Cap and Trade

Dark Green XVIII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye2 © infrakshun


To reiterate, tearing strips off the IPCC is not some exercise in criticising for its own sake but to highlight where science has been politicised and corrupted. Similarly, there is obviously a huge need to care for our environment and everything else in this precious biosphere. We cannot do this until we have climate science firmly outside activism and where ecological conservation has been innoculated against corporatism and Establishment influence.

If we go back to the Climategate 2.0 scandal, we can see that some of the emails relating to the IPCC are quite illuminating on these points. For example, Professor Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences deciding what shouldn’t go into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change.”

Commenting on another section of an IPCC report he states:

“Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?” [1]

Or Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University searching for a suitable hurricane paper that dovetails into his beliefs and thus the IPCC AR4 report:

“Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [Tropical Cyclone] activity.” [2]

Each of the climate reports (CRs) are weighty, no more so than the 2007 report at 3,000 pages. No one is going to wade through all of that, least of all the sound-bite media. What is more concerning and goes straight to the heart of why science plays so little part in climate change policy, is the IPCC executive summaries which it prepares for the smaller reports that make up the CRs as a whole. Not more than 35 pages in length, this is called “Summary for Policymakers” which gives you an idea how the IPCC wants these summaries to be used, even though the depth of understanding and contextual analysis may be missing.

Scientists are tasked with drafting these documents which are then passed on to those who meticulously pore over each line so that a cleansed and white-washed copy can be presented for inspection by a clueless media and public. So, these will not be scientific documents at all. These “cleansing” meetings are not open to anyone but IPCC staff and suitably vetted observers from environmental groups or organisations. The media are not permitted entry. A core group of IPCC bureaucrats decide what goes into the reports.

A Climategate 2.0 email by Tim Carter of the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and Climate Change Programme, writing to IPCC authors seems to confirm this fact even within the AGW brethren:

“Regarding the phrase ‘IPCC position’? Would it be wise to check that McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.”

And the reply:

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” [3]

Governments and organisations like the IPCC are complicit in the cover up and manipulation of scientific facts. Scientists who contribute to the CRs are being played and used for a political agenda and the short-term greed and the MSM has cheer-led this subterfuge from the beginning. A summary document given out as a press release to the world’s media and public has been put through the politician, bureaucrat and diplomat’s PR machine, vetted to make sure that it conforms to the AGW paradigm in secret and without oversight.

Devoid of facts but replete with conjecture, the media simply parrots the information and goes back to sleep. Indeed, regarding the draft reports the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri openly stated that they are altered, stating: “we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.” [4]This means regardless of the validity (or not) of expert science, the authors are side-lined and what they have written is tweaked to give unanimous support to the political agenda, an agenda that has been crystallized within the IPCC for more than twenty years.

vendetta3IPCC as authoritarian climate science?

Scientists within the IPCC also have misgivings, such as Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. Commenting in a Climategate 2.0 email, he states: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in – and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.” [5]

There’s an understatement to beat them all.

One of the holy grails of climate change science is computer modelling which has been responsible for much of the perceived advances in recent years. As we saw with the Club of Rome, the nature of computer modelling is fraught with assumption yet fully embraced as if the world operated on perfectly plotted principles. Evolution of any system is defined by its creative unpredictability a mathematical complexity of non-linear and often chaotic events far from equilibrium. In climate modelling a virtual world is set up that seems to be insulated from the “flies-in-the ointment” that may appear in long-term predicative analysis. The opinions of modellers then become a new science divorced from the observational inquiry. As LaFramboise asserts, the climate modelling science of opinion: “… is a recipe for tunnel-vision. It is group think waiting to happen,” and yet another example of the “group mind” steamrolling the creative sparks of objective thought which are not only needed in science but are essential to its healthy functioning so that it remains free from a political and belief-driven consensus.

No rigorous evaluation of climate modelling by independent parties has taken place. (This is presumably due to the love affair our culture is undergoing in relation to technology in general). Instead, the IPCC asks the same modellers to evaluate their own work. This is hardly scientific. Lead author roles for modellers is not the way forward, as there is little chance of them coming to the conclusion that climate modelling may be barking up the wrong tree. Since no true cold-blooded analysis of these models has taken place there is no way to know if they are even useful.

LaFramboise has also discovered that sections in the attribution chapter of the IPCC CRs are also written by climate modellers, the most crucial part of the report which decides the direction of global warming and if it is a man-made or natural cycle. Christopher Monckton and Garth W. Paltridge discovered that is wasn’t just the unreliability of climate modelling that is cause for concern but a strange coded bureaucracy that goes with it. The authors point out:

The big danger is that, with the increasing model complexity and cost, the number of truly independent climate models around the world is decreasing. This is because great slabs of the computer code of a model are often exchanged between research groups so as to avoid writing the stuff from scratch. This sort of exchange satisfies a general bureaucratic tendency to abhor what seems to be a duplication of effort. The net result must surely be a natural decrease in the spread of total feedback over the various remaining models and a consequent joy at the apparent tightening of the range of forecast temperature rise – a tightening that may have nothing at all to do with an improvement in the representation of the physics. [6]

Climate modelling does not ensure the validity of human-influenced global warming claims but rather fits neatly into circumscribed beliefs waiting in the wings. That does not mean to say that global warming is not a reality in some form, but to leave it to climate modelling to define all the parameters by which we can make informed decisions is dangerous because the solutions will lean hugely towards the overarching agenda explored previously. After all, even a minor tweak in feedback representations covering temperature rises can drastically alter a given a picture which can stretch from 1 degree celsius to infinity and beyond. That means that only thing we can be sure of is the fact that the much trumpeted “consensus” on global warming remains a myth.

Global_Climate_Model

“Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To ‘run’ a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.” (wikipedia)

Climate modelling also fails an important test when it comes to CO2 and temperature increase. In the 2007 IPCC report it even admits that the models do not seem to show the extra heat that should be there if we are to believe the theory. But they believe that the models are still correct and somehow the data out there in the real world is at fault. [7]

And here we come to a few important points relating to climate modelling and the temperature rise hysteria that the media and most academic establishments take for granted. Firstly, and very simply: Positive feedback = the reinforcement or magnification of disturbance. Secondly, Negative feedback = disturb the balance – a counteraction occurs. Thirdly, we have the greenhouse gas theory and the doubling of CO2 which might cause some warming of one degree celsius over a century. But there is the assumption that the climate responds to minute changes resulting in amplification of these changes by hundreds of percent. Positive feedback. But negative feedback is the dominant factor in almost every process in nature yet in climate science positive feedback is assumed to the culprit. Law professor Jason Johnston found in his study that: “climate catastrophe is not an “output of climate analysis but an input.” [8] In other words, the science is based on an assumption with no mention of the positive-negative feedback dichotomy anywhere in the reports.

LaFramboise points out the inevitable conclusion that:

“… the only reason climate models tell us we are at risk of eco apocalypse is because the climate modellers believe our climate system behaves in a manner that is opposite to the way most natural systems behave. If the modellers had split themselves into two groups, half programming-in negative feedback and half programming-in positive feedback, the first group of models would predict nothing alarming.” [9]

Yet, when we add this to protective bureaucracy, conflict of interest in both journals, media and activist-scientists in educational institutions and further include those IPCC personnel who “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties,” in IPCC reports, it is a clarion call for major change. [10]

And major change is the selling point at UN conferences. But rather than practical and preventative solutions emerging from such meetings, there is a lot of talk and a lot of political posturing with non-elected representatives of civil society pushing a consensus that doesn’t exist, except for those with a political agenda. What does happen is the organisation and allocation of mountains of CASH. The UN conferences in this respect are like a vast auction of clamouring NGOs and eco-activist groups seeking a top-up or first time injection for the cause, but it is the green of the dollar bill that informs the climate industry more than anything else.

dollarbillClimate Change is a multi-billion dollar industry

As we have seen, the United Nations and the UNEP are green-dipped in the New Age tank so that the various beliefs stick like parasites to the decision-making process. Not to mention the corruption and sexual abuse scandals which have dogged the UN for years. When you have a vast bureaucracy and a constant stream of money flowing into and out of the body sitting on top a system which has virtually no accountability any issue – no matter how noble – is going to be contaminated by politics, power and greed. It is about as basic a human fable as it gets. Add ponerology to the mix and you have a UN with its charters and declarations which work on paper only.

Like the perpetual rubber-stamping of the IPCC and other agencies, it is a symbiotic relationship of collusion rather than transparency. If you are not the most morally responsible individual and the rules do not apply to you by virtue of your status and you know you can get away with all kinds of back-handers and bribes, the system actively encourages you to maintain that trajectory. This is so often the nexus point for international decisions that determine the fate of nations. If there is no accountability, why should it be any different for UN bureaucrats who juggle the money flow?

***

We have barely touched the surface regarding the problems within the IPCC. What should be clear by now is that it is not a scientific body but a political one fused with the beliefs of scientist-activists. This was illustrated by a Climategate 2.0 email from Professor Heinz Wanner of the University of Bern. On reporting his National Academy of Sciences panel critique of Michael Mann to the media: “I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.” [11]
In the same way, politicians and environmental activists determine the form, content and outcome of IPCC reports that have been seen as the gospel truth for decades. Political discourse from more than 100 countries determines the direction. After all, it is worth potentially billions with a lot of academic posts, consultancies and companies riding on the AGW slipstream. Sounding the global warming bells in a variety of alarmist ways feeds into multiple agendas which have nothing to do with the truth. Consequently, to speak ill of AGW is to commit the outrageous sin of attacking the religious zeal of green militancy that has had a long and dark history.

wfarmsbirdsBirds flying into a wind turbines. Symbolic of IPCC climate science?

