Subject: Has the UN’s Human-Induced Global Warming/Climate Change Movement Always Been Based on International “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” Agendas?
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing you this open letter to ask you for your insights into the “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” agendas behind the international catastrophic human-induced global warming/climate change movement, as discussed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in her 2002 memoire Statecraft.
First, my background: I am a regular contributor to the “World’s most-viewed site on global warming and climate change”, a website called WattsUpWithThat. The topics I normally discuss in my articles include:
- Climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate,
- When presented appropriately, climate model outputs clearly show that the climate science community still cannot differentiate between human-induced and naturally occurring global warming, and
- Since the early 1980s, surface temperature data clearly and strongly suggest that the surfaces of the global oceans warmed in response to naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes, not as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.
In my recently published short story Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?: A Short Story That’s Right for The Times, I discussed those topics, and I also presented a topic that’s new to me: the politics behind the international global warming/climate change movement appear to be based on agendas that have no relationship to global warming or climate change.
For the political aspects of my short story, I relied on numerous lengthy quotes from Margaret Thatcher’s memoire Statecraft that were included under the heading of HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING.
The following are two of those quotes from Thatcher’s Statecraft.
The first paragraph under the heading of HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING reads (my boldface):
The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.
As one of the characters in my short story says in response to the highlighted last sentence, “‘Worldwide, supra-national socialism’? That would fly like a lead balloon here in the States.”
Also, next is a paragraph written by the Iron Lady in Statecraft that you may find interesting, in light of your withdrawal from the subsequent Paris Agreement (my boldface):
Actually, President Bush was quite right to reject the Kyoto protocol. His predecessor had supported it for international effect, while knowing its provisions made it a dead letter at home: the US Senate had voted unanimously on the matter. The protocol would have placed all the burden for reduction of CO2 on developed countries, while leaving the developing countries — including India and China — to keep producing it at a rapidly growing rate. America’s target for cuts was totally unrealistic — a 7 per cent reduction of overall emissions of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. And all this is before anyone considers the scientific arguments about why and to what extent global warming is occurring. Kyoto was an anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American project which no American leader alert to his country’s national interests could have supported.
If the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher believed the Kyoto Protocol was “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” and that President George W Bush was right to reject it, do you believe the esteemed Prime Minister would have had similar thoughts about the subsequent wealth-distributing Paris Agreement, and that you, Mr. President, were right to reject it, too?
That brings me to my subject question: Has the UN’s Human-Induced Global Warming/Climate Change Movement always been based on International “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” Agendas?
I am very interested your views on these matters.
In closing, I thought of you many times, Mr. President, while writing Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?
Most Respectfully,
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The current movement to declare President Trump mentally unfit could have a negative impact on his reading this letter, in that any favor he might show towards the letter would easily be attributed to a mentally unfit president.
I believe that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun. Hence, I am mentally unfit.
I do not believe in the Christian God. Hence, I am mentally unfit.
I eat fried roaches. Hence, I am mentally unfit.
What a clever, backdoor way for alarmists to try to strengthen their position — redefining “mentally unfit” to mean “beliefs or practices not supported by a faction of people in the real-world”.
Not sure why Robert Kernodle felt compelled to include his disbelief in the Christian God as being related to one’s mental fitness. Pretty sure most of the leftist alarmists pushing AGW don’t believe in God. Some of them might, but not as much as they seem to believe in Gov.
Not sure why Dr. D could not see the analogy related to strong beliefs (no matter what) being associated with mental disorders by those who have DIFFERENT beliefs. … nor why Dr. D assumed that I was stating MY own position on the Christian deity. I was drawing primarily on a strong belief system, AS AN EXAMPLE, Dr.
I do NOT eat fried roaches, by the way, but I would not be opposed to trying them.
I DO, however, believe that the Earth is round, and, by some standards, many centuries ago, that might have qualified me for the loony bin. THAT was the point.
Roaches are better raw.
Thatcher was hated in England. Many British people boycotted her funeral. Not that Trump would care. The billionaires never care what the average person thinks or does.
The billionaires never care what the average person thinks or does.
That’s an odd claim. Were you a billionaire would you stop caring “what the average person thinks or does”?
If not, why are you the only one?
Ask the Koch family and they’ll tell you something jolly different.
