- and held captive in the Sahara for 130 days....
News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
And Hillary Clinton herself said she was sick and tired of people who say Americans shouldn't have a right to protest.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
- Margaret Collins of Bloomberg was interviewed by John Batchelor on 3/24 regarding her report about computerized medical record theft. In response to his question, she replied that her sources told her the massive financial losses were being perpetrated by organized crime at a sophisticated level. This should have been the focus of her report, of any report, and that it's only going to increase. GE, Google, and Microsoft are involved. And no one cares.
- Computerized medical records are compromised frequently in the US as it is. No computer anywhere is completely secure, so why not? This just adds the random access of public service slackers having access. It's how public sector businesses are managed-no consequences for failure.
- Big Brother Watch, who based the figure on 151 responses from trusts, said it demonstrated "slack security".
The group says hospital domestics, porters, and IT staff are among those with access to records in some trusts.
- The Department of Health says the report muddles paper files and the newer electronic systems for which access will be strictly controlled.
Big Brother Watch asked every NHS Trust in the UK for the number of their non-medical staff who had access to confidential patient records.
- Access was defined as being able to see at least a patient's full name, date of birth and most
- recent medical history. No distinction was made between paper and electronic files.
- The responses showed that 101,272 non-medical staff had access to records. This was an average of 732 in each trust.
Of the 194 trusts in the UK, 43 did not disclose any information or provide enough detail to be included in these figures.
Big Brother Watch says this demonstrates "slack security and monitoring around those with access to patient medical histories".
Its director, Alex Deane, said: "The number of non-medical personnel with access to confidential medical records leaves the system wide open for abuse.
- "Whilst Big Brother Watch has considered emergency, necessity and practicality concerns, we believe it is necessary to drastically reduce the number of people with access to medical records to prevent the high rate of data loss experienced by the NHS."
The government is currently rolling out a medical records database for patients in England. It hopes to have 50 million records on the system by 2014.
A Department of Health spokesman said the report was "confused" and had muddled paper files, which potentially allow any member of staff to see confidential information, and new electronic systems which strictly control access to those directly involved in a patient's healthcare.
- "We have set clear standards for NHS organisations to adhere to on data handling, and have issued guidance that sets out the steps they must take to ensure records are kept secure and confidential," the spokesman said.
"With the modernisation of NHS IT, access to electronic records is controlled by smartcards which allows all access to be tracked and audited so that, unlike paper files,
- any abuse can be traced and dealt with." (They don't say abuse can't happen. Also, if as in the US organized crime is involved, it is often untraceable). ed
(continuing, BBC): "When managed properly, it is not possible for an unauthorised member of staff to see clinical information."
- The Information Commissioner's Office said it was vital that medical records remained private and that information was kept secure, accurate and up-to-date....
He said the report failed to recognise that many people who work behind the scenes, like medical secretaries, pharmacy workers and clerical workers in areas of bed management need access to patient records in order to run the hospital....
- Big Brother Watch is a group which campaigns on privacy issues and was set up by the founders of the TaxPayers' Alliance."
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Corrosive passivity ...
- is an existential threat to a functioning society."...
Monday, March 22, 2010
- Compared to US national security, tax scam wind farms are more important to preserve. The government will think about forming a committee to consider how to protect wind farms from adverse effects from US radar systems.
- disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies,
- a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country.
A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects to prevent them from being built
- where they will interfere with radar defenses.
Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, head of U.S. Northern Command, said a number of projects raise "real concerns" involving radar interference, and he suggested that requiring companies to do early checks during the approval process for such obstruction
- may be needed."....(MAY be needed? ed.)
- "While we must find new ways to meet our energy security needs, we must not compromise our national security.""... (Really?) ed.
(continuing AP): "While the radar interference issue is not new, it has become a bigger problem as more wind projects move through the permit process.
- Industry leaders and "....(Wind industry "leaders?" ed)
(continuing): "the Energy Department have said that wind power
provide as much as 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030.
Last month, Pentagon officials raised the issue with Congress, saying that they are devoting a lot of time and effort to the growing challenge of ensuring that energy projects don't conflict with military requirements.
