 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Copenhagen Controlfreakonomics!... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| b0n-o... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
November 1 2009
QUOTE: the underlying agenda and overarching goal is not to control the
climate, so much, but to control the governance of the world. The climate is
just part of a much wider agenda. It's called Controlfreakonomics!
QUOTE: The generally accepted notion is that Australia's attendance at
Copenhagen will just be to vote on a global emissions limit and our own
national emissions limit.This is what the public has been led to believe
that COP15 (Copenhagen Treaty) is all about. But it isn't.
QUOTE: Interestingly, countries like Singapore and rich oil-producing
countries are expected to be beneficiaries. The "world Government" will be
establishing special funds to compensate wealthy Middle Eastern oil states
when their oil runs out. Now there's a CO2 twist.
QUOTE: even if developed countries suffer a financial meltdown, a
catastrophic event like a pandemic, an earthquake or asteroid strike - the
cash must still roll out.
It isn't easy being green
We got it wrong.
Here we all were worrying about whether the science of "human induced
climate change" was based on sound scientific evidence, rather than crude
supposition and faulty computer modelling, when all the time the real issue
was quietly ticking away and creeping ever slowly towards a real global
catastrophe.
While our attention was diverted by arguments about why the planet's oceans
and land temperatures had failed to get hotter during the past 10 years, or
why the build-up of ice in Antarctica was actually increasing. Or what the
actual consequences might be if we, the human race, with unbelievable
arrogance, thought we could alter the natural fluctuating nature of Earth's
climate - the real game was being conducted behind closed doors or at least
beyond the view of we mere mortals.
The world is facing a catastrophe alright!
And that catastrophe isn't the threat of "global warming" but the threat of
"global government".
As details of the Draft Treaty of Copenhagen slowly become clearer, what is
revealed is that the underlying agenda and overarching goal is not to
control the climate, so much, but to control the governance of the world.
The climate is just part of a much wider agenda. It's called
Controlfreakonomics!
The generally accepted notion is that Australia's attendance at Copenhagen
will just be to vote on a global emissions limit and our own national
emissions limit.This is what the public has been led to believe that COP15
(Copenhagen Treaty) is all about. But it isn't.
The Copenhagen Treaty is about the formation of a new "world government"
that will control all aspects the planet's future - as decided by an
unelected, unrepresented group of UN appointed apparatchiks.
At least that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from a reading of it.
The Draft Treaty of Copenhagen is truly Orwellian.
Clause 38:
a) The government [read: World Climate Government] will be ruled by the COP
with the support of a new subsidiary body on adoption, and of an Executive
Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related
facilitative processes and bodies.
This "government" will engage all countries, party to the Copenhagen Treaty,
into commercially binding, legally enforceable, contracts regarding their
"emissions targets" with cash deposits required to back up their "targets"
if they look like being non-compliant. Countries that fail to meet their
targets will forfeit their deposits.
This new "government" will be demanding cash transfers of massive amounts of
money from "developed" countries to undeveloped/under-developed countries as
part of the Copenhagen Treaty.
This week, in advance of the big carbon-fest at Copenhagen, the EU decided
on their first yearly instalment of E180 billion, as an opening bid.
The US, Japan, Australia, and Canada will be expected to be putting up their
yearly contribution amounts.
Interestingly, countries like Singapore and rich oil-producing countries are
expected to be beneficiaries. The "world Government" will be establishing
special funds to compensate wealthy Middle Eastern oil states when their oil
runs out. Now there's a CO2 twist.
An interesting Clause on Page 11 of the Draft Treaty states " . global
crises, such as financial crises, should not constitute an obstacle to the
provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in
accordance with the Convention."
So even if developed countries suffer a financial meltdown, a catastrophic
event like a pandemic, an earthquake or asteroid strike - the cash must
still roll out.
Developed countries like Australia are going to be handcuffed to a Treaty
from which there is no escape.
Lord Monckton, in a recent address to business leaders in St. Paul,
Minnesota said:
" have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is
going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of
three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of
wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in
satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" - because we've been
burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and
they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is
enforcement. How many of you think the word "election," or "democracy" or
"vote," or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite
right, it doesn't appear once. "
While the KRudd government and the opposition have been arguing the toss
about an ETS, the issue of most concern is the wording of the Copenhagen
Treaty.
The limited (almost non-existent) media coverage about the fine print of
COP15 means that the citizens of Australia have no idea as to the dangers
involved should Australia sign COP15 as it stands.
And the big question is - Will the Copenhagen Treaty be debated and voted on
by the Australian Parliament? - or will it be another one of those
international treaties simply signed by the Prime Minister. Another one of
our "international obligations"!
