It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Majority US voters accept the need for climate action

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
well they why are they taking my money and using it to pay somebody else's utility bill? That doesnt reduce CO2. Letting them freeze to death in the winter would lower C02 for free. Not that I am pro people dying.. just sayin'


lol, perhaps you should suggest that to republicans and ask for an amendment to Waxman-Markey.

They won't be taking your money.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Wel you said earlier that people in Detroit bills would go lower if they pass cap and trade. So how is that not redistribution if some people pay more so some people can pay less?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
Wel you said earlier that people in Detroit bills would go lower if they pass cap and trade. So how is that not redistribution if some people pay more so some people can pay less?


Is that not normal in the US? You have people who pay nothing for healthcare and use the services when required and those who are insured and taxed and cover for their care. Are you supporting the Healthcare bill, then?

The source of the offsets is outlined earlier. It's part of the C&T system and the cash that would keep someone like DontTreadonMe warm in their cold dark winters does not come from you. In fact, you also attract rebates, just not as extensive.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


LOL, I know political BS when I see it. So they are going to tax me and then give me a rebate tht was less than my tax so I think they are doing me a favor.

And NO I don't support the healthcare bill or any legislation that takes money from one group of successful people to hand it to a group of unsuccesful people.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
LOL, I know political BS when I see it. So they are going to tax me and then give me a rebate tht was less than my tax so I think they are doing me a favor.


No, if you actually understood the cap and trade system you would know where the money for the offsets comes from.

How can you make a judgment on something you don't really understand?

ABE: anyways, must sleep. Perhaps go read up on C&T.

ABE2: so you actually support paying more for something to cover those who pay nothing in healthcare just by supporting the status quo. Cool. It's good to look after those who are worse off than ourselves. So even if you were expected to pay a little for the needs of the detroit poor the concept wouldn't be anything new.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


No I am the one of the two of us who understands Crap and Fade and business. If they tax all of these businesses for carbon emissions then the busnesses will pass that cost of doing business onto the consumer. So in the end I get taxed indirectly. Then they take that money and hand it to 3rd world countries and welfare people.. which I am pretty sure is known as redistribution of wealth.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
No I am the one of the tow of us who understands Crap and Fade and buisness. If they tax all of these businesses for Carbon emissions then the busnesses will pass that cost of doing business onto the consumer. So in the end I get taxed indirectly. Then they take that money and hand it to 3rd world countries and welfare people.. which I am pretty sure is known as redistribution of wealth.


Wut? The energy companies pass your money onto 3rd world countries? lol. I suppose they might use it to buy their energy resources sending cash out your system. Perhaps it's better than investing in home grown sustainable energy.

The businesses are not really taxed due to C&T. They have to buy and trade permits. You could see their initial purchase as a form of tax. But that's the system. It's not new, there is already a C&T system in existence in the US. If you believe that the market has magical properties, the traditional energy companies will have solved the energy problem before you can say 'jackflash'. Or we could use some of the money to fund less traditional clean energy research and application.

But this already happens for treatment of those who have no healthcare cover - that doesn't seem to bother you too much. You cover those 'unsuccessful' people already. Indeed, the estimates are in the order of $1000 per year to cover the 'untouchables' for healthcare.

Yet you'd rather ignore that and keep the status quo in that arena.

Redistribution of wealth is the normal state of affairs. Over the last few decades the rich have got richer. Or is redistribution only an issue when it goes in one particular direction?

$1000 per year? Must ignore, Obamacare bad. $160 per year? Socialism!!!!!

Geez, cultural sociopathy is a real issue in the US. We're talking about $160 a year, lol.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
"It looks like I might have to open my new factory in Asia or Mexico.

The workers are cheaper, the taxes are less, start-up costs are considerably less than opening a factory here and thanks to all that free trade stuff, it just makes sense to keep production out of country. "

*Some entrepreneur is probably thinking thoughts like these. It just makes good business sense.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Your thread is BS FUD, and you know it. Even the title is false.

Only in England would someone try to pass off a Pew Trust poll of 3 states and 5 congressional districts as "Majority US Voters." Pure misrepresentation, typical of AGW fanatics.

The Pew Trust funds many different branches with differing agendas. The sponsors of your survey are AGW advocates. See p. 13 of their prospectus.
www.pewtrust.org...

How about a Pew Trust poll from last month?

Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming


The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.
Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

people-press.org...

As for the CBO "cost estimates" you know this has been debunked many times over, even on ATS threads in which your sole "contribution" was to create pet names and otherwise attempt to dismiss opinion and fact you found unfavorable.