- "The current process for reviewing proposals and handling disputes is opaque, time-consuming and ad hoc," said Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment.
The Federal Aviation Administration reviews wind farm projects, looking at any interference with air navigation or radar systems. But while the FAA can flag problems during its review of a project,
- it cannot force a change or prevent a wind farm from being approved if a change is not made.
Its recommendations, however, can sometimes affect a local zoning or other approval process.
- Renuart and others say a more coordinated, interagency process is needed to better evaluate proposals.
It is difficult to say how many projects are tied up over the radar issue, but industry executives in a 2009 survey said that more than a dozen had been stalled, according to Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association.
- Jodziewicz said that projects totaling 10,000 megawatts of wind power were built in the U.S. last year, while projects involving another 10,000 megawatts were stalled by the radar issue. Projects vary in size and can include any number of turbines, but one turbine can generate between 1.5-3 megawatts of power in an hour at higher wind speeds."...
- (When they're not rusted over and broken down) ed.
(continuing): "The industry, Jodziewicz said, wants to work with federal agencies and officials are getting closer to finding a process that works. She conceded, however, that
- bringing everyone together can be a challenge.
In other cases the problem can be solved by shifting the configuration of the wind farm.
Renuart said the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which he also heads, is putting together a
- radar obstruction evaluation team "...
- (Another blue ribbon panel to delay the obvious. ed)
(continuing) "to determine the impacts of proposed wind energy projects in close proximity to our radars.
- The Pentagon released a report in 2006 detailing the concerns with the wind farms, and said the Defense Department is developing other ways to deal with the problem, including technology improvements to the radar systems."
AP report by Lolita Baldor via ABC News, 3/18/10, "Wind Farm Plans Stir up Storm over Military Radar," via Tom Nelson
Saturday, March 20, 2010
- Crowds today against the so-called health care bill, 3/20/10
- from the speakers lobby in DC via Rep. Patrick McHenry via
- Michelle Malkin. This is merely a massive tax increase on the
- already dead middle class. So called health care doesn't even begin for several years after the money is robbed from us, Ponzi style.
With 100 acts in eight cities projected to reach an estimated 2 billion people via television, radio and the Internet, it's easily the planet's biggest show to date and history's most ambitious benefit event, eclipsing 1985's Live Aid and 2005's Live 8.
Again, the lures are superstars, from Madonna, Kanye West, John Mayer and Keith Urban to the newly reunited Genesis, The Police, Smashing Pumpkins, Crowded House and Spinal Tap. As a live-music smorgasbord and couch-potato distraction, the event is shaping up as gonzo entertainment.
But will it all really help make the environment better? That's tough to say. Even Live Earth's goal of boosting environmental activism could be difficult to measure. After four decades in which music benefits have multiplied, diversified and become global showcases for rising and established stars, there is some skepticism in the entertainment industry about such things — notably from Live Aid impresario Bob Geldof, who has dismissed Live Earth as a hollow spectacle.
Other mega-benefits had clearer missions and barometers: Live Aid raised $245 million to feed starving Africans; a 1992 tribute to Queen singer Freddie Mercury drew $40 million for AIDS research; the 2001 Concert for New York City took in $35 million for 9/11 victims' families.
But like Live 8, a musical blowout that helped persuade world leaders to forgive Third World debts, Live Earth's agenda is unwieldy. And it won't be clear by Sunday morning whether Live Earth will represent the birth of a more inspired ecological movement, as organizers hope.
The old definition of green — money — isn't the critical yardstick for success this time around, organizers and skeptics agree. Net proceeds for Live Earth will go to the Gore-founded Alliance for Climate Protection, a coalition of non-profits that aims to educate the public and petition lawmakers and corporations for eco-friendly changes.
"We spent 150 years creating a problem, and one concert won't solve it," says executive producer Kevin Wall, who envisions Live Earth as "an accelerator" to mobilize those who are perhaps aware of global warming but unsure how to act. "This is a launch. It's about the simple things we all can do and about people saying to the government, 'No more excuses.' "
Wall, who was inspired to put on Live Earth after seeing Gore's Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, predicts viewers will feel empowered by the event's communal vibe and suggestions for living a "green" life that encourages recycling, saving energy and limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, which has been linked to global warming.