Give me one reason why they give a $hit. A couple years ago Princeton did a survey about how often the laws that a majority of Americans want get passed and it was appallingly low. Conversely, the laws that corporations and the wealthy wanted passed got passed appallingly often. Don’t remember the exact numbers. But that is the take away.
So that tells me they really don’t give a $hit or we would be passing laws the majority of us want.
Now what makes you think they do? A few sales? Only if it lines the $hit out of their pockets.
“I am not the one envying billionaires. I give a $hit about them.”
“Give me one reason why they give a $hit.”
“So that tells me they really don’t give a $hit”
“Only if it lines the $hit out of their pockets.”
You seem consistently regular…enjoy it…one day you’ll be mature and you’ll likely have to work for it.
🙂
Sy. I am retired attorney. I probably have forgotten more about corporations, money and and economics than you will ever know.
It is a fairly basic concept. When money is horded by a few people, the economic system becomes very inefficient. How long would a poker game last if one player out of ten started with 95% of the chips, and the other nine split the remaining 5%?
Money supply is really no different.
I would never be a billionaire. I am not a sociopath.
” How long would a poker game last if one player out of ten started with 95% of the chips, and the other nine split the remaining 5%?”
Well I don’t know about you, but I’d do the rational thing, e.g., grab some cash and buy more chips! And if I didn’t have any cash on hand, well then I might borrow from a bank! And if I couldn’t borrow from a bank, then I might barter, e.g., a watch, that is if I wanted to stay in the game!
That’s just silly old know-nothing me I guess 🙂
“It is a fairly basic concept. When money is horded by a few people, the economic system becomes very inefficient.”
I would argue that is not the case. People don’t stick their money under the mattress, they put it to work in one form or another, and that stimulates economic activity. Just about anything you do with money, other than sticking it under a mattress, will stimulate economic activity.
Thatcher, as leader of the Conservative Party was elected to form a government by the British people in 1979, 1983 and 1987 – not a sign of being universally hated.
“Many British people boycotted her funeral” Well, the overwhelming majority of the 60+ million Brits did not attend (= “boycotted”) her funeral. So what?
so Davidg you dont know what happened in the pres8dential election or dont understand. Well, You aren’t alone. Hillary , who was his opponent even wrote a book entitled ” WTF Happened?”
Envy is never pretty.
I am not the one envying billionaires. I give a $hit about them.
What I don’t get is people who support them thinking their day to become a billionaire is right around the corner when it is less likely than a midget making the NBA. I can only conclude these people are delusional or they don’t think there is any problem with inequality and hate their fellow Americans who haven’t been able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
You might want to think about people’s ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when robots and computers can already do nearly all things better than humans. What jobs will there be for our kids?
So tell me, do you think vast inequality is a good thing?
One other point. If you just look at the money supply, is it a good thing for the economy for a few to horde so much of it? How does money circulate when the horders hold so much of it?
“How does money circulate when the horders hold so much of it?”
Does anyone else have any? If so then you’ve answered your own question. Economics 101.
Besides, how can it be true that the rich both hoard their money and then buy themselves all these lavishly expensive jewels, houses, cars, properties, vacations, i.e., all those worldly goods that it would appear have your blood running green, at the same time?
Don’t you contradict yourself?
If not, why not?
David, the best we can do to keep rich people from hording their money is encourage economic activity. We may be fortunate enough to see something new with the Trump economy. He has recently nominated someone to the chair of the federal reserve who is about as far left as anyone we’ve seen since the 1970s. If energy prices stay low (and hence inflation), we can expect the fed to allow the unemployment rate to go as low as it’s been since at least the 1960s. There will be plenty of jobs, good wages and hope for the less fortunate. Keep your eye on Powell (Trump’s fed pick) and what he does going forward. (he holds the keys for prosperity of those masses that you rightly lament for)…
“David, the best we can do to keep rich people from hording their money is encourage economic activity.”
Who cares if the rich (or anyone else) “hoards” their own money??? Individuals have been saving money for generations…in fact it used to be commonplace.
As if the U.S. economy is a zero-sum game with regard to supply. The poor outnumber the rich exponentially…shall we discourage them from saving their own money for a rainy day because the “supply” will suffer?
