he had received an award on
behalf of Enron: The Climate Institute honoured
Kenneth Lay and Enron for their work promoting
clean-energy solutions to climate change - the
other recipients were Denmark's energy and
environment minister and the U.K.'s former
environment minister.
As Polisano noted: "Parenthetically, I heard many
times people refer to Enron in glowing terms. Such
praise went like this: 'Other companies should be
like Enron, seeking out 21st-century business
opportunities,' or 'Progressive companies like
Enron are ...' or 'Proof of the viability of
market-based energy and environmental programs is
Enron's success in power and SO2 trading.'"
Polisano's three-page memo from Kyoto, which
suggested that the Kyoto Protocol could work out
even better than he had expected, stressed the
need for urgency to capitalize on the
opportunities that would now be on offer: "I now
predict ratification within three years. I predict
business opportunities within 18 months. I predict
this agreement will have very significant
influences on the energy sector within OECD and
transitional economies and will accelerate
renewable markets in developing countries. This
agreement will be good for Enron stock!!"
The groundwork had been laid well, not least by
entering into relationships with scientists who,
Enron expected, would further its cause (James
Hansen, the scientist who more than any other is
responsible for bringing the possibility of
climate-change catastrophe to the public, was
among the scientists Enron commissioned).
Just as shrewdly, Enron saw the importance in
silencing the scientists who didn't accept the
alarmism that had driven the Kyoto Protocol. In a
1998 letter, Enron CEO Ken Lay, among others,
asked president Clinton to appoint a bi-partisan
"Blue-Ribbon Commission" designed to pronounce on
the science and, in effect, marginalize the
skeptics.
The precise commission that Lay demanded didn't
happen but the general marginalization of
scientists did, and continues to occur to this
day, with great success. Scientists who question
the Kyoto Protocol invariably find themselves
subject to public ridicule; all too often they
find they are unable to obtain funding for their
research, or even that their employment has been
terminated.
Most of all, the skeptics are treated with
suspicion, and accused of having been in the pay
of the energy industry. The public in good part
has accepted these accusations, its underlying
assumption being that the fossil-fuel industry has
the most at stake in climate-change policy.
But if the public is to be skeptical of the
influence that big money has over global-warming
science, it should take the temperature anew, and
recognize that the biggest money interest of all
in the climate change debate lies with those
poised to cash in on the climate-change policies
of Kyoto and its successors.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/30/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 19, 9:16 pm, john fernbach <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 19, 9:05 pm, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
CEOs no longer refute climate change
Reuters - 5 hours ago
======> > CEOs no longer refute climate change
Mon Oct 19, 2009
www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59I52820091019
By Chelsea Emery
CARY, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. chief executives no longer
reject claims of human-caused climate change, putting to rest a
dispute that has raged in boardrooms for decades, said the head
of PG&E on Thursday.
Members of the Business Council, a group of executives from the
top 120 U.S. companies, have altered their beliefs about climate
change significantly, said PG&E Chief Executive Officer Peter
Darbee in an interview.
Darbee was attending the Business Council's October gathering in
Cary, North Carolina.
"No one among the group was arguing the science of climate
change," said Darbee. "That debate, at least in that forum,
appears to be over. The discussion was really about, 'climate
change is happening, it is a challenge of vast proportions and it
will require an effort on the part of mankind to respond to this
challenge.'"
...............snip
The GW denialists look more silly every day, don't they?
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.
Yes, they do. Not "silly," however, so much as "criminally dishonest."
[/quote]
•• You know about dishonesty, fernbach.
You are dishonest every time you post.
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, john fernbach said about:
Re: CEOs no longer refute climate change - Reuters - 5 hours ago
[quote]On Oct 19, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59I52820091019
By Chelsea Emery
CARY, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. chief executives no longer
reject claims of human-caused climate change, putting to rest a
dispute that has raged in boardrooms for decades, said the head
of PG&E on Thursday.
Members of the Business Council, a group of executives from the
top 120 U.S. companies, have altered their beliefs about climate
[/quote]
................snip
[quote]The GW denialists look more silly every day, don't they?
[/quote]
[quote]Yes, they do. Not "silly," however, so much as "criminally dishonest."
[/quote]
Yep. I've given that question a great deal of thought
in in the Context of BushCo & Co lying America into Iraq.
