[handlewanker]

97T, I went back and read the open letter to old Mc Cain.

Actually I nodded off in the middle of it, as it was three in the morning, but got the general idea you disagree with the global warming concern.

Oh well, when it happens at least I'll be able to put my boat to good use, but untill then the main concern round our way is the drought we're living with.

The most worrying aspect of the impending global warming scenario is the fact that all those scientists are not with one voice, could it be that some have vested interests instead of practicing what their calling has prepared them for, that is the relating of the data as it indicates the pattern, as opposed to ensuring the wage packet continuum for the foreseeable future by agreeing with the politicians who ultimately pay their salaries?
Ian.
Ian.

[One of Many]

97T, I went back and read the open letter to old Mc Cain.

Actually I nodded off in the middle of it, as it was three in the morning, but got the general idea you disagree with the global warming concern.

Oh well, when it happens at least I'll be able to put my boat to good use, but untill then the main concern round our way is the drought we're living with.

The most worrying aspect of the impending global warming scenario is the fact that all those scientists are not with one voice, could it be that some have vested interests instead of practicing what their calling has prepared them for, that is the relating of the data as it indicates the pattern, as opposed to ensuring the wage packet continuum for the foreseeable future by agreeing with the politicians who ultimately pay their salaries?
Ian.
Ian.

Ian,

You have a bad habit in taking what could be classified as superficial data and create a conclusion based on your beliefs of what is possible regardless of influencing reality. The parallel of poor handling of US economics by 5% of doomed to fail mortgages demanded by .5% of our elites in power, then paint all of the US citizenry as stupid for borrowing money they couldn't afford in the first place. With total disregard for the 95% of us who do live within our means and have enough moral decency to not screw anyone. This is on par with the IPCC and bank managers fudging numbers that push their agenda regardless of the whole picture. Discluding anything that contradicts their biased facts. The blame game is the worst defense to prop up the appearance of being intellectually superior and in control. Any system can have its core contributors that fail to readily present their relationship, timing and/or nature. Then it depends on who is documenting the history of cause and effect. We don't know for certain all of the cause even though many conditions were alarming in either case. Jumping to a conclusion with near tabloid based inconclusive facts is just plain dishonest to use on your foes at the whooping post.

We cannot write history of natural disasters that have yet to occur. That is prophecy with few indicators and many variables you cannot rely on. Likewise, you cannot put the US economics on all Americans that have very little control of the power structure. 70% of Americans are victims to this problem as well as the rest of the world.

What doesn't make sense to me(and maybe NinerSeven can shed light here) the loan default rate contributed to forwarded failed investments, derivatives, reserve banking etc. The assets of these homes although devalued in a down turn economy are still worth 70-80%, so the actual loss is 30%. Out of that 30% loss the banks have blossomed paper value 300 times? The wide spread global losses that supposedly started on these house loans as physical assets just do not seem to add up here unless it was money created out of thin air. Placing all the blame on the original borrowers is purely irresponsible of a system that allowed/encouraged it to happen. There is plenty of factors that created the perfect storm! Doubtfully the next administration will hold any of their own accountable.

With McCain's open letter and plan to reduce emissions by potentially smothering the economic engine, it might be apparent that much of these "happenstances" in the economy were brought about intentionally to slow our growth to reduce consumption and forced adjustment of currency, energy, on down to the constitution that was intended to protect the people from government run amok? Then again the people are the last to know what they have really lost, being put in a position to be desperate and helpless enough to let it happen. It is the continuous erosion of freedom that protects a government from its people.

DC

[skippy]

Well put One of Many!

[NinerSevenTango]

One Of Many,

It was the miracle of fractional reserve banking that caused the bubble. Normally, the 2-5% reserve ratio is supposed to be enough to keep the banks from toppling. That's what that 'overnight rate' stuff is all about, the money sloshes around from one bank to another so they have to frantically borrow overnight to even it back out. If a few percent of people pull their money out or a few percent of their loans go bad, the bank is bankrupt, unable to give depositors ANY money back.

If the bankers can figure out a way to get around that reserve ratio, they will. After all, they can then collect interest on even more money from nothing.

