Copenhagen Climate Cacophony, Corruption and Nonsolutions
Brian O’Leary, December, 2009,

The political tower of babel around climate change is awesomely distracting us from understanding the physical reality of what humans are doing (and not doing) to our planet and what we can do to solve these imbalances. People are understandably confused about the swirling agendas, and this obfuscation invites political nonsolutions such as carbon cap-and-trade and even more nefarious control agendas to enrich the rich and deprive the rest of us our birthrights of peace, sustainability, justice and livelihood.

Meanwhile, the physics eludes even the best of us. As a colleague, I respect Jim Hansen--the climate scientist who has sounded the alarm about the devastation expected from the continued burning of fossil fuels. We are contemporaries, both of us having received our Ph.D.s in the sixties in planetary and atmospheric science and having had a long research and teaching careers in these matters.

Where competent and honest scientists can come to consensus about is that we know humans have been loading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide emissions, and as a result, the oceans are becoming more acidic and are increasingly uninhabitable. We also know that greenhouse gases do warm the atmosphere in predictably measurable and significant ways, and other pollutants from the combustion of hydrocarbons do poison the environment causing widespread death and disease.

And we know humans are spewing particles into the atmosphere, with chemtrails as the largest unknown and politically unacknowledged factor, and that particles cool the atmosphere, with a resulting complex climatic change process with different physical consequences in different timescales (e.g., greenhouse gases linger for decades, particles for only days to weeks). And we also know there are natural components to these dynamics as well—for example, solar output variations—but we don’t know exactly how large the climatic effects are. My own analyses confirm that human contributions to warming and cooling are significant, with a resulting complex climate destabilization process which is now underway. What a mess!

For people to take extreme scientific opinions about climate change (e.g., anthropogenic versus natural causes, warming versus cooling) bespeaks political motivations, and so the debate has been terribly abused. Yet lasting solutions such as “free” energy continue to be elusive in the cacophony of polarized screaming.

My own way of thinking, which well corroborates that of many other experienced researchers (e.g., Wade Frazier,, Steven Greer,, Tom Bearden,, David Yurth and numerous others), is that these problems can be resolved through the direct application of innovation. I also believe that, regardless of who says what in the climate change debate, we should surely exercise the precautionary principle and get away from dirty and resource-depleting energy practices. That's just common sense.

But the fact that breakthrough clean energy development has been sabotaged at every turn and, stranger still, our collective awareness of this promise and suppression is close to zero, are a very sad testimony about the human condition. Is it really true that greed is sinking our ship as we stand by powerless to do anything about it? So far, the answer to that question is yes, and our task is to reverse that, to make disrup-tive solution technologies palatable and, in fact, necessary for our survival, barring divine intervention.

Why are radical solutions always “off the table” in climate discussions? Because the debate is controlled.

During 2010, we plan to host conferences, think-tanks and retreats at Montesueños on solutions to our overdependence on oil and other imperial/corporate-caused environmental destructions that fall outside the box of contrived political babbles and directly address ways we can introduce innovation in a socially responsible way.