This Thanksgiving week, General Motors has officially ceased production of it’s Pontiac brand of vehicles as a result of the bailout by the U.S. government.  Not only could the car maker not meet it’s financial obligations but, the fact is that the car’s brand no longer had the appeal it once did and sales were declining.

The last Pontiac G-8 rolled off the assembly line in Orion heading for a fleet order rather than a museum for posterity sake yesterday.  http://www.detnews.com/article/20091126/AUTO01/911260411/Pontiac-reaches-end-of-the-line/?imw=Y 

http://www.pontiac.com/ has the official closeout information on remaining vehicles for sale with deals as low as o% financing for six years or cash back offers up to $4,500.  As a wake up call to anyone buying a car, six years is an absurd amount of time to pay off a car, especially when the warranty ends before you pay it off.

With discount offers like this across most of GM’s product line up, how they are ever going to make money, get out of bankruptcy and away from government ownership is beyond any one’s guess. 

Besides the 1000’s of job losses at Pontiac plants, NUMMI the joint venture between  GM and Toyota venture looks to be shutting its doors as well. http://www.mercurynews.com/drive/ci_13766495 From the Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment by state http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm is listed.  Like the climategate, how true these numbers are is any one’s guess.

I recall the 1978 Pontiac Bonneville that I learned to drive in.  What a tank, but it had the radio antennae built into the glass which was pretty cool.  In 1982 came the Firebird and was featured on the TV Show Knight Rider.  I never owned one, but a lot of my buddies did and it was a girl magnet.

Pontiac Fiero

In 1984,  my dad through a mid life crisis or whatever, found the Pontiac Fiero much more in the spirit of things.  What a car it was and far removed from anything on the market.  The damned things body was made of plastic!  We’ll some sort of poly-resin- that when a grocery cart hit it it bounced off with no damage.  With no USA steel to give it strength, on impact the car crumbled.  Luckily, we never crashed it but traded it it on something or another.  Might have been the Cadillac Sedan De Ville with the horrendous 4-6-8 valve engine- another GM disaster.

Our Fiero was hot red in color with every option known to man, including the fabulous sound system from Bose.  Nothing like Van Halen screaming at you at ten decibels while driving down the highway. A definite babe magnet of a car.  It made you want to live in the fast lane or at least drive in it.

Chief Pontiac, Ottawa Tribe

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, Chief Pontiac of the Ottawa Tribe must be glad to know that the spirit of the Pontiac brand of vehicles will go on- in memory at least.  He was quoted as saying, 

According to a French chronicler, in a second council Pontiac proclaimed:

It is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which seeks only to destroy us. You see as well as I that we can no longer supply our needs, as we have done from our brothers, the French…. Therefore, my brothers, we must all swear their destruction and wait no longer. Nothing prevents us; they are few in numbers, and we can accomplish it.   Peckham, Indian Uprising, 119–20; Dixon, Never Come to Peace, 109. via  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Pontiac#cite_note-8

It didn’t turn out so good for the Indians being forced to reservations, but in the long run some tribes are probably more financially stable than the U.S. government,  thanks to good fiscal policy and casino’s.

Ironically enough, the Pontiac Silverdome was sold this month for $583,000 USD to a Toronto, Canadadian businessman. Completed in 1975 as the Pontiac Metropolitan Stadium, at a cost of $55.7 million, the Silverdome seats 80,311. It contains 102 luxury suites and 7,384 club seats. more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Silverdome

“While still not sure what he’ll ultimately do with the stadium, adjacent fieldhouse and 127 acres of land, Apostolopoulos said he’d like to return it to being a place that hosts football, soccer, hockey and basketball as well as concerts.  “People today like sports so we have to keep it for sports events,” he said. “Whatever they like, we’ll do.” But Apostolopoulos said the zoning does allow for the tearing down of the stadium and the building of houses, apartments or almost any other kind of construction.” http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/729769–toronto-developer-snaps-up-vacant-pontiac-silverdome

At less than $5000 USD an acre that was a good deal for any pilgrim. 

™©® by repective owners.

Open wide, say ahhh and check out more posts from Ahrcanum including our Swine Flu report that started  in April and is updated regularly at http://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/swine-flu-report/

SUBSCRIBE NOW for further updates in the top right margin.

Documentos que sairam provam a existência de planos para pedir financiamento a “agências de energia “

Steve Watson Steve Watson
Infowars.net [1] Infowars.net [1]
Wednesday, Nov 25, 2009 Quarta-feira, novembro 25, 2009

Um cientista proeminente pediu que os processos criminais sejam movidos contra os cientistas da ONU filiados e envolvidos no que foi denominado “ClimateGate”.
Geólogo australiano e um oponente de longa data da teoria do aquecimento global antropogénico, Ian Plimer, condenou o que ele descreve como “alarmismo apoiado por fraude”.

“Esse comportamento é o de criminosos e todos os dados do Hadley Centre e do GISS E.U. agora devem ser rejeitados.  Esses criminosos cometeram esses crimes à custa dos contribuintes britânicos e E.U. “. Plimer escreve num pequeno artigo [2].

“Os mesmos bandidos  controlam do IPCC e os dados fraudulentos nos relatórios do IPCC. ” Plimer . Os mesmos  bandidos reunir-se-ão  em Copenhaga, na próxima semana e querem 0,7% do PIB do mundo ocidental a ser dado a um governo não  eleito da ONU e, em seguida, para explorar o mundo em desenvolvimento “. Plimer continua.

Ele ressalta que os e-mails íntimos mostram  que os dados foram manipulados para cobrir o período de aquecimento medieval, e continuar o arrefecimento global, além de dados artificialmente inflacionados para enfatizar o aquecimento durante o século 20.
Plimer, autor do best-seller sobre o debate do aquecimento global, o Céu e a Terra – Aquecimento Global: A Ciência em falta, tem sido um crítico do que ele descreve como o movimento sequestrador ambiental.

Plimer declarou muitas vezes que ele  sente que vastas áreas da comunidade científica têm optado por manipular dados em troca de milhões para a continuação   financiamento da pesquisa .

Os e-mails vazaram do centro Hadley revelam que CRU chefe PD Jones recebeu 55 doações desde 1990 [5] das agências que vão desde o E.U. Departamento de Energia para a NATO, no valor total de £ 13.718.547, ou aproximadamente US $ 22,6 milhões.

Outro documento intitulado (potencial funding.doc [6]), enumera as fontes de financiamento potenciais e mostra que os cientistas consideraram urgentes agências de “energia” que tratam especificamente em novas tecnologias para reduzir as emissões de carbono.

Renewables North West, uma companhia americana que promovem a expansão da energia solar, eólica e geotérmica, está listado como um benfeitor quarta potencial.

Naturalmente, todos estes potenciais apoiadores financeiros têm interesse em manter a concepção de que o homem provocou o  aquecimento global,e que é uma realidade apoiada pela ciência.

Teóricos do aquecimento antropogênico global há muito tempo que atacam os cientistas cépticos, afirmando que eles são comprados e pagos por companhias de petróleo, no entanto, aqui temos o mais influente grupo de cientistas do clima que  reconhecem ser um grupo de cientistas prontos para para receber financiamento de empresas de energia com interesses escusos.
Ian Plimer junta-sea  outra figura de destaque no debate, Senhor Christopher Monckton [7], que pediu uma investigação completa e processos criminais no início desta semana.