This time, the mechanism was handed to them in the form of the social engineering of the CRA, along with the creation of the secondary market by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What changed was that instead of your local bank making mortgages and holding them, the local bank originated the mortgages and sold them to Fannie or Freddie, keeping a commission. Fannie and Freddie packaged them up, got ratings agencies to grade them AAA, and sold them on the open market. That's what real estate investment trusts bought, and a lot of other entities. Including your local bank.

(This is the mechanism that was used in the U.S. All other economies of the world had to follow suit in expansion of the money supply -or see exports fall- and saw it flow into real estate as well, so while the details of how their real estate bubbles happened might be different, the effect was the same. Real estate zooming in the U.S. made real estate elsewhere more attractive, and so on.)

In the old days, if the bank was sitting on the mortgage, it wouldn't matter if the real estate appreciated or not as long as the payments came in. But now, the loans were packaged as instruments that trade on the open market, subject to fluctuations in price. As the deluge of free money chased limited supply in the real estate market, prices went up. This was seen as appreciation of the underlying asset to these derivatives, so they went up in price, too.

Since your local bank was holding these derivatives as assets, any increase in their price could be multiplied by 20 to 50 times, and loaned out again -- right back into the real estate market. Which drove prices up further. Which swelled the derivatives. Which got multiplied and loaned out again. Rinse and repeat until something bad happens.

That's why a few percent of sub-prime mortgages going bad can cause a worldwide economic meltdown. The supposed value of those derivatives is $1 Quadrillion, ten times the net worth of all assets on the globe! And that's why you have countries around the world nationalizing banks, creating currency as fast as they dare, and pleading with the public not to panic. This thing is going to unwind until all of the money that was created to cause the bubble pops back out of existence. It will take peoples' savings and plenty of jobs with it. The banks are upside down to the tune of this $1 Quadrillion. That's why they are in a panic.

The people that live in and live off the machine have no choice but to pull the levers on the machine. They don't know of any other option, and dismantling the machine that feeds them is unimaginable. They will blame someone who controlled the levers, they will blame greed, they will blame their victims for their stupidity, they will blame too much regulation or not enough, but they will never blame the machine that feeds them.

As has happened every time there was a currency crisis, the crisis will be used as an opportunity to advance government power. The marriage of government and banking is one of the most dangerous threats to human life in history. It always turns out bad for the hapless citizen. For some reason, people never seem to wake up and realize the simple mechanism that steals the value of their savings, ruins the value of their labor, and leaves them destitute and without rights or the power to enforce their rights.

The message to take away from all of this is that the central economic planners who control the lever of money creation have miscalculated this time, and it is bad enough that it is going to take an unprecedented waving of the magic wand to make it go away. The problem is that markets are always more powerful than any government regulator. And they can't just wave the wand and make this go away without risking a currency collapse.

Be careful, the socialist theory of money that these people learn in their exclusive universities teaches them that war is good for a command-and-control economy. Even today, students in government schools are taught that FDR is a hero for fixing the economy during the Depression, and that World War II finally brought the U.S. out of the depression. The fact is that FDR turned what would have been a two year correction into the Depression, by doing all the same things that are being tried now. He even made gold coins contraband, under penalty of a ten year prison sentence. So watch out, because the powers that be might go into wholesale killing mode, telling people it will be good for the economy. Fear and the draft could be used to find cannon fodder. And this time, there are nuclear weapons everywhere.

Just realize that the 'economists' and 'political scientists' who believe that inflationary debt-based fiat currency is the only way to run a 'free market' country are intellectually and morally bankrupt. They always believe the failures of their systems are the result of not enough central control. That's dangerous for the victim when things go bad.

The one idea that is never allowed to see the light of publication is the idea of letting people's savings be in the form of a real store of value, letting them keep what they earn. If the public insists on following the idiot box, you can still sidestep this crisis by converting as much of your savings as you dare into something real. As I mentioned before, gold and silver work well if currency collapses. But anything will do, if people will need it during hard times. Cigarettes would work, too!

The markets rallied yesterday. This would be a good time to take the tax hit and cash out your 401K if you have been hoping against hope that having your money in the stock market is an 'investment'. That 10% tax hit (in the U.S.) is nothing compared to what could happen next. The Alt-A mortgages are getting hit now, the depression is costing jobs, and commercial real estate hasn't collapsed yet. It will, since small businesses are getting hit by the retrenchment in consumer spending, and a very bad holiday season has yet to hit them. This might be the last time in a very long time that we see a rally like this.

Not to be all doom and gloom. 25% unemployment still means 75% employment, and I will be employed. It'll be good to have a useful skill that can be bartered for survival if necessary.

--97T--

[One of Many]

Thank you kindly Niner,

So, I guess I am not too far off the mark in what I have read and at least comprehended in a broad view.

15+ years ago, this stuff never interested me. Thanks to folks like yourself, now at times, I get on information overload in research trying to decide what to do with my few nest eggs. The opportunity is somewhere, but I was leaning toward value stocks that are required necessities like utilities etc. It appears metals may hold value, but you can't eat it or heat your abode with it. It is not likely you will get return gold change in trading while using a $xxxx dollar gold coin. The real cash value just seems locked up in a yoyo that needs to have a 15-30% upward movement just to break even when it is sold. My take on metals is a longer term asset on money you don't really need to live on in a pinch, hoping on its stability.

Selling off my 401K would take 10-15% for the penalty and another 28% in taxes since there is no safe fund to roll it over into. I've already taken a hit of 20% loss for not moving it all to a Treasury MM fund sooner. With a sense of that deer in the headlights fear, my procrastination against optimism fighting pessimism may fool me either way.

Here was an interesting article I read the other day on fraudulently grading investments packaged with sub-prime loans and then tossing them off as hot potatoes to some other poor sucker willing to buy into it before the ticking implosion.

Ratings Scourage

DC

[Geof]

.....Selling off my 401K would take 10-15% for the penalty and another 28% in taxes since there is no safe fund to roll it over into. I've already taken a hit of 20% loss for not moving it all to a Treasury MM fund sooner.......DC

Don't even think of it!!! Hang tough, chew your finger nails and toenails. Selling now guarantees that you take a loss; waiting means that you have a chance that things will recover. If you are invested in solid companies (I hope you don't have anything in GM, Ford or Chrysler ) chances are in a few years time you will be back on a good footing. If you have the ability to invest more I think the companies to look at are such as Caterpillar or Deere; companies that are not flashy but make equipment used for infrastructure and agriculture.

The people who are going to suffer in the next few years are the ones who have to convert their investments into income because they are retired or are near retirement. I am crossing my fingers that things will have come back in about five years because that is the deadline for me starting to cash in.

[NinerSevenTango]

I'd like to know what you fellows think of this interview:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023733.html

The fundamental questions for your savings are all a roll of the dice:

Will the market come back or at least hold up?

Can you really, truly count on a lower tax rate in the future than now?

Will the currency hold up?

What happens if a really bad depression hits? What might the government do?

These issues are made more critical because of the necessity to invest your savings in order to keep pace with inflation. And that means risk, which is very, very high right now. Everybody knows that savings accounts lose buying power. The problem is, there is no safe store of value. You can't eat stocks or bonds any more than you can eat coins, and there is a premium attached to cashing those out, too. Everything is a commodity, even money, and it's all worth whatever you can get for it. So it's important to know what backs whatever form your savings are in, and who has physical possession of it. (Pennies might be a good deal. The zinc in them is worth more the $.01.)

--97T--

[Geof]

....The fundamental questions for your savings are all a roll of the dice:

Will the market come back or at least hold up?

Can you really, truly count on a lower tax rate in the future than now?

Will the currency hold up?

What happens if a really bad depression hits? What might the government do?...
--97T--

I think it will hold up but maybe not come back, not as far as it was.

I think you can count on higher tax rates; either that or higher inflation. All the 'imaginary' money that has been created or injected has to be removed, by taxes, or neutralized by inflation.

See above comment; it will be held up by the discipline of higher taxes or it will find a new value through inflation.

Your guess is as good as mine or better; governments will almost certainly do the wrong thing but that will only be recognised after the fact.

Savings in bank deposits or bonds will lose value due to inflation.

Savings in stocks may be totally lost if the company goes under, but they may keep a constant value despite inflation if the company is sound and eventually prospers again.

Savings in the form of real property will not be lost but it may be a large fraction of a lifetime before they get back to long term average values.

