Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

January 6th, 2014
09:03 PM ET

Kreutzer: CO2 levels not catastrophic

In this episode of Crossfire, Dr. David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation and Navin Nayak of League of Conservation Voters, debate the link between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.

WATCH: Crossfire also debates the politics of global warming.

Who were you siding with during the debate?

soundoff (30 Responses)
  1. Jeffery Sikes

    Its interesting to observe all of these passionate people who are in fact ignorant of the origin of the theory which they boast as climate change or global warming or any of the other associated Buzz words.

    The true title of the work on which the THEORY is founded is Global Capitalism, Climate Change and the Bisopheric Rift. Biospheric Rift is the application of Karl Marx THEORY of Metabolic Rift being used to explain any change in climatic conditions as being caused by Global Capitalism. This theory would equally have to assume that some form of Globally applied philosophia based Theocracy (Marxism or Marxism/Leninism etc.) would be the only sound response to resolving the changes in climatic conditions caused by capitalism, especially the use of carbon based fuel sources. This is the hypothesis on which Climate Change and all of its research and falsified data rest (Karl Marx Theory of Metabolic Rift).

    One must further understand that the theories of Hegel's students, which include the Bauer Brothers, Sterner, Feuerbach, Marx and his companion Engels, are all based upon Hegel's version of Stoic Philosophia doctrine and his application of Dialectics and Metaphysics as the means within his Theocracy of defining truth. Various versions of Stoic philosophia doctrine are required learning at 98% of all American Universities and most Universities throughout the world. This concludes that people educated within those systems and provided a DEGREE as a Scientist, have been indoctrinated to accept or fully believe in some form of Stoic Philosophia doctrine and now believe that applied dialectics and metaphysics (Scientific Method) is in fact the only true course of explanation for climatic conditions. The way to prove and support discovery of any kind is through several iterations of Peer Review. Some of the peer review of this Marxist based theory of Biospheric Rift indicated that there was no correlation between the Raw Data (which has been destroyed now) and the claims of the climatic Scientists who concluded the Theory.
    This belief in Stoic philosophia doctrine and use of applied dialectics, and the disagreement via Peer review, is why the Scientists at East Anglia University falsified data in order to force the assumption that correlation existed between CO2 emissions and Climatic Conditions, via their THEORY of Biospheric Rift.

    The Zealot Stoic Philosophia believers (Marxist/Leninist such as Van Jones) went to work using Soviet disinformation techniques to skew the argument in order to support their fellow believers who had used Marx theory to contrive the idea. There is vast wealth exchange, tied up in presenting and getting people to believe in this theory or postulation in the form of continued research grants. Further assuming the Stoic’s postulation of Biospheric Rift to be accurate, it provides an in-road to scientific/political control of all things claimed by the believers to effect the environment. The disinformation technics include such statements as:
    97% of all scientists agree on Climate Change (general and vague)
    All scientist agree that the earth is warming (again general and vague)

    Buried in these carefully worded statements, is extreme deception.
    Yes 97% of all Scientists agree that Climate Changes occur as they have for centuries we refer to them as the 4 seasons. However, notice that the falsification of information did not indicate that 97 % of Scientists agree that Climatic Conditions are effected more by CO2 emissions than any other single emission known to man, and that there is direct and irrefutable evidence that a direct correlation exists which indicates Capitalism and CO2 emissions are causing climatic changes to occur, because that later statement is not true.
    Take the 2nd statement and notice that in trend analysis, there have been forever, warming and cooling climatic trends. Scientists did agree a few years ago that the earth was undergoing a warming climatic trend, However the Stoics attempt to transfer that general belief to include their Theory of Biospheric Rift which Theorizes from skewed data, that Climatic Changes are occurring due to Capitalism and the related CO2 emissions, which simply is not the case.