Is there any possibility that the IPCC can promote the same “radical shift” and “New value system” within its own ranks and which it insists society should adopt? Can it clean its own house to become the body of open-minded science that is so desperately needed?

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer believes thinks the organisation can never be fixed for the simple reason:

“… that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.” [12]

The organisation has embraced the same constructs that every co-opted movement has done in the past, whilst avoiding the opportunity to lead by example and follow the principles it continually demands from society. [13]The inherent danger of science and political ecology is what historian Anna Bramwell calls “a value-saturated creed” which acts like an open door for the movement to become fully ponerised. [14] Science is infused not with objectivity and a quest for truth but with subjective desires peculiar to a historical mind-set of authoritarianism, regardless of the root values present at its inception. This is the story of ponerology.

The legion of World State rulers in waiting would be very happy that a scientific elite is redefining human values for us. The myth that governments respond to the will of the people has never been clearer. The real choices and thus the potential solutions have been denied to us all.  As the Under-Secretary to one time UN Chief Kurt Waldheim, Brian Urquhart declared: “The worst way to make an argument is by reason and good information. You must appeal to emotions and to their fears of being made to appear ridiculous.” [15]Irony aside, so it is with the IPCC and so many other connected bodies inhabited by the same men and women willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

The IPCC plays an extremely important role in the disseminating information on the science of climate change. If we cannot place our trust and faith in institutions who set themselves up to discover new solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time then it means precious resources of creative energy is being wasted and re-directed into collective gutters of non-action and short-term gain. It becomes yet another example of pathological infection striking at the heart of what we consider to be our mentors, protectors and pioneers; expert minds dedicated to improving humanities lot. That means acknowledging the danger that ecology, environmental activism and any scientific discipline exposed to ponerological influences, must come under the same scrutiny.

If a deep love of Nature and the environment can historically sit side by side with the most virulent form of fascism then it behooves us all to guard against its all too easy re-appearance.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian dictator was responsible for the deaths of 21% of his country’s people.  He was also a former geography teacher.


Notes

[1] Email #4755 and email #1922 Jonathan Overpeck http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[2] Email #0170 Phil Jones http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[3] email #3066 Tim Carter. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[4] ‘Food, Water Security threatened by Warming UN Panel says’ by Alex Morales,Bloomberg, February 16, 2011.
[5] email #0419 Mike Hulme. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[6] p.28; The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming by Garth W. Paltridge. Published by Taylor Trade Publishing, 2010. ISBN-10: 1589795482
[7] op. cit. LaFramboise (p.69)
[8] ‘Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’ by Jason S. Johnston, Law University of Pennsylvania Law School | “Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming. The only criticism that legal scholars have had of the story told by this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment – is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases.”
“This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.
Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.”
[9] op.cit La Framboise (p.70)
[10] op. cit. Johnston.
[11] Email #1104 Heinz Wanner http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[12] ‘Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research’ November 23rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
[13] ‘Western Lifestyle unsustainable says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri’ The Guardian, June 20, 2011.
[14] The Fading of the Greens, by Anna Bramwell, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994.(p.28)
[15] ‘The UN and Its Discontents’: An Exchange April 26, 1990 Shirley Hazzard, reply by Brian Urquhart The New Yorker March 15, 1990 issue.

Dark Green XVII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye© infrakshun


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave its full blessing to the Al Gore power-point revival as he made his merry way to a carbon trading pot of gold. However, before kneeling down at the altar of the IPCC we must have a peek behind the doors of an institution that has presided over a fiefdom of green belief.

The IPCC has been lauded for over twenty years as the guardian and protector of the planet, a scientific beacon in a dark age of industry and corporate irresponsibility. It has served as the primary reference for ecologists and environmentalists buttressing the religion of anthropocentric climate change. But does this organisation truly merit the global mantle of scientific authority it now enjoys? Or is it a pretender to the throne of open-minded science? A closer examination of the facts shows that the latter is closer to the truth, with serious consequences for climate science and environmental studies worldwide.

Maurice Strong’s United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) set up the IPCC in 1988 with a later endorsement from the United Nations General Assemblythrough Resolution 43/53. With 195 members worldwide, the intergovernmental body is currently chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauriwho steers the mission: “… to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.” The IPCC describes itself as a scientific body which “… reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.” [1] Scientists voluntarily contribute to the work of the body where an “objective” and “complete assessment of current information” takes place. In the IPCC’s view, due to its scientific and intergovernmental status, it embodies: “… a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.” [2]

As a consequence of this so called objectivity and impartial information presented to policy makers, an international acceptance of its claims is now in place and supported by an overall “consensus” (there’s that word again…) from leading climates scientists and participating governments. Further, in recognition of its work, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared between the IPCC and Al Gorethe IPCC acting as the source for most of the information found in An Inconvenient Truth. This fact is enough to plant a question in any informed person’s mind about the nature of the science the IPCC advocates. So, let’s see if the self-penned, glowing descriptions of the organisation stand up to scrutiny.

The IPCC reports also known as “The Climate Bible” – which we will call the “CRs” – are produced every year and represent an unassailable doctrine of climate science which cannot be challenged and to do so amounts to a form of heresy. The CRs have had an enormous effect on government policy around the world and are routinely cited as the most authoritative source on Climate change. CO2 emissions as the greatest evil known to man and the reason carbon taxes exist are all down to these reports. It is a climate science lovingly fawned over by the world’s media, much of university and think-tank academia, the same people who believe unquestioningly in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. The problem is, they believe that all those reports have been toiled over by thousands of experts who are holding hands in a sacred communion of consensus across the world; they believe that the science is water-tight and anyone but a fool would think otherwise.

Rajendra Pachauri has chaired the IPCC since 2002 and in one sense, is the personification of the IPCC in much the same way that Prince Philip was for the WWF. He has fuelled the belief that the IPCC and their CRs are full to the brim with thousands of the best scientists, the finest quality expertise at the cutting edge of climate science which is all parroted ad nauseum by the world’s media. [3] Unfortunately, many scientists and their papers have been ignored. Whether it is hurricane research, tropical diseases or oceanography, unless the scientists tow the official party line of anthropocentric global warming (AGW) then they can expect a cold response indeed to submitted papers.

Pachauri has since been accused of “inappropriate” sexual behaviour by several women who worked at the IPCC and TERI a non-profit, scientific and policy research organisation which Pachauri is Director-General. According to one alleged victim as part of her testimony from 2005: “A sexual harasser 10 years back, a sexual harasser today. He did it to me and others then. He has done it to her and possibly others now … His physical advances and sexual innuendos and acts, often reduced to as ‘inappropriate behaviour’, have been common knowledge and corridor gossip.” [4]

As a result, Pachuari finally stepped down in March 2015.

This appears appropriately symbolic of the IPCC’s place in climate science.

Rajendra-Pachauri_ipccstructureRajendra Pachauri, still going strong as Chairman of the IPCC

With 40 years of experience in tropical diseases Paul Reiter thinks the papers on his specialist subject found in the CRs are full of inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions, made worse by the fact that none of the lead authors had actually penned a research paper. Much of the information in the CRs are not written by experts at all and gave testimony to that fact to the UK House of Lords. [5]

One would think that the IPCC would have been keen to recruit the best experts they could find but it appears they prefer students and the inexperienced rather than the world class scientists spoken of in the mainstream media. The UN seems quite happy that its organisation continues to promulgate lies on this point while peddling unsubstantiated and very biased beliefs instead.

Journalist Donna LaFramboise’s searing indictment of the IPCC highlighted the fact that “the world’s finest scientific minds” have been culled from a reservoir of young and inexperienced students and activists such as 25 year-old Richard Klein, a Master Degree student and Greenpeace campaigner drafted in to serve as IPCC lead author on what was eventually to be six reports, six years prior to the completion of his PhD. [6] Laurens Bouwer served as an IPCC lead author before he had completed his Masters in 2001. To compound the confusion still further, the chapter to which he was given responsibility dealt with financial services whilst his “expertise” was in climate change and water resources. [7] In 2008, Lisa Alexander was a research assistant at Monesh University, Australia and went on to earn her PhD in 2009. Yet from 2001 and 2007 she had been plucked from obscurity by the IPCC to author two reports, one as lead author and the other in a contributory role – all ten years before she had claimed her doctorate. [8] Sari Kovats hadn’t earned her PhD until 2010 yet 16 years previously before any academics papers had been written: “Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health.” Lead author twice and contributing author once, all before the completion of her PhD. [9]Nor are these exceptions to the rule. This has been normal practice for the body since the early 1990s.

So, what’s going on?

LaFramboise describes how the analyses of IPCC policies and procedures were to come under the microscope, but perhaps not in the way it would have liked. In 2010, an international science body called The Inter-Academy Council took the bold step in establishing the first committee to investigate the quality and structure of IPCC research which resulted in an extensive questionnaire on its website to which people were encouraged to respond. Over the last few years a wealth of interesting data totalling over 678 pages has accumulated for the dogged researcher to peruse.