Fonte:

Article printed from Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com: http://www.prisonplanet.com Artigo impresso de Prison Alex Jones ‘Planet.com: http://www.prisonplanet.com

URL to article: http://www.prisonplanet.com/another-prominent-scientist-calls-cru-scientists-criminals.html URL do artigo: http://www.prisonplanet.com/another-prominent-scientist-calls-cru-scientists-criminals.html

URLs in this post: URLs in this post:

[1] Infowars.net: http://www.infowars.net/index.html [1] Infowars.net: http://www.infowars.net/index.html

[2] Plimer writes in a commentary piece: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/2/ [2] Plimer escreve em um pedaço comentário: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/2/

[3] : http://prisonplanet.tv/signup.html [3]: http://prisonplanet.tv/signup.html

[4] Image: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/faofreprofba.html [4] Image: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/faofreprofba.html

[5] received 55 endowments since 1990: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en [5] recebeu 55 doações desde 1990: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en

[6] potential-funding.doc: http://ukginger.net/FOI2009/FOIA/documents/potential-funding.doc [6] potencial funding.doc: http://ukginger.net/FOI2009/FOIA/documents/potential-funding.doc

[7] Lord Christopher Monckton: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/ [7] Lord Christopher Monckton: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/

O Canal 4 britânico produziu um documentário devastador intitulado “A Grande Fraude do Aquecimento Global”. Ele não foi, ao que parece, exibido por nenhuma das redes de televisão nos EUA. Mas, felizmente, ele está disponível na Internet.

]]> http://governancexborders.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/703/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:14 +0000 olgamaletz http://governancexborders.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/703/

The last several weeks have been extremely frustrating for many activists, international organizations and general public. Several international summits have shown that the global governance system was significantly damaged by the global financial crisis. The crisis created uncertainty about the future and made governments of the world’s leading economies careful about their commitments. After the meeting of parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 2-4 November 2009 in Barcelona it became clear that the conference of parties to be held in Copenhagen in December was not likely to result in any legally binding arrangement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. The World Summit on Food Security held on 16-18 November also did not result in any significant binding commitments. Meanwhile, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN reports that due to the global economic recession, the number of hungry people in the world will exceed one billion in 2009. In 2008, it was 850 million people. Only the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh in September 2009 can be seen as a success of international regulatory efforts, at least to some extent. G-8 was transformed into G-20. The general principles of the new global economic architecture were approved. One of such principles is tough regulation of financial markets.

The leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies producing 85% of world output agreed to launch a Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth. It outlines new principles of cooperation and coordination in the global economy. G-20 also agreed to strengthen international standards for bank capital and to reduce incentives for excessive risk-taking (manager bonuses regulations). Beside these measures aimed at strengthening recovery and avoiding imbalances in the global economic system, the participants of the summit also agreed (1) to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies to increase energy market transparency and to encourage energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, (2) to empower developing and transition countries by reforming major international institutions, including the World Bank and (3) to support the world’s poorest citizens. These are extremely ambitious measures that promise to alter the economic and social structure of the world and make it more stable and fair. The German delegation announced that the results of the G-20 Summit were “better than expected”.

Yet, many observers remain pessimistic. They point out that the interests of state and nonstate actors remain contradictory and conflicts will emerge when concrete measures specifying general principles, upon which all agree, are discussed. They emphasize that there is no global parliament and no global state apparatus that would impose rules, control their implementation and sanction noncompliance. The decisions in the G-20 are consensus-based: A coalition of only a few states can block negotiations.

Moreover, the states are not rethinking the foundations of the global economic system dominated by the idea of strong and stable economic growth that can be achieved through liberal market economy and free trade. Although economic growth is supposed to be sustainable, there is no consensus – neither scientific nor political – what sustainability is and how it can be achieved. There are more than a dozen of definitions of sustainability. One thing is clear about sustainability in the current normative framework: Without economic growth, there can be no sustainability. This, however, is not the only conceptualization of the relationship between economic growth and sustainability. The classic “The Limits of Growth” (1972) models consequences of population growth, industrial production, pollution and resource depletion and suggests that permanent growth at the present rate cannot be sustained in the long run. The ideas emphasizing the need to restrict economic growth have not become a dominant framework for international policy-making. Instead, a norm complex that Bernstein (2000) calls the liberal environmentalism emerged and was institutionalized at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the central event in the history of international environmental politics. At the core of this complex is the idea that environmental protection and economic growth are compatible and mutually reinforcing. In order to have environmental protection and sustainable use of resources, it is necessary to boost economic growth. The best way to achieve economic growth is to promote liberal market economy and free trade. In turn, economic growth can be sustained if environment is protected and resources are used responsibly.

I neither argue that one of idea is better than the other, nor do I wish to claim that one idea is scientifically correct and the other one is not. I do not argue that we should go back to the idea of limiting growth. I only attempt to show that the leaders of the world’s largest economies and international bureaucrats are not trying to rethink the fundamental relation between economy, environment and society. We are used to think of crises as turning points when new ideas can replace the old ones and become dominant. The interesting feature of this crisis is that we stick to the ideas that do not seem to have made the world a better place.

While the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh was a success and promises to restore the reputation of international public regulation after decades of deregulation and liberalization, the meetings o hunger and environment showed that governments remained cautious as far as specific commitments are concerned.

The lack of any desire to make specific commitments at the World Summit on Food Security and the upcoming Copenhagen conference of parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change demonstrate that the governments are more willing to discuss broad principles than specific targets and timetables. Moreover, debates on overcoming economic recession and strengthening economic growth seem to be far more attractive than negotiations on hunger and greenhouse emissions. Except for the host Silvio Berlusconi, no G-8 leaders were present in Rome at the World Summit on Food Security. At the summit, the elimination of hunger in the world was declared a strategic goal. Yet, no concrete decisions on financial mechanisms, specific commitments and timetables were made. At the meeting in Barcelona prior to Copenhagen conference, it became clear that no legally-binding agreement with specific targets and schedules would be signed. No regulations for technology transfers, financial aid and emission reduction targets were prepared. The advanced industrial countries insist that the developing countries should also commit to reducing their emissions. They do not want to make the first move, since they fear that they would damage their competitive advantage in the global economic system. The developing countries refuse any legally binding commitments arguing that the industrial countries were responsible for climate change and should bear the costs of climate change. They also fear that climate related commitment would restrict their opportunities for economic growth and development. They expect financial aid and technology transfers. The arguments are as old as the climate change issue themselves. The conference in Copenhagen is unlikely to deliver any solutions. Greenpeace climate expert Karsten Smid calls this “the deepest crisis” in the history of climate negotiations.

Is this also the deepest crisis of global governance? Clearly, the fact that the issues of economic stability, climate change and hunger are discussed can make us optimistic about the global governance in the long run. Yet, it seems that during the last decades we haven’t moved further than accepting, defining and discussing problems. Working solutions are yet to be developed. The questions is whether what is happening is two steps forward and one step back or one step forward and two steps back.

Bernstein, Steven. 2000. “Ideas, Social Structure and the Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism“. European Journal of International Relations” 6(4): 464-512

(olga)

KUSI, “a história surpreendente atrás do embuste do aquecimento global”
por John Coleman

Todos os actores importantes estão agora no lugar em Washington e nos governos estatais através de América para etiquetar oficialmente o dióxido de carbono como um poluente e para decretar as leis que nos taxam cidadãos para nossas pegadas do carbono. Somente dois detalhes estão na maneira, nos tempos económicos esmorecidos e em uma volta dramática para um clima mais frio. Os últimos dois Invernos amargos têm conduzir a uma ascensão na consciência pública que o CO2 não é um poluente e não é um gás de estufa significativo que esteja provocando o aquecimento global do fugitivo.

Como nós chegamos a este ponto onde a ciência má está conduzindo o governo ?

A história começa com um Oceanographer nomeado Roger Revelle. Seriu com a marinha na segunda guerra mundial. Depois que a guerra ele assentou bem no director do instituto Oceanographic de Scripps em La Jolla em San Diego, Califórnia. Revelle viu a oportunidade de obter o financiamento principal da marinha para fazer medidas e pesquisa sobre o oceano em torno dos Atolls pacíficos onde as forças armadas dos E.U. conduziam testes da bomba atómica. Expandiu extremamente as áreas do instituto de interesse e entre outro empregou Hans Suess, um químico notável da Universidade de Chicago, que estava muito interessada nos traços de carbono no ambiente do burning de combustíveis fósseis. Revelle etiquetou sobre aos estudos de Suess e co-autorizou um estudo em 1957. O papel levanta a possibilidade que o dióxido de carbono pôde criar um efeito de estufa e causar o aquecimento atmosférico. Parece ser um argumento para financiar para mais estudos. Financiar, sincera, é onde a mente de Revelle estava na maioria das vezes.

