???????

Al Jazeera America to close down Unsustainable business model cited in decision to close as global network announces a new digital drive in US market January 13, 2016 2:11PM ET by Al Jazeera Staff Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎ al-ǧazīrah IPA: [æl dʒæˈziːrɐ], literally “The Island”, … Continue reading

Al Jazeera America to close down
Unsustainable business model cited in decision to close as global network announces a new digital drive in US market
January 13, 2016 2:11PM ET
by Al Jazeera Staff

Al Jazeera (Arabic: ???????? al-?az?rah IPA: [æl d?æ?zi?r?], literally “The Island”, abbreviating “The [Arabian] Peninsula“)[note] (also Aljazeera or JSC[Jazeera Satellite Channel]) is an independent[1][2] broadcaster owned by the state of Qatar through the Qatar Media Corporation and headquartered inDohaQatar. Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the Internet and specialty TV channels in multiple languages. Al Jazeera is accessible in several world regions.

The original Al Jazeera channel’s willingness to broadcast dissenting views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. The station gained worldwide attention following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when it was the only channel to cover the war in Afghanistan live from its office there.[3] It has also recently been acclaimed for its in-depth coverage of the Arab Spring protests and revolutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

cheap oil

Links: 1) http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/c… 2) http://www.oil-price.net/ 3) http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-cons… 4) Thumbnail imaage – Alberta Oil Sands – by Howl Arts Collective https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi… 5) Music – Youtube Audio Library “Ambient Ambulance” https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/…




Links:
1) http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/c…
2) http://www.oil-price.net/
3) http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-cons…
4) Thumbnail imaage – Alberta Oil Sands – by Howl Arts Collective
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi…
5) Music – Youtube Audio Library
“Ambient Ambulance”
https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/…


cheap oil

Published on Jan 21, 2016In this video Luke Rudkowski breaks down the latest news and developments with the low price of oil, how it happened and most importantly why it happened. We mention how elites like the Rockefeller and Rothschild family along w…


Published on Jan 21, 2016
In this video Luke Rudkowski breaks down the latest news and developments with the low price of oil, how it happened and most importantly why it happened. We mention how elites like the Rockefeller and Rothschild family along with the fight for the U.S dollar holding world reserve currency status has affected the price of oil.

China Uncensored

1 in 4 US Companies are leaving China. That’s according to the latest survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China. Why? Is it pollution, IP theft, corruption, or a slowing economy? Published on Nov 16, 2015 Is the … Continue reading


1 in 4 US Companies are leaving China. That’s according to the latest survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China. Why? Is it pollution, IP theft, corruption, or a slowing economy?

Published on Nov 16, 2015
Is the world’s largest economy really all it’s cracked up to be? The Chinese Communist Party likes to brag it’s an economic powerhouse with GDP and growth the rest of the world envies. But it turns out, China’s economy really isn’t what you think. Watch this episode of China Uncensored to find out why!

Peak prosperity

by Chris Martenson, Gail Tverberg, originally published by Peak Prosperity Actuary Gail Tverberg explains the tight correlation between the rates of GDP growth and growth in energy supply. For decades, energy has been becoming more costly to obtain, and instead … Continue reading

Actuary Gail Tverberg explains the tight correlation between the rates of GDP growth and growth in energy supply. For decades, energy has been becoming more costly to obtain, and instead of accepting lower GDP growth, we have been using debt to fund further energy exploration and extraction.

That strategy has diminishing returns, Tverberg warns. And we are close to the moment of reckoning:

The more we look at it the more we see that the rate of growth and energy supply is very closely correlated with the rate of GDP growth. And I know on some of my recent posts I’ve included a chart that goes back to 1820 that shows the same correlation. You have to have an increasing supply of energy in order to get GDP growth. The GDP growth tends to be a little higher than the energy growth. That’s especially the same when we made the change in the mid 70’s, when we had the big first oil crisis and we realized that Japan had already started making small cars, and so we could make smaller cars, too, and save quite a bit of oil very quickly. And we realized then that we didn’t have to burn oil to create electricity; there were a lot of other alternative approaches, including nuclear. So we pulled those off line, and where home heating had been done by oil it was easy to transfer that to other types of energy. So we had a number of different things we could do very quickly back then — and I think people got the idea that because we could pick the low-hanging fruit, then somehow or other we could do the same thing again. But we’re not getting that same kind of effect any more.

