empire watch, featured

Panama Papers: Revealing details live in the gaps between the lines

by Kit

Pictured: NATO Heads of State and their ally, the King of Saudi Arabia

Pictured: NATO Heads of State and their ally, the King of Saudi Arabia

Certain species of lizard – when threatened, cornered or in danger of being eaten – have the ability to “drop” their tail. This process, “Autotomy” (from the Greek, auto=self, tome=severing), enables the lizard to flee whilst the predator gets a brief distraction and small meal. The lizard survives. Tails grow back.

A simple, efficient survival method. The body ejects a replaceable part in protection of the vital whole. Easily adapted for the “Grand Chess Board”. Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein. All have played their part, only to be dropped when it became convenient. Despots and puppets grow back, too.

The Panama Papers broke, yesterday. Dozens of MSM outlets joined together in echoing this startling piece of investigative journalism: Rich people avoid paying their taxes. I know, I was shocked too.

Most of the BIG HEADLINES and threatening looking diagrams were reserved for Vladimir Putin (The Guardian) and Bashar al-Assad (The Independent), despite the fact that (as we covered last night) neither are named in any of the leaked documents.

The names that ARE mentioned? A who’s who of disposable despots, monsters of the week and inconveniently uncooperative politicians…with a few minor British political figures to add some verisimilutude.

Petro Poroshenko, a slow, stupid, politically inept post-Soviet fossil thrown into the least appealing Presidency on the planet.

Pavlo Lazarenko – convicted criminal and former Ukrainian PM.

Bidzina Ivanishvili – former PM of Georgia under the bufoon Saakashvili.

Sheikh Khalifa, President of the UAE and Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber bin Mohammed bin Thani Al Thani former PM of Qatar, both magnets for acceptable criticism.

The King of Saudi Arbia, the perrenial boogeyman of “alternative” thinkers, and reposit of all mainstream criticism of any Western foreign policy – a sock puppet with a scary face, that we’re all encouraged to boo and hiss at so we can feel we have made a stand.

Ten-a-penny climbers, idiots and monsters. Lizard tails all. Cut them off and grow a new one.

No American citizens were named. No American companies were implicated. In espionage terms this is what they call a “limited hangout”: a vaguely worded and dishonestly presented partial truth, used to add credence to a backstory and increase the believability of the source.

In more coloquial, and honest, terminology: It is agenda-driven bullshit.

The cooperative of intelligence-backed hacks who “broke” this “story” all hail from The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) a “special project” (their website tells us) of the not-at-all-Orwellian-sounding “Center for Public Integrity”.

Now, we’ve been here before – see our work on The New East Network – let’s just take a stroll down the About page of the Center for Public Integrity, and find out where they get their money from:

  • The Goldman-Sonnenfeldt Foundation – they don’t have a website, but their President does. He’s a “philanthropist and entrepeneur”. In case you’re wondering…yes, that is “Goldman” as in “Goldman Sachs”.
  • The Ford Foundation – yes, as in Henry Ford. Business magnate and Nazi collaborator.
  • Open Society Foundation – we’ve tangled with these fine folks before. The OSF are an NGO set up by billionaire George Soros. Because billionaires love justice and freedom.
  • The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund – how exactly these two things differ I’m not sure, however they do both exist, and they both give money to the CfPI, because the Rockefellers are all about that integrity.
  • The Carnegie Corporation of New York – As in Andrew Carnegie, the billionaire. As in the Carnegie Endowment for American Hegemony…sorry, I mean International Peace.

So – to sum up:

George Soros, David Rockefeller, the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, Goldman-Sachs et al. – who are all rabibly anti-corruption and always pay their taxes – all pooled their resources to fund the “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists” and tasked them with investigating shady international financial practices.

The result is this “leak”, a list of geo-political nobodies, has-beens, easy targets and dead ancestors. The tenuous and absurd connections to “enemies” of the West are exaggerated and plastered all over the headlines, whilst the names of allies and relatives are sidelined and barely mentioned – the majority of the information will “never be made public” according to the Guardian.