Many recurrent gripes which surfaced amongst respondents’ answers was the lack of qualifications from lead authors; decisions being political rather than scientific and undue political correctness regarding gender and multiculturalism at the expense of science. Among these problems follows the deeper more intransigent factor of activism married with science. The IPCC tells the world it is a scientific body tasked with sifting conjecture and assumption to produce as much as is possible, scientific fact. Yet, the institution is infested with activists from top to bottom. How can this be an impartial and politically neutral body offering reputable science when beliefs are colouring the overall picture?

Environmental activist organisations cross-fertilise IPCC conclusions in the CRs and other publications citing each others papers to bolster predetermined results. Rajendra Pachauri routinely writes forewords and editorials for activist groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. As LaFramboise observes: “The IPCC’s role is similar to that of a trial judge. It examines the scientific evidence and decides whether or not human-produced carbon dioxide is guilty of triggering climate change. How much faith would you have in the impartiality of a murder trial if the judge was hearing evidence during the day and partying with the prosecution team during the evening?” [10]

A new breed of “activist scientist” is happiest hanging out in activist groups, universities and agenda-ridden institutions like the IPCC. Objectivity regarding scientific results is the first casualty. Scientific judgement is wide open to abuse from emotionally-driven views which consciously or unconsciously select the data that reinforces their beliefs. They often have access to a wide cross-section of interested parties from government to an annual influx of university students. Scientific credentials merely serve to reinforce beliefs and fit the data with a mind already made up. If it doesn’t fit, then it is made to fit through mental gymnastics and cherry-picking the data. Of course, this can work both ways. However, whereas many groups who do not follow the AGW line and do not have links to the fossil fuel agenda state their case with proven scientific data and expertise, the same cannot be said for the IPCC which sets itself up as an impartial arbiter when it is nothing of the kind. It is clearly AGW-biased, hiding behind the bogus claims of rigorous and objective research supported by “world class scientists.”

Michael Oppenheimer is one such example. A Director of Science, Tech. Environmental Policy, at Princeton University; Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Prior to the above posts and 20 years as Chief Scientist to Environmental Defence Fund (EDF). He is a lead author IPCC report 2007 and a Senior Author of the IPCC report in  2011. Remember his words when speaking on behalf of the EDF? “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement it is hardly the position required of a scientist let alone one who contributes regularly to the IPCC. He is an activist-scientist and thus seriously biased.

A sample of other activists working for the IPCC include:

  • Bill Hare – Greenpeace spokesperson 1992; Chief climate negotiator 2007 / Key member of Greenpeace International Climate team; Lead author IPCC reports 2007 Expert reviewer 2007.
  • Malte Meinhausen – Key member of Greenpeace International Climate team; Greenpeace spokesman 2002-2003; Co-author Kyoto Protocol Analysis; contributing author of IPCC reports 2007.
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – Marine Biologis, Reef expert Greenpeace funded reports on coral reefs and climate change 1994-2000 WWF funded reports; Contributing author 2007; Coordinating author 2011.
  • Richard Moss – One time WWF vice-president; IPCC senior personnel.
  • Jennifer Morgan – WWF chief spokesperson; WWF Kyoto Protocol Delegation; WWF Global Climate Change Program; Climate Action Network; Director of Climate program World Resources Institute. IPCC report 2010.

The process by which CR authors are selected – for an organisation who claims to be transparent and open – is highly secretive. No one seems to know how top decisions are actually made. The Inter-Academy Council questionnaire makes interesting reading in this respect, with some of the respondents giving answers such as: “Selection of lead authors in my view is the most important decision in the IPCC process, and it is not transparent,” or: “After being [a lead author or contributing author] several times, I still have no idea how I was selected. This is unacceptable.” Another participant states: “It has always been unclear how this has been undertaken.” [11]Not a huge crime for any other low-level institution but the IPCC isn’t just anybody. It has told us that it is open, transparent and scientifically credible and wields enormous influence because of it.

ippc-un

The United Nations, UNEP, WHO and the IPPC are all closely related, as are their worldviews.

The IPCC receives nominations from governments but does not make it public the names of the nominees; it does not explain the selection criteria and when successful nominees are announced only the country of origin is mentioned, qualifications and credentials are nowhere to be seen. Based on past evidence one can see why they would want the secrecy to remain in place. Apparently, we are meant to guess that the candidates are experts and trust the IPCC’s word.

What makes matters worse is the organisation’s history of refusing to help journalists, researchers and academics in their quests to scrutinize sources, reports and data. Moreover, when problems have been raised with the report content, such as out-of-date source papers, incorrect citations or quoting from papers yet to be published, the shutters came down with a the rigidity of a spoilt child folding its arms and pouting. If you begin to rock the boat too much then you are stone-walled or threatened with expulsion. [12]

Yet, according to John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s science advisor the IPCC is: “… an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” [13]Holdren has been told some porkies. In reality, the IPCC does none of the above and has no quality control procedures at all. Or, as one IPCC respondent states on page 384 of the public questionnaire: “Quality assurance and error identification is non-existent…” [14]  Which means when the body claims it uses peer-reviewed literature we find this is also incorrect. [15]The amount of peer-reviewed sources to support the findings in the IPCC reports is very low indeed; yet, people continue to believe it is true because it operates on the same belief as Al Gore. [16]IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: “… has a history of systematically misrepresenting the process by which his organization produces reports. His declaration that the IPCC does not settle for anything less than peer-reviewed sources is wrong. Nor is it wrong by a trivial amount. When 21 out of 44 chapters have so few peer-reviewed references they score an F, a serious disjuncture exists between the facts and the IPCC’s fiction.” [17]

Nor is peer-review a fail-safe mechanism for detecting research misconduct and malpractice. The only way to safe-guard such problems is fully independent, scientific review where an assumption of the reliability of research papers before they have even appeared in print is not seen as the norm. Peer-reviewed science is only as good as the structure upon which it sits. If that is rotten then you have nothing. If Al Gore published papers for peer-review it would matter little that his credibility is zero because his talents lie in the performance designed to create maximum emotional response. Facts are secondary.

When trusts, foundations and institutions presenting themselves as scientific bodies dedicated to objective scientific analysis merge with the beliefs of green activism, however laudable, it produces a dangerous politicisation. Organising communication between professions and the media then becomes an exercise in maintaining the demands of lobbying. When substantial amounts of money are involved then science is just another tool for exploitation. Just as high quality journalism should inform activism so too science must act as the primary foundation to issues with science at their core. Without objective knowledge of the highest quality charges of passion without reason and the effects they induce cannot be countered.

LaFramboise, with an enormous network of voluntary assistance, found that 30 percent of the IPCC 2007 report was non-peer-reviewed. The sources which were included comprised of “… newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished masters and doctoral theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents and yes, press releases.” The journalist highlights several points that should make us all think twice about the proclamations of unimpeachable sources and credentials when the media, UN and governments wax lyrical about the IPCC’s standing.

LaFramboise further observes:

Climate sceptics are frequently asked why they imagine their own judgment to be more reliable than the judgment of such esteemed bodies. The answer to that question is this: No science academy noticed that one in three references in the 2007 Climate Bible is actually to grey literature. [unpublished papers] If these academies are so well-informed why did it take a group of Internet-linked volunteers to bring this to the world’s attention? Why didn’t even one of these science academies subject chairman Pachauri’s rhetoric to rudimentary fact-checking? [18]

Could it be that IPCC personnel simply don’t care enough to have a hand in changing the direction of this behemoth and are quite comfortable with the way things are?

Not content with preaching to the rest of us on impeccable standards in climate research to which we must all adhere, the IPCC’s treatment of its voluntary army of expert reviewers falls very short of fair. The 2007 report invited reviewers to offer comments which were responded to by IPCC authors. Yet, unsurprisingly, they are at liberty to ignore most, if not all of the comments that don’t fit with their “group-think.” The body freely inserts new material in reports, rejects reviewer opinions and essentially undermines the whole review process which was designed to prove the rigorous and objective nature of the CR science.

Group think rises up through the ranks of academic journals which instead of being independent and thus offering valuable critiques, appear to be chosen for reviews, citations and source material because an IPCC insider is Editor-in-Chief. As LaFramboise comments on the late founding editor of Climatic Change Stephen Schneider and Club of Rome member: “The fact that Schneider, a senior figure at the IPCC, was routinely deciding what would – and would not – make it into the same scientific literature the IPCC would later cite as evidence doesn’t appear to have caused anyone concern.” [19]

Nor is this an isolated incident. In the next post, we’ll see why.

