.. even older than Hitler ...
.. tell whoppers ...
Subtitle: An opposite of honest is corrupt.
Trigger article (an entire comment to BobW's GG link):
Saturday, December 26, 2009 07:01 AM
Well written propaganda trumps facts every single time.
«William Schaap gives expert testimony on government use of media for disinformation and propaganda purposes.
A must watch.
Comment #1: (Grrr! How I deplore videos!)
Comment #2: Mentioning Hitler here is entirely appropriate.
Comment #3: The principle of propaganda is quite simple - even if (of course!) a bit tricky.
Part of the video relates how long ago now, a couple of CIA operatives sat around and discussed how they could counter Cuban expeditionary assistance in a conflict in Angola. One of them came up with the idea: "Rape!"
They called in the press/PR people, and wrote - purely from their fantasy - a series of stories alleging that some Cuban personnel were raping Angolan native women; how the (fictional!) raping caused uproar amongst the Angolan tribes, then finally Angolan actions leading to the Cubans' capture and execution - with their own (i.e. Cuban) weapons. All pure fantasy, but sent off by the CIA then distributed by the MSM of the time.
In general, it's made easier if a) the lies are 'conceivable,' b) the presentation is 'impeccable' (government/'expert' sources, MSM conduit AND often amplification(!!?)), then c) repetition brings sheople-belief; subsequently d) mere mention of the keywords causes the recalling of the whole sordid story, then e) if/when the truth is finally uncovered and publicised, the sheople mostly reject that truth!
Note how simple it was/is, then think of "Saddam, WMD, Al Qaeda, 9/11!"
PS I see a possible danger; merely repeating the lying propaganda keywords could provoke the desired (sheople) response. Good thing some of us are a) smarter and b) immune to such mind-rot - eh?
[PPS below ->]
 honest —adj. 1 fair and just; not cheating or stealing. 2 free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere. 3 fairly earned (an honest living). 4 blameless but undistinguished. —adv. colloq. genuinely, really. [Latin honestus] [POD]
honestly adv. 1 in an honest way. 2 really (I don't honestly know). [ibid.]
honesty n. 1 being honest. 2 truthfulness. ...[ibid.]
 corrupt —adj. 1 dishonest, esp. using bribery. 2 immoral; wicked. 3 (of a text etc.) made unreliable by errors or alterations. —v. make or become corrupt. corruptible adj. corruptibility n. corruption n. corruptive adj. corruptly adv. corruptness n. [Latin rumpo rupt- break] [ibid.]
PPS Q1: Do we think that repeating «Iran West nuclear bomb» over and over could be propaganda?
IF A1: 'Yes,' THEN Q2: Why does the AusBC/Barker propagandise us, we the sheople/voters?
Q3: Who allows the AusBC/Barker to corrupt our democracy?
.. 'our' Aunty said to us ...
.. some contradictory bullshit ...
.. as well as outright&/worthless rubbish
Extracted from AusBC/justin, a short while ago:
'Sherlock Holmes' outwits 'Avatar' at box office
Posted December 27, 2009 18:00:00
«Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes has set Christmas Day records at the US box office. (www.imdb.com)»
Comment: This is the 1st part of my termed "outright&/worthless rubbish" from the AusBC, more below.
Police search London flat in terrorist probe
Posted December 27, 2009 07:29:00
«University College London (UCL) said a student by the name of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was enrolled on a mechanical engineering course between September 2005 and June 2008 but said it had no evidence this individual was the same man.»
Comment: UK, as Aus, has made education into an industry; one priority being the importing of students' $s. In addition, both Britain and Aus have imported people (one suspects a lot of *already rich* people; who would willingly import dead-enders? - See cynical allegations a) of talent/labour shortages and b) of queue-jumping asylum-seekers.) Countries import people both for their $s and to drive 'growth.' In turn, growth drives congestion (loss of lifestyle-quality), resource-demand (inflation of house-prices) - and then, 'integration' problems.
Australians rack up record debt
Posted December 27, 2009 10:48:00
«Reserve bank figures show household debt - the combination of personal and mortgage debt - is equivalent to Australia's GDP.
That means every adult owes an average of $74,000.
"Even if you leave aside the interest payment fact, if you want to reduce your debt now where it would have taken you on average for Australians back in 1990 it would have taken just a few months, now it would take them a year to get back down to the zero mark."»
Comment: The alleged 'financial genius' of Costello(+Howard) halved the CGT, leading to a doubling (= 100% inflation) of house-prices in a v.short time. *That* fact alone would be the major component of the increase in family debt. Then a Q: Who does Aus owe this motzer *TO*? As a possible A, consider that the alleged 'financial genius' of Costello(+Howard) also almost totally eliminated the Aussie government bond market - leading to the suspicion that Aussie household debt is borrowed mostly from o/s - meaning in turn, that the interest also flows o/s.
As an aside, the article suggests an apparent impossibility: with average wages of about $50k, how could $74k in debt be reduced in «a year ... down to the zero mark?»
(As a v.interesting 'Hmmm?' aside; the per capita non-wages part of national income is $74k - $50k = $24k. Anyone know where this per capita $24k comes from, and/or who it's paid to? I mean, that's almost 50% *more* than average wages, and average wage-earners certainly don't get it (the 50% *more*, that is). See what I mean by 'Hmmm?' Time to fetch my copy of "National Income & Accounts" perhaps - presuming it's still 'findable.' Not so BTW: Yes, I'm aware that my arithmetic is a bit 'strange.' Not all adults are working - means the per capita wages income is less than $50k. But that means that the per capita non-wages income is (far?) greater than $24k, but that just *enhances* my 'Hmmm?')
Australia mulls security after failed attack
Posted December 27, 2009 12:10:00
«The failed terrorist attack onboard a US plane has sparked a worldwide security crackdown (ABC News - file photo: Jonathon Hall)
Video: US terror attack foiled (7pm TV News NSW)
Related Story: Police search London flat in terrorist probe
Related Story: Failed attack sparks airline security crackdown
Related Story: Passengers 'tackled would-be plane bomber'
The Federal Government says it is in touch with US authorities to safeguard travel in Australia after a man tried to detonate an explosive on a flight to Detroit.»
[AusBC/North America correspondent Lisa Millar]
Comment: Note that the so-called 'facts' (either reported - or merely 'relayed') to us by the AusBC are impossibly contradictory. The attack failed *only* in that the device did not bring the plane down; the attacker was freely able to trigger it - but it fizzled. Had it been fully functional, we'd probably not even know what'd actually gone on - in 1st(??!) class. Further, on the same grounds, the attack was *NOT* foiled. If any passengers actually did approach the alleged bomber (*after* the device was activated), that bomber was by then quite literally a bomber, not a 'would-be' one; only his device failed - to bring down the plane (assuming that was the plan).
The AusBC plus their o/s counterparts are *supposedly* professional bodies; even xmas is no excuse for such misleading sloppiness. A lot of these 'reporters' have university degrees (Q: Purchased, or how otherwise 'earned?') - the point here is that IF they report contradictory info, THEN one might reasonably expect them to identify the sources of the rubbish they forward to us (say: a US spokesperson said (contradicting the other spokesperson...)) and so on. But nooo, they just dole out the rubbish, essentially as it arrives - but (like Barker, say?) - putting their own name to the propaganda.
Then this one, 1st part of the *real* key:
Palestine slams suspected militants' killing
Posted December 27, 2009 15:39:00
«An Israeli army spokesman, Colonel Itzik Bar, said the men were militants who were shot after they refused to surrender.
"We operated in a very focused and professional manner. It was an operation in which we had to detain the terrorists," he said.
"When they refused to cooperate and didn't turn themselves in, the soldiers operated according to open fire regulations and made it possible for anyone who wanted to turn themselves in.
"Those who didn't do so were shot by our soldiers."»
Comment #1: This sort of thing has been markedly increasing since 9/11 (Cui bono?) All it takes is for the aggressors to enunciate *suspicion* of some poor bastards as being 'militants,' and the US &/ Zs then set out to kill (= cold-blooded murder; no arrests, no trials). And what else do you know? Both the US and Zs are literal (illegal!) invaders in their chosen 'killing grounds.' (Nuremberg? I hear your hangman calling...)
Comment #2: *NO* organization, engaged in land-theft by murder (as the Israelis are, now 61+ years long), can claim any 'professional' manner, let alone 'morality' - unless of course, they qualify 'professional' by criminal, and 'morality' by bad.
Comment #3: The AusBC has *singularly, IMHO deliberately* failed to convey the actual truth of the situation in Palestine (i.e. Zs murdering to steal land), and that failure/omission for *all* of the past 61+ years (from direct, *personal* experience, and longer than I've been listening) - i.e. the entire duration of the vile Z-depredations against the poor, hapless Palestinians.
Extracted from justin, yesterday:
Aussie box office set to break $1b mark
Posted December 26, 2009 13:00:00
«Annual box office takings in Australia could break through the $1 billion mark for the first time today, on what is traditionally the busiest day of the year for the nation's 453 movie cinemas.»
Comment #1: This is the modern equivalent of 'bread and circuses;' popcorn and movies (detested US-speak; 'movie' - spit!)
Comment #2: This is the 2nd part of my termed "outright&/worthless rubbish;" apart from the AusBC's unhealthy obsession with celebrity/diversions, due to the fact that Hollywood dominates the *world* movies' market, most of that $1bio adds to the national debt. Bah! In addition, movie-goers also now more and more ape those in the US, i.e. here stuffing themselves with popcorn and thus increasing both their trivia-spend and obesity levels. So Aussies, as in their TV-addiction, pay for their own propagandization.
Finally this one, 2nd part of the *real* key:
Israel carries out settler shooting reprisal attack
Posted December 26, 2009 21:23:00
«Israeli forces have killed six Palestinians -- three in the Gaza Strip and three in the West Bank town of Nablus.
The Israeli raid came two days after a Jewish settler was shot dead near Nablus.»
Comment #1: This is 'the nub.' As in the 100:1 'kill-ratio,' i.e. Israel kills about one hundred Palestinians per Israeli killed as the risibly-named IDF (= offensive!) forces go about their vile genocide & ethnic-cleansing of the hapless former legal owner/occupiers of Palestine - the 100:1 'kill-ratio' uncannily resembles the criminal behaviour of the 3rd Reich.
Comment #2: The Israelis persist in 'settling' in occupied territories, actions which not only violate International Law, but are in the face of a direct request to cease&desist from the "world's most powerful man," namely Ramb-O-Bama. The Israeli regime is rogue, as are the illegal settlers. Refer to the map below (for a full-size view, <r-click> and choose 'Open in New Window' OR <r-click> and type the single letter 'n.')
Fazit #1 (worse): In order to form a considered opinion in a so-called 'democracy,' sheople/voters need to be fully and honestly informed. This *cannot* happen, as long as the AusBC retails lies.
Fazit #2 (worst): The suicide-belt is thought to have been invented by Tamils; see Pape's "Dying to win." The so-called 'clash of civilisations' was/is inflamed by the US, when not actually instigated by the US (Al-Qaeda was originally 'concocted' by the CIA.) The US is 'waging war' (aka attacking the mostly innocent natives) in Muslim countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan, with Iran Oh, so obviously next in line. We know what's been going on in sadly now mostly ex-Palestine (see map.)
|[Image from counterpunch/roberts article]|
Fazit #3: What I'm trying to indicate here is that most if not all terrorism directed at the US & Israel is 99.9% provoked, with UK and to a slightly lesser extent Aus as co-guilty blow-back targets. Most people wish to live their own, quiet lives - but the US & Israel plus UK and Aus (the Anglo/Christian/Judaic bloc) are aggressing/invading; stealing and murdering - no wonder, one may think, why some might violently resist.
Fazit #4 (the accusation): IF the people were properly informed as to what the US & Zs are up to (namely, murder for spoil) THEN one would presume that there'd be insurrections in the US, UK, Aus & even Israel - the normal sheople/voters *presumably* would not sanction the vicious crimes perpetrated by their so-called 'leaders.' Therefore the AusBC (& world MSM) telling us lies, presumably in the service of their political 'masters.' Hence to the accusation: These so-called 'news' disseminating organizations (actually criminal rulers' lie-retailers) make themselves accessories - and as such accessories, they are considered by many to be just as culpable - and as guilty - as the war criminals themselves.
PS Nobody *willingly* gives up their property, without full and adequate recompense, and only then if they have the mind to. One imagines that when it comes to Palestine, *no* (= null, zero) original (pre-'47, say) legal owner/occupiers ever had the mind to be ejected - therefore, Israeli/Zionist force = murder for spoil = genocide & ethnic-cleansing - and lately apartheid wall-building, say.
Similarly with the US; after WW2 we did *not* get 'Pax Americana' (they merely so alleged; also big-noting themselves as «world leader» and «world's policeman».) All filthy, lying propagandistic bullshit. The US with about 5% of the world's population consumes about 25% of the world's resources, mostly via *rip-off* US-style 'capitalism' (see Perkins' "Economic Hit Man") - which has more in line with mafia-type intimidation/coercion/theft/murder than any conceivable fair business practices.
Both the US globally and its illegitimate sprog Israel in and around its stolen Lebensraum operate *exactly* like this:
Just give us your resources (land, water, oil) - and no one gets hurt!
.. and IF that doesn't work THEN Shock'n Whore ...
.. one hardly needs enemies ...