Your CBO "cost estimates," are so shot through with error that not even the CBO cites them anymore. Apparently, only the British adherents of an unshakeable AGW faith still cite them. They are BS FUD.

What does the CBO say TODAY? That the costs to Americans of current proposed legislation will rob them of .75 % GDP in the immediate future, climbing to 3.5% GDP over coming years. (that's $100,000,000,000 now, rising to $500 billion in current dollars)

And Americans know how accurate these "projections" have been thus far. The true costs are likely to be several times higher than these estimates created for political consumption, but no useful purpose.

Oh, and the CBO sees an inevitable loss of jobs!

With no CO2 relief to show for it! Only "projections." (See the results of UK and EU carbon legislation: higher CO2, higher energy costs, windfall profits to their advocates)


First Doug Elmendorf undercut the Obama administration on health care. Now his Congressional Budget Office is going off message on cap and trade:
The CBO director added that although the risks of climate-related impacts on the economy were very difficult to quantify, "many economists believe that the right response to that kind of uncertainty is to take out some insurance, if you will, against some of the worst outcomes."

The CBO estimates that the House-passed climate legislation, a template for the Senate version, would reduce gross domestic product by up to 0.75% by 2020 and 3.5% by 2050.

"The net effect of that we think would likely be some decline in employment during the transition because labor markets don't move that fluidly," Mr. Elmendorf said, testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee...


spectator.org...

Even Obama's own Energy and Treasury departments have released records under FOIA showing higher costs than those of the CBO mark up.


The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

www.cbsnews.com...

You may say these figures are "FUD", but the document is available as a .pdf on the internet.

It's here on ATS, too.

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year( UPDATE: $2,500+/year)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The more often AGW apostles post crap and call it truth, the less credibility they and their "projections" maintain.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Your thread is BS FUD, and you know it. Even the title is false.

Only in England would someone try to pass off a Pew Trust poll of 3 states and 5 congressional districts as "Majority US Voters." Pure misrepresentation, typical of AGW fanatics.

The Pew Trust funds many different branches with differing agendas. The sponsors of your survey are AGW advocates. See p. 13 of their prospectus.
www.pewtrust.org...


Well, actually, j, I know there's only so many words available for a title so I made a choice of the most informative but still as accurate as possible. Then I made sure the full title is clearly present in the actual article.

The polls were based on US voters as you've just had a recent set of local elections across various areas. And a majority of them accepted the need for action. Unless you're arguing that these people were not american and also voters.

Stating 'Majority of Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico, Virginia, and Washington voters accept the need for climate action' would be more specific, but I'd rather a full coherent and generally accurate title than the incoherence of half of a specific title.

I never said the Pew organisation who presented the data were not accepting of the scientific facts and the resulting need for action. However, the polls were actually completed by groups from either side of your political spectrum, not the Pew group.


The Pew Environment Group commissioned surveys by The Mellman Group, a leading Democratic firm, and Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican firm. Both have worked extensively throughout the United States for a range of corporations, nonprofit organizations and elected officials. The three surveys were conducted in August through October with 600 likely 2010 general election voters each. The margin of error was +/- 4.0% overall, higher for subgroups.


And, moreover, there are also a handful of other polls from other samples which cover the same areas with more representative samples. Same outcome.

As for the $1761 rubbish, already covered it. It is the schoolboy estimate of some blogger on the intertubez. His assessment takes no account of the real nature of the key features of the Waxman-Markey bill. The fact that an assessment by some random blogger is bounced around your echo chamber is actually rather pathetic.

Both the CBO and the EIA show actual costs of around $100 per year once the full features of the bill are included.


Oh, and the CBO sees an inevitable loss of jobs!


That's nothing new, jobs will be lost in the traditional energy sectors and Elmendorf is just stating the obvious...


CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned a Senate energy panel that there would be "significant shifts" from emissions-intense sectors such as oil and refining firms to low-carbon businesses such as wind and solar power.

"The net effect of that we think would likely be some decline in employment during the transition because labor markets don't move that fluidly," Mr. Elmendorf said, testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.


So some decline as jobs shift during the transition. That's probably the case, but taking account of both Waxman-Markey and clean energy investment:


Understanding the specific features of ARRA and ACESA and how they will work in combination allows us to estimate the level of public and private-sector investments in clean energy. As we will demonstrate, the two programs together could create $150 billion a year in new investment and 1.7 million net new jobs a year—that is, 1.7 million more jobs each year than would be the case without a $150 billion shift in spending from conventional fossil fuels to clean energy investments.

linky

A potential 1.7 million extra jobs each year.


How about a Pew Trust poll from last month?


Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.

Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.


