Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
Story Views | |
Now: | |
Last Hour: | |
Last 24 Hours: | |
Total: |
Hmm, does this look familiar? Here’s Mark Landsbaum writing in the OC Register
Expect global warming rhetoric to heat up
Let’s be blunt. Forty years of global warming hysteria never has been about the globe getting warmer, or saving the planet. It’s always been about control and money. Their control. Your money. If you need to be told who “they” are, you haven’t been paying attention.
They are a cabal of intertwined common interests that include government regulators who stand to gain power, financial opportunists who stand to profit and ideologues whose mission is to separate you from your money, and from control over your lives. They are socialists or progressives. They like to be called “environmentalists,” tarring the reputation of an otherwise well-intentioned group. (snip)
A compliant mainstream media, which never views a progressive movement with a critical eye, is about to treat us to another furious round of headlines as the real alarmists gather this month in Paris to concoct a scheme to “save” you from global warming. Scratch the surface of this international divide-up-the-booty gathering, and you will see that, even if all their schemes, regulations, taxes, penalties and wealth redistributions are enacted, there’s no guarantee the Earth’s temperature will be affected at all. That’s a pretty costly gamble.
It’s good to see that more and more people are recognizing what the ‘climate change’ movement is all about, and writing about it.
As Christopher Booker of the U.K.’s Sunday Telegraph reports, schemers convening in Paris have three goals: 1) to collectively reduce emissions worldwide by imposing costly regulations and banning cost-effective alternatives (aka big government); 2) to take money from some to give to others to pay for this (aka socialism); and 3) to impose costs on those unwilling to pay up, which is to say, big government and socialism. (I assume Landsbaum is referring to this piece)
People often ask me why I do not focus that much on the actual science of climate change. Well, I actually do: it’s just a different type of science. Political science. Sociology. What are referred to as ‘soft sciences”. Because that’s what this is really all about. Every policy prescription to “solve” anthropogenic global warming/climate change matches perfectly with every other far left policy prescription, those which are noted in the cited article, so I won’t repeat them again (at least in this post. You can bet you’ll see them again and again, lather, rinse, repeat).