For decades mainstream media has been completely ignoring the vast majority of environmental destruction around the world, including the Amazon Rain-forest which they recently provided obsession coverage for a few days before dropping it almost as quick as the suddenly took notice. A small amount of the obsession coverage might have been exaggeration or hype, as they usually present what ever they're obsessing over ant any given time; however, the vast majority of it was underestimating the threat to the environment and the survival of the planet especially when you consider how many other environmental disasters are going on at the same time around the world without any coverage.
This is part of a major pattern of behavior which has been repeating itself for decades, including when Saddam Hussein set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire, as few years after that there were stories about how smog was so bad in China that they had to wear face-masks and many other environmental disasters around the world, most receiving far less coverage than these did, even though they only received coverage for brief amounts of time. After the coverage from mainstream media stops the problems aren't typically solved; for example, there's still plenty of stories about how they still have to wear face-masks in China because the pollution is so bad.
Yet, long after these stories fall down the memory hole the mainstream media never seems to stop selling an enormous amount of propaganda ads to make the oil companies or other corporations seem like they're the leading protectors of the environment, despite regular disasters that they cause!
The obvious explanation for this seems to be an incredible amount of greed and fanaticism on the part of the wealthy oligarchs that control the corporate sector; and, it's difficult if not impossible to imagine how this can't be a major part of the explanation, if not the whole thing. the vast majority of environmental damage has been in the backyards of the poorest and those with least amount of political power, supporting this explanation and in many cases where they admit they're doing this intentionally, or come close to it, including a famous one where Lawrence Summers wrote "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that." The Summers Memo December 12, 1991 And another example when Carl-Henric Svanberg, a BP executive, said "We Care about small people," after showing that they clearly didn't and before coming up with a massive propaganda campaign to clean up their image, while simultaneously fighting to minimize payments for their disaster.
In both cases the Democratic Party, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama came to their defense trying to help clean up their reputation and after a modest amount of coverage the mainstream media let these stories fall down the memory hole like the majority of environmental disasters.
However there's been plenty of research going back decades showing that they have to know they're in the process of destroying the plenty, and they have to know that even they will pay the price when it goes beyond their control.
What can they be thinking?
Those that study the environment have known, for decades, that we've been in the process of destroying the planet since the industrial revolution began, if not much sooner. Richard Leakey explained how we're already undergoing what he calls the "The Sixth Extinction" in the history of the planet as he begins to describe in the following excerpt:
Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin "The Sixth Extinction" 1995
For as much as a billion years, the Earth's atmosphere has been maintained with high levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide, at first as a result solely of photosynthetic organisms in the oceans and later of similarly functioning organisms on land. Moisture circulates through the same terrestrial agency; for instance, in its lifetime, a single rainforest tree pumps almost three million gallons of moisture from the soil to the air. Rainfall patterns in the rest of the globe depend on this continued process in myriad trees around the equator. the forests are the planet's lungs. trees -- whether tropical or temperate -- don't live in isolation, however. Researchers in Denmark recently counted some forty-six thousand small earthworms and their relatives, twelve million roundworms, and forty-six thousand insects under just one square meter of forest floor in their country. One gram of that same soil contained more than a million bacteria of one type, 100,000 yeast cells, and 50,000 fragments of fungus.
These numbers cheat ready comprehension, but the numbers themselves are not what is important. We see in them not just a riotous profusion of different life forms, but a rich pattern of interaction, a living network that is the ecosystem. Toward the end of The Origin of Species Charles Darwin conjured up a graphic image of this interconnection as a product of evolution: "It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by the laws acting around us."7
An example of this interaction came as a significant surprise when, not very long ago, biologists realized that the ubiquitous subsoil fungi were essential for the daily survival of higher plants. Countless fungal filaments are in close symbiosis with plant roots, making essential minerals available, without which the plants would perish. In every local ecosystem around the world, microorganisms, higher plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates coexist with labyrinthine interdependence, partners in creating and sustaining the physical environment of atmospheric gases and soil composition and chemicals. Individual ecosystems work as integrated wholes, not as species in the company of but isolated from other species. Homo sapiens is one unit in that pattern of interdependence. Additional excerpts
For as much as a billion years, the Earth's atmosphere has been maintained with high levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide, at first as a result solely of photosynthetic organisms in the oceans and later of similarly functioning organisms on land. Moisture circulates through the same terrestrial agency; for instance, in its lifetime, a single rainforest tree pumps almost three million gallons of moisture from the soil to the air. Rainfall patterns in the rest of the globe depend on this continued process in myriad trees around the equator. the forests are the planet's lungs. trees -- whether tropical or temperate -- don't live in isolation, however. Researchers in Denmark recently counted some forty-six thousand small earthworms and their relatives, twelve million roundworms, and forty-six thousand insects under just one square meter of forest floor in their country. One gram of that same soil contained more than a million bacteria of one type, 100,000 yeast cells, and 50,000 fragments of fungus.
