Reason number 832 why I hate the U.N.

I don’t understand why anyone still believes this AGW hoax is about the saving the environment when the green crowd is open about their true redistributive intent.  They tell us so.  In their own words.  Yet so many are willfully deaf.  Why?

A new U.N. report estimates the costs of combatting “climate change” to be $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.  With statements like this in the report:

“Survey estimates that incremental green investment of about 3 percent of world gross product (WGP) (about $1.9 trillion in 2010) would be required to overcome poverty, increase food production to eradicate hunger without degrading land and water resources, and avert the climate change catastrophe.”

And this:

the need “to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries”

how can one argue other than that global warming hawks intend to give other people’s money away for purposes other than averting their made-up catastrophe?  (Read the full story, here).  Overcoming poverty?  Increasing food production?  Noble goals, but unrelated to global warming.  And I don’t think food production will be increased by taking money away from American farmers, who are, I believe, the biggest food producers in the world.


This entry was posted in Environment, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Reason number 832 why I hate the U.N.

  1. The ‘catastrophe’ isn’t made up, the debate is around whether it is man-made or natural, as opposed to happening or not. Their are broadly two camps: 1. Those that want to try and lessen the damage to human lives that will be caused by desertification and sea rise. 2. Those who think that people die all the time, what’s the big deal?

    Furthermore, poverty does not describe being poor, rather it means conditions similar to a WWII concentration camps. Food production refers to prices rather than bellies – thus you will be affected by global food prices as Asian markets demand more of the share. Lastly, American production of food is only so large because it is heavily subsidised by your government – something introduced by Reagan. The surplus is normally sold to Russia or forced on Africa. Each time the US do this, they send the cost of wheat plummeting in those countries making it less worth growing wheat domestically, for someone like Zimbabwe for instance. This means that poor countries never grow their own food and always stay poor and hungry in a cyclical trap.

    I don’t mind answering any questions you have, if you like.

  2. Respectfully, there is still much debate about whether global warming is occurring or not. Thirty years ago there were hysterics over a coming ice age. For the past ten years the earth has cooled. In the earth’s timeframe, one hundred, even one thousand years, are not statistically significant. I don’t know if the earth will warm by a couple of degrees over the next one hundred years or not. As the earth is not a static environment, I’d be willing to bet there is a fifty percent chance that the earth will get warmer (or cooler). There used to be glaciers in Yosemite, so the earth has definitely warmed since then.

    But my beef is that for the AGW crowd it is about politics, not science. The scientific method is no longer used. Dissent is treated as heresy rather than necessary critical analysis. And a theory has been created that no experiment can disprove. If the temp goes up, global warming. If it goes down, global warming. Every flood, tornado, or hurricane of the century is used as “proof”, completely forgetting that a comparable natural disaster occurred last century, before we became industrialized. In order for a theory to have any scientifc basis, there need to be conditions that can occur to disprove it.

    Humans have dealt with environmental changes throughout our history. They’re a part of life. But impoverishing wealthy nations through cap and trade and onerous regulations won’t give us the tools to adapt to environmental changes. Wealth and innovation would. And as you pointed out, redistributing goods to poor nations frequently does them no long-term benefit.

  3. There’s only a very small point in thinking in terms of thousands of years, and that’s if you’re a geographer. Furthermore, weather patterns do not reflect global warming, thats just weather doing what it does best. Especially rogue catastrophes… Those that use this as proof are wrong. The point is the areas that there are instances of desertification, like Africa and India. Or where are Islands beginning to shrink, towns are becoming submerged. Regardless of whether this is man made or not, it is happening. Whether its precisely what you think global warming is, or whether its something else, its still happening. What is more, it’s not to do with blame or responsibility either. No one says that the wealthy nations must bail out the poor – that’s just the situation as it stands.

    You can call helping others as redistribution, others call it compensation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s