Revelle seguinte empregou um Geochemist nomeado David Keeling para planear uma maneira de medir o índice atmosférico do dióxido de carbono. Em Keeling 1960 publicado seu primeiro papel que mostra o aumento no dióxido de carbono na atmosfera e que liga o aumento à queima de combustíveis fósseis.

Estes dois artigos de investigação transformaram-se a terra firme da ciência do aquecimento global, mesmo que não oferecessem nenhuma prova que o dióxido de carbono era de facto um gás de estufa. Além não explicaram como este gás de traço, simplesmente uma fração minúscula da atmosfera, poderia ter todo o impacto significativo em temperaturas.

Deixe-me agora tomá-lo de volta aos anos 50 em que isto estava indo sobre. Nossas cidades entrapped em um nuvem da poluição motor a combustão interna crus que carros pstos e caminhões para trás então e das emissões descontroladas das centrais energéticas e das fábricas. Os carros e as fábricas e as centrais energéticas enchiam o ar com todas as sortes dos poluentes. Havia um válido e a preocupação séria sobre as consequências da saúde desta poluição e de um movimento ambiental forte estava tornando-se para exigir a ação. O governo aceitou este desafio e os padrões ambientais novos foram ajustados. Os cientistas e os coordenadores vieram ao salvamento. Os novos combustíveis reformulados  foram desenvolvidos para carros, como eram os motores altas tecnologia, controlados por computador novos e os conversores catalíticos. Em o meio dos anos 70 os carros eram já não poluidores do máximo, emitindo-se somente alguns dióxido de carbono e vapor de água de suas tubulações de cauda. Do mesmo modo, o processamento novo do combustível e os purificadores da pilha de fumo foram adicionados a industrial e as centrais energéticas e suas emissões foram reduzidas extremamente, também.

Mas um movimento ambiental tinha sido estabelecido e seu financiamento e muito existência dependeu de ter uma edição de continuação da crise. Assim os artigos de investigação de Scripps vieram apenas no momento direito. E, com eles veio o nascimento de uma edição; aquecimento global sintético do dióxido de carbono da queima de combustíveis fósseis.

Revelle e Keeling usaram esta alarmismo nova para manter seu crescimento do financiamento. Outros investigadores com motivações ambientais e uma fome para o financiamento viram este tornar-se e escalaram-no a bordo também. As concessões de pesquisa começaram a fluir e a hipótese alarmista começou a aparecer em toda parte.

A curva de Keeling mostrou uma ascensão constante no CO2 na atmosfera durante o período desde que o óleo e o carvão foram descobertos e usados pelo homem. Até à data de hoje, o dióxido de carbono aumentou de 215 a 385 porções por milhão. Mas, apesar dos aumentos, é ainda somente um gás de traço na atmosfera. Quando o aumento for real, a percentagem da atmosfera que é CO2 permanece minúscula, aproximadamente .41 centésimo de um por cento.

Diverso a hipótese emergiu nos anos 70 e no 80s sobre como este componente atmosférico minúsculo do CO2 pôde causar um aquecimento significativo. Mas permaneceram não demonstrados. Os anos passaram e os cientistas mantiveram-se alcangar para fora para a evidência do aquecimento e da prova de suas teorias. E, o dinheiro e as reivindicações ambientais manteve-se na acumulação.

Para trás nos anos 60, esta pesquisa do aquecimento global veio à atenção de um Maurício nomeado de nação unida carregada burocrata canadense forte. Procurava edições que poderia se usar para cumprir seu sonho do governo do um-mundo. Forte organizou um evento do dia de terra do mundo em Estocolmo, Sweden em 1970. Disto desenvolveu um comité dos cientistas, dos ecólogos e de eficiente políticos do UN para continuar uma série de reunião.

Forte desenvolveu o conceito que o UN poderia exigir pagamentos das nações avançadas para o dano climático de seu burning de combustíveis fósseis beneficiar as nações subdesenvolvidas, uma sorte do imposto do CO2 que fosse o financiamento para seu governo do um-mundo. Mas, ele necessário mais prova científica suportar sua tese preliminar. Tão forte patrocinou o estabelecimento do painel intergovernamental de nação unida na mudança de clima. Esta não era uma organização científica do estudo puro do clima, como nós fomos conduzimos para acreditar. Era uma organização dos burocratas do UN do governo do um-mundo, dos activistas ambientais e dos cientistas da ecologia que imploraram o financiamento do UN assim que poderiam produzir a ciência eles necessários para parar a queima de combustíveis fósseis. Durante os últimos 25 anos foram muito eficazes. As centenas de papéis científicos, de quatro reuniões internacionais principais e de resmas de notícias sobre o Armageddon climático mais tarde, o UN IPCC fizeram seus pontos à satisfação da maioria e compartilharam mesmo de um prémio de paz de Nobel com Al Gore.

Ao mesmo tempo, esse Maurício Strong era ocupado no UN, coisas começ um bocado fora da mão para o homem que é chamado agora o avô do aquecimento global, Roger Revelle. Tinha sido muito polìtica active nos anos 50 atrasados porque trabalhou para mandar a Universidade do Califórnia encontrar um terreno de San Diego junto ao instituto de Scripps em La Jolla. Ganhou essa guerra principal, mas perdeu uma batalha da mais alta importância mais tarde quando foi passado sobre na selecção do primeiro chanceler do terreno novo.

Deixou Scripps finalmente em 1963 e transportou-se à Universidade de Harvard para estabelecer um centro para estudos de população. Era lá que Revelle inspirou um de seus estudantes assentar bem em um activista principal do aquecimento global. Este estudante diria mais tarde, “ele feltro como tal privilégio poder ouvir-se sobre os readouts de algumas daquelas medidas em um grupo de não mais do que os undergraduates uma dúzia. Estava aqui este professor que apresenta a algo não os anos velhos mas frescos fora do laboratório, com implicações profundas para nosso futuro!” O estudante descreveu-o como “um professor maravilhoso, visionário” quem fosse “um dos primeiros povos na comunidade académico para soar o alarme no aquecimento global,” esse estudante era Al Gore.

Pensou do Dr. Revelle como seu mentor e referiu-lhe frequentemente, retransmitindo suas experiências como um estudante em sua terra do livro no contrapeso, publicou em 1992.

Então, Roger Revelle era certamente o avô do aquecimento global. Seu trabalho tinha colocado a fundação para o UN IPCC, desde que a munição do combustível do anti-fóssil ao movimento ambiental e a Al Gore emitido em sua estrada a seus livros, sua movimento, seu prémio de paz de Nobel e uns cem milhão dólares do negócio de créditos do carbono.

O que aconteceu em seguida é surpreendente. A agitação do aquecimento global estava transformando-se a celebridade da causa dos meios. Depois que todos os meios são na maior parte liberais, ama Al Gore, amores advertir que nós de desastres iminentes e para nos dizer “o céu estão caindo, o céu estão caindo”. Os políticos e o ecólogo amaram-no, demasiado.

Mas a maré estava girando com o Roger Revelle. Foi forçado para fora em Harvard em 65 e retornou a Califórnia e semi a uma posição da aposentadoria no UCSD. Lá teve o tempo para repensar o dióxido de carbono e o efeito de estufa. O homem que tinha inspirado Al Gore e tinha dado ao UN a investigação básica ele necessário para lanç seu painel intergovernamental na mudança de clima tinha dúvidas. Em 1988 escreveu duas letras preventivas aos membros de congresso. Escreveu, “minha própria opinião pessoal é que nós devemos esperar outros 10 ou 20 anos a ser convencidos realmente que o efeito de estufa está indo ser importante para seres humanos, em maneiras positivas e negativas.” Adicionou, “… nós devemos ser cuidadosos não despertar demasiado alarme até a taxa e uma quantidade de aquecimento torna-se mais desobstruída.”