These numbers cheat ready comprehension, but the numbers themselves are not what is important. We see in them not just a riotous profusion of different life forms, but a rich pattern of interaction, a living network that is the ecosystem. Toward the end of The Origin of Species Charles Darwin conjured up a graphic image of this interconnection as a product of evolution: "It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by the laws acting around us."7
An example of this interaction came as a significant surprise when, not very long ago, biologists realized that the ubiquitous subsoil fungi were essential for the daily survival of higher plants. Countless fungal filaments are in close symbiosis with plant roots, making essential minerals available, without which the plants would perish. In every local ecosystem around the world, microorganisms, higher plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates coexist with labyrinthine interdependence, partners in creating and sustaining the physical environment of atmospheric gases and soil composition and chemicals. Individual ecosystems work as integrated wholes, not as species in the company of but isolated from other species. Homo sapiens is one unit in that pattern of interdependence. Additional excerpts
This book goes into much more detail, including explaining that the first four great extinctions were caused by the natural evolution of the planet, but the fifth one was caused by initial development of modern civilization thousands of years ago and the current sixth one is far bigger. His book also explains how the political and media establishment is allowing economists to control the discussion, and they refuse to acknowledge the damage being done to the planet, and the obvious fact that without the ability to sustain life there can be no economy. They routinely disregard the damage done to the poorest areas of the planet where wealthy people aren't impacted, at least not immediately!
Anyone familiar with environmental news from alternative sources has to know more about how bad they're destroying the planet, assuming the coverage traditional media doesn't raise enough doubts however, if there's any doubt there's plenty of sources listed below, which is presumably only a fraction of the environmental disasters throughout history, especially since I've done at least five or six searches of various environmental disasters which have come up with incredibly long lists of them that are only reported at the local level, or are quickly forgotten by mainstream media.
Regardless of the full reason why they're doing this it's also opening up an enormous amount of research opportunities which academics are taking advantage of, at least to some degree, as they should, as long as it doesn't involve allowing the disasters to happen, since this will help prevent them, assuming we do reverse course at some time before it's too late. That doesn't guarantee that the research is as good as it should be if we had a government that was willing to adequate fund it; and it certainly isn't being explained to the vast majority of the public or used to base political decisions to reverse the destruction of the planet.
If there is another motive besides pure greed this is the only one I can imagine; however, if that's all there is to it, then it would be so absurd and insane that it's hard to imagine the establishment would seriously consider it, unless it were something much bigger, which some evidence may indicate it is. That evidence includes reports that the oil companies knew about Climate Change back in the eighties, which certainly should be true since, in addition to the documents exposing their knowledge, it was first reported no later than the sixties, if not the fifties, to the public, although it wasn't taken seriously.
"The Unchained Goddess" first appeared in 1958, which "examines what weather is and how it works. .... Recent commentators have noted that this film exhibits an early concern with climate change caused by human activities," and there was a speech by Lyndon Johnson addressing Congress about the subject as reported in Scientific American, What Is Geoengineering and Why Is It Considered a Climate Change Solution? 04/06/2010
I first cited this article in Hurricane Apocalypse Coming With or Without Fringe Conspiracy Theory which tries to consider hard facts and reliable sources, when they're adequate to explain unsolved mysteries; however when that isn't necessarily enough I did some additional speculation, which included claims from Philip Corso over twenty years ago that he shared technology obtained from crashed alien space craft in a best selling book "The Day After Roswell."
This doesn't mean anyone unfamiliar with the subject should rush to jump on the bandwagon, especially after they watch one or two episodes of Ancient Aliens on the History Channel. Anyone with a minimal amount of reasonable skepticism and high school science background will almost certainly notice an enormous number of blunders. However, as I've pointed out previously, mixed in with those absurd and obvious blunders are few accurate facts, including the massive number of enormous megaliths, some weighing over 700 tons, moved by ancient civilizations, despite fact that experiments failed to move anything bigger than 40 tons & they had to cheat with megaliths between 10 and 40 tons only moving them small distances.
This means that a rational skeptic might be skeptical of both sides as presented by the mainstream media and come to the conclusions that different possibilities have to be considered, until we can completely rule out at least one of the theories and confirm another one; which is the scientific way of going about it even if many so-called skeptics don't do this.
We may not have enough information to know for certain which theory is true, although advocates on both dies will claim that we do, but we can narrow it down to to possibilities; either and unknown advanced intelligence of some sort, whether you call it ancient aliens or not, has been impacting our society for thousands of years, including helping move the megaliths one way or another, and perhaps there is something to Corso's claim; or there's a massive effort to make it seem that way with help from the mainstream media allowing these theorists to get plenty of air time on the History Channel and other shows. If the later is true then there has to be another explanation for how the megaliths were moved, and many other unsolved mysteries sometimes associated with the ancient aliens theory.
But regardless of which theory is true there should be little or no doubt that the best research into climate change and many other environmental disasters are almost completely absent from the mainstream media, and whether it's related to the ancient aliens theory or not, the entire political establishment is behaving as insane as both the fringe believers and the skeptics coming up with incredibly bad explanations for major unsolved mysteries.