    Americans who accept this Theory/Postulation known as Biospheric Rift are simply being deceived by the few who no hold the reigns of power over the purse strings which control education and research via Government grant revenues. Those who do not support the Stoic Philosophia theories will not be allowed to practice in education nor will they receive any grant funds for research. This is how Marxism/Leninism is applied to control both the message and the population. If there were any honesty at all in those who Postulate the Theory of Biospheric Rift, they would allow honest peer review of their postulation, which is not the case. This change in the disallowing of honest peer review, changes Fact into noting more than Doctoral skewed, and politically controlled Postulation.

    January 11, 2014 at 9:07 am | Reply
    • James


      In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

      American Chemical Society
      "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

      American Geophysical Union
      "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

      American Medical Association
      "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

      American Meteorological Society
      "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

      American Physical Society
      "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

      The Geological Society of America
      "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

      International academies: Joint statement
      "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

      U.S. National Academy of Sciences
      "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

      U. S. Global Change Research Program
      "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

      “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

      *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


      January 11, 2014 at 5:16 pm | Reply
  2. dave

    Without adequate CO2, all green plant life dies. If all green plant life dies, all oxygen breathing life forms die.

    January 8, 2014 at 3:39 pm | Reply
  3. Duh

    There is consistent evidence that Republicans speak on behalf of science, and do not understand science. If they have some groundbreaking evidence against Climate Change, then run those 'facts' through the scientific method. Simple as that.

    Climatologists are allowed to speak with confidence because their data is filtered through the rigorous scientific method, peer reviewed, and questioned. That's why it's considered science.

    Everything else is NOT science and is akin to a rumor that your drunk uncle repeats every year on Thanksgiving.

    If you have some new evidence, prove it. Otherwise you have NOTHING to stand on.

    January 8, 2014 at 2:22 pm | Reply
    • willhaas

      In an attempt to provide evidence of AGW the IPCC generated a wide range of computerized climate models that include CO2 based global warming. These models have failed to predict today's global temperatures. The models have predicted global warming that has not happened. The models are wrong. If anything the models provide evidence that AGW is a fallacy. In our atmosphere, the primary greenhouse gas is H2O and it provides ample negative feedbacks to the addition of CO2 so as to mitigate any effect that adding CO2 might have on climate. The climate change that we are experiencing today is very similar to what has been going on over the past 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age.

      January 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm | Reply
    • dave

      Not all scientist agree. Over 30,000 in the USA along have SIGNED documentation with RESEARCH showing facilities in the propaganda and money behind claiming all or even most of global warming is attributed to man, and not part of the natural global long term cycles,

      January 8, 2014 at 3:37 pm | Reply
      • willhaas

        How many people on either side of this issue does not matter. Science is not a democracy. There is reason to believe that the climate change we are experiencing today is typical of what has been occurring during the Holocene for the past 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. There has been quite a bit of cycling between cooling and warming periods long before the dawn of the industrial revolution The lowest temperatures of the Little Ice age corresponded with a minimum of solar activity from 1645 to 1715 known as the Maunder Minimum. We have been gradually warming up ever since but there are cycles that correspond to total solar activity and ocean effects. This has has nothing to do with CO2. There is evidence that the warmers part of the Medieval Warm Period, which occurred roughly 1000 years ago, was warmer than today. There was no increase in CO2 levels that caused the Medieval Warm Period. The previous interglacial period was warmer than this one with higher sea levels and more ice cap melting but CO2 levels were lower than today. The greenhouse effect on our atmosphere is dominated by H2O and it provides ample negative feedbacks to the addition in other greenhouse gasses so as to mitigate their effect on climate. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable and our climate has been sufficiently stable to changes in greenhouse gases to allow life to evolve. We are here.

        January 8, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
    • Jeffery Sikes

      If such evidence exists as you state then support your statements with that evidence. How does alignment with the Republican party have anything to do with understanding climatic conditions or the study of such? Are you claiming that only those outside of the Republican party can understand cometic conditions?