I think the thing that people don’t realize is how closely the growth in debt is tied to the growth in the economy.

oil prices plunge

Published on Dec 14, 2015 The Russian economy, which is heavily reliant on oil prices, is bearing the brunt of the low oil prices. For more on the falling oil and what it means for the Russian and Saudi economies … Continue reading

Published on Dec 14, 2015
The Russian economy, which is heavily reliant on oil prices, is bearing the brunt of the low oil prices. For more on the falling oil and what it means for the Russian and Saudi economies – RT is joined by Michael Klare, an expert on natural resources, and author of ‘Resource Wars, Blood and Oil’

merchants of doubt

A skeptic would find it interesting that many of the players involved in misleading the public about the dangers of tobacco smoke have been recruited by the anti-AGW camp (Dr. Richard Lindzen being one of them). They would also find … Continue reading


A skeptic would find it interesting that many of the players involved in misleading the public about the dangers of tobacco smoke have been recruited by the anti-AGW camp (Dr. Richard Lindzen being one of them). They would also find the leaked API Global Climate Science Communications plan ( http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html ) an interesting read, showing the planning that was going on in the fossil fuel industry to mislead the public about the science of climate change. The skeptic would also find it interesting that about $900 million a year is now being spent to mislead the public about climate science ( http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx ). It would also be interesting to note that where funding for right-wing think tanks and astroturfed climate denial front groups was made openly in the past ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding ), the funding is now done largely through groups like the Donor’s Trust to hide the trail ( http://www.desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust ) .

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[17][18] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming “in the pipeline” due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.

Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires, via two trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[19]

The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

Are there any advocates of climate science denial who don’t take money from fossil fuel companies?

1) “The emissions that are being put in the air by that volcano are a thousand years’ worth of emissions that would come from all of the vehicles, all of the manufacturing in Europe.” Senator Lisa Murkowski, (R-AK) – Incoming Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, $733,144 from oil and gas industry in her career

2) “We have 186 percent of normal snow pack. That’s global warming?” Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), $489,933 from oil and gas industry in his career

3) “Calling CO2 a pollutant is doing a disservice the country, and I believe a disservice to the world.” Ex-Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), $977,624 from oil and gas for his 2012 Presidential Campaign

4) “Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change,”Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), $1,463,788 from oil and gas industry in his career

4) (tie) “I’m not a scientist,” Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), $1,783,169 from oil and gas industry in his career

6) “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL), $295,138 from oil and gas industry in his career

7) “Anybody who’s ever studied any geology knows that over periods of time, long periods of time, that the climate changes, mmkay? I’m not sure anybody exactly knows why.” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), $129,305 from oil and gas industry in his career

8) “I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t think science does, either.” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), on whether human activity causes climate change, $508,549 from oil and gas industry in his career

9) “And the problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.” Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX), $932,568 from oil and gas industry in his career

10) “How long will it take for the sea level to rise two feet? I mean, think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass it doesn’t overflow; it’s displacement. I mean, this is some of the things they’re talking about mathematically and scientifically don’t make sense.” Ex-Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), $118,100 from oil and gas industry in his career

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/31/top-10-misguided-climate-deniers-quotes-2014

or this…

Earlier this year, the New York Times exposed the secret relationships between a well known climate change denier and the fossil fuel industry. The Times revealed that Dr.Willie Soon had been paid over 1.6 million dollars to create scientifically dubious studies absolving the fossil fuel industry of any responsibility for climate change. His funders included ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers, and Southern Company, a large coal-fired utility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-S…

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

‘An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming…

67 percent of respondents, including 48 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents, said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who said that human-caused climate change is a hoax…

The poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of independents, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a very or somewhat serious problem in the future…

And while the poll found that 74 percent of Americans said that the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change, the support was greatest among Democrats and independents. Ninety-one percent of Democrats, 78 percent of independents and 51 percent of Republicans said the government should be fighting climate change.’

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-ch…

There are also some books such as “Don’t even think about it” (http://www.climateconviction.org/ )and projects such as the Yale project on climate change communication: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/ that explore the psychology and sociology of climate change.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A majority of earth and climate scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.[1][2]

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.

