'global warming' scam advances, UN advocates wealth transfer to third world hellholes

[The Lawspeaker]

Have not 9 of the past 10 years been the hottest on record? Are we not putting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere constantly? Is it a coincidence? That's a mighty big coincidence. I don't see how the "It's a scam" people have a leg to stand on.




The global warming scenarios still do predict massive cooling in Europe and probably an eventual return to perma-ice in much of Europe. The only Britain for example is so temperate at such a high latitude is the North Atlantic Current constantly pushing up warm tropical waters. If that shuts down, Europe is doomed.

Well.. I agree. Global warming is taking place but whether it is human-induced can be a matter of debate. What we are seeing now is merely a warmer age (like the Medieval Warm Period) as we also had a colder age (Little Ice Age). The climate seems to fluctuate up and down as the sun seems to have more violent period, producing more solar flares. Only 6 percent of the climate change seems to take place because of the use of greenhouse gasses. Although I do agree that we should create less (especially when it comes to using motorized vehicles) but that is only to make our own cities more livable, ween ourselves off foreign oil and make sure that our forests stop dieing. And we should also plant more trees.

But let's look at the bright side of global warming--- for us. Because there won't be a benefit for Africa but then again I couldn't care less about them. When we protect ourselves better against rivers and the see we should start seeing higher yields in agriculture and a more diverse produce. Probably grapes in Yorkshire or the Dutch province of Gelderland. Or as seems to have been the case during the Viking Age: grapes in Maine.
Southern Europe will have to take measures to prevent desertification and look at new forms of irrigation and different products to grow though.

Warm periods are usually good periods for the economy and agriculture and I am willing to embrace it with both arms. The third world (mainly Africa) will suffer though but who bothers. (at least I am not a hypocrite that says that I will shed tears for them).

[SwordoftheVistula]

Here we go, the socialist program of the 'global warming' crowd comes out in the open. Do you heat your home during winter (because you don't live in a jungle or savanna)? Drive a car to go to work (because you actually have a job)? Or far, far worse...do you own a factory which provides jobs and produces things people enjoy? You are in for a new global tax!

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06427635.htm

To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries -- including fast-growing economies China and India -- are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.

Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person's emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion "high emitters" in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.

EACH PERSON'S EMISSIONS

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.

"You're distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that's actually doing the most damage," said Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, one of the study's authors.

Rich people's lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.

By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.

"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Chakravarty said, but he did not rule it out: "We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it's great."

This week's climate talks in Italy are a prelude to an international forum in December in Copenhagen aimed at crafting an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation to curb U.S. carbon emissions.

[Freomæg]

Look, whether global warming is a reality or not (I believe it is, but that it's largely not man-made), it should not be used for any kind of transfer of wealth. Where do our 'carbon taxes' go? Do they gut spent entirely (no profit for contracted companies) on bettering the global environment? I don't think so.

Global warming is being used as a device by corporate government to transfer wealth from the public to the elite. Furthermore it is being used as a device to transfer wealth from the first world to the third, thus de-industrialising the west (which is one of their stated goals and aids their strife for a new world order, with 'level playing field' - ie global impoverishment).

[SwordoftheVistula]

Goldman Sachs seems to be in on it:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...1&show=1&rss=1

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.

Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.

Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

Last Friday, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and- trade legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Blackburn asked Gore about Kleiner-Perkins, noting that at last count they "have invested about a billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today."

Blackburn then asked the $100 million question: "Is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?" Gore gave the stock answer that "the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge."

Last May, we also noted that on March 1, Gore, while speaking at a conference in Monterey, Calif., admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green investments that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "subprime carbon assets" such as tar sands and shale oil.

He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It's a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.

As Stephen Milloy, author of "Green Hell," points out, Goldman Sachs is lobbying for climate change legislation and is part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap and trade would be traded.

Others hope to cash in along with Gore. On Earth Day 2007, the various NBC networks gave 75 hours of free air time to Gore to hype climate change. NBC is owned by General Electric, perhaps the largest maker of wind turbines and other green technology in the world. It, too, stands to benefit financially from cap and trade, as Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly has noted, connecting dots others won't.

Gore's altruism is phony. According to a March 6 Bloomberg report, Gore invested $35 million of his own money not in green nonprofits, but with the very profitable Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to green investments and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.

As reported on Green Hell Blog, Capricorn was founded by the billionaire former president of eBay Inc., Jeffrey Skoll, who also happens to be an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore has not taken a vow of poverty even as he advocates legislation that will push millions into it. He has said greed and corporate profits are behind the studies disproving his alarmism. Maybe it's his desire for profits that's behind his manipulation of the truth.

[Revenant]

THEY are the new generation of climate warriors. They are smart, politically savvy, idealistic, apparently indefatigable and very young. They have more technology in their mobiles and laptops than NASA had when it sent men to the moon, and they are "beginning to use them for tools, not toys", as one campaigner said.

For the next three days they will be at Power Shift, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition's first major summit.

About 1500 Australians aged 16 to 26 are descending on the University of Western Sydney to learn about organising and to hear speeches from Tim Flannery, senators Nick Xenophon and Christine Milne, the NSW Premier, Nathan Rees, and via video link from Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations panel on climate change, and the former US vice-president Al Gore, who is training an older generation of climate change campaigners in Melbourne this weekend.

Over three days Power Shift attendees will learn "Camp Obama" style strategies from a manifesto called The Little Green Book, such as recruiting first-time voters and targeting awareness campaigns at marginal seats in the federal election next year.

"They've got the enthusiasm and the passion," said a Power Shift organiser, Amanda McKenzie. "Now it's about giving them the tools to put that into action to create social change."

McKenzie and Anna Rose, both 26, co-founded the Australian Youth Climate Coalition in November 2006. The two law graduates brought together school and student groups, and young professional and interfaith groups concerned about global warming. They liken the youth climate movement to the anti-Vietnam movement, another issue where, they say, the younger generation had the most at stake.

Ms Rose, while finishing her law degree on exchange in the US in 2007, volunteered for Barack Obama during the presidential primary in New Hampshire. There she got a first-hand taste of the campaign's grass roots organising techniques. Apart from the social networking technology, a key lesson from "Camp Obama" is the power of the personal story.

On Wednesday night, in the coalition's six-star green-rated city offices, provided rent-free by the Climate Institute, 20 young people analysed a YouTube video of Mr Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention speech, looking at how he used his life story to build an emotional connection.

"For me it's 'My grandparents had to sell their farm because of the drought,' " Ms Rose said.

The coalition has sent delegations to global climate negotiations in Bali and Poland; they have addressed the Senate Committee on climate policy and mobilised a corps of volunteers that grows daily as talks in Copenhagen approach. Three hundred and fifty volunteers helped organise Power Shift, and they say 100,000 young people are on their databases.

Ms Rose and Ms McKenzie worked for the coalition as volunteers until this year. They are now paid a part-time salary.

They believe that the financial and climate crises can be solved if people put enough political pressure on their leaders to invest in green jobs and cut emissions drastically - an aim they acknowledge is "ridiculously ambitious". They argue that those under 30 hold the moral authority in this argument. "There's no ombudsman for future generations. We're it," Ms McKenzie said.

But they remain optimistic.

"Looking at history, huge changes have happened in short periods of time," Ms Rose said.

"Things that people said were impossible - ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, ending apartheid - have changed, almost overnight, if the conditions are right. We're trying to build those conditions."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/gl...0710-dg2t.html

Al Gore's down here adressing some young climate warriors.

By the looks of what's in this article it's pretty clear what the politics of the movement are.

"There's no ombudsman for future generations. We're it"

They haven't got even the slightest clue.