E em 1991 Revelle aliou-se com Chauncey Starr, fundando o directivo do instituto de investigação da energia eléctrica e do cantor de Fred, o primeiro diretor do serviço satélite de tempo dos E.U., para escrever um artigo para o compartimento do cosmos. Incitaram mais pesquisa e imploraram cientistas e governos não mover demasiado rápido para emissões de CO2 da estufa do freio porque era de modo nenhum certo que o impacto verdadeiro do dióxido de carbono e limitar o uso de combustíveis fósseis poderia ter um impacto negativo enorme na economia e os trabalhos e nosso standard de vida. Eu discuti esta colaboração com o Dr. Cantor. Assegura-me que era consideravelmente mais certo que Revelle do que era naquele tempo que o dióxido de carbono não era um problema.

Roger Revelle atendeu à enclave do verão no bosque boémio em Califórnia do norte no verão de 1990 ao trabalhar nesse artigo? Entregou um discurso da beira do lago lá aos motores e aos abanadores montados de Washington e de Wall Street em que se desculpou emitindo o UN IPCC e Al Gore neste ganso selvagem – persiga sobre o aquecimento global? Disse que a conjectura científica chave de sua vida tinha despejado erradamente? A resposta 2 aquelas perguntas é, “eu penso assim, mas eu não a sei  certo”. Eu não consegui confirmar até à data deste momento. É um pequeno como Las Vegas; o que é dito nas estadas boémias do bosque no bosque boémio. Não há nenhum transcrito ou as gravações e os povos que atendem são incentivados não falar. Contudo, o tópico é tão importante, que alguns povos compartilharam comigo em uma base informal.

Roger Revelle morreu de um ataque cardiaco três meses depois que a história do cosmos foi imprimida. Oh, como eu o desejo estavam ainda vivo hoje. Pôde poder parar este disparate científico e terminar o embuste do aquecimento global.

Al Gore não admitiu a culpa do Mea de Roger Revelle como as acções do homem idoso senil. E, o próximo ano, ao funcionar para o vice-presidente, disse que a ciência atrás do aquecimento global está estabelecida e não haverá não mais debate, de 1992 até que hoje, e suas cortes recusem debater o aquecimento global e em que nos pergunte aproximadamente cépticos insultam-nos simplesmente e chamam-nos nomes.

Tão hoje nós temos a aceitação do dióxido de carbono como o culpado do aquecimento global. Conclui-se que quando nós queimamos combustíveis fósseis nós estamos deixando uma pegada inexorável do carbono que nós devamos pagar a Al Gore ou aos ecólogos para deslocar. Nossos governos em todos os níveis estão considerando taxar o uso de combustíveis fósseis. A Agência de Protecção Ambiental federal está na orla de nomear o CO2 como um poluente e estritamente de regular seu uso proteger nosso clima. O presidente novo e o congresso dos E.U. são a bordo. Muitos governos estatais estão movendo sobre o mesmo curso.

Nós já estamos sofrendo deste disparate do CO2 de várias maneiras. Nossa política energética hobbled estritamente por nenhuma perfuração e por nenhumas refinarias novas por décadas. Nós pagamos pela falta que esta criou cada vez que nós compramos o gás. Sobre isso que o tudo isto sobre o milho baseou o álcool etílico custa-nos milhões dos dinheiros provenientes dos impostos nos subsídios. Isso igualmente conduziu acima dos preços dos alimentos. E, toda a esta é longe de sobre.

E, eu sou convencido totalmente que não há nenhuma base científica para algum dela.

Aquecimento global. É o embuste. É ciência má. É um levantamento com macaco elevado da política de interesse público. Não é nenhum gracejo. É o grande embuste na história.

John Coleman é o fundador da canaleta de tempo e é um apresentador do tempo para o KUSI em San Diego, CA.

Neste momento, este artigo continua a ter importência pelo facto de ter rebentado o caso “Climategate”. Mais um vídeo acerca do assunto:

This week I wrote two scripts at Newsy. On Tuesday, I teamed up with a few other writers to research about write a script about the three-day UN world food/hunger summit, which began Monday. This was a difficult script to write because it was so hard to find videos relating to the story.

Here’s the end product: Hunger summit story

On Thursday, I wrote the script for a story I had come across earlier in the week. This story still needs producing before it goes onto the Newsy site, but it was about “greenwashing”, the process of misleading consumers to believe that products are ec0-friendly when they may not be. It’s also about a new program that has developed to certify companies on their “green” practices. It’s significant because right now consumers see all kinds of labels proclaiming products are “green” or “organic” or “environmentally friendly” when there’s no true, official certification.  I’ll post a link once this story is up (hopefully later on this break)!

President Barack Obama greets bystanders as he tours earthquake damage in L’Aquila with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi while attending the G-8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy, July 8, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

> Jóvenes de Nairobi componen canciones para representar las injusticias que se cometen contra su comunidad.

Hope Raisers es un grupo musical fundado en 2005 y que se ha registrado como una organización comunitaria en 2007 con la idea de utilizar la música como un medio para responder a los desafíos globales y para dar voz a muchos jóvenes que viven en los 200 barrios de infraviviendas de Nairobi.

Hope Raisers son 4 chicos de los barrios bajos de Korogocho. Desde el comienzo, el grupo ha escrito una veintena de canciones que tratan temas de justicia social y económica, como las relaciones internacionales injustas, que afectan a los países africanos, el desempleo juvenil, el abuso de alcohol y drogas, embarazo adolescente y el trabajo de los niños pequeños.

Los medios locales han proporcionado algunas de estas canciones, pero los limitados recursos financieros no les han permitido registrar la mayor parte. En una de sus primeras canciones, el G8 Song, pedía a los líderes de los 8 países más ricos para cancelar la deuda que agobia a su país, como a muchos otros en el mundo en desarrollo.

‘Otro mundo es posible’, dedicado al Foro Social Mundial en Nairobi, donde HopeRaisers participó, es una canción que los músicos no han tenido todavía la oportunidad de registrar y editar. En marzo de 2009, la Hope Raisers fue invitada a Italia por la Paz en África y IPSIA para presentar un documental sobre los barrios pobres de Nairobi, en el Festival de Cine Africano de Milán.

Vía | iu-hortaleza.org

El próximo 16 de octubre llegamos a una de esas fechas señaladas desde las Naciones Unidas –el día Mundial de la Alimentación– que este año se presenta con un dato, mejor dicho, con una bofetada escandalosa: 1.020 millones de personas en el mundo sufren hambre y desnutrición. Más que nunca. Coincidiendo con la fecha aparecerán nuevos informes acompañados de recomendaciones y algunas promesas. “Oficialmente” se explicará el incremento de la cifra en 100 millones por la crisis financiera que hizo bajar las donaciones a los países más necesitados y por las condiciones climáticas cada vez más duras. Otros estamentos irán más allá y añadirán que estos niveles de pobreza tan graves son consecuencia de una falta de voluntad política, de un desentenderse de la situación. Pero no, digo yo que no, que todo lo contrario, que es claramente una realidad provocada por una voluntad política de mantener un mundo por encima de otro. (…)

LEER MÁS…

SF State President Robert Corrigan announced in a Sept. 28 e-mail that the governor and California legislature cut nearly 23 percent of SF State’s General Revenue funding, reducing it to $128.7 million.

With stories like this across all levels of education, how can we fork over more money to pay educators to teach longer school days?

WaltSense

Yes, President Barack Obama just announced that he wants longer school days because the U.S. Department of Education has found that American children aren’t performing as well as their foreign counterparts. But requiring students to potentially stay as late as 7 p.m. isn’t the solution.

One such set of findings is the 2009 National Center for Education Statistics study comparing the performance of American students with those in the other G-8 countries — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

But these findings show that American teachers already rack up more instructional hours than teachers in most countries — 1,080 hours across all levels of education in the 2006 school year, excluding additional time spent preparing lesson plans and grading coursework.