.. but we've got some real bewdies anyway
Climate deal disappoints business groups
Posted December 21, 2009 11:31:00
«Treasurer Wayne Swan has signalled the Government will press ahead with plans to reintroduce the emissions trading scheme legislation in February.
Ms Ridout says she will support any such move.
"Ai Group was supportive of the legislation going through, the amended legislation," she said.»
[AusBC/Sue Lannin for AM]
Comment: (My bold.) Generally I find, that IF Ms Ridout is 'for' something, THEN I'm against it. This all accords with my suspicion that the Lab ETS is as good as indistinguishable from the Lib one that Howard (with Abbott 'all the way') took to the '07 election; the same election where the Libs were routed, and Howard got the personal-boot - thanks, Maxine.
Ms Ridout: «... was supportive of the legislation going through, the amended ...» The Greens said that the *Lib* amendments added $7bio in costs/subsidies, of which $5bio were to be directly off-loaded onto the sheople. Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the Libs, to Ms Ridout, to the Ai Group.
In the same article:
Climate deal disappoints business groups
Posted December 21, 2009 11:31:00
« But the Minerals Council of Australia says it would now be churlish for the Federal Government to reintroduce the carbon trading scheme legislation in the new year.
The head of the council, Mitch Hooke, is not happy with what came out of the climate talks in Copenhagen.
"We need a global protocol and we need that to be in alignment with the development and deployment of emissions technologies and we need market mechanisms, commercial drivers, to essentially push the deployment of those new technologies through," he said.
He says if the Federal Government reintroduces the emissions trading scheme early in the new year, the Council will not support it.»
[AusBC/Sue Lannin for AM, ibid.]
Comment: (My bold.) The Minerals Council is a resource-extraction lobby; they do *not* want a reduction of their 'business' - exactly the opposite - like far too many, they always want *more*, in this case coal-mining. But we simply *cannot* reduce CO2 pollution without reducing the amount of coal (+oil, gas) that we extract & burn...
In a previous article:
Copenhagen failure 'vindicates Opposition stance'
Posted December 21, 2009 10:22:00
«Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the outcome shows their vote against the emissions trading scheme is now vindicated.
"It does show that Mr Rudd was really very, very unwise to want to rush us into this emissions tax prior to knowing what the rest of the world wanted to do," he said.»
[AusBC/Samantha Hawley for AM]
Comment: (My bold.) On the lighter side, calling Lab's ETS a 'tax' must have 'focus-grouped' well. More seriously, Abbott is being 'economical with the truth' on several fronts here. The ETS concept comes from the 'market for all ills' faction - as the miners' spokesperson said: "... market mechanisms, commercial drivers, to essentially push ..." Since Lab Oh, so successfully wedged Lib over ETS (Howard pushed one), Abbott is frantically trying to distance himself from that wedge - hence, presumably, this 'tax' allegation. Calling it a tax is misleading in several ways; a) that Lab's ETS is somehow trying to rip the sheople off, b) it implies that there may be some ETS *without* such a tax component (show us, Mr Abbott), c) IF Lab's ETS had a tax component, THEN Libs put some/all of it there (see Green's $5bio allegation above) so Abbott; pot-kettle, and d) that the Libs somehow have a better idea (so far, *not*!) Again recall that the ETS idea comes from Howard's/Abbott's ideological 'side.'
I think we've had Rudd referring to Lib fantasies as 'magic puddings' before (i.e. the Libs 'have form' (admittedly, this one works both ways)); so I'd like to hear from Abbott&Co as to exactly how they intend to reduce CO2 *without costs*, and/or IF any costs ensue, THEN who's gunna pay - *except* we, the poor hapless sheople? (Only profits trickle up, costs trickle down.)
In this respect, it's also worth noting that IF taxes are applied, THEN a) the govt has more $s to spend (exactly Abbott's allegation: "Tax and spend!") - OR, in the 'balanced-budget' scenario b) the govt. can reduce some other tax. IF the govt. reduces taxes overall, THEN the sheople *must* lose some govt. services (*exactly* what's happening at Fed, state & local levels). IF the govt. reduces *net* taxes - but the 'relief' is biased towards the rich (recall profits trickle up, costs trickle down), THEN we, the sheople lose twice...
Fazit: It's not as if the Labs get away "scot-free." (Haw!) In the 1st place, by choosing an ETS they are 'pandering' to the rotten, now largely discredited 'markets for everything' philosophy; in the 2nd place, they're choosing an ETS in face of the far better 'supply-side' alternative, namely a direct, escalating carbon tax at source; then 3rd and lastly, the *real* problem is *reducing* CO2! - which implies less fossil-carbon (in Aus' case, mainly gas & coal) mining. Playing politics is one thing (Libs/the baddies drive this; recall Newton's 2nd law: "Push begets shove!") - but time is getting tight; time to get it right!
To NO MORE WAR we can add NO MORE CO2!
Musing: The 'deal' that COP15 'noted' was «the new international deal brokered by the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa». (They tried to sneak that 'deal' past the normal UN process.) Do we wonder why Aus didn't get onto that broker-list?
Further, the 'sneaked' deal has nothing but rubbery figures in it; i.e. no *formal, legally-binding* targets.
Q: Why (the bloody-hell) not?
.. what of two * 6mio dead Js ...
.. or about 24.16 times 6mio dead non-Js =
.. 145 million normal people - would that be an Holocaust too?
Subtitle: What's a normal person's life worth - to the US/Zs?
Climate accord clears hurdle in Copenhagen
Posted December 19, 2009 22:22:00
«The document "is a solution based on the same very values, in our opinion, that channelled six million people in Europe into furnaces", said Sudan's Lumumba Stanislaus Di-aping.
However, Sweden's chief negotiator, Anders Turesson, said "the reference to the Holocaust is, in this context, absolutely despicable".»
(Note: The headline is totally misleading; more below.)
Comment: Notice the Swede's (confected?/affected?) outrage.
Q: Exactly why despicable? Dead = dead, murder = murder; see next:
December 17, 2009 by Canada.com
Two-Degree Temperature Rise Could Flood Wide Areas of Planet, Study Says
by Margaret Munro
«"The time to avoid disastrous outcomes may run out sooner than expected," says Princeton's Michael Oppenheimer.
He is co-author of a ominous new report on what happened the last time global temperatures rose a couple of degrees - the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melted away so extensively that sea level rose between 6.6 and 9.4 metres.
If emissions of greenhouse gases are not reduced soon, they scientists say the planet could be committed to comparable melting, which might be unstoppable.
They say low-lying regions around the world could be inundated by more than a metre of sea level rise this century, followed by many more metres in coming centuries. Low-lying areas like Bangladesh and Florida would be hard hit, and Canadian communities from Tuktoyaktuk to Vancouver to Charlottetown could all expect to see waters rise. A one-metre rise in sea level would immediately affect 145 million people around the world.»