It isn't easy being green
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/controlfreakonomics
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don H... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"b0n-o" <b at (no spam) y.com> wrote in message news:4aee727f$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[quote]
November 1 2009
QUOTE: the underlying agenda and overarching goal is not to control the
climate, so much, but to control the governance of the world. The climate
is
just part of a much wider agenda. It's called Controlfreakonomics!
QUOTE: The generally accepted notion is that Australia's attendance at
Copenhagen will just be to vote on a global emissions limit and our own
national emissions limit.This is what the public has been led to believe
that COP15 (Copenhagen Treaty) is all about. But it isn't.
QUOTE: Interestingly, countries like Singapore and rich oil-producing
countries are expected to be beneficiaries. The "world Government" will be
establishing special funds to compensate wealthy Middle Eastern oil states
when their oil runs out. Now there's a CO2 twist.
QUOTE: even if developed countries suffer a financial meltdown, a
catastrophic event like a pandemic, an earthquake or asteroid strike - the
cash must still roll out.
It isn't easy being green
We got it wrong.
Here we all were worrying about whether the science of "human induced
climate change" was based on sound scientific evidence, rather than crude
supposition and faulty computer modelling, when all the time the real
issue
was quietly ticking away and creeping ever slowly towards a real global
catastrophe.
While our attention was diverted by arguments about why the planet's
oceans
and land temperatures had failed to get hotter during the past 10 years,
or
why the build-up of ice in Antarctica was actually increasing. Or what the
actual consequences might be if we, the human race, with unbelievable
arrogance, thought we could alter the natural fluctuating nature of
Earth's
climate - the real game was being conducted behind closed doors or at
least
beyond the view of we mere mortals.
The world is facing a catastrophe alright!
And that catastrophe isn't the threat of "global warming" but the threat
of
"global government".
As details of the Draft Treaty of Copenhagen slowly become clearer, what
is
revealed is that the underlying agenda and overarching goal is not to
control the climate, so much, but to control the governance of the world.
The climate is just part of a much wider agenda. It's called
Controlfreakonomics!
The generally accepted notion is that Australia's attendance at Copenhagen
will just be to vote on a global emissions limit and our own national
emissions limit.This is what the public has been led to believe that COP15
(Copenhagen Treaty) is all about. But it isn't.
The Copenhagen Treaty is about the formation of a new "world government"
that will control all aspects the planet's future - as decided by an
unelected, unrepresented group of UN appointed apparatchiks.
At least that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from a reading of
it.
The Draft Treaty of Copenhagen is truly Orwellian.
Clause 38:
a) The government [read: World Climate Government] will be ruled by the
COP
with the support of a new subsidiary body on adoption, and of an Executive
Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related
facilitative processes and bodies.
This "government" will engage all countries, party to the Copenhagen
Treaty,
into commercially binding, legally enforceable, contracts regarding their
"emissions targets" with cash deposits required to back up their "targets"
if they look like being non-compliant. Countries that fail to meet their
targets will forfeit their deposits.
This new "government" will be demanding cash transfers of massive amounts
of
money from "developed" countries to undeveloped/under-developed countries
as
part of the Copenhagen Treaty.
This week, in advance of the big carbon-fest at Copenhagen, the EU decided
on their first yearly instalment of E180 billion, as an opening bid.
The US, Japan, Australia, and Canada will be expected to be putting up
their
yearly contribution amounts.
Interestingly, countries like Singapore and rich oil-producing countries
are
expected to be beneficiaries. The "world Government" will be establishing
special funds to compensate wealthy Middle Eastern oil states when their
oil
runs out. Now there's a CO2 twist.
An interesting Clause on Page 11 of the Draft Treaty states " . global
crises, such as financial crises, should not constitute an obstacle to the
provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in
accordance with the Convention."
So even if developed countries suffer a financial meltdown, a catastrophic
event like a pandemic, an earthquake or asteroid strike - the cash must
still roll out.
Developed countries like Australia are going to be handcuffed to a Treaty
from which there is no escape.
Lord Monckton, in a recent address to business leaders in St. Paul,
Minnesota said:
" have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government
is
going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first
of
three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of
wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in
satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" - because we've been
burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and
they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government,
is
enforcement. How many of you think the word "election," or "democracy" or
"vote," or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite
right, it doesn't appear once. "
While the KRudd government and the opposition have been arguing the toss
about an ETS, the issue of most concern is the wording of the Copenhagen
Treaty.
The limited (almost non-existent) media coverage about the fine print of
COP15 means that the citizens of Australia have no idea as to the dangers
involved should Australia sign COP15 as it stands.
And the big question is - Will the Copenhagen Treaty be debated and voted
on
by the Australian Parliament? - or will it be another one of those
international treaties simply signed by the Prime Minister. Another one of
our "international obligations"!