Do you have a savings account? What?! How dare you hypocrite…”Hoarder!!” Pull the beam from thine own eye before you point out the beam in someone else’s eye.
Or…rethink your belief system.
Sy, obviously… What i’m getting at is if we want to spread the wealth around, the best way to do it is by growing the economic pie. Sure, we all have savings. And even though the rich part with more of their money (while making more actually) during boom time, they will still be saving then, too. i was just addressing david’s narrow concern here. (not trying to make a blanket statement about hoarding)…
Sy your comments are infantile. All those yachts and palaces and still the billionaires have vast fortunes sitting in a bank. Billionaires do not circulate money. They horde it or the would not be billionaires. They have to have the capital to buy the things they acquire.
And where did they get the capital? From a corporation or several corporations. Corporations are creatures of the state. They take a state charter to exist. And the sole reason for incorporation is to avoid personal liability. To avoid personal liability for taxes, to avoid personal liability for corporate losses and to avoid personal liability from lawsuits. That is why corporations exist. The owners of corporations are the people in society who refuse to most accept personal responsibility, yet these same people love to claim that much less wealthy people are irresponsible. They know they have avoided responsibility in incorporating and yet they claim others who have never had a chance at financial security are the irresponsible ones.
When corporations were first issued in America, the charter life was 20 years and it took an act of the legislature to renew a corporation. If the corporation failed to do enough common good, the charter was not renewed and often times revoked prior to the expiration of 20 years.
Then the corporations got wise and bought of the legislatures and convinced the legislatures to issue charters in perpetuity. And so these corporate wealth factories, which could never be done personally, now control the country and have targeted the rest of the world.
You don’t even begin to understand the legal sham that allows these billionaires to accumulate huge wealth. They would never be able to acquire these vast sums without the corporate vehicle to protect them from personal liability. Corporations have basically screwed up capitalism.
Afonzerelli — At least you understand the problem. As I am sure you know, one of the things the Fed is charged with doing, is creating full employment. And I think that any Fed Chairman who understands this primary reason for the Fed’s existence and attempts to do something about it is on the right track.
But full employment will not be an adequate fix unless the jobs the rest of us have are jobs that produce a livable wage, including necessary benefits, especially good health care and pensions. I don’t see that happening this time around. These jobs don’t exist any longer for vast numbers of Americans. If all the Fed can do is give the people jobs flipping hamburgers, even full employment won’t be the answer.
” All those yachts and palaces and still the billionaires have vast fortunes sitting in a bank. Billionaires do not circulate money. They horde it or the would not be billionaires. They have to have the capital to buy the things they acquire.”
Congratulations on your retirement sir…you need it…get some rest!
All the best!
“But full employment will not be an adequate fix unless the jobs the rest of us have are jobs that produce a livable wage, including necessary benefits, especially good health care and pensions. I don’t see that happening this time around. These jobs don’t exist any longer for vast numbers of Americans. If all the Fed can do is give the people jobs flipping hamburgers, even full employment won’t be the answer.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/01/05/six-figure-construction-jobs-are-going-unfilled.html
Six-figure construction jobs are going unfilled
“The construction sector is ready to boom in 2018, but there’s just one problem: There aren’t enough qualified workers.
A new report released by the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), found that 75% of contractors want to increase their headcount in 2018, thanks to the newly-approved tax reform bill, the government’s push to rollback red tape, strong economic growth and a continuation of favorable sector trends.
However, 50% of companies reported having a difficult time filling both craft and salaried worker positions. Over the coming year, 53% of companies told the AGC that they expect to continue struggling to find qualified applicants. These challenges come despite the fact that 60% of firms reported increasing base pay to retain or recruit professionals and 36% provided incentives and bonuses toward the same end.”
end excerpt
Looks like Trump is doing a little more than just creating burger-flipping jobs.
The stock market has increased in value by $7 TRILLION since Trump was elected. And it’s going higher.
She was so “hated” she was elected?
“Thatcher was hated in England.”
Only by the traitorous Loony Left who were attempting to permanently destroy British industry, and came very close to succeeding.
The majority of the population thanked her for saving them from the Soviet-backed trade unionists who were responsible for the rolling blackouts, the three day week and massive industrial discontent culminating in the 1979 ‘Winter of Discontent.
She is now commonly regarded as the second best Prime Minister Great Britain ever had after Sir Winston Churchill.