Now; Q: what's the difference between 6mio and 145mio; all prematurely dead, aka killed?
A1: The Nazis did it! (Based on the Holocaust, the Zs leveraged sympathy to inflict the abominable Nakba, aka the brutal genocide and ethnic cleansing against the hapless Palestinians.)
A2: The industrialised nations did it! (Who will leverage what from that?)
malnutrition and disease in Iraq
Thursday, 3 April 2003
«On CBS Television on 12 May 1996 Leslie Stahl of the television show 60 Minutes asked Madeleine Albright, then US representative at the United Nations: "We have heard that half a million children have died ... is the price worth it? Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."»
[one may google such]
Comment: Albright has claimed that she was taken 'out of context,' and that she should never have said it (which means that she doesn't deny having said it.) Whatever; the sanctions - now similar being applied to the US' putative 'next target,' Iran - certainly killed humongously many innocent people. Then the US (illegally!) invaded Iraq; 100s of 1000s if not 1.3mio+ dead, 2mio internally displaced & 2mio outright fled. There should be no splitting of hairs; Ramb-O-Bama has now fully approved torture - and worse. All the same, that bunch.
Climate accord clears hurdle in Copenhagen
Posted December 19, 2009 22:22:00
«UN climate talks in Copenhagen have avoided a total collapse by skirting bitter opposition from several nations to acknowledge a deal championed by US President Barack Obama and five emerging economies, including China.
After toxic exchanges through the night, the summit chair forced through a deal using a procedural tool that effectively dropped all obstacles to the Copenhagen Accord.
A decision at the marathon 193-nation talks merely took note of the accord, a non-binding deal for combating global warming led by the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
The delegates stopped far from a full endorsement of the plan, which sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degree Celsius rise over pre-industrial times and holds out the prospect of $US100 billion in annual aid from 2020 for developing nations.»
Comment: The headline is totally misleading; more 'responsible' commentators have branded Copenhagen as both farce and disaster. Also, the biggest 'blockers' were the US and China, according again, to other commentators. The 2°C target was *not* set, nor was any other, neither in °C nor ppm. One person brandishing the $US100bio 'bribe' was Mme Clinton, holder of the same office Mme Albright once did. Hmmm.
So to the Q: What's a normal person's life worth - to the US/Zs?
Possible A: $US100bio / 145mio = $US689.66; perhaps a 1m rise in ocean levels may not kill the whole 145mio low-living (vis-à-vis sea level), but their lives made a living hell when not killed outright.
One more article:
December 17, 2009
Bolivian President Evo Morales joins us in Copenhagen to talk about the UN climate talks
«AMY GOODMAN: You spoke yesterday here at the Bella Center and said we cannot end global warming without ending capitalism. What did you mean?
PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Capitalism is the worst enemy of humanity. Capitalism - and I’m speaking about irrational development - policies of unlimited industrialization are what destroys the environment. And that irrational industrialization is capitalism. So as long as we don’t review or revise those policies, it’s impossible to attend to humanity and life.»
Comment 1: Morales, as Di-aping, has a 100% right to free speech (one supposes), and both may well be 100% correct, to boot; then see my PS below.
Comment 2: One should read the whole lot; extracts can only ever be indicative. Complaints about 'the rich US' or 'fat-cat capitalists' attract lying trolls who yell "wealth envy!" - which never helps, and as with their standard m.o., derails discussion without ever adding anything worthwhile.
It should be noted, that as a generality, people do *not* voluntarily surrender their possessions or resources.
That is a necessary and sufficient explanation of why the US a) spends as much if not more than all other nations combined on so-called 'defence' (= offence, exactly à la Israel), has approaching 1000 military bases around the world, and b) at 5% of the world's population, manages to consume 25% of the world's resources. In three words: murder for spoil.
Some say that the US' illegitimate sprog Israel is the tail that wags the (rabid) US dog; I don't know which regime a) is actually in control and/or b) is criminally worse. In any case, I decry and rage against both.
 Two * 6mio = approximate current population(±1mio, say), of Israel & Diaspora.
PS Truly free speech means no restrictions on subject or substance. If one sees lies, criminality and/or injustice, one *must* say so, and loudest - since to stay mute would be failing to oppose with one's full energies. Failing to oppose crime is failing one's responsibilities; let the criticism fall where *required*, on those who offend against humanity.
PPS I tire of this (also part of the vicious plans targeted *against* us, we the sheople). Democracy, as implemented in the Anglo/Judaic sphere is 'inoperative;' we the sheople are purely passengers, since the rulers (via their puppet politicians) will do what ever they want to - without asking, but propagandise us for our 'acquiescence,' where our silence is sufficient. I will not stay silent, and reject the rulers' criminal actions completely:
-- not in my name!
.. 1st tubes: the oil/gas-wells ...
.. 2nd tubes: the coal-mine shafts ...
.. 3rd tubes: glaciers/polar ice flush = rising ocean-levels:
-- Greenland ice = 7 metres; later Antarctic ice = 61m
[slightly revised; 18:21]
Before all that, melting Arctic sea ice will likely shut the Gulf Stream down - possibly leading to Europe freezing.
AND/OR the methane clathrates lying on ocean floors will surface - liberating vast amounts of methane -
AND/OR the Arctic permafrost-tundra will melt, liberating vast amounts of methane -
- methane is a greenhouse gas with about 25 times the impact of CO2.
Here is a good summation of the threats:
Ian Sample The Guardian, Thursday 14 October 2004 14.48 BST
«The climate is changing. But where will we see the devastating effects first? Ian Sample reports on Earth's 12 most fragile places»
Summary: Erring ideological *people* pushing us down a blind alley (i.e. dead end, accent on dead and end).
There is no time now, today, to make a nice presentation for 'in here;' Ramb-O-Bama will ride over the ridge in moments, to put his 'stamp of authority' on Copenhagen. Ramb-O-Bama is not a leader per se, but rather more a tyrannical dictator.
My guess is that he will try to 'force' some 'terms of settlement' of the world's 'climate-dispute' dilemma; not enough to save the planet (the US-criminal-ogre-capitalists will never surrender their profits), but enough to silence most critics - might even get applause (like he did for his 'peace-prize' speech?) Then whatever plan Ramb-O-Bama proposes, we will get the threatening climate-collapse anyway - again (looping) because a) the profits must continue to flow to the mostly US(+sycophants) already filthy-rich fat-cats, and b) the many obscenely-obese US citizens will never surrender their demands for grossly huge hamburgers, home delivered pizzas and whipped-cream/corn-syrup/ice-cream desserts, their fiercely heated homes in winter and over-cooling air-conditioners in summer - and their behemoth, *gas-guzzling* SUV/4WDs.
