May 21st, 2011

CCNet - Scientific ‘Consensus’ Wrong Again

CCNet – 19 May 2011

The Climate Policy Network  

Scientific ‘Consensus’ Wrong Again:

Species Loss Far Less Severe Than Feared

The pace at which humans are driving animal and plant species toward extinction through habitat destruction is at least twice as slow as previously thought, according to a study released Wednesday. Key measures of species loss in the 2005 UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are based on "fundamentally flawed" methods that exaggerate the threat of extinction, the researchers said. --AFP, 18 May 2011

Dire forecasts in the early 1980s said that as many as half of species on Earth would disappear by 2000. "Obviously that didn't happen," Hubbell said. But rather than question the methods, scientists developed a concept called "extinction debt" to explain the gap. --AFP, 18 May 2011

Conversation also touched on Working Group III, and here the minutes reveal an unhealthy desire for big business to get involved in the IPCC process. “KE felt that the private sector was now much more interested in being involved. Industry representatives recently asked the [IPCC’s] WG III secretariat to be involved in the review process for a Special Report on renewables.” Hmm... I wonder what effect their input to the review had. Can anyone remind me if the Special Report on Renewables concluded that renewables were a good thing or not? –-Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 17 May 2011

The Government has inserted a get-out clause in its climate change plan that will allow it to scrap a new emissions target within three years if other European countries fail to take similar action. --Ben Webster, The Times, 18 May 2011

Nobody should fall for Chris Huhne's green spin. It is now absolutely clear that the government's proposed carbon targets are conditional on international agreements and developments. The conditionality of UK targets on future EU targets is a step in the right direction. --Benny Peiser, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 May 2011

The government's claim that no other country has such targets is correct, as no other country wishes to inflict such damage on its business sector and economy. We trust that, in the national interest, no serious attempt will be made by the government to attain these overly aggressive targets. –-Lord Lawson, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 May 2011

Whether it's paralysis, fatigue or an indication of the arrival of "post-climate times," a major National Research Council mid-May report warning about the severe dangers of accumulating greenhouse gas emissions seems to have barely registered as a blip on the Richter scale of environmental urgency. --Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, 18 May 2011

1) Scientific ‘Consensus’ Wrong Again: Species Loss Far Less Severe Than Feared - AFP, 18 May 2011

2) Did Green Industry Lobby Influence IPCC Report? - Bishop Hill, 17 May 2011

3) ‘Get-Out Clause’ Would Let Ministers Scrap Unilateral Emissions Targets - The Times, 18 May 2011

4) GWPF: Conditional Climate Targets Are A Step Back From Blind Unilateralism - The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 May 2011

5) UK Climate Targets To Cost Every Household £500 A Year (.... If They Were Ever Implemented) - Daily Mail, 18 May 2011

6) The Post-Climate Times: Green Scares No Longer Work - SolveClimate News, 18 May 2011

Libyagate: the end is nigh OBLgate: the real reason

2007 - General Wesley Clark explains Libyan invasion planned years in advance
U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.

Libya: What Revolution? Whose Revolution?
[...] “Ultimately, the solution must be a political one,” David Cameron opines with all of the sincerity of a choir boy, and to maintain an air of piety he reminds us, “it must be for the Libyan people themselves to determine their own destiny.” Well, apparently, it is not for them to decide. First of all, many of them have obviously decided to stand with the regime–they form an invisible species in the view from London. Also invisible are those Libyans that the Colonial Coalition will recognize, whose “Interim Transitional National Council” was not invited to participate at the conference. Cameron adds that this self-determined Libyan political solution, “requires bringing together the widest possible coalition of political leaders….including civil society, local leaders and most importantly the Interim Transitional National Council….so that the Libyan people can speak with one voice.” Who will bring them together? Some quickly fashioned TNC that cannot come up with even the basics of a political plan that remotely sound like they have been derived from Libyan realities? And who will bring them together, who are the planners? The actual participants in London’s imperial conference on Libya, besides multilateral institutions such as the UN, NATO and EU, were: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, and the U.S.A. While one can certainly appreciate the urgent and immediate need for Estonia to have a voice on the future of Libya, one has to wonder how anyone could miss the obvious Eurocentricity of the whole affair.
For his part, William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, was unable to come up with any two statements that did not contradict each other. Speaking after the conference, these are the kinds of proclamations Hague made: “We agreed that it is not for any of the participants here today to choose the government of Libya: only the Libyan people can do that”–and yet: “Participants agreed that Qadhafi and his regime have completely lost legitimacy and will be held accountable for their actions.” Participants agreed to that? And they speak with the voice of all Libyan people, in deciding who is legitimate? If the regime had in fact lost as much as is claimed, there would be no regime. “The Libyan people must be free to determine their own future,” then followed by, “Participants recognised the need for all Libyans…”–if it is all up to the Libyans, then there was no need for this “London Conference” of non-Libyans.
In a joint statement with French president Nicolas Sarkozy, before the conference, David Cameron only adds to this comedy: “A lasting solution can only be a political one that belongs to the Libyan people. That is why the political process that will begin tomorrow in London is so important. The London conference will bring the international community together,” so that “the people of Libya can choose their own future.”