This is what “investigative journalism” has come to, printing billionaires’ enemy lists under the guise of “leaks”. Maybe this is a sign they feel cornered or threatened – because all they offer us here is a brief distraction and a small meal.


64 Comments

  1. I see you don’t monetize your page, don’t waste your traffic,
    you can earn additional bucks every month because you’ve
    got hi quality content. If you want to know how to make extra bucks, search for: Mrdalekjd methods for $$$

    Like

  2. Yonatan says

    The ‘most significant leak ever’ disappears from the western MSM news cycle just as news of Israel’s involvement comes out. This invovlement is not reported in the western MSM, but in Israel itself.

    Haaretz reports “Israeli Diamond Tycoons Listed in Leaked Panama Papers”

    “Diamond and mining magnate Dan Gertler is mentioned more than 200 times in the leaked documents of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, a leader in establishing shell companies that often serve to conceal the ownership of assets.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.713130

    This just confirms that as far as the west goes, the leak was not an investigation into corruption per se and that the western MSM self-censor to maintain Israel’s propaganda-based image in the west.

    Like

  3. I’m looking for facts. Another poster, in another discussion (Kit’s first article on the Panama Papers I believe), mentioned the involvement of USAID with ICIJ. I don’t know much about ICIJ, but I now Know that it is corrupt. Sadly, I see that some good journos belong to it. Maybe they can be encouraged to give up their membership.

    Considering that Soros and USAID are the same sort of evil, and have funded the very same US great game projects, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that USAID was a funder of ICIJ also. Is that the case? Anyone?

    Like

  4. chrisb says

    ‘ … a few minor British political figures to add some verisimilutude.’ David Cameron ‘minor’? Weeks before Cameron chairs an anti-corruption summit, which was presumably planned as a smokescreen behind which tax evasion could continue as before? Two months before the EU referendum when Cameron’s damaged reputation threatens to deliver a BREXIT vote to which TPTB are strongly opposed? As you said, ‘Revealing details live in the gaps between the lines’ of your article.

    Liked by 1 person

    • elenits says

      It’s an interesting moment to target obedient puppet Cameron with Brexit on the line. The question might be what replacement they have in mind.

      Like

      • Sayanim Scam says

        All one has to ask is “does it expose Israel, UK Royalty, Soros, Rothschilds and the Monsantos”?
        No. Move on and know who it serves and who it represents. Furthers the British Israel SAYANIM cartel. Period

        Like

  5. Daragh says

    “Bidzina Ivanishvili – former PM of Georgia under the bufoon Saakashvili.”

    Actually Ivanishvili was one of Saakashvili’s biggest political opponents, and his Georgian Dream party has launched several legal campaigns against Saakashvili’s party (and Saakashvili personally).

    “No American citizens were named. No American companies were implicated.”

    A) Not actually true. B) The comparative lack of American names is more likely due to the fact that states like Delaware and Nevada function as effective ‘onshore offshore’ tax havens, due to America’s lax financial regulations.

    “The cooperative of intelligence-backed hacks who “broke” this “story” all hail from The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)”

    Ken Silverstein trailed the story in Vice well over a year ago, and apparently offered it to Glenn Greenwald and Pierre Omidyar at the Intercept – https://twitter.com/KenSilverstein1/status/716803985915703297

    In other words, if you’re going to create these puerile alternate realities to make yourselves feel special, you might want to make sure you don’t base them on demonstrable falsehoods.

    Like

    • a) I made a statement of fact regarding Mr Ivanishvili. He was Prime Minister under President Saakashvili, he has since retired and is currently a political irrelevence. I don’t know why you have taken issue with this undisputed fact.

      b) At the time of publishing ZERO American citizens had been named. A handful of minor celebrities have since been connected, but if anything this only accentuates my point: they had REAL names, and chose to focus on strained connections to designated “villains”.

      c) Every mainstream news outlet has credited the work of the ICIJ, it has been their story from the get-go. The ICIJ receives its funding from numerous suspect sources. If this is a “demonstrable falsehood”…feel free to demonstrate it.

      In other words, if you’re going to try and engage in a conversation on this topic, you might want to bring more to the table than childish ad hominem arguments and cod psychology.

      Like

      • Sayanim Scam says

        You need to bring some real facts, instead of your own useless opinion. Mainstream media quoting or claiming ANYTHING only represents THEIR corporate elite sponsor’s interests and proves zero. Learn some logic.
        On a linear timeline. Silverstein covered this first- and for honest reason, not as a weapon to be used against the expose’s targets.
        Learn some classics. Cui bono or even a contemporary idiom: “show us the Iraq WMDs”. Fake NGOs sponsored by the same Elite that sponsor the MSM- posing as ostensible watchdogs on the MSM- is just more agitprop rubbish.

        Like

  6. Very few billionaires are funding anything on the anti-global-warming side (and the only two that are prominent are Jeremy Grantham and Tom Steyer). But their expenditures are dwarfed by those of the Koch brothers on the pro-global-warming side, and there are many other billionaires that are likewise spending heavily on the pro-global-warming side. Here’s just the Koch brothers:
    http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Embargo_Report.pdf

    Furthermore, there is no reasonable doubt that the planet is burning up from excess carbon gases and the “greenhouse effect” they produce. See:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=369242C04A3D974B1C6E8AD114F9EE2C.c4

    You’re on the wrong side of the biggest public-policy issue in the entire history of humanity — and the world.

    Like

    • Trickmeister,
      I agree with you one hundred per cent in the smoke screen theory.
      The breaking news and exclusive of The Age is HUGE. !!!!
      They (The Age) have worked on that exclusive very thoroughly. It is earth shattering as stories go!
      It is being overshadowed, deliberately, by the The Panama Papers.
      Journalists are being fooled, and cannot smell a real story in front of them!
      So yes one hundred per cent in agreement with you!

      Like

  7. AnotherLover says

    Frickin awesome, man! Very well-written piece, and a great analogy. You have put into words that which has been swirling through my mind since I heard of this nonsense. Good work!

    Like

  8. …the majority of the information will “never be made public”… You bet, Wikileaks has started to make it available. The tax-dodging implication of US corporations is making Obama have the jitters, and it is splashing Hillary Clinton as on Tuesday, candidate Sanders blasted Clinton, saying that she “helped push the Panama Free Trade Agreement through Congress as Secretary of State and the results have been a disaster.” Don’t dismiss what the Papers will bring about, for the moment a small lizard tail has fallen in Iceland, but Macri, the recently annointed by Obama himself Argentina president, and the friend of the financial vultures, is in hot water. Further revelations are coming, and the sponsors of such a monumental release did a patchy work, as it always happens when you open Pandora’s box. Did they want to incriminate Putin and Assad? They did a bad job, as they weren’t even named, and if the Western MSM made such a fuss with their anti-Putin obsession, they have been slammed by their audience, who is sick and tired of such a gratuitous demonization. Now just wait and see, loads of dirty businesses are surfacing, in spite of Soros & Co. They didn’t cut their tail, they jumped into an uncharted abyss.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sayanim Scam says

      Where is the revelations on Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Meir Dagon, Russian jew Oligarchs, Sheldon Adelson, SOROS, Rothschild rot…? Missing in Action.
      Sheeple too stupid to see anything beyond where they are led by the nose via the ZIoElite. Even Wikiwash crap- after it was revealed about THEM- that they’d made deals w/ fellow Tribe jew Assange, to withhold ugly dirt on Israel? The sheeple STILL consider this limited hangout to be a reputable source. WTFU

      Like

  9. M. le Docteur Ralph says

    Meanwhile, while the world and the Guardian focuses on who has bought what Mayfair property through an offshore company and who is “in” and “out” in Langley’s version of Cosmo, in Syria comes the news that has been buried by all this.

    Al Quaida/Al Nusra now has surface to air missiles (and no one bothers to ask what type and who supplied them) and has downed a Syrian plane (pity the poor pilot who has allegedly been captured by the “moderate” Syrian rebels).

    It has also started a major offensive in Latakia.

    The Empire of Chaos strikes back. Stupid move though given the number of “coalition of the willing (and uninvited)” planes in the skies over Syria and the potential for untold problems for commercial airliners.

    Like

  10. ZeGermanHunn says

    I have noticed Cameron being involved someway only by englisch newspapers. German “Quality media” (SZ, Spiegel) didn’t cover that at all.

    But, as I see, no one of you mentions it here as well. Can someone of you tell me plz, whether this is because it is obvious that David Cameron is no way involved, or any other reason?

    Slightly confusing me, because, as said, german media do not issue it at all.

    Dankeschön in advance

    Like

    • elenits says

      It’s true. Cameron’s dead father made an offshore and I suppose Cameron benefitted. Revealing this is obviously some sort of warning to Cameron from the PTB.

      Like

    • passerby says

      UK libel laws are pretty strong. David Cameron’s father is dead; he won’t sue the newspapers for defamation. Writing about someone who is alive – now that’s risky.

      Like

    • Jen says

      The information leak was about 2.6 terabytes – probably too much for many MSM newsrooms to handle these days as they have suffered cost-cutting and loss of staff over the years. It seems that different journalists took different pieces away from it according to their nationality.

      There are 350 Canadian individuals and organisations, and 800 Australian individuals and organisations named in the Panama Papers, but you would not know unless you read Canadian and Australian mainstream news media.

      The British media have certainly noted David Cameron’s link through his stockbroker father but this link is not as important to them as the possibility of linking Vladimir Putin and Bashar al Assad to tax havens in Panama and the Caribbean, however laughably non-existent those links ended up being.

      Like

  11. Seamus Padraig says

    “Pictured: NATO Heads of State and their ally, the King of Saudi Arabia”

    BTW, the photo-caption looks wrong.

    Like

  12. Seamus Padraig says

    Totally agree with Kit: this is 90% psy-op.

    One interesting point regarding Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar: monarchs can’t be taxed, so one has to wonder why they bothered setting up secret, off-shore accounts and founding dummy corporations? To finance terrorism maybe?

    Liked by 1 person

    • elenits says

      Monarchs can’t be taxed but they can be dethroned 🙂

      So their off shores are most likely a kind of insurance. Just in case.

      Like

  13. That wicked Andrew Carnegie, causing havoc from beyond the grave. The wicked Robber Baron who gave his workforce half the proceeds from the sale of his Steel Empire to JP Morgan. What a crooked tight-wad Andrew was he should have gioven all of it to the workforce! and not wasted it on Libraries and University Endowments… SHAME!

    Like

    • I suggest you read up on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and other Carnegie sponsored projects.

      What ever kind of man Andrew Carnegie was, his name and money have been used to spread American political influence around the world, often at the expense of democracy and civilian well-being.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. passerby says

    In the Soviet Union, people realized news could not be trusted and huddled around short-wave receivers to find out what was really happening. Today we browse the internet for the same reason.

    The problem is that democracy does not work without unbiased reporting. You can’t cast a meaningful vote if you’re not informed. When newspapers are degraded to psyops, elections become a match to see which candidate has the best marketing professionals.

    Liked by 2 people

    • elenits says

      Worse, the candidates are more or less actors handpicked by the so-called. elite

      Like

  15. shaksvshav says

    Just a short step now to out and out fabrication. Will the Guardian become the new Forger’s Gazette?

    Liked by 2 people

  16. elenits says

    When I saw that only 11 political figures were leaked, and of them Poroshenko and not Kolmoisky….

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Moali says

    All this is spin doctorng! The idea is to lie ..lie..and lie….the british media is feral and not worth its reporting nowadays.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. stephen laudig says

    The Clinton Foundation provides a laundering service in a similar sense of the term.

    Like

  19. Since Senator Bernie Sanders has been the only major-party candidate for President of the United States who’s mentioned “offshore tax havens”, it’ll be very interesting to see the responses of Clinton, Trump. Cruz and Kasich (if any, or “no comment, until everyone releases their comments…”) to the “Panama Papers”. The Tax Justice Network has been all over this huge global scandal for years; persons interested in learning all about the $trillion-dollar/year tax evasion industry, facilitated by the “Big Four” accounting firms, the most powerful legal firms, and the largest Wall Street/London banks can visit taxjustice.net along with the group’s YouTube channel “Tax Justice Network”. If this immeasurably important issue doesn’t immediately become an integral part of debates/discussions in the 2016 election for President of the United States, then only the Creator-God can help humanity.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. bevin says

    You’ve been a ll over this story from the beginning. Good.
    I have a feeling that it will be some time before we find out why these ‘papers’ were released just now, after being sat upon for more than a year.
    It’s Rockefeller, by the way, just the two ‘r’s.

    Like

    • Yonatan says

      It takes attaention away from the fact that Russia revealed to the UN that Turkey, a peace-loving member of NATO, that global force-for-peace, is the main source of arms for the ‘carefully vetted’ headchoppers aka ISIS. There is no way Turkey has been doing this without the knowledge and assistance of ISIS

      Liked by 3 people

      • Yonatan says

        edit – the final sentence should end ‘knowledge and assistance of NATO’ – doh!

        Like

        • elenits says

          Distraction. What else is going on besides Turkey / Russia?

          Like

    • Seamus Padraig says

      Well, at least temporarily, it’s gotten us all to stop talking about Assange and Snowden, hasn’t it?

      Like

  21. Eric Zuesse says

    That’s a terrific summary of the ‘Panama Papers’ analysis of a leaked data-dump that was produced by a large team of, it seems, propagandists for the U.S. aristocracy, a.k.a.: ‘investigative journalists.’ They’ll probably win a Pulitzer Prize for — their propaganda.

    The only bone I have to pick with Kit’s article about it is that there’s just a bit of propaganda in his summary of it, too. For examples: at least a few of the major funders of the Center for Public Integrity are decent, no real scam-operation. For example, Jeremy Grantham’s foundation, the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, has funded some of the most important empirical analyses of global warming, and the only flaws that I can find in their work consist of underlying falsehoods in microeconomic theory itself, where there is an assumption that people who live in the future should be assumed to be worth less than people who live in the present — that some time-value-of-money ‘discount rate’ should be applied, for example, to people who live in the year 3000 as compared to people who live in the year 2016. That’s a falsehood in the underlying microeconomic theory, not in anything that the Grantham foundation introduces.

    In other words: Kit’s otherwise superb brief put-down of the ‘Panama Papers’ study is too selective in identifying only the more notoriously evil nonprofits that are financing the Center for Public Integrity. And, actually, I can say, as an American, who is steeped in contemporary U.S. politics: the Center for Public Integrity puts out more good stuff than bad, and the ‘Panama Papers’ thing is just about the worst that I’ve seen from them. It certainly represents the worst side, the ‘neoconservative’ side, of the Democratic Party elite, the Obama-Clinton end, of the Party.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yonatan says

      The elephant in the room – how was this 2.6 TB of data acquired and by whom? Did someone steal or copy a backup disk? Intercept (presumably) secure client-server communications? Intercept at an ISP?

      Liked by 2 people

      • That gets to the issue of the ‘investigative team’s’ honesty and fairness in representing these data, data they fail to provide readers any convenient and quickly usable access to. Furthermore, this is just one of the several companies that provide such wealth-hiding services. Consequently, even if the interpretation by the ‘journalists’ is fair (which Kit argues well that it probably is not), the data might not be fairly representative of the elite’s scamming operations. All told, I think that the “Panama Papers” ‘revelations’ are of minor significance, in any case — other than their propaganda-significance, which the ‘news’ media seem to be doing their best to magnify as much and as big as they can.

        Like

      • Jen says

        I said this over at the Kremlin Stooge comment forums, so I think it worth repeating here:

        It would seem that whoever hacked and leaked the email information from Mossack Fonseca’s database must have been a pretty sophisticated hacker – because I imagine that Mossack Fonseca’s client database must have strong or complicated Chinese walls to stop most hackers from trying to see who’s there – and that person must be a government-paid hacker, perhaps a freelancer on contract to a security agency (as Ed Snowden was once upon a time: not a hacker but someone employed on contract). That might explain why as yet no US, EU, IMF or World Bank officials appear in the leaks: the hacker’s employer has told him or her to leave off those people while it busies itself preparing to contact governments that the hacker has dirt on politicians and civil servants in the US, EU etc and can threaten to give such information to ICIJ reporters if the politicians and public service people do not do as required by the hacker or his/her employers. Who is willing to guess that the hacker is working for an intelligence or surveillance agency?

        I got this reply from Fern (and I hope she does not mind me repeating it here):

        I suspect you are right, Jen. If the supplier of this data was a private individual, perhaps an employee or former employee of MF’s, they must be extraordinarily naive to hand such material over to corporate media rather than Wikileaks. If you were going to take risks, perhaps great risks, to get hold of this material, wouldn’t you do some pretty thorough research on who, exactly, the intended recipients were and what they were likely to do with it? No, data stolen to order fits the bill more closely.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Absolutely. The same seems possible in re. the recent spate of pedophile shaming done in the British media. Those implicated were mostly dead or relatively unimportant, but it might have been a timely warning to others in the Establishment of what might happen should they fail to toe the line.

          Liked by 2 people

    • If Soros and his kind are funding the Center for Public Integrity then they will want to see return on that investment. And that will not include large amounts of truth-telling and public good. This is just common sense.

      So, rather than saying “well, they’re not all bad – look at the work on global warming” we should be asking the more astute and cynical question – “why are so many billionaires funding studies into climate change?”

      These days no agenda should be beyond questioning.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I had tried before to answer you but it instead entered as a response to this article, so here goes again:

        Very few billionaires are funding anything on the anti-global-warming side (and the only two that are prominent are Jeremy Grantham and Tom Steyer). But their expenditures are dwarfed by those of the Koch brothers on the pro-global-warming side, and there are many other billionaires that are likewise spending heavily on the pro-global-warming side. Here’s just the Koch brothers:
        http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Embargo_Report.pdf
        Furthermore, there is no reasonable doubt that the planet is burning up from excess carbon gases and the “greenhouse effect” they produce. See:
        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=369242C04A3D974B1C6E8AD114F9EE2C.c4
        You’re on the wrong side of the biggest public-policy issue in the entire history of humanity — and the world

        Like

        • Actually, Eric, if you can calm down for a moment, numerous Wall St banks and other financial organisations have been pushing for regulation on carbon emissions for some time. Among them Goldman Sachs…

          https://quidsapio.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/how-goldman-sachs-invented-cap-and-trade/.

          You don’t have to be a “denier” in order to feel a twinge of concern when climate change becomes the cause du jour for such people. In fact I’m a longtime Green, but I’m far from convinced the present climate change campaign is being waged solely – or even at all – for the good of the planet.

          I can’t help asking myself why “climate change” – unlike any other environmental issue – receives the devout endorsement of rags like the Guardian and the BBC, and indeed the entire so-called “liberal” establishment. These organs serve only one master, and it’s not Gaia. So, why are they being told to promote just one side of this debate, while stifling the other?

          I think it’s important we avoid the polarisation and extremism being promoted around this issue, refuse to be corralled into identifying as either “believer” or “denier”, indeed refuse all participation in such a grim pseudo-religious danse-macabre and instead ask the most pertinent questions –

          Why is the liberal media promoting the problem of climate change?

          Why is the UN promoting the problem of climate change?

          Why are most western governments promoting the problem of climate change?

          Is it

          a) because while they serve only short term destructive and narrow interest on all other issues, when it comes to the climate they are suddenly motivated by concern for the planet?

          b) because promoting the problem of climate change is being seen as beneficial to the 1%

          If the answer is b) – how should this effect our approach to the issue?

          Liked by 1 person

          • That was an excellent comment, Catte. It contains just the sort of obvious commonsense observations that routinely get comments censored at CIF.

            Global warming/climate change may or may not be a significant or a dangerous or a catastrophic phenomenon for future generations, and that’s a perfectly valid issue for discussion elsewhere – the “science” is far from settled. But that there are various scams being pushed in order to benefit the scamming classes at the expense of the rest of us is indisputable.

            Like

          • Jen says

            “Climate change” gets devout endorsement from The Guardian and its ilk because the way the discussion is framed puts the responsibility for refraining from activities likely to increase carbon emissions on individuals and households, not on corporations or governments. It’s easy to tell people not to travel on planes or to stop driving cars and take up public transport instead, as one first step among others to get the public to accept more spartan life-styles (and thus accept austerity policies), and this deflects attention away from those corporations and governments or government agencies who are biggest emitters of carbon emissions.

            Surely the greatest polluter and the largest emitter of carbon emissions is the US government through the Department of Defense?
            http://www.projectcensored.org/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/

            And who supplies arms, equipment and ordnance to the Department of Defense? – could those suppliers not be the very companies who promote a pro-global warming agenda and who donate large sums of money to environmental organisations?

            Now why do you think environmental organisations seem to be mum on who really is the biggest polluter and generator of carbon emissions on Earth?

            I might also add that those who promote the problem of climate change are very likely to favour shifting to nuclear energy production.

            Liked by 2 people

            • I absolutely agree the nuclear lobby is -at very best – seizing an opportunity here. The global warming question is such a dense tangle it’s hard to know where to begin dissecting out the facts from the matrix of hysteria, simplistic reductionism, and cynical manipulation. Maybe OffG should consider a rational and completely open discussion, in which both sides of the argument could be presented on equal terms. Hopefully without the polarisation and rabble rousing that too often attends the issue.

              Like

          • Hi Catte,

            Here is an interesting (and hopefully relevant) piece by Richard Courtney, titled:

            “Global Warming: How It All Began”

            (You can read it here should you want to: http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm)

            It’s reasonably short and to my mind very readable and, I also thought, rather compelling. It also has this fascinating flowchart depicting the mutually reinforcing influences of the institutional interests that Courtney believes to be originally responsible for raising the issue of CO2 emissions to the status of the single greatest threat to the existence of mankind today. I’d like to paste it here for your viewing pleasure, but all of my attempts have failed. I guess you will have to follow up the link to Courtney’s piece if you want to see the chart. Apologies to all.

            Another interesting read, I thought, is a piece by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., titled “The Sun, Not Man, Still Rules Our Climate.” In it we learn among other things — (the trend presumably still holding in 2016 if it has not in fact intensified) — that by the year 2007, 99.96% of all funds spent on climate science research had gone to researchers either already convinced of the AGW hypothesis or overtly biased in its favour. To quote the relevant and revealing bit:

            “According to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, during the past 10 years, promoters of the man-made global warming hypothesis received more than $50 billion in funding in the United States alone. On the other hand, the skeptics who doubt that this hypothesis is true, received only $19 million over the past 20 years from Exxon Mobile, i.e. 0.04 percent of what promoters gained in half that time (EPW 2007).” (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., “The Sun, Not Man, Still Rules Our Climate,” 21st Century Science & Technology, Spring 2009, p.14.)

