Poll

Is Global Warming Being Used To Gain Control Of Energy?

Yes42%42% - 9
No19%19% - 4
GW is a scientfic fact38%38% - 8
Total: 21
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6279|Truthistan
I've posted this before on other GW threads, but I think it deserves its own thread.
Now usually on the other threads the reply I get is "blah blah GW is a scientific fact you denier answer." So this thread is not about the science of Global Warming, this thread is about the potential threat from global corporate control of energy and the use of Global Warming by these groups to pursue those ends.


So where this all starts for me is in 1998 when I met someone at a lecture who told me about being at a Bilderberger Group meeting. Mind you this meeting was in 1996 or 1997. At that meeting world leaders, top bureaucrats and industrial leaders were talking about using peoples' support on environmental issues to control energy in order to create new revenue streams for governments and profits for industry. Since Al Gore was VP during Clintons first term, I imagine he was probably there. Anyway, this was in 1996 or 1997 and about 10 years before an inconvenient truth, and long before government grant money started flowing into climate change/environmental science studies.


GW is the poster child of big industry and big government. Global corporations and global traders want to gain control, or otherwise be outside of the control of govenrments, and as we saw with ENRON in the California electricity crisis, a corporation can make governmental action sterile if the corporation can get out side of the reach of that govts regulatory jurisdiction.

That's what the global energy companies are pushing for. With trading regimes like The ENRON Loophole,  or other measures like the high frequency energy trading, or funneling paper oil contracts in Euros through China, then selling them to the US in order to falsify global demand and then making another profit on the currency carry trade because funneling paper oil contracts through China based on Euros caused the US dollar to devalue. Thankfully that trade is now breaking down with the fall of the Euro and these people have momentarily lost their grip on oil.

Now cap and trade is the next step. It will in effect be an inverse energy market. When energy commodities increase in value, carbon credit will go down. when energy decreases, carbon credits will increase. It will set the floor on energy and permit traders to ratchet up energy prices. And Governments will make revenue on selling the carbon credits in the first instance.

Cap and trade is what those people had in mind in 1996 when then were talking about using environmental issues to create new markets and revenue streams outside of govermental regulatory control. Governemnts have sunk billions into GW research in order to create a platform from which it could propose creating new private markets where global energy companies and traders can fleece consumers. Fact is you are their target and GW is their excuse.



FOR THOSE WITH ADHD, IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE ON THIS WALL OF TEXT READ THE FOLLOWING PART

Every once and a while some one let's it slip out what the real game is. That happened today on CNBC when Mark Fisher, of MBF Asset Management, talked about the future of energy. He said

"It’s comical or ironic that every government is trying to regulate the price of energy, and in some way down the line the price of energy is going to regulate all these governments." http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1 … amp;play=1 at minute 2:10

That's the real game that's at foot. Its about the control of govts and the control of democracies through the control of energy and the only way they get to do that is if we let them. Even if you are a pro-GWer, you need to realize how you are being used, you only have this "opportunity" to effect economic change because govts and global business leaders have permitted you that opportunity. But, don't think for one instance that you have any chance of effecting any change that will benefit you or people like you. You can be idealistic about the environment, just don't let yourself be used to destroy your future standard of living or the freedoms that you now enjoy because you live in a democracy that can control corporate entities because you will lose all that if these people succeed. The GW game has been cooked, and you're just a pawn. Remember that guys words, it also kind of comical, because the jokes on you.


IMO what we need is more nuclear power, push the nuclear agenda and these people will lose control of their purchase.
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7051|UK
Global warming was being studied far before governments put it on their agenda.

Put your tin foil hat away...
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6906|London, England
Yeah, I'm not a fan of all this bullshit trade/economics baggage that gets carried around with the theory of MMGW, and it also devalues it alot to those that like to carry the baggage around with the theory, for better or worse. But that's human nature for you.

Everyone is always being used, even without GW you're still being used by someone. I don't understand how anything you said is different from what was going on before the whole GW thing anyway. For me as far as I'm concerned it's about stopping and slowing down the use of fossil fuels (for a multitude of reasons, GW being just one) and using alternative energy. All this nonsense about carbon tax, carbon credits... I can't wait till its gone. Which it will be if we ever get to the goal of not needing to combust fossil fuels anymore.