"This is music with a lot of scientists," Wall says. "You're going to be asked to join us, to go online, where you'll see carbon calculators, pledges you can make and seemingly small changes that take you from awareness to action. People will start to talk green, buy green and vote green."
Why muddle the message with music?
Says Gore: "Music is a universal language that can reach people in ways that no other medium can." ...
Live Aid stood as the breed'sbiggest until Live 8's free shows, staged to pressure G-8 Summit leaders to cancel the debts of poor nations. Now Live Earth looms as the new giant.
It's only fitting, Wall says. "Those were about the haves and the have-nots. Live Earth touches all of us. We all breathe the same air."
Like Geldof, some in the music industry haven't been that charitable toward Live Earth.
The green giant has become an easy target for entertainers such as Roger Daltrey of The Who, who told London's The Sun last month: "We have problems with global warming, but I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help."
On the music news website NME.com, Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys confessed to feeling "uneasy" about Live Earth and "the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don't. It looks arrogant."
Singer James Blunt, who is scheduled to play Live Earth's London stage, sees no such role for himself: "I'm in the exact same position as the rest of us, really: learning to change the way we behave and go about our consumption of resources. That's what I'm most excited about, that we'll just be able to learn a little bit, all of us."
Madonna, who headlines the London show and donated the event's theme song, Hey You, has come under fire for leaving a huge carbon footprint with her last tour, which ferried a crew of 100 around the globe in private planes, commercial jets and gas-guzzling vehicles.
But artists, who are performing free, were not selected according to their environmental report cards, Wall says.
"We want them to change going forward," he says. "We have some who are long-term environmentalists, like Jack Johnson, The Police and Dave Matthews. And some are thinking about their carbon footprint for the first time. We're happy to have them all."
As for the event's thick showbiz gloss, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't mind being used as bait to draw fans to Giants Stadium.
"If we, the artistic community, can draw enough media attention to the events, the experts will have their platform to speak," he says.
Singer KT Tunstall, also on the New Jersey roster, has seen little defeatism in music's ranks regarding Live Earth's aims. "The fact that Live Earth is purely awareness-raising removes a lot of the cynicism from such a huge event," she says.
The Red Hot Chili Peppers, who adjusted their summer schedule after Gore personally extended a Live Earth invitation at the Grammys in February, say they found the cause emotionally compelling.
"Have you ever seen a mother polar bear drowning while trying to feed her cubs?" says singer Anthony Kiedis, referring to melting ice in the bears' habitat. "Too sad to ignore."
And though bassist Flea has modest expectations ("If we make one more person conscious to take steps to preserve our planet, then we have done something important"), others are aiming beyond individual lifestyle changes.
Dave Matthews hopes to rally masses to pressure governments worldwide.
"The real power is in the hands of those that decide what is criminal and what is not," he says.
He's optimistic that Saturday's party can lead to change, but "obviously, a single concert is not going to directly affect anything, other than to raise the voice of urgency. People have been fighting for this same cause for decades. It's just that the army is growing."
Live Earth's chorus of support doesn't include benefit concert patriarch Geldof, who calls the event pointless.
Wall points to a seven-point Live Earth pledge unveiled last week, urging signers to plant trees, reduce carbon dioxide output and pressure nations to adopt eco-friendly treaties. Live Earth plans to lead by example.
"The concerts themselves are designed to be green, and some real groundbreaking innovations are being employed," says Gore, such as using biodiesel fuel and minimizing waste. "As awareness increases, I think you're going to see people in all walks of life adopt these practices."
Geldof will eat his words, predicts writer/producer Martin Lewis, who co-created the Secret Policeman Ball and helped conceive the Human Rights Now! Tour.
He begged Geldof to play an early Policeman gig, and "Bob spent half an hour arguing that there's no reason to do charity concerts," Lewis recalls.
"After he saw what could be done, he changed his tune," Lewis says. "Beneath that nonchalant punk beats this huge hippie heart."
Detractors don't surprise Lewis.