Were they:
crazy,
delusionary,
liars,
stupid,
gullible,
cruel,
greedy,
mindless vigilantes,
lemmings,
or were they just simple cowards?
That goes for the denialists too.
And it's prolly a mix.
But we can't read minds. We'll never know.
But one charge should stand up in court:
Criminal negligence.
That would apply to those in positions of responsibility.
But in my book, freedom isn't free.
It comes with responsibility.
And in this political climate of The Right Winger's Free Lunch,
dare I suggest Freedom also comes with costs!?
If Oprah can be sued by the Righties for food slander,....
=========
Science:
image: graph: Comparison of ground based (blue) and satellite
based (red: UAH; green: RSS) records of temperature variations
since 1979. Trends plotted since January 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
If it were now 1985 or 1993, etc, down-spikes, you'd be
squealing "SEE -- PROOF!
THE WORLD IS COOLING!
EEK!"
Funny GW denialists! But who can blame them?
They're snorting a deadly mind-numbing cocktail of
Fox Cartoon News and Clown Limbaugh!
Dear God, Please
Give America back to the decent folks, where manners, civility,
thoughtfulness, and common decency isn't called wimpy &
disdainfully called "politically correct".
.......... Truth is stranger than fiction:
USA Today/Gallup poll - LIMBAUGH is the REPUBLICAN LEADER !
"Who speaks for the Republican party?"
RUSH LIMBAUGH... Both Repubs and Dems agree. Cheney is #2!
-- only 7% of America is Favorable to Republicans
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john fernbach... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Leonard -- this is a pretty typical post for you, and it's pretty sad.
Labelling the anthropogenic global warmers -- people like me -- "evil"
is just a labelling game.
It says nothing about the validity of what we believe or what we're
advocating: all it says is that YOU consider us evil, because you
don't like our stance on climate change.
As Abraham Lincoln said in a famous joke in a courtroom, if a dog has
4 legs and we call the tail another leg, how many legs does the dog
have? Well, it still has 4 legs, because calling a tail a leg doesn't
make it one.
Calling AGWers "evil" or "religious fanatics" because we basically
agree with what the mainstream scientific authorities have been saying
about climate change for 20 or 30 years now is just dumb, or
pathetically dishonest, or both.
We could be wrong to trust what the experts have been saying and
writing about climate change, of course. We could conceivably be
misled.
But it isn't "evil" or especially "religious" for someone like me, a
fairly bright guy who isn't a professional scientist, to follow what's
been said about climate change by the National Academy of Sciences,
the Scientific American, the National Geographic Society, the American
Society for Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the IPCC of
course, and a host of other scientific bodies & individual scientic
experts who've devoted their careers to studying the climate.
It's people like you, Leonard, who are clinging to the most far-out,
most eccentric scientific researchers who've addressed the "global
warming" problem. And while again it's possible that your "lone wolf"
scientific dissenters are right and the vast majority of the climate
experts are wrong, it's not really likely.
You're calling me a religious fanatic or calling me downright "evil"
for agreeing with the National Geographic Society, the National
Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the IPCC,
Leonard?
That just makes no sense. Socially, you're living in never-never
land, in a fantasy world. You're betting on a 100-to-1 shot in the
Kentucky Derby and saying there's something warped about my
personality because I'm betting on the favorite. Where do you get
this crap?
On Oct 20, 5:57 am, "leonard7... at (no spam) gmail.com" <leonard7... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 19, 9:16 pm, john fernbach <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:05 pm, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
CEOs no longer refute climate change
Reuters - 5 hours ago
======> > > CEOs no longer refute climate change
Mon Oct 19, 2009
www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59I52820091019
By Chelsea Emery
CARY, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. chief executives no longer
reject claims of human-caused climate change, putting to rest a
dispute that has raged in boardrooms for decades, said the head
of PG&E on Thursday.
Members of the Business Council, a group of executives from the
top 120 U.S. companies, have altered their beliefs about climate
change significantly, said PG&E Chief Executive Officer Peter
Darbee in an interview.
Darbee was attending the Business Council's October gathering in
Cary, North Carolina.
"No one among the group was arguing the science of climate
change," said Darbee. "That debate, at least in that forum,
appears to be over. The discussion was really about, 'climate
change is happening, it is a challenge of vast proportions and it
will require an effort on the part of mankind to respond to this
challenge.'"
...............snip
The GW denialists look more silly every day, don't they?