Interpreting Truman's "ace in the hole:" This is where I start my anti-US narrative; the double A-bombing twin war crimes set the stage for US intimidation of, and domination over, the post WW2 world. They, the US criminals, have been successful (more successful than the 3rd Reich, say) - and have 'led' us directly to this ever-nearing, ever less-avoidable excess CO2-caused climate-catastrophe disaster.
Q: 'Led?' Why led?
A: By taking the 'intimidation/domination' route, not incidentally the rip-off route, the US forced any 'decent' competitors to also regress to the *crooked* US-forced, decidedly *non-level* 'playing field.'
One thing leads to another; the major 'bad apple' US dragged the world down to its primitive & criminal level.
Who/what defines what human 'success' means:
a) getting filthily, dishonestly rich, or
b) getting good morals?
We can see which 'avenue' the US(+sycophants) chose to go down - and they're dragging us all down with them.
Once, we might've looked up to the 'light on the hill.' Not any more; it was, since the extinguishment of "The Enlightenment," only a crass Hollywood-style neon sign anyway: "We are the leaders!" (Of criminal rip-offs.) Then, grovelling in the gutter after (unfair!) profits alone, all humanity went out the window, setting the world up for its one-way trip down the climate-catastrophe tor-let tubes: flush! (Gurgle.)
Seems to me it's the *bad* (i.e. corrupt) politicians - and those who drive them (i.e. the puppet-masters), who are the real, main & possibly only problem.
(Looks very much like Rudd = Howard; 'back then' Howard coshed Kyoto, now Rudd is monstering Tuvalu.)
Once again, it's 'erring ideology.' (IF they have bad morals (they do) THEN they have no morals at all.)
It's the very same people who barracked *for* the illegal invasion of Iraq (murder for oil) who are now opposing Kyoto/Copenhagen. On 'form,' they'll 'win;' as good as no concerted anti-climate-collapse action-campaign at all, let alone one with any chance (however slim) of success.
(I've *never* understood such troglodytes; they *must* be 'on the take' or outright idiots; IF the system is corrupt (it is) THEN the apologist/pimps, propagandists & lying trolls are disgustingly more corrupt - since they see & cuddle-up to the 'original-sin' corruption (or could it be that they just don't understand the crimes/threats?))
The people who got us here, the so-called 'world-leader' & self-appointed 'world policeman' (in actuality criminal rip-off artists all), the US (+UK, Aus & IL) - in other words, US-capitalism + the Anglo/Judaic 'morality' (almost all *bad* morality) - are *not* the people who are likely to suddenly reverse course by 180° and save the planet; Oh, no!
But: Merkel might save the day; China + Germany + the (non-Anglo/Judaic) world vs. the US; "No more oil for the US!"
Finally, a few (musing) questions:
Why should fixing the climate have some net "cost?" The cost - to 6bio people - of the world's once jewel-like ecosphere going down the tubes will most likely eclipse all conceivable nightmare scenarios. The US has demonstrated that 'deficits don't matter,' and their (criminal!) war expenditure is as good as open ended.
IF they were to put that effort into *positive* construction - as opposed to *criminal* destruction (murder for spoil), wouldn't they a) save their own economy, b) on the way to saving the planet? After all, IF they can print 12trio for the bankers (they did) THEN why not print a miserable few shekels more for the sheople?
Would it not put the US (& Anglo/Judaic others) back to (useful) work?
Like Keynes (on cocaine) and a 'new (fair!) deal,' say?"
PS There is an issue here; an eerie parallel that the lying trolls will never dare to address, namely an aspect of the (illegal since occupying stolen land) state Israel, and its (non-NPT, therefore also illegal) A-bombs. Please consider this:
On being asked: «"Prime Minister, ... if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?"»
Golda Meir did say: «"Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying."»
[ICH/Alan Hart/Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews]
Now consider the US situation; rather than address the going-down of our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere, they're saying that they'll cling to their gluttonous life-styles, maintained by their murdering military's force - until they are stopped by the climate actually crashing.
Fazit: Both the US and Z regimes will take the world down with them - rather than getting decent.
How utterly charming - eh?
.. CO2 is faaar up - shockingly ...
.. polar/glacier ice really is melting ...
.. but consider; means, motive, and opportunity?
(Terminology; excess CO2-caused catastrophic climate-change = e-CO2_c**4.)
Preamble, 1: To the Q: Is it a con, my instincts scream a big, fat "No!" - but for the record, instincts are like aaar ... err, opinions (everyone has them - and often differing); sooo - better to look to the actual evidence. Also, in considering possible 'conspiracies,' we are advised to seek the *simplest* explanation (but also recalling: eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable...)
Preamble, 2: The situation is 'tail wagging dog;' i.e. various inconvenient 'facts' (researched/presented via professional scientists) are driving the (puppet?) politicians, with the (corrupt & venal) MSM along for 'the ride.' ('Facts' written within quotes due to dispute; see next.)
Preamble, 3: As usual, neither the puppet politicians nor the corrupt & venal MSM (incl. big bits of the AusBC) can be trusted to tell us the truth - in sad fact, the exact opposite most often obtains; we (the sheople/voters) are awash in a sea of consciously produced marketing, lies & outright propaganda (arch-example: no Iraqi WMDs! - 100s of 1000s, if not 1.3mio+ dead; murder for oil) - with any truth far more often than not lonely outliers. In this case, so-called 'climate-sceptics' (aka denialists) assert that the science is either not proven - or worse, the reported 'facts' have been fiddled, fabricated - or otherwise f**ked-up.
Arguments: As part of 'means, motive, and opportunity,' we can consider who might win (cui bono) or lose from catastrophic climate change, in the two cases a) if we do nothing (or too little), and our ecosphere gets catastrophied, or b) if we manage to somehow scrape through and avoid it. The case c) if we do (as good as) nothing and nothing much happens to the climate, is called 'business as usual' and/or 'more of the same,' both of which imply the rich getting ever more filthily richer, and the rest, i.e. the middle class & poor all 'going down' a step or three - which would mean more and deeper into poverty; fewer to no medical services affordable. Case (c) can only happen *if* e-CO2_c**4 actually *is* a con, the headline question. Let's see...
Re-ordering on cui bono, we must ask, Q: What's in it for the tail-wagging 'pushers' (aka the pro-e-CO2_c**4 scientists)? A: Possibly fame, probably more (paid) studies, vanishingly likely 'carpets of gold,' aka riches beyond avarice. Preliminary conclusion: possible scientists' motives a bit underwhelming. (I've seen trolls suggesting that the scientists wish to see our once jewel-like planet de-industrialised. Talk about 'improbable!') Another suggestion (Abbott&Co) is that Lab's ETS is a (disguised) tax, this implies that a) Abbott *accepts* the e-CO2_c**4 threat (otherwise he'd have to *deny* e-CO2_c**4 - I don't see him doing that); b) that Lab's ETS will be effective (otherwise Abbott'd have to say so), and *only then* c) that the tax is a deplorable and avoidable side-effect - which is his position, i.e. on the way to screeching "tax!", Abbott has accepted e-CO2_c**4, and that Lab's ETS could be effective in stopping it.
