Climate Changes' founding fathers

When Al Gore came forth and made the film "An Inconvenient Truth" he talked about all the troubles the world is currently facing as a result of 'Global Warming.' Artic ice retreating further inwards every summer, rising sea levels threatening to wipe out Island nations and C02 levels were some of the many areas he touched on. Concluding the film, he quotes "Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, with the electricity we use, the cars we drive. We can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands. We just have to have the determination to make them happen." http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm
It is incredible to think Mr. Gore can misconstrue such issues.If you're for, against or undecided about where you stand on the topic now known as Climate Change, it's important to address the key element of it. Where it all began.

The Climate change movement as we know it was founded by Canadian businessman Maurice Strong. In 1971, with Barbra Ward and Rene Dubos, Strong issued a report titled "Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet." It raised awareness about the supposed detrimental effects humans have caused to the planet and necessary interventions which can be made to prevent further problems. http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/strong-stockholm-leadership?showall=&start=1 Mr. Strong went on to work for the United Nations later on in his career, using his position to establish and organize the Earth Summit Movement and Agenda 21 "a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment." http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/?utm_source=OldRedirect&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=dsd&utm_campaign=OldRedirect
Whilst it may seem heroic in a way, many people forget that, at heart, Mr. Strong is nothing more than an opportunist as shown by his business dealings prior to him joining the United Nations.

In 1986, American Water Development Inc, one of Strong's sought to siphon billions of liters through underground pumps in the Colorado. "The project was portrayed as an environmentally sensitive solution to urban water shortages," but did not factor into account the local areas requirement for groundwater. AWDI were threatening to destroy the local wetlands and sand dune ecosystems. Mr. Strong's pursuit of power and wealth are at the forefront of his agenda and his shambolic business pursuit in Colorado, (and today in China where he works with the Chinese government on carbon credits trade) gives us good reason to be skeptical of his self proclaimed love for the environment. http://www.hcn.org/issues/12/350

"IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. ch 8." The listed section of the International Panel for climate change presents the second instigator of global warming, Dr. Benjamin Santer, the leader of chapter 8 in the report. When the final draft was submitted for submission and distribution, the report was submitted with mixed views about human contribution to Global Warming. In an interview on "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" Lord Christopher Monkton states "In goes Santer and crosses out sections disagreeing with man's contribution to climate change and changes them to fit his views and Mr. Strong's views." Later, in an interview with Dr. Santer, he himself does not deny changing certain elements to "make the report more consistent." A sly ploy. Realizing he would receive vast adulation and praise for his efforts from other one eyed viewers such as Kofi Annan who wrote an article titled, "Climate change puts us all in the same boat. One hole will sink us all, Mr Santer sacrificed his integrity for 15 minutes of fame." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/10/kofi-annan-climate-change

The more reading one is able to do into these two men, the more you to realize that Al Gore is merely continuing their legacy of speculation and assumption. British journalist Peter Hitchens sums it up perfectly when he says "If they really believed what they preached they wouldn't leave their house...But you notice these people are often the first ones into the planes and the first ones into the limousines."

Oil Companies are running out of excuses

When is the last time you remember going to fill up your Automobile? For most people, it’s a least once a week. Even those chugging along in hybrid cars sooner or later have to make a stop to the petrol station. Now ask yourself, when was the last time you considered the price of petrol to be a fair and just? Not since September 2010 is the best answer one could give. During this time period, prices hovered around $1.70 to $1.80 for 91 Octane. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1010/S00064/september-fuel-prices-stable-until-october-tax-inc.htm.
Today, the price of petrol per litre of 91 Octane sits at $2.20 throughout the major distributors such as BP, Shell and Mobil, with Gull selling at $2.18. New Zealand's Automobile Association spokesman Mark Stockdale asserts that these greedy conglomerates are merely using the most abject and lowly excuses for the sake of making higher margins. "The margins [before the increase] were at a level where, a year ago, they would have been acceptable to the fuel industry.Now the industry is saying that these margins are not acceptable, and the public don't understand the reasons why."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6576542/Fuel-firms-accused-of-chasing-greater-profits

One year ago a litre of 91 Octane was level with the highest price it had ever been, at $2.19. A later increase in May pushed it to a record price of $2.22 per litre, forcing many motorists to seek alternative methods of transportation (much to the delight of Green Party). A series of drops slowly and reluctantly came from these oil cartels as excuses began to run dry. Now, as price creep up again, be mindful that there is no valid reason for 80% of petrol increases because so often they're linked to events which are completely irrelevant or pinned on a dollar which has proven recently to bear little weighting. Below is a compilation of explanations from various company spokesmen and women.

"Oil prices have been rising in recent months on fears that Iran will disrupt supplies through a key export route."

"Oil prices are also being pushed up by fear of spreading conflict in the Middle East, with websites promoting a "day of rage" in Saudi Arabia on March 11." http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4745822/Petrol-heading-for-record-high

"But Caltex and Greenstone Energy, which owns the Shell brand, told NZPA the price of refined oil had gone up faster than the exchange rate, prompted by demand in the United States and West Africa." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10723374

These were three among many of the lousy excuses motorists had to swallow, finding out, sometimes up to three times a week, they'd have to pay more to drive their automobile around. Every time conflict and strife happens, it fulfils the reason to have a rise in the pumps. Who could forget the incessant blame Libya took for high petrol prices from these corrupt bigots. Yet no one remembered or cared to address Saudi Arabia doubling their production to account for Libya's diesel deficiencies.

Oil Companies now are in a similar position to a year ago. After yesterday's close in trade, the New Zealand dollar sat at 82.17 US cents, whilst in 2011 it was nearing a similar mark. http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/nz-dollar-holds-near-week-high-4801403 When an increase occurs, these corrupt bigots continually moan about the New Zealand dollar bearing weight for the price rise when the exchange rate is low. They merrily did so last year after the terrible earthquakes in Christchurch and will continue to do so, unless proven by analysts of their unjust price fixing. This excuse is proven void right now; with a strong kiwi dollar, no decreases at the pump have yet occurred, despite oil prices hovering within the same price brackets for the last month (Based on Brent crude oil.) http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=1054972

Comparatively, New Zealand ranks high among cheap petrol prices in the OECD. New Zealand also has an average income of just $54,000 NZD a year, "not the most high by international comparisons." http://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/article/average-salary-in-new-zealand/07163011.aspx Such an advantage doesn't cover much considering Australia, which has wages far superior to New Zealand, sells petrol at $1.50.

Excuses like this cannot last forever and those aristocrats in Parliament ought to put more pressure on these greedy Oil Giants to be more fair in their pricing. It's little wander so many New Zealand families are struggling. But don't tell Kiwi owned Z Energy that. They claim to be doing everything they can to keep their customers happy. In a few years time, if

the petrol price is at a fair price of $1.75 a litre, the Aotearoa whanau would believe it to be an honest expression, rather than a smug excuse to clean out motorists' pockets.

Auckland’s Super City is a super disaster

The Mayoral elections of 2010 now seem like a long off memory. What must not be forgotten though are the promises Len Brown made in the campaign to the Mayor’s office because with the ever increasing rates, inadequate public transport and license increases on dogs, it’s time we showed Mr Brown the door, before he causes more chaos.

Only minutes after his victory over his predecessor John Banks and Conservative party leader Colin Craig, Brown addressed a crowd telling them he wants to “build Auckland into the great, great, great city it can be.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10679260 This great city was assured they’d benefit from him finding ways to “fix local transport,” “keep rates low” and flourish from “strong economic growth.” http://www.elections2010.co.nz/2010/candidates/len-brown. Indeed these are some very big claims and promises. Fifteen months have elapsed since Auckland went to the polling booths and if they followed their cities progression with more affinity they’d be totally appalled. Just as well for Mr Brown they aren’t.

Not even two months into his new role, Mr Brown recommended there be a rise in the rates for Auckland home owners, to 4.9%. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/auckland-mayor-recommends-rates-rise-3968054. Whilst many dismissed this as a one off lapse in judgement, 2011 produced worse news for many home owners, with rates again increasing at 3.5%. Councillor Cameron Brewer rightly summed up the situation. “The mayor’s latest rating policy is nothing more than an envy tax.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5870619/Row-over-Auckland-rates-changes. No justified reason behind these climbs has been made for these pathetic rises and it’s about time Mr Brown address these rises, rather than slipping away out of sight.

Whilst there is a conscious effort to improve roads in Auckland, rather than making it more convenient for motorists, the contrary is occurring.. Congestion is running right back as far as Oteha Valley for city bound travellers most mornings, buses spasmodically appear and disappear at stations, Ferries are undersupplied and the bus system only runs through the city. Very few changes have arisen to give Len Brown and Steven Joyce the chance to point their finger prodigiously and say “I did that.” It seems young school children are trying harder than both these men combined to find small ways to remove the clutter. Zach Amir last week proposed there be a transit lane put in nearby his school, allowing parents to peacefully negotiate around the shambolic clutter and drop their children off, rather than just allowing traffic to swell up. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6572272/Pupil-fights-traffic-chaos.

If you thought Mr Brown couldn’t think of another way to ruin Auckland city, quickly reconsider. What’s this you may ask? How about a 201% increase to obtain a dog license. No valid reason has been given for such a monstrous leap in the price, apart from Spokesman Kevin Ramsay’s asinine comment that it “reflects the cost of providing animal management services.” Granted a 10% rise in licensing may be fair game if those services are increasing, but a 201% is pure opportunism at its best and if Mr Brown is going to support this massive rise, he ought to address each and every dog owner publicly, without any notes. Old time politicians, (Including Margaret Thatcher) used to cringe before these events and Mr Brown ought to have the audacity to front up.http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/papakura-courier/6497627/Barking-up-a-storm

It is clear that Len Brown enjoys taking a circuitous route to avoid the accidents he has
caused. Sooner or later though he will have to take his head out the sand and speak up.