Shorebreak
Active Member
- Sep 25, 2009
- 395
- 102
- 28
Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus.
So far, there are two predominant camps. The first camp are those who strongly claim that climate change is heavily impacted by man, who are promoted by corporate media and in alignment with the policy makers and globalist corporations who want to impose taxes and strict manufacturing controls at a global level, under their authority.
The second camp is the scientists, leaders, and manufacturers who are not aligned with corporate media or globalists. They are very much larger than the first camp, but they are cast as a dissenting view by media rather than the predominant view. For example, there is a document that is signed by 30,000 scientists who have stated unequivocably that they find no evidence suggesting that human activity has a significant impact on climate change.
When you wade through all of the muck, there are a few key items that stand out:
1. The most indepth support for global action on climate change is coming from globalist entities, such as the UN.
2. All efforts surrounding control of emmissions are centered around generating tax revenue and establishing manufacturing controls and limits - to be decided by globalist entities.
3. Support for these efforts comes primarily from corporate sponsorships (e.g. research funding at prominant universities and research facilities), from governments who are aligned with socialist global unification (the US, UK, France, China, etc), and from corporate sponsored media.
4. Opposed to man-made climate change is briefly highlighted by media but not focused upon. For example, corporate globalist media networks such as the Discovery Channel and National Geographic have been airing programming for many years that treats man-made climate change as a fact without ever presenting a challenging opinion. In addition, many of the programs that are not focused on climate change will include script that adds climate change comments into the narration, as though it is a reality.
My comment for those who believe that man-made climate change is a reality is to be certain that you are entering into this thing with your eyes wide open. There is no cost or Kw equivalent alternative to coal energy today. Neither is there an equivalent to most of the other fossil-fuel driven manufacturing processes that are used to sustain our societal infrastructure, ranging from food production, electricity production, household goods, electronics, and transportation infrastructure.
What you are demanding, without scientific concensus, is global legislation (with authority over domestic laws granted to a corporate controlled global entity) that will not only decimate the US capacity to support our current population, but will also add a significant levy to those operations that remain in production. On top of that, you are demanding that domestic manufacturers who can afford to relocate overseas close up shop and head to other nations with minimal restriction on manufacturing.
And I'm only scratching the surface with the impact. Is that what we really want?
And here's my comment for those who DON'T believe in man-made climate change: Go back and read my last two full paragraphs. That's what we're facing. This WILL be crammed down our throats, whether we want it or not. The White House has already ordered the EPA to send out the CO2 directive. My advice is to prepare now for a worst-case scenario (it's better to be prepared and have nothing happen than to not be prepared at all) as manufacturing is turned down and the economy is minimized. My wife and I are studying the lessons learned by the Argentinian collapse, whose lead-up almost fits the profile for our current circumstances in the US.
I found your post both interesting and informative - thank you.
I'm a huge advocate for a rational and cogent response to the challenges that corporate globalism places in front of us as a nation. For example, I was a keynote speaker last month at an event in my State capital that was attended by leaders in both industry and government. My presentation was essentially a call to action to both prepare to meet the expected challenges by preparing on the manufacturing floor and in the business office, but also to prepare to use science and technology to challenge legislative activity that negatively impacts local economies.
This week I'm attending two similar events - one to promote regional manufacturing, and one to explore a collaborative manufacturing opportunity with a potential regional partner. A mutual relationship will enable both of us to expand our services and capabalities without requiring organic growth - and the overhead that often comes along with it.
My approach is very simple. The science is not "in" on climate change, yet we're facing potentially insurmountable obstacles if legeslative activity - including Cap and Trade - is moved forward. My message is that we need to be prepared for this. At the same time, we need to be aligned in our response that the legislation is NOT supported by scientific concensus, and that the negative economic and societal impact of the proposed legislation will be catostrophic over the next 20 years, with the potential to devastate the economic foundation of the entire country.
I had a discussion last week with the COO of a nearby corporation who was in 100% agreement with me. the outcome of the conversation was a decision to explore a regional round-table for local businesses who need to actively communicate with government over the potential impact of forthcoming legislation. Not a lobby group, but a group of concenred businesses who recognize the potential for a complete loss of our economic foundation.