 


Notes

[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/
[2] Ibid.(organisation)
[3] ‘The Science is absolutely first rate’ June 5 2007, The Rediff Interview with Rajendra K. Pachauri http://www.rediff.com | ‘The Rajendra Pachauri Interview’ by Amitabh Pal, The Progressive, May 2009 issue.
[4] ‘Harasser’ who lifts staff like little girls’ The Telegraph, Calcutta, India, Ananya Sengupta and G.S. Mudur, February 22 , 2015.
[5] Select Committee on Economic Affairs Written Evidence – Memorandum by Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris THE IPCC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION. EXAMPLE: IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
[6] p.8; The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. Published by Createspace, 2011.
[7] Ibid. (p.9)
[8] Ibid. (p.10)
[9] Ibid. (p.11)
[10] Ibid. (p.18)
[11] Ibid. (pp. 185, 180 and p.28) | Review of the IPCC InterAcademy Council http://www.reviewippc.interacademycouncil.net
[12] Ibid Chapter 8: “Clear as mud” See example 1: Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org p.30-35 correspondance between Susan Solomon.
[13] Ibid. (p.34)
[14] http://www.reviewippc.interacademycouncil.net
[15] Ibid. (p.43) – Richard Tol found that in the Climate Bible (CRs) 2007 “IPCC authors had ignored the findings of peer-reviewed studies and had instead cited non-peer-reviewed material to make the opposite case.”
[16] Ibid. (pp.43 -50: “The Peer Review Fairy-Tale”)
[17] Ibid. (p.48)
[18] ‘Book excerpt: Conspiracy of silence Special to Financial Post, By Donna La Framboise, Oct 22, 2011.| http://www.opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/book-excerpt-conspiracy-of-silence/
[19] Ibid. (p.62)

Dark Green XVI: I’ve been Gored!

By M.K. Styllinski

“… the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.”

– Al Gore


Climate_Reality_Logo-Globe

Logo of The Climate Reality Project founded by Al Gore | Source (WP:NFCC#4) (wikipedia)

With hedge funds popping up like bad sores in readiness for the carbon credit bubble it is these financial marauders who will benefit most rather than the environment or third world nations’ climate change projects. What we can be sure of is a substantial hike in the cost of living generally with special attention to electricity and manufacturing. All the while the imposition of caps is guaranteed to contribute precious little to limit carbon emissions, should the science on CO2 even be true.

The Nobel prize-winning Al Gore has been very busy playing at eco-activism and evangelising the message of AGW for many years. He has become smoothly effective as the political vanguard of environmentalism. Gore’s legendary capitalism masquerading as left-leaning liberalism is never more clearly seen when it comes to green corporatism, his favourite plaything. Gore was one of the first to implement the corporate structure of “public-private partnerships,” where the decision-making process was quietly shifted away from the people and transferred to unelected international corporations. And what we are seeing now is how effective such structural conversions can be when married to distorted environmental fears. Al Gore has excelled at being the guru of green-back sensationalism. He is a master of the slight-of-hand. However, it is difficult to say whether he is a “useful idiot,” desperately naïve (doubtful) or an opportunist of the very worst kind. Perhaps it is a mix of all three.

The Climate Reality Project founded by Gore in 2011 is another attempt to launch a frontal attack against so-called climate deniers (when all it does is cover up good science). “Join reality” “effect change”. You can also sign on to become a “Climate Reality Leader” within the Climate Reality Leadership Corp. and bludgeon everyone into becoming like Al Gore. Gore is creating an army of the faithful to do what? To reach net zero carbon emissions” which is apparently “… the key to our collective prosperity and well-being for all.”

Unfortunately, that probably isn’t the key. Not even close.

This is all about objective reality it seems…  Yet, the “The facts” page reads like a catalogue of supposition assumption where blaming nasty old fossil fuel folks for it all appears to mask barely concealed zealotry. That’s not to say that corporatism isn’t having a ripe old time stirring the propaganda pot with equal vigour. And that is also not to say greenhouse gases aren’t causing havoc and yes, we must try to reduce our pollution. But the overall campaign and impetus is that human beings are responsible for the overall climate change which are very probably the result of complex natural cycles and even vast cosmic processes. As my hamster Ernie belts around his plastic wheel the sheer power of his little cardiac footprint is not liable to produce massive climatic weather patterns.  (I don’t have a hamster but you get the analogy).

The whole idea that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years appears erroneous. BUT that doesn’t mean greenhouse gases are benign. It doesn’t mean they do not pose a problem such as ozone depletion. The real problem is how AGW science has obfuscated the subtle connections going on between a whole host of complex factors which have been reduced down to the level of Al Gore and his slide show hotly followed by the IPCC. And that does not provide a good basis upon which to inform the public.

You CANNOT change a natural cycle. And no amount of hectoring, deception and phoney science it going to alter that fact.  It amounts to an enormous hijacking of energy that could be better used in prevention against cataclysmic change that will come regardless of whether we have paid our carbon-free credits.  But by now, if you have been reading the previous posts on this blog you either think I am a deluded devil incarnate or one of the many who are seeing behind all the noise. Perhaps I am teetering between the two.

That said, let’s continue and find out a bit more about our Al and whether he’s one arctic roll short of an ice-cap.

gorepromoAl Gore (left) and promotional material for the DVD launch for An Inconvenient Truth: “the most terrifying film you will ever see.”

Gore has written over a dozen books on society, politics and environmentalism, most notably Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose. (1992) The Assault on Reason. (2007) and An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. (2006) which accompanied a film of the same name which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. The film was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who stated that after the release of the film, “Everywhere I go with him, they treat him like a rock star.” It couldn’t have been more apropos for the likes of the Club of Rome who saw in Gore the popular appeal of their designs made manifest. The message is fear, catastrophe and guilt wrapped up in emergency environmental “education.” The science didn’t matter the message was all that counted.

Having already achieved humble martyrdom in running against the villainous Bush, he was as well placed to transfer this new found sainthood into the cause of climate change and make considerable amounts of money in the process. An Inconvenient Truth was designed to educate millions of citizens about the perils of global warming using Gore as messenger who would give an in-depth slide show presentation to a rapt audience interspersed with relevant footage. It premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, of the same year. It became a critical and box-office success, garnering two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song. It was also commercially successful earning $49 million internationally and becoming one of the highest grossing US documentary films of all time. [1]

Let’s turn our attention to two aspects of Gore’s journey, that of the science in the film and the financial aspects of Gore’s AGW platform. Firstly, the science.

In May 2007, a lawsuit was launched by a group of global warming sceptics over the UK government’s distribution of the film in UK schools. Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills heard the bid for an injunction preventing the screening of the film in English schools, on the premise that the film was imbalanced, impartial and political.

On 10 October 2007, High Court Judge Mr Justice Burton did not ban the film finding that it was largely drawn from scientific fact and research even though it was also politically motivated. He ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained “nine key scientific errors” and could only be shown in British schools with explanatory notes on the errors “to prevent political indoctrination.” The judge said that showing the film without the explanations of error would be a violation of education laws. Judge Burton also stated that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” driven by Gore’s belief in AGW. [2]

In the synopsis of the film given by Paramount studios, the distributor gives a flavour of the content of the film which the judge ruled amounted to an “apocalyptic vision.” In a breathless example of sensationalism it implored: “If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” [3] The judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth was “politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.” It was, he ruled: “a political film.” [4]

Marketed as “… the most terrifying film you will ever see,” by online trailers, with commentary claiming audiences have been “shocked everywhere,” the dramatic images of global environmental destruction bombard the viewer with terrifying storms and even a nuclear explosion. This sets the tone for a mass-dumping of fear and danger in the younger generations and creates the antithesis of reason and constructive dialogue. Politics, alarmism and “apocalyptic visions” do little to educate children, especially when Agenda 21 is overshadowing the proceedings. While they may compel a sense of urgency and activism in the cause of “saving the planet,” if it is sourced from bad science and emotional reflex then this will play straight into the politics and the social frameworks recently discussed. It will have very little effect on the real, preventative climate change issues which could be addressed given the correct guidance. Exaggeration and alarmism merely helps to create fear and insecurity in the minds of children who are already having great difficulty processing the future. Neuroses in the young anxious about climate change, is becoming increasingly common.

Climate science journalist Björn Lomborg reviewed some startling results on this issue where “… a new survey of 500 American pre-teens, … found that one in three children, aged between six and 11, feared that the earth would not exist when they reach adulthood because of global warming and other environmental threats. An unbelievable one-third of our children believe that they don’t have a future because of scary global warming stories.” The same pattern exists in the UK with “half of young children aged between seven and 11 [whom] are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern.” [5]

To draw out those fears and increase the likelihood of cash injection into the climate change industry we have Gore’s slick Hollywood production which uses emotive photos of cutsie animals and advanced animations taken out of context alongside endless replays of environmental destruction to illicit guilt and alarm. For example, smoke pouring forth from chimneys and cooling towers implying extreme CO2 production when in reality CO2 is invisible and benign. The message here is not scientific solutions but emotional manipulation.

Gore has yet to modify any of his statements made in film and print, the most obvious examples being the internationally discredited hockey stick temperature graph and his clinging to CO2 global temperature increases, despite the data that showed temperatures rose 400-800 years before CO2 and drove higher CO2 levels, a fact which had been confirmed for at least two years prior to Gore’s film. [6]But this was only the beginning. The following nine errors as outlined by Judge Burton include:

ERROR 1: Sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. [Judge] agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – ‘but only after, and over, millennia’. The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

ERROR 2: The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls ‘are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming’ but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

ERROR 3: The documentary speaks of global warming ‘shutting down the Ocean Conveyor’ – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was ‘very unlikely’ that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

ERROR 4: Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in CO2 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed ‘an exact fit’. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, ‘the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts’.