These overworked teachers aren’t what they used to be — or what they could be. At the higher education level of all places, teachers are forced to take furlough days, promising not to work more than what they’re paid for. And let’s be honest, what most teachers are paid isn’t much.

Even though California’s teachers earn more than those in other states, which merely reflects the state’s higher cost of living, their weekly earnings are 19.3 percent less than those of comparable occupations, according to 2008 findings from the California Budget Report.

Yet the United States spent a higher percentage of its Gross Domestic Product — 6.7 percent — on education than all other G-8 countries, according to the 2009 study: $24,400 per student at the higher education level and $9,800 per student at the combined primary and secondary education levels.

The real problem is that what time and money we have is being spent inefficiently.

If other countries can go to school for fewer hours in the year, spend less money doing so and outperform American students, then the problem isn’t how much time is being spent in the classroom.

We shouldn’t be making school days even longer, especially when we can’t afford it. We should be figuring out how to make the most of the time we have.

Victor Bjorgan - Publisher of Bloggers of The Americas

In recent weeks, much has been written in the media about the purchase of armaments and military technology by some South American countries like Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela. On the subject of the arms race in our subcontinent, I would like to make a few comments, some of them are strictly personal opinions and other of more informative nature.

Brazil is the main buyer of arms and military technology, mainly from France. In second place follows the venezuelan purchase of russian arms. Thirdly, Colombia is buying from USA and finally Chile having several arms suppliers, mainly from USA and Germany.

My comments on the so called “arms race” in South America are the following:

Presidents Nicolás Sarkozy and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during the celebrations of September 7th.

1) In principle, I mean that while the arms race discussion is a matter of public concern, it has begun to have a bit of exaggeration. Recent statements made by the Colombian President in Boston where he is saying that some neighboring states can make nuclear weapons is an exaggeration. Perhaps the reason behind this exaggeration are the next general elections in Colombia and Uribe´s intention to get reelected. There goes also the view of Brazilian Vice President Jose Alencar, who defended his country rights to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent and defense of its borders and oil reserves, which caused the immediate reaction of the Presidency of the Nation, which clarified that Alencar’s comments do not reflect government position.

Opening Ceremonies 40th Birthday of Treaty of Tlatelolco

2) I would also note that there is a treaty in the Americas, the Tlatelolco Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, which was driven by Mexico -41 years ago- and was signed by 33 countries. The Treaty originated in the missile crisis in Cuba in 1962, which could lead to a nuclear conflagration between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which made clear the danger posed by nuclear weapons to the region and the world. This threat was removed from the region and the continent has OPANAL to monitor the prevalence of commitments under the Treaty of Tlatelolco. The contribution of Mexican diplomacy for the Tlatelolco Treaty shows that today Mexico could play an important role in controlling the current arms race in South America. It is of my opinion that lately, Mexico has been placed aside in continental politics, and that is of no convenience for the cause of The Americas.

3) Another point is that this is not a typical arms race but four different type of rearmament, because each of the 4 countries has a different reason behind the decision of buying arms. I must say that any army of a democratic state in The Americas must be modern, and keep modernizing as much as it is possible for an economy/country in development. During the aftermath of the dictatorships in Latin America, the democratic governments tried to weaken the power of the local armies by reducing the number of soldiers, reducing the military budget, by not buying new armament, etc… There was also a major effort from the democratic societies to jail some of the military who comited human rights crimes. There was also a major effort to denounce the “Plan Condor” and reduce into ashes any possible new illegal military coordination in The Americas. But this can not last for ever. The military institutions of our continent must keep somewhat modern and up to date, renew equipment and train its soldiers, of course that within a full democratic framework and taking into consideration the economic and social aspects of such expenditures.

Latinamerican armies have been positively instrumental in the peace processes of many countries around the world (Americas, Africa, Middle East, Asia), under the umbrella of the United Nations

So, Brazil and Chile are modernizing its military. But there are some countries that are doing nothing. For example, how long can the argentinian political stablishment (the Kirchner´s included) keep downsizing the military in Argentina? I am not an expert in argentinian military issues, but my question is the following, if the Argentinian Army is an institution that has worked well in democracy since the imprisonment of criminals like Videla, why does Argentina keep having an almost obsolete Army? Is it not in the best interest of Argentina to modernize its Army? The same analysis can be used with the cases of the Armies of Uruguay, Paraguay and Peru. I think yes, it is important to modernize the Armies of our democratic continent.

The question here is, always acting strictly within the democratic system, to build up a positive interdependence between the Armies of the Continent, with the close supervision of the democratic governments.

But, back to my analysis about the so called “arms race”…

Brazil has the “grandeur” vision , originated during the reign of Emperor Pedro I , in the XIX Century. The Brazilian stake is long term. It is not a response to a perceived current and accurate challenge, neither is triggered by the direct danger of an agressive neighbor, although the Venezuelan arms buildup and the presence of the russians raises concerns. The brazilian horizon is the future, and is associated with a growing role-and-recognition of Brazil as a global middle size power , the only Latin American country that seriously aspires to that role. For Brazil, investment in armament is inseparable from its political and economic objectives. It is part of a “country project” which also includes the immediate exploitation of its large offshore hydrocarbons. The economic logic is debatable, but the Brazilian geopolitical design is clear. It is further said that in the arms agreement with France it is also at stake the French and European support for the candidacy of Brazil as a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations and the participation of Brazil in a future extended G-8 , starting in 2011 (along with other nations like Mexico, India, South Africa, Egypt and China). In addition, the Congress and the U.S. government have authorized Boeing to transfer technology to Brazil on the construction of the fighter aircraft F18. Brazil has bought british aircrafts like the Gloster Meteor, and bought an aircraft carrier today named as “Minas Gerais”, and also a French aircraft carrier, with the current name of “São Paulo”. Previously to the announcement of the opening of negotiations for the purchase of the fighters, the Lula government had closed the purchase of five French Scorpene submarines, one with nuclear propulsion; fifty military transport helicopter EC-725, and the construction of a shipyard and a naval base in Rio de Janeiro. At the same time, France undertook to acquire a dozen Brazilian military transport aircraft KC-390, a project to be developed by the Brazilian company Embraer.

A mechanic works at a Colombia military base (Germán Olano) which would house U.S. troops under the agreement

President Chavez and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, during Chavez last visit to Moscow

Colombia has no expansionist or hegemonic dreams, but to defend their state and territory. The increase in colombian military power is more circumstantial. Not part of a profound national vision. It is the inevitable response to an acute local problem with hemispheric implications, the FARC narco-terrorism : a decision essentially reactive. The U.S. role in providing funding, weapons, training and logistics, and the use of seven military bases , is clearly framed by this objective of defeating the FARC and the drug traficking. To imagine that this is part of a broader scheme or expansionist vision , is a simple ideological fantasy.

More dangerous is Chavez. The project of the Venezuelan president is expansionist and aggressive, not defensive. The Venezuelan arms race is another matter. I am convinced that Chavez is also a big corrupt politician and has received multi million-dollar bribes from the Russians and some other provider of his “Bolivarian revolution”. The history will give me right. With cuban supervision, Chavez aims to give muscle to his political-ideological movement, an authoritarian project inward, and interventionist outward with hegemonic delusions. Chavez is a sort of tropical Hitler. He is able to conduct the venezuelan people to genocide. Internally he is oriented to feed armed militia groups (the venezuelan version of the german SA, similar to the infamous Dignity Batalions of Gral. Noriega) in order to support his regime (copied verbatim from the model repressive of Fidel Castro), that means repressive militias controlled by Chavez, while the Colonel wants to keep courting the venezuelan armed forces, more institutional, with sophisticated war toys. His external strategy , besides the strengthening of his strategic alliance with Russia, is as a thorn in the US “backyard” and aims to turn Venezuela into a center of military irradiation growth at a regional level. This war environment is the fourth pillar of a strategy in which the Alba is the political support, Petrocaribe is the economical support, and the Bolivarian Congress of Peoples is the more informal and “social” support.