Do to Libya what was done to Gaza and Iraq says head of UK army
Faced with a third losing war against a Muslim country in a decade, General Sir David Richards, head of the UK army, says what Libya needs is a dose of "shock and awe".
As predicted by Stop the War, the Nato attack has already gone far beyond a no-fly zone, with the killing of eleven Libyan clerics the latest "collateral damage" caused by Nato bombing raids, of which there have been over 2000 in just two months.
Now, the head of the British army, General Sir David Richards, wants permission to extend the bombing to Libya's infrastructure.
The reason is obvious. Under the guise of "protecting" the Libyan people, the US and its allies are fighting a war for regime change -- which is illegal under international law -- with the ultimate intention of re-asserting western power in the region.

Libya is another neocon war
[...] That agenda fit perfectly with the plans of Washington insiders, such as those who famously spelled out their intentions in the reports of the thinktank called the Project for the New American Century. The fierce Iraqi and Afghan resistance didn't fit at all. Neither did the nonviolent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. But taking over Libya still makes perfect sense in the neoconservative worldview. And it makes sense in explaining war games used by Britain and France to simulate the invasion of a similar country.
The Libyan government controls more of its oil than any other nation on earth, and it is the type of oil that Europe finds easiest to refine. Libya also controls its own finances, leading American author Ellen Brown to point out an interesting fact about those seven countries named by Clark:
"What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland. The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked."
[...] It will also be interesting to see whether Africom, the Pentagon's Africa Command, now based in Europe, establishes its headquarters on the continent for which it is named. We don't know what other motivations are at work: concerns over immigration to Europe? Desires to test weapons? War profiteering? Political calculations? Irrational lust for power? Overcompensation for having failed to turn against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak until after he'd been unseated? But what about this one: actual fear of another Rwanda? That last one seems, frankly, the least likely. But what is certain is that such humanitarian concern alone did not launch this war, and that the continued use of war in this way will not benefit humanity.
The United Nations, far from being made credible, is being made the servant of wealthy nations making war on poor ones. And within the United States, where the United Nations is alternatively held up as a justification or mocked as irrelevant, the power to make war and to make law has been decisively placed in the hands of a series of single individuals who will carry the title "president" – precisely the outcome American revolutionaries broke with Britain in order to avoid.

The Gold Dinar: Saving the world economy from Gaddafi
[...] “It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted,” says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.”
Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.
It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.
A country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.
“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.
“So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power.”
And it has happened before.
In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.
A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs.

Trade unions call for end to war on Libya
[Is that it?]

People not of Libya should go to jail for a very long time over this dirty little war conjured up in the US, they likely won't. But if we are lucky they'll go to jail for something else. Corruption at the highest levels. People like Soros, Clinton, Blair, Bush, Cheyney, Cameron, Obama were hoping they'd be in the ground before this kind of news broke. The fall-out will bring down governments. Libyagate fits in the following somewhere but more details have to be released before I can say where. My suspicion is financing via an offshore fund arranged by Soros and filled with stolen US tax money.

Tom Heneghan reports -
United States of America - It can now be reported that the U.S. Senate Banking Committee has recommended criminal prosecution of the gangster investment bank and brokerage Goldman Sachs, as well as the notorious criminal financial giant J. P. Morgan.
The criminal referrals have been sent to the U. S. Justice Department and now sit on the desk of compromised U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
The criminal referrals not only name Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan but former President George W. Bush aka BushFRAUD, former Bush Administration U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry 'Hank' Paulson, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Speaker of the House Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and last but not least, dysfunctional U.S. Secretary of State and former New York Senator, loser Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Item: Attorney General Holder, who was linked to the pardon of noted Bush-Clinton Crime Family Syndicate bagman Marc Rich, is now in a box with sources close to the New York Post reporting that both Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon are about to be indicted by a New York Federal Grand Jury.
Reference: The indictments deal with a violation of the New York state "bucketing" law which forbids false misrepresentation in the sales marketing of derivatives.
Note: And now the plot now thickens. A great deal of the evidence submitted to the Senate Banking Committee, as well as New York state prosecutors, was supplied to them by none other than the current President of the International Monetary Fund and soon to be French Presidential candidate, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. /continues with much more info (save the page for the grand kids) and then reveals the real reason for OBLgate:

How effing mundane. For money. OBL's death had to be announced to get at $1.5 tril.
We can also divulge that bin Laden received substantial amounts of commissions from the Bush Family and the U. S. government that he helped parlay into billions if not trillions of dollars of personal profits utilizing the heroin trade in Afghanistan.
These funds, parked in CIA proprietary accounts, have been frozen since 9/11 until recently.
What we are suppose to believe here, folks, is that Tim Osman's own CIA Special Operation team staged the death of an ALREADY DEAD Osama bin Laden (laugh out loud).
Note: What we have been treated with by the corporate-controlled, fascist, extortion-friendly U. S. media are pictures of bin Laden watching himself on television and alleged new terrorists on the horizon that are talking to themselves and bin Laden simultaneously.
There is NO picture of the dead bin Laden. And, of course, there is NO body.
Looking at all of these alleged photos of bin Laden with his television set, along with his alleged terrorist comrades, reminds one of being in a local 7-11.
In summation, the New World Order (NWO) elite do not care that the American People and the rest of the world do not believe this bin Laden bullshit.
The actual goal of this PSYOP was financial.
The announcement by the Obama Administration of Osama bin Laden's death, ten (10) years after the fact, occurred simultaneously with the lapse and termination of Osama bin Laden's indemnity clause aka an insurance policy with the U. S. State Department.
Announcing bin Laden's death now after the statute of limitation on the indemnification clause had run its course allowed the U. S. government to UN-freeze TRILLIONS of dollars of U. S. Treasury funds tied to bin Laden and parked in U. S. CIA proprietary accounts that were frozen at the time of 9/11.
These now UN-frozen funds were immediately transferred to the cash call accounts of Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan, who immediately established short positions in COMEX silver futures on the night board of the COMEX electronic trading session.
The massive trade took place at exactly 4:19 p.m. PST a week ago Sunday, May 1st [all Sprint cell phone service was hacked at 4:19 PST].
This was a full five hours before the Obama Administration was to announce the death of Osama bin Laden.
This financial psyop accommodated J. P. Morgan, which faced financial decapitation based on its inability to make delivery on countless short positions in silver that were not backed by silver but by paper derivatives.
It is no coincidence that at 4:19 p.m. PST one week ago the price of silver dropped $5 in less than 40 seconds.

Britain’s Largest Terror Attack Likely “Mossad/MI-5″ Operation
Anthony John Hill, “Maud dib” Found Not Guilty for Exposing 7/7 “Inside Job”
On July 7, 2005, Britain suffered its largest terror attack, what they call “7/7,” their “9/11.”  However, a wealth of evidence, much incontrovertible, has shown these terror attacks to have been something else, “false flag” terror meant to support the Blair government’s policy of continuing and even expand its participation in the “Global War on Terror.”
The 4 Muslim “suicide bombers” once believed responsible for the incident are now believed to have been recruited as part of a well documented mock terror drill scheduled for that day that included 1000 participants, some of them paid actors hired to carry dummy explosives.