I consider the point settled for the infamous Hockey Stick; A hoax with bad statistics.
The point about the forced consensus of the IPCC; Another hoax (See Donna Laframboise).
I could go on, but I have written extensively about this in http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm so you can be the judge.

Then there is Svensmark to explain real climate change without CO2, and an interesting theory about the Sun’s influence (see Abdussamatov), and the influence of the natural cycles (like ENSO and PDO) in the oceanic circulations.

Founded Hong Kong (1865)
Founder Thomas Sutherland
Headquarters London, England, UK
Key people Stephen Green, Group Chairman
Michael Geoghegan, Group Chief Executive
Industry Finance and insurance
Products Financial services

HSBC Holdings was established in 1991 to become the parent company to The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in preparation for its purchase of the Midland Bank in Britain and in change of domicile for the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong. The former was established virtually simultaneously in Hong Kong and Shanghai in 1865 to finance the growing trade between China and Europe by Scotsman Thomas Sutherland, who wanted a bank operating on “sound Scottish banking principles”. Its heritage in East Asia means it is a British institution with an extensive international pedigree.

It is also by far the largest bank in the United Kingdom and in Hong Kong, prints most of Hong Kong’s local currency in its own name, is a lender of last resort in many parts of the world] and since the end of 2005 has been the largest banking group in the world by Tier 1 capital By acquisitions and organic expansion HSBC is currently pursuing a strategy of rapid growth in booming China.[
Source(s):
Wikipedia

Like many peeps, I lost 30% of super money from the GFC and never recovered it. Where did it go?

My super was “real” money, it was contributions from work and I, not bubble elevated value. It was a 30% extra tax on that portion of my explicit, income tax.

The GFC was quite plausibly a manufactured crisis. The deregulation of Fannae Mae to 2% capital reserves was not negligent. Impossible. Global, inter-banking, investment accounts are never allowed beyond a loss of 10% capital reserve without a margin call. How can super-high risk, sub-prime loans be allowed a reserve of 2%? That is not “negligence”, it was “manufactured”.

See
a)
“Mr. Raines responded “our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2%.” His claim was that Fannie’s subprime mortgage portfolio involved less risk than the typical private bank’s loan portfolio.”

b)
some facts about fannie mae and freddie mac

Where did the GFC money go? Some was a false economy through the post DOT.com bubble, reinflationary policy, most was real value.

If you are a massive financial entity such as Fidelity Fund (FMR) (controlled by a few families – Check it), which owns and controls HSBC and has a majority finger in many pies (inc. all of OZs banks), then you control more than Capitalism allows. There is no true meritocratic competition in the market. There is no true “Capitalism”. The financial cartels control all the major institutions. Even if most of the actual money in their Funds is our pensions. If you control and manage all the “competition”, it’s a farcical system. The “controllers” can quite easily: transfer funds from one entity to another, thus devaluing the source, then buy back the original cheaply – ta da, wealth creation?

It’s all “true”, it’s in Russia’s most “loved” newspaper, Pravda.

To me “ownership” is not about the total number of shares, but the controlling share. The Anglo-American, old families control a massive swathe of institutions Even though our pensions are invested in them as well, all the power of those institutions lays in the hands of the largest minority shareholder eg HSBC.

True, this sort of idea is pretty leftfield and needs tons of research (a lifetime) to back it. However, the pieces of the puzzle that cross my way haven’t discounted it yet,

Cheers,
Jimbo

Contemporary history of Australia and other such countries is not too dissimilar to what happens in the movie ‘Avatar’.

A foreign power arrives, gets its hands on the ‘Unobtainium’ of the land (and does what is necessary to get it). This power does not pay the people their fair share (open to debate itself! What is a fair share after all?) but what little is given back to the people is still big enough to allow them to build schools and hospitals and have a ‘booming economy’ that they would otherwise not have had.

So has this foreign power done the right thing? Did they have the right to obtain the Unobtainium that was not in their land to begin with? If they got their hands on it because they were able to pay off a local ruler who was acting in his own interest and not the interest of all the people, then what?

How would we judge if our fathers were beneficiaries from the above enterprise (employed and paid by the power in charge)?

How would we judge if our fathers were the target of what is perceived to be exploitation?

Is it even exploitation? These people are better off aren’t they? Are they better off? Do we have the right to judge an economic boom to mean being better off? What about loss of values, sovereignty, etc.?

Banks are required to hold asset backing – where do they invest on a diversified basis if not including other banks? Government bonds are certainly causing a lot of grief – and when Western sovereigns are risky, there isn’t much else that is safe. Banks are something they understand.

This doco presented by the President of the illustrious Royal Society, an institution famous for being the historical, gold standard of bipartisan, scientific debate, is sadly saddening.

This is a very poor PR exercise by the Royal Society to vindicate the shambles that is the CRU’s reputation due to their creation of a “hockey stick” graph out of 2 completely, unconnected datasets to prove Global Warming.

The Royal Society was once intellectual; scientists playing politics have ruined its objectivity. Its reputation is also tarnished.

You skeptics are en par with Cancer Deniers according to Sir Paul Nurse, Head of the British Royal Society:

Science Under Attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz02bK237q8

“GHCN doesn’t have this sort of information. They don’t keep a track either of where each bit of data, or each station, comes from!”; UEA’s Dave Palmer: “I fear we could end up with a headline blazing ‘CRU has no idea where it’s data comes from!”

Sept 2009: Phil Jones