06 March 2008
Al Gore's Business Plan: Initial Investment + Fear Tactics = $$$$
``He is a private citizen, and as a private citizen he has never commented on his private finances,'' said Kreider, who works out of Nashville, Tennessee.
He doesn't have to, most of us who are following the events closely know how he was able to accomplish this.
-Caomhin
03 March 2008
Enviro-Fascists Terrorize Seattle, Prove Their Stupidity, and Risk Lives
-Caomhin
26 February 2008
Global Warming Hoax Update: Al Gore is Losing Money
"The U.S. is prepared to enter into binding international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases
as part of a global agreement in which all major economies similarly undertake binding international obligations," said Daniel Price, according to a BBC report.
"Major economies" refers to the 17 largest emitters of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, led by the United States and China.
......
De Boer told The Associated Press that U.S. talk of internationally binding targets for emissions reductions was "great." But he saw problems in what Price said otherwise."If the intent is to achieve a comparable effort on the part of developing countries, then that is not realistic and not in line with what was agreed in Bali," de Boer said.
So the UN said that the United State's committing to a multinational cut in CO2 output wasn't good? For what reason? For the the fact that developing nations, the heaviest polluter (China), and those with lower Per Capita Incomes, should not be included in their agreement because it would be "unfair?" Can a SCAM be any further exposed?
-Caomhin
11 December 2007
Follow Up from Yesterday's Post On Global Warming: I Told You So
Without going into the details, the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework (GDR) proposal foresees levying the equivalent of a climate "consumption luxury tax" on every person who earns over a "development threshold" of $9,000 per year. The idea is that rich people got rich in part by dumping carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels into the atmosphere, leaving less space for poor people to dump their emissions. In one scenario, Americans would pay the equivalent of a $780 per person luxury tax annually, which amounts to sending $212 billion per year in climate reparations to poor countries to aid their development and help them adapt to climate change. In this scenario, the total climate reparations that the rich must transfer annually is over $600 billion. This contrasts with a new report commissioned by the U.N. Development Program that only demands $86 billion per year to avoid "adaptation apartheid."
No, that's not made up, that is real, and very, very terrifying if you actually care about human freedom what-so-ever. First, is there anyone in America who is not making over $9,000 a year? Is there anyone out there making $15,000 a year and would call themselves "rich" in America? Again to my point of micro-analysing wealth in regards to geographical location, does anyone living in North Jersey qualify as "rich" making $40,000, or in NYC making $50,000? This is utter trash and is just a means to strip freedoms and money from the United States, and you can damn sure bet who is going to hand this over to UN on a silver platter, and that's the Moonbat Democrats. Their patron saint Al Gore is making a KILLING off of lying about the effects of global warming and the true cause of climate change. Read this article to inform yourself a bit more, and research it a bit further to check surface temperatures on Venus and Mars over the time frames that the Earth has actually seen increases, and when you see the percentages the same across each of the planets, ask yourself if driving your car is causing Global Warming in Venus, or if maybe that giant glowing sphere in the sky has something to do with it. Read this post over at Hot Air too. Hell, go to town researching more evidence and learn how the Leftist money machine shouts down any dissenters and purposely targets children to attack their parents for researching the actual evidence that prove the farce they're running.
The Bush Administration, for their part is taking a pro-active role in taking on the UN's increased greed and Communist push. The UN, you see, is seeking over a 25% increase over last years budget, while profiteering off of the Global Warming hoax they are involved in, all the while increasing their assets, while adding, exactly what to international security? Think they'll get an endorsement for the people of Myanmar, Rwanda, Iraq, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc? What do we get for hosting the UN and funding them at a clip of 22% and Japan funds them at a clip of 20%? Hell, the UN funds them at a total of 38%, yet they continually put nations openly hostile to world peace and democracy such as Syria, Russia, China, etc to ever increasingly important roles. We see an Iranian stooge in head of the IAEA who is in charge of investigating Iran itself, who would undoubtedly torture and murder his family if he wasn't in lock step with their agenda. Here's a late breaking news item sure to make waves across the world very soon:
The Pope is an Ally of Logic on the Global Warming Issue
Perhaps His Holiness will help bring some calm to the insane hype going on in the world today.
