Monday, March 30, 2009

Gorebal Warming Agenda Revealed

FOX News has uncovered the real agenda behind "global warming climate change":

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Long ago, I read something (can't recall exactly where or the precise words, but here's the gist of it) that explains how middlemen operate.
There is a point in any transfer of money between two parties, when the money is no longer in the first party's hands, but is not yet in the second party's hands. This magic moment is when an opportunist can snatch off a little piece of the money, leaving the principal parties to the transaction unaware that they've lost anything.
The mechanism is clear in such things as withholding from wages and salaries; most people don't even realize the extent to which they are taxed over the course of a year, and some are even now bragging about how big of a refund they are getting. Now, think about a scheme that forces trillions of dollars a year to be transferred from productive endeavors. Even if the putative recipients of those transfers are performing a valuable function in abating atmospheric CO2 levels (which I vehemently dispute, given the record of temperature levels rising and falling about eight centuries before the corresponding changes in CO2 levels), those trillions will be an irresistable target for the middlemen.

And Al Gore is already established in the business of "carbon offset" middleman, so he figures to have a good market share under this new regime. How can the credibility be tainted of a scientist debunking second hand smoke scares, who has received funding from tobacco companies; but not that of propagandists like Gore with a clear financial interest in implementing these cap-and-trade and carbon-tax schemes, and the scientists pushing AGW scares, who receive funding from governments that stand to raise a good deal of money from those schemes? And am I nuts to think that George Soros has an inside track to position his considerable assets so as to benefit from these major changes in the world economy?
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]


  1. I don't know if this is related somehow, so I'll just pass it on.

    The Great Transition: Using the Seven Disciplines of Enterprise Engineering to Align People, Technology, and Strategy,,,

  2. Paules says,

    I believe the quote is from one of Kurt Vonnegut's novels (God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater?) The character I think is an accountant by the name of Norman Mushari.

  3. As in the example of the Obama administration's overt moves toward national socialism, it just seems that they've taken Schumer's words to heart:

    The American people don't care."

    They've obviously abandoned even the pretense of hiding their intentions.

    - MD

  4. I lifted this from wikipedia, "Great Transition"

    The term Great Transition was first introduced by the Global scenario group (GSG), an international body of scientists convened in 1995 by the Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute to examine the requirements for a transition to a sustainable global society. The GSG set out to describe and analyze scenarios for the future of the earth as it entered a Planetary Phase of Civilization. The GSG's scenario analysis resulted in a series of reports [3] and its findings were summarized for a non-technical audience in the essay Great Transition: the Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead.

  5. i see tar and feathers in some peoples future.


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.