"It's exceptionally easy to be cynical," he says. But "I hate this phrase 'benefit fatigue.' Do we stop having charity shows because it's been done before? When performers use their wealth and fame for a good cause, it's to be applauded.""...
by Elysa Gardner, "Big Show, big impact? Live Earth hopes so"
Thursday, March 18, 2010
BOYCOTT AIRBUS--it now wears UN logo for global carbon scheme~under the guise of compassion for the planet
Update, 3/25/10: Harbinger Capital Hedge Fund (part owner of the NY Times) was listed on the CCX website as a "Liquidity Provider" as recently as March 18, 2010 when I linked to CCX's site on this post. Checking today, Harbinger has disappeared from the list. I've found no news stories about this. I have found
- Harbinger's name today as an "institutional shareholder" of another carbon trading company, (Climate Exchange plc) so they're still obviously in the business. ed.
- unaccountable grifters at the United Nations, brutal equatorial dictators, and other hedge fund thugs.
- Well, no. It's an aircraft manufacturer, actually. The world's largest aircraft manufacturer: Airbus Industries. The European company that is doing more than anyone else, Boeing included, to increase the number of flights we take, and thus the airline industry's contribution to climate change.
During 2010, the logo will appear on the side of Airbus's latest airliner, the A380, on scheduled services with the world's airlines. The largest passenger aircraft is specially designed for those long-haul flights across oceans and from Europe to the far east, where a single flight
- can more than double your annual CO2 emissions.
- Airbus has won this green accolade by dint of hard cash. Airbus is helping fund a cherished project of the secretariat of the UN Convention on Biodiversity to educate young people across the world about the virtues of biodiversity, called the Green Wave Initiative. Airbus did not respond to questions from the Guardian about how much money is involved in the partnership, but the UN Environment Programme has described it as a "huge gesture of support"."....
from Guardian UK, "Airbus gets a crafty upgrade by flying the flag for biodiversity," 3/18/10 by Fred Pearce, photo ap from Guardian
- via Tom Nelson
~~I suggest boycotting any company that aligns with the United Nations. Since the United States has no one to protect its citizens, citizens must do it themselves. ed. ******
- "So who will win in this battle to monetize the carbon?
- While science was killed as an innocent bystander, the
- UN with its desire for funding
- via international taxation vies with exchange corporations who want a piece of the
- new $300 billion market. (See also: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CarbonMonetization.htm)"
Saturday, March 13, 2010
- has given Senate critics fresh ammunition." 2/21/10
- 1. Himalayas claim was made for political reasons, 1/23/10
- purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
- did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it,
- it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
- 2. UN Disasters, hurricanes and floods claims now admitted never published., Basis for demands of billions. 1/24/10
- UK Times: "The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
- When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
- 3. Glaciologists say many errors in IPCC report, used WWF, said couldn't complain against power of UN, 1/22/10
- 4. BBC 12/5/09 report Himalaya mistake told to Pachauri. Neither BBC nor Pachauri made this known to Copenhagen summit.
- 5. Original UN Climate report graph 1990 shows previous global warming ('medieval warming period')and the climategate group set out to destroy it. It is still almost unknown to the public. Followed by UN Hockey Stick graph which was later disproved though the media has not publicized this fact. The Hockey Stick graph was used by Lehman Brothers to lead its massive global warming sales pitch declaring(Feb. 2007) it proved catastrophic man made global warming. Lehman made huge investments in carbon endangerment but soon thereafter went bankrupt.
from Canada Free Press: "The first public exposure was dubbed the Chapter 8 scandal and involved Benjamin Santer. He was lead author of that chapter and rewrote portions without consulting other authors. As Lord Monckton explains,
“In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature — I’ve seen a copy of this — Santer went through, crossed out all of those, and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.”
Santer originally denied the accusations and said his actions were covered by the rules that required the Scientific Report agree with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). It was an early measure of the way the CRU people used the rules to control the results. They even stared down a senior US scientist Dr Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences over the issue. "...
- 6. The cost has already been enormous, aside from what was planned for our future.
