Thursday, June 1, 2017

Donald Trump's Greatest Victory. Stopping the Climate Change Scam...So Far?

Today, Donald Trump confirmed one of his most important campaign promises, pulling out of the Paris Accords on Climate Change.  There are masses against this, not because it is important, but because of the propaganda that has been spouted over the past 20 years or so.  It is right up along side the Russian interference news story that has almost no valid backing. 

Why was the climate pact so important to avoid?  To start, there is plenty of conflict as to whether the science is valid or not.  The 97% figure was never accurate.  It was made up, using names of people that had attended conferences that had never voiced an opinion pro or con.  So, there is a good chance the whole matter was invalid and even if it had some validity, no reasonable person would really believe the governments of the world could control the temperature of the Earth.  There is a massive amount of scientific proof that the world has been warmer and colder throughout history, trends in one direction that reverse in the other direction.

There is also the fact that the pro change group was being paid to come to the warming conclusion and doctored the data to achieve a continuance of the warming trend.  The hack of emails of a major climate lab discovered the scientists were under duress to hide the decline.  The decline was a 30 years or more period between the 1930's and 1970's, when global temperatures declined.  This was a period when the use of fossil fuels ramped up massively, thus blowing a hole in the CO2 theory.  According to one group of data, there has been no warming since the late 1990's.

One might note the term has moved from Global warming to Climate Change.  The climate has always changed.  What has also changed is the news, where propaganda from the major fascist leaders and establishment figures around the world has pointed to everything, warm weather, cold weather, storms, no storms, rainfall, no rainfall, etc. and said it was linked to global warming.  Those of us that are prone to think we know something, because everyone is supposed to know, might find ourselves brainwashed by such a practice.  But, because there is data that shows no warming, the switch has been made, with the same message.  Global warming=Climate Change, though they are actually 2 different things. 

The real absurdity starts with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.  400 parts per million.  In comparison, oxygen, at 20% is roughly 200,000 parts per million, nitrogen at in the high 700,000 range.  Added CO2 is like throwing another jigger of scotch in a lake, expecting the water to now get one drunk.  Greenhouse or not (called greenhouse because they pump it into greenhouses to make plants grow faster, maybe a good thing), the amount of CO2 is insignificant, a very trace element. 

I have doubted the story from the first for one reason.  Back when I was in school, around 1970, I had read that the energy of the sun hitting the Earth for either 1 second or 1 minute (a big difference in magnitude, but in either case, an amazing statistic) was greater than the total amount of energy mankind had expended in history.  In such an arena, there could be little effect from any other source on temperatures that came close to that from the sun.  Mankind was insignificant. 

Going farther, the arguments against the global warming theory involved a variety of causes, including the number of sunspots present at a given time.  Man had been recording sunspots for as long as there were means to do so, several hundred years and there were records.  The more sunspots, the warmer the temperature.  Fewer sunspots led to cooler temperatures.  Thus, regardless of theory, the primary influence came from solar, not from mankind. 

This brings us to the next point.  That point is, who is stupid enough to believe, without destroying the atmosphere, is government of any kind going to control the sun?  This is what they are telling us, because using all known data, this is what creates the warming and cooling cycles on Earth.  Not another eyedropper of CO2 thrown in the ocean of air we have around us.  They might as well have told us we needed to give them money and power to stop a Martian invasion. 

Then comes the question of why so many establishment figures are behind the climate control agenda?  The same answer as most other ideas, money and power.  Virtually all deniers have been accused of working for the oil companies.  But, it turns out the multinationals are in favor of the pact.  Why?  I suspect the investment bankers and the petrochemical industry are counting on having control of carbon credits.  The idea has made former VP Al Gore wealthy.  Carbon credits would virtually take the right of the average Joe to consume energy, free of any side profit earned through this multinational corporate and international banker racket. 