ERROR 5: Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

ERROR 6: The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that ‘it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.’

ERROR 7: Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.

ERROR 8: Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from ‘swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice’ The judge said: ‘The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.’ That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – ‘but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description’.

ERROR 9: Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. [7]

Rather than just nine errors the Judge mentioned, there are so many serious errors in AIT that becomes much more of a concern about the film-makers understanding of the issues involved and certainly where Al Gore’s true perceptions lie. Former British MP Christopher Monckton and founding member of the Science and Public Policy Institute based in the UK found plenty more. All of the following have proven to be grossly exaggerated or simply false:

  • Thermohaline circulation “stopping”
  • 100 ppmv of CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”
  • Hurricane Caterina “manmade”
  • Japanese typhoons “a new record”
  • Hurricanes “getting stronger”
  • Big storm insurances losses “increasing”
  • Mumbai “flooding”
  • Severe tornadoes “more frequent”
  • The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”
  • Arctic “warming fastest”
  • Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
  • Himalayan glacial melt waters “failing”
  • Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”
  • Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
  • Sahara desert “drying”
  • West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”
  • Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”
  • Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming’”
  • Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
  • Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming’”
  • West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming’”
  • Carbon dioxide is “pollution”
  • The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000”
  • Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage
  • The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”
  • “No fact…in dispute by anybody.” [8]

In A Sceptic’s Guide to Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (2007) senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Marlo Lewis PhD, provides a meticulous analysis of the Al Gore’s book version of the film. Lewis’ Congressional Working Paper contains 324 references with extensive links to web sites for fact checking, a practice Gore would do well to emulate. Lewis’ conclusions on the book revealed:

  • Wrong statements, false statements—19;
  • Misleading statements—17;
  • Exaggerated statements—10;
  • One sided statements—25; and
  • Speculative statements—28. [9]

Environmentalists have drawn our attention to the fact that Marlo Lewis is a friend of the fossil fuel lobby and is a corporate lackey with a clear agenda. Be that as it may, the facts he provides are correct. It is unfortunate that facts have to surface from two extremes rather than a simple quest for truth.

polarbearsonice

This photo was widely used to promote the idea that polar bears were stranded due to global warming induced ice melt. In actual fact, it was faked. See HERE for more details.

As an ex-senator, businessman, journalist, lawyer and highly articulate orator and raconteur it seems bizarre that Gore has not only chosen to ignore his “errors” but continue to perpetuate them. Even worse, he has also repeatedly refused to debate publicly on the issue and will not participate in conferences, interviews or public forums with those who take the opposing view on AGW. This is bad for science and bad for open, rational discourse which is so desperately needed.[10] Not least, it is bad for Gore’s credibility as he clearly prefers hyperbole and rhetoric rather than scientific rigour. If he is correct and he has spent most of his life genuinely seeking to redress the balance for the Earth’s ecology then one would think he would have at least a basic understanding of the principals involved, given his position and responsibility. Yet, while he may have a nose for communication he doesn’t seem to have the first clue about truth – inconvenient or otherwise. Gore’s research has been drawn primarily from the IPCC, which offers even more cause for concern, as we shall see presently.

What of Gore’s financial interests in climate change and carbon credits? He is a partner in two hedge funds, Generation Investment Management (GIM) and Capricorn Investment Group LLC, set up to trade carbon credits. Remember the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain? GIM exerts substantial influence over these firms in the following way: Having expended considerable amounts of cash to test the viability of carbon credits back in 2000, CCX has some of our well known players secreted within its membership. One begins to wonder if he has cloned himself to appear in all places and in all times but sure enough, Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors and has long since been considered as an Elder-guru to Gore. Other members who had undertaken to reduce their emissions by 2010 (some did some didn’t) are Amtrak, Ford Motor Company, Dow Corning, International Paper, Motorola, DuPont, American Electric Power and an assortment of other corporations and universities. Carbon-offset projects are also underway via “participant members.” ECX also has around 80 member companies, including Shell, Barclays, BP, Fortis, Calyon, Endesa, Morgan Stanley and … Goldman Sachs.

And here’s where come full circle back to the Goldman cartel once more.

GIM was founded by both Al Gore and Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs and financial criminal CEO, Hank Paulson. We already know that Goldman Sachs virtually owns the carbon credit markets including 10 percent of CCX shares and a stake in ECX. This is due, in part, to the fact that GIM is riddled with Goldmanites: Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Peter S. Knight, who is the designated president of GIM with strong ties to Al Gore and Bill Clinton serving under them respectively.

World Economic Forum in Davos

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speaks next to rapper Pharrell Williams during a panel session on the first day of the 45th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Jan. 21, 2015. | TIME magazine. |The World Economic Forum? Really? This is straight out of the Live Aid programming manual (It’s all right, just be happy…)

In 2008, Gore’s venture capital firm loaned $75m to Silver Spring Networks, a small Californian firm wishing to develop energy-saving technology. The company’s main production efforts go into hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. And in 2009, the US Energy Department announced a $3.4 billion boost in SMART grid grants more than $560 million going to utilities under contract to Silver Spring. [11]

To say that this would provide Gore with substantial profits would be an understatement. With an estimated $70 million he received for a 20 percent stake in the 2013 sale of the Current TV network, a slice of a $500 million pie paid out by Qatari-owned al-Jazeera Satellite Network, and a steady $1.2 million a year in salary and bonuses, he stands to make millions more in the long-term. Hence the media cry: “Will Gore be our first carbon billionaire?” Gore disputes this and is happy to be “putting his money where his mouth is.” A “one off investment” and “transformation of our energy infrastructure” towards energy that is free forever” is what’s needed according to Gore. He sees no hypocrisy radiating from his  green-messiah activism and Goldman Sachs plundering.

He goes on to say somewhat defensively: “Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” … “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.” [12]

Goldman Sachs would certainly agree.

 

———–

Cool itdocumentary by Bjorn Lomborg

 


Notes

[1] “Documentary 1982–present (film rankings by lifetime gross)”. Box Office Mojo.
[2] Stuart Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills”. England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions. 2007-10-10.
[3] ‘Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’ By Sally Peck, Telegraph, 11 Oct 2007.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Scared silly over climate change’ by Bjorn Lomborg, The Guardian, 15 June 2009.
[6] ‘Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming’ by Catherine Brahic and Michael Le Page. New Scientist, 16 May, 2007.
[7] op. cit. Peck.
[8] ‘35 Inconvenient Truths – The errors in Al Gore’s movie’ By Christopher Monckton, http://www.scienceandpublic policy.org PDF version: http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
[9] ‘Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Sceptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth’ Congressional Working Paper By Marlo Lewis. 01/22/07 — Competitive Enterprise Institute || http://www.cei.org.
[10] ‘Al Gore Refuses To Dignify Debate: “It’s Not A Matter Of Theory”’ Huffington Post, April 5 2009.
[11] ‘Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire’ Telegraph, November 3, 2009.
[12] Ibid.

Dark Green XV: Goldman Sachs & Carbon Tax

By M.K. Styllinski

“Goldman Sachs, which received more subsidies and bailout-related funds than any other investment bank because the Federal Reserve permitted it to become a bank holding company under its ’emergency situation,’ has used billions in taxpayer money to enrich itself and reward its top executives. It handed its senior employees a staggering $18 billion in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011 in mega-bonuses. This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes.”

– Chris Hedges, journalist and author; extract from his statement during Goldman Sacs protest


Despite the lack of empirical data this hasn’t prevented a massive campaign in favour of reducing our carbon footprint by fusing it with Sustainable Development visions and the promise of a Global Carbon Tax. The latter bonanza has had all the usual suspects rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of yet another opportunity to fleece the global population of what little cash they have left from the last crisis. And here’s where it becomes easy to see something else is very wrong with the anthropocentric (human-influenced) global warming picture.

Lloyd_Blankfein_CEO_Goldman_Sachs

Lloyd Blankfein CEO Goldman Sachs

Why is it that major electric power utility corporations (the largest consumers of fossil fuels) and some of the biggest names in agribusiness and chemicals have suddenly jumped aboard the climate change train? A change of heart? Well there’s a green light flashing but it isn’t for an ecological conscience.

There is much in the global warming agenda that supports their cause, which is making vast amounts of money through normalised exploitation. This may be why power companies, investment banks and various hedge funds are all salivating at the prospect of Emissions Trading commonly known as “Cap and Trade”, which is central to reducing levels of carbon dioxide. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the new speculative profits to be made in carbon futures, is producing another means to exploit a system where any costs incurred for multi-nationals and utility companies are sure to be passed on to the consumer, as they always are.

If things go according to plan, coal fired power stations, gas distributor utilities and others industries will be subject to limits on the amount of CO2 emissions they can produce annually. When some companies arrive at their carbon-polluting limit then “allocations” or credits can be bought from other companies which have got gold stars for producing less emissions. The neat little twist in this eco-SMART dream is that it  exists only if the government imposes a cap which creates an artificial scarcity on the right to produce energy. Brokers or an electronic trading platform will provide sales for offsets under such a system which is exactly what has been happening in Europe, since 2005 through the Climate Exchange (ECX). What if the allowed credits exceed the corresponding tonnage of emissions, which is the case in almost every country in Europe?

Then we have yet another system that not only mandates cheating, but celebrates it.

