Shall I tell you a secret?

by Anthony Paul Bright

Shall I tell you a secret? The Sun warms the Earth and the Earth warms the atmosphere. Have you got that? It took me a while to ponder over this. I got it from my Climate guru, my personal trainer in all matters scientific. Actually Hans is my third personal trainer, and he will not mind if I say I don’t believe a word he says. That’s right  – I don’t believe a word he says, until I have my own evidence for what he explains. 

 [ad name=”Google Adsense 468×60 Banner Blue”]

If the Sun warmed the atmosphere, the top of the atmosphere, or at least the top of the Troposphere, would be hot – but it isn’t – at 33,000 feet it is about minus 55C. I don’t have to tell you guys that, do I? Just ask anyone who flies and watches the monitor on board. So radiation from the Sun encounters mass and the earth and the oceans warm the atmosphere from the bottom up. 

Some smart-arse disagreed with this. He said to me: ‘Sit on a cold brick wall on a frosty morning and see just how warm the earth is!’ Well that smart arse had a point. So now let me share with you a second secret. The Sun warms the Earth and Oceans and the Earth and Oceans warm or cool the atmosphere. 

Ah, that makes a difference, that makes sense, doesn’t it? When the Sun shines down on the sand even on the Riviera, the sands are often too hot for the feet. Even more so in the Sahara. So the atmosphere likewise gets hot and the temperature rises. When the sun goes down the sands cool rapidly, even the Bedouin will make a fire and drink hot tea. When the earth cools down so does the atmosphere. 

Where it is hot and humid, as in Jakarta, the atmosphere will cool more slowly, but cool it will, inexorably. In the UK now that autumn is upon us and the ground is wet and moist, so is the atmosphere. And as the sun goes down the atmosphere cools rapidly, so it quite cold by dawn. 

Is it as simple as that? Of course not! Why? Because we have winds and these winds re-distribute huge volumes of air around the globe. In the UK the winds play a prominent part in our weather. If the winds come from the south we receive hot air from the Sahara. If the wind is from West crossing the Atlantic we can expect rain and it is often fairly mild. If the wind is from Iceland and the north, yes it is cold. And when in winter the predominant wind is from the frozen steppes of Russia we can expect a prolonged period of cold and snow. 

Shall I tell you another secret that I only learned quite recently from my climate guru? My mentor is a bit like one of those old Zen masters – if I don’t get something right he can get quite cross. But then, as I have explained, I just will not believe anything he says unless it concurs with my own evidence. 

Just how does the Earth influence the atmosphere?  Here’s secret three: By contact, by conduction. 

Let’s do an experiment. Boil up a kettle of water, preferably in a nice shiny metal kettle. When it is boiled hover your hands over and round the kettle in order to experience its warmth. Actually you have to hover your hands quite near in order to experience its radiant heat. Now put your hands on the hot kettle! Careful! Now do you see what I mean? If you clasped hold of a hot kettle you would know it instantly. Your immediate reaction would be to let go; otherwise you would burn yourself severely and come out in blisters or worse. 

From this extremely simple experiment it is possible to learn two things. By touching, by conduction the transfer of energy is immediate. On the other hand the transfer of energy by radiation is not only slow, but is governed by distance and intensity, which has a fancy name – inverse square law. 

What relevance does this have for us in following the climate debate? What relevance does this have for man-made Global warming?  It is very simple – we can see easily that the atmosphere warms and cools by touching, by contact, in a word by conduction. And we can also see quite clearly that it cools by convection. As the steam rises out of a kettle spout it is very hot immediately but a couple of feet up it has already cooled. Now the Warmists base all their theory on radiation and here I will append an extract from an email from my learned friend Max Potter:  

When the energy is re-radiated it is emitted as much lower frequency infrared (below or lower frequency than red). It is this infrared radiation, which is absorbed by the “greenhouse gases” (including water vapour), which warm the atmosphere.  [ Email from Max Potter Nov 24 2012 ]

Unwittingly Max has explained precisely why the whole man-made Global Warming has not worked and is entirely fraudulent.