They should be doing a far better job explaining how to reverse the damage being done to the environment, but instead they're constantly catering to the interests of oil companies and other Wall Street oligarchies, and whether it's to keep us distracted or not they keep coming up with one absurd obsession du jour like Sharpie Gate which is being misrepresented by both Donald Trump and the mainstream media!
 |
| The early forecast, which turned out to be wrong and was corrected within a day or two, showed that if the storm did continue going in the direction they predicted then Alabama would have been next in line; however, instead of correcting this minor mistake, both Donald Trump and mainstream media dug in their heals turning it into an absurd obsession without educating the public about avoiding damage from the storm or how Climate Change may be impacting it! |
Not only is the mainstream media, Donald Trump and the entire republican Party either in total denial about the damage being done by Climate Change but the Democratic Party is also catering to corporate interests, pushing minor reforms at a time when major ones are needed.
if you want more reliable news on the subject you ahve to go to alternative sources that get far less traffic like the following article by Esha Krishnaswamy from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:
Climate Minimizers Don’t Deny Climate Change—but Find Endless Reasons to Reject Sanders’ Plan to Stop It 09/06/2019
Climate change is an existential threat to human civilization. If only corporate media acted like it.
While the majority of corporate media do not outright deny the reality of the human-caused climate crisis, they are filled with another brand of insidious ideologues that I call climate minimizers. These downplay the threat that climate change poses to all of us by ignoring scientific data, avoiding discussion on the actual impact of climate change, and hyper-focusing on trivial details.
These tendencies were on display in the corporate media response to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ climate change plan. The Washington Post published at least three opinion pieces on the plan that focused on the political horse race:
“Bernie’s Climate Plan Will Take Us Nowhere,” editorial board (8/25/19)
“Trump’s Wall Is Child’s Play Compared to Bernie’s Climate Plan,” David Von Drehle (8/23/19)
“Bernie Sanders Offers a Massive Climate Plan. Environmentalists Cheer, but Will It Be Too Much for Voters?,” Hailey Fuchs and Michael Sherer (8/22/19)
Strangely enough, the Post did publish an editorial by Reaganite Hugh Hewitt (8/23/19) that seemed to grasp the most important point: “If you really think the world is on the edge of catastrophe, are you going to waste your vote on a pretend climate-change ‘policy,’ or go all in with Sanders?” .......
Oddly enough, the right-wing Hugh Hewitt (8/23/19) seemed to grasp the argument regarding Sanders’ plan:
"So Sanders has proposed what the rhetoric of climate-change apocalypse demands: All hands on deck, and damn the torpedoes, provided you don’t use any fossil fuels in mounting your charge." Complete article
Climate change is an existential threat to human civilization. If only corporate media acted like it.
While the majority of corporate media do not outright deny the reality of the human-caused climate crisis, they are filled with another brand of insidious ideologues that I call climate minimizers. These downplay the threat that climate change poses to all of us by ignoring scientific data, avoiding discussion on the actual impact of climate change, and hyper-focusing on trivial details.
These tendencies were on display in the corporate media response to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ climate change plan. The Washington Post published at least three opinion pieces on the plan that focused on the political horse race:
“Bernie’s Climate Plan Will Take Us Nowhere,” editorial board (8/25/19)
“Trump’s Wall Is Child’s Play Compared to Bernie’s Climate Plan,” David Von Drehle (8/23/19)
“Bernie Sanders Offers a Massive Climate Plan. Environmentalists Cheer, but Will It Be Too Much for Voters?,” Hailey Fuchs and Michael Sherer (8/22/19)
Strangely enough, the Post did publish an editorial by Reaganite Hugh Hewitt (8/23/19) that seemed to grasp the most important point: “If you really think the world is on the edge of catastrophe, are you going to waste your vote on a pretend climate-change ‘policy,’ or go all in with Sanders?” .......
Oddly enough, the right-wing Hugh Hewitt (8/23/19) seemed to grasp the argument regarding Sanders’ plan:
"So Sanders has proposed what the rhetoric of climate-change apocalypse demands: All hands on deck, and damn the torpedoes, provided you don’t use any fossil fuels in mounting your charge." Complete article
He even cites Mother Jones, which is usually far more progressive and rational than the mainstream media, that ranks Joe Biden's plan higher than Bernie Sanders, even though he's been collecting a fortune from oil companies for decades and catering to their interests, and sources to prove this are easily available to anyone that actually wants to find them. (If you need them plenty are listed below.)
Elizabeth Warren isn't much better and Mother Jones cheered her on after her response to a loaded question by Chris Cuomo in “Give Me A Break”: Elizabeth Warren Just Cut Through the Dumbest Climate Argument 09/05/2019. Cuomo asked “Do you think that the government should be in the business of telling you what kind of light bulb you can have?” referring to regulation that enforce efficiency standards, without providing the full context.
