independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 25th Feb 2020 9:55am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > It's about the money. Climate Change and Green (political) Agenda's
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 02/13/20 10:38pm

TweetyV6

avatar

It's about the money. Climate Change and Green (political) Agenda's

Nice short article about how big economical players are trying to re-distribute wealth to keep themselves wealthy and the rest poor.

What is becoming clearer is that the latest global push for dramatic climate action is more about justifying a major reorganization of the global economy, that to a far less efficient energy mode, implying a drastic lowering of global living standards

Follow the Real Money Behind the New Green Agenda

Side notes to the article:

Feike Sybesma (60)

was not tied to Unilever but he was the Chairman of the Board at DSM a former petrochemical company, now specialised in 'Life Sciences'.
He has anounced his retirement last December, his retirement will start by the end of today (15 Feb)

He already has anounced he will use his free time to push the green agenda

Friederich Merz (64)
Since the time the articcle was published (27 Jan) and today (14 Feb) there was some turmoil in German politics. As one of the results, the successor of Angela Merckel as leader of the CDU and possible new German Chansellor, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (aka 'AKK') had to resign.
Merz is one of (and most possible) candidates to step in as leader of the CDU and possible new Chansellor of Germany.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 02/14/20 7:21am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

when you notice "people" like gore make millions off of their chicken little scar-mongering "he betrayed our country! He played on our fears!" by selling carbon off-sets" (which are simply widgets that do nothing) and how they justify never having to live to their own standard by buying these widgets off themselves... (a form of money laundering/tax evasion)

People who are telling us how we must cut back? but never cut back themselves? or that horranble person obama who was desperate to kill many people by causing (for naught but political gain) the cost of energy to skyrocket, thus making pricing out many people from heating or cooling their homes to the point where they die... and they do die.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 02/17/20 12:52pm

jaawwnn

avatar

Yes, the real money is in green energy, not in oil, that's why the oil companies are all scraping to
get by.

Cool resume on that guy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.or...am_Engdahl

Although I'm sure Big Solar paid off someone to keep that page edited for their liberal agenda, amirite?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 02/17/20 3:12pm

13cjk13

avatar

jaawwnn said:

Yes, the real money is in green energy, not in oil, that's why the oil companies are all scraping to get by. Cool resume on that guy: https://en.m.wikipedia.or...am_Engdahl Although I'm sure Big Solar paid off someone to keep that page edited for their liberal agenda, amirite?

Another fucking conspiracy theory loon. It's exhausting and nauseating.

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 02/18/20 7:52am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

A self published book? haha. Tweety you are so obvious you are boring. Why do you die on this hill? Why would anyone want to choke on lack of air and more pollution? Do you want to die? We will hold hands and die together bud.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 02/18/20 3:49pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

13cjk13 said:

jaawwnn said:

Yes, the real money is in green energy, not in oil, that's why the oil companies are all scraping to get by. Cool resume on that guy: https://en.m.wikipedia.or...am_Engdahl Although I'm sure Big Solar paid off someone to keep that page edited for their liberal agenda, amirite?

Another fucking conspiracy theory loon. It's exhausting and nauseating.

This is exactly why this info is not taken seriously. wacky

"Families are torn apart, men women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have gone missing." - Anne Frank
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 02/18/20 10:52pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

A self published book? haha. Tweety you are so obvious you are boring. Why do you die on this hill? Why would anyone want to choke on lack of air and more pollution? Do you want to die? We will hold hands and die together bud.


You're just an ingnorant, uninformed nitwit.
Air quality, as it is now, has never been better since the industrialisation of the western world.

As in respect to the article I posted; have you read it?

Laurence D. (Larry) Fink IS member of the WEF Board of Trustees

Larry Fink is the CEO of BlackRock

Larry Fink did write a letter in which he states:



But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.

....

In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital.



This is about the super rich making sure the super rich stay super rich and that 'the poor' stay poor.
Funny thing about this is that they use the leftist activists to make it happen.



Here's another quote that should at least make you scratch your head:

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.


Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III in the Swiss Newspaper 'Neue Züricher Zeitung', Nov. 2010


To them, people like you are 'usefull idiots'

.

[Edited 2/18/20 22:53pm]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 02/18/20 11:01pm

TweetyV6

avatar

13cjk13 said:

jaawwnn said:

Yes, the real money is in green energy, not in oil, that's why the oil companies are all scraping to get by. Cool resume on that guy: https://en.m.wikipedia.or...am_Engdahl Although I'm sure Big Solar paid off someone to keep that page edited for their liberal agenda, amirite?

Another fucking conspiracy theory loon. It's exhausting and nauseating.

O.k. mr. know it all troll Then enlighten us; which of the facts Engdahl describes in the short article are false ?

Oh wait, just probably have practiced the LLR (TM)
Don't read, just look at who wrote it, and make stupid comments about that person.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 02/19/20 10:18am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Tweety, will you quote climate scientists? I do not listen to anyone but them on science you goof.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 02/19/20 11:36am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Tweety, will you quote climate scientists? I do not listen to anyone but them on science you goof.

Why in heaven would he ever quote a credible source? lol

"Families are torn apart, men women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have gone missing." - Anne Frank
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 02/19/20 12:30pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

13cjk13 said:

Another fucking conspiracy theory loon. It's exhausting and nauseating.

O.k. mr. know it all troll Then enlighten us; which of the facts Engdahl describes in the short article are false ?

Oh wait, just probably have practiced the LLR (TM)
Don't read, just look at who wrote it, and make stupid comments about that person.

.

But that is its problem - It has some facts but it is how they are put together that is the problem.

.

Sure Blackrock is big, but it only manages less than 10% of the type of financial assets in its funds. That it now belatedly recognises in its need to focus on sustainable investments that this now means shifting away from unsustainable energy processes does not mean it wants to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The reason they can get so much funds under management is because they are not just the funds of the rich - they are also the pension funds, insurance funds, grouped investments by the instititions that operate with the funds and investments by ordinary people as well as rich people. They will manage pools of funds from anywhere, not just the conspiring rich seeking to pin the rest of us down.

.

Sure Edenhoffer said the sentence the paper quoted about redistributing wealth. But he did not say the reason for this was as claimed by Engdahl. He said because in his words: "So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits." He is not arguing how to make the rich richer but is arguing for a decoupling of the link between economic growth and emissions. He is scared that the increase in the wealth of ordinary people in places like Africa and India and China will follow that in the West and this globalisation will destroy the world. So the redistribution is not away from ordinary people to the rich, it is away from climate destroying growth to growth that will allow growth for places like Africa and India that will not destroy the world. He talked about this in the interview Engdahl took the pull quote from. He said "developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." It is a recognition that the growth patterns of the West where economic growth is linked to emissions growth cannot be replicated in Africa and India and China as they grow. So we must redistribute wealth away from being tied to emissions growth - we must recognise the need to leave fossil fuel in the soil and not rely on it to create growth.

.

The reason climate policy is shifting to economic policy and investment strategies is because the economic issues of climate change and their potential impacts on future investment returns are now so important that it is being recognised by the people Engdahl is selectively quoting.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 02/19/20 11:43pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Tweety, will you quote climate scientists? I do not listen to anyone but them on science you goof.

Sure. Always have. But you refuse to understand that there are 2 sides to the story.

From 'climate' scientists:
S. M. Freidenreich, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, P.O. Box 308, Princeton, NJ 08542. V. Ramaswamy, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., 08542.



Their paper:
Freidenreich, S. M., & Ramaswamy, V. (1993). Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 98(D4), 7255–7264. doi:10.1029/92jd02887

Solar irradiances in these data. The "exact" vertical heating rate profiles for the reference CO2-only, H20-only, and CO2 + H20 cases are presented in Figure 1. For the CO2-0nly case, the heating in the model stratosphere exceeds that in the troposphere, as in the work of Kiehl et al. [ 1985], with a maximum heating rate of 0.45 K d -1 at a pressure (P) of 6 mbar. Although te CO2 heating rates are less in the troposphere, it is where most of the flux is absorbed. For the CO2 + H20 case, the addition of H20 causes an increase in the heating rate in the stratosphere, with the vertical profile within the stratosphere following a similar pattern as for the CO2-only case. The contribution by CO2 to the combined solar heating exceeds that due to water vapor in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere (P < 180 mbar). For P > 180 mbar, the contribution by H20 increases substantially with pressure, resulting in a peak in the heating rate of 2.4 K d -1 at 730 mbar (see also RF91). There is a relatively less significant role for CO2 in the heating for P > 200 mbar. Of interest is the fact that the combined gas heating rates are slightly less than the H20- only values below the upper troposphere. This is explained by the fact that the increased absorber amount in these layers is offset by the additional flux reduction that occurs above, making less flux available for absorption below. We next decompose the vertical heating rate profile into contributions from the different spectral regions. Only the 4.3-, 2.7-, and 2-/xm CO2 bands contribute significantly to the absorption of solar radiation [Kiehl et al., 1985]. Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c illustrate the CO2-only and CO2 + H2O heating rates for three spectral regions, whose spectral limits include the major bands, viz., 1000 to 2500 (4.3 it), 2500 to 4400 (2.7 it), and 4400 to 6200 cm -1 (2 it), respectively. From Figures 1 and 2 for CO2 alone, most of the heating at P < 30 mbar is due to the 4.3-tzm band in spite of the fact that the solar irradiance in this region is rather small. The 2.7-tzm band contributes nonnegligibly to the heating at P < 30 mbar, and it dominates the CO2-only heating down into the middle troposphere. The 2-tzm band contributes much less than the other two bands in the stratosphere and troposphere but yields the most heating in the lower troposphere. All three bands exhibit a peak in the vertical profile of heating; this occurs lower in the atmosphere the higher the wavenumber. These features for the CO2-only case are in agreement with Kiehl et al. [1985]. Examining the contribution by H20 to the combined gas heating rates, we see from Figure 2a that it contributes very little to additional heating in the stratosphere in the 4.3-/am band. In the troposphere the contribution of H20 is much more pronounced. From Figure 2b the relative contribution by H20 in the 2.7-/am band is greater than in the 4.3-/am band throughout the atmosphere, especially in the upper troposphere. In the stratosphere the increase in heating due to H20 over the CO2-only case can exceed 20%. In the 2-/am band (Figure 2c) there is some increase in heating in the stratosphere due to H20, but the overall contribution is less than in the other two bands. The most notable increase in heating due to H20 for this band is in the middle troposphere.