Carbon offsets provide even more opportunities. Recycling aluminium cans? Claim your credits. Planting trees? Roll on up. Despite both these activities giving no net emission reductions, the latter being long-term at best, no regulations are in place to ensure compliance because it is a eco-ponzi scheme created to make money not to protect the environment. Many people on both sides of the political and environmental divide agree. What is really driving this new market are the billions of dollars on offer for the same protagonists of financial warfare that stimulated the economic meltdown of October 2008 and beyond. These same criminals are supporting a Global Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading as another source to exploit. Estimates of $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned over the next several years, perhaps even three times that amount. [1]

Just as surely as every other bubble in the last eighty years, this new eco-commodities market can only follow the same framework of exploitation as demand rises and carbon auctions become the new source of Elite cash. As the “cap” is lowered by the government, carbon credits will become scarcer and thus more valuable as every year passes. Further, it is a fail-safe framework mandated by the Sate that will be worth almost a $trillion, all under the mantle of saving the planet – what a coup!

While the Western nations are being targeted first, Asia has some of the worst pollution in the world which is why Australasia has come under the Carbon Tax boot with a vengeance. The background is instructive since the Australian experience follows the same formula occurring in the West and indicates that it was  being used as a testing ground for a future global roll out. Some key players are pushing the Australian carbon tax and who were/are employed by the very banks that will profit from the system. How interesting then, that Dr Megan Clark, the Chief Executive and Board member of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Australia’s national science agency, was also a former Director of NM Rothschild and Sons Australia  (Australian arm of the Rothschild Investment Bank) from 2001-03. She is also a member of the Australia Advisory Board of the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. [2] The fact that this director is now heading the science body that is lobbying for a global carbon credit scheme that will make her and her colleagues billions has nothing to do with it – it’s all just a coincidence.

Mr Simon McKeon is Chairman of the CSIRO Board is also currently the Executive Chairman of Macquarie Group’s Melbourne Office (Macquarie Bank). The Federal Government had no problem appointing a corporate banker as the CSIRO’s new chairman: “… Despite admitting he has ‘no scientific pedigree’, Mr McKeon says he wants to see the issue of climate change elevated to the top of the political and public agenda.” [3]

Sure – his investments and that of his backers depend on it.

Then there is Liberal Party MP Mr. Malcolm Turnbull who as well as being extremely passionate about climate change issues and equally vocal on carbon credits, he is the former Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs Australia, 1997-2001 and a former partner of Goldman Sachs and Co. from 1998-2001. (Goldman Sac’s role in the carbon credits scam will be explored in greater detail presently).[4]  His colleague and former Liberal party leader Dr. John Hewson is another advocate for carbon credit legislation. A founding member and founding Executive Director of Macquarie Bank 1985-87 and former economist with the IMF 1973-75 he is currently a Non-Executive Director of Change Investment Management a financial investment company that invests in ‘Eco’ projects. Hewson has been a busy banker having been a former Director and Chairman of ABN AMRO Australia 1995-98 an investment bank with its own carbon trading division and still finding time to run his own investment banking business. [5]

Ross Garnaut, a key player in governments in the Asia-Pacific, is a professor in economics with no scientific qualifications which nevertheless qualified him to lead the Garnaut Climate Change Report and several other reviews. He was the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Primary Industry Bank of Australia 1989 to 1994 and the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Bank of Western Australia Ltd from 1988 to 1995. [6] Then we mustn’t forget former Prime Minister of Australia Paul Keating, Chairman of the Corporate Advisory International at investment banking firm Lazard and his board membership of China Development Bank: International Advisory Council. [7]

Broadly backed by environmentalists but deeply unpopular with the majority of the Australian public, The Clean Energy Legislative Package was passed by the Australian Senate in November 2011 becoming law in July 2012. With around 13 percent of the public in favour of the tax, no referendum was offered so that people could choose, no debate in Parliament and no disclosure as to who are the biggest 500 “polluters”. Reassurance came in the form of compensation to householders borrowed from the IMF already stretched to the limit with European bailouts. [8]

dreamstime_m_18893257© Avenger01 | Dreamstime.com – Carbon Tax Photo

Although the Carbon Tax in Australia was repealed in July 2014 climate change legislation overall remains in place. According to the Australian government: “The Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2014, were introduced into parliament as part of the broader Carbon Tax Repeal Legislative Package and each of which will proceed separately. Policy responsibility for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation remains with the Treasury.” So, no change there. It is likely Carbon Tax will be renewed since the framework is still in place. Furthermore: “The Clean Energy Regulator will ensure that carbon tax liabilities are met in full.” along with the Direct Action Plan of June 2014 which is a bill to implement the Emissions Reduction Fund particularly focused on what’s left of the farming community. [9]

The cost of living for Australians was certainly pushed through the roof with the tax while making very little impact on environmental concerns. In the unlikely event that the science behind CO2 could have been correct, Australia’s total contribution of global emissions will only be reduced by a paltry 0.05 percent taking more than 10 years for the saving to be realised. [10] Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard was a keen supporter of world government so it was natural that she oversaw a move in this direction under the cover of environmental policy.

By 2013, the liberal coalition of Tony Abbot curtailed such a plan for now. No doubt they will try again.

Over in the USA, the first mandatory Cap and Trade system was enforced in the state of New Jersey in 2010 followed by many other North-Eastern states that have sold over 729 million in CO2 credits since 2008. [11] Under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Inc. (RGGI) two other mandatory regional systems started in 2012, bringing cap-and-trade to 23 states in all and four Canadian provinces. [12] Though a nationwide system has yet to materialise it is only a matter of time. When insider trading and secrecy defines the political-corporate system then Congress can easily be bypassed as it has been throughout its existence. According to the RGGI corporation’s mission statement its “…exclusive purpose is to provide administrative and technical services to support the development and implementation of each RGGI State’s CO2 Budget Trading Program”.

RGGI, Inc.’s activities include:

    • Development and maintenance of a system to report data from emissions sources subject to RGGI, and to track CO2 allowances.
    • Implementation of a platform to auction CO2 allowances.
    • Monitoring the market related to the auction and trading of CO2 allowances.
    • Providing technical assistance to the participating states in reviewing applications for emissions offset projects.
    • Providing technical assistance to the participating states to evaluate proposed changes to the States’ RGGI programs.

A CO2 template ready to extract the needed dosh from the populace once Agenda 21, SD and SMART are fully operational.

Funnily enough, who should happen to be bidding their socks off on this issue? None than most of Wall St., including: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays Bank and others.  Speculating on the price of permits or “allowances” ensures that these financial giants pocket big money from misplaced environmental concerns and corner the carbon market in the process. Wait awhile and the effects of these speculations will be felt on customers’ electricity bills in the same way we all bailed out banksters so they could continue living in the manner to which they had long become accustomed. Utilities which need CO2 allowances at RGGI auctions must compete against powerful private interests whose primary goal is generating money. Therefore, we are looking at another reinvention of the 2008 Ponzi scheme where US and European citizens will be duped all over again.

What’s more, bureaucrats are denying the public right to know via New Jersey Watchdog’s Open Public Record Requests for auction details. RGGI claimed it was not a “public body” and thus it could keep trade secrets, contrasting sharply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducting similar auctions.  Allowances have been sold by the EPA for acid rain otherwise known as sulphur dioxide (SO2). It seems now that derivatives have been way too toxic CO2 represents a plentiful bounty that requires insider back-scratching. For that to go ahead, the secondary markets of the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange and the Green Exchange do the job.

And guess who owns these markets?

The Green Exchange is owned by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Goldman Sachs Group Inc., MF Global Holdings Ltd. Credit Suisse Group, AG, Morgan Stanley and Newedge Group, most of whom were involved in massive fraud, insider trading, price fixing and serious financial irregularities and fined billions – not that this made any difference at all. [13] [14]

Oh, and don’t forget JPMorgan Chase & Co is also cutting a slice of the pie. (This is the corporate predator that also has a string of “murder-suicides” of its employees, the company that’s going head to head with the Dept. Of Justice over its  FX trading practices).  It is in the interest of these companies to not only take advantage of the gaping holes in the financial system but from any new social directive that lies within it, whether ecological or philanthropic. It demands that they actually create the crises that put the majority of people into dire straits economically so that they can benefit directly from the social services implemented to allow the most needy to survive.

One brief example lies in US food subsidization for the poor, the expenditure of which sits at $72 billion a year provided by food stamps, a.k.a The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAPS). Nearly half of all SNAP participants are children. Where there is regular outflow of federal cash you will find corporate parasites leeching off their share. Washington, D.C. is home to a range of political and corporate lobbyists who exert enormous pressure on Congress and other instruments of US government to keep the food that can be bought through food assistance programs of the lowest quality and price possible while banks like JP Morgan cream off billions from their payment processing agreements from electronic transactions.