      If however you are inferring that only Democrats can understand the Postulated Theory known as Biospheric Rift which is based upon Karl Marx theory of Metabolic Rift, and which is the basis for the coined phrases Climate Change and Global Warming, then I would have to agree with you, since most Democrats align with or subject themselves to Marxist/Leninists. Very few Democrats ever think for themselves as an individual, that is why they accept without argument, the idea of communal existence with Stoic elite, State control.

      January 11, 2014 at 9:23 am | Reply
  4. willhaas

    There is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. The climate change that we have been experiencing is all natural and has been going on for eons. The primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is H2O and it provides ample negative feedbacks to the addition of CO2 so as to mitigate CO2's effect on climate. IPCC' climate models that include CO2 base global warming have failed to predict today's global temperatures. They have predicted global warming that has not happened. The models are wrong and have yet to be corrected. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but global warming is not one of them.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Reply
    • Kurt

      Here's evidence that CO2 has an impact on temperatures.

      Take two air tight fish tanks.

      Pump one full of CO2. Pump the other full of regular air. Set them side by side in the sun and measure the temperatures within.

      The one with CO2 is hotter.

      This experiment was first performed in the late 1890's. There is NO argument that injecting enough CO2 in the atmosphere will cause an increase in temperature. Absolutely NONE. The only scientific question is how much CO2 causes how much increase in temperature.

      Yes, there are other factors that can have cooling effects. Some years our star simply doesn't produce as much heat as others. But the CO2 causes it to be warmer then it would otherwise have been. That is the SCIENCE of global warming boiled down to the simplest terms. It's not about cold winters. It's not about melting icecaps. It's simply that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to be higher then they'd otherwise have been. And no scientist in the field disagrees with that. The only argument is about the degree of impact, and if man's contribution is significant or not.

      The basics of CO2 increasing temperature are UNIVERSALLY accepted among climate scientists. Even those who don't think man's part is important will agree that increased CO2 increases temperatures.

      January 8, 2014 at 8:30 am | Reply
      • willhaas

        I said "climate". In our atmosphere the primary greenhouse gas is H2O and it provides ample negative feedbacks to the addition of CO2 so as to mitigate any effect that adding CO2 might have on climate. There is no paleoclimate evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. IPCC climate models that include CO2 based global warming have failed to predict today's global temperatures. The models are wrong.

        January 8, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • Kurt

        CO2 is a major if not the primary driver in climate.

        Here is a post I made on the other discussion involving global warming that explains most of it.

        The solubility of water for CO2 falls when temperature rises. Essentially, the trapped CO2 in the water is released as temperatures rise.

        The date for the CO2 levels lagging the temperature levels tells us one thing... the initial incident that starts the warming trend (often ending ice ages that we have sporadically), was not an influx of CO2. This is reasonable... because there really aren't extended volcanic eruptions or forest fires that create enough to drastically alter the CO2 balance occurring naturally.

        The last ice age ended in the following way (according to a 2012 study by Jeremy D. Shakun) is as follows.
        1. an orbital change 19,000 years ago causes some warming in the Arctic
        2. Ice melted, causing fresh water to enter the oceans
        3. The atlantic ocean circulation was disrupted by the fresh water. This caused the southern hemisphere to start warming 18,000 years ago.
        4. The southern ocean warmed up enough to cause the water to retain less CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.
        5. The increased CO2 (NOT orbital changes) then causes the temperature to go up more, releasing more CO2, causing more increases in temperature.

        The key point is that the southern hemisphere warmed BEFORE the CO2 increase (due to the orbital shift giving them more intense sunlight). The northern hemisphere warmed AFTER the CO2 increase (due to CO2 trapping heat).

        CO2 levels don't end ice-ages... but they cause a small initial change in temperature to keep causing temperature rising (as opposed to just the initial increase caused by orbital change).

        The 2012 study provided ice core evidence confirming this, but it was predicted by climate scientists back in 1990. It doesn't refute the idea of global warming... we've long expected that the initial cause of warming couldn't be CO2. Where would it have come from? CO2 is what institutes the chain reaction that keeps the warming trend continuing over time.

        Also important to note, the CO2 impact is actually the only way science can explain how seemingly insignificant orbital changes can get us out of ice ages. The actual change in temperature caused by such shifts is minute... only the warming impact of the CO2 being released can explain how the temperature continues to rise and causes the ice age to end. There's no alternative scientific theory explaining the end of ice ages BESIDES the magnifying impact of global warming. The orbital change alone simply doesn't produce enough heat to get it done... Global Warming needs to exist to explain it.

        January 9, 2014 at 8:56 am |
      • Kurt

        Also, water vapor in the air is not a negative impact for CO2... it enhances it.

        CO2 in the air causes a temperature increase. This increase in temperature causes more water to evaporate into water vapor. This vapor is also a greenhouse gas which increases temperature more. The initial increase caused by the CO2 will end up being multiplied by the water vapor before it reaches a balancing point (the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor at a given temperature). But any additional increase will be amplified by the same mechanism.

        The only time this is blunted is when the amount of vapor is enough to cause increased cloud formation, which then blocks the sunlight. This is what is believed to end the warming cycles that pulls us out of ice ages and send us in the opposite direction again.

        The question is with man releasing more CO2 then happens with the cycle of warming and cooling the earth has naturally, will that reversal happen... or will it happen SOON enough to prevent major consequences from the global temperature reaching too high a level?

        January 9, 2014 at 9:06 am |
      • willhaas

        Thank you for reading my post and commenting. I have read the Shakun paper. Milankovitch cycles have been going on for eons and they do not always correlate with climate charge or the beginning or end of ice ages. The mechanism in the Shakun paper is at best imaginative speculation. If green house gasses were involved in ending the ice ages then the primary driver must have been H2O and not CO2. Orbital shifting does not provide more intense sunlight. It just redistributes it on a seasonable basis. The biggest real effect changes to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit which occurs over 100,000 year cycles but the ice ages are on 110.000 to 120,000 year cycles. More CO2 does not cause anything. H2O provides ample negative feedbacks to mitigate any effect that added CO2 might have on climate. The primary drivers of climate change change has always been the sun and the oceans.

        January 9, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
      • willhaas

        Besides being a greenhouse gas H2O is also a coolant moving heat from the earth's surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. Much more heat is moved in this fashion then by LWIR absorption band radiation. More H2O means that more heat is moved which provides a negative feedback. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds no only reflect solar radiation but they radiate more efficiently in the LWIR then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. CO2 acts as a radiative thermal insulator restricting heat flow causing the lower atmosphere to warm and the upper atmosphere to cool. The cooling in the upper atmosphere causes less H2O to appear which counteracts the effect of added CO2. This is another negative feedback. The combined effect of these H2O provided negative feedbacks is to mitigate any effect that added CO2 might have on climate.

        January 9, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
      • Jeffery Sikes

        Do you understand how inept your so called scientific example sounds? Think about you example. It was a bottle of water (makeup of the water undefined) and another bottle of water (with the same unknown contents) with one bottle injected with only CO2 of an unknown quantity. Then you attempt to apply your uncontrolled experiment to all atmospheric conditions where there exist vast variables of all other types of components and you attempt to conclude that All temperature rise therefore is factually related directly to CO2 ONLY!
        Further you expect everyone here to simply believe because you did this one experiment that it conclusively applies to all atmospheric conditions regardless of other atmospheirc variables and conditions?

        January 11, 2014 at 9:32 am |
  5. jdw62305

    First thing I learned in science class, limit the variables in your experiment. How do we know that the earth is not warming on its own? Also, doesn't the earth heal itself to some degree?
    I support pollution control, but we need a fix and not a band aid.

    January 7, 2014 at 4:52 pm | Reply
    • Jeffery Sikes

      Some of the most brilliant men to ever exist have indicated that the more we know or discover the more we understand that we actually known very little indeed.
      The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.
      Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.Albert Einstein

      January 11, 2014 at 11:13 am | Reply
  6. jdw62305

    To some degree, the earth heals itself. That said, pollution is bad, of course, but unless all countries act, it is really useless for the few that support green energy. I really don't see how they can conclude if GW is happening or not, with all the variables going on. Either way, the focus needs to be on a fix, not a band aid.

    January 7, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Reply
  7. Dale

    It's great to see David Kreutzer's voice of balance and reason reach the global stage, where it, and he, belong. I am proud to say I knew him many years ago as a friend, economics professor at James Madison University and councilman in the tiny town of Dayton, VA. He will not win the on-air shout-outs that have become so fashionable, but offering a voice of balance and reason can work for attentive listeners

    January 7, 2014 at 11:29 am | Reply
    • Kurt

      When I want to fix my car, I talk to a social worker.
      When I need medical care, I talk to a mechanic.
      And when I need information on climatology, of course I ask an economist.

      There's a reason why so few of those who don't believe in climate change have actually studied climatology or a related field.

      January 7, 2014 at 2:37 pm | Reply
    • Steve Hamilton

      What are Kreutzer's bona fides for making assertions about CO2 levels? None, I suspect. Heritage destroyed any credibility it might have had when it issued a report on the impact of the Senate immigration bill that was $1.4 trillion more than CBO's estimate, and which Heritage was forced to recall. Heritage said the bill would cost the US $500 billion; the CBO says that it will reduce the deficit by $900 billion. If you want to know what the status and timing of global warming problems are and will be, read the material published by scientists who have expertise in these matters. Don't listen to someone with a political agenda. Kreutzer is full of baloney.

      January 7, 2014 at 5:46 pm | Reply
      • Jeffery Sikes

        Your failure is assuming that Scientists don't have a political agenda when in fact they do. The scientists involved in the project to provided to prove the Postulated Theory known as Biospheric Rift which is based upon Karl Marx Theory of Biospheiric Rift, as actualized from e-mails obtained from East Angila University, skewed the date and destroyed historical raw data when peer review was not able to drive a solid correlation between CO2 emissions and climatic conditions. Your Scientists skewed (falsified) the data in order to force the correlation so they could continue to receive government grant monies. The entire event was completely political based and did not and further does not have anything to do with acceptable and historical methods of peer review.

        January 11, 2014 at 9:42 am |
  8. Kurt

    The main thing to think about.

    Kreutzeger is an economist and politician.

    Nayak's education is in Biology and Environmental Studies.

    One is someone with some education in climate sciences. He actually is qualified to talk on the subject of climate science. The other is qualified to talk about politics and monetary policy.

    January 7, 2014 at 9:37 am | Reply
    • Jeffery Sikes

      Kurt before you speak you might want to do some homework DR. SHAILESH NAYAK, did not course Biology and Environmental Studies as you claim. According to his Bio, he studied Geology which is where his Doctorate resides. He also hods a Bs Chemistry and Physics, all from the University of Baroda Vadodara. He is highly revered in India and supports the work of those of the University of East Anglia who are also the chaps to skewed their data to force it into correlation in an attempt to settle their Postulate Theory of Biospheirc Rift (based upon Karl Marx theory of Metabolic Rift) when peer review indicated that no correlation between CO2 emissions and Climatic conditions could be correlated and validated. Afterword the researchers of the University of East Anglia destroyed the raw data, only leaving behind their skewed data sets which are of no value to peer review.

      January 11, 2014 at 10:08 am | Reply
  9. Fish

    Yet one more "Expert" from the repulsive right giving a on-biased opinion not worth beans!!! Perhaps he can explain why I've been listening to my smoke detectors all morning after being awakened during the night repeatedly by the rancid air courtesy of the coal burning power plants, can we say Koch Bros.??? Give us a break you anti-American maggots!!!

    January 7, 2014 at 8:52 am | Reply
    • Jeffery Sikes

      Fish, your rants are not founded in facts but are founded in poor understanding between CO and CO2. Your inhume meter which you refer to is used to measure CO (Carbon Monoxide), You refer to your reading of CO2 (by the same meter which is impossible). If you are resetting your CO measurement devices, you might want to review those times in you home which are not fully combusting the fuel you are consuming.
      Here is an article which may help you and others understand the differences between CO (Carbon Monoxide) and CO2 (Carbon dioxide).

      January 11, 2014 at 10:23 am | Reply
  10. Marilyn McStay

    Is it a true fact that President Obama cancelled the ceremony for this years National Day of Prayer? Is it true that a prayer group of 50,000 Muslims met next to the White House on Capitol Hill? Did our President participate? Is it true that President Obama declared "We are no longer a Christian nation"? Some republican folks claim so. I dont recall any of these as true. Please clarify facts for us. This is going around the internet and I would dismiss it as bunk. Thanks, Marilyn

    January 7, 2014 at 1:34 am | Reply
    • basedonfact

      It is bunk. If any of those things happened fox would be playing the video every 35 seconds 24 hours a day. It saddens me that you even thought it worthy to ask.

      January 7, 2014 at 8:33 pm | Reply
    • Jeffery Sikes

      1) Mr Obama cancelled the ceremony at the White House to observe the National day of Prayer which has historically taken place by all prior administrations except that of Bill Clinton. . He did not cancel the National Day of prayer itself.

      2) Did Muslims meet at the White House for a day of prayer? The answer is Yes they did on 25 Sep 2009. Did Mr Obama participate with the prayer group, the official answer from the White House is no he did not, but its hard to fathom that visitors would be rejected any audience by the standing president.

      3) Did Mr Obama declare that America is no longer a Christian Nation, That statement is true. He declared that as an Illinois Senator and again in Cairo as President of the United States, just prior to the revolution in Egypt known as the Arab Spring. You will find that noted on the link above. It has been determined that the Cairo speech was the kick off event to the Egyptian people which signaled their revolution to oust their leader would be supported by the Obama administration. Its factual that Ms. Clintion spent much organizational time in Egypt prior to and during and after the revolution which ejected the traditional Western ally and put in its place the Muslim Brotherhood. The entire series of events which were supported by the Obama administration, and which were designed by the global Marxists, allowed the eventual destruction of Western Allies in the Middle East and the over throw of those allies not by Socialist States as the Global Marxists had concluded but instead by the Shia dominant Muslim Brotherhood, as Russia wanted. As a result of global socialist meddling in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is now surrounded on all sides by the Shia who are enemy to the Sunni. Eventually Saudi will Fall into the hands of the Shia who will take over control of OPEC with their ally Iran (Persia) and Russia.
      Americans need to pay close attention to the events which will transpire in the Middle East as it will effect each and everyone of them personally. Americans are devoid of the fact that their FIAT currency is directly tied to OPEC oil transactions (about 5 – 6 trillion dollars). Imagine what occurs when that volume of currency is no long tied to OPEC transactions. FIAT currency gets its value from the transactions which take place in its name, especially when it is not directly tied to a gold reserve. Therefore you reduce the transactions and increase the pool of currency thereby reducing the value of the currency. Think of it this way, if you had 12 Trillion Federal Reserve Notes floating about the world which were worth 12 trillion candy bar transactions per year and you reduced that value by 5 – 6 trillion candy bar transactions per year, what would your currency be worth? If you guessed about 50% of its previous value, you are close to correct. When you observe OPEC therefore shift away from the American dollar as its reserve currency ... BEWARE!

      January 11, 2014 at 10:52 am | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.