1. 57% solid evidence getting warmer. But only 33% said no solid evidence. The remainder being unsure. Of those 33%, still a third of them think it's a in some way a serious problem. The question relates to the solidity of evidence. So you could think the evidence is not 'solid' but still potentially human caused and serious.

2. 36% of the 57% who accept solidity of evidence view human activity as the cause, 6 didn't know and 16% thought it natural.

3. In a different format asking the question is 'how serious a problem is global warming', 65% accept it is serious. Only 17% say 'no problem'.

4. They also ask about opinion on cap and trade, which is the actual focus of this thread - not general opinion on causation. 50% supported action, 39% didn't - that leaves 61% in the support C&T and 'don't know' boxes. Even 31% of those stating no 'solid' evidence of rising temperatures in the earlier question still supported C&T. There is good support for cap and trade. Not too different than the actual claims I've made already...

Polls range around 50% to 70% support for C&T.

Have fun.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite


This is udder BS many like me that are on disability don't make enough to file or pay taxes and would not receive any help.

and we are the lowest income part of the low income.

that makes this propaganda to sway the people who don't understand this little problem with there law.










posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 




Well, you'll do fairly well out of the Energy Bill. Those in the lowest levels of income will actually save money.

If you actually go beyond the deceptions being spread by certain quarters the bill won't have a massive effect on people's incomes. The average will be about $160 per year, and if you have a low income you'll save $100 or so.


And if you really believe that I have this really nice bridge for sale.... Oop Its already been sold to the Germans.

Seriously, I suggest you read the history of the Federal Reserve Act. Politicians will compromise to get the initial law passed and then when no one is paying attention the compromises will be removed and a truly evil mess is left. One that moves wealth from us to the elite.



These fellows were not stupid. You have to give them credit. They didn't get to be where they were by being country bumpkins. They understood politics, they understood mass psychology and they played their cards exceedingly well. ... And then at the insistence of Paul Warburg who was forever the master strategist, they added several very sound provisions to the Federal Reserve Bill. By that I mean they added some provisions which seriously restricted the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money out of nothing. Warburg's associates said, "Paul, what are you doing? We don't want those in there this is our bill." And his response was this, he said, "Relax fellas, don't you get it? Our object is to get the bill passed. We can fix it up later." Those were his exact words. "We can fix it up later." He was so right. It was because of those provisions that they won over the support of William Jennings Bryan the head of the Populist Movement, the last hold-out against the bill. Bryan was concerned that this would be an instrument for ruining the nation's money supply but when he saw those provisions he said, "Oh well, those are good provisions, I guess I can support the bill now" never dreaming that this was temporary. Everything is temporary in politics. When people go to sleep things can get changed.

Warburg was right and they fixed it up later. The Federal Reserve Act since it was passed has been amended over 100 times.


www.bigeye.com...






posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




"It looks like I might have to open my new factory in Asia or Mexico.

The workers are cheaper, the taxes are less, start-up costs are considerably less than opening a factory here and thanks to all that free trade stuff, it just makes sense to keep production out of country. "

*Some entrepreneur is probably thinking thoughts like these. It just makes good business sense.


Why is it that nobody understands a tax on business comes out of THEIR wallet and not that of the corporation/business.

Fact of life:
Businesses make a profit or go out of business. If the cost of doing business - that is an increase in Taxes, permits, minimum wage/raw materials... happens there are four choices.
1. Pass the cost onto the consumer
2. Cut net labor or raw material costs
3. Move to a more business friendly location
4. Go out of business.

Very rarely will a business "absorb" the cost and that is only temporary. This means the employee/consumer is always the one who ends up paying ALL of the price of new legislation in one form or another. If we are lucky it is an increase in the cost of products, if we are unlucky it is the loss of industry and our jobs.

"In 1976  A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker." During the time interval we had OHSA EPA, NAFTA and WTO. the average worker now earns somewhere around 1/10 of what he did in 1976 and is taxed more due to inflated wages. In additionthe seventies were before sales tax.

No matter how you spin it if another law passes Congress, the tax payer will ultimately pay for it.

Will this bill cost me money? - Yes
Will this bill decrease my freedom? - Yes
What does this bill actually do? - Makes money for Al Gore, Maurice Strong and other elite.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Originally posted by melatonin

As for the $1761 rubbish, already covered it.


You've "covered" nothing but your ability to dismiss fact with snide name-calling.

The costs from which the $1,761 is derived come the Energy Department themselves, as confirmed by CBO estimates of costs of $100billion to $500billion per year to consumers. An admitted loss of 1 to 4% of GDP by the Obama administration is "malarkey" only in the minds of those committed to hiding the truth without resort to substantive evaluation.