You would think that a consumer advocate would jump at the opportunity to call out Cuomo on this and explain that those regulations protect consumers from epidemic levels of fraud that have been going on for decades selling light bulbs that drive up electricity costs and often break down much faster than they should as part of their planned obsolescence practice to drive up sales. But instead she said, “Oh come on, give me a break,” with exasperation. “This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants us to be talking about. That’s what they want us to talk about: This is your problem.”
News flash: inefficient light bulbs leads to increased use of fossil fuels which is apparently what both the fossil fuels industry and Elizabeth Warren want and she goes on to oppose other policies that would help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as well when she says, “They want stir up a lot of controversy around your light bulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers, when 70 percent of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air comes from three industries.”
She doesn't acknowledge the fact that these indirectly contribute to higher uses of fossil fuels and an enormous amount of waste. Plastic straws may seem trivial but they're part of a much larger addiction to plastic that's doing an enormous amount of damage around the world often killing lots of wildlife. and frankly what is such a big deal about drinking out of a cup or bottle without a straw in the first place?
Not only does red meat take much more energy to produce and transport than vegetables or other foods, but they're also much more harmful for health and more fattening. As a consumer advocate, which she claims to be you would think that at a minimum she would abstain from pushing false propaganda from the cattle and fossil fuels industries or if she were more courageous she might take the opportunity to educate the public about the most credible research on these subjects, assuming she's familiar with it. However as I pointed out in a dozen articles including my latest Is Elizabeth Warren A Wall Street Stealth Candidate? a close look at her record and the media coverage of her shows that her record doesn't match her rhetoric & that the establishment media is giving her overwhelmingly favorable coverage, including articles a few years back saying that she was fighting hard against climate change, but when you look at the details that amounted to signing a letter that another Senator and representative wrote and pushed along with a couple dozen other members of Congress.
Why didn't they give credit to the Senator and representative that wrote the letter and did all the work? Some of this propaganda is incredibly obvious to recognize when checking facts.
That senator wasn't Bernie Sanders but he's done many other things to try to stop Climate Change along with supporting many other progressive issues and oppose wars based on lies, which is also a major contributing factor to the destruction of the environment, including voting against all of Trump's military budgets, which Elizabeth Warren voted for one larger than the one he requested in 2017.
Bernie Sanders could also do better on many issues including trying to educate the public about how much damage is done by plastic, including straws, red meat, and inefficient light bulbs, but this should be the job of the academic world with the help of the media. In a functioning Democracy we need a well informed public with access to a good education and a media establishment that is at least trying to keep them informed.
We don't have that.
There are still well informed people at the grassroots level trying to educate people about many issues, but they can't get any media coverage to research the vast majority of the public. Bernie Sanders is by far the best candidate the media is willing to cover; however, the most important reforms will have to be pushed from the grassroots whether he gets elected or not; and even if he does there will be some things that the Grassroots will have to pressure him to do.
Unlike the supporters of other candidates, many of us support him because he's far more credible, not because we're cult followers.
The mainstream media is controlled by a fraction of one percent, and they routinely rig elections by simply refusing to provide coverage for candidates they don't support. There are plenty of other propaganda tactics they use to manipulate the public including ones that I've covered in past articles, which raises major doubts about whether they're willing to allow a fair election once again. Almost all the candidates the media does cover cater overwhelmingly to establishment or corporate interests, including Elizabeth Warren, who they do a far better job providing positive propaganda to make her look progressive.
A leading theory by many is that they're using her to draw away progressive votes so that a corporate Democrat like Biden or Harris can win the nomination. there seems to be a lot of evidence to support this; however there may be many problems with it as well. One of them is that if you do a closer look at their own political science you might wonder why they can't do a better job at least pretending to be more progressive or check their own records as part of opposition research on themselves so they won't back seriously flawed candidates. Furthermore, you would think many of them would understand that if they push the working class too far, we might revolt. And as I said, even if they don't care about destroying the environment of working class people they have to care about protecting their own, yet they're prepared to push the planet over the edge judging by their actions.
Are they that insane?
Or are they willing to allow major changes, at least to protect themselves, even if they don't care about the rest of us?
I find it very hard to believe that they intend to destroy themselves, and even though some of them clearly do appear to be fanatics many others are not, yet they're going along with this insane agenda pushing candidates that won't do more than tinker with the problem, if they address it at all. Also, as I pointed out in Psst, Elections Were Rigged By Oligarchy not Russia & Evidence Was Reported Before It Happened! they have enough research on using propaganda to manipulate crowds and rig elections, which is routine, to ensure that someone like Donald Trump could never have gotten elected unless they wanted to allow it; which virtually guarantees that it wasn't the Russians that fixed the election for Trump it was the media that is pretending to oppose him.
This, of course, sounds insane; however, the entire political establishment is insane so there's little or no doubt that something insane is going on, and there's an enormous amount of credibly evidence, some from the traditional media, to show that they're covering up many things, raising major doubts about what could be so important to behave this insane for.