IF it's a conspiracy pushed by pro-e-CO2_c**4 scientists, THEN it must be a bloody good one; apart from massive scientific solidarity (with only a small minority of denialists), it's 'hooked' the world's politicians - to the point that they feel that they have to do something - hence Kyoto, hence Copenhagen.
More cui bono, we have seen that the do-nothing case (c) could only benefit the already obscenely-rich fat-cats, but what of the denialists, like the lying trolls, say? How do they benefit - unless they're collecting 30 shekels each? (Beats me; always has.)
The biggest question of all is Q: Can the politicians save the planet?
[Note: Images 'managed' by blogger are 'shrunk' to fit; this may degrade the images somewhat, so that doesn't always suit. I will provide 'picture credits' links ([pcl]); one may <r-click> and select 'Open in New Window' OR <r-click> and type the letter 'n' to open the links in new IE instances.]
1. What may well have sparked the e-CO2_c**4 thesis:
2. A bit of history, with a prompt:
Q: Where does 3 degrees Celsius warming = 550 ppm come from?
A: Perhaps here:
«Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature ΔTs change arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:
» Delta T_s =~ lambda~Delta F
where λ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and ΔF is the radiative forcing (External Link). A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2.»
[Radiative forcing ...the facts - no more, and no less]
Comment: Note that there is some discussion of setting +2°C as a limit; the 350 website asserts that to do the best possible (under the circumstances), we must back-track to <=350.
3. Similar to (2), with an addition:
4. The culprits:
5. Current trend:
.. democracy = of, by, for the people ...
.. IF covenant broken ...
.. THEN no right
Preamble: The world stands at a fork in the track; one path is labelled "Save the planet," and the other "More of the same." Some (well-formed) estimates tell us that our atmosphere has already passed the 'critical CO2 content' and that destructive climate-change is actually underway. Some (milder) 'opposition' to this argument contends that the science is unclear; some (rabid) 'opposition' contends that there is no problem at all. There is incontrovertible proof that some sort of climate change is happening, namely net melting of the polar ice. The rabid response is "Not CO2!" - this in the face of measurable and significant CO2 increase. The scientific consensus is a) that CO2 is a critical greenhouse gas and b) that ever more CO2 will cause increasing greenhouse effect. The proper name for doubt-free climate-change nay-sayers is not sceptic but denialist.
IF the polar ice continues to melt (beginnings already visible) THEN the flooding will eventually be catastrophic. Most rational observers say things like "Better safe than sorry," a paraphrasing of the precautionary principle.
IF atmospheric CO2 content is rising (it is) THEN the world is burning too much (fossil) carbon.
IF we wish to reduce CO2 emissions (we, or at least the EU *must*) THEN the world must (soonest!) reduce coal mining and/or oil pumping.
To end the preamble, this: A working morality can be based on "Do unto others ..." with the corollary "Do no harm." IF excess-CO2 caused climate-change threatens life & limb (it does) THEN it's at least immoral and probably illegal - for doing actual harm, namely grave ecosphere disturbance leading to many people dying as a result. One of man's strongest principals is (biblical phrasing *devoid* of all religious overtones): "Thou shalt not kill!" Any killing not strictly self-defence is usually termed murder. Continuing to produce vast excesses of CO2 can now be termed murder if (when!) death results - and we, the sheople/voters may legitimately attempt to protect ourselves from such murderous attack.
Democracy: 'They,' those who simultaneously inform and mislead us (like the AusBC, say, either quoting criminals or actively contributing crooked content), they allege that we the (US, UK, Aus & IL) sheople live in so-called 'democracies.'
Examining 'democracy = of, by, for the people;'
Q: How are we doing?
A: Not too well:
Of implies that our candidates are 'people like us' - but basically only from the two parties likely to govern. When those two parties (in Aus, Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins) offer either no effective difference or outright bipartisanship, our choice varies between "Hobson's" (take it or leave it) and "Catch-22" (all choices yield equivalent, often undesirable, results.)
By implies that we vote - and we do. But, we are neither honestly nor fully informed (in actual fact often propagandised); it means that any vote we may make cannot be 'well-founded.'
For implies that our so-called 'representatives' actually work *for* us, as opposed to working for someone else ('big end of town,' say) - and therefore actively *against* us.
In this specific case, we the sheople/voters in Aus need protection and relief from destructive climate-change. What we do not need is for coal-extracting entities (then the consequent down-stream burning) to be allowed to further foul our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere; coal mining and oil pumping *must* be reduced.
IF we do not get protection and relief THEN our leaders will (again; recall Iraq; illegal invasion thereof) - have proven themselves both traitors and tyrants, this time for all practical time - many scientists predict no recovery may be possible, once some critical 'tipping-point' (i.e. CO2 concentration) is passed.
ETS vs. tax vs. ???
In Aus, Lab had an ETS (Emissions Trading System) proposal 'on the table;' Turnbull's Libs had agreed to pass it - with their amendments. The Greens said that those Lib amendments added $Au7bio in (unwarranted) 'exceptions,' $Au5bio of which would be born directly by the sheople (that's us, we the voters.) The Greens refused to support Lab's ETS - then Abbott's rabble 'spat the dummy.' Abbott and similar misleader/deceivers started calling Lab's ETS 'a tax' - but only to scare the sheople. Current stand: No Aus ETS. Now try this:
Top climate scientist hopes Copenhagen fails
By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici for AM
Posted December 4, 2009 08:06:00
«The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.
James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.»
Then this (previously cited):
Wong not buying draft Copenhagen deal
Posted December 12, 2009 13:36:00
«Australia is set to lose out under the draft agreement, which, if approved, will require countries to meet their greenhouse targets though action in their own country.
The Federal Government was planning on achieving its goals by paying developing countries to reduce their emissions, then including the savings against Australia's target.»
Comment: "Put a sock in it!" - is one proposed modus operandi; blame and load-shifting another. Just like trying to stop bulls**t by putting a cork in it, or bribing a cow to stop f**ting. Won't work; looks very much like ETSs were a) a scam, b) an attempt to offload the problem and c) possibly proposed as a way of skimming us (we the sheople/voters) even more. No extra costs (or taxes) need be envisioned, nor even any job-losses. 'Cap and trade' simply can't work - far too much corruption, far too few honest cops. And it's attacking the problem at the arse, i.e. the wrong end.
