Jump to content

The real reason for climate change alarmism is to destroy Capitalism


Recommended Posts

quote

Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.   unquote

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD (investors.com)

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • blackbird changed the title to The real reason for climate change alarmism is to destroy Capitalism
6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, the prospect of the greatest mass extinction since the Permian isn’t a concern to you.

I think this is a separate, and bigger issue than the push to stop climate change by lowering carbon emissions. Mass extinction was already well underway before the effects of climate change became significant. This is mainly due to habitat loss and overhunting by human beings, so it is still due to human activity.

However this article says "Aside from humans, climate change may have been a driving factor in the megafaunal extinctions, especially at the end of the Pleistocene."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

But really, no one is talking much about it. Technology and industrial living demand that we take what we need from the environment, including transforming natural habitat into housing complexes and industrial facilities, or places to feed cows.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, blackbird said:

quote

Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.   unquote

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD (investors.com)

Yes.  The alarmism is laughable at times. CNN will have a picture of a fire, mention deaths, and find a way to make the assumption that this is due to human made climate change.

Have the temperatures changed in any substantive way that isn’t consistent with natural cycles?  Rome is always very hot in summer.  Toronto gets several days in the 30’s. i remember 20 years ago having a record number of 30 plus days in May.  Soon the evenings will be cool.

The problem is that the people in charge of these various international and national climate change organizations have extreme bias about what’s happening with climate and radical ideas of what to do about it.  If I stop watching CBC/CTV and CNN/MSNBC, the temperatures feel like they always have.  The psychological impacts of media hype are real.

I see how climate change is an excuse to impose higher taxes and regulations (more costs) on people, resulting in more state determination of what people should be allowed to buy and do.   No doubt there will be carve outs privileging certain groups and communities.  (China and India are massive carve outs with massively growing emissions.) The rich, including MP’s, will be able to absorb much of the cost without significantly altering their lifestyles — at first. Eventually climate ideology could stampede everyone.   Lockdowns and restrictions can be adapted to fight climate change if the ideological sadists get their way.

Canada is more vulnerable to oppressive state policies than just about any western democracy.  We’ve seen the show before.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, the prospect of the greatest mass extinction since the Permian isn’t a concern to you.

Massive changes in climate have happened without any human intervention for billions of years.

No doubt humans have had a big impact on the environment, perhaps some of it temperature related.  We don’t even know where we are in terms of interglacial cooling or warming relative to the next ice age.  If humans are the main reason for increasing temperatures and temperatures are increasing as a result of human activities in ways that could actually destroy humanity, that reality may not be removed by anything short of the end of humanity.  Killing off humans to save humans defeats the purpose, don’t you think?  It’s very arguable that climate action is a creeping euthanasia for humans because it’s driving up the cost of living over time significantly, and we don’t know if any of these actions will have any meaningful impact on reducing climate change. The loss of species is related to more than climate change.  I would look at many factors: deforestation and forest management, toxins in our air and water, habitat loss, natural phenomena, etc.

It’s fine and good to make sensible and affordable tech changes to reduce human impacts, and perhaps some lifestyle sacrifices are necessary, but making people poorer and life harder is reckless and anti-human.

Beware how climate alarmism gets used.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is the speed of the warming this time. Previous changes took tens of thousands of years. This change is happening in centuries. 
The effect of greenhouse gases is not theory. You can test it with equipment found in any undergraduate lab.

If you want an example of what happens in a rapid change in climate, just look at what happened in Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries when the temperature dropped slightly. It was called the little ice age and caused the dark age.

 The other problem we face is the speed at which we are consuming resources future generations will need to survive. I won’t repeat what I have said many times before.

What we are experiencing today is just little tickle. The effects of our actions today will really hit in the next couple of centuries.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Have the temperatures changed in any substantive way that isn’t consistent with natural cycles?  Rome is always very hot in summer.  

That is incorrect. A sudden drop in temperature brought down the western Roman Empire.

climate change has nothing to do with politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The difference is the speed of the warming this time. Previous changes took tens of thousands of years. This change is happening in centuries. 
The effect of greenhouse gases is not theory. You can test it with equipment found in any undergraduate lab.

If you want an example of what happens in a rapid change in climate, just look at what happened in Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries when the temperature dropped slightly. It was called the little ice age and caused the dark age.

 The other problem we face is the speed at which we are consuming resources future generations will need to survive. I won’t repeat what I have said many times before.

What we are experiencing today is just little tickle. The effects of our actions today will really hit in the next couple of centuries.

Maybe human made climate change is a problem, but climate is just one of humanity’s challenges.  There is no shortage of resources.  We have enough food supply for Canada in the Okanagan Valley to supply Canadians with food perpetually unless our population multiplies or there’s some environmental catastrophe.  There’s enough oil in Alberta to fuel Canada for centuries.  We have an abundance of precious minerals including uranium, which takes care of our energy-related greenhouse gas emissions if we’re willing to pay for the plants and ignore the radical environmentalist dummies who oppose nuclear.

The truth is that all of our emissions reduction work is undone by our massive immigration, and making people poorer in Canada to have renewable insufficient energy is making people in China and India wealthier as they produce a lot more dirty power.  Their dirty power more than reverses our emissions reductions.

Even most US Democrats know that Canadians are silly deluded babies on climate change.  We add taxes and costs to our citizens that the American feds would never impose on their citizens.  They know that increased business costs here means shipping jobs overseas.  They know that higher living costs represent failure of governance.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is incorrect. A sudden drop in temperature brought down the western Roman Empire.

climate change has nothing to do with politics.