I try to be a reasonable skeptic; but this insanity along with many other major unsolved mysteries are why I can't completely rule out the possibility that it might be related to a mach larger conspiracy by our government and major corporations with influence from aliens or some other unknown advanced intelligence. You have to be a rational skeptic, but not so closed minded that you won't acknowledge major unsolved mysteries like ancient megaliths, UFOs, mystics or other major unsolved mysteries, might raise doubts about the transnational scientific explanation of our evolution, without believing some of the most illogical explanations for them, or ruling things either in or out without conclusive evidence.
As I pointed out in past articles, if climate change is caused by man, then it's a form of geoengineering and any research into it would also be research into geoengineering, intentionally or not. If the claims from Philip Corso about sharing alien technology are right then there's a much greater chance that this might be intentional and that the aliens understood how to prevent these disasters, and could have opened up a line of communication to explain this in a credible manner, yet chose not to.
An additional major unsolved mystery that receives little or no attention is how scientific advances have come so fast at a times when the government has been cutting back on investments in research and both the political establishment and corporate sector is acting in a highly irrational and often fanatical manner. the most effective research requires a free and fair exchange of ideas with a good education system to provide many people to help with the research, yet we've been cutting back on education and shrouding most research in secrecy, only letting the public know about the final results, and then only reporting them as isolated discoveries. This means that most people aren't fully aware about how rapid scientific knowledge is advancing.
If Corso's claims are true then that could be a partial explanation.
But even if this theory isn't true there are plenty of people that understood far more than they informed the public about the damage being done to the environment than they're explaining to the majority of the public and some of the worst environmental disasters could have been prevented, including the Kuwaiti Oil fires, which were set intentionally, during a war that could have have been avoided, based on disclosures that have been made public although they receive little coverage from the mainstream media and are sometimes dismissed as conspiracy theories by establishment figures, even though the evidence comes from credible sources and these establishment figures ridicule the evidence instead of debunking it.
Saddam Hussein was an ally of the United States until a few weeks before the invasion, and the Bush administration even advised him on how to improve his image about that time. An article How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf 10/28/2004 reports on how shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait, "US Ambassador April Glaspie commiserated with Hussein over a 'cheap and unjust' profile by ABC's Diane Sawyer, and wished for an 'appearance in the media, even for five minutes,' by Hussein that 'would help explain Iraq to the American people.'" This shows how public relations people were controlling the message about one tyrant after another, including Saddam Hussein, depending on whether they're our allies or enemies, and in Hussein's case he switched from an ally that they were trying to help improve his image to the boogie man almost overnight; however thanks to control of the media the vast majority of the public isn't aware of this!
In the same interview April Glaspie told Saddam "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." as Stephen Walt reported in WikiLeaks, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein 01/09/2011. Walt refers to this as a "now famous interview," which for many people familiar with alternative media outlets might be an accurate description; however, the vast majority of the public is almost certainly not as familiar with news or history from alternative media outlets, and never heard of this meeting at all.
If this is true then they must have some plan about how they're going to reverse this damage after their research is over and restore the planet, which would require cooperation from everyone and what mainstream media now refers to as radical reforms that they're trying to convince us would never work, assuming they aren't planning many more activities which aren't in the best interest of the majority of the public.
This theory is no less insane than the entire Trump presidency and many of the activities leading up to it including the fact that Trump and his three adult children actually signed a letter backing urgent climate action in December of 2009, Donald Trump once backed urgent climate action. Wait, what? 06/08/2016, shortly before he became a fanatical Climate Change denier and leading conspiracy theorist pushing the birth certificate conspiracy.
This is just a fraction of the clownish behavior that mainstream media is trying to convince us is the new normal. This includes one absurd threat or accusation against Obama or some other opponent after another that is routinely shown to be empty and contradicted by previous claims, including his accusation of Obama negotiating with the Taliban, which he has just been exposed doing and even inviting them to Camp David, claims that he would be to busy to play golf, then playing far more than any other president, violations of the emoluments clause and more corruption than anyone can keep track of, which even Trump has to know he can only get away with for so long. Yet the Republicans are coming to his defense no matter what and despite all their rhetoric the Democrats have proven to be useless when it comes to stopping him.
The only reason we got into this insane situation is because the establishment isn't even trying to prevent it despite evidence to show that they know how to if they try. Accepting epidemic levels of corruption has been going on for decades, otherwise Trump never could become president, and they never would have considered nominating two people, from both major parties, that were under FBI investigation, and could justifiably be impeached before we even knew which one would be elected!
If this theory is true then I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that either they want to implement controlled disclosure, or at least convince those involve with the conspiracy that they're going to reverse the process of destroying the planet, which almost certainly means another rigged election. But for who?
Most reasonable assumptions clearly indicate that they're trying to rig it for Joe Biden with Kamala Harris as a runner up if his campaign collapses, which is virtually guaranteed, since his record is so bad, although most of it is still in the memory hole, until it gets dragged up during the campaign. but Kamala Harris and the other corporate puppets also have horrendous records which will raise major amounts of protests and outrage an enormous amount of the public.
The only one they're doing a good job providing propaganda cover for is Elizabeth Warren but even her record is seriously flawed, and if they really do want to reverse the destruction they're causing she's not inclined to do it, especially since she wont get the support of many of the grassroots.
The only one with a decent record that stands up to scrutiny that can rally the public to implement the reforms we need is Bernie Sanders, and even he showed that he would come to the defense of the establishment after they rigged the primaries against him in 2016; however, the vast majority of his record has been contestant for decades.
If they've been planning this for decades then I'm not completely ruing out the possibility that they would have arranged for someone that has a clean record to begin implementing major reforms when, and only when it suited their purposes.
If that is the case could Bernie be in on it, at least partly? If so, shouldn't we also be planning to oppose him as well? Not necessarily, for at least two reasons. first of all this is speculation, even if it's true few would believe it. If it's not true then Bernie Sanders is still by far the best candidate the mainstream media is willing to cover, and we should continue supporting him.
But even if it is true, what's the alternative? Should we oppose Bernie Sanders and allow one of these pathetic clowns, including Donald Trump win in do even worse? That would be fanatical; and there's little or no reason to believe at this point that we have a chance to elect anyone else this time anyways, especially since few would believe this if it is true.
Even with Bernie Sanders, whether this theory is true or not, we need to push some of the most effective reforms from the grassroots, supporting him when he's doing the right thing and opposing him if he doesn't. Even though he's far better than any other establishment candidate he hasn't been arguing that we should completely rethink the way we interview candidates enabling all people to be heard, or break up consolidated corporate media so that grassroots media not controlled by billionaires can have a chance to educate the public about many issues and ensure that all applicants for public office can be heard.
When he defended Hillary Clinton and tried to restore the reputation of the Democratic party he also raised doubts about his support for reform and many of his supporters have spoken out against him on this even though we haven't abandoned him.
We also need to do far more to enable the best researchers on any given subject to have access to the media so they can educate the public about many issues, including Climate Change or Health Care. And whether or not he's elected we need to set up a new interview process so that someone that isn't pre-selected by the mainstream media can have a chance to continue any reforms implemented in the meantime, which are far more likely if he's elected than Trump, who will lead to four more years of an insane charade for one reason or another.
The following are plenty of additional sources for this article, mostly that don't speculate on alien intervention but provide credible research about epidemic levels of environmental damage:
The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And we're doing nothing to stop it 09/04/2019
This Is How The Million Dollar Business Of Criminal Deforestation In The Amazon Works 09/04/2019
The Amazon is burning: What you need to know 08/27/2019
When the Oil Fields Burned 04/09/2019 TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, as the United States-led coalition started driving out Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein’s troops responded by setting ablaze hundreds of oil wells, creating one of the worst environmental disasters in recent memory.
Islamic State torches oil field near Tikrit as militia advance 03/05/2015
Wikipedia: Kuwaiti oil fires
China cuts smog but health damage already done: study 04/17/2018
Life behind a mask — China's cities still choking on smog 01/18/2018
Intense smog is a global problem, says China’s environment minister 01/07/2017
China’s plan to reduce smog in cities may have increased pollution overall 05/01/2019
Wikipedia: Pollution in China
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says 07/10/2017
Masked City The people who breathe Beijing's deadly air 08/15/2015
Life behind a mask — China's cities still choking on smog 01/18/2018
Exploring motivations behind pollution-mask use in a sample of young adults in urban China 12/04/2018
Elizabeth Warren on climate change: Who knows? 12/05/2018
Grist Magazine
Environmental News Network
Inside Climate News
Christine MacDonald Green Inc 2008
EXCLUSIVE: Before Flint’s Water Crisis, One Man Warned That “People Are Gonna Die” 09/05/2019
We scientists must rise up to prevent the climate crisis. Words aren’t enough 09/06/2019
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago 10/26/2015
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings 09/19/2018
‘I Have Sued Exxon Mobil,’ Kamala Harris Said. Not Quite. 09/05/2019
Ms. Harris’s comments on Wednesday drew the attention of fact-checkers like Daniel Dale of CNN, who noted that Ms. Harris had opened an investigation into the company and had sued other oil companies, but not Exxon.
Ian Sams, a spokesman for Ms. Harris, did not directly answer a question about whether she had sued Exxon Mobil. But, he said, “as attorney general she sued Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 for pollution activities, helping win $50 million in settlements.” Ms. Harris had also filed criminal indictments against a pipeline company that “transported oil from several Exxon rigs,” he added.
On Twitter, Mr. Sams took issue with the need to pick apart Ms. Harris’s answer.
The 2016 reports on the California investigation followed a flurry of activity in other states.
In November 2015, The New York Times reported that the New York attorney general at the time, Eric T. Schneiderman, had opened an investigation into Exxon Mobil over whether its statements about climate change constituted shareholder fraud, among other issues.
The Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healey, also started an investigation, with the support of a number of other state attorneys general.