-Caomhin
10 December 2007
More Global Warming Communist Tactics Pushed at Bali
The draft lays out three options for how to proceed after Bali -- ranging from non-binding talks over the next two years to a deadline for adopting a new global pact at a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009.
Rich nations should consider ways to step up efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases by setting "quantified national emission objectives," the draft says.
Poor countries should take "national mitigation actions ... that limit the growth of, or reduce, emissions," it says. It adds that "social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities" for poor nations.
Got that? So "rich" nations need to set emissions standards that will drastically reduce "emissions levels" while "poor" nations will be able to ignore this standard in order to socially and economically develop. See the hypocrisy there? The USA is considered a rich nation, but with a large population of poor people. By buying into this system, we surrender economic freedom over the UN and the damage it will have economically on our nation will do nothing to help the poor people but will in fact, do more, to destroy the middle class and create a larger pool of poor people. Conversely, China (a nation completely exempt from The Kyoto Protocol) is considered poor and can do whatever they want, in fact, their levels of emissions make ours look tiny. So got that? USA bad, China good.Next, let's look at what exactly the UN is getting at by dividing the world into "poor" and "rich" nations, while completely ignoring the socio-economic differences within a nations borders, be it from East to West, rural to urban, etc. The UN is attempting to mandate that "rich" nations re-distribute the wealth into poorer nations under the guise of "Global Warming":
Currently, adaptation money comes from two global funds that rely on voluntary donations from wealthy nations, but falls far short of what is needed. Rich nations have pledged a combined $220.4 million, but as of September had delivered only $116.6 million – a "pathetic" amount, says Ms. Raworth, who puts the immediate needs among the poorest nations at $1 billion to $2 billion a year.
That's right, we all need to pony up for the failings of other nations to develop themselves, and damn it to hell, if that means making those of us who have politically and socially developed tactics that will allow us to grow foot the bill and let those who have made these choices poorly to have exactly what we have, but not to work for it. Sure there are natural advantages, but how does that matter? Should we feel guilty that we have resourceful land? Absolutely not, we should feel blessed. For as much whining the left does about outsourcing jobs the "carbon credit" industry that Al Gore his cronies are making a killing off of, in part by fueling the fear over this hoax, is doing just that:
Under the protocol, a company can earn emission credits by building emissions-cutting projects in developing countries – dubbed a clean-development mechanism (CDM). CDM credits can be traded on the international carbon market, with 2 percent of the value set aside in an adaptation fund. But by some pessimistic estimates, that levy is only likely to generate several hundred million dollars a year. So developing countries want to expand the levy to cover all carbon credits issued under the protocol – not just those issued via the clean-development mechanism. Their goal here is to put the protocol's adaptation fund squarely on the agenda for the protocol's first operational review, slated for next year. The protocol's first commitment period takes effect Jan. 1. In addition, developing countries are pushing to streamline and cut the high cost of applying for adaptation money.
Meanwhile, you still can't get any Democrats on board for Wind Farms because Teddy Kennedy doesn't like the sight of them while sailing, and Democrats specifically blackballing hydrogen and nuclear energy (the only reliable source of clean energy available) from their doomed-to-fail energy bill, while raising taxes immensely on oil companies. Their efforts are reckless and baseless. They ignore the energy solutions that will work and respond the damaging effects of highly inflated gas prices by trying to shove a tax increase what will be passed along and funded by the tax payers. Luckily, President Bush and the Administration are taking a "thanks, but no thanks" approach to the lunacy in Bali as well as the Democrats latest logic lacking bill. Finally, for your consideration, I give you this excellent post by Stephen Milloy, entitled, The Greenest Hypocrites of 2007, a must read.
-Caomhin
15 November 2007
What is Ahnold Thinking? Leeza Gibbons? Really?