So?  Could the Romans have changed that by setting forests on fire?  Rome had many additional problems besides climate.  They couldn’t maintain administrative control over such a vast territory, especially given the internal schisms and barbarian invasions. Human impacts can have devastating impacts.  Haiti cutting down most of its trees has made it especially vulnerable to flooding and hurricanes.  Yes there’s much we can do, but fighting climate change is just one of our challenges, and we have to make sure that we can actually impact climate through our measures before we spend enormous sums of citizens’ earnings on such measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

The answer to this is most definitely yes.

If so, explain how Canada can effectively reduce emissions globally after our green power policies create dirty power in other countries.  Also explain how the increase in overall power production in Canada due to increased immigration is effectively offset by green energy and carbon taxes which are supposedly revenue neutral (and therefore unable to pay for green energy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And since we've drifted from the original post, has anyone ever explained why the people who control the world i e the elites want to destroy the system that put them in power?

 

This is a distraction.  The term conspiracy theory is usually the term used to dismiss criticism.  “Alt” or “far right” is another dismissive term.  Same goes for “misinformation.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Conspiratorial thinking like this is both impossible to prove or disprove. Hence, why it exists. 

It should be possible to dispel an lot of it by eliminating opacity in our governance.

That's where much of the mistrust that breeds the disbelief that leads to people fueling their imaginations with bs starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It should be possible to dispel an lot of it by eliminating opacity in our governance.

That's where much of the mistrust that breeds the disbelief that leads to people fueling their imaginations with bs starts.

But then folks do not believe what they are hearing. You could say, "x+y= z" and then your conspiracy theorist says,.. there must be more such as b,c,d, and e and they are just conspiring against us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there’s little reason to trust government right now, when so much of what ministers say doesn’t appear to reference reality and doesn’t result in what was promised.

Our new housing minister claims that bringing in an additional 500,000 immigrants next year (40% of whom are refugees or relatives of recent immigrants who may have zero skills and education) is going to create more houses at lower prices for the people who are already here.  He said that with a straight face.  How can anyone take this level of incompetence seriously?  Everyone knows that immigrants don’t need homes, right?  But the good news is that immigrants don’t use electricity and in fact they breathe in greenhouse gases instead of oxygen, helping Canada reach its emissions targets. Lol. These are not serious people.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/canada-absolutely-can-t-build-more-houses-without-more-immigrants-minister-says/ar-AA1f9vLw

 

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

But then folks do not believe what they are hearing. You could say, "x+y= z" and then your conspiracy theorist says,.. there must be more such as b,c,d, and e and they are just conspiring against us. 

Well the public needs to see politicians being punished for being corrupt and I expect it will take take years to turn decades of mistrust into trust.

Of course if by punishment we simply mean waiting for a chance to boot the bum in question out next election then yeah, people won't believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The difference is the speed of the warming this time. Previous changes took tens of thousands of years. This change is happening in centuries. 
The effect of greenhouse gases is not theory. You can test it with equipment found in any undergraduate lab.

If you want an example of what happens in a rapid change in climate, just look at what happened in Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries when the temperature dropped slightly. It was called the little ice age and caused the dark age.

 The other problem we face is the speed at which we are consuming resources future generations will need to survive. I won’t repeat what I have said many times before.

What we are experiencing today is just little tickle. The effects of our actions today will really hit in the next couple of centuries.

well clearly nobody else believes any of that is true. If they did then gov'ts would have proposed real changes and be willing to go to war with china and india if they don't stop increasing pollution.    And the people of canada woudn't have tried to fight back with  a frikkin' carbon tax that just went into the liberal's coffers and did nothing.

i believe the climate is changing and i believe man plays a big role in how fast that's happening - but it's hard to take it very seriously when it's proponents say that a carbon tax will solve the problem and walk away.

Seriously - you vote liberal and they've been breaking their word on climate deals since kyoto. So how can anyone take you seriously when you claim you've done the research and it's such an important issue?

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And since we've drifted from the original post, has anyone ever explained why the people who control the world i e the elites want to destroy the system that put them in power?

 

Communism provides the elites with FAR more power than capitalism does

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

It should be possible to dispel an lot of it by eliminating opacity in our governance.

That's where much of the mistrust that breeds the disbelief that leads to people fueling their imaginations with bs starts.

The liberals have done nothing on climate change for 30 years despite signing several accords promising to do so.  And this is entirely public knowledge.  And you and others have kept voting for them anyway.

If you won't act on what is already known - what would knowing more do?  How would that breed more trust? What would be the point?   Would the gov't seem more trustworthy if we were ignoring 2 things they'd lied to us about instead of 1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And you and others have kept voting for them anyway.

This.... posture you insist on maintaining towards so many posters around here underscores how similarly dilettanteish you are to Trudeau - your interest in the issues you have issues with are as obviously frivolous, superficial and amateurish as his

Your only commitment to anything is to be as much of a dink about everything as you can. If you ask me I think it comes more naturally to you than Trudeau.  That said you could actually be Trudeau for all anyone really knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And since we've drifted from the original post, has anyone ever explained why the people who control the world i e the elites want to destroy the system that put them in power?

 

Pick me skipper, pick me... are you saying that the elite could not possible figured out how to hold on to their power base by taking advantage of the climate crises, it is worth 1.7 trillion just in Canada according top CBC...money is power, and it is the new global thing, could that be their objective here, a redistribution of elite power.. make for a great movie...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...