[One of Many]

Fair points from both of you......even without a consensus in all facets. At this juncture, It is foolish not to take reasonable precautions with at least half of ones nest egg and put it in something other than a CU savings account. The common theme seems to be protect what you can from the inevitable devaluation.

The more I watch that Peter Shiff, the more he reminds me of Ben Stein on steroids . At least he admits where his prospects were incorrect, but if he is that far off in so many instances, trusting his new directives may be questionable also? He's no dummy, but dang…….if he is still lost feeling the ground shake looking for shelter, us outsiders without his knowledge are in real trouble!

Thanks again folks!

DC

[handlewanker]

The big problem for many is that there are too many, and they don't just go away when the honey pot gets near the bottom.

My view is that yo'all haven't been supporting the system, and that has been going on for a while, to such an extent that you've given your assets to foreign producers instead of investing in your own home markets.

If WW2 were to be a present day occurence, where would the industries that fed it in 1943 etc get their resources to supply the troops?

Unless you reinvent your manufacturing base and put tariffs on the foreign imports, you'll always be in debt to China, India, Uncle Tom Cobberly and all, while the populace indulges itself by sending the dollars to third world countries to buy their cheap goods produced by workers that earn a dollar a day, a most uneven playing field if ever there was one.

The ruinous wars that have been fought for the best part of the 20th century were not a contributary factor to the economic crisis, the erosion and loss of manufacturing facilities is.

Ian.

[dynosor]

Unless you reinvent your manufacturing base and put tariffs on the foreign imports, you'll always be in debt to China, India...

Finally, a clear concise and insightful statement from the peanut gallery!

while the populace indulges itself by sending the dollars to third world countries to buy their cheap goods produced by workers that earn a dollar a day, a most uneven playing field if ever there was one.

Bankrupted by cheap goods - oh the humanity! It seems counter intuitive that paying less can result in one's downfall, but it is probably not unlike the pusher giving away that first hit of heroin, or teaser interest rates...

[One of Many]

The big problem for many is that there are too many, and they don't just go away when the honey pot gets near the bottom.

My view is that yo'all haven't been supporting the system, and that has been going on for a while, to such an extent that you've given your assets to foreign producers instead of investing in your own home markets.

If WW2 were to be a present day occurence, where would the industries that fed it in 1943 etc get their resources to supply the troops?

Unless you reinvent your manufacturing base and put tariffs on the foreign imports, you'll always be in debt to China, India, Uncle Tom Cobberly and all, while the populace indulges itself by sending the dollars to third world countries to buy their cheap goods produced by workers that earn a dollar a day, a most uneven playing field if ever there was one.

The ruinous wars that have been fought for the best part of the 20th century were not a contributary factor to the economic crisis, the erosion and loss of manufacturing facilities is.

Ian.

Not much we can do immediatley about there being too many. The portion of those that avoid responsibility and honest toil, should not share in the wealth for no input of their own. No wonder those something for nothing voting blocs are popular. Arogantly creating a larger wellfare state on the backs of the productive removes a lot of incentive and less willing producers to rob from. Between the expanding government machine and all its growing beneficiaries feeding at the trough, another tea party is long over due! Only this time, I'd hope it will be a mass washington lawyer party getting tossed overboard!

I do share in the rest of your perspective on unbalanced trade with the result it has had on many sectors of our self reliance along with imported debt instead of pay as you go or equal dollar for dollar product value barters over trade deficits. It is true of what the impoters tend to get from China or majority of any import, is a want-not a need. We could start there to create jobs that support our own. Competing with cheap imports has certainly taken its toll in the long run. Exporting much of our scrap as a future resouce isn't helping either. As they say, some day we may get it all back as bullets and bombs transported by old scrap Ford's and Chevy's turned into battle ships.

I do my best to buy American rather than import......besides Guinness!



DC

[Geof]

......I do my best to buy American rather than import......besides Guinness!



DC

A man with good taste.

[handlewanker]

More to the point, if you sell yo' soul to the devil, what yo' gonna do when MR Jesus asks for yo' credentials come judgement day?

I'll put it more simply for those that have trouble with parables etc, our local supermarket some years ago closed doors to "restructure" and reinvent itself.

