LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThe Global Warming Cult's mantra is a big fucking scam.
And anyone who is incapable of recognizing that fact is an ignorant fool.
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
U.S. Senator
UN Claims Going Green to Cost $76 Trillion
Some of you may be asking, “How can cost estimates change so much in 2 years?” That is the wrong question to ask. The real question is how these UN bureaucrats can have the arrogance to even pretend they can predict costs of technology that has yet to be invented? No matter what they tell you – there is no energy source that emits zero carbon throughout its development and use. We are not there yet, and to claim a timetable when we will be – in engineering terms – is a WAG. (Wild-Ass Guess)Two years ago, UN researchers were claiming that it would cost "as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade" to go green. A new UN report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.
It always comes back to this, doesn’t it? Climate Change activists are always looking for more control over people.The new 251-page report with the benign sounding name of the "World Economic and Social Survey 2011" is rife with goodies calling for "a radically new economic strategy" and "global governance." Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the UN, with the preface signed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon - all part of the "goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050."
If the true environmentalists want to be taken seriously, they need to cut ties with the socialists, communists, and one-world government wealth redistributionists that have latched on to Climate Change as a political tool to implement the policies they have always dreamed of. Just as you will not take seriously articles and studies funded by Exxon.Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate. The press release for the report discusses the need "to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050." That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth's thermostat.
That's because it is. The report goes on and says "one half of the required investments would have to be realized in developing countries." In other words, $38 trillion would go to the developing world.
The (almost)Great SupPackFan Quotes:
"The more times you drive over a cat - the flatter it gets!"
"Differentiating legal and illegal immigration is as critical as separating child adoption from child abduction."
Drive Bias
President
The Global Warming Cult's mantra is a big fucking scam.
And anyone who is incapable of recognizing that fact is an ignorant fool.
Moderator
Or hoping to rule over ignorant fools...Originally Posted by hairballxavier
I am sorry but how do you account for the raise on global temperature or the melting of the ice caps that is occuring at the same rate as industrial growth?
In my opinion to deny global warming is a big fucking scam to help oil companies.
And where you get all this about it being marxist....
Vice President
Because the Earth is supposed to be at higher temperatures? You know that we are still in an ice age, right?
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
Vice President
I keep asking what temperature the Earth is suppose to be.
I haven't gotten an answer yet.
Vice President
Much higher than what it is, today. The current low temperatures were only brought about via natural catastrophe (eg. mass extinction Texas sized asteroids striking the earth). W/o natural catastrophe the earth is much hotter. These AGW people seem to want to ignore the fact that we are still in an ice age.
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes (admits his philosophy is not viable)
Secretary of State
While I still contend that global climate change is worthwhile for discussion and continued science, I also consider this one of many reasons to withdraw from the United Nations. Just no reason to continue with that disaster of a political nightmare organization. "Global Governance..." what a mess that could be with any sense of sovereignty for a country.
- Frustrated Independent
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people.” - Penn Jillette amazingly enough, and I agree.
Moderator
If I could choose a secular apocalypse, I would take an overly warm and carbon rich atmosphere over an ice age any day of the week.
And the vast majority of plants and animals would agree with me.
Vice President
You don't even have to go that far back. The Romans grew grapes for wine in Britannia, and Carthage was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire.
Climates change, even without our help.
The issue is energy independence.
Climates are not supposed to be changing at this rate, it has been pushed along by human industry. You can disagree with the research that shows the icecaps melting, and the global weather changing along with the pace of human development.
Secretary of State
Such scare numbers are hardly part of the green agenda. They are part of deliberate misinformation campaigns by those who favour the current broken energy systems.
There is a real private project to produce 15% of Europes electricity from north african solar power. It comes at a total cost of 400 billion Euro spread over several decades.
Saying that 1trillion a year is necessary is just a way to say 50 billion a year is a waste.
Secretary of Defense
What a foolish proposal. Do you know what the line losses will be transporting electricity that far? And that would make Europe dependent on North Africa...
Secretary of Defense
In practical terms there is. It's called "nuclear". Which of course, they are ignoring. This points to the other part of their real agenda- they want a lot less humans living on the planet, and those living should be living in mud huts and farming with hand tools, singing slave ballads.
County Executive
@Damn Yankee: You're wrong!
@Zoido: Happy to help out :-)
High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission
HVDC transmission is a way of carrying clean electricity over long distances to the places in the world which consume large amounts of energy. Around 90% of the human population live less than 3000 kilometers from deserts and could be efficiently supplied with clean desert electricity. The line losses are very low – only around three percent per 1000 kilometers – and the extra cost is only one or two cents per kilowatt hour. This is more than compensated because solar power plants located in deserts are much more efficient due to the longer and more intensive solar irradiation and less winter months. The same is with wind power plants that benefit from stronger and more constant winds at optimum sites. An extended grid and connected backup power plants compensate for fluctuations in renewable energies and downtime in power plants and transmission lines.
Source
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/images/atheist-cartoon.gif
"When fascism comes to america, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks