We have set forth in this blog what appears as evidence that the current "Green" movement -- the Antropogenic Global Warming and the ensuing Renewable Energy craze -- may have German origins. Of course, there are non-German entities that have been promoting either AGW, or Renewables, as well as Germans that are objecting to both.

Coincidentally, the rhetoric in Europe against "the excesses (or weaknesses) of the markets" or the "unreasonable power of the rating agencies" also appears to have the same geographic epicenter.

It is interesting that neo-socialists and Greens now seem to relish joining the Occupy Wall Street movement. Wall Street may have been guilty of excesses, cronyism,  inadequate self-regulation in the post Glass-Steagall abolition era and the loss of conservatism in accounting rules, and a myriad other evils.   Wall Street may also be a convenient scapegoat. Regardless of Wall Street's guilt or lack therof, the Green-Socialist connection makes yet another appearance and the source of the rhetoric may not be the ...U.S.S.R.

http://inhabitat.com/nyc/why-the-green-movement-plays-a-major-role-in-the-occupy-wall-street-protests/occupy-wall-street-green-activists/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-aroneanu/occupy-wall-street-environmentalists_b_994045.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/repeat-after-me-i-state-your-name/

Neither Scientific nor American (but all Business)

I have been a fan of Scientific American forever. I used to spend hours leafing through back issues stacked on a bookshelf in my old man's office; I could not understand much, but the pictures were interesting and it was not long before I got in trouble electrolyzing a caustic soda water solution with a 48V 100W DC power supply scavenged by a friend.

Much to my chagrin I just cancelled my long-standing subscription, ending a collection going back to the 50's. The reason is simple: I have had enough propaganda conveniently interspersed amongst always interesting articles.

Science can be controversial or hard to understand but this is not about science, or even controversial science, it is about years of non sequitur statements, opinions presented as conclusions, all with a common objective: For me to "believe" that (1) the climate is changing, (2) climate change is anthropogenic, (3) I can and must do something about it, (4) I should support local and global legislation to that effect and, oh by the way, every solution available to mankind on the matter is made in Germany.

Scientific American has been lobbying quite openly for matters which are being discredited and has received criticism from several sources and that must have hurt as they felt obliged to answer, which put them more on the spot.  This is not a scientific magazine, it is a 25 year marketing effort of the German Green Business Plan.  Subtle innocuous articles on bleaching corals, the disadvantages of free trade, arbitrary opinions presented as God-provided truths, planning, planning, planning and solutions.  With no due respect, the language is similar to wind lobby handouts, Greenpeace propaganda and German Ministry of Industry sites (and I have studied quite a few).  Here is a casual sample from 1993:

And here I decided to get cute and turn the stone under author Henry N. Pollack, visitor of Zambia in the 1970's and Chairman of the "International Heat Flow Commission", presumably back in 1993... What is the International Heat Flow Commission?

It is some German outfit exploring the planet from a geophysical heat transfer point of view.  In late June to early July year they will be in Melbourne peddling the same old hogwash:  low carbon!  How convenient... The Australian government appears to be in trouble with the proposed carbon tax and the master lobbyists and "scientific research" sponsors are coming to the rescue. Same pattern, same colors, same methods, similar NGO support.

The Germans absolutely positively need an Englisch speaking country to impose the carbon tax on itself lest they suffer from euro-loniless. The Australian PM is from here. The cuckoo birds happened to be passing by.  I swear, I have nothing to do with Australian politics... I just turned the stone over a bizarre 1993 Sciam article...

I wonder... isn't "Scientific" "American" in violation of the 1966 Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act?

Carbon Guilt and the Green Redemption

“Doing good while making money” is the carefully cultivated theme of the Green Business Plan. The underlying ideology is the venerable recipe of "Guilt, Redemption and Salvation", something that Europe has excelled at as recently as the 17th century witch-hunts. Of course, the redemption for being a witch is no longer politically correct as it emits excessive CO2; we now have modern, efficient and tradeable instruments instead.

Since it was conceived in Germany in 1985, the Green Business Plan has built an empowering scientific framework, provided positive reinforcement here, scare tactics there, touches of messianic salvation from imminent doom and a fair amount of obfuscation on technical matters. It has also built political legitimacy among liberal, social democratic or simply well-intentioned people. The ideological mental construct driving the plan is the Salvation of the Planet from Anthropogenic Global Warming, as adjusted and amended by the cooling realities and falsifying climatologists. The scientists have opined that the Planet is in danger, it is our fault, let us repent by taxing ourselves and, oh by the way, we can offset taxes by buying wind-generators. And, coincidentally, the arbitrary carbon quotas will appreciate in value the more we tax ourselves.