[the $1,761] assessment takes no account of the real nature of the key features of the Waxman-Markey bill.


"Key features" of Waxman-Markey? How about these:

The Waxman-Markey bill requires reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 83 per-cent below 2005 levels by 2050.
This equates to slightly more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2050.
The US last had that small an amount in 1910, when there were only 92 million Americans.
To meet the target per capita carbon-dioxide emissions would be 2.4 tons per person.
2.4 tons is one quarter the per capita emissions of 1910, a level probably last seen in 1875.
www.newsweek.com...

So, the key features of WaxmanMalarkey is to return the US economy to the pre-industrial age!

Your sycophantic recitation of propaganda may fool or deter some people from real analysis, but it's not hard to show the baselessness of your "arguments." Especially when the best you can do is sugar-coat fakery with smears and mischaracterization.

And your best justification for a FALSE OP is lack of creativity? Your facility at making up slurs instead of substance belies even that pathetic excuse for deceit.


Both the CBO and the EIA show actual costs of around $100 per year once the full features of the bill are included.


"Full features" such as loss of GDP, destruction of industry, and GIVING AWAY carbon credits? And the IMPOSSIBLE "goal" of reducing the US economy to 1875 levels!

You can't seriously contend that the Chairman of the CBO perjured himself when he admitted the true costs before Congress.

The CBO and EIA "reports" are based on self-serving information provided to them by the bill's authors! "Garbage-in, garbage-out." (much as with climate modeling)

The "Center for American Progress" study projects an estimate of possible investment the bills could create twenty years in the future! Talk about "junk science." NOTHING Podesta and Orszag's CAP (americanprogress.org) has predicted in these regards has even come close to being close.

Pie in the sky garbage, to support more handdouts for their socialist/welfare-state "reform" projects.

And the best you can get from their crap is "a potential 1.7 million extra jobs each year (in 2050)?"

As for the alternate PEW survey: most see no HUMAN causation. Isn't THAT the point of the legislation in the first place?

Your obfuscatory tactics are laughable, at best.


Have fun.


You make it easy.

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 11-11-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
A majority of Americans are overweight bordering on obese. This is no surprise either.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 

What does this bill actually do? - Makes money for Al Gore, Maurice Strong and other elite.


you might've added another line:

What will this bill NOT do? Reduce CO2.
(Just look at the UK and EU, where thev've traded carbon for years now - energy costs are up, per capita CO2 emissions are up, CO2 credit traders are richer)

s4u

jw



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
And again melatonin keeps trying to sell the Global Warming hoax, and asks people to decide between two taxes on hoaxes, based on rigged polls of 1,000-5,000 people, or however many they decided to ask...


Oh boy, oh boy, the AGWers are really working hard for their masters, trying to convince everyone "you are all guilty, so give me money to lift some weight from your guilt"......


Is there such a title as "Anthropogenic Global Warming minion"?...

It is obvious who needs such a title....





[edit on 11-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




you might've added another line:

What will this bill NOT do? Reduce CO2.
(Just look at the UK and EU, where thev've traded carbon for years now - energy costs are up, per capita CO2 emissions are up, CO2 credit traders are richer)


I was trying to be polite. So now I will take the gloves off.

Where did Global Warming come from?? - Maurice Strong! So let us take a look at the Character of the "Father of Global Warming"



It is instructive to read Strong's 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.
www.mail-archive.com...@listserv.aol.com/msg106963.html


Even the people at Radio for Peace at the Peace University (sponsored by the UN) saw through Maurice Strong and his ties to big business and the big banks!


Maurice Strong and Radio for Peace International

The university's administrator, Canadian Maurice Strong, came in on a wave of influence based on the promise of Ted Turner's foundation to give a billion dollars to the UN. His connections to the Turner foundation, the World Bank, and to those environmental groups you hear criticized for allowing domination by big business, are just the tip of the iceberg.

Anyone searching "Maurice Strong" on the web encounters a very interesting array of entries. (To quote Lewis Carroll, the story becomes "Curious and curiouser") If we can believe even 10% of the story of his ascent to power and influence, an astonishing tale of subterfuge emerges, consistent with his attack on RFPI. Beyond the fig leaf of NGO's that he uses for cover, Strong's real alliances are with the enemies of the UN, which they are busily "reforming".



Next where does Maurice Strong stand as a CO2 emitter. Well if you think Al Gore was bad, Strong has him topped by a mile as the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada!


...Ontario Hydro, an industrial concern, headed by Earth Summit secretary general Maurice Strong, which is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada. This corporation is currently selling nuclear reactors to Argentina and Chile.... www.hartford-hwp.com...