Read those 2 red sentences and try to understand what they say.

It tells you that at heights where the pressure is below 180 mbar, observed heating is mainly due to the absorption of CO2 (for your info: that's not where we live, it's at about 33,000 ft heigt and higher; the lower stratosphere)

This means that the contribution of heating by CO2 in lower regions of the atmosphere (p>200mbar) is less then 20% and virtually non-existant at p>730 mbar.


FYI: Our 'ambient' atmospheric pressure varies roughly between 850 - 1100 mbar.
That's where we also measure our 'global temperature'


Acocording to this reasearch, the role of CO2 is insignificant. H2O is the dominant factor when it comes to the Green House Effect.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 02/20/20 7:05am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

O.k. mr. know it all troll Then enlighten us; which of the facts Engdahl describes in the short article are false ?

Oh wait, just probably have practiced the LLR (TM)
Don't read, just look at who wrote it, and make stupid comments about that person.

.

But that is its problem - It has some facts but it is how they are put together that is the problem.

.

Sure Blackrock is big, but it only manages less than 10% of the type of financial assets in its funds. That it now belatedly recognises in its need to focus on sustainable investments that this now means shifting away from unsustainable energy processes does not mean it wants to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The reason they can get so much funds under management is because they are not just the funds of the rich - they are also the pension funds, insurance funds, grouped investments by the instititions that operate with the funds and investments by ordinary people as well as rich people. They will manage pools of funds from anywhere, not just the conspiring rich seeking to pin the rest of us down.

.

Sure Edenhoffer said the sentence the paper quoted about redistributing wealth. But he did not say the reason for this was as claimed by Engdahl. He said because in his words: "So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits." He is not arguing how to make the rich richer but is arguing for a decoupling of the link between economic growth and emissions. He is scared that the increase in the wealth of ordinary people in places like Africa and India and China will follow that in the West and this globalisation will destroy the world. So the redistribution is not away from ordinary people to the rich, it is away from climate destroying growth to growth that will allow growth for places like Africa and India that will not destroy the world. He talked about this in the interview Engdahl took the pull quote from. He said "developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." It is a recognition that the growth patterns of the West where economic growth is linked to emissions growth cannot be replicated in Africa and India and China as they grow. So we must redistribute wealth away from being tied to emissions growth - we must recognise the need to leave fossil fuel in the soil and not rely on it to create growth.

.

The reason climate policy is shifting to economic policy and investment strategies is because the economic issues of climate change and their potential impacts on future investment returns are now so important that it is being recognised by the people Engdahl is selectively quoting.

Thanks for the extensive reply. At least there is one person here willing to debate and not spew a couple of one-liners or insults. thumbs up!


To my opinion, there are far too many signals pointing out that Engdahl is right.

For instance her in the Netherlands, the government organised climate tables. At these tables, representatives from the government and the different industries and their lobyists discussed all kind of industry specific climate plans (and their funding, of course)
'The public' was not represented.

One of the decisions was to have the Netherlands natural gas free by 2050, meaning that all the households need to give up their natural gas connection and switch to electric cooking & heating.
A rough cost-estimate shows that the transformation will cost between 20,000 - 50,000 Euro depending on the size and insulation-level of your house and the amount of people in your household.
Now who's gonna pay and who's gonna profit from that?

And thats just on small example.


The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 02/20/20 7:47am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Why we do not debate flat earth or anti gravity.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 02/20/20 11:46am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The nefarious Green Agenda. Scary music. Like not choking and dying. Yes, I want to live. Agendas should only be about getting laid and eating ice cream.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 02/20/20 10:17pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Why we do not debate flat earth or anti gravity.



troll troll troll troll troll

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 02/21/20 3:06pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Why we do not debate flat earth or anti gravity.



troll troll troll troll troll

nutty nutty nutty nutty nutty

"Families are torn apart, men women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have gone missing." - Anne Frank
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > It's about the money. Climate Change and Green (political) Agenda's