@catweazle666. Utter nonsense. Britain is largely a gig economy today due to the policies put in place by Thatcher. But that is what conservatives want. A gig economy. A gig economy is actually much worse for workers than feudalism was for serfs. A least the feudal lord was expected to have some concern for his serfs and to provide them with shelter, clothing and food and healthcare. Under the gig economy, the employer is not required or expected to have any concern for the workers of the gig economy or provide anything that feudal lords were expected to provide.
Thank the gig economy on people like Thatcher and Reagan.
The heirs of Thatcher -the governing UK Conservative Party – have no problem with the science of climate change, renewable energy, the Paris agreement, etc, etc. and they are politically quite as ‘right wing’ as Thatcher.
e.g UK Prime Minister Theresa May had told Trump of her “disappointment” at his decision over Paris and stressed that Britain remained committed to the agreement.
I find it very hard to believe they have any political agenda for their views and policy on climate other than being driven by evidence of climate change and acting accordingly.
Griff, you appear to understand nothing about British politics so just leave it alone.
Mrs May’s comments were for UK fools to consider.
I judge them by their actions, not their rhetoric… just look at UK energy policy – this week the govt re-iterated that UK coal power will close by 2025, for example. Govt ministers attend the openings of major renewable energy projects. They repeatedly endorse the climate act and are not repealing it (it would certainly be possible to repeal it post brexit – none of them have suggested that)
You understand nothing, and just recite the rhetoric from the British government.
Their ACTIONS is only to repeat the rhetoric!
I should quit if I were you, or risk showing yourself to be an outright fool!
“I find it very hard to believe they have any political agenda for their views and policy on climate other than being driven by evidence of climate change and acting accordingly.”
Griff, in the UK NO political agendas or policy are driven by any evidence of anything. If you find this hard to believe you must be a democrat.
Griff, you are a complete idiot.
However to answer your ignorant point. May and the Conservatives are like every politician, they want to retain power. To do that they need to appeal to the ‘youth’ vote who are drifting towards Labour. Unfortunately the ‘youth’ are idealistic and easily malleable. So they actually love the idea of doing something that makes them feel good about themselves, and what better than saving the planet. As logical thinking including scientific methodology is in depressingly short supply in the education of the young in the UK, they are very easily swayed by the inane ramblings of TV personalities who constantly ram home the ‘green’ message on every UK TV channel. So May etc are advised not to oppose this, but to ‘appeal’ to this reality, hence the lip service to the green blob. Of course the Tories have their fair share of green nutters who do they level best to make the situation even worse.
Strangely, I thing a Labour govt who have dreams of renationalising the energy industries would probably be far more likely to ignore the very voices that seem to support their position. I could see Corbyn keeping coal plant on-line, that would be a turn-up for you, wouldn’t it Griff.
I’m sympathetic to the idea of raising the voting age to 25 or 30.
Me, too.
Excellent idea there MarkW, and when you raise the voting age to 25/30, make sure that 25/30 is also the minimum age for entry into the armed services. No sense in having non-voting 18 year old kids dying in a war without the right to vote.
Of course there’s every sense in the world! Any fool can be taught to point and shoot. It’s much more difficult to teach one how to think critically for themselves in order that their vote in ignorance not blow the hard-earned political gains of those wiser than they.
Corbyn is a n idiot – refighting the 1980s on the same failed policies. Nit voting for him!
“Excellent idea there MarkW, and when you raise the voting age to 25/30, make sure that 25/30 is also the minimum age for entry into the armed services. No sense in having non-voting 18 year old kids dying in a war without the right to vote.”
Well, I served in the Armed Forces at age 18, before I was eligible to vote, and I don’t see any detrimental effects on my life because of it.
The argument you make above (if you are old enough to fight, you are old enough to vote) is one that has been made for decades. At the end of World War II only 39 percent of Americans favored lowering the voting age to 18, even though President Roosevelt was in favor of it. President Eisenhower was in favor of lowering the age, but the idea had no support then. Lowering the voting age to 18 was passed in 1971.
Here’s a compromise: Restrict the voting age to 25 with the exception that any person who serves in the military is eligible to vote, without age restriction.
Military members are usually more mature than most, at any age, and I would feel comfortable with allowing them to vote at 18.
TA, how about another exception……..If a person is less than 25/30, but holds a full time job and is paying taxes, shouldn’t they be allowed to vote? Some of these taxpayers have even purchased real estate, and have to pay state and local taxes too. You remember the old “No taxation without representation?”
“TA, how about another exception……..If a person is less than 25/30, but holds a full time job and is paying taxes, shouldn’t they be allowed to vote?”
I was working full time at 17 years old, hence…no.
This is more “up is down” pronouncements.
“and they are politically quite as ‘right wing’ as Thatcher.”
Absolute, complete and utter drivel.
Why do you tell such blatant lies?
Depends where you are standing I suppose… past a certain point it is turtles all the way down
Griff,
If you know how to read, why don’t you answer the two questions I have asked you many times?
1. Show me an engineering quality study which MEASURES the amount of warming caused by CO2.
2. Show me an engineering quality study which determined that warming in excess of 2 Deg C will cause runaway warming?
Waiting…………
Griff is paid to disrupt blogs and sites that his ‘Green energy’ paymasters consider threatening to ‘The Cause’, including attempting to damage the professional reputation of scientists whose work contradicts the lies put out by the “Hockey Team” and their followers.
He has boasted of his prowess at “tweaking the tails of the den1ers” on the Guardian CIF blogs.
[? .mod]
Not paid, not in any political party, don’t work for any green etc organisation, just an ordinary working Brit with an interest in climate science. (Can’t afford a model train set!)
and there are dozens of pieces of peer reviewed science you’ve already ignored: not my job to point you at them.
Jimmy Carter’s energy policy was to tell people to “wear a sweater,” President Obama’s energy policy was to build Quixotic Wind and Solar farms and force everyone to buy extremely expensive, dangerous eco-unfriendly energy efficient light bulbs. President Trump’s energy policy doubles as a National Security Policy and will result in more abundant, greater diversity, and cheaper energy for America and the world. The secondary benefit is a bankrupt Iran, Russia and North Korea, and greater freedom, peace, and hope around the World. What will be the contribution of the AGW Liberals? To fight president Trump every opportunity they can get. Liberals are simply a Tyrant’s best friend.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/climate-change-and-the-iranian-protests/
co2, it actually triples as sound economic policy. Low inflation is key to the Trump economy going forward. We are already at full employment by historical standards. Should inflation of any kind kick in at this point, it’s bye-bye economy and hello recession (given current federal reserve monetary policy). If we can keep energy dirt cheap, it will go a long way toward making the Trump Boom a big (and lasting) success…
Boom for whom? I hear things may be booming on the coasts, but I don’t hear of or see much boom in flyover America. Tell me what is booming.
Yep, Helios approach just keeps getting better.
David, at 4.1% the unemployment rate is as low as it’s been since Clinton was president and before that Nixon. So business is booming. Let’s hope the economic expansion continues and is well managed so that it reaches every American (and peoples abroad, too). The big QUE: how long will the trump boom last?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/01/07/retirement-tips-4-signs-youre-target-ponzi-scheme/1005690001/
Sounds a lot like COP 21 – a global Ponzi scheme.
Capitalism is at heart a Ponzi scheme. Ever increasing consumerism (demand) to support ever increasing production (supply). Note: I am not arguing for socialism, only indicating that the Capitalist system will eventually run down, especially in light of the drop in reproduction in first world economies. When Globalism spreads the wealth, economies will slow down.
You don’t understand it. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership that rewards the efficient generation of goods and services and their free exchange.
Free Enterprise.
R. Shearer and TA – the free enterprise/exchange you mention cannot work on a global scale, which is the current system we live in. It can only work on a local scale between people who know each other and live in the same community.
President Trump, please take the next logical step and withdraw the US from the UNFCCC and the IPCC. Make sure that the US ends all its contributions to those UN efforts completely. That includes disallowing all federal employees from participating in IPCC efforts when they’re on the clock, and from traveling to IPCC events as part of their work functions. Make it clear to the federal workforce that any participation in IPCC events will occur from private citizens using their free time and their own money.
The resulting squawking by aggrieved “scientists” will be offset by the lessening of the squawking about impending catastrophic climate change.
How about getting us out of the wars that we have been in since 2001?