The we have the politicians, the corporate states.  What it a corporate state?  It is the political form of something otherwise known as fascism.  Virtually the entire Western world is engaged in fascism to some degree. It is a form of socialism where the government and the major corporations have a cooperative relationship.  It was the elites way of adopting socialism without going to communism. 

The climate change accord meets the model for a worldwide corporate state, where industry is managed in unison by a few.  It gives the politicians and the multinationals full control of the economy of the entire world.  Though ideas move the world forward, the whole game runs in energy and regardless of what they say about green energy, it can hardly provide more than a dent in what is needed for progress around the world.  Thus, who controls the carbon based fuels, controls the world and the uses of these valuable substances. 

Though it sounds good, socialism is a bar to progress around the world.  It sounds good in that it divides everything up.  But, divided up, what does everyone get?  The same?  That might be for us peons, but not for the elite.  In getting the same, who wants to produce more?  In fact, who wants to produce at all, if they are going to get an equal share either way?  Take a look at Venezuela, what is by far the wealthiest country in South America.  Several years ago, the supply of toilet paper dried up.  A major oil producing country, with an abundance of good land and other minerals and nothing to wipe with.  Now, there is not enough food.  Everyone gets their fair share, except a few who have deemed themselves important. 

Take a look at the backers of the Paris Accords that you see at the conferences.  Do they fly coach?  No, they fly their own planes, many of them commercial jet liner size.  How concerned are they about their carbon footprint?  How concerned are they about the added cost of energy?  Not very, because they are going to run the game and the flow of funds will be rigged so they can continue to live it up, while many of the rest of us have to give up our cars, turn our air conditioners down or off in the summer and wrap ourselves in blankets during the winter.  Everything will be more expensive. 

Being that I have now lived over 6 decades, I have seen things, read things and digested ideas that people 30 years younger than myself have either no or little knowledge.  I was a kid in the 1960's, when the US still had muscle and the economy hadn't been fully sabotaged by the DC elites.  There was much discussion in the 1950's about the significance of the UN and the various treaties we had entered.  The fear was that the US government was ceding the sovereignty of its people to international organizations.  Anyone who takes a close look, sees that is the truth.  The Paris Accords was going to be the final straw, as a country whose people have no direct control of their economy no longer has its freedom.  All government is left to do is manage the resources between its people and manage its people.  It is the people that are supposed to manage the DC government, not the reverse. 

This brings us to the mainstream establishment trouble with Trump.  Despite being very wealthy, Trump isn't in their club.  He sees the US a nation of people that can do as he did, not as a country that you need connections to the government in order to prosper.  The US government, in an accelerating manner, has systematically destroyed the industries in the US, including agriculture and it is destroying, through propaganda and education, the initiative a a major portion of its people.  More intelligent in some ways, where it counts, the kids today are dumb as a box of rocks.  Colleges are nothing more than training centers for bureaucrats, not creators of science in industry.  This is why we have a leftist tilt to the education system and its students.  Clearly the understanding of real economics and math are beyond the masses. 

One must ask themselves how long a nation can last that exports a trillion dollars a year in debt in exchange for goods and services, gives away, through military and other programs, several hundred billion more.  It's central government spends $30,000 a year per private job, a figure that is equal to or greater than the pay of half the jobs.  Can anyone explain how long that is going to work?  Then we have elitists, the same people that want the Accord approved, who talk of guaranteed incomes.  With whose money?  So we print it off on the press?  The $30K a year guy already has a fair share of $30K a year.  If they give him $10K, it will be $40K, except that if they give the nonworking guy the $10K as well, that too will go on the fair share.  Businesses are merely transferees  of taxes, thus the bill is being paid regardless. 

The point is, a country that is already mathematically broke isn't in position to pay tens of billions of dollars a year to third world countries to make up for not emitting CO2, nor can it continue on its current path sans the money.  We also can't afford to spend an average of $13,000 per capita on health care, regardless of whether one is sick or not.  The government has already ruined that industry, one which was affordable and the best in the world at one time.  Think they are going to do any better at managing our broad economy through carbon credits? 

No comments: