When people talk about ‘climate change’ now-a-days, they usually mean ‘anthropocentric’ climate change, which means climate change influenced by human activity.
I used to be in the above crowd. Why not? 250 years of Industrial Revolution actions that dumped millions of tons of hydrocarbon waste into the atmosphere surely must have an effect? And to note, ‘acid rain’, ie rain that is essentially sulfuric acid has fallen on the western side of the Appalachian Mountains here in Upstate New York during the 1970s through the early 1990s, the result of which from the smoke-stacks of coal-fired power plants in the Mid-West.
What has changed my mind?
Let me first say this disclaimer; I am not an atmospheric scientist, just a half-assed informed layman.
In that capacity, after 2 1/2 years of research I have IMHO discovered that there is a global elite who stand to gain significantly (economically) from centralized global control of ‘climate change’ policy.
Now do I think that we, as a global society, should get away from using fossil fuels to power our economies and societies?
Sure. But there are too many reasons to list here.
And the poor nations of the Earth, who get short shrift from the First World Nations anyway, know that their economies still need fossil fuel technology, just to break even and make their loan payments to the IMF.
But the recent climate conferences in the Netherlands in the EU (CO15) were not derailed by poor nations (they did walk out at one point anyway), but was jinked by the US and China (is China Third World or First World now?):
Following a meeting in Brussels to discuss how to rescue the Copenhagen climate process, EU environment ministers emphasized the need for concrete, legally binding measures to combat global warming.
The European Union went to Copenhagen with the hope of achieving a broad commitment to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon emissions below 1990 levels within 10 years, but that and other firm goals failed to emerge in the final accord.
The two-week, United Nations-led conference ended on Saturday with a non-legally binding agreement to limit global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, but did not lay out how to achieve that.
Despite months of preparation and strenuous diplomacy, the talks boiled down to an inability of the world’s two largest emitters, the United States and China, to agree fixed targets.
“Expectations and pressure on the United States have risen after Copenhagen … to really deliver,” Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren told a news briefing on Tuesday after Sweden, as EU president until December 31, chaired pan-EU talks.
Ministers from the EU’s 27 member states will meet again in January to discuss what role the EU can play in cobbling together a stronger agreement.
DASHED PLANS
The bloc went to Copenhagen with a unified position and a plan for financing emissions cuts in the developing world, with a commitment to spend around 7 billion euros ($10 billion) over the next three years to aid poorer countries.
But those aims were largely sidelined as the talks failed to produce a breakthrough. Carlgren described the summit as a “disaster” and a “great failure,” despite what he called Europe’s united efforts.
“Europe never lost its aim, never, never came to splits or different positions, but of course this was mainly about other countries really (being) unwilling, and especially the United States and China,” Carlgren said.
Britain on Monday blamed China and a handful of other countries of holding the world to ransom by blocking a legally binding treaty at Copenhagen, stepping up a blame game that has gathered momentum since the talks ended.
In a sharply worded response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu rejected accusations that China had “hijacked” the climate talks and added: “The statements from certain British politicians are plainly a political scheme.”
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the summit as “at best flawed and at worst chaotic” and demanded an urgent reform of the process to try to reach a legal treaty when talks are expected to resume in Germany next June.
But Danish Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard, who quit as president of the talks midway through after being criticized by African countries for favoring wealthier nations in negotiations, said there was no point in getting depressed.
“What we need to do is to secure the step that we took and turn it into a result,” she told reporters as she arrived for the Brussels meeting on Tuesday. Asked whether Copenhagen had been a failure, she replied:
“It would have been a failure if we had achieved nothing. But we achieved something — a first step.
“It was the first time we held a process where all the countries were present, including the big emitters.”
In short, there must be a way to convert the worlds’ societies economies and technologies slowly and evenly with alternate tech over the next 50 years to shift away from fossil fuels. Is there sufficient wealth in the market to begin the change, or is technology being suppressed by the global financial/energy elites so only they have the power to begin the shift, if they feel like it?
If they see money in it, they will start the change.
And the elite aren’t as united as one would think.
Dad2059's Webzine of Science Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica 
Following a meeting in Brussels to discuss how to rescue the Copenhagen climate process, EU environment ministers emphasized the need for concrete, legally binding measures to combat global warming.The European Union went to Copenhagen with the hope of achieving a broad commitment to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon emissions below 1990 levels within 10 years, but that and other firm goals failed to emerge in the final accord.
I wonder if this could turn out as a successful strategy!
One thing you have to realize Bruce my friend, is that the world’s politicians are in the pockets of the financial and energy elite, they only do what they’re ordered to do.
If they don’t, |-P !
One thing you have to realize Bruce my friend, is that the world’s politicians are in the pockets of the financial and energy elite, they only do what they’re ordered to do.If they don’t, |-P !
I think I already have! But one more thing is here, species extinction. How would that be recovered? Even not?
I have long been a “CO2 theory skeptic”. But it wasn’t because I have correctly figured out who has the most to gain financially. Rather, it was the data that convinced me. Such as this:
That data indicate that solar cycle length not only correlates more strongly with global surface temperatures but has characteristics of causation which the CO2 theory does not (i.e. when the solar cycle length makes a deflection, so does the global surface temperature). Contrarily, when surfaces temperatures increased the most (1890-1940) CO2 levels weren’t going up that much and during the post-war boom surface temperatures were actually going down until 1970. What gives with that?
When one realizes that there is a serious alternate theory to the CO2 theory it completely changes one’s perspective. Now it is not a presumption that greenhouse explains 20th century warming. So one begins to ponder how much of the warming is cause by solar changes, CO2, currents, etc. When one doesn’t presume that greenhouse gasses are the major cause then one can actually entertain the question of just how much of the warming is caused by CO2. The typical correlations don’t help answer this question because the curve fitting inherent in correlation studies involves an artificial scaling until the curves match the closest. The direct watt/m^2 change expected from CO2-as-greenhouse-gas physics experiments is small and insufficient to explain global warming. The models have to include a presumed positive feedback mechanism which we cannot be absolutely certain about. For example, we could just as easily imagine a negative feedback mechanism of: increased CO2 –> increased temperature –> more ocean evaporation –> increased clouds –> decreased surface temperature.
NOTE: Don’t buy the common alarmist explanations for the above. Solar cycle length change is NOT the same thing as change in solar irradiance. Rejecting the latter as an explanation is not the same as rejecting the former.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/254/5032/698
So, when one is open to the idea that CO2 may not be the dominant cause of global warming – that it may be a minority cause, then once can begin to make sense of things like the following:
BBCNews – 15Dec09 – Ban Ki-moon tells Copenhagen summit to ‘seal a deal’
BBCNews – 24Dec09 – Deadly winter storm arrives in US Midwest
BBCNews – 23 Dec09 – Snow and ice ‘worst in 20 years’
BBCNews – 22Dec09 – More than 80 dead in European winter weather
BBCNews – 24Nov09 – Big jump recorded in ‘excess’ deaths last winter
BBCNews – 03Mar09 – Coldest winter in UK for 13 years
BBCNews – 16Jan09 – Bitter cold spreads across the US
BBCNews – 29Jan08 – Transport chaos in snow-hit China
Good info John. Let’s hope calmer heads prevail concerning the climate change issue and economic equality is also taken in consideration with actual climate research.
You and I came to the same conclusion through wildly divergent means. If you check my Dec 4 post you will be at the start of a number of articles on the topic : CFACT and Global Research.ca being the major finds.
Make that at opitslinkfest.blogspot.com
My old address had an article Dec 1 ! But most of my posts are on Blogger now.
I left a little comment at your site J.