New York sued Exxon Mobil last year, saying the company engaged in a “longstanding fraudulent scheme” to deceive investors, analysts and underwriters “concerning the company’s management of the risks posed to its business by climate change regulation.”
Many news organizations have looked into the ways that fossil fuel companies have funded questionable climate science and encouraged denial of climate change. In 2015, Inside Climate News and The Los Angeles Times published articles highlighting Exxon Mobil’s research into the risks of climate change that suggested it had incorporated the research into its planning, even though it funded groups from the 1990s to the mid-2000s that denied serious climate risks.
The company has denied that it suppressed research, and has noted that much of the research was published in publicly available journals.
After Ms. Harris made her claim about suing Exxon Mobil, some climate activists were quick to point out that California had never done so.
Richard Wiles, the executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, a group that provides legal analysis and scientific information on climate issues, said, “Why would you believe that Harris is going to launch an investigation this time when she didn’t do it last time?”
But he said he was encouraged that claims of deception by fossil fuel companies had suddenly become part of a nationally televised political forum, calling it “an incredible transformation of the narrative in a really short period of time.”
An Exxon Mobil spokesman declined to comment.
The New York case is scheduled to begin in October. Exxon Mobil representatives have called it a “tainted, meritless investigation.” Complete article
Ms. Harris’s comments on Wednesday drew the attention of fact-checkers like Daniel Dale of CNN, who noted that Ms. Harris had opened an investigation into the company and had sued other oil companies, but not Exxon.
Ian Sams, a spokesman for Ms. Harris, did not directly answer a question about whether she had sued Exxon Mobil. But, he said, “as attorney general she sued Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 for pollution activities, helping win $50 million in settlements.” Ms. Harris had also filed criminal indictments against a pipeline company that “transported oil from several Exxon rigs,” he added.
On Twitter, Mr. Sams took issue with the need to pick apart Ms. Harris’s answer.
The 2016 reports on the California investigation followed a flurry of activity in other states.
In November 2015, The New York Times reported that the New York attorney general at the time, Eric T. Schneiderman, had opened an investigation into Exxon Mobil over whether its statements about climate change constituted shareholder fraud, among other issues.
The Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healey, also started an investigation, with the support of a number of other state attorneys general.
New York sued Exxon Mobil last year, saying the company engaged in a “longstanding fraudulent scheme” to deceive investors, analysts and underwriters “concerning the company’s management of the risks posed to its business by climate change regulation.”
Many news organizations have looked into the ways that fossil fuel companies have funded questionable climate science and encouraged denial of climate change. In 2015, Inside Climate News and The Los Angeles Times published articles highlighting Exxon Mobil’s research into the risks of climate change that suggested it had incorporated the research into its planning, even though it funded groups from the 1990s to the mid-2000s that denied serious climate risks.
The company has denied that it suppressed research, and has noted that much of the research was published in publicly available journals.
After Ms. Harris made her claim about suing Exxon Mobil, some climate activists were quick to point out that California had never done so.
Richard Wiles, the executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, a group that provides legal analysis and scientific information on climate issues, said, “Why would you believe that Harris is going to launch an investigation this time when she didn’t do it last time?”
But he said he was encouraged that claims of deception by fossil fuel companies had suddenly become part of a nationally televised political forum, calling it “an incredible transformation of the narrative in a really short period of time.”
An Exxon Mobil spokesman declined to comment.
The New York case is scheduled to begin in October. Exxon Mobil representatives have called it a “tainted, meritless investigation.” Complete article
Warren's dead wrong here. It's vital to bring as much of the basic needs sectors—food, water, energy, etc—under democratic control (worker cooperatives, preferably). Climate apartheid is coming, corporations or the corporatist govt in power can't be trusted with these. 09/05/2019
This was a bad answer from @ewarren on public utilities. The corporate power & profit structure of utility monopolies has been one of the key things holding back climate action. Public utilities could be a 🔑 part of a #GreenNewDeal. I hope she’ll reconsider. 09/05/2019
Exxon Mobil Is Funding Centrist Democratic Think Tank, Disclosures Reveal 09/06/2019 THE PROGRESSIVE POLICY Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank that grew out of the party’s pro-business wing in the 1980s and ’90s, received $50,000 from Exxon Mobil in 2018 via its parent organization, the Third Way Foundation, according to the oil giant’s 2018 Worldwide Giving Report. ..... Though it’s a first, PPI’s new donor isn’t so dramatic a shift from its fundraising record. The Intercept’s Akela Lacy has also found that PhRMA — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — has annually donated between $25,000 and $75,000 to the Third Way Foundation since 2009, upping its donation to $265,000 in 2016 — the same year that Medicare for All, which the trade group and PPI both oppose, entered the national spotlight.
Phosphate fertiliser 'crisis' threatens world food supply 09/06/2019
We Heard Three Visions for Saving the Planet Last Night. Only One Will Work. 09/05/2019 On CNN's climate town hall last night, Joe Biden promised a return to the old status quo, Elizabeth Warren promised carrots and sticks, and Bernie Sanders promised to wrest control of the future from corporations. The clock is ticking, and the choice couldn’t be clearer.