Proposal: There's little practical point in complaining without suggesting some 'way out,' so here is one: stop increasing coal/oil output! All sheople currently employed in coal/oil extraction, from the source to the sink, stay where they are. As 'natural attrition' removes workers, no replacements. No new digging or drilling (possible exception, to *replace* exhausted sources). No new infrastructure, no new shipping; quite clearly at the moment, everyone is getting enough. And now, daaarlings, with the polar/glacier ice starting to melt, enough has gotta be enough - and no bloody more.
Having (easily) stopped increasing, then start decreasing. Keep decreasing - until the CO2 content of our air drops below the 'life-preserving' target (actually lower than current).
Q: "Please, Sir, may I have some more?"
A: No! (Idiot.)
Fazit: No more more!
PS Oh, yeah: stop importing people into high-carbon wasting economies - like Aus, the world's highest per capita CO2 polluter.
[*] Update; this *looks* hot:
Australia accused of cooking carbon books
By Gregg Borschmann for Radio National - exclusive
Posted December 14, 2009 07:00:00
«"What's going on here is that there is a suggestion that you can use Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry and the creative accounting around that without the robust figures in place," Christine Milne said.
"And you can use that to offset your emissions reduction targets, especially in your fossil fuel sector.
"It is very clear that you need to reduce your emissions from fossil fuels and you need to sequester carbon in the landscape and you need to protect your forests as carbon stores, but that isn't happening," she continued.
"What we are seeing is attempts to be offset and quite dishonest systems so that we are going to end up with something that doesn't actually save the climate."»
But be warned: « ... source told Radio National Breakfast that there were huge problems trying to account for carbon in rural landscapes.» Preliminary conclusion: *Looks* as if the Labs are trying to swindle Copenhagen'09, just as Howard swindled Kyoto. What was that about Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins? More as/when time allows.
PPS IF the climate 'goes down,' aka polar/glacier ice melts and oceans flood - THEN we'll know who to hang for it.
 sceptic n. (US skeptic) 1 person inclined to doubt accepted opinions. [POD]
 denial n. 1 denying the truth or existence of a thing. 2 refusal of a request or wish. 3 disavowal of a leader etc. [ibid.]
 Precautionary principle:
«... is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action... The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation.
 In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.»
 traitor n. (fem. traitress) (often foll. by to) person who is treacherous or disloyal, esp. to his or her country. traitorous adj. [Latin traditor: related to *tradition] [POD]
 tyrant n. 1 oppressive or cruel ruler. 2 person exercising power arbitrarily or cruelly. [Greek turannos] [ibid.]
.. it really does *not* ...
.. get much worse...
.. than this
EU pledges billions in climate aid
Posted December 12, 2009 00:37:00
«The money will go towards what is being called a 'fast start' fund, to help poor nations combat rising sea levels, deforestation, water shortages and their own carbon output.»
Note: "rising sea levels" - what a surprise! From melting polar ice, do we suppose?
Comment; Q: If that's not an admission of total failure, then what would be?
A: The world *must* reduce fossil-carbon burning, fast, and keep reducing until CO2 in the air also starts to drop. Then *continue* reducing, until the ice stops melting, then starts to accumulate again. Clear?
.. AND, the way to reduce fossil-carbon *burning* is ... to *reduce* mining coal, *reduce* pumping oil?
Our so-called 'representatives' = idiots. Corrupt idiots.
PS It's not 'just' the puppet-politicians who are horrendously corrupt - and not just BTW wrong, it is the sceptics (= lousy denialists) in general, and the filthily lying trolls in particular...
.. and the AusBC, all of whom 'obfuscated,' when not outright lied.
.. Aus-Liberal style ...
.. policy 'on the cheap' ...
.. means do nothing (ice melting...)
In our wide-brown land of the kangaroo, the land of the local maximum (world's largest concrete sheep, say), and where the one-eyed person is incontrovertibly monarch (detested English; spit!), the AusBC has looong ago picked its horse, and that horse has now installed the 'right' jockey - and all the betting is on the sheople's dumbed-down ignorance, when not outright stupidity.
Q: How can anyone lose?
'They' say, that one shouldn't criticize the voters' choice.
Q: Why not? A: 'They' also say, that one will never go broke, by overestimating the sheople's gullibility.
Abbott has now 'staked out' his territory:
Abbott downplays $50b climate change bill
Posted December 7, 2009 09:19:00
«The Coalition will reveal its new climate change policy in February, but Mr Abbott has already said will not include an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax.»
Abbott's policy is clear: Do (almost) nothing. Doesn't get much 'cheaper' than that; it's no new taxes alright (always excepting the 'never, ever' GST); no taxes at all might be 'best' for Abbott and 'his' Libs. (But: No taxes means no services. Ooops!)
Even before Abbott's 'new' policy mention:
Abbott reaps poll bounce
Posted December 7, 2009 06:46:00
«Twenty-three per cent of those surveyed for The Australian believe new leader Tony Abbott would make a better prime minister than Kevin Rudd.
That is an increase on the 14 per cent support for deposed leader Malcolm Turnbull in the previous poll in late November.»
Comment: The sheople have already approved of the Abbott coup against Turnbull - or so it would seem. The above two snips bring to mind a long-term Q: "How can the sheople choose what's Oh, so obviously bad for them?"
Well, here's a possible A:
In Search of Morale
Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?
By Bruce E. Levine
December 05, 2009 "Counterpunch"
«Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States? Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further? What forces have created a demoralized, passive, disCouraged U.S. population?»
Comment: The article discusses the so-called 'world leader,' aka the USofA. Following the 'monkey see, monkey do' principle, what one sees in the US today, comes to Aus some-when 'down the track' - usually sooner rather than later. The article suggests an answer to its own Q: «Can people become so broken that ...» with the A: «YES. It is called the “abuse syndrome.”» Well, well; imagine that.
A 'good bit' of what Turnbull blogged:
Turnbull savages Abbott over climate 'bullshit'
By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers
Posted December 7, 2009 09:50:00
«After ousting Mr Turnbull six days ago Mr Abbott withdrew Coalition support for an emissions trading scheme and said a Coalition policy would not involve any new taxes.
But in today's blog entry Mr Turnbull says emissions cannot be cut without a cost.
"While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy," he writes.
"So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.
"To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.
To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.
"Somebody has to pay.
"So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, 'bullshit.' Moreover he knows it.
"It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist."
Mr Turnbull goes on to describe those who backed Mr Abbott's leadership as climate change sceptics.
"As we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming.
"As Tony observed on one occasion 'climate change is crap', or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it's cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.
"The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing."
He also attacked Mr Abbott for holding contradicting views on climate change and for reneging on the deal Mr Turnbull reached with the Government to pass the ETS.
"Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it," he says.
"His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with 'Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but...'
"We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted."»
Comment; Q: Is this merely 'sour grapes?' A: IMHO, no. Yes, Turnbull is 'unleashed' - but what he says has 'the ring of truth' to it. All, again, as usual and of course; IMHO.