-Caomhin
08 November 2007
Global Warming Cult Take Heed, We're on To You
First up on the agenda for this post is news that this is somehow a Generational Test for Republicans. Really? The premise of this article is that young people are entirely indoctrinated by the Global Warming rhetoric to the point where a Republican travels to Greenland on the advice of his children to see "first hand" how global warming is "decimating" the area. The children, you see, are already infected with the cult persona of the global warming moonbats. It's a very, very well documented fact how left wing colleges have been and have moved even further to the left. There is another take on how "global warming" is effecting Greenland, however, and that take is that...it's ACTUALLY A GOOD THING FOR GREENLAND. Sure the BBC throws in some of their global warming diatribe, but read the article, see what the people of Greenland think about the cyclical change of the ice levels.
Second, let's return to my point about indoctrinating young people (I hate using that term, but I'm 29, I'm getting old). The cult mentality is something the left wing Global Warming Hoax perpetrators have been doing for quite some time and have been quite effective at doing. Leonardo DiCaprio's now-infamous quote that "we need to get kids young," is exactly what they are doing. The Marin Independent Journal has an article on just how young they need to "get" and its quite scary:
On Friday, Rancho students will be given bilingual "Cancel-a-Car" coupon books filled with ways they can fight global warming.
Once the coupons are returned to school, teachers will track what conservation efforts are made and the date. Teachers will help monitor the progress. As the carbon reduction increases, images of cars will be crossed out on a giant poster kept at school.
So got that? Cars are bad. Children should be brainwashed as young as possible. Another all important, "get them young so that they will not resist while old" and encourage them to go after their parents on the issue like the Children of the Corn. After all, it's a classic Liberal tactic to hide behind and then have children do their dirty work. It's gotten so bad that Portland, OR, a strong bed of classic hippie activity, is set to impose a "carbon tax" that will enforce taxes on home builders, which, as you know, will undoubtedly be passes on to consumers. So homes are bad if they don't invest in the carbon offset program, got that?
Let's also note how opposed the Dems are to Nuclear Energy, the actual and only short and long term solution to our energy woes that are decimating the dollar. It's not exactly a secret that the dollar is getting crushed due to extremely high commodity prices. We have not built a Nuclear Energy plant since the 70s. Nuclear Energy is also the one source of clean burning, extremely energy efficient fuel that will have the largest single impact on reducing our dependence on oil. It's a technology that has improved immensely since the 70s and would be that much more effective for our nation if we moved towards it, but the Liberals are opposed to this because they are, basically, scared by technology, "Unga bunga, me live in cave, new techology frightens me, where is my club," sayeth the Liberal Neanderthal.
Wind sounds good too, right? Well not so much for the Liberals, after all, Democrat Ted Kennedy, was outraged, outraged I say, by the proposition of a wind farm near Cape Cod because, "That's where I sail, and I don't want to see them." Now that's what I call taking a stand. I'm sure Mary Jo Kopechne didn't want to see water rushing into the car that Teddy left her to drown in either.
Liberals are also vehemently opposed to increased drilling in Alaska and off the coast of Florida in order to increase the output in crude as temporary fix to the energy crunch. So let's re-cap:1. Carbon is evil and gas should not be used.
2. Carbon should be taxed and the average citizen should pay more for using anything with carbon.
3. Nuclear Energy is evil and should not be used.
4. Wind Energy is a great talking point, but God forbid an elitist should be in view of it, therefore it should not be used.
5. Rising gas costs are a problem, and should not be addressed by increasing supply, but rather taxed even more.
6. Houses are evil if not made of balsa wood and/or Saran Wrap (wait, that's not bio-degradeable), if not made of imaginary structures that spew out carbon eating penguins.
Gee, you really have to wonder if they want any energy being used at all. In fact, the patron saint of Global Warming, Al Gore, makes a shit load of money off of promoting this crap and then having you invest in his Carbon Offset scam. It was also reported recently by the UN that urbanization is horrible and that the population essentially needs to be thinned out, because they are just too many humans. So, here you have a situation where they don't want you to have a car, gas, nor live in an urban setting. So basically they just want you to live amongst the trees keeping yourself warm by the campfire. Oh, that's right, wood contains carbon that goes into the air when burned. So basically, their premise is that they want you to freeze to death in a rural area while unemployed. I mean, if you lived in a rural area and had a job, you'd have to drive to get to work right? Meanwhile the Liberal elitists, buoyed by the new enslaved masses through their enormous carbon taxes burdened upon the citizenry continue to fly all around the world to scold other people on their consumption habits. The fiefdom makes a comeback.
Meanwhile, not everyone is fooled by this nonsense. The founder of the Weather Channel exposes the scam for what is, just that, a scam. If nothing else READ THIS WHOLE ARTICLE. It's a political, economic scam of unmatched proportions. Personally, I find this to be Y2K on crack, a great marketing scheme but nothing else, but the joke here is on the average man, woman, and child, and lets the Liberals make a strong run at your pockets while taxing you back to the Stone Age, quite literally, justified by a the scam they perpetrate and using children, and false science as a cornerstone.
Finally, I leave you with this gem from Glenn Beck:
-Caomhin
14 October 2007
Nobel Peace Prize A Complete Joke
Czech President Vaclav Klaus cast doubt on Gore's contribution to the cause of peace, the ostensible purpose of the Norwegian prize.
In a statement, the climate change sceptic said he was "a bit surprised that Al Gore has received a peace prize because the connection between his activities and world peace are vague and not very clear".
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".....
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
True indeed. Remember Global Cooling in the 70s? Let's cap it off from an organization typically, well almost universally subservient to the Liberals, The Union Leader. Read it all, it's worth it.
He did nothing to advance world peace other than for these morons who run the Nobel Committee to try to bash Bush. Tough shit. When is it the USA's responsibility to do all the R&D on technological advances and simply give all the profits right over to China, India, and other nations who will be able to implement and build the technology cheaper due to depressed labor costs? The world is looking for a free handout and they want the USA to fit the bill and that can't happen. I'm all for free trade, but innovation comes at a cost. Patents on technology help companies recover the cost of R&D while encouraging innovation by providing a means to be creative while having a safety net so that they do not simply fork over billions of dollars only to see nothing in return. Should that situation arise a great loss of jobs would occur and individual 401(k)s and investment would drop, resulting in a massive recession and/or depression. Peace, in this case, is the worldwide left waging open war on capitalism and President Bush. Gore did nothing to reduce standing armies. He did nothing to stop any ongoing wars. What about the Monks in Burma? What about the people trying to make a difference in Darfur? How many more examples are there. This is a joke plain and simple. If Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Mussolini can be nominated for a peace prize, how seriously should it be taken anyway? Global Warming is a scam, and Al Gore and his compatriots are getting rich off of it, so hey, let's give him the award, increase the movement to invest in his and his buddies front companies while they consume more energy than the average man, woman, and small business and then complain about the person who drives 50 miles to work each day that they are an energy glutton. Good business plan I suppose, but peaceful? Hardly.
-Caomhin
26 September 2007
...Meanwhile Dems show how they view Human Freedom and WILL TAX US BACK TO THE STONE AGE...I'm Serial
"We have to put a price on carbon, and the United States of America has to lead the world to solve the climate crisis," he said.
Yes, you already have a price on carbon....your carbon credit bullshit. For those of you new to this concept, a "carbon credit" is basically your right to use any and all energy and carbon emitting device so long as you invest in the company that takes the carbon back out of the environment....want to guess who owns a sizeable share of all companies who offer this service? Why...it's Al Gore. So of course he wants a price on carbon, because the cost of using it goes to him. What a great scam Al. What a dick.
Democratic morons are drooling over the prospects of this new carbon tax idea, led by Moonbat John Dingell. In yet another instance of "I told you so"....here is possibly the most terrifying article in the last 6 years. Some excerpts from the Washington Post article:
_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.
_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.
_Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.
So let's see, they are set to let President Bush's tax cuts (the only reason we are not in recession right...and which lead to an increase in government revenues due to re-investment) expire and let the tax-free Internet shopping provision expire. Both are major tax increases...the largest ever. They continually support more programs which will dwarf even these two ginormous mistakes through a back door socialized medicine program in SCHIP as well as their front door proposal in socialized medicine by promoting socialized medicine. I am truly terrified for our nation's future if these big-government, tax and spend, lying defeatists win. Ugh.
-Caomhin
20 September 2007
Al Gore...Saving the Planet on His Private Jet, Raping the Planet and Wallets
-Caomhin