"The CRU is the IPCC. Their work has cost the world an enormous amount of grief, conflict and money. It is time to total the massive amounts of money given to narrowly directed research; the cost of the impact on energy policy and economies; the lost jobs and opportunities from industries forced out of business; the unnecessary subsidies to research and businesses chasing unworkable alternate energies; the taxes and legislative restrictions on businesses and other activities. ...Their deception
has set world progress back at massive cost and it is time they are all held accountable. "..."IPCC and CRU are the same corrupt organization," by Dr. Tim Ball, 2/8/10
- 7. Sea levels are not rising, formal retraction made in prestigious journal Nature Geoscience. Published data in 2009 that confirmed what UN 2007 report had said. In Feb. 2010, was retracted. Prince Charles has long publicized rising sea levels. Billions have been promised (and some already spent) in anticipation of it. Politicians and others have yelled this lie from the rooftop for years. Seized by profiteers and media and promoted in catastrophic images. Debunked authoritatively but rarely if ever mentioned in US media.
- 8.Amazon rainforest claim made in UN report disproved by NASA, including an IPCC member, and find yet again the UN based its claim on WWF not scientifically peer reviewed material. written by a freelance journalist. Anyone who even proofread the 2007 Nobel document would have seen this gross error.
- On the UN Climate Panel whitewash review:
- the accounts at Enron"...
- it is not only a whitewash but one in which the paint is spread so thinly as to be transparent.
First, who appointed this review body?
- Those two iconic standard bearers of climate science objectivity, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC head (still!)
- Rajendra Pachauri.
There is nothing like being judge in your own cause – it secures a less damaging verdict. Ban Ki-moon is the clown who, on a visit to the Arctic last September, despairingly proclaimed that “100 billion tons” of polar ice were melting each year, when the sea-ice around him had just extended itself by half a million square kilometres more than at the same time the previous year. Pachauri, among many other solecisms, is also the buffoon who denounced criticism of the IPCC’s absurd claims about melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”.
Then there is the review’s terms of reference. It has four remits: to analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN agencies; to review use of non-peer reviewed sources and data quality control; to assess how procedures handle “the full range of scientific views; and to review IPCC communications with the public and the media.
- So, most of its activity will relate to reorganisation of the IPCC’s
- propaganda operation and how it can be beefed up.
Nowhere are there proposals for it to revisit, in depth, the IPCC’s 3,000-page 2007 report and repudiate the vast range of inaccuracies and downright fabrications it contains.
- Instead, the review panel has to report by August so that its meaningless conclusions on a variety of irrelevant issues can be used to sanitise the IPCC’s next report, to be prepared at a meeting in October.
As for the personnel, the review will be conducted by the Inter-Academy Council and headed by its co-chairman Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, who recently broadcast on Dutch radio a complacent statement about the “consensus” on climate science. The Inter-Academy Council is a representative body for a number of national academies of science, most of which are committed to the climate change cause.
So, a very obvious whitewash and presumably very satisfactory to the IPCC camp.
- Nevertheless, I repeat, it is probably the most serious mistake the AGW fanatics have so far made.
- This is because they have seriously underestimated the amount of trouble they are in. Any competent political spin doctor
- (and the AGW scam is pure politics, not science)
would have told them that, as things stand in 2010, they had one last chance – and only one chance – to salvage their bogus crusade.
That was to allow a genuinely independent investigation, including highly qualified sceptics, to analyse the 2007 report and expose all its fallacies – which are already in the public domain in any case. They could then have apologised, sacked Pachauri (which they will probably do anyway) and prepared an equally mendacious but more sophisticated report, jettisoning the more extravagant scare-mongering for the time being, and so clawed back wavering support among the public.
Instead, they have opted for a very obvious whitewash, discredited from the day of its launch, that will provoke hilarity and increased scepticism when it reports. After that, there will be no road back. We should be grateful that the arrogance and over-confidence engendered by their longstanding immunity from challenge (but not any more) prompted the AGW fraudsters to create so inadequate a smokescreen.