They profit from every sale and from every individual desperate enough to have to rely on food stamps. Companies like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Kraft gain a tidy some selling products for subsidization and profiting from poverty. One journalist posed the question: “… how much were states spending to print food stamps in comparison to how much they pay JP Morgan to process transactions electronically? I’d wager it is cheaper to print the stamps.” [15]

***

Taking a bird’s eye view of the history of banksters and corporate predation on the public funds is absolutely necessary if we are to see the true nature of the carbon credit scheme and the global warming industry as a whole. JP Morgan-Chase has been manipulating government and the public for as long as Goldman Sachs, the latter having particular influence inside the Obama administration. As Matt Taibbi writes in the opening paragraph of his seminal Rolling Stone piece: “The Great American Bubble”: “the first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it is everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” [16]

It is in this article that Taibbi lifts the lid on the nature of Goldman Sachs and others who have mastered the art of economic manipulation and to such a high degree that we live in a world of their design, where vast numbers of people live in abject poverty as a direct consequence of their financial terrorism.

vampiresq

World “Vampire Squid”

Cutting its teeth in the Great Depression Goldman positioned itself in thick of speculative investments with Goldman Sachs Trading Corporation, issuing a million shares priced at $100 and buying all those shares with its own money, driving the price up by its own relentless bidding and selling a percentage to the public. The sponsorship of Shenandoah Corporation and the Blue Ridge Corporation followed, where millions more shares in these funds accelerated a pyramidal investment scheme that soared into the financial stratosphere. As stated: “Goldman hiding behind Goldman hiding behind Goldman. Of the 7,250,000 initial shares of Elue Ridge, 6,250,000 were actually owned by Shenandoah – which, of course, was in large part owned by Goldman Trading.” [17]

The foundation of the present casino-economy that we now found ourselves forced to play, is directly sourced from financial cartels like Goldman. The basic nature of this time-honoured scam labelled the “global economy”operates in the following way: “You take a dollar and borrow nine against it; then you take that $10 fund and borrow $90; then you take your $100 fund and, so long as the public is still lending, borrow and invest $900. If the last fund in the line starts to lose value, you no longer have the money to pay back your investors, and everyone gets massacred.”

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith had little time for the likes of Goldman Sachs. The Great Crash of 1929 and the following aftermath of the Great Depression saw Goldman Sachs doing what they did best: creating the opportunities to make money through massive suffering. Galbraith saw:“… the Blue Ridge and Shenandoah trusts as classic examples of the insanity of leverage-based investment,” and which were a: “… major cause of the market’s historic crash; in today’s dollars, the losses the bank suffered totalled $475 billion.” As Galbraith wrote in somewhat deflated fashion: “If there must be madness, something may be said for having it on a heroic scale.’ ” [18]

About sixty-five years later and Goldman Sachs had become a fully-fledged corporate psychopath. This tenacity and primitive survival instinct that left many of its competitors sunk during the depression, just made Goldman even stronger. It became the chief underwriter for most of Wall St. and eventually unleashing its true power through deregulation under the direction of CEO Robert Rubin (and CFR member) who had hung onto the coat-tails of best buddy and President Bill Clinton to become director of the National Economic Council and eventually Treasury secretary.

In the 1990s Rubin could do no wrong and the media smoothed his path to supremacy. When the classic Establishment rag Time had Rubin and his Treasury deputy Larry Summers and Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan on their front cover in 1999, the economic outlook was set for speculation, exploitation and economic plunder on a scale undreamt of. The financial markets were “over-regulated” and Rubin sought to change all that. Far from being “The Committee to Save the World” as the title ran, their job was to plunge the world into economic debt that could never be repaid but profits would abound for those in the know, namely, Goldman Sachs and friends.

The second bubble created and burst by Goldman was the internet dot com bonanza. Ill-thought out and barely legal companies were sold like rock-star geeks in the media and floated on the stock market for mega millions. What the average investor didn’t know was that the banks had been hustling and changing the rules so that deals looked better than they really were. How did they do this? Taibbi explains: “… by setting up what was, in reality, a two-tiered investment system – one for the insiders who knew the real numbers and another for the lay investor who was invited to chase soaring prices the banks themselves knew were irrational. While Goldman’s later pattern would be to capitalize on changes in the regulatory environment, its key innovation in the internet years was to abandon its own industry’s standards of quality control.” [19]

It was then that financial warfare became a reality and an even bigger tool for the 4C’s net. With no regulation there were no limits to what could be achieved through financial restructuring in its widest possible sense. Goldman was able to vacuum up money in such an effective and extortionate fashion by manipulating the share price otherwise known as “laddering.”

Taibbi describes the process for us in simple terms:

Say you’re Goldman Sachs, and Bullshit.com comes to you and asks you to take their company public. You agree on the usual tennis: You’ll price the stock, determine how many shares should be released and take the Bullshit.com CEO on a “road show~ to schmooze investors, all in exchange for a substantial fee (typically six to seven percent of the amount raised). You then promise your best clients the right to buy big chunks of the IPO at the low offering price -let’s say Bullshit.com’s starting share price is $15 – in exchange for a promise that they will buy more shares later on the open market. That seemingly simple demand gives you inside knowledge of the IPO’s future, knowledge that wasn’t disclosed to the day-trader schmucks who only had the prospectus to go by: You know that certain of your clients who bought X amount of shares at $15 are also going to buy Y more shares at $20 or $25, virtually guaranteeing that the price is going to go to $25 and beyond. In this way, Goldman could artificially jack up the new company’s price, which of course was to the bank’s benefit – a six percent fee of a $500 million IPO is serious money.

Goldman was seen as one of the primary instigators of the crash as a result. Yet when their laddering operations were discovered they paid their fines and continued as if nothing had happened.

Parallel to laddering was the simple use of bribery or “spinning” where shares were offered to executives at extra-low prices in exchange for underwriting business. Banks did their part by undervaluing the initial offering price so that shares rose more rapidly thus providing greater dividends for the insider few and in the shortest possible time. The you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours formula worked in this way: “… instead of Bullsrul.com opening at $20, the bank would approach the Bullshit.com CEO and offer him a million shares of his own company at $18 in exchange for future business effectively robbing all of Bullshit’s new shareholders by diverting cash that should have gone to the company’s bottom line into the private bank account of the company’s CEO.” [20]

When the bubble burst it took thousands of businesses with it, wiping out more than $5 trillion of wealth on the NASDAQ market alone. Once the investment banksters had been rewarded for criminality with huge bonuses (which continues today) and had obtained a taste for how easy it was to inflate and deflate their bubble – the corruption could only get worse. Moreover, it had an ideological basis to it, where skimming off the maximum amount from a capitalist system in decline was not only profitable but necessary if a new global financial architecture was to ever come of age. Bubbles were essential to global governance to break the public spirit and to provide pots of money for new globalist visions.

800px-GoldmanSachsHeadquarters

Goldman Sachs Headquarters, at 200 West Street, in Manhattan | photo: Quantumquark (wikipedia)

In 2000, true to the formula of sneaking unpopular or downright dangerous acts in at the last minute; when congressman are tired and want to go home to their mistresses, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act found its way into law. It had been inserted into an 11,000 page spending bill with no debate to speak of and very little interest in the implications. Banks were now given free rein to trade default swaps as they pleased. And they did so with impunity in the sub-prime housing crisis leading up to the 2008 crash.

Meanwhile, AIG asked if default swaps could fall under the category of regulatory insurance which meant that Goldman and others could pitch their wares to A-grade investors and the hobo in the street underwriting mortgage-backed securities much of which was subprime. It was the most blatant securities fraud touted as legitimate investing. Ultimately it led to the demise of many companies involved, including AIG. Goldman had the cash to pay lawsuits and fines and was free to walk away yet again with over $1.3 billion of taxpayer’s money from the bailout to AIG which meant that the bank directly profited from the housing bubble not once but twice, or as Taibbi eloquently states: “… it fucked the investors who bought their horseshit CDOs by betting against its own crappy product. Then it turned around and fucked the taxpayer by making him pay off those same bets.” [21]

After the fleecing of the housing market and the myth of housing prices being impervious to change the predators were on the lookout for the next bubble to inflate and burst. The physical-commodities market: foodstuffs, consumables, energy and oil fit the bill. The latter market reacted to this flight from the carnage of the housing crash and the plummeting value of the dollar with the price of a barrel oil shot up from around $55 in mid-2007 to $149 by the summer of 2008. This was due to Goldman and friends manipulating the markets into yet another casino run by lobbying investors and pension fund holders to invest in oil futures on condition that they buy oil at a fixed price and on a specific date of their choosing. Mike Norman, the Chief Economist at the Wall Street firm John Thomas Financial wrote in October 2011: “Total NYMEX open interest in crude is 1.4 m contracts or about 1.4 billion barrels of crude. Daily volume of crude traded on NYMEX is over 1 billion barrels per day. Total daily global demand is only 83 million barrels per day. The amount traded on one single exchange is more than 10 times total daily consumption. It’s a giant casino with prices being driven up by speculators and consumers having to pay more and more.” [22]

Author F. William Engdahl concluded that: “roughly 60-70 percent of the price of oil then was pure speculation, manipulated by the GSCI, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index” … irrespective of supply and demand”. He observed that the “crucial ingredient” in the success of this manipulation is …“not the NYMEX for the global oil price benchmark, but the ICE Futures in London.”

Why?

