Destroying The Environment To Save It

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Destroying The Environment To Save It

  1. Scott Allen says:

    I am confused, burning coal to make electricity produces Sulfur Dioxide and the EPA (a government agency) says that it is a pollutant and forced the power companies to add scrubbers (at a sizable cost) to removed the sulfur dioxide but now NASA (another government agency) wants to ADD sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere.

    Why not cut out the middleman and build more coal fired plants and remove the sulfur dioxide scrubbers or is that too simple of a solution for our government?

  2. MrGrimNasty says:

    The Scottish FOI relates to wind farms, not solar panels.

    But it’s the same issue, destroying the environment for ‘green’ energy.

    Despite the EU bio-fuel directive causing an increase in CO2 emissions (by encouraging land use change for oil crops), the politicians demanded an increase go ahead.

    Similarly clear cutting NA forests (despite the denial) and shipping it to Drax is worse than burning coal in the real world, but politically classed as C-neutral.

    Trees, including ancient forest and rain forest have been cleared from Germany to Tasmania for windmills and their power transmission lines.

    Then you have lithium/cobalt/neodymium etc. extraction/processing causing massive pollution (including greenhouse gases) and habitat destruction, and child exploitation. And toxic waste from solar panel production. Brazil has the second largest rserves of rare earths, yet another driver of rain forest destruction

    And we’re headed for a mountain of toxic PV panel waste and plastic windmill waste in the near future with no plan and no accounting.

  3. Robert Gipson says:

    Scott, in reference to your question, it happens that a commenter going by pseudonym Andrew30, commenting on James Delingpole’s website back in 2009, explained it all rather well. At which point (in 2009) I shared Andrew30’s comment with my extensive email list. Here’s the link:

    In case it’s taken down, here are salient excerpts, in quotes:

    “The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date…”

    “Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end.”

    “For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions.”

    “The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP.”

    “The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was moving along well back then, and in fact today their scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except CO2. However there is really not much money in coal, it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired power plant is not much more complicated, or expensive, then a good steam engine.”

    “At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988.”

    “This (hoax) would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.

    “All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.

    “Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like “the data must be wrong”, or “our monitoring is deficient”, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think “We can’t explain the lack of warming”, perhaps the author of that email could not, but perhaps someone else could.

    “It would only have taken a dozen people in just the right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.”

    “Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage to get control of the worlds climate data and begin adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the marketing people to present the information needed in as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this case, because of the number of followers greed will not work. There are simply too many followers to pay them all off.

    “So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately drive the followers to do something that would just not have been possible after Three Mile Island.

    “They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in support of nuclear power. They do not know this of course, but that is what the plan on the table says. Check it out, look at exactly what are the big technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give you a hint, it is not windmills.

    “They are also marching in Copenhagen against big business, while supporting one of the biggest businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank control the trillions being put on the table? So they are marching against exactly what they are supporting, they are simply followers.”

    “So if you need a large number of followers, there is a ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to tell the followers what to think. The followers do not need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason or the facts; they just need something or someone to follow.”

    (End of quote)

  4. -B- says:

    Remember when aircraft spraying chemicals to alter the environment was a conspiracy theory instead of a mainstream public proposal?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.