U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy

The United Nations, that lovely bastion of anti-Americanism, wants to control the world's economies by invoking the hoax of human-induced climate change.

The very first paragraph of the Fox News story covering this says it all and should send chills up your spine:

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.

The document is 16 pages long and it involves sending millions of American jobs offshore to other nations, all in the name of environmentalism.

And here is what is even worse:

The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

Didn't Barack Obama chastise American companies for out-sourcing jobs overseas and threaten to punitively tax anyone who did out-source their jobs? Yes, he did.

And now, Obama wants to send more American jobs overseas by signing on to this ridiculously anti-American U.N. treaty. I say anti-American because the United States will be the one nation that is hit the hardest in terms of economic losses. I also beleieve that the people at the U.N. who wrote this treaty are aiming precisely for such results.

The news article goes on:

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

This is what Obama supports? U.S. companies cannot out-source employement as a revenue saving measure, but he will allow the U.N. to force American jobs to "relocate" to other nations?

Can Obama possibly be a bigger hypocrite on this issue?

Here is more evidence of the anti-American slant that this treaty holds:

A "climate change levy on aviation" for example, is described as having undetermined "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce," as well as "tourism services." But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

The language of this document was no accident. It is clearly aimed directly at the economic throat of the United States and Barack Obama has already signed on as a supporter. Maybe Obama didn't read this proposal, just like he didn't read the Dodd Amendment of the stimulus package.

Anthroprogenic Global Warming is a hoax. But it is a hoax that the United Nations believes in and apparently Barack Obama does as well.

This new treaty would destroy the already fragile U.S. economy, destroy millions of American jobs and surrender our national sovereignity to the United Nations. I wonder if Obama is already aware of this.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy
George Russell
Fox News
March 27, 2009

Dr. James Hansen Admits The True Goal Of Global Warming Alarmists: Socialist Redistribution Of Wealth

They say there are two kinds of intelligence: Book smarts and Street smarts. Book smarts are good when you are trying to make a better living through self-improvment. Street smarts are essential when you want to live in the real world rather than some impossible-to-achieve fantasy world.

Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the perfect example of someone who has book smarts, but has almost no street smarts whatsoever.

As evidence, I present a letter that Dr. Hansen wrote to Barack Obama in which he tells Obama how to use the Global Warming Hoax as a means to implement a socialist policy of wealth redistribution.

This isn't a joke. He wants a "carbon tax" on petroleum products believeing that such will encourage Americans to "move beyond fossil fuels." Here are some excerpts from his letter:

The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels.

Any first year economics student will be able to tell you that the "appropriate effect" will be artificial price increases all across the board. In other words, anything that uses fossil fuels to get from the producer to the consumer will go up in price. Gas, oil, food, clothing, construction costs, infrastructure costs, public services costs, etc. Everyone will be paying higher prices.

How does Hansen think the public will respond?

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend.

First, if Hansen honestly believes that Washington would enact any kind of tax without creating bureaucratic positions to oversee such a tax, then he really has no street smarts at all.

Second, why does it have a maximum share for two children? Is this Hansen's way of telling people how many children they are allowed to have? A way of implementing dictatorial population control?

Third, another thing that Hansen doesn't realize is that the ultimate effect of his proposal would be to subsidize the American people for paying higher fuel prices. In other words, force higher prices by enacting a tax, and then redistributing the tax proceeds so that people can turn around and pay the higher prices. There is no net gain there at all and nothing gets done. Money simply passes from one set of hands to the other and there is absolutely no productive result to show for the transfer.

And another point that shows how out of touch Hansen is with reality is that he actually makes the claim that paying higher fuel prices (and all other inflationary costs that result from such higher prices) would stimulate the economy!

Here is what he has to say about that:

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead.

Yeah, let's look at that one for a minute. What would low and middle income people do when costs increase but their paychecks remain the same? They cut back. They cut back on food purchases. They cut back on anything that involves transporting the kids. They cut back on educational resources. They cut back on shopping. They cut back on their recreational activities. They cut back on whatever vacation trips they had planned. In short, they cut back on anything that is affected by the artificial price increase that this lunatic tax would cause.

Again, as any first year economics student will tell you, the net result of all these cut backs is to cause the economy to shrink, but Hansen has completely deluded himself into believing that it will cause the economy to grow!

I don't know of any rationally thinking person who would agree that any of this would be good for low and middle income people.

The Greenhouse Effect Theory and its Anthropogenic Global Warming fellow travelers have been shown to be hoaxes by legitimate scientists as we see average global temperatures drop and record snowfalls thorughout the world. Now we know why the hoax is being perpetuated. Socialists like James Hansen are trying to convince socialists like Barack Obama to use the hoax as a power play for themselves and further wreck our economies as well as the dreams of low and middle income Americans.

This carbon tax is easily one of the most idiotic fantasies ever to be floated in political circles.

Also, proposals like this are a prime example of why Michael Crichton was so firm in his commitment to keeping politics and science completely separate.

You can access the original letter on-line here:

Hansen's Insane Proposal Published At Columbia University
Dr. James Hansen

And here is another blog entry regarding James Hansen's crackpot claims:

Dr. James Hansen Gets It Wrong Again
84rules
November 17, 2008

The Myth Of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

And we have another convert on the Global Warming issue, that is convert from alarmist to skeptic. And it isn't just an individual, it is an entire organization.

The American Physical Society which once proclaimed Global Warming evidence to be "incontrovertible" is now saying that many of it's members "disbelieve human induced gloabl warming."

That's quite a statement given Al Gore's claim that there was supposedly a "concensus" of scientists on the issue. But why the change?

From DailyTech.com:

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate. Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

Why would the IPCC do this? And why would so many scientists come along and support them for doing it? To answer the first question: Because the IPCC is a body of politicians, not scientists. For the second: Those sicentists wanted money and going along with the flawed research of the IPCC was the only way for them to get the money.

More:

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method." According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low." Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Yet more turths that Al Gore and his psuedo-scientific followers are finding to be "inconvenient."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Myth Of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher
Daily Tech
July 16, 208