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.
Yes, they do. Not "silly," however, so much as "criminally dishonest.."
•• You know about dishonesty, fernbach.
You are dishonest every time you post.
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| n00b-... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"john fernbach" <fernbach1948 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:4fc98a25-209b-4793-8090-c99968c2dcf9 at (no spam) l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Leonard -- this is a pretty typical post for you,
and it's pretty sad.
Labelling the anthropogenic global warmers --
people like me -- "evil"
is just a labelling game.
It says nothing about the validity of what we
believe or what we're
advocating: all it says is that YOU consider us
evil, because you
don't like our stance on climate change.
======================================
No, it's because, aside from dabbling in junk
science, you are part of an anti-western socialist
agenda to create global governance and to unfairly
redistribute hard-won wealth to crackpot,
socialist regimes which are inherently unable to
help themselves.
This makes you and your ilk EVIL socialist
conspirators!
The Socialist Agenda Disguised As
Environmentalism, Global Governance And Wealth
Transfer Coming To You
October 19 2009
The fix is in.
The UN’s Copenhagen summit on global warming will
in Decenber debate - and no doubt approve in large
part - this negotiation text.
What is means for Australia is that we, like other
developed countries, will promise to make deep
cuts to our total emissions.
But China, the world’s biggest emitter, and other
big and developing countries will not be made to
promise any such cuts in total emissions
themselves. Instead, we will agree to hand over
lots of money and technology to them - a bribe, in
other words, to agree to a deal that cannot
possibly hope to restrain the world’s emissions
even to today’s level, and will weaken the
democratic West to the advantage of the
undemocratic rest.
Check this out:
“Substantial reductions of GHG emissions from
Annex I countries [the developed ones, including
Australia] should be agreed,… “
“PP.8 [Recognizing that] sustainable development
is the first priority for developing countries. “
“Therefore, [that] our commitment to a low carbon
society would have to be linked to our development
priorities, in accordance with the provisions of
the Convention… “
“PP.10 [Emphasizing that] it is fundamental that
Annex I countries comply fully with the provisions
as set out in 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 as well as
additional commitments on technology transfer and
capacity-building. “
“PP.11 [Further emphasizing that] a shared vision
does not include commitments for developing
countries. It does, entitle technology transfer,
capacity-building and financial resources for
project implementation regarding mitigation
national programs.”
We will lead, and few - if any - will follow.
All that pain for nothing.
And Lord Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret
Thatcher, sees an even greater danger - a loss of
sovereignty to a new “world government*.
In a speech aimed at an American audience, but one
that applies to us as well, he warns:
“At the 2009 United Nations Climate Change
Conference in Copenhagen, this December, weeks
away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will
sign it. Most of the third world countries will
sign it, because they think they’re going to get
money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from
the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually
nobody won’t sign it. “
“I read that treaty. And what it says is this,
that a world government is going to be created.
The word “government” actually appears as the
first of three purposes of the new entity. The
second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the
countries of the West to third world countries, in
satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate
debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they
haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and
they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new
entity, this government, is enforcement. “
“How many of you think that the word “election” or
“democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere
in the 200 pages of that treaty? “
More here, including excerpts from the draft
treaty.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/well_pay_and_the_rest_will_play/
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Leonard... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 10/21/09 12:10 AM, in article
4fc98a25-209b-4793-8090-c99968c2dcf9 at (no spam) l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, "john
fernbach" <fernbach1948 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Leonard -- this is a pretty typical post for you, and it's pretty sad.
Labelling the anthropogenic global warmers -- people like me -- "evil"
is just a labelling game.
** There may come a time in your lifetime that you[/quote]
will say to yourself : "I wish I had listened to the
sceptics."
€€ You know about dishonesty, fernbach.
You are dishonest every time you post.
‹‹ ‹‹
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.- Hide quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john fernbach... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 3:37Â pm, Leonard <leonard7... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
[quote]On 10/21/09 12:10 AM, in article
4fc98a25-209b-4793-8090-c99968c2d... at (no spam) l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, "john
fernbach" <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Leonard -- this is a pretty typical post for you, and it's pretty sad.
Labelling the anthropogenic global warmers -- people like me -- "evil"
is just a labelling game.
** There may come a time in your lifetime that you
    will say to yourself : "I wish I had listened to the
   sceptics."
 €€ You know about dishonesty, fernbach.
   You are dishonest every time you post.
[/quote]
You claim this, Leonard, but then you would, wouldn't you?
Seriously, I don't think you have anything to back this up with.
I may be WRONG, as I've admitted many times in here. But I don't
think it's "dishonest" for me to place trust, for the most part, in
what the mainstream climate researchers have been concluding
concerning "global warming."
Maybe I'll someday regret that I put my faith in the climate
conclusions of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American
Society for Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the Scientific
American, the IPCC and a host of other mainstream authorities --
including such Republican politicians as Sen. John McCain, former
Senator John Warner of Virginia, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, and
Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger of California.
Ditto regarding the announcements on climate change that I've posted
in this web site concerning the climate views of David Cameron, head
of the Conservative Party in Britain, the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the National Wildlife
Federation, and other "centrist" or even culturally conservative
individuals and institutions that have weighed in on the subject.
I don't really think it's been dishonest of me to post recent news
releases on climate change & related topics from Science Daily,
either.
Do you really expect us to believe that everybody in the world is
"dishonest" on the subject of climate change except for the Global
Warming Deniers, Leonard?
That's just nuts. It doesn't pass the laugh test.
Again though, the mainstream scientists and those who trust them may
turn out to be wrong in the end. But right now I'm trying to follow
what I think are the most credible sources of information on "global
warming."
How can you criticize this? Except for the fact, of course, that it
doesn't support your side?
[quote]
 ‹‹ ‹‹
 There are three types of people that you
 can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
 stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
   logic of what you say. You have to tell them
   what is right in very simple terms. If they do
   not agree, you will never be able to change
   their mind.
 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
   against their religious belief, they will cling to
   that belief even if it means their death.
 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
   million years. There is no way to convince
   the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
   the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
   predators to change their evil ways, They
   knew what they were doing was wrong, but
   knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
   them more careful in how they went about
   performing their evil deeds.- Hide quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john fernbach... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 12:32 am, "n00b-" <k... at (no spam) l.com> wrote:
[quote]"john fernbach" <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:4fc98a25-209b-4793-8090-c99968c2dcf9 at (no spam) l34g2000vba.googlegroups..com...
Leonard -- this is a pretty typical post for you,
and it's pretty sad.
Labelling the anthropogenic global warmers --
people like me -- "evil"
is just a labelling game.
It says nothing about the validity of what we
believe or what we're
advocating: all it says is that YOU consider us
evil, because you
don't like our stance on climate change.
=====================================
No, it's because, aside from dabbling in junk
science, you are part of an anti-western socialist
agenda to create global governance and to unfairly
redistribute hard-won wealth to crackpot,
socialist regimes which are inherently unable to
help themselves.
[/quote]
Whoah - the SOCIALISM charge !!!!!
Oh, I'm mel-l-l-ting ...
Bonzo, this is a fairly stupid charge, and you know it. I am in fact
a socialist, as I've admitted many times, but belief in "global
warming" is not a socialist plot.
In fact, politicians who have warned their own people and the world
about AGW include David Cameron, head of the Conservative Party in
Great Britain; Dame Margaret Thatcher, former head of the Conservative
Party in the UK, Sen. John McCain, conservative Republican and former
prisoner of war in communist Vietnam, and California Gov. Arnold
Schwarznegger, Republican governor of California.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a former political dissident in East
Germany, is another strongly anti-socialist
Western politicians who is enormously concerned about the threat posed
by "global warming" to the world.
I've seen at least one statement from Bill O'Reilly, FOX News
commentator and extreme anti-socialist patriot, indicating that he,
too, believes "global warming" is real.
A few years ago the Rev. Pat Robertson, an architech of the Christian
Right in the US and former GOP candidate for President, also issued a
public statement indicating that "Global Warming" is real and
problematic.
You also claim AGWers like me want to "unfairly redistribute hard-won
wealth to crackpot, socialist regimes which are inherently unable to
help themselves."
This sounds good, Bonzo, until we recognize that CHINA is the main
"socialist" regime that we're worried about benefitting from a global
climate treaty. And CHINA -- love 'em or hate 'em -- is definitely
not "unable to help themselves."
They're kicking our butts and the butts of every other nation in the
world in terms of economic growth, Bonzo. And they're doing it, of
course, with the help of hundreds of giant "American" corporations,
including the big oil companies and coal companies.
So you're just blowing hot air, Bonzo -- really, really hot air, air
hot enough to melt the polar icecaps if given long enough.
Whenever anyone in the world says, "You know, the big oil and coal
companies ought to stop wrecking the environment, and maybe they
should also give consumers a break" -- whenever that happens, people
like you go ballistic and start running around screaming "SOCIALIST!
SOCIALIST!"
Mostly because you can't come up with any better excuse for the big
oil & coal companies wrecking the environment, can you?
So you're full of shit when you portray the mainstream position on GW
as a socialist plot, Bonzo.
[quote]This makes you and your ilk EVIL socialist
conspirators!
The Socialist Agenda Disguised As
Environmentalism, Global Governance And Wealth
Transfer Coming To You
October 19 2009
The fix is in.
The UN’s Copenhagen summit on global warming will
in Decenber debate - and no doubt approve in large
part - this negotiation text.
What is means for Australia is that we, like other
developed countries, will promise to make deep
cuts to our total emissions.
But China, the world’s biggest emitter, and other
big and developing countries will not be made to
promise any such cuts in total emissions
themselves. Instead, we will agree to hand over
lots of money and technology to them - a bribe, in
other words, to agree to a deal that cannot
possibly hope to restrain the world’s emissions
even to today’s level, and will weaken the
democratic West to the advantage of the
undemocratic rest.
Check this out:
“Substantial reductions of GHG emissions from
Annex I countries [the developed ones, including
Australia] should be agreed,… “
“PP.8 [Recognizing that] sustainable development
is the first priority for developing countries. “
“Therefore, [that] our commitment to a low carbon
society would have to be linked to our development
priorities, in accordance with the provisions of
the Convention… “
“PP.10 [Emphasizing that] it is fundamental that
Annex I countries comply fully with the provisions
as set out in 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 as well as
additional commitments on technology transfer and
capacity-building. “
“PP.11 [Further emphasizing that] a shared vision
does not include commitments for developing
countries. It does, entitle technology transfer,
capacity-building and financial resources for
project implementation regarding mitigation
national programs.”
We will lead, and few - if any - will follow.
All that pain for nothing.
And Lord Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret
Thatcher, sees an even greater danger - a loss of
sovereignty to a new “world government*.
In a speech aimed at an American audience, but one
that applies to us as well, he warns:
“At the 2009 United Nations Climate Change
Conference in Copenhagen, this December, weeks
away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will
sign it. Most of the third world countries will
sign it, because they think they’re going to get
money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from
the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually
nobody won’t sign it. “
“I read that treaty. And what it says is this,
that a world government is going to be created.
The word “government” actually appears as the
first of three purposes of the new entity. The
second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the
countries of the West to third world countries, in
satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate
debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they
haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and
they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new
entity, this government, is enforcement. “
“How many of you think that the word “election” or
“democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere
in the 200 pages of that treaty? “
More here, including excerpts from the draft
treaty.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 2:36Â pm, john fernbach <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 3:37Â pm, Leonard <leonard7... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
On 10/21/09 12:10 AM, in article
4fc98a25-209b-4793-8090-c99968c2d... at (no spam) l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, "john
fernbach" <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Leonard -- this is a pretty typical post for you, and it's pretty sad..
Labelling the anthropogenic global warmers -- people like me -- "evil"
is just a labelling game.
** There may come a time in your lifetime that you
    will say to yourself : "I wish I had listened to the
   sceptics."
 €€ You know about dishonesty, fernbach.
   You are dishonest every time you post.
You claim this, Leonard, but then you would, wouldn't you?
Seriously, I don't think you have anything to back this up with.
I may be WRONG, as I've admitted many times in here. Â But I don't
think it's "dishonest" for me to place trust, for the most part, in
what the mainstream climate researchers have been concluding
concerning "global warming."
Maybe I'll someday regret that I put my faith in the climate
conclusions of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American
Society for Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the Scientific
American, the IPCC and a host of other mainstream authorities --
including such Republican politicians as Sen. John McCain, former
Senator John Warner of Virginia, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, and
Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger of California.
Ditto regarding the announcements on climate change that I've posted
in this web site concerning the climate views of David Cameron, head
of the Conservative Party in Britain, the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the National Wildlife
Federation, and other "centrist" or even culturally conservative
individuals and institutions that have weighed in on the subject.
I don't really think it's been dishonest of me to post recent news
releases on climate change & related topics from Science Daily,
either.
Do you really expect us to believe that everybody in the world is
"dishonest" on the subject of climate change except for the Global
Warming Deniers, Leonard?
[/quote]
•• ROTFLMAO - Every one you listed is only
interested is only interested in politics, not in
science. There was a Climate Change
conference in Winnipeg last week and none of
the businessmen were concerned about the
climate. Rather they were only concerned about
how they can profit from it.
[quote]
That's just nuts. Â It doesn't pass the laugh test.
Again though, the mainstream scientists and those who trust them may
turn out to be wrong in the end. Â But right now I'm trying to follow
what I think are the most credible sources of information on "global
warming."
[/quote]
•• ROTFLMAO: You are really funny!!
What/who are "the mainstream scientists" that
you trust? How many are living on the billion$
the US govrnment has disbursed for "research"
in the past 20 years? How many are salaried by
the UN IPCC? Do you trust Mike Mann or
Keith Briffa? The product of their years of
research just went down the chute labelled
F-R-A-U-D. That effectively discredits the
IPCC's product totally.
The lynchpin of IPCC's 4th summary was the
Hockey stick and Dr McIntyre has finall
obtained the data which shows that it and its
encore, was a carefully picked bowl of
cherries. Then there are the computer models,
primitive as they are, that can not show
anything but warmer and warmer and where
the earlier forecasts are batting zero for 20+.
I think you forgot that we don't speak of
"global warming" because people know
global warming does not exist, "Climate
Change" is functioning as it has for five
million years or more.
•• In everything of your posts that I have seen,
there is no logic. Here is a bit dated Mar 27
but no year ... probably '07
[quote]That being said, the most commonly respected and commonly
accepted climate science, which is currently summarized in
the IPCC reports, is indicating that potentially catastrophic
climate change will be theresult unless human civilization
moves quickly to make really drasticreductions in global CO2
emissions (and also in emissions of methane, black carbon or
soot, and such lesser greenhouse gases as NO2.)
[/quote]
•• All of which has been discredited
[quote]How can you criticize this? Â Except for the fact, of course, that it
doesn't support your side?
[/quote]
•• Now how can you support this?? It doesn't
support your 'side'. But then there is NO
data that does support your side.
  ––  ––

 In real science the burden of proof is always on

 the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far

 neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one

 iota of valid data for global warming nor have

 they provided data that climate change is being

 effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 2:50 pm, john fernbach <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 12:32 am, "n00b-" <k... at (no spam) l.com> wrote:
"john fernbach" <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:4fc98a25-209b-4793-8090-c99968c2dcf9 at (no spam) l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Leonard -- this is a pretty typical post for you,
and it's pretty sad.
Labelling the anthropogenic global warmers --
people like me -- "evil"
is just a labelling game.
It says nothing about the validity of what we
believe or what we're
advocating: all it says is that YOU consider us
evil, because you
don't like our stance on climate change.
=====================================
No, it's because, aside from dabbling in junk
science, you are part of an anti-western socialist
agenda to create global governance and to unfairly
redistribute hard-won wealth to crackpot,
socialist regimes which are inherently unable to
help themselves.
Whoah - the SOCIALISM charge !!!!!
Oh, I'm mel-l-l-ting ...
Bonzo, this is a fairly stupid charge, and you know it. I am in fact
a socialist, as I've admitted many times, but belief in "global
warming" is not a socialist plot.
In fact, politicians who have warned their own people and the world
about AGW include David Cameron, head of the Conservative Party in
Great Britain; Dame Margaret Thatcher, former head of the Conservative
Party in the UK, Sen. John McCain, conservative Republican and former
prisoner of war in communist Vietnam, and California Gov. Arnold
Schwarznegger, Republican governor of California.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a former political dissident in East
Germany, is another strongly anti-socialist
Western politicians who is enormously concerned about the threat posed
by "global warming" to the world.
I've seen at least one statement from Bill O'Reilly, FOX News
commentator and extreme anti-socialist patriot, indicating that he,
too, believes "global warming" is real.
A few years ago the Rev. Pat Robertson, an architech of the Christian
Right in the US and former GOP candidate for President, also issued a
public statement indicating that "Global Warming" is real and
problematic.
