Last week the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers. Some emails from the last 10 or 20 years were stolen. Apparently, and this is NOT confirmed, the emails show some evidence of foul play on the part of climate change scientists. Since it is unconfirmed I will not talk about how the emails show scientists try to lock out anybody who disagrees with their point of view and keep dissenting opinion papers out of main stream scientific journals.
Instead let's follow the money. Who benefits from "Cap and Trade" legislation? Could it be - Wall St? Could it be Al Gore? Could it be anyone from Goldman-Sachs? Yes, yes and yes! Al Gore is co-founder of Generation Investment Management. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood. This is the company that will sell carbon offsets to rich polluters under the Cap and Trade (ponzi) scheme. Then Wall St. will create derivatives and options markets and make billions if not trillions if and when this thing goes world wide. Who pays for it? The people who use electricity (you and me) generated by power plants that use some type of fossil fuel that creates carbon emissions, such as oil and coal, pay for it.
Now please understand, I am all for reducing pollution of all kinds, getting off fossil fuels, recycling and so forth. What I am against is taxing the many for the benefit of the few. In this case we have Wall St. with perhaps it's first direct tax. Kind of scary when you think about it. All of the money that power companies will have to pay for carbon offsets will come from the end users (you and me) and then go through Blood and Gore's (got a nice ring to it) company. Then Wall St. gets to create an entire derivatives market based solely on trading of said offsets, which will easily be a multi-trillion dollar market, again without any underlying assets. So how does this benefit the climate again? Not at all really. It's all about the money. The climate is just an excuse to move money from the many to the few.
If you really want to reduce carbon emissions just mass produce one of the power generators that uses zero-point energy like this one and forget all this nonsense.
Comments
That machine sounds like the Robert Adams motor - a free energy electrical generator. There's also the N-machine which the US govt has known of since the 1980s. After spending $2 billion in research on the homopolar generator (of which the N-machine is one type) the US Navy upgraded all surface battle combatants by 1992 to the "integrated electric drive". The next generation coming out now use all electric systems - no nuclear or diesel - just electrical generators.
Over 200 patents applications on the N-machine alone have been classified under the Inventions Secrecy Act. So, after all the wars on oil and AGW the answer was right there but suppressed.
And, yes the laws of physics will have to be changed. Energy is not conserved and has no equivalence in different forms. The conversion rate is entirely dependent on the method of conversion. Since there is no set conversion rate, energy can be created or destroyed - it is not in a fixed quantity in the Universe.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!