There are various and distinct components of profit which include product sales, after-market service, ancillary add-ons, proprietary services, complete with artificial shortages, redeemable coupons, commissions from market making, political power, etc. These all have been allocated to suitable purveyors who automatically became the network of allies. They include the manufacturers of wind generators, connecting lines, proprietary network management, assorted photovoltaics, and smart meters; the designers and market makers of carbon credits; the electrical utilities acting as intermediaries and revenue collectors. Of course, politicians who find themselves in power and scientists who discover recognition are facilitators, each with their distinct motives.

The carbon market is the element that facilitates the globalization of the endeavor and makes allies of a new breed of financial intermediaries. It is just like the tulip market but instead of tulips, the object of desire is “salvation”. Just like in older European times, this promises to be big business, unless electricity consumers see it as nothing more than a money grab and just simply say “no”.

I found the carbon certificate here, the indulgence here

Good news from Ontario

Source

The Price and False Promise of Green Power

"British families have been told the shocking truth about the price of green energy. They must prepare to go without electricity for extended periods, warns UK’s top electricity boss". Source

The False Promise of Green Energy

Atlas Shrugged -- Desertec

http://www.ecofascism.com/article22.html

"...In the 1930s the fascist superpowers each launched grandiose land grabs – the Germans to the East, the Japanese in Manchuria, and the Italians in North Africa. The Italian venture began with a violent re-imposition into Cyrenaica (eastern Libya). Italian military movement across the southern Mediterranean coast was checked by the British, leading to the arrival of Rommel’s Afrika Korps. After the climactic second battle of El Alamein (July 1942) German and Italian forces retreated headlong to Tunisia where they held out until late 1943. North Africa was then under British-French-American control until the above-mentioned independence dates..."

I would add that it looks, smells, sounds and feels that the Environmental movement, at least as we witness it today, was also Made in Germany between 1985 and 1989.  I cannot prove it but evidence can be found here and here.

I would further add that the German acquisition of media companies in the US and, what I suspect is increasing German influence on US poltical parties, demystifies any obscure scenarios of World Orders and bizarre Clubs.

Some suspected that the Brave New World was of Soviet inspiration.  It smells, looks, tastes and feels quite Central European, thank you very much. Who are the Master Planners after all?  The top picture has quotes from this source. The last picture is a collection of CSP firms.

The Sad Truth about Wind Power

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html

Wind power is neither viable nor “sustainable”. If the whole planet were covered with wind “farms”, one would still need backup power. 1,000 wind generators by themselves cannot produce enough energy to manufacture a single ball bearing. 10,000 wind generators cannot be relied upon to power a single hospital. They need backup power which is best provided by natural gas.

Wind is free, but wind power costs two or three times that of conventional power. What wind power effectively accomplishes is the substitution of inexpensive coal or nuclear power with gas power. Gas power is fine but it can be expensive, and for many countries it carries significant political risk. In any event, gas power alone is cheaper than gas power plus wind power.

Wind power would never exist without subsidies. Unlike other subsidies for energy, this subsidy is counterproductive. The subsidy results in many installed wind generators but not in plentiful or readily-available electrical energy. It does though go towards employment and exports for two or three select European countries and possibly China, while it impoverishes everybody else.

The environmental impact of wind power is dubious at best. Gas is a cleaner fuel than coal, but most coal power plants could be easily improved with proven fly-ash filters and sulfur scrubbers.

Natural gas is claimed to be preferable to coal because it emits less carbon dioxide and therefore does something to prevent climate change. In spite of years of quasi-religious climate propaganda, the questions persist:

1. It is not clear that the climate has been changing in any way different from the way it has been changing over the last 1,000,000 years; it is not clear in which direction it is in fact changing.
2. If the climate has been changing, it is not obvious at all that such change is anthropogenic.
3. If the climate has been changing and if such change is anthropogenic, there is no evidence whatsoever that installing many wind generators will make any difference.
4. Nor is there evidence that such effort is worth the cost.

Expensive wind electricity only contributes to inflation and recession. The infamous Green jobs to be had are in Germany or Denmark (or China). Tourist destinations are decimated by large scale wind “farms”.

Wind power is promoted as environmentally-friendly and as a substitution for fossil fuels. I consider the first argument doubtful and the second absurd. Southern European politicians market it to their constituencies as a means to offset the “carbon tax”. The carbon tax is an administrative invention that will cripple non-nuclear states but it will subsidize German exporters. In the last 12 months, Holland, Turkey and Poland have decided to turn to nuclear power.