AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Some hints about the motivation of AGW proposers.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Here are a couple of links. One describes the impossible dreams of imposing a world carbon tax (courtesy of the Bali conference), and the other betrays a clear fascist intent.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."

carbon tax

Don't say that JohnL didn't warn you.
Any fool who gives the UN the power to tax a nation, should be staked out in the largest open plaza, and flayed alive for all to see. If the UN gets the power to tax, individual nations will begin to lose their very soverignty, and they will not stop.
jt Wrote:Here are a couple of links. One describes the impossible dreams of imposing a world carbon tax (courtesy of the Bali conference), and the other betrays a clear fascist intent.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."

carbon tax

Don't say that JohnL didn't warn you.
That's pathetic, considering his insignificance in the order of things. :lol: I guess he's rather happy to be dead before the lies he's spreading about AGW will eventually be disproved by the suffering of billions from the destroyed environment. We are the last generation that can afford to live like animals, without responsibility.
John L Wrote:Any fool who gives the UN the power to tax a nation, should be staked out in the largest open plaza, and flayed alive for all to see. If the UN gets the power to tax, individual nations will begin to lose their very soverignty, and they will not stop.
------------------------------------------------
Well... It depends on what powers the member states is giving the UN...

It is according to me generally better to provide cheap CO2-free energy (electricity from nuclear reactors etc.) than to overtax the people....

/track_snake
quadrat Wrote:
jt Wrote:Here are a couple of links. One describes the impossible dreams of imposing a world carbon tax (courtesy of the Bali conference), and the other betrays a clear fascist intent.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."

carbon tax

Yawn

Don't say that JohnL didn't warn you.
That's pathetic, considering his insignificance in the order of things. :lol: I guess he's rather happy to be dead before the lies he's spreading about AGW will eventually be disproved by the suffering of billions from the destroyed environment. We are the last generation that can afford to live like animals, without responsibility.

What lies?

You failed to show one example.

:lol:
If you guys CANNOT see a huge war over this,you're blind. It's inevitable as wars with Islam are,whenever a huge group believes a big lie it leads to war.

Consider the leading war proponents eventually will be Europeans of the western orientation and consider their power is paid for by the USA taxpayer.

Of course if they believe it is the end of the world and we're the focused "bad guy" leading to their deaths they will need to finish us off and how many here consider this a reasonable outcome to this insanity?

Me.

It will take about a generation to develop into a war with this relentless mantra. Since Russians have more common sense than western Europeans,they of course won't join in it and we may be able to pay them to cut off Europe's gas supplies to stop it,too.

If I believed this stupidity,I'd be for forcing the US and other "carbon criminals" to stop it eventually. Including myself,which is what western Europeans aren't doing as much as we are oddly enough.

While the zeitgeist makes her case against a free and powerful nation,we're actually improving more than the "good guys" in the zeitgeist's mantra according to recent info.
Kyoto Schmyoto
Randall Hoven

One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
  • Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
  • Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
  • Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
  • Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)
  • Maldives, 252%.
  • Sudan, 142%.
  • China, 55%.
  • Luxembourg, 43%
  • Iran, 39%.
  • Iceland, 29%.
  • Norway, 24%.
  • Russia, 16%.
  • Italy, 16%.
  • Finland, 15%.
  • Mexico, 11%.
  • Japan, 11%.
  • Canada, 8.8%.
World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007...myoto.html
scpg02 Wrote:Kyoto Schmyoto
Randall Hoven

One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
  • Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
  • Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
  • Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
  • Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)
  • Maldives, 252%.
  • Sudan, 142%.
  • China, 55%.
  • Luxembourg, 43%
  • Iran, 39%.
  • Iceland, 29%.
  • Norway, 24%.
  • Russia, 16%.
  • Italy, 16%.
  • Finland, 15%.
  • Mexico, 11%.
  • Japan, 11%.
  • Canada, 8.8%.
World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007...myoto.html
Yes Dear, you are totally right, but you lie anyway. Sorry to tell the truth. :lol: Because you and that article don't even mention the majority of countries that reduced their CO2 emissions. Germany eg. Many of the ones actually mentioned did not sign Kyoto. USA eg.
Why does the page have the same bright pink ads as this Asiatoday, linked to quite often here to cover the latest ejaculations of a certain idiot named Spengler? Is there a link between right-wing stance and the inability to find a human partner?