Bob,
If your letter was really written with President Trump as the primary target audience,
you’ll need to use smaller words, shorter sentences, and make sure Fox news
quotes it in their morning programs.
As such, it just doesn’t have the punch to get through all the noise surrounding the
Oval Office.
For the WUWT audience, it was a fine letter.
Trump is president today because the left came to actually believe the lies they told about him.
@ur momisugly R.S. Brown
Trump was smart enough to win the election. How smart were the Progressives heavily backed by the liberal MSM and a corrupt DOJ?
I didn’t vote in this past election, but you have to give Trump credit for what he has accomplished. He had the cards stacked against him and still came out on top.
You conflate liberals with progressives. Liberals supported Clinton and the establishment Democratic party. Progressives supported Sanders, and when he did not get the nomination, they either did not vote or voted for Stein. Some voted for Trump if their state was a swing state.
And that is why the Democratic Party is so pissed off at Sanders and Stein. Liberals are neo-liberals, meaning they don’t care much about rank and file workers. Most liberals are millionaires or multimillionares with a few billionaires thrown in the mix, plus the workers they duped in the last three elections. Liberals are corporatists, called third wayers, because the third way means getting corporate support.
Workers and not likely to be duped another time by the Democratic elites and will either have Sanders as the nominee or someone in the FDR mold. But few are likely to support liberal corporatist Democrats again. Most progressives are anti-corporate. Most of the progressives are also anti-war like the libertarians. In fact progressives and libertarians agree a lot on foreign policy. Think Kucinich and Paul as the people who most represent these two groups on foreign policy.
Clever, cute, funny. You smart man R.S. Brown.
Siamiam,
Long ago and far away, before the advent of blogs, I wrote numerous
letters to politicians,. business executives and print editors.
The ones that got read and/or published were the ones that followed the
principles of newspaper reporting: small words, terse writing, with
a beginning, a middle and an repetition of the main theme at the end.
My comment above was about the style, not the content of Bob’s
letter.
WOW!
Such an “elitist” comment!
“I know the definitions of bigger words than you do so I should control your life.”
Ego, meet Ignorance.
Your membership in the diatribe hasn’t expired yet.
/sarc
The UN hates We The People.
+10
We the People live in a failed system. The Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin of Liberalism. Both sides have the same ends, they disagree on means. Government control grows at the expense of human values. Note: I am not arguing for socialism, only suggesting that the combination of Capitalism and Democracy are not working out very well for most people.
I agree but would not call it liberalism. It is more neo-liberalism or neo-conservatism. Both parties agree on war and both seem to care only about the top ten percent of the people.
Capitalism is not working out very well for most people because we DON’T live in a capitalist system. So don’t blame capitalism. Since the introduction of the (not) Federal Reserve system power has been slowly taken away from We The People. We now live in a Big Brother world where you are a number and numbers have NO rights.
The Democrats and Republicans are both puppets in the hand of the NOT federal reserve system. That’s why nothing ever changes whatever party you vote for. They no longer need your vote and they no longer need your money. Just look what they have done with the value of the dollar in 100 years. They printed it into worthlessness. We the people have become slaves. Form 1040 tells you you are a slave. Every form of direct taxation tells you you are a slave. It is not snow but FREEDOM which is a thing of the past. If they have their way soon you can only pay with digital money. Welcome to the Big Brother society. Hope you like it.
davidmills and Robert – regardless of what you call the economic & government system that we live in, it is a failure.
South River Independent. No it is NOT a failure. Those who really pull the strings have completed their goal. Enslave humanity.
The next letter needs to highlight the concern of rank and file voters over the now obvious lack of representation in dispensing American debt dollars in unofficial international agreements.
Regarding the question stated at the top: ” Has the UN’s Human-Induced Global Warming/Climate Change Movement always been based on International “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” Agendas?” – here’s a letter to the editor I submitted that was published a month ago in the Chronicle, an excellent weekly newspaper in the city of Glens Falls, NY:
Editor:
There’s not yet any evidence CO2 causes climate change, but alarmists continue to predict future catastrophes predicated on inept CO2-based computer models, despite IPCC and NASA famously saying that “climate is a non-linear chaotic system and prediction of future climate is not possible.” Yet alarmists keep doing it anyway. To learn why, we need only pay attention to their own words.
Christiana Figueres, head of the UN’s Climate Change section and its Paris Climate Summit, and prominent alarmist writers Naomi Oreskes and Naomi Klein openly state that alarmism isn’t about any real concern for climate, but it’s the best vehicle for destroying capitalism and achieving de-industrialization, simultaneously extracting from the West $100B annually for the UN to distribute.
“Stop worrying about the lousy science and show me the money already”- Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN’s IPCC (until sexual misconduct forced his resignation in 2015).
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy.”- IPCC lead author Ottmar Edenhofer.
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen”- Sir John Houghton, ex-IPCC chairman.
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”- Paul Watson, Greenpeace.
“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,”- David Brower, founder of Sierra Club.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States”- John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor.
Google “Maurice Strong,” father of climatism and the most influential man you never heard of. Read about his rôle in the Global Governance Commission and Director of the UN’s Environmental Program, spawning the IPCC and global warming frenzy. He stated it’s “the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse” and that it’s “our responsibility to bring that about.” Fleeing investigations of UN corruption, Strong exiled himself to Beijing, dying 2 days before the Paris conference – his crowning achievement.
The above proponents are often called eco-Marxists or “warmunists.” Climate crisis is their weapon – propaganda for an extreme socialist agenda. Disagreement isn’t tolerated; debate is avoided by saying “the science is settled.” As the USSR disintegrated (1988-1991), climate crisis offered a way to continue “the cause” of ultra-socialist world government via the UN. It’s no coincidence the UN’s first IPCC climate report was published in 1990. Over half our population came of age after the USSR collapsed; they seem especially susceptible to the propaganda. “A lie told often enough becomes the truth” – V. Lenin.
Climate “science” now approaches Stalinist-era Lysenkoism – politically controlled for political goals. Researchers won’t get government funding if they don’t cooperate with the CO2 climate crisis meme. Leftists call for prosecution of climate skeptics. Eisenhower recognized the danger of political corruption of science. His 1961 farewell address warned that “…domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money…is gravely to be regarded,” and to beware the “danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
To weaken capitalist industrialized economies, climate alarmists (and the EPA) call CO2 a pollutant to justify hyper-regulation and make energy prices “skyrocket” (Obama’s phrase, 2009) by promoting costly, unreliable renewables. But satellites show increasing CO2, a crucial plant food, has greened the planet by 15% since 1980; agricultural production has improved dramatically. Triple CO2’s current level, as in greenhouses, would be better. It’s harmless to humans; submarines and the space station have ten times our atmospheric level. Solar and ocean cycles are the keys to understanding climate.
Brexit and the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord and TransPacific Partnership will help our economy and preserve national sovereignty and democracy in two countries with the longest, strongest democratic traditions.
I think Trump knows there have been too many Chamberlin’s and not enough Churchill’s.
I have written before of my association with John Maunder a New Zealander who was a member of the the World Meteorological Organization WMO and he told me and he has written about the first world meeting called to discuss the climate in Villach in Austria .
He said that looking back it was the beginning of the global warming scare .He also attended the second meeting in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil .
I first met him and he told me that he hat taught meteorology in universities Canada and other countries around the world .
The subject of global warming came up and I mentioned that Augie Auer who was an American and a meteorologist working in New Zealand did not believe in global warming and John said neither did he .
Later he and his wife came to stay with us and I arranged for him to speak at our Rotary club on why man made global warming had not been proven H
He then said that the alarmists could not explain away the inconvenient facts such as that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present and that it was entirely natural .
The interesting thing that he told me was that at the first two climate conferences livestock methane emissions were never mentioned but at the Kyoto conference ( that he did not attend ) activists pushed for these emissions to be included in the green house gasses GHG to be counted against countries emission profile .
New Zealands government under Helen Clarke went to Kyoto to sign as they believed that as most of New Zealands electricity is generated by Hydro our emissions were very low .
With the addition of livestock methane emissions and because of our high livestock numbers compared with our population our so called emissions soared .’
We have established an Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and the scientists there state that livestock emissions account for 39 percent of New Zealands GHG emissions .
Dr Andy Reisinger of the Centre states that they have a simple climate model that proved that livestock emissions have contributed 19% of the warmth experienced in the world up to 2010 .
