Alan Caruba
March 30, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2416
QUOTE: "Some of the ultra-rich have a stake in the global warming hoax
as a means to further enrich themselves."
QUOTE: "the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, are instrumentalities of the United Nations.
These fraudulent environmental issues benefit the ultra-rich whose
financial interests transcend national borders."
[.]
When the movers and shakers, the rich and powerful of our time get
together in their meetings in Davos or wherever, have they secretly
concluded that "pollution" and "consumption" by the Earth's six billion
people can only be reduced by reducing the world's population? Do they
see great profits in forcing us to only drive electric cars and the
mandatory adoption of similar "green" technologies?
Serendipitously, the International Herald Tribune published an article
by Andrew Ross Sorkin on March 20 titled, "At island retreat, Branson
and friends seek to save a world 'on fire'." It was an astoni****ng
revelation as it described a retreat hosted by Richard Branson, "the
British magnate" among whose guests was Larry Page of Google, Jimmy
Wales of Wikipedia, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister
who is now a senior advisor to J.P. Morgan Chase.
Richard Stromback, the chief executive of Ecology Coatings, "joked that
a gathering like this might seem nefarious to some people." The re****ter
noted that, "Many executives and financiers, including some in
attendance at the retreat, have a lot of money riding on global
warming."
Look nefarious? Yes, it does. Some of the ultra-rich have a stake in the
global warming hoax as a means to further enrich themselves.
If that means cloaking their opinion that the world's population needs
to be reduced by appearing concerned for the fate of the planet, than
there is no better way of doing that than advancing the goals of the
environmental movement.
This is why "strategic thinkers" looked away when the use of DDT was
banned worldwide and millions, particularly in Africa, continue to
needlessly die from malaria.
This is why "strategic thinkers" looked away when one of the world's
most extraordinary and affordable refrigerants and fire suppression
chemicals, Freon, was banned from use worldwide with a bogus claim that
"ozone holes" were destroying the atmosphere.
Note, too, that these bans, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are instrumentalities of the
United Nations. These fraudulent environmental issues benefit the
ultra-rich whose financial interests transcend national borders.
Presently China, India, nor any of the nations around the world whose
economies are responding to the growth in global trade and the
improvement of living standards for their people are going to
voluntarily accept such limitations.
China has apparently concluded that, if the tradeoff is air and water
pollution, that is acceptable until they reach a point where costly
technology can be installed to reduce the pollution. This is already an
option that a wealthy nation like the United States has adopted.
Another case in point has been the utter failure of the signatories to
the original Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions and subsequent
negotiations to achieve an impossible reduction of carbon dioxide, a gas
that constitutes a mere 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere.
I am still trying to understand why our government and others around the
world are subsidizing "alternative energies" to the tune of billions for
wind and solar power when neither is a reliable source of energy and,
together, they produce such miniscule amounts of electricity as to be
essentially worthless.
But my strategic thinker guru says, "You're arguing the past." No. I am
arguing the future.
I am arguing about issues such as private property and the right to use
it for personal gain and profit, the bedrock foundation of our economy,
guaranteed in our Constitution. It is becoming a scare commodity as the
U.S. government continues to declare vast areas as U.N. heritage sites,
wildlife refuges, national parks, and other excuses to deny their use as
sources of timber, coal, natural gas or oil.
I am arguing about the Green Revolution of genetically modified crops
that can feed the vast population of the Earth without using more
forested land. Despite this, supplies of corn and soy are being depleted
for the purpose of burning these food sources as fuel. The nation's
supply of wheat has been depleted as acreage is diverted to grow these
crops and the cheaper dollar underwrites increased ex****ts.
What better way to reduce the world's population than a manmade famine?
Meanwhile, the great engine of the world's economy and the beacon of
liberty to the world is being undermined by a fifth column of
environmentalists and those who expect to benefit from their agenda.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
|