The way I see it, one side is all the people getting rich off the green shit, the other side is the bastard oil companies which everyone hates. I like your nuclear option, too.
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State
thorium reactors ftw.

Only reason why they developed Uranium reactors in the first place was so we could produce weapons grade uranium for nukes during the cold war.

Thorium is more practical for energy generation purposes, and leaves little to no nuclear waste.

And bad economics is not a reason for MMGW not to exist.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

The last option is off-topic. You can vote yes or no and still agree with it.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX
IMO what we need is more nuclear power, push the nuclear agenda and these people will lose control of their purchase.
How on earth do you conclude that? Who do you suppose will own the nuclear stations?

It all sounds like another compelling argument for a simple carbon tax, cap and trade is BS.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-26 19:15:02)

Fuck Israel
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6279|Truthistan

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The last option is off-topic. You can vote yes or no and still agree with it.
QFT
The last selection in the poll is non sequitor.
I wanted to see how many people out there have the blinders on when discussing GW and would charge head long into that one....

Looks like its 4 out 12, now if I extrapolate that and hide the decline after your little spoiler I would say that about a 1/3 of people are incapable of rational thought on the subject I proposed. I know the sample size is small but if I get the math just right I think I can get another 10 feet of sea level rise.

newbie.. the following is no directed at you, its just a general comment
Yes, people see GW, and they act like a bull seeing red, they aren't thinking about how the proposed solution is going to affect their future, and I say solution as in singular because there really is only one on the table that's being pushed really hard. and that's cap and trade.

Its just one more example of people not looking out for their own interests. Welcome to the brave new world where people are led to believe that doing harm to themselves is good for them. The power of choice is a double edged sword, I guess, watch it doesn't swing back around on you and bite your ass.  But then again if 1/3 of people out there don't even know what the real debate is about, have they really made a choice.


Anyway, I look at that thorium reactor, and I think popular science or scientific america or ome other magazine did an article on small nuclear devices. Its too bad we have idiot terrorists running around because it would be cool to have a household sized reactor and to drive an electric car.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Anyway, I look at that thorium reactor, and I think popular science or scientific america or ome other magazine did an article on small nuclear devices. Its too bad we have idiot terrorists running around because it would be cool to have a household sized reactor and to drive an electric car.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
Anyway, I look at that thorium reactor, and I think popular science or scientific america or ome other magazine did an article on small nuclear devices. Its too bad we have idiot terrorists running around because it would be cool to have a household sized reactor and to drive an electric car.
Thorium reactors are the way of the future if we can find away of making 100% sure that none of it ever gets out. Ever. Radioactivity is a secondary concern to the fact that thorium will fuck you up.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Spark wrote:

Anyway, I look at that thorium reactor, and I think popular science or scientific america or ome other magazine did an article on small nuclear devices. Its too bad we have idiot terrorists running around because it would be cool to have a household sized reactor and to drive an electric car.
Thorium reactors are the way of the future if we can find away of making 100% sure that none of it ever gets out. Ever. Radioactivity is a secondary concern to the fact that thorium will fuck you up.
Figuring out a way to clean radiation would probably be a nearer solution than inventing the impervious containment unit.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Anyway, I look at that thorium reactor, and I think popular science or scientific america or ome other magazine did an article on small nuclear devices. Its too bad we have idiot terrorists running around because it would be cool to have a household sized reactor and to drive an electric car.
Thorium reactors are the way of the future if we can find away of making 100% sure that none of it ever gets out. Ever. Radioactivity is a secondary concern to the fact that thorium will fuck you up.
Figuring out a way to clean radiation would probably be a nearer solution than inventing the impervious containment unit.
Precisely. Normal fast-breeders are better IMO. Cheaper, quicker, and radioactive waste is better than thorium waste.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7051|UK

Diesel_dyk wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The last option is off-topic. You can vote yes or no and still agree with it.
QFT
The last selection in the poll is non sequitor.
I wanted to see how many people out there have the blinders on when discussing GW and would charge head long into that one....

Looks like its 4 out 12, now if I extrapolate that and hide the decline after your little spoiler I would say that about a 1/3 of people are incapable of rational thought on the subject I proposed. I know the sample size is small but if I get the math just right I think I can get another 10 feet of sea level rise.
Answer 3 implied answer 2 no? Your whole argument claimed that GW was some massive conspiracy by the government. If GW (increased by human activity) is scientific fact then it CAN'T be a conspiracy, by definition.

Seriously. Tin foil hat. Put it away.

Nuclear power is defiantly the way forward, but because of people who are equal as insane as you; governments are scared to implement them in case their is an accident and they get blamed.

Last edited by Vilham (2010-05-27 02:10:03)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
In response to that...

So this thread is not about the science of Global Warming
Hence I don't really give a fuck.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Noobeater
Northern numpty
+194|6732|Boulder, CO

Vilham wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The last option is off-topic. You can vote yes or no and still agree with it.
QFT
The last selection in the poll is non sequitor.
I wanted to see how many people out there have the blinders on when discussing GW and would charge head long into that one....

Looks like its 4 out 12, now if I extrapolate that and hide the decline after your little spoiler I would say that about a 1/3 of people are incapable of rational thought on the subject I proposed. I know the sample size is small but if I get the math just right I think I can get another 10 feet of sea level rise.
Answer 3 implied answer 2 no? Your whole argument claimed that GW was some massive conspiracy by the government. If GW (increased by human activity) is scientific fact then it CAN'T be a conspiracy, by definition.

Seriously. Tin foil hat. Put it away.

Nuclear power is defiantly the way forward, but because of people who are equal as insane as you; governments are scared to implement them in case their is an accident and they get blamed.
I personally really do like the idea of nuclear power, however the problem is what the hell do you do with the waste afterwards? Granted new technologies have reduced the danger of the waste but (at least in Britain) there is nowhere that we can store this waste long term. The plan was to bury it in the bedrock tens of kilometres underground  in places like Sellafield but they've discovered that pretty much everywhere has something wrong with it to stop them using it or that even using the best quality inpermeable rock layers we have (in the case of sellafield the
Borrowdale Volcanic Group) its still possible that waste would emerge on the surface within 100 years to cause catastrophic damage. Though in the case of sellafied it also turned out that there was a bloody great dead faultline in the BVG that would transport the waste to the surface within a decade or two.

So sadly until we have some method of actually storing radioactive waste safely for the required time (I believe they declare it to be a safe location if it can store it  for 10,000 years without it reaching the surface ) then nuclear is something that still has its own massive problems even if it is only temporary.

Back on topic, I believe that its less that they are trying to take complete control of energy resources and usage in order to make an even bigger fortune but more so that they can forcibly steer us all into using more renewable resources as to be honest a lot of companies will not do it until they actually have no choice.

Although I just thought I should add to this I also believe that the other main reason why organisations care about things such as oil is simply due to the fact that until we stop using crude oil (not just for fuels) then we are inescapably tied to other nations whether we like them or not.

Last edited by Noobeater (2010-05-27 03:09:20)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX
Uranium is very much a finite resource, apart from that deep ocean subduction zones FTW.
Fuck Israel
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Vilham wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The last option is off-topic. You can vote yes or no and still agree with it.
QFT
The last selection in the poll is non sequitor.
I wanted to see how many people out there have the blinders on when discussing GW and would charge head long into that one....

Looks like its 4 out 12, now if I extrapolate that and hide the decline after your little spoiler I would say that about a 1/3 of people are incapable of rational thought on the subject I proposed. I know the sample size is small but if I get the math just right I think I can get another 10 feet of sea level rise.
Answer 3 implied answer 2 no? Your whole argument claimed that GW was some massive conspiracy by the government. If GW (increased by human activity) is scientific fact then it CAN'T be a conspiracy, by definition.

Seriously. Tin foil hat. Put it away.

