by Sarah Price
23 December 2009

from PalTelegraph Website

 

We have seen the end of an elaborate party for the rich in Copenhagen and seen the demise of the third world nations.

We witnessed the arrival of the "Messiah" in all his glory, right on cue at the very end of the meeting to rescue the world from this myth they call "Global Warming."

At the end of the day who benefits from these discussions and what does it mean to those who could hardly afford the airfare to get there. The answer is simply nothing!

 

The economic giants the G3, G3.5, G8 and G20 or whatever have their own hidden agenda and I can assure you its nothing to do with saving the planet from what in my opinion is one of natures natural cycles.

  • So what are their evil intentions?

  • Why were the figures presented by these so called environmental experts so flawed?

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said,

"we have a deal" he went on the say "he's aware that this is just the beginning." And this "will have an immediate operational effect."

Many poor nations bitterly protested the deal because it lacks specific targets for reducing carbon emissions. What is the current situation as far as each nation's carbon footprint is concerned.

The US and China contribute to at least half of the worlds emissions and one would find it very difficult to point a finger at the remainder. If one added the UK and EU into the equation we could see that the majority of world's emissions are from these areas and the balance from the rest of the G8.

 

How can one punish the developing or underdeveloped countries whose footprint must appear miniscule by comparison?

We can at last see what lies behind this false fašade of deceit and manipulation when one of the UN's top most climate scientist turns out to be a fake and like the other con man Al Gore is making a fortune out of the exercise. So who is this mysterious character that adorns mother earth.

 

His name is Dr Rajendra Pachauri and he and his partner in crime were seen together on December 10, 2007 when Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC.

 

It was at this prize giving ceremony that The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was represented by Pachauri.


Isn't it amazing how easy it is now days to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize... all it takes is a sinister past or a future full of lies, deceit and false promises.

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies.

 

The world's top climate scientist" is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

 

Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organizations dependent on the IPCC's policy recommendations. These organizations include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in "carbon trading" and "sustainable technologies", estimated to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

So how does this man have the ability to change your life? Easy... with his wheeling and dealing he can close your factory down and re-open it in a far away place where that countries carbon footprint is less that that of your own.

 

A perfect example of carbon trading was when 1,700 Corus workers on Teesside will next month lose their jobs to India, thanks to the workings of that international "carbon market" scheme and our notorious and very greedy Dr Pachauri. Many factories will close down and re-emerge on distant horizons to reap in more profit without environmental constraints.


The apparent agreement between the United States, China, South Africa, and India is not as robust as one would expect and falls short of the emissions that the US, China, UK, EU and Japan could achieve. It is obvious that if these countries alone made a sincere reduction in their own greedy economies then the savings would certainly ease the burden that mother nature is trying to deal with.

 

However, having said that it is perfectly logical that this "Global Warming" is a perfectly natural cycle and that if the above countries made a significant and genuine effort the poorer countries would not have to participate in restraints or penalties.

There are far more pressing issues to be addressed before we even start looking at our environment and its complex eco systems. Take the issue of these developed nations using WMD's (disguised as conventional weapons) and spreading DU/EU aerosols around the globe.

 

Surely this is the most important crisis of all... why would you worry about the climate first if you are killing of the world's entire eco systems including the populations, wildlife and species that form part of those eco-systems?

 

Then there are many question to be asked of central and local governments around the world that if they are sincere about the reduction in power usage, emissions, fuel wastage and pollution, why do they not follow a strict code of conduct to genuinely reduce such wastage? It is clear that the true reason behind this push is nothing to do with such reductions but rather other hidden and sinister motives.

I have myself carried out some simple research over many months as to how our governments are adding to the problem by not monitoring the areas so vital in the reduction of greenhouse gases. If one adds to this the allowable destruction of native rain forests and the fact that many of the G20 countries are actively involved in such destruction then one can hardly blame the poorer countries for what may or may not be happening.

 

What do we think are the alternative reasons behind the global warming push?

One report the other week was when billionaire George Soros suggested that poorer nations be persuaded to take on what he describes as "green loans" in the name of combating climate change, a policy that would land the already cripplingly poor third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF.

 

This same report said:

The proposal would entail third world countries paying back interest to the governments of the richer nations to stem a perceived crisis that they have had little or no direct involvement in manufacturing.

Maybe the third world is now starting to understand that global warming is a total scam especially when the developed world flaunt and abuse the environment to their own economic advantage.

 

Then we have another headline,

"US executive mission to sell green technologies to India" but the icing on the cake was "Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire"

I guess we have always known that Al Gore (the Savior of our planet) had some hidden agenda.

 

He goes around the world scaring hell out of everyone on the gloom and doom of global warming and then we learn Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

 

I suppose when he talks about going green he's talking about "Green Backs" that are so important in his life!

Just remember to use your natural instincts when carrying out your own assessment on "Global Warming."

 

I am sure you will agree that the G20 countries will continue carry out such deals time and time again. In return for their gallant efforts their countries corporate sector will be able to continue to pollute and with a much lower cost infrastructure.

 

Where does all this lead... more job losses in the west in order for them to continue to pollute and greater profits from the hiring of an extremely cheap labour force!

 







Hopelessly Dumb - 75% of Americans Buy The Climate Lie
by H. Josef Hebert
December 19, 2009

from APNews Website

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Three of every four Americans view climate change as a serious problem that will harm future generations if not addressed, according to an Associated Press-Stanford University poll.

The survey also said that about the same number of people say the Earth probably already is warming, slightly fewer than the percentage expressing that view when asked the same question a year ago.

The AP-Stanford poll of 1,005 adults contacted by telephone in November suggests that people's concerns about climate change have not changed significantly.

That's contrary to several other recent surveys. In October, according to a poll of 1,500 adults conducted by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 57 percent said there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer. That was a 20 percent decline from three years earlier.

The new survey findings could give a boost to supporters of legislation in Congress to reduce heat-trapping pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

On Saturday, an international climate conference made some headway toward an agreement for nations to cut greenhouse gases, but the accord spelled out no specific or mandatory cuts.

President Barack Obama, a key broker in the agreement, called it a breakthrough that lays the groundwork for getting emission cuts and for action by Congress.

In the AP-Stanford poll, when participants were asked how serious a problem they thought global warming presented,

  • 42 percent replied it was very serious and 31 percent said it was somewhat serious.

  • Nearly two-thirds, or 63 percent, said that if nothing is done to reduce the threat of global warming, future generations will be hurt a great deal or "a lot."

  • An additional 13 percent said future generations would be moderately harmed.

  • Still, only 41 percent viewed global warming as extremely or very important to them, although respondents said they rated climate change as second only to the economy as the most serious problems facing the world if nothing is done to address it.

While a solid majority say they believe the Earth already is warming, those that do not appeared to be more convinced than ever about their skepticism.

Of the 22 percent of the respondents who said that warming "probably is not happening," about half said they also are extremely or very sure of that conclusion. Two years ago, only one-third of people felt that way when asked the same question.

But the broad concerns over climate change appeared not to translate into support for legislation before Congress that would cap greenhouse gases.

While three-quarters of respondents said they support action to combat climate change, just as many said they would oppose the "cap and trade" legislation to limit heat-trapping pollution if it raised their electricity bill by $25 a month. Almost six in 10 balked if it meant paying $10 extra a month for electricity.

The AP-Stanford University Poll was conducted November 17-29 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media.

 

It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,005 adults nationwide, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.


 

Video




Al Gore Lying At COP15 Copenhagen Climate Conference
by StopTheCarbonTax1
December 14, 2009

from YouTube Website