It isn't easy being green
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/controlfreakonomics
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of
scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University,
Townsville
[/quote]
# No one need expect the Copenhagen Conference to solve anything much. Of
course, if they welcomed in the inevitable protesters from outside, and had
a dinkum debate, we might get results.
On the matter of the alleged sinister world government plot, this may be
Plutocracy using the opportunity to expand its Transnational reach to the
next stage of Panplutocracy - world conquest.
Who runs the European Union, for example? The democratic vote of
national governments? Or the wealthy elite behind such govts?
Irrespective, Copenhagen had better come up with real solutions to
carbon emissions and climate change, as there is nowhere to hide from it.
Nuclear war is survivable, if you have a bunker and can dwell there until
the radioactive clouds disappear - in 35 years time.
With climate change, when you emerge the problem is still there - but
worse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kangarooistan... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:05 am, "Don H" <donlhumphr... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]"b0n-o" <b... at (no spam) y.com> wrote in messagenews:4aee727f$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
November 1 2009
QUOTE: the underlying agenda and overarching goal is not to control the
climate, so much, but to control the governance of the world. The climate
is
just part of a much wider agenda. It's called Controlfreakonomics!
QUOTE: The generally accepted notion is that Australia's attendance at
Copenhagen will just be to vote on a global emissions limit and our own
national emissions limit.This is what the public has been led to believe
that COP15 (Copenhagen Treaty) is all about. But it isn't.
QUOTE: Interestingly, countries like Singapore and rich oil-producing
countries are expected to be beneficiaries. The "world Government" will be
establishing special funds to compensate wealthy Middle Eastern oil states
when their oil runs out. Now there's a CO2 twist.
QUOTE: even if developed countries suffer a financial meltdown, a
catastrophic event like a pandemic, an earthquake or asteroid strike - the
cash must still roll out.
It isn't easy being green
We got it wrong.
Here we all were worrying about whether the science of "human induced
climate change" was based on sound scientific evidence, rather than crude
supposition and faulty computer modelling, when all the time the real
issue
was quietly ticking away and creeping ever slowly towards a real global
catastrophe.
While our attention was diverted by arguments about why the planet's
oceans
and land temperatures had failed to get hotter during the past 10 years,
or
why the build-up of ice in Antarctica was actually increasing. Or what the
actual consequences might be if we, the human race, with unbelievable
arrogance, thought we could alter the natural fluctuating nature of
Earth's
climate - the real game was being conducted behind closed doors or at
least
beyond the view of we mere mortals.
The world is facing a catastrophe alright!
And that catastrophe isn't the threat of "global warming" but the threat
of
"global government".
As details of the Draft Treaty of Copenhagen slowly become clearer, what
is
revealed is that the underlying agenda and overarching goal is not to
control the climate, so much, but to control the governance of the world.
The climate is just part of a much wider agenda. It's called
Controlfreakonomics!
The generally accepted notion is that Australia's attendance at Copenhagen
will just be to vote on a global emissions limit and our own national
emissions limit.This is what the public has been led to believe that COP15
(Copenhagen Treaty) is all about. But it isn't.
The Copenhagen Treaty is about the formation of a new "world government"
that will control all aspects the planet's future - as decided by an
unelected, unrepresented group of UN appointed apparatchiks.
At least that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from a reading of
it.
The Draft Treaty of Copenhagen is truly Orwellian.
Clause 38:
a) The government [read: World Climate Government] will be ruled by the
COP
with the support of a new subsidiary body on adoption, and of an Executive
Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related
facilitative processes and bodies.
This "government" will engage all countries, party to the Copenhagen
Treaty,
into commercially binding, legally enforceable, contracts regarding their
"emissions targets" with cash deposits required to back up their "targets"
if they look like being non-compliant. Countries that fail to meet their
targets will forfeit their deposits.
This new "government" will be demanding cash transfers of massive amounts
of
money from "developed" countries to undeveloped/under-developed countries
as
part of the Copenhagen Treaty.
This week, in advance of the big carbon-fest at Copenhagen, the EU decided
on their first yearly instalment of E180 billion, as an opening bid.
The US, Japan, Australia, and Canada will be expected to be putting up
their
yearly contribution amounts.
Interestingly, countries like Singapore and rich oil-producing countries
are
expected to be beneficiaries. The "world Government" will be establishing
special funds to compensate wealthy Middle Eastern oil states when their
oil
runs out. Now there's a CO2 twist.
An interesting Clause on Page 11 of the Draft Treaty states " . global
crises, such as financial crises, should not constitute an obstacle to the
provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in
accordance with the Convention."
So even if developed countries suffer a financial meltdown, a catastrophic
event like a pandemic, an earthquake or asteroid strike - the cash must
still roll out.
