ALTERAÇÕES CLIMÁTICAS? - SIM, MAS HOJE ISSO SIGNIFICA ARREFECIMENTO

Com muito pouca vergonha, a turma dos histéricos climáticos insiste em alimentar o medo das pessoas com o mito de que estamos num momento crítico de risco de subida das temperaturas globais do planeta, em consequência das actividades humanas e em particular das emissões de CO2. 

Todos os dias oiço e vejo notícias alarmistas e não fundamentadas. Trata-se duma enorme e monstruosa campanha para conseguir dois fins bem precisos: 

- vender a transição para um capitalismo «verde»; ou seja, criar mercado para tecnologias supostamente neutrais em termos de emissões de CO2, mas que - na realidade - são muito poluidoras. 

Elas são designadas de «renováveis», mas implicam utilização de minerais, cuja mineração e transformação são poluidoras, depredadoras dos recursos do ambiente, além de devoradoras de energias fósseis. Mas isto não é revelado ao público...

- aumentar o controlo da oligarquia globalista,  através das taxas carbono, uma forma de taxar os pobres e de manter os ricos controlando os circuitos financeiros. Muitas pessoas não têm outro meio de subsistir, de ganhar o seu sustento, senão consumindo combustíveis fósseis. Estas taxas carbono formam uma enorme reserva financeira, uma renda ao dispor dos governos e entidades globalistas, para reforçarem o seu poder e controlo. 

O mercado de direitos de emissão de carbono, um mercado gerido e controlado pela grande finança internacional, além de fornecer capitais frescos para os grandes bancos, serve para manter o actual sistema monetário, caduco, baseado em dívida. 

Abaixo, um video do meteorologista David Dilley, que explica seriamente (embora com humor!) alguns aspectos fundamentais da ciência do clima. 

Espero que ajude a compreender melhor a questão, permitindo assim que a campanha de obscurantismo utilizando as aparências de ciência seja derrotada e exposta. 

O PRÓPRIO GRANDE CAPITAL CONFESSA...

ESPANTEM-SE…«a mudança é tão necessária quanto impossível» 

Abaixo, transcrevo um artigo de análise do Deutche Bank.

Fui buscar o referido documento ao excelente blog ZERO HEDGE 

The price of dissensus

Anti-global sentiment has been the loudest message of the current presidential campaign in the US. The most likely origin has been a buildup of discontent due to failure to develop a convincing response to economic slowdown in the last years. This has recently emerged as the main theme of public discourse. Current presidential campaign has highlighted to what extent the Change is as necessary as it is politically impossible.

The underlying problem can be traced back to the fact that economic interests have become increasingly global while politics, the ability to decide, remained passionately local and, as such, unable to operate effectively at the planetary level.

Power to act has been moving away to the politically uncontrollable, global space and political institutions have become irrelevant to the life problems. In that configuration, growth comes at social costs. Impotence of politics reinforces dominance of the global which undermines political power further. As a consequence, mainstream parties are being blamed for bad economic situations and losing their power and public support. Their representatives, both left and right, are seen as representing interests of global capital and are perceived as defenders of status quo.

Politics is viewed as a problem, instead of a solution while social costs caused by this state of affairs are being recognized and articulated by the emerging populist wings, whose main novelty has been their hostility to global oligarchies. These parties have been gaining traction in these elections. The erosion of cohesion within the mainstream parties has been causing political reorganizations that transcend traditional division into political left and right.

 

The political landscape is no longer one-dimensional. Political manifold has developed a more complicated topology. In addition to the left and right, there is a “transverse” direction which represents the antagonism between the local and the global. This is illustrated in Fig 1. Double red lines represent antagonisms. The three corners are labeled metaphorically by the political representatives who had highest visibility during the campaign.

 Relative position of the three political expressions are no longer defined by the modes of proposed social organization (left/right), but also where they stand relative to the global capital interests. The two populist wings are opposed in terms of their preferred mode of social organization, but are unified in terms of their opposition to global capital as well as to the political center which is aligned with it. Although the elections are most likely to be won by the centrist party, the voice of the populist wings have been sufficiently loud that they could no longer be ignored. In all likelihood, the new administration will be facing even more fractured consensus than before where higher level of compromise and different alliances will have to be forged -- if that is not done in the first four years, the problem will return potentially even bigger in the next elections. The concessions are expected to have protectionist overtones while compromises and alliances are expected to be made in the context of fiscal policy.