You also claim AGWers like me want to "unfairly redistribute hard-won
wealth to crackpot, socialist regimes which are inherently unable to
help themselves."
This sounds good, Bonzo, until we recognize that CHINA is the main
"socialist" regime that we're worried about benefitting from a global
climate treaty. And CHINA -- love 'em or hate 'em -- is definitely
not "unable to help themselves."
They're kicking our butts and the butts of every other nation in the
world in terms of economic growth, Bonzo. And they're doing it, of
course, with the help of hundreds of giant "American" corporations,
including the big oil companies and coal companies.
So you're just blowing hot air, Bonzo -- really, really hot air, air
hot enough to melt the polar icecaps if given long enough.
Whenever anyone in the world says, "You know, the big oil and coal
companies ought to stop wrecking the environment, and maybe they
should also give consumers a break" -- whenever that happens, people
like you go ballistic and start running around screaming "SOCIALIST!
SOCIALIST!"
Mostly because you can't come up with any better excuse for the big
oil & coal companies wrecking the environment, can you?
So you're full of shit when you portray the mainstream position on GW
as a socialist plot, Bonzo.
[/quote]
•• ROTFLMAO–– If it is not 'socialist', it is
fascist (same thing). The UN bureaucrats in
Copenhagen have admitted their objective is
one world government, like they have
managed in EU.
[quote]This makes you and your ilk EVIL socialist
conspirators!
The Socialist Agenda Disguised As
Environmentalism, Global Governance And Wealth
Transfer Coming To You
October 19 2009
The fix is in.
The UN’s Copenhagen summit on global warming will
in Decenber debate - and no doubt approve in large
part - this negotiation text.
What is means for Australia is that we, like other
developed countries, will promise to make deep
cuts to our total emissions.
But China, the world’s biggest emitter, and other
big and developing countries will not be made to
promise any such cuts in total emissions
themselves. Instead, we will agree to hand over
lots of money and technology to them - a bribe, in
other words, to agree to a deal that cannot
possibly hope to restrain the world’s emissions
even to today’s level, and will weaken the
democratic West to the advantage of the
undemocratic rest.
Check this out:
“Substantial reductions of GHG emissions from
Annex I countries [the developed ones, including
Australia] should be agreed,… “
“PP.8 [Recognizing that] sustainable development
is the first priority for developing countries. “
“Therefore, [that] our commitment to a low carbon
society would have to be linked to our development
priorities, in accordance with the provisions of
the Convention… “
“PP.10 [Emphasizing that] it is fundamental that
Annex I countries comply fully with the provisions
as set out in 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 as well as
additional commitments on technology transfer and
capacity-building. “
“PP.11 [Further emphasizing that] a shared vision
does not include commitments for developing
countries. It does, entitle technology transfer,
capacity-building and financial resources for
project implementation regarding mitigation
national programs.”
We will lead, and few - if any - will follow.
All that pain for nothing.
And Lord Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret
Thatcher, sees an even greater danger - a loss of
sovereignty to a new “world government*.
In a speech aimed at an American audience, but one
that applies to us as well, he warns:
“At the 2009 United Nations Climate Change
Conference in Copenhagen, this December, weeks
away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will
sign it. Most of the third world countries will
sign it, because they think they’re going to get
money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from
the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually
nobody won’t sign it. “
“I read that treaty. And what it says is this,
that a world government is going to be created.
The word “government” actually appears as the
first of three purposes of the new entity. The
second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the
countries of the West to third world countries, in
satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate
debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they
haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and
they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new
entity, this government, is enforcement. “
“How many of you think that the word “election” or
“democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere
in the 200 pages of that treaty? “
More here, including excerpts from the draft
treaty.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| alanmc95210 at (no spam) yahoo.com... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 7:27 am, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
[quote] On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, john fernbach said about:
Re: CEOs no longer refute climate change - Reuters - 5 hours ago
On Oct 19, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59I52820091019
By Chelsea Emery
CARY, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. chief executives no longer
reject claims of human-caused climate change, putting to rest a
dispute that has raged in boardrooms for decades, said the head
of PG&E on Thursday.
(cut)[/quote]
That's because they've been bought off by rent seeking scams like
this:
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/21865345-41/story.csp
How does giving tax breaks to Walmart, US Bank, and Standard
Insurance
help fight global warming?
- A. McIntire |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:41 am
|
|