The climate-change 'sceptics' (polite term), aka denialists (correctly-loaded term) are a) disputing peer-reviewed IPCC consensus evidence, b) attempting to discredit such via selectively quoting from material acquired by break-in/hacking, and (worst!) c) ignoring the 'precautionary' principle, all at our, we the sheople's grave peril. In order to continue 'business as usual,' here defined as digging up and burning ever-more fossil-carbon (in Aus: coal), they twist and turn - and tell whopping lies - and all the while, the ice is melting ever faster. Conspiracy theorists amongst the sceptic/denialists allege that ETS is a tax, designed to rip the sheople off, and/or the 1000s of IPCC climate scientists are actually luddites intent on de-industrialising the world. To deploy an Abbottism: "Crap!"
Fazit: One big (alleged!) difference between humans and monkeys, is that monkeys do not plan ahead at all well, even if at all. But (and this is a BLOODY-BIG but): the (neoliberal) policies of exploit now, pollute now, and (try to!) fix any problems 'down the track' could destroy our once jewel-like planet's ability to accommodate us comfortably (massive understatement!)
This makes such neoliberal policies (possibly literally) antediluvian.
PS Yet another illustration of why lying to the sheople is (stupidly, criminally) wrong.
IF we wish to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,"
THEN the sheople need to be honestly and fully informed.
Q: Are Abbott's Liberals helping this 'process?'
Q: What about the AusBC?
.. ONCE the polar ice melts ...
.. THEN it may be far too late ...
.. to save our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere
Sufficiently aware observers of recent Aus-events could have witnessed a political coup, whereby Turnbull was replaced by Abbott as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Describing the position in such a way is itself a total travesty, as was done by the (now ex!) MP for whom the "All politicians lie!" charmer was and possibly still is most often deployed.
The coup included a PR campaign aimed at the sheople-voters and was ostensibly purposed at stopping Lab's ETS - which seems to have been accomplished, and at the same time what might be termed the hard-right faction has seized control of the Federal parliamentary Libs.
It has been pointed out that the Lab ETS was quite similar to an earlier Lib ETS, a policy taken to the last election by the same above mentioned, now ex, MP. That the Lib & Lab ETSs could almost be twins would be no surprise at all; I call the two parties the pug-ugly Lib/Lab twins, and any ETS proposed by either must pass the 'Swiss-cheese/smell' test, i.e. it must have sufficient holes in it for the big-end-of-town to drive an entire fleet of coal-mining trucks through it, and at the same time have sufficient 'playing room' such that the same big-end-of-town may get even richer by manipulating (aka 'trading') within it. (Q: Then why 'smell' test? A: Because all big-end-of-town rip-offs stink.)
Finally (for these ETSs), that neither would produce a sufficiently meaningful reduction in CO2 would also be no surprise; the only possible way of reducing climate-crippling CO2-pollution is to burn (far!) less fossil carbon, total anathema to coal extractors - and therefore sooo politically difficult (for sell-out 'representatives') that neither Lib nor Lab dare risk it. For Libs to accuse Labs of wanting an ETS as a new tax (as in 'tax and spend') surpasses (sick!) comedy. In fact a tightly regulated, escalating-scale tax is probably the best, if not only way to throttle fossil carbon extraction down below a liveable threshold. Liveable, as in allowing our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere to continue to support us. One of the loudest and most rabid anti-ETS agitators was screeching "Jobs!" - a truly delicious irony, for it is the extreme r-wing neoliberal policies which have created the jobs-crisis. Note: There won't be *many, if any* jobs, if (when!) our once-comfortable life supporting climate crashes.
Now, a climate intro, part 3: The sun appears vertically above points within the tropics, very low above points within the polar circle, and for long periods (polar night) "the sun is below the horizon ... from 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles." The converse is the long period of light, the midnight sun. If ice is present, it reflects most light (off into space), but any open (i.e. ice-free) water will absorb most light falling on it. This is why melting of the Arctic is taken so seriously; a positive feed-back loop may lead to runaway warming.
|Path of the Midnight Sun viewed from South Cape, Spitsbergen.|
One need not take my word for it ... «Sea ice decline is likely to affect future temperatures in the [polar] region. Because of its light appearance, ice reflects much of the sun's radiation back into space whereas dark ocean water absorbs more of the sun's energy. As ice melts, more exposed ocean water changes the Earth's albedo, or fraction of energy reflected away from the planet. This leads to increased absorption of energy that further warms the planet in what is called ice-albedo feedback.»
[To view animation, <r-click> link and type the letter 'n': NASA.mpg-URL]
[NASA/Loss In Arctic Sea Ice]
Fazit: The threat to the planet is enormous - and not just getting more dangerous; it may go beyond any possibility of reversal. Ergo, our so-called 'leaders' must now lead and not obfuscate; we need effective action. What if we don't get it - and our life-support systems get crippled? Q: Who do we blame? A: The liars, first and foremost; the super-cynical if not outright criminal climate-change sceptic/deniers.
Then Q: What should we do to them? A: String 'em up!
 runaway n. 1 fugitive. 2 bolting animal, vehicle out of control. 3 (attrib.) that is running away or out of control (runaway slave; runaway inflation). [POD]
.. no surprises there ...
.. except extremely bad ones
.. for the hapless owner/occupants
We knew it was 99.9% guaranteed, when we heard about Ramb-O-Bama 'choosing' McChrystal.
But to eliminate all doubt, this:
US may cede authority to locals, not Karzai's army
03 Dec 2009 23:37:17 GMT
«"A piece of the president's strategy is working with the sub-national parts of Afghanistan, working with the tribal shuras, working with the village elders, working with the district governors and leaders as well as those in the provinces," Gates told a congressional hearing.
"In fact, a good bit of this security that may come as part of this (July 2011) transition will be local security, local police, as we've seen develop in parts of Wardak province," he added, referring to an area outside the capital Kabul.
"So it won't be necessarily that we turn over security responsibility to the Afghan National Army but rather to local authorities who have... reestablished control of their own areas from the Taliban," Gates said.
The Pentagon envisages the transfer of authority in Afghanistan to follow the model in Iraq, where the U.S. military ceded control to the country's security forces and began to gradually pull out.»
Comment: Same general, same strategy: (a) identify corruptible local 'strong-men,' (b) recruit them onto the US' payroll, (c) send (aka 'surge') in the death-squads to eliminate any 'problem' people (i.e. local patriots).
Everyone left (estimates from 100s of 1000s up to 1.3mio dead in Iraq plus 2mio fled outright and another 2mio internally displaced); those left may then live 'happily ever after,' except that the hapless remaining inhabitants will suffer a life of eternal terror under the vicious rule of US-paid puppet-outlaw-tyrants, and the US will be free to build its Afghanistan pipelines, as they are now free to rip Iraq's oil off.
Perhaps that's what they mean by "Land of the free..."