How to stop climate change? Nationalise the oil companies 04/25/2019 One recent study found that worldwide fossil fuel subsidies amounted to $4.9tn in 2013. It estimated that eliminating those subsidies would have cut global carbon emissions by 21% and air pollution deaths by over half.
"The Unchained Goddess" 1958 examines what weather is and how it works. Recent commentators have noted that this film exhibits an early concern with climate change caused by human activities.
Frank Capra’s Science Film The Unchained Goddess Warns of Climate Change in 1958 04/08/2015
#GovKnew About #ClimateChange But It Supported The Fossil Fuel Economy Instead (Stupid) 07/04/2019
Can Spaceflight Save the Planet? 09/06/2019
Eating meat has ‘dire’ consequences for the planet, says report 01/16/2019
Wikipedia: Environmental impact of meat production
National Institutes of Health: Risk in Red Meat? 03/26/2012 A new study adds to the evidence that eating red meat on a regular basis may shorten your lifespan. The findings suggest that meat eaters might help improve their health by substituting other healthy protein sources for some of the red meat they eat.
Even a low intake of red and processed meat may raise death risk 04/08/2019
Is Red Meat Bad for You, or Good? An Objective Look 05/22/2019
Atkins Diet: What's behind the claims? By Mayo Clinic Staff 08/16/2017
Dr. Robert Atkins’ Death Did Dr. Robert Atkins, proponent of the low-carbohydrate diet, die of a heart attack 02/11/2004
Atkins diet founder was obese 02/10/2004
Corporate Media Is Misleading Us About Sanders’ Climate Plan 09/08/2019
After Climate Forum, Biden Heads to a Fundraiser Co-Hosted by a Fossil Fuel Executive 09/04/2019 Andrew Goldman, a co-founder of Western LNG, a natural gas production company based in Houston, Texas, is co-hosting one of two high-dollar fundraisers Biden will attend in New York on Thursday.
Biden, at Climate Town Hall, Says He’ll Rethink Fundraiser by Fossil Fuel Industry Executive 09/04/2019
Joe Biden tries to justify fundraiser with *co-founder of the fossil fuel company co Western LNG.* “I was told...he did not have any responsibility relating to the company.” Never mind the fact Goldman is a main beneficiary and co-founder. #ClimateTownHall 094/0/2019
Biden’s Climate Adviser Earned $1 Million From Natural Gas Company 05/10/2019 Current 2020 frontrunner Joe Biden has a “middle-ground” climate approach that will promote natural gas, potentially enriching his adviser’s former employer.
How a Climate Scientist Got Disinvited From a Shell Conference 07/05/2019 As Dutch journalist Jelmer Mommers revealed last year, Shell has known about the climate crisis for nearly four decades and its own considerable role in causing it.
On ‘Hottest Day in History of France,’ World Told ‘Do Not Look Away’ as Police Tear-Gas Climate Campaigners in Paris 06/28/2019
Biden Nearly Flunks Climate Change on Greenpeace Report Card 05/30/2019
Biden's Climate Plan Not Nearly Enough, Say Green Groups 06/04/2019
History Repeats Itself as Corporations Join Big Green to Craft Market-Based Climate Plan 05/15/2019
Bankrupt Coal Company Funded Climate Change Denialism 05/16/2019 The Bankruptcy Of Cloud Peak Energy, one of the largest domestic coal producers in the country, has revealed that the company maintains financial ties to many of the leading groups that have sowed doubt over the human causes of global warming.
Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is a racial justice issue. 05/12/2019 Dumping worst pollution in minority neighborhoods in Michigan, other stories show it's as bad if not worse in the South and other parts of the country.
Navy withholding data on UFO sightings, congressman says 09/06/2019
Top 10 Environmental Disasters 05/03/2010 Posted after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill which wasn't included in the list, nor was Fukushima, which happened ten months later.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster The accident was started by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011.
Kuwaiti oil fires
Fact Check.org Amazon Doesn’t Produce 20% of Earth’s Oxygen 09/03/2019 Even though the Amazon isn’t responsible for the oxygen humans breathe, all the scientists we spoke to emphasized that the place is very special, and deserves to be protected. At the top of the list, said Saleska, is the Amazon’s nearly unrivaled biodiversity. “It is a showcase and archive of the genetic endowment of 300 million years of evolution,” he said, “the value of which it is impossible to say because we simply don’t yet know how to read all the treasure maps that it contains.”
NASA: As Iraqi troops withdrew from Kuwait at the end of the first Gulf War, they set fire to over 650 oil wells and damaged many more, just south of the Iraq border (yellow line).
Hurricane Dorian: Trump map mysteriously loops in Alabama 09/05/2019
National Weather Service says Maryland is safe from all but the outer edges of Hurricane Dorian. Probably. 09/01/2019
Polls With Citations: Americans Want Bernie’s New Deal For All 07/26/2019
No comments:
Post a Comment