This investigation is very good news for sceptics – not because it will denounce any significant flaws in the AGW imposture, but because it will not. AGW credulity is already a minority faith; but there is a further constituency of waverers, ready to break off like a melting iceberg from the main floe, whose final defection will mean the AGW movement is deprived of critical mass.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Under the guise of tolerance and compassion, Tom Brady buys and sells the 'turn off your lights for an hour' talking point. Similar to GE/NBC global warming profiteer broadcasting from a darkened studio. More in the incessant campaign to dispirit and misinform the middle class of America with the greatest crime against humanity in history.
via Planet Gore via Tom Nelson
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Disgraced UN climate guru admits his US climate boutique spent $263,170 to hondle policy makers. He personally urged US to declare CO2 a danger
- A 12/22/09 press release from Pachauri's company admits key allegations from Telegraph UK report, references below:
- TERI-NA which has been mentioned specifically is a modest operation. It received financial support of
- US$ 263,170 in 2009
- for an event organized
- in Washington DC on October 1, 2009, which was attended by around 300 participants
- including very senior policymakers from both the US and India....
- he has only emphasized what the Supreme Court of the United States has given
- the EPA authority to do."...
- (Note the title does not say "False Statements," rendering this a "non-denial denial") ed.****
- US Environmental Protection Agency that it must go ahead with regulating US carbon emissions
- without waiting for Congress to pass its cap and trade bill."...
- Conveniently sited on Pennsylvania Avenue, midway between the White House and the Capitol, this body unashamedly sets out its stall as a lobbying organisation, to “sensitise decision-makers in North America to developing countries’ concerns about energy and the environment”.
TERI-NA is funded by a galaxy of official and corporate sponsors, including
- four branches of the UN bureaucracy;
- four US government agencies;
- oil giants such as Amoco; two of the leading US defence contractors; Monsanto, the world’s largest GM producer;
- the WWF (the environmentalist campaigning group which derives much of its own funding from the EU)
and two world leaders in the international ‘carbon market’, between them managing more than $1 trillion (£620 billion) worth of assets."...
- from Telegraph UK article, 12/20/09 by Christopher Booker, "Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr. Rajendra Pachauri"
Friday, March 5, 2010
- Mitt Romney laughing in 2006, signs Massachusetts so-called health bill. Looking on thrilled are Ted Kennedy and ecstatic convicted felon Sal DiMasi, then House Speaker, now in prison. photo via Free Republic, via Howie Carr.
- Man made global warming is a fake drama disguising the most heinous crime against humanity in history. Romney supports it. Thinking he'll fool the average person, he says he doesn't favor a carbon tax. Big deal, that's just another brick in the wall.
- What is needed is someone to rip up all the green taxes and scams already built into every facet of our lives and stop the whole thing dead. This crime has been growing unfettered for 30 years. Romney was one of many in a position to stop this crime and did not do so.
"I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.""...
from Washington Independent, 3/5/10 by David Weigel, "Climate Change is Occurring" via Tom Nelson **************
Lawrence Solomon, 5/30/09: "The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry.
- Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry, often unknowingly, through the hidden surcharges on their food bills, their gas and electricity rates, their gasoline purchases, their automobiles, their garbage collection,
- their insurance, their computers purchases, their hotels, their purchases of just about every good and service, in fact, and finally, their taxes to governments at all levels.
These extractions do not happen by accident. Every penny that leaves the hands of consumers does so by design, the final step
- in elaborate and often brilliant orchestrations of public policy, all the more brilliant because the public, for the most part, does not know who is profiteering on climate change,
- or who is aiding and abetting the profiteers.
- ► 2017 (512)
- ► 2016 (1320)
- ► 2015 (661)
- ► 2014 (456)
- ► 2013 (550)
- ► 2012 (611)
- ► 2011 (487)
- 'We will not prevail in Afghanistan'
- Mass violence and hate speech against George Bush,...
- Organized crime involved in thefts of computerized...
- 'Americans voted for socialism when they voted for...
- Passivity threatens a functioning society
- Death by wind farm --it's as good a way to go as a...
- Kill the health care bill
- Al Gore Live Earth global warming concert, We are ...
- BOYCOTT AIRBUS--it now wears UN logo for global ca...
- 8 climate scandals with criminal implications, NY ...
- UN Climate review like Ken Lay investigating Enron...
- Global Warming enhances celebrity aura with Patrio...
- Disgraced UN climate guru admits his US climate bo...
- Keep Laughing Romney. You are a joke.
- ▼ March (14)
- ► 2009 (33)