The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows:

  1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[3]
  2. “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities“, in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[4]
  3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[5] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[6]

These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.[7]

There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[8] the Oregon Petition,[9] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[10] all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.[11][12][13]

Each scientist listed here has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology.[B] Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the report’s three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.

oil and gas in the Occupied Territories

‘Grievous Censorship’ By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed’s Blog IN ALERTS 2014 POST 08 DECEMBER 2014 LAST UPDATED ON 09 DECEMBER 2014 Why the Guardian axed Nafeez Ahmed’s blog 4 DECEMBER 2014 Nafeez Ahmed’s account … Continue reading

‘Grievous Censorship’ By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed’s Blog

Nafeez Ahmed’s account of the sudden termination of his short-lived contract to write an environment blog for the Guardian is depressingly instructive – and accords with my own experiences as a journalist at the paper.

– See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-12-04/why-the-guardian-axed-nafeez-ahmeds-blog/#sthash.PUeiYY4H.dpuf

In July, as Israel began its massive assault on Gaza, Ahmed published a post revealing a plausible motivation – Gaza’s natural gas reserves – for Israel’s endless belligerence towards the enclave’s Hamas government. (The story had until then been confined to minor and academic publications, including my own contribution here.) Israel wanted to keep control over large gas reserves in Gaza’s waters so that it could deny Hamas a resource that would have bought it influence with other major players in the region, not least Egypt.

Israel’s defence minister has confirmed that military plans to ‘uproot Hamas’ are about dominating Gaza’s gas reserves
A Palestinian boy plays in the rubble of a home wrecked in an Israeli air raid on Beit Hanoun, Gaza
A Palestinian boy plays in the rubble of a house destroyed in an Israeli air strike on Beit Hanoun, Gaza. Photograph: Khalil Hamra/AP

Teasing WW III

18:56 15.12.2015(updated 19:37 15.12.2015) Get short URL Pepe Escobar Read more: http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151215/1031786484/russia-ready-war.html#ixzz3uqHoNk2f “Tense” does not even begin to describe the current Russia-Turkey geopolitical tension, which shows no sign of abating. The Empire of Chaos lavishly profits from it as a … Continue reading





18:56 15.12.2015(updated 19:37 15.12.2015) Get short URL
Pepe Escobar

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151215/1031786484/russia-ready-war.html#ixzz3uqHoNk2f

“Tense” does not even begin to describe the current Russia-Turkey geopolitical tension, which shows no sign of abating. The Empire of Chaos lavishly profits from it as a privileged spectator; as long as the tension lasts, prospects of Eurasia integration are hampered.
Russian intel has certainly played all possible scenarios involving a NATO Turkish army on the Turkish-Syrian border as well as the possibility of Ankara closing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles for the Russian “Syria Express”. Erdogan may not be foolish enough to offer Russia yet another casus belli. But Moscow is taking no chances.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151215/1031786484/russia-ready-war.html#ixzz3uqHOMLDW


Continuar leyendo “Teasing WW III”

cartel oil theft

Published on Aug 1, 2014 Subscribe to VICE News here: http://bit.ly/Subscribe-to-VICE-News VICE founder Suroosh Alvi travels to Mexico to see the effects of cartel oil theft firsthand. Mexico’s notoriously violent drug cartels are diversifying. Besides trafficking narcotics, extorting businesses, and … Continue reading

Published on Aug 1, 2014

Subscribe to VICE News here: http://bit.ly/Subscribe-to-VICE-News

VICE founder Suroosh Alvi travels to Mexico to see the effects of cartel oil theft firsthand.

Mexico’s notoriously violent drug cartels are diversifying. Besides trafficking narcotics, extorting businesses, and brutally murdering their rivals, cartels are now at work exploiting their country’s precious number one export: oil.

Every day as many as 10,000 barrels of crude oil are stolen from Mexico’s state-run oil company, Pemex, through precarious illegal taps, which are prone to deadly accidents. Pemex estimates that it loses $5 billion annually in stolen oil, some of which ends up being sold over the border in US gas stations. As police fight the thieves, and the cartels fight each other, the number of victims caught in the battle for the pipelines continues to climb.

Follow Suroosh Alvi on Twitter: @SurooshAlvi

Watch “Bomb Trains: The Crude Gamble of Oil by Rail:http://bit.ly/1k5C8YM

Part 1: http://bit.ly/1nRvExR
Part 2: http://bit.ly/1oeGurQ
Part 3: http://bit.ly/1rWLede

Check out the VICE News beta for more: http://vicenews.com