            Money is money, regardless of the source, and researchers, like everyone else, have to make a living. One should therefore expect that irrespective of the scientific validity or invalidity of the AGW hypothesis, regardless of whether it jibes with the ‘fact’ of the matter or not, the version deemed most propitious to advancing both the short- and long-term interests of the ruling elite will also be perceived to be the dominant ‘scientific consensus.’ For who pays the bills ultimately calls the tune.

            My take on the issue is that climate science, still being in its most tentative and formative years, cannot yet separate natural climate variations from those induced by human activity. If it could, to take but one example, the cloud formation hypothesis being put forward by Dr. Henrik Svensmark would not now be the object of intensive research at CERN by Dr. Jasper Kirkby et al., would it?

            Is the earth getting warmer? Well, the peak of the ice age in which we still find ourselves is now some tens of thousands of years behind us, and humans did not cause the disappearance of all of those gigatons of ice that have since disappeared, and it may be that the natural warming trend that caused that ice to vanish continues to run its course this very day. We don’t know. Nobody knows. Not yet.

            Nevertheless, I think we should reduce our CO2 emissions, and by all means. But we do so in ignorance of whether they are actually the cause of anything we think we can currently measure, but also precisely and primarily because we do not know what effect our emissions might have on our planet, effects potentially global in scale and therefore also potentially irreversible. To quote Nassim Nicholas Taleb et al., in the absence of proof of harm, “the burden of proof of absence of harm is [indeed] on those who would deny it.”

            Liked by 1 person

            • Hi Norman, thanks for that link which looks worth reading. I think we all need to be wary and concerned of any situation in which one side of an argument is suppressed to extinction in the name of “consensus.” Truth – scientific or otherwise – doesn’t need to be backed by censorship.

              Liked by 1 person

          • tezla valve says

            “a grim pseudo-religious danse-macabre”

            Indeed. ‘Scientism’- the treatment of science as a religion -is a widely used tool of the ‘cabal.’ This is particularly apparent on Establishment debunking websites, like ‘Wikirational’ and ‘Metabunk’ (where it’s never a conspiracy.) I’ve read apparently unironic posts on sites like these, along the lines of;
            “Isn’t it terrible how so many people have such a poor understanding of science. Surely it’s obvious that…” followed by a huge equation with undefined terms.

            A recent(ish) Guardian article by the head of the Royal Society on the tired old subject of “why don’t the general public get science” got a response by one Ciffer along the lines of “If people understood science, we wouldn’t have all these dangerous anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers.” In reality, the science isn’t necessarily hard to understand; it’s a case of whether you trust the organisation doing the research. Also, science is highly specialised and compartmentalised. A geneticist wouldn’t necessarily understand what an electrical engineer was on about, and vice versa.

            “These organs serve just one master, and it’s not Gaia” 🙂

            Maybe scientists do, and just don’t realise it. Carl Jung believed that the contents of the unconscious mind cross-contaminate each other, which is reflected in mythology. Perhaps all goddesses represent aspects of the same mother goddess. By relegating consciousness, to a mere phenomena of the material world, maybe scientists pledge allegiance to the mother goddess:

            Maat; goddess of justice, whose rules even the gods must obey.
            Maya: the illusory material plane.
            The Virgin Mary: who like matter, is unpenetrated.
            Mammon: personification of materialism.
            Matrix: the womb.

            This is purely speculation, however, and the etymology is probably all wrong. The cabal seem to worship her as ‘Isis’, the goddess of thrones. Nonetheless, ancient societies were ruled by astro-theologists, whose celestial predictions gave them kudos and power. A bit like NASA, who provide some of the data on global warming. I certainly refuse to bend the knee to Nazis and Freemasons, no matter how much people cry ‘heretic.’ I’m not a rocket scientist, but from what I know about biology, the crew of ‘The Columbia’ really shouldn’t be still alive.

            Like

Comments are closed.