Chilean Submarine Fleet

The fourth is the case of Chile and its armed forces. The Chileans have been lifelong supporters of having a strong military and have an unresolved dispute over the years with its neighbors (Argentina, Peru and Bolivia). Obviously, in the chilean military schools they simulate conflict scenarios based on fighting with their neighbors. But for now it has gone from “want peace, but preparing for war.”

Out of the previoulsy described four models of rearmament, the Venezuelan model is by far the most disturbing. Is part of a clearly undemocratic project, uncontrolled at the internal level and without external contentions. To this is added to Chavez’s ties with Iran, Syria and Libya. Chavez also seeks to arm its allies, he has helped Bolivia with Russia (geetting them into a military agreement) and also going to donate weapons to Ecuador, for now 6 Mirage aircrafts.

Presidents Alan Garcia (Peru) and Alvaro Uribe (Colombia)

4) In this, I do believe reality has shown that the best approach to the problem is the Peruvian. President Alan Garcia-perhaps motivated by the thought of the great Americanist Víctor Raul Haya de la Torre, founder of APRA- asked first the UNASUR to implement whether it was possible to have a non-aggression pact between the sister nations of the south. This initiative failed. And now, Alan Garcia is claiming that the OAS itself should halt the “absurd” of the arms race in Latin America. As part of a regional conference on children, President Alan García said that if the growing arms purchases does not stop, “the OAS does not make sense, or Unasur, or CAN, or Mercosur.” The OAS could be the way, since the issue has failed in the newly created UNASUR (which was ridiculed by the Chilean Minister, comparing it to the non agression pact between the Nazi’s and the Soviet´s during World War II). At its last meeting in Quito, the Ministers of Defense of the UNASUR were unable to make good decisions. And this was an error of the Presidents, especially the President of Ecuador and the President of Argentina who in the presidential meeting in Bariloche of UNASUR left the settlement of the dispute over the Colombia-US agreement in the hands of the ministers of defense. I wonder, what can the defense ministers do in a matter in which their own Presidents miserably failed? Since when defense ministers in Latin America are strong and capable of taking vital decisions?. In the most cases, they have always been quasi decorative figures. Or have we forgotten that -usually- the main military issues are resolved in consultation of the President with his generals? Most notably the President with the Commander in Chief of the Army.

5) In this play not only South American countries. It also plays the international cartel of arms dealers. The arms market last year entered into a recession. Despite this global recession that knocked down arms sales last year, the United States expanded its role as the world’s leading weapons supplier, increasing its share to more than two-thirds of all foreign armaments deals, according to a new Congressional study. The United States signed agreements weapons valued at $ 37.8 billion in 2008, or 68.4 percent of all business in the global arms bazaar, up significantly from American sales of $ 25.4 billion the year before. Italy was a distant second, with $ 3.7 billion in worldwide weapons sales in 2008, while Russia was third with $ 3.5 billion in arms sales last year – down considerably from the $ 10.8 billion in weapons deals signed by Moscow in 2007. The growth in weapons sales by the United States last year was particularly noticeable against worldwide trends. The value of global arms sales in 2008 was $ 55.2 billion, a drop of 7.6 percent from 2007 and the lowest total since agreements for international weapons sales to developing nations 2005.Weapons reached $ 42.2 billion in 2008, only a nominal increase from the $ 41.1 billion in 2007. The United States was the leader not only in arms sales worldwide, but also in sales to nations in the developing world, signing $ 29.6 billion in weapons agreements with these nations, or 70.1 percent of all such deals. The study found that the larger arms deals concluded by the United States with developing nations last year included a $ 6.5 billion air defense system for the United Arab Emirates, to $ 2.1 billion jet fighter deal with Morocco and a $ 2 billion attack helicopter agreement with Taiwan. Other large weapons agreements were reached between the United States and India, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea and Brazil. Russia was far behind in 2008 with $ 3.3 billion in weapons sales to the developing world, about 7.8 percent of all such agreements. The report says that while Russia continues to have China and India as its main clients weapons (the chinese are starting to produce their own weapons, and the indians buy more from the US nowadays) , Russia’s new focus is on arms sales to Latin American nations, in particular to Venezuela. France was third with $ 2.5 billion in arms sales to developing nations, or about 5.9 percent of weapons deals with these countries. France´s new big customer is Brazil.

6) Since 2003, Latin American countries increased their military spending by 91 percent. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the money allocated by the countries of the region to the defense went from 24,700 million to 47,200 million dólares. From 2003, the region’s share of overall investment in defense rose from 2, 87 percent to 3.23. Military budgets in our area grew faster than the rest of the world.

Serge-Dassault, net worth $5.4 billion, french arms producer, friend of Sarkozy, exporter of arms to Brazil

Last year, Brazil dedicated to his defensive unit 23,000 million. The Lula da Silva government has just closed an investment agreement with France for 12,300 billion through 2021, including a technology transfer program and the construction of military infrastructure. The equipment purchases will consume three-quarters of that program. Between 2005 and 2008, Caracas spent 7000 million dollars in arms, of which 4400 million would be applied to purchases made in Russia. Moscow provides the regime of Hugo Chávez from rifles to fighter planes, and it is suspected that some of this material may have gone into the hands of the FARC, the Colombian guerrillas. Colombia last year bought arms for 5500 million, or 13.5 percent more than last year. And Bolivia has signed an agreement with Russia to buy arms for 100 million dollars. In these data, it expresses a rearmament movement that begins to be followed each day with greater concern for those who follow the politics in the region. Despite the world’s worst economic slump since the 1930s and projections that the number of poor in Latin America will rise this year, countries in the region have embark on their biggest military spending spree in recent memory. Recently, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez visited Russia to purchase 500 combat helicopters for about $ 500 million, according to the Russian state-run RIA news agency. This would bring Venezuela’s purchases of Russian arms over the past five years to more than $ 5 billion. Days earlier, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva welcomed French President Nicolas Sarkozy to the Brazilian capital and announced the start of Final Negotiations to purchase 36 French-made Rafale fighter jets, which, according to French officials, are likely to cost more than $ 7 billion. In addition, Brazil is going forward with plans for the purchase and joint production of several other French weapons systems, including four Scorpene attack submarines, 50 military transport plans, and what would be Latin America’s first nuclear-fueled submarine. Chile recently bought 18 U.S. combat aircraft, and announced plans to purchase U.S. long-range cannons and radars. Even Bolivia, one of Latin America’s poorest countries, has opened a $ 100 million line of credit to buy arms from Russia.

An Apache attack helicopter

7) The arms race is linked to another important phenomenon: the processes of integration in Latin America is involved in since the 80s are canceled or, at best, stalled. The Free Trade Area (FTAA), which prompted the United States since President Bill Clinton in 1994, succumbed at the top of the World Trade Organization in Cancun in 2003. The Andean Community of Nations broke when Chavez decided to leave, in complaint of the free trade agreement that Peru and Colombia negotiated with Washington. Mercosur, perhaps the most ambitious experiment to overcome the national level for the economy and trade, has become a pillar of salt: the flow of trade between Argentina and Brazil is obstructed by all kinds of non tariff barriers; Paraguay rises with increasing vehemence claims for the cost of hydroelectric power consumed by their neighbors, and between Argentina and Uruguay could not be guaranteed any free movement of goods and people, due to the argentinian of its international bridges and their governments litigating in The Hague for the site of a pulp mill cellulose.

8)The theme of Colombian military agreement with the U.S. (the bases) , is used by Chavez as an excuse to justify Venezuela’s arms purchases (and get bribes for it…). The Brazilian side also is using this situation as an excuse to lower the pressure on their military deal with the french. Brazil also wants to have a major role in South America and does not serve them a greater U.S. presence in Colombia and also a greater Russian presence in Venezuela or any other South American countries (Ecuador, Bolivia).