Then there is Strong's life long ties to oil: He started in 1953 working for the Rockefeller's in Saudi Arabia, At age 29, he became president of Power Corporation, he has served as president of energy companies such as Petro-Canada and Ontario Hydro, and on the board of industrial giant Toyota. In 1981 he had moved on to Denver oil promoter AZL Resources. He is a huge political donor, not just in Canada, but in the USA to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Strong is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Chief Advisor to the World Bank. He sits on boards with the Rockefellers, Mikhail Gorbachev and chairs private meetings of CEOs, including Bill Gates. He hobnobs with the world's royalty, with dictators and despots. He does business deals with people like arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi,

Strong had a history as a conman and swindler long before his involvement with Obama, Gore and the Chicago Climate Exchange Strong has also been caught up in a series of U.N. scandals and conflicts of interest. not to mentions several insider trading scams such as the AZL Resources Lawsuit, the food for oil scandal and the Molten Metal Inc swindle involving Al Gore, tax payer money, lawsuits and a House Committee Investigation

There is even lawsuits tying Al Gore and Strong to the development of a new type of saboteur bomb! (9/11 anyone??)

".... belief Gore hired Canadian privy councilors in 1994 to develop molten-metal bomb, hot enough to demolish steel-framed building or vaporize evidence of murder, arson and reinsurance frauds." www.scoreboard-canada.com...


Not only does Strong have ties to the Rockefellers and the World Bank , Strong introduced Edmund de Rothschild during the Fourth World Wilderness Conference in September 1987, held in Denver and southern Colorado: "One of the most important initiatives that is open here for your consideration is that of the Conservation Banking Program. As mentioned this morning, we have [inaudible] here the person who really is the source of this very significant concept. He was/is one of the trustees of the International Wilderness Foundation which sponsored this meeting. He was at the first of these conferences. His conversion to the relationship between conservation and economic development has been a pioneering one... Many of the energy developments that we have seen have come from his early anticipation of our energy needs... And I'm just delighted to have this opportunity of introducing to you, Edmund de Rothschild." isgp.eu...




Strong has always courted power - but not through any shabby election campaign.... Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN. 'He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda,' wrote Dewar. 'He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn't have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives.' Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters." (www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Maurice-Strong/article1.html#top)




It is therefore not surprising that another hat that Maurice Strong has worn is that of Treasurer, now Fellow, of Lindesfarne, New York, whose founder, William Thompson, conceived it as a medieval village into which the remnants of humanity might be herded as a feudalist "concentration camp," once genocidal eco-facist policies of the sort advocated by Maurice Strong had taken hold. And, for good measure, Strong is the president of the World Economic Forum, the Davos, Switzerland annual summit of the world's private bankers', which will be keynoted this year by Vice President Al Gore.

This article appears in the January 29, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Maurice Strong Discusses His Pal
Al Gore's Dark Age `Cloak of Green'
by Scott Thompson




So what is Maurice Strong? A power hungry Wheeler dealer - manipulator from a poor background who has made it big, or a saint only concerned with Mother Earth?


CONTINUED




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

You've "covered" nothing but your ability to dismiss fact with snide name-calling.

The costs from which the $1,761 is derived come the Energy Department themselves, as confirmed by CBO estimates of costs of $100billion to $500billion per year to consumers. An admitted loss of 1 to 4% of GDP by the Obama administration is "malarkey" only in the minds of those committed to hiding the truth without resort to substantive evaluation.


No, it's the BS of a libertarian blogger with the help of the oil-funded CEI think-tank. It isn't even based off Waxman-Markey.


The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 23 cents per day ($83 per year). This is consistent with analyses by the Congressional Budget Office which projects a cost of 48 cents per day ($175 per year) and the Environmental Protection Agency which projects a cost of 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year). Even under “High Cost” assumptions for new power plants, EIA only projects a household cost of 34 cents per day ($124 per year). None of these analyses take into account the benefits of reducing global warming

EIA linky

The EPA estimates $80-$111 per year.

The CBO estimates an average of $160 per year (updated in the latest report)

The EIA estimates $83 per year

Some random right-wing blogger on the intertubez closely associated with oil-funded think-tank disinformers says it will be $1,761. Sure, yeah, whatever.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
I was trying to be polite. So now I will take the gloves off.

Where did Global Warming come from??


What the idea?

The scientific powerhouse, Svante Arrhenius. He predicted it based on the physical properties of CO2 over 100 years ago.

Arrhenius, Svante. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine, 1896(41): 237-76

But a shout-out needs to also go to Tyndall and Fourier.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by melatonin]




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join