Three months later the doors opened, same old same old, new faces at the till old stock on the shelves, same old high prices, doors closed again 1 year later.

Doors opened again 1 month later with a fanfare of bugles and rattle of kettle drums.
This time the restructure had been surgically precise, same old faces but new tills, new shelves, new products and promotions but most of all new prices.

What had they learned, those entrepeneurs of the local urban sprawl catering for the dubious wants of the fickle miniscule market group?

They learned that customers will prefer to travel to get the goods they want, especially if the goods they'r offered locally are no name brands at exorbitant prices.

More importantly to their survival as a local trader, they learned that customers won't tolerate being fleeced just because the local trader's the only one for miles around, just like trading post practices on the reservation etc.

I regularly travelled at least 5 KM to do my shopping, but now shop three time a week locally since the prices have become realistic.

Anyone see the parallels? How many people religeously examine the label on the goods to see if it says "Made in USA" etc etc, more than likely for 90% of the time it says:- Made in the Peoples Republic of China, (Taiwon) or just Made in China.

It is widely understood that Made in Germany is a synonym for "It's the best", which is why yo'all went to war with them when they got out of control and ended up eventually realising that Made in Japan was another milestone on the road for buying foreign when the home market was unsupported due to aggressive pricing strategies of the foreigners working for a dollar a day.

Now if it's not made in China, it's not made.
A- because the local market can't compete or supply because it's been eliminated.
B- because the local market can't get workers to work for a dollar a day to get lower prices at the till.

Where the goods are made locally they are assembled from foreign produced components and only realise 10% of their value to the home market.

A government that supports the people ensures that the goods are made at home even if the people want foreign imports at lower prices, and this is where tarrifs come in.

There is no such thing as unemployment if the goods are made at home, even if the goods can be made for half the price abroad, but tell that to the "manufacturers" when they go offshore to produce their goods, they are effectively just importers.

Do I hear that competition improves the breed? Yeah? That was stated by someone who imports from a foreign country and kills off the home market because there's more profit in it from abroad.

So, the importers have stabbed the country in the back, and the banks are bleeding the patient to "cure" him of his need for the goods the importer is supplying him with. Cool.

How about devaluing the US dollar before the next government gets in?

This will effectively make the USA work force work for a dollar a day without actually telling them that.

The whole world will want USA made goods at ridiculous prices when the dollar dips.

All those carpet bagging importers will go bust, leaving a rebirth of the USA industry.

Of course the Chinese and Indians will be up in arms about it, accusing the Yanks of causing mass unemployment to their seething masses, so stuff them, they're not here to enjoy themselves.

This pracrice will be known as the "reverse reciprocal of transient productivity adjustment"

Who then cares if the US foreign debt is in quadrillions when the dollar hits rock bottom.

All those leaches that fed on the corpse will choke on their own greed.

I'm all for born again practices.
Ian.

[handlewanker]

One of Many, I would take a ticket out of Bill Gate's book, "never underestimate your assets".

One of your greatest assets in any country is manpower, and that, as Chairman Mao is reputed to have said, is where the battle will be won, but coming from a dollar a day society, means yo'all will also have to work for a dollar a day, eat rice and wave red books at everyone if you want to triumph.

Salvation comes at a price.
Ian.

[martinw]

I'm pretty sure that this old Planet does not need saving right now.
Erhh.. anyway.

Using four computer models and data from dozens of weather stations sited around both the North and South Poles, the study conclusively shows that humans are responsible for the significant increases in temperatures observed in the Arctic and the Antarctic over the past half century.

Yeah, right.


Best wishes,

Martin

[One of Many]

One of Many, I would take a ticket out of Bill Gate's book, "never underestimate your assets".

One of your greatest assets in any country is manpower, and that, as Chairman Mao is reputed to have said, is where the battle will be won, but coming from a dollar a day society, means yo'all will also have to work for a dollar a day, eat rice and wave red books at everyone if you want to triumph.

Salvation comes at a price.
Ian.

The way our government operates, we are cash cows waiting to be milked through our working life and given one last pilferage after our last day. My only assets are what they so kindly let me keep for the time being.

Funny you mention Mao. From the news we get here, he may be running things by proxy down under. My understanding is they have already removed gun ownership and are in the works to censor your internet. The only thing missing is the red books to wave around? Social re-engineering on a fast track. I thought we had it bad.........and getting worse.

Seems to be the wave of the future if we cannot attract decent quality leadership without the new world order mentality or some other unknown non-specified agenda until after in power.

DC

[dufas]

Scientists recently have stated that 1998 was the warmest period and it has been getting cooler since then. Now, an article from another group of scientists, after going through the politically correct exercise of blaming America for everything, are re-inventing the global warming scenario.

A few paragraphs from the article at http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,6690604.story is included below...

"WASHINGTON -- The world pumped up emissions of the chief human-produced global warming gas last year, setting a course that could push beyond leading scientists' projected worst-case scenario, international researchers said Thursday."

"The new numbers, which some scientists called "scary," were a surprise because experts thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Instead, carbon dioxide output rose 3% from 2006 to 2007."

"Gregg Marland, a senior staff scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, said he was surprised at the results because he thought world emissions would drop because of the economic downturn. That didn't happen."

"Moreover, new scientific research suggests the globe is already destined for a greater worldwide temperature rise than predicted. Last month, two scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and UC San Diego published research showing that even if humans stopped generating greenhouse gases immediately, the world's average temperature would "most likely" increase by 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century".

"Writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, they based their calculations on the fact that new air-quality measures worldwide are reducing the amount of fine particles, or aerosols, in the atmosphere and diminishing their cooling effect."


I guess their grant monies are running low and in need of a boost...

[One of Many]

Scientists recently have stated that 1998 was the warmest period and it has been getting cooler since then. Now, an article from another group of scientists, after going through the politically correct exercise of blaming America for everything, are re-inventing the global warming scenario.

A few paragraphs from the article at http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,6690604.story is included below...

"WASHINGTON -- The world pumped up emissions of the chief human-produced global warming gas last year, setting a course that could push beyond leading scientists' projected worst-case scenario, international researchers said Thursday."

"The new numbers, which some scientists called "scary," were a surprise because experts thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Instead, carbon dioxide output rose 3% from 2006 to 2007."

"Gregg Marland, a senior staff scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, said he was surprised at the results because he thought world emissions would drop because of the economic downturn. That didn't happen."

"Moreover, new scientific research suggests the globe is already destined for a greater worldwide temperature rise than predicted. Last month, two scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and UC San Diego published research showing that even if humans stopped generating greenhouse gases immediately, the world's average temperature would "most likely" increase by 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century".

"Writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, they based their calculations on the fact that new air-quality measures worldwide are reducing the amount of fine particles, or aerosols, in the atmosphere and diminishing their cooling effect."


I guess their grant monies are running low and in need of a boost...

The economic down turn didn't really show a decrease in usage up until mid 2008 when prices peaked and people noticed the money crunch. Usage was still on an up swing as I recall during the period they reference. Isn't there a large lag in where they take one trend and displace the timing as scary and surprising? Duh!

DC

[dufas]

The economic down turn didn't really show a decrease in usage up until mid 2008 when prices peaked and people noticed the money crunch. Usage was still on an up swing as I recall during the period they reference. Isn't there a large lag in where they take one trend and displace the timing as scary and surprising? Duh!

DC

While what you state is true, the point that I was trying to make was the comment that was made in the article..."research showing that even if humans stopped generating greenhouse gases immediately, the world's average temperature would "most likely" increase....". What I get out of this is these scientists are saying that if everyone stopped whatever they are doing and just stood still until they died off, the earth would still warm up. So if everyone began to live life as if we were in east Afghanistan, nothing would change.

Then add in the comment "Writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, they based their calculations on the fact that new air-quality measures worldwide are reducing the amount of fine particles, or aerosols, in the atmosphere and diminishing their cooling effect." This puts us in a catch 22 where the very particles that are being cleaned out of the air is hastening global warming. Weren't these air quality measures devised by many of the same scientists who are proclaiming doom and gloom..??

We are told that 1998 was the warmest on record, while others are presenting data that shows that the earth is cooling down from that date on, other scientists and their governments want more of our monies in order to stop global warming and while these people are saying "No matter what, it's going to get warmer..."

You still don't see an inconsistency here......???