9)  USA has said he is concerned about the arms race in South America, but that does not fit with the fact that today the U.S. is the largest arms dealer and almost monopolistic in the world, and the only who grew up in its arms sales despite the global recession. I tend to believe that USA gave a secret OK to France (USA will not bother France in this) so that USA will not compete with France to sell arms to Brazil, based primarily on the excellent relationship between Sarkozy and the U.S., secondly that does not suit the United States that the arms industry of one of its main allies, France was falling apart and, thirdly, that Brazil would never do such a big arms agreement with the U.S. due to political and ideological restrainments (what Lula would say to the rest of the Latin American leftists? who could stop Chavez yelling at Lula if Brazil bought 20 billion in arms from USA??). What it should worry the U.S. is Chavez’s plans. But that is also now controllable material, due to the improvement of relations between USA and Russia, because USA will not make the missile shield in Europe.

10) It is said that in the case of the Brazilian military purchases it may also ocurred cases of corruption. One reason to say that , is the fact that without any previous tender, the Brazilian government named the company Odebrecht as the Brazilian counterpart for the construction/maintenance  of the new arms and weapons. The French company owner Serge Dassault Aviation, is also a close friend of Sarkozy.

11) Finally, I would say that the Army is an important institutional part of our modern democratic societies. The sword of the Justice is the law, and the defensive sword of the democratic nations (specially the small ones) is the Army (under democratic controll) . The Army has a role in the defense of the democratic state and the continued building of the nations, supporting the Constitution and democratic freedoms and may even be an engine for economic development. Not a bad thing that the Army will be retrofitted, for example the Chilean case, or it is not a bad thing that the Colombian Democracy received military aid from another democratic country to cope with the subversion of the narco-FARC. Nor is it bad that Brazil wants to have an army in line with the economic and political weight that the country already has in the world. What is debatable is the case of a non democratic army and the gang style paramilitary forces who want to arm Colonel Chavez in Venezuela. Chavez is the one who has to give assurances to the continent that his intentions are neither aggressive nor expansionist. Of all the sizzle that has been heard about the arms race in South America, the only thing that worries me is Chavez. His plans must be contained with the use of carots and sticks, diplomacy and sanctions. Mexico´s diplomacy can help, the OAS can help to contain Venezuela, and also the Venezuelan people should try to contain this political dinosaur of the sixties.

Documentário realizado por Michael Tsarion e Red Ice Creations:
http://www.redicecreations.com

Nesse importante documentário Tsarion trata sobre controle mental das massas através da manipulação, passando pela história, desde os hashashins, Companhia das Índias, assassinatos ritualisticos em massa – como o caso Jim Jones, os Panteras Negras, manipulação da mídia, manipulação religiosa, culto ao deus dionísio, manipulação da mídia, era do despertar e anatomia da psique, Ego e consciência.

Como podemos ter sido hipnotizados desde nossa tenra idade e passarmos a fazer parte de um programa sem que sequer pudessemos nos dar conta.

Como toda a realidade pode ter sido construída ou desconstruída pelos Senhores do Caos.

Um documentário que vc deve assistir de forma imparcial e ponderar com imparciliadade, para poder talvez chegar a compreender a profundidade do buraco do coelho branco.

Pressmeddelande: G-20 ledarna har glömt den globala Klimat/Miljöpolitiken samt FN:s 172 fattiga medlemsländer.
26 september 2009 12:50

G-20 ledarna kunde stolt deklarera för världssamfundet idag Anno domino 26 september 2009 efter avslutat möte inför toppmöte; “Det är vi G-20 ledarna som är världens 20 diktatorer och skall leda världen i en ny konservativ kapitaliskt och finansiell världsordning”.

Men det dom har glömt är att FN:s 172 medlemsländers regeringar och världssamfundets 6 300 000 000 medborgare vill ha något helt annat.De vill ha FN- organisationer i en värld som kan greppa om helheten.

De vill ha FN:s nya IBFA och ICEC organisationer som skall greppa helheten i världssamfundet.

Nu är det dags att vända bladet.Det kan inte G-20 ledarna göra idag. De står handfallna.

Nu är det dags tillsammans att vända detta viktiga dynamiska och expansiva blad. 

Det är nu dags att skrota hela G-20 och ersätta det med G-38 för att få en balanserad rättvis fördelning av resurser och åtaganden i världssamfundet.

Har dessa konservativa mammutar haft någon kunskap och kompetens? Överhuvudtaget inte. Världen kommer inte att sörja Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Sir José Manuel Barroso och Silvio Berlusconis callgirls för deras engagemang inom den globala världspolitiken.

De möts i sin rika countryclub och äter rysk kaviar och champagnen flödar oavbrutet.

Istället för klartext av den pågående Finans-Miljö och Klimattsunamikatastrofen slänger de och sina konservativa statsråd och ministrar ut alla invandrarna inom Europaunionen.

Till hjälp har de nu fått den svenska konservativa Allianzregeringen samt centerpartiet,folkpartiet,moderaterna och kristdemoktaerna. 

För att styra denna nya globala marknaden av dessa nya G-38 ledare, IBFA och ICEC, måste det  inte bara till ett förstärkt FN-organ och myndighet, som inte bara ser över den globala Bank och Finansvärldens system och infrastruktur utan också samtidigt den globala miljö och klimatpolitiken som måste gå hand i hand.

Detta innebär i klartext;

1. Att G-20 ersätts av G-38.
2. Att FN får mandat genom FN:s generalförsamling och FN:s säkerhetsråd att implementera; IBFA, International Banking Finance Agency, dess internationella och nationella underorganisationer och att implementera ICEC:s, dess internationella 9och nationella underorganisationer genom FN:s 192 medlemsländer.
3. Att det bildas ett FN organ om den globala miljö och klimatpolitiken som skall heta; International Community´s Environment and Climate Organisation kallad ICEC.
4. Dagens IMF ersätts av IBFA.
5. Att IBFA samt dess nationella och internationella underorganisationer certifieras och kvalitetssäkras enligt ISO 36000.
6. Att ICEC bildas.

International Banking Finance Agency.IBFA och International Community’s Environment and Climate Organisations;

Deltagarkrets

I IBFA:s styrelse och ICES styrelse skall förutom; Kanada, Frankrike, Tyskland, Italien, Japan, Ryssland, Storbritannien, Förenta Staterna läggas till fem stycken länder från varje kontinent, d.v.s. fem kontinenter, EU, Asiatiska, Afrikanska, Syd, Mellanamerikanska Unionen samt därtill FN:s generalförsamling och dess säkerhetsråd.

Detta innebär att de nyvalda G-38 ledare  som utses i FN:s generalförsamling och säkerhetsråd skall ingå i kommande G-38-möten.

International Banking Finance Agency skall innefattas av FN:s 192 medlemsländer, alltså i stort sett samtliga länder i världen.

ICEC skall innefattas av FN:s 192 medlemsländerna, alltså i stort sett samtliga länder i världen.

Fondernas, IBFA:s och ICEC:s huvudkontor skall ligga i Washington DC. Fondernas, IBFA:s och ICEC:s internationella skall finnas i samtliga av FN:s 192 medlemsländers huvudstäder.

Mandat/uppgifter.

IBFA skall enligt sina stadgar verka för internationellt monetärt samarbete samt makroekonomisk, finansiell stabilitet samt övervaka den globala bank och finansmarknadens bonussystem.

Syftet är att bidra till en balanserad ökning av världshandeln och främja ekonomisk tillväxt och ökad levnadsstandard i världen.

IBFA skall ha sex huvudsakliga uppgifter:

1. Övervakning av medlemsländernas ekonomier.
2. Kontroll av den globala finansmarknaden.
3. Reglering av globala nationella och internationella bonussystem.
4. Utlåning för betalningsbalansstöd.
5. Certifiering och kvalitetssäkring enligt ISO 36000.
6. Teknisk assistans.

Mandat/Uppgifter.

ICEC skall enligt sina stadgar verka för internationellt och nationellt miljö och globalt samarbete samt genom internationell lagstiftning verka för nya globala miljö och klimat avtal.