Nuclear power is defiantly the way forward, but because of people who are equal as insane as you; governments are scared to implement them in case their is an accident and they get blamed.
The question was "Is Global Warming Being Used To Gain Control Of Energy?" Whether or not global warming is a fact has little impact on a yes or no answer. Because people are taking advantage of global warming for their own economic ends, it's often taken less seriously.

The third option is silly.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-27 08:26:11)

Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6279|Truthistan

Vilham wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The last option is off-topic. You can vote yes or no and still agree with it.
QFT
The last selection in the poll is non sequitor.
I wanted to see how many people out there have the blinders on when discussing GW and would charge head long into that one....

Looks like its 4 out 12, now if I extrapolate that and hide the decline after your little spoiler I would say that about a 1/3 of people are incapable of rational thought on the subject I proposed. I know the sample size is small but if I get the math just right I think I can get another 10 feet of sea level rise.
Answer 3 implied answer 2 no? Your whole argument claimed that GW was some massive conspiracy by the government. If GW (increased by human activity) is scientific fact then it CAN'T be a conspiracy, by definition.

Seriously. Tin foil hat. Put it away.

Nuclear power is defiantly the way forward, but because of people who are equal as insane as you; governments are scared to implement them in case their is an accident and they get blamed.
No, answer 3 does not imply answer 2. Point is that you can say GW is a scientific fact and see how peoples' support for doing something about GW is being used to gather momentum to drive the policy makers to create huge profits for large companies. Its not a grand consirpacy, its more like how congress was driven to pass the bailout. You generate a story line and scare the hell out of the public and the congress about something very few people understand or can debate against. You use the story line to get the solution you want to see passed into legislation and then wait for the huge, congressionally mandated, profits to start rolling in. Greed is never a conspiracy its a motive but in so far as manipulating the public and congress for the purpose of making profits, then I guess could be thought of as a conspiracy or a business plan. You have to realize that these guys are not interested in generating a few billion off of oil, these guys are interested in bending democracies to their will in order to make trillions. This is something more akin to the crashing entire countries like what happened with Greece in the bond market.

Like the guy I qouted said "It’s comical or ironic that every government is trying to regulate the price of energy, and in some way down the line the price of energy is going to regulate all these governments." http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1 … amp;play=1 at minute 2:10

If/when these companies gain control of energy, we are all screwed. so the point is that support for GW should not be support for cap and trade. In fact, if you like democratic style of govt, you really need to be actively opposing these types of measures. Remaining silent on cap and trade under a mistaken belief that it would be an attack on GW science only means that those people tacitly approve of cap and trade and that's all that these guys need to get their agenda pushed through.

And I seriously doubt that alternative technology is what these guys want to see, what these guys want is everyone paying them a monthly payment just for the pleasure of being alive. I doubt that the goal is to profit from alternative technology because one time payments for technology and then dropping of the grid is going to make them rich. For the past 100 years these companies have received regular payments for energy from everyone living in the industrialized world. Its like how Tesla tried to develop a decnetralize wireless power distribution system, but JP morgan wanted an electrical wire and a meter on every house and business so they could make people pay every month. Now we have the opportunity to decentralize the whole energy system and interupt that business model. Its like how the record companies are trying to fight the internet. The difference is that these guys are trying to get out in front of the trend and to create a new scheme where they can generate revenue from every gallon of gasoline, every lump of coal, or every kilowatt of power, even if they are not the ones supplying the energy. Its will be a form of private taxation going from the public's pockets to these corporations. even if you are "off the grid" you will still be paying them indirectly through the increased cost of merchadise and food. And to me, I am simply stating the obvious.

I just looked at the poll, since spoiling option 3 and telling everyone that its really a trap to show that people don't get the debate over political solutions and how their support for GW science is being used to push policy to reap huge profits from the public, people have continued to pick option 3. It goes to show that people are just not thinking about their self interests and the political debate and the negative effects that the solution will have on their future. Personally I don't want to be paying 3 or 4 times more for electricity and gasoline or have those costs rolled up into food and other consumer goods. The whole idea of having to pay more for exactly the same thing that we buy now is just stupid profiteering. The economy simply can not take that type of shock and if you think we are in a recession now, wait until that happens. and watch for the push on cap n trade this fall.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard