It's not about "saving the planet" by "being green" anyway. It's about the money...it's about govt power and control...and it's about income redistribution.
Exactly!
'Bet there'll be a big govt FEE involved, huh.
More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
It's not about "saving the planet" by "being green" anyway. It's about the money...it's about govt power and control...and it's about income redistribution.
Exactly!
'Bet there'll be a big govt FEE involved, huh.
No matter from what angle one looks at"climate change", it IS all about the money:
$10 billion UN-linked climate change fund wants immunity from prosecution | Fox News
"If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.
The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free."
$10 billion UN-linked climate change fund wants immunity from prosecution | Fox News
"If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.
The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free."
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
The U.N. Is a total fraud.
Well, well, well...'looks like the U.N. and all the rest of the 'warmers' are gunna hafta start screaming for the elimination of these critters now:
Effort to save beavers has had unfortunate side effect | Fox News
It just keeps getting 'ridiculouser' and 'ridiculouser'...dunnit.
Effort to save beavers has had unfortunate side effect | Fox News
It just keeps getting 'ridiculouser' and 'ridiculouser'...dunnit.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Yep, sure does.
Attachments
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
The biggest con since Keith sold David the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Pete, you promised!
Anyway, here's a nightmare story for you Pete.
If it wasn't so true, it would be hysterical.. and you would put this idea down to the mind of a maniac, not the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Read this, I promise you your jaw will drop, as did mine.
Now Whitehall's crazy eco zealots want to ban your gas cooker
Anyway, here's a nightmare story for you Pete.
If it wasn't so true, it would be hysterical.. and you would put this idea down to the mind of a maniac, not the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Read this, I promise you your jaw will drop, as did mine.
Now Whitehall's crazy eco zealots want to ban your gas cooker
"The intention is that not only our cooking and heating but much else, including our cars and most of the vehicles on Britain’s roads, will have to be powered by electricity."
Uuuuuuuuh huh...but, what will power the elecrtic power plants? Electricity? And, if so, how would that work, zackly? (*sarcasm*)
As many have pointed out, the 'warmers'/'tree huggers' will not be satisfied until we're all living in caves again...in tropical climates. Why? 'Cause we STILL wouldn't be allowed to build a WOOD/COAL FIRE...that's why. We'd all freeze to death 'living(?)' anywhere else...
'Idiots...
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Well my jaw did drop as you promised Keith and that was only after about the third paragraph. I stopped reading after that I just couldn't stand to read anymore of their crap.
Hopefully it is just kite flying and once they realise it will cost them Government it will disappear.
Hopefully it is just kite flying and once they realise it will cost them Government it will disappear.
2014 proves hottest on record, driven in part by climate change - CBS News
Still got your heads in the sand climate change deniers?
Still got your heads in the sand climate change deniers?
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I keep hearing statements such as "it's all about money" (it's a diversion) in believing that warming is a farce. This is rather confusing in that isn't everything, even the status quo "all about money". Wouldn't it be as true that the powerful that don't want change are equally incented to keep things the way they are, as are those that would make lots of money on a warming scenario? I understand the initial statement, and agree doing something about the warming would not be free, but I don't understand why those same folks don't complain about the current direct and external costs related to those activities related to contributing (or causing) global warming. Either way it is all about the money. It always has been. Is this simply ideological bias or blindness, believing what one wants to believe rather that a rational balanced approach to thinking about this? Can we as the most intelligent species on this planet be that simplistic in our biases?
I've heard multiple Congressmen state that "I'm not a scientist, but..." in dismissing human impacts to global warming. I very sure those same Congressmen would also say "I'm not a doctor, but I don't believe this large growth poking out of my neck is anything to worry about". He sees the problem, but he doesn't believe it exists because the doctor's assessment would be "all about the money", which is then good enough to dismiss the real risk. If you're not an expert, why dismiss the expert's opinion (the vast vast majority)? I seriously suspect that even if there was 100% consensus by the scientific community (which there never is), these same folks would still deny human impact. Once again, rational thought is defeated by ideological beliefs. My dog's fear response is more rational than most human survival behaviors I've observed. How is it we've survived as long as we have?
I've heard multiple Congressmen state that "I'm not a scientist, but..." in dismissing human impacts to global warming. I very sure those same Congressmen would also say "I'm not a doctor, but I don't believe this large growth poking out of my neck is anything to worry about". He sees the problem, but he doesn't believe it exists because the doctor's assessment would be "all about the money", which is then good enough to dismiss the real risk. If you're not an expert, why dismiss the expert's opinion (the vast vast majority)? I seriously suspect that even if there was 100% consensus by the scientific community (which there never is), these same folks would still deny human impact. Once again, rational thought is defeated by ideological beliefs. My dog's fear response is more rational than most human survival behaviors I've observed. How is it we've survived as long as we have?