Firstly it is based entirely on radiation, which as we know is slow and does not travel far.
Why? Because we now know from our own observations and experiments that heat energy is moved with immediacy by contact, by conduction.
Secondly we know that the sum total of all the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a mere 1%, which includes Water Vapour and Carbon Dioxide as well as other Greenhouse Gases. So this radiation is only being absorbed and emitted by 1% of the atmosphere and arguably only at ground level.
Why do I say that? Because of convection, because warmed air rises and cools, and remember the Greenhouse Gases are just a very minor part of the atmosphere. The idea that there should be a hot spot in the sky or a lot of teeny-weeny suspended Chinese lanterns lit up by ‘photons’ is just inadmissible, if not entirely ludicrous.

It is not just that there is no such thing as man-made Global warming – it is entirely impossible. Heat, by itself, can only flow from hot to cold – 2^nd Law of thermodynamics.

Why is it important to establish this fact and to repeat it again and again?

Because millions of £s sterling and millions of dollars have been spent and are being spent on an entirely spurious campaign to prevent Global Warming and Climate Change.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light!  (Dylan Thomas)

 Yes Dylan, I am raging; I am raging against the dying of the light! 

Anthony Bright-Paul
October 2013 

PS1 Contact

Sometimes it happens that after I have written something the true import of what I myself have written dawns upon me. Of course the three secrets that I have divulged are just the opposite – they are not secrets at all. In fact they are evidential, they are secrets only in the sense that they are so obvious that people fail to recognise them. 

The same occurs with me also. Once I had realised that the Earth and the Oceans warm or cool the atmosphere, it was only last night that the enormity of this realisation came upon me.
Why so?  Because the Earth and the Oceans are in contact with the atmosphere over the whole surface. Or rather if one prefers it, the atmosphere envelops the whole of everything, – every single nook and cranny is covered by the atmosphere. 

It does not matter if it is the sands of the Sahara or the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean, it does not matter if it is the Siberian steppes or the mountains of Tibet, it makes not a whit of difference if it is a Silesian salt mine or a New York skyscraper, everything everywhere is covered by the atmosphere. Just everything is in contact. 

Just think for one moment what that means. That means that everywhere upon this Earth there is a heat exchange taking place by conduction. So that where there is snow and ice floes the atmosphere cools; where the tropical Sun beats down the atmosphere warms. Where winds blow the air is re-distributed. Only this morning I saw on the BBC News that London had a temperature of 17C last night and why? Because of huge southerly winds bringing up warmth from the tropics. 

A lady friend wrote to me over Facebook to say she was consulting a scientist. She has no need to do that. The only need is to consult with the evidence of her own senses. If one goes to the great Cathedral of Chartres or if you visit the Taj Mahal and you were to say that these monuments have an atmosphere, you are correct. It is the same with Pisa and its famed leaning tower; it is the same if you were to visit the Buddhist Temple of Borobodhur in central Java. 

If you watch the rushing torrents in North Wales at Betws-y–Cooed, or the placid lakes like Lake Como in Italy; if you see the wonders of the Mer de Glace in the Haute Savoie, you cannot escape the fact that everywhere is enveloped in atmosphere. This enormous covering envelops the whole earth – no place is without it. 

You might think that I am stating the obvious. It is so obvious that it is easy to overlook, that every inch of the terrain or the waters of this earth are in contact with the atmosphere, and every inch is exchanging heat with this same atmosphere, night and day, endlessly. Some places are cooling and some are warming, there is no stopping, there is no moment in time that is the same as the moment in time that has just passed. 

It is not possible to take an average of this flux for the simple reason that it is constantly on the move. So the atmosphere is warming and cooling and shifting incessantly by contact with the earth. The gases of the atmosphere do not warm the Earth – the Earth and Oceans warm and or cool the atmosphere. 

What then of the idea that the Earth radiates infrared at a low frequency and that Carbon Dioxide absorbs and emits it? Sure we will allow that, remembering both the absorption and the almost instantaneous emission. But Carbon Dioxide is a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere. So if it warms up and cools down it is almost irrelevant. My friend Max Potter has conceded that Carbon Dioxide does not generate heat – he opines as many other Warmists do that it traps heat. Really? Tell me anyone, how do you trap heat? In a little black box or a hot water bottle? And would it remain trapped or would the genie escape? Come now, we are not children. There is no way that heat can be trapped. 

It can be generated; heat can be generated, even by rubbing two sticks together. So it is suggested that excited molecules rub against each other and pass on their heat, somewhere up in the cold atmosphere and thus cause Global warming. Even if this was less than absurd, is it suggested that 0.04% of the atmosphere has somehow managed to warm the other 99%?  

Too many Sceptic scientists have managed to waste their time arguing with such tomfoolery, when all the time they could have asserted what is evident, what is obvious to every man and woman of the slightest intelligence, namely that the earth and the oceans warm or cool the planet by contact, by touching, by conduction all at once and all the time, night and day. 

Let me repeat this. Every single one of us is surrounded by atmosphere. The land and sea are covered by the air, and the air surrounds us all. Every single surface is either warming or cooling across the entire globe simultaneously. 

I will repeat that: – Every single surface is either warming or cooling simultaneously by contact with the atmosphere night and day. 

Let me ask you, ‘Is that credible? Is that observable? Is that evidential?’
Any man or woman who is not entirely asleep can observe this warming or cooling by contact every single day. There is no hocus-pocus about watts per square metre; there is no hocus-pocus about infrared radiation affecting molecules suspended in the ether! 

No! What I have written and which came to me as a blinding light is easily comprehensible to any garage mechanic, to any plumber and heating engineer and to any housewife who does the cooking. 

I am indebted to Hans Schreuder for opening my eyes to such an obvious thing that I have been in a state of excitement with the realisation of it all and the need to pass it on again to all my fellow men and women. 

There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming, my friends.
It is totally beyond the power of man either to warm or to cool the globe. 
There is however simultaneous global warming and global cooling and this is entirely in the hands of that great orb in the sky, the Sun. 

Anthony Bright-Paul
October 2013

PS2 Everywhere and All-at-Once

Once I had begun to take in the full import of the fact that the earth and the oceans meet the atmosphere just everywhere and all-at-once I began to search for a word to describe this phenomenon that everybody observes yet which virtually nobody acknowledges. Could one say simultaneous-ness? Ugly. Then I thought of ‘synchronicity’ – but it is not enough. Synchronous applies only to time. I needed a word for time and place.

The great heat exchange that is taking place over the entire globe is taking place everywhere and all at once by contact, by conduction. There is not a word in the English language that I am aware of that can describe the fact that is easily observable – that the action and reaction that is taking place between every surface everywhere on this planet is instantaneous, contiguous and continuous.

Far from it being the Sceptics who do not believe in Global Warming and Climate Change, precisely the opposite is the case. It is the Warmists who do not acknowledge, who are utterly blind to the incredible GlobalWarmingCooling that is taking place all together and all at once – in a sort of majestic symphony. Every instrument in this celestial orchestra is playing its part harmoniously, everything is on cue, and the supreme conductor, Great Nature, is conducting everything. 

As I rose yesterday morning to clear the misted windows of my car, the temperature was a mere 7C. I had to drive with my wife down the M3 past Southampton, along the M27 and then the A31 across the New Forest. As I passed the sign for the Rufus Stone and came to the great open spaces of heath and gorse, I was reminded that only a few minutes ago in geological time William the Conqueror was hunting here. And being full of the wonder of the contact between the heavens and the earth just everywhere and all at once, I sensed the atmosphere of this wild place. Then, later, as we passed along the A31 towards Wimborne, high pines with their own secret atmospheres bordered the road. Everywhere ahead of me the ribbon of road unwound, now warmer at some 17C, unusually mild for late October. The road itself was an immense heat exchange mechanism. Elsewhere in the world the sun is so  hot in some places that the road tar melts and yet elsewhere again the ice-truckers drive their perilous way in the frozen wastes.

A good friend wrote to me that he was concerned about the incremental increase in world temperatures – only a little increase will make a huge difference, he averred. (Incremental? Where did he get that word from?) Tell me good friend, where have you observed this incremental increase? And if it does pertain, have you taken into account the incremental increase in Antarctic ice? Even the Arctic ice, which ebbs and flows, is presently at an all time high. Al Gore suggested it might all be gone by Christmas – he forgot that during the Holocene Maximum there was almost certainly no ice in the Arctic at all! For three thousand years!

Oh no! Good friend, you have been listening to the querulous whingeing sounds of the warmists’ tin whistle. You have forgotten the winds, the woodwind section, the imperious sound of the horns, the clarion call of the brass, the thunder of the drums, the lightning clash of the symbols and the sunny serenity of the strings.

It is no good to isolate one tiny element like Carbon Dioxide and then imagine that you can pontificate about the great body of the Biosphere. We need a holistic approach. It is incumbent on those who seek the truth to listen to the entire orchestra that is playing everywhere and all at once.

Canterbury plains landscape, New Zealand by Kenny Muir, on Flickr

My friend the truly honourable Emmanuel Elliott emailed me, insisting that I listen to some Feedback programme on the BBC, – Should Climate Sceptics be given Air time? This included some short comments from Professor Bob Carter, who happened to have been my second mentor, and who went out of his way to visit me in my home, when over from Australia. After a minute and a half at most of Bob Carter, the Feedback droned on for all of 11 minutes, justifying the fact that the BBC are shit-scared to debate the Climate issues. Why? They argued that climate scientists were all agreed on the facts, so actually there was nothing to discuss – the consensus had it.

But of course this was a barefaced lie, delivered with cool aplomb. What is true and what is accepted by both sides is that Carbon Dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. The whole of the warmist position is based on this fact, established in experiments many moons ago. But the Warmists proceed to a non sequitur, a classical non sequitur.My friend the truly honourable Emmanuel Elliott emailed me, insisting that I listen to some Feedback programme on the BBC, – Should Climate Sceptics be given Air time? This included some short comments from Professor Bob Carter, who happened to have been my second mentor, and who went out of his way to visit me in my home, when over from Australia. After a minute and a half at most of Bob Carter the Feedback droned on for all of 11 minutes, justifying the fact that the BBC are shit-scared to debate the Climate issues. Why? They argued that climate scientists were all agreed on the facts, so actually there was nothing to discuss – the consensus had it.

They argue that through the warming of the Carbon Dioxide in the air, the whole atmosphere is warmed; and the more Carbon Dioxide the more warming will result. But the empirical facts deny this, even the so-called facts from the Climatic Research Unit. But to argue that the warming and cooling of CO2, which is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, is going to warm the whole of the rest of the atmosphere, calls for an abandonment of all logic and the curt dismissal of the scientific method.

Once we establish that the principal heat exchange mechanism is through contact, through ‘conduction’ the arguments of the Warmists melt into nothing. Radiation may be absorbed and emitted by a few pesky molecules of Carbon Dioxide, but how does that compare with the all embracing contact of Earth and Atmosphere Everywhere and All-at-Once?

Anthony Bright-Paul
October 2013

Note to the BBC: I am sure that Piers Corbyn and Hans Schreuder would gladly debate with your foremost Warmists.

PS3 On Taxing Air 

I was reading this excellent book ‘Taxing Air’ for the second time and for the second time I was stopped dead in my tracks by some words on p.69. It says that the common ground among scientists includes that ‘Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere.’ Whoa! Whoa! Bob Carter, Spooner et al, and the composite authors of this book. 

Surely this is a printing error, or something written in haste. What is generally agreed is that Carbon Dioxide that is 0.04% of the atmosphere reacts to the infrared radiation from the earth, and this radiation warms the molecules of carbon dioxide. So the gas is warmed by the radiation. Even the Warmists do not really claim any more, because obviously a gas cannot heat itself – the atmosphere, the temperature of which is always varying, cannot heat itself. 

So yes, the Carbon Dioxide molecules are warmed by the infrared radiation, all 0.04% of the atmosphere. But being a gas these molecules are also subject to convection, that is to say that as they warm these molecules rise up and cool, as does the whole of the lower atmosphere. 

So that begs the question: What warms the lower atmosphere? Now we come to what warmists and sceptics do agree on.  They agree that the sun warms the earth and the oceans, as radiation from the Sun encounters mass. It is also generally agreed that water has a great heat capacity and that the warm oceans in particular warm the lower atmosphere. Is that OK? Not quite. And the cold oceans cool the lower atmosphere. Is that better? 

The land is more complex. Hot sands warm, while cold rocks cool the atmosphere. Hot tar warms, while frosty runaways cool the air. A leafy wood is often cooler than an open field or lawn. Snow-bound Siberian wastes are cooling, while the Gobi desert by day is warming the atmosphere – all by conduction. 

The atmosphere is being warmed or being cooled every instant of every day. The gases of the atmosphere are being warmed primarily by contact, by conduction. So where does that leave the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is Carbon Dioxide? In order to answer this question let us ask ourselves the question that I first saw posed in the book ‘The Slaying of the Sky Dragon.’ Why does the Sun warm the Earth? Answer: Because it is hotter.’ Is that agreed? Because the Sun is hotter than the Earth. 

Therein lies a principle. So theoretically if the molecules of Carbon Dioxide gas are hotter than the other gases, then theoretically it might be possible for the teeniest-weeniest warming to occur. But it is as remote as swimmers off the coasts of the Riviera who might occasionally piddle while bathing; it is as remote as the possibility that they are warming the Mediterranean! 

It is even more remote when one considers the whole facts. How likely is it for the Carbon Dioxide molecules that have been warmed by infrared radiation, how likely is it that they are hotter than the surrounding molecules that have been warmed by conduction? Even for a non-scientist, basing everything on direct observation, – not very likely at all. Consider this: Place your hand on a hot radiator. The heat is immediate to the touch. Hover the back of your hand close to the radiator. Do you experience the same level, the same intensity of heat? Not at all. The heat experienced from radiation does not compare with the heat experienced from conduction. 

This can be tested in various ways, some more dramatic than others. You could for example hover your hand near a red-hot horseshoe in a smithy or you could grasp hold of the horseshoe. Is my meaning clear? Please however gentle friends, please forbear to try this experiment, since you already know the answer. It is the difference between being scorched and being branded, neither of which is advisable or desirable. 

It is clear therefore that Carbon Dioxide being a tiny part of the atmosphere, however susceptible it may be to absorbing and emitting infrared radiation from the Earth, cannot in any way whatsoever warm the lower atmosphere. This leaves aside the fact that radiation is also governed by the inverse square law. 

So what is the conclusion? It is this:

1. Conduction trumps radiation every time.
2. Anthropogenic Global Warming is impossibility.
3. Climate changes follow the dictat of Great Nature.

Since I am not a scientist but merely a scribe and a kind of natural philosopher I am willing to be corrected by any who find fault with my reasoning.

Secondly, if any Sceptic Professor, such as Richard Lindzen, can fault my arguments for scientific reasons, or laws of which I am ignorant, I am willing to be corrected.

Thirdly, if we are all agreed as to the basic causes of warming and cooling let us be united in Slaying the Sky Dragon. 

Anthony Bright-Paul
October 2013

PS4 Privatization of Nature

Attempt to “tax the air” is just another example of human greed in action.
There are also very serious efforts to tax water as well…

In her book Water Wars, the Indian author Vandana Shiva lists nine principles underpinning water democracy. At least two of these principles are directly compromised by the privatization of water. Point number four states that “Water must be free for sustenance needs. Since nature gives water to us free of cost, buying and selling it for profit violates our inherent right to nature’s gift and denies the poor of their human rights.”

When private companies try to make large profits through high water prices, it denies the poor the inalienable right to the most necessary substance for life.
In accordance with this fact, point number seven states, “Water is a commons. . . It cannot be owned as private property and sold as a commodity.”
How can one justify claiming water as their own through contractual agreement while letting another human being go thirsty? Water is a commons because it is the basis of all life. Water rights are natural rights and thus are usufructuary rights, meaning that water can be used, but not owned.

As far fetched as water ownership may seem, it is happening at an increasing rate around the globe.

Currently there is a rush to privatize water services around the world. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are pushing for the privatization of water services by European and U.S.-based companies. They are pushing privatization through stipulations in trade agreements and loan conditions to developing countries. These privatization programs started in the early 1990’s and have since emerged in India, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Nigeria, Mexico, Malaysia, Australia, and the Philippines, to name a few. In Chile, the World Bank imposed a loan condition to guarantee a 33 percent profit margin to the French company Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux while the company insisted on a margin of 35 percent. 

This privatization of services is only the first step toward the privatization of all aspects of water. Through this new globalization and privatization of water resources, there is an effort to replace collective ownership of water sources with corporate control. This effort is being met with increasing opposition. Supporters of privatization say that it has a great track record of success, increasing the efficiency, quality, reliability and affordability of services to the population.

Yet the industry has a track record of hazards and failures. For example, private companies most often violate standards of operation, and engage in price fixing without many consequences. This leads to water stress among the poor populations of these areas, causing people to drink water that is often very contaminated and hazardous to their health (even though case studies have shown that privatized water can be very contaminated as well).

Read More: 

• http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/VANOVEDR/
• http://www.asahi.com/english/asianet/hatsu/eng_hatsu030222b.html

For more information:

Overall Sources
Yellowtimes: Water privatization in Africa
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=369
Water Privatization: Issues & Debates
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/Water/articles.cfm?ID=10842
CBCnews: Water For Profit
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/
Argentina Water Privatization Scheme Runs Dry
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=10088
Water Wars
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Vandana_Shiva/Water_Wars_VShiva.html
Sydney Water Scare Leads To Accusations, Suggestions http://www.clo2.com/reading/waternews/sydney_report.html
Water Privatization: Will You Trust the Water That comes From Your Taps?
www.socialjustice.org/subsites/privatization/pdf/waterprivate.pdf
CBC News: Walkerton report highlights
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/walkerton_report.html
Water for profit: contamination, riots, rate increases, scandals. From Atlanta to Manila, cities are confronting the true cost of water privatization – the price of water
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1329/is_6_27/ai_94129863
Workers’ Educational Association http://www.swales.wea.org.uk/myweb4/private%20water.htm
Corpwatch: Argentina Water Privatization Scheme Runs Dry http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wbank/2004/0226argwater.htm
Paying for privatization: higher prices, lower employment
www.psiru.org/reports/2000-03-W-Hprice.doc
Water privatizers on the defensive
http://www.newint.org/features/kyoto/020603.htm

Minnesota Water Alliance (opposing corporate 99-year leases on public water utilities in multiple cities) http://www.mnwater.org

Bechtel and Bolivia
Bechtel vs. Bolivia: The Bolivian Water Revolt
http://www.democracyctr.org/bechtel/
Bolivia’s Water War Victory
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html
Bechtel Strikes Back at Bolivia
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14525
Bechtel Wins Iraq War Contracts
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6532
URGENT ACTION: supports demands that Bechtel drop suit against Bolivia
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/bolivia/txt/2002/0420bechtel.htm
Bechtel vs. Bolivia: Bechtel’s legal action against Bolivia http://www.democracyctr.org/bechtel/bechtellegalaction.htm
Bechtel’s Water Wars
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6670
Bechtel And Blood For Water: War As An Excuse For Enlarging Corporate Rule
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2003/0512bechtelrule.htm

Water Privatization in India
Water Privatization in India by Dr. Vandana Shiva
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/Water/cmep_Water/reports/india/articles.cfm?ID=8109
CorpWatch India: French Firms Spearhead Water Privatization
http://www.waternunc.com/gb/CorpWatchIndia02_2002.htm
Communities Reject Coca-Cola in India
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=7508
India Resource Center
http://www.corpwatchindia.org/

The Dabhol Project in India
Enron’s ghost haunts India
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EK14Df01.html
Enron: History of Human Rights Abuse in India
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/enron_012302.htm
The Enron Corporation: Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/enron/

Shiva, Vandana. 2002. Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit. South End Press. 158 pgs.