He offers this narrative on ICE:

Because the ICE Futures is a daughter company of the International Commodity Exchange of Atlanta in Georgia, owned by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase etc. – the big oil banks that benefit enormously from the inside. There is absolutely no serious regulation of the ICE Futures. The British keep their hands off it, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, since 2006 under the ‘Commodity Modernization Act of 2000’ allows ICE Futures to trade energy futures without disclosure to CFTC in the U.S. market through London. So, in fact, it has deregulated and taken away from any government supervisory role the entire trade in energy futures, especially oil. This is a rigged game. [23]

>As Goldman and other banks drove investors into the commodities markets speculators placed increasingly reckless bets leading directly to the oil bubble in 2008. This all took place with the same illegal secrecy that we saw in New Jersey and the Cap and Trade, the same benefits which allowed Goldman to become “the chief designer of a giant commodities betting parlor.” Once again a huge loss of wealth occurred when oil-commodities crashed. It led to worldwide chaos sending millions of people below the poverty line and creating food riots and serious unemployment.

1024px-Reflection_in_a_soap_bubble_edit

Carbon Tax supporter Goldman Sacs and others are responsible for creating and perpetuating financial bubbles. Brocken Inaglory | Alvesgaspar (wikipedia)

Finally, the crash in September 2008 after the bailout of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the sacrifice of Lehman Bros., ( a Goldman competitor) Treasury-Secretary and ex CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson gave the go-ahead to $85 billion bailout of AIG who owed Goldman $13 billion and therefore allowed the company to pay it back. Meanwhile, industry workers’ jobs and small businesses were dying by the dozen ever hopeful for any assistance – which never came.

What did arrive however, was the notorious Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) amounting to $700 billion dollar’s worth of bailout money for the financial industry – namely the banks.

Filled to the brim with ex-Goldman employees surrounding the bailout honeypot like killer bees, Goldman Sachs wanted a piece of it. Thus they managed to do just that by converting themselves from an investment bank to a bank holding company. This permitted access to $10 billion in TARP funds along with an almost infinite Federal Reserve funding, publicly backed but well under the radar. What this means in real terms, is an almost unimaginable level of money was lent or guaranteed by the Federal Reserve by the end March 2009 totalling over $8.7 trillion. The influx of new bailouts and loopholes in the law allowed the Fed to block almost all attempts at congressional auditing so that fiscal details on who received what, when and how remained secret.

More recently, as Europe suffers a depression most intense in Spain, Portugal and Greece we find Goldman’s sticky fingers all over it, most significantly in the country where democracy was born. The company willingly helped Greece conceal its budget deficit by arranging a currency swap so that it could manage $15 billion of bond sales and rack up substantial profits before Greece plunged into chaos. Bill Blain, co-head of fixed income at Matrix Corporate Capital LLP, a London-based broker and fund manager stated: “The price of bonds should reflect the reality of Greece’s finances,” therefore: “If a bank was selling them to investors on the basis of publicly available information, and they were aware that information was incorrect, then investors have been fooled.” [24]

Fooling everyone is the name of game.

In summary, Goldman Sachs is one of many powerful criminal cartels indulging its predatory whims to create the inflation and crash-deflation of four major financial bubbles over several decades. All of these disasters leave a greenback dollar-trail to Goldman and its Rothschild brothers in arms who caused untold misery to millions of people, (mostly pensioners and children) by infiltrating government and bribing spineless members of Congress to fracture society to the point that is almost irreversible. Despite all this, they remain on top while international banking law allows them to secrete their profits away in offshore accounts and claim deductions on the same untaxed income. They are free to start the lucrative financial warfare process again should the next opportunity present itself – and indeed it has.

Goldman Sachs was the leading campaign donor for Barack Obama contributing $981,000. Do we think this is because they liked his smile? Or that he would be the first “black” president? Rather, like so many puppets before him, they knew he’d be compliant having been plucked from obscurity and schooled for the job well in advance. Obama’s White House chief of staff and Zionist Rahm Emanuel whose legacy of funnelling cash contributions from Goldman to the Clinton campaign are well known. First proposed by former a Goldman CEO, Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, he accepted the lead role in overseeing and guiding the ‘$700 billion’ bailout through the White House. Along with Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldman Sachs employees – he was in good company. [25]

By 2010, the Obama Administration was infested with Goldmanites just as it was in Clinton’s day.

logo

Which brings us to the Hamilton Project, a mini version of the Council on Foreign Relations with an emphasis on economics. Funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin and embedded in the Establishment’s own Brookings Institution, the think-tank is named after Alexander Hamilton who famously described people as “a great beast” and supported the imposition of a State bank and centralised government.

Ex Goldman CEO Rubin is the driving force of Hamilton and stringent economic policies that would ultimately benefit Goldman Sachs and CFR principles. According to journalist Eamon Javers: “Behind the scenes, Rubin still wields enormous influence in Barack Obama’s Washington, chatting regularly with a legion of former employees who dominate the ranks of the young administration’s policy team. He speaks regularly to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who once worked for Rubin at Treasury.” [26]

The Hamilton Project is a revolving door for Goldman employees and the US government, with the first four directors of the Hamilton Project serving in the Obama Administration. With a heavy mix of Zionist and Anglo-American Establishment groupies, the think-tank includes co-chair Robert Rubin himself; Carlyle Group CEO David Rubenstein; Sheryl Sandberg Chief Operating Officer, Facebook; ex-Goldmanite and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers; Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman of Global Banking, Citigroup, Inc.; Suzanne Nora Johnson, Former Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Neo-Conservative-transhumanist Peter Thiel and topped off with a heavy sprinkling of Brookings Institute staff and George Town University economics professors. Barack Obama has also given keynote speeches at the Hamilton Project giving his tacit support for both its ideology and policies. [27]

fh4eca65e4Key U.S. Government Positions held by Goldman Sachs alumni. courtesy of prof 77 at ‘Dregs of the Future’ and the post: A List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government–including Elena Kagan

Which means the concrete has set for the foundations of Goldman’s next big casino run: cap-and-trade and carbon credits sold to the public as an on-going environmental strategy complimenting sustainable development and re-wilding. If it takes off, Goldman won’t have to do any rigging – it’s all built into the plan mandated by UN Agenda 21 and Western government push for SMART societies worldwide. Goldman has been lobbying hard for Cap and Trade for years and has poured a lot of money into climate change issues, having already invested $500 million in the Green Growth fund.

Carbon credits represent another trillion dollar bubble for Goldmanites and other corporate predators and they mean to have as big a slice of the pie as they can. As Matt Taibbi observed: “This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.” [28]

And that’s what the eco-economic game is all about.


See also: Goldman Sachs to pay $5 billion for misleading mortgage bond investors

Cool itdocumentary by Bjorn Lomborg

 


Notes

[1] http://www.carboncreditsfaq.com/
[2] http://www.aussieinnovation.com/wiki/Megan_Clark
[3] http://www.csiro.au Simon MKeon bio | ‘Macquarie boss gets CSIRO top job’ ABC News, Jun 21, 2010.
[4] Malcolm Turnbull’s Official Australian Parliament House Biography.
[5] His biography on Equity Capital Limited’s website and his fact page at the Museum of Australian Democracy (PDF), Money Management and Australian National University.
[6] Ross Garnaut: Executive Profile & Biography – Businessweek.
[7] Lazard’s website and China Development Bank’s website.
[8] ‘Carbon tax hecklers stop Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her tracks’ by Mark Kenny, Adelaide Now July 14, 2011.

[9] (http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/repealing-carbon-tax)
[10] ‘Australia introduces controversial carbon tax’ BBC News, 1 July 2012.
[11] http://www.newjersey.watchdog.org/files/2010/09/RGGI-auction-results-thru-9-10.pdf |WesternClimate Initiative -Currently being designed, anticipated to begin January 2012 (as of 1/2011) http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org
[12] Ibid.
[13] ‘Goldman Sachs, MF Global Among Six New Clearing Members of Green Exchange’ By Mathew Carr, Oct 11, 2010 bloomberg.com
[14] ‘JPMorgan’s record fine’ Bloomberg, June 4, 2010. | ‘JPMorgan fined for wash trades in oil, gasoline’ By David Sheppard, Reuters, Jun 1, 2012. |
[15] ‘J.P. Morgan makes billions in profits from food stamps every year’ by Lou Colagiovanni, The Examiner June 21, 2012.
[16] ‘The Great American Bubble’ By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone Magazine July 9-23 2009.
[17] Ibid. (p.54)
[18] Ibid (Taibbi quotes Galbraith from “In Goldman we Trust” (p.54)
[19] Ibid (p.56)
[20] Ibid (p.58)
[21] Ibid. (p.60)
[22] ‘A History of Rigged & Fraudulent Oil Prices (and What It Can Teach Us About Gold & Silver)’ by Lars Schall interview with F. William Engdahl 2011.
[23] Ibid.
[24] ‘Goldman Sachs, Greece Didn’t Disclose Swap Contract’ By Elisa Martinuzzi, Bloomberg, February 17, 2010.
[25] ‘Goldman Sachs Will Be Sitting Pretty With Emanuel in the Obama White House’ Washington Examiner November 20, 2008.
[26] ‘Robert Rubin returns’ By Eamon Javers, Politico, August 4, 2010.
[27] ‘Obama’s “Smoking Gun”: His Hamilton Project Speech shows his links to Goldman, Entitlement Cuts’(Part 1+2) by F. Flambeau . http://www.firedoglake.com/
[28] op. cit.Taibbi (p.101)