I have to take issue with this statement as livestock emissions make up 16% of all methane emissions and 97.3% of methane emitted is oxidized each year . That leaves 2.7% x 16% =.0423%
He then states ” that if all sectors continue to increase emissions unabated the world would warm by 4C ”
When you are farming you don’t need friends like Dr Andy Reisinger .
Lets just hope Trump puts leeches on NASA to draw out all of the NASA Climate bad blood 😀
NASA climate, if you read what they write on facebook, are unbelievable liars.
NASA needs to do space. But since we don’t do big science anymore, what we get out of NASA is climate garbage.
The big question is whether Donald Trump will get to read it. The key element is to get such a letter under the radar of media censorship.
As it is, mainstream media have been censoring news heavily for decades. Half truth if you are lucky is what we get. Lies by omission are just as frequent. We should be running them out of town for deliberately misinforming us for decades, perhaps asking for our money back on the newspapers we have bought over the decades that deliberately misinformed us. Perhaps a charter for media needs to be installed where deliberate omissions and half-truths lead to big fines or the media outlets closed down, never to spread their lies again.
Still, it is only 3 few weeks away till the State of the Union address. Will an announcement be made that the swamp is being drained-Clinton,Obama, Comey, Soros, Podestas and others having an extended vacation in Cuba? As it is, George Soros has not tweeted since late November-is he in Gauantanamo?
We will be waiting with baited breath. Even having a party at a patriot-friendly club in Redfern, Sydney that evening with recording of the speech to be played on a laptop. The actual speech itself is at 1pm Sydney time-not quite the time for a get together. How convenient, I have shuffled my lunch break on the day to neatly coincide with the address. 10s of millions of Americans will be watching the address-will MSM pull the plug?
I suspect Donald Trump already knows how treacherous the UN (United Nazis) are in the climate deception. The skill element is to wake people without making them go in to denial and burying their heads in the sand.
“It is easier to deceive the people than to convince them they are being deceived”- attributed to Mark Twain. Then again, if the bell ringeth truth, it is better the identity of the bell ringer remaineth obscure.
When Maggie and Ron signed off on the Montreal Protocol, they imposed a globalist protection racket designed to enrich DuPont. Saving the planet was just the casus belli.
According to true believer Carl Sagan:
In 1987 Britain, France and Italy participated in the 1st Montreal Conference only begrudgingly, since,
► “They feared DuPont had a substitute up its sleeve that it had been preparing all the time it had been stonewalling about CFCs. The United States was pushing a ban on CFCs, they worried, in order to increase the global competitiveness of one of its major corporations.”
The United States signed on to the very protocol it had been pushing…watch Sagan be amazed by that fact::
► “That this occurred during the antienvironmental spasm of the Late Reagan administration was truly unexpected (unless, of course, the fear of DuPont’s European competitors is true.)”
► “Substantial credit must be given to […] British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who trained in chemistry and understood the issue.”
► “DuPont has become a leader in cutting back on CFCs, and has committed itself to a faster phaseout than many nations have.”
► “A substitute–or better, a stopgap measure–has been found. CFCs are temporarily being replaced by HCFCs; […] they still cause some damage to the ozone layer, but much less. […] HCFCs were developed by DuPont, but–the company swears–only after the discoveries at Halley Bay.”
► “The Montreal Protocol and it’s amendments represent a triumph and a glory for the human species.”
all quotes from Sagan’s “Billions & Billions”
Thatcher was just another globalist traitor.
Thank Thatcher and Reagan for the gig economy. That is the end game of corporatism/crony capitalism. Corporatism/crony capitalism is worse for workers than feudalism. At least feudal lords were expected to shelter, feed, clothe an provide healthcare to serfs. Under this system, the employers are exempted from providing any of that in exchange for “freedom.” “Freedom” is just another name for debt slavery.
https://youtu.be/gfSJXCDDKqs
Hurry up with implementing that Red Team/Blue Team, President Trump.
The climate data manipulators at NASA and NOAA are still at it, bastardizing the data to promote CAGW, and it is time to deal with this problem.
Pres. Trump on global warming:
“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”
“NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?”
“Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!”
“Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”
“Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and…a lot of it’s a hoax. It’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”
http://www.newsweek.com/what-has-trump-said-about-global-warming-quotes-climate-change-paris-agreement-618898