ICEC skall ha sex huvudsakliga uppgifter.
1. Övervakning av medlemsländernas miljö och klimatpolitik.
2. Kontroll av den globala miljö och klimatmarknaden.
3. Reglering och lagstiftning av den globala miljö och klimatpolitiken .
4. Utlåning för betalningsbalansstöd.
5. Certifiering och kvalitetssäkring enligt ISO 36000.

6. Teknisk Assistans. 

Tyngdpunkten för IBFA:s och ICES arbetet ligger på övervakning av medlemsländernas ekonomiska politik, den globala bank och finansmarknadens bonussystem samt den globala miljö och klimatmarknaden, dess politik och dess nationella och internationella lagstiftning.

På basis av denna övervakning vill IBFA och ICEC utfärda råd och rekommendationer om den ekonomiska politiken, om nationella och internationella finansiella reformer samt den globala miljö och klimatpolitiken i syfte att förebygga uppkomsten av finansiella och ekonomiska kriser samt därtill miljö och klimatkriser.

När sådana ändå inträffar är det FN:s och dess organisationers, G-38 ledarnas, FN:s 192 medlemsländers, ICES:s och IBFA:s fulla ansvar och roll att dels ge råd om hur ekonomin samt den globala miljö och klimatpolitiken skall förbättras, dels kunna ge villkorat finansiellt stöd för att tillfälligt täcka betalningsbalansbehoven och därmed underlätta för de länder som drabbas att stabilisera sin ekonomi och globala och nationella miljö och klimatpolitik.

Avsikten är att därmed skapa förutsättningar för en långsiktigt stabil ekonomisk samt därtill en dynamisk expansiv miljö och klimatanpassad nationell och internationell tillväxt. Länder som för en i grunden sund nationell ekonomisk och miljö och klimat politik kan också försäkra sig om lån om de skulle drabbas av betalningsbalansproblem.

Utlåningen finansieras främst med kapital som medlemsländerna tillskjutit i förhållande till sin ekonomiska vikt i världsekonomin, och detta kapital ligger också till grund för ländernas röststyrka i fondens beslutande organ.

Den tekniska assistansen från G-38 ledarna, FN, ICEC och IBFA:s inriktas främst på att bistå i uppbyggnaden av institutioner, lagar och regelverk för den globala finansiella och miljö och klimat sektorn i u-medel och låginkomstländer.

En delegation från IBFA och ICEC skall årligen göra besök i IBFA:s och ICEC:s ansluta 192 medlemsländer.

Dessa besök avslutas med att IBFA och ICEC presenterar ett uttalande om de fem kontinenternas ekonomi och nationell och global miljö och klimatpolitik, och den rapport som utarbetas efter fondens granskning diskuteras i respektive exekutivstyrelsen.

=====================================================================

Publicerat; G20 :  

Pada tanggal 24-25 September 2009 lalu di Pittsburgh –sebuah kota kecil di negara bagian Pennsylvania-Amerika Serikat–sedang berlangsung Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi (KTT) negara-negara G-20. Ini adalah gabungan dari negara-negara anggota G-8 yang semuanya merupakan negara maju dengan sejumlah negara lain dari kategori negara berkembang yang dipandang potensial. Dan Indonesia adalah salah satunya.

Keterlibatan Indonesia dalam forum bergengsi itu tentu saja menimbulkan rasa bangga. Namun, bangga saja tidak cukup. Karena kalau cuma begitu, kita semata akan jadi macan kertas belaka.

Posisi G-20 memang sangat strategis, karena hanya dari 20 negara anggotanya saja sudah menyumbangkan 90 persen Produk Domestik Bruto (PDB) dunia. Meski Indonesia hanya menempati urutan keempat dari bawah dengan PDB sebesar 468 milyar dollar A.S, ini tidak mengurangi ‘gengsi’ kita karena dari kawasan Asia Tenggara hanya Indonesia yang masuk kelompok ekonomi utama dunia ini.

Tentu saja menjadi “kelompok elit” menyenangkan dan membanggakan. Akan tetapi muncul kekuatiran jangan sampai Indonesia semata cuma dijadikan legitimasi adanya perwakilan negara berkembang. Padahal, seperti pernah saya tulis, posisi Indonesia sebenarnya memang dipandang sangat strategis bagi negara maju terutama A.S. (klik di sini).

Hanya saja, memang sulit memainkan kartu diplomasi internasional di tengah suasana dalam negeri yang justru sangat fluktuatif. Sebuah negara baru bisa berkiprah di dunia internasional kalau ia mampu mengatasi masalah dalam negernya sendiri terlebih dahulu. Di sini harus diakui walaupun punya banyak kekurangan, sedikit-banyak pemerintahan SBY relatif berhasil menciptakan suatu kestabilan di dalam negeri. Karena itu peran Indonesia di kancah diplomasi internasional kembali dimainkan.

Membaca hasil-hasil Pittsburgh Summit 2009, sebagai bangsa Indonesia harus mampu menempatkan dirinya sebagai “wakil” dari negara berkembang yang dipandang penting. Keminderan, ketakutan, atau malah perasaan tidak mampu harus dihilangkan. Bagaimanapun, negara-negara maju anggota G-8 yang menggagas forum G-20 ini telah mempertimbangkan masak-masak mengapa Indonesia diundang serta dalam kelompok elite ini. Salah satunya tentu karena faktor sumber daya manusia kita yang melimpah, sebagai negara berpenduduk terbesar keempat di dunia. Maka, sudah selayaknya kita memainkan kartu diplomasi yang dimiliki dengan arif. Penduduk yang besar misalnya, tidak hanya pasar potensial bagi produk negara maju, tapi juga sebenarnya tenaga kerja yang luar biasa untuk dioptimalkan. Belum lagi kartu sumber daya alam kita yang kaya dan melimpah. Sayangnya, banyak orang yang justru melecehkan kemampuan bangsa sendiri dengan membuat  berbagai aktivitas yang merusak citra bangsa, sehingga kartu diplomasi internasional kita menjadi kurang efektif. Salah satunya ya para teroris tak tahu diuntung itu, yang telah membuat upaya pemerintah membangun citra keamanan menjadi terhambat. Sebagai warga negara biasa, apa yang bisa kita lakukan adalah mendukung upaya Indonesia menjadi pemimpin negara dunia ketiga seperti peran yang dulu pernah dimainkan dengan baik oleh Soekarno dan Soeharto.

The Group of Twenty, a group of the 20 wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world, met last week in Pittsburgh, again to discuss the global economic crisis and see what they can do about it.  This is the third time in a year that they have met since the financial crisis broke out in late 2008.

The G-20 is seemingly in a position to overtake the G-8, the elite group of countries who got together every year to have a “discussion” about the state of the world – mostly lounging at rich resorts in exotic locales.I see the G-20 as more of a “working man’s group” than the G-8 – the G-8, who would, as the 1997 movie Titanic put it very succinctly, simply “retreat into a cloud of smoke and congratulate themselves on being masters of the universe.”

In this global economic climate, the working man’s group is what we need.  Because the working people are the ones affected.  It’s nice to know that there are officials in our governments trying to do the right thing for the people, to bring the economic crisis down from the fever pitch that it was, into something more manageable.  It’s nice to see that the top 8 richest countries in the world are being mitigated by the next top 12.  Because, as I’ve stated, the rich people don’t feel all the effects.

And yet there are people who say that the G-20’s work is done, that the financial crisis has returned to normal.

NORMAL?  Excuse me, but you call a 9.6% unemployment rate (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) normal?  The way I see it, the G-20’s work is not to stabilize the banks and lend each other money so that they can all get by, it’s to stabilize the people (and sure, okay, why not lend them money?), so we can get by.

Unemployment rates are high, home foreclosure rates are skyrocketing, and interest rates are the lowest they’ve been in years.  It doesn’t look like the recession’s over.  I think it’s just beginning.  And in that case, the G-20 is most certainly not over.  There’s still work to do.  And if there’s not, I’m all for keeping it together – because I most certainly won’t go home feeling comfortable about what’s being said and ruled upon and dealt with at a club at the Bahamas.  But in working man’s Pittsburgh, with a greater percent of the world’s governments?  That’s a bit better.