Developed countries like Australia are going to be handcuffed to a Treaty
from which there is no escape.
Lord Monckton, in a recent address to business leaders in St. Paul,
Minnesota said:
" have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government
is
going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first
of
three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of
wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in
satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" - because we've been
burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and
they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government,
is
enforcement. How many of you think the word "election," or "democracy" or
"vote," or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite
right, it doesn't appear once. "
While the KRudd government and the opposition have been arguing the toss
about an ETS, the issue of most concern is the wording of the Copenhagen
Treaty.
The limited (almost non-existent) media coverage about the fine print of
COP15 means that the citizens of Australia have no idea as to the dangers
involved should Australia sign COP15 as it stands.
And the big question is - Will the Copenhagen Treaty be debated and voted
on
by the Australian Parliament? - or will it be another one of those
international treaties simply signed by the Prime Minister. Another one of
our "international obligations"!
It isn't easy being green
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/controlfreakon...
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of
scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University,
Townsville
# No one need expect the Copenhagen Conference to solve anything much. Of
course, if they welcomed in the inevitable protesters from outside, and had
a dinkum debate, we might get results.
On the matter of the alleged sinister world government plot, this may be
Plutocracy using the opportunity to expand its Transnational reach to the
next stage of Panplutocracy - world conquest.
[/quote]
Indeed thats EXACTLY what Copenhagen seeks to achieve
disguised as a green movement the ruling Elites want LAWS that give
the jews / via a UN body likeIMf or world Bank , thhe RIGHT to extracr
the wealth of the globe into their hands
[quote] Who runs the European Union, for example? The democratic vote of
national governments? Or the wealthy elite behind such govts?
[/quote]
Those with the MONEY RULE THE WORLD
WHO CONTROLS THE MONEY
WHO CONTROLS THE IMF and the WORLD BANK,
JEWS
they want the RIGHT to charge what ever they like to the sheeple who
need water and air to live Pay the price the JEWS set to those who OWN
the right to trade water and carbon , ie jews
[quote] Irrespective, Copenhagen had better come up with real solutions to
carbon emissions and climate change, as there is nowhere to hide from it.
Nuclear war is survivable, if you have a bunker and can dwell there until
the radioactive clouds disappear - in 35 years time.
With climate change, when you emerge the problem is still there - but
worse.
[/quote]
Taxing Carbon wont stop global warming
trading water wont save the River Murray
Only adding " tin cans " or battleships , [ iron ] to the ocean will
CURE global warming as it is irrigation that led to iron deficient
oceans destroying natures NATURAL carbon sink
The Carbon " TAX " / trading permits will be used exactly like the
salt tax , except it will be run by those who OWN the " rights " to
emmit carbon , check out the financial pages in newspapers to see how
enthusiatic some financial experts are , they openly claim it WILL be
more profitable and BIGGER than the oil industry
The consumer will pay , exactly like the salt tax , everybody will be
caught in their scam
Taxation of salt in India was greatly increased when the British East
India Company began to establish its rule over provinces in India. In
1835, special taxes were imposed on Indian salt to facilitate its
import. This paid huge dividends for the traders of the British East
India Company. When the Crown took over the administration of India
from the Company in 1858, the taxes were not repealed.
The stringent salt taxes imposed by the British were vehemently
condemned by the Indian public. In 1885, at the first session of the
Indian National Congress in Bombay, a prominent Congress Leader
S.A.Swaminatha Iyer raised the issue of the salt tax[1]. There were
further protests throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries
culminating in Mahatma Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha in 1930.
In the eastern coast, salt could be obtained extensively along the
coast of Orissa[2]. The salt produced by the salt pans called khalaris
in Oriya is of the finest quality in all India[2]. There has always
been a demand for Orissa salt in Bengal[2].
When the British took over the administration of Bengal, they too
felt its need and traded for salt. Gradually they monopolized Orissa
salt all over Bengal[2]. To check smuggling and illegal
transportation, they sent armies into Orissa resulting in the conquest
of Orissa in 1803[2].
Since the introduction of the first taxes on salt by the British East
India Company, the laws have been subjected to fervent criticism. The
Chamber of Commerce in Bristol was one of the first to submit a
petition opposing the Salt tax:
The price to the consumer here [in England] is but about 30s per
ton instead of 20 pounds per ton as in India; and if it were necessary
to abolish the Salt tax at home some years since it appears to your
petitioners that the millions of her Majesty's subjects of India have
a much stronger claim for remission in their case, wretchedly poor as
they are, and essentially necessary as salt is to their daily
sustenance, and to the prevention of disease in such a climate[7]
The Salt Tax was criticized at a public meeting at Cuttack in February
1888. In the first session of the Indian National Congress held in
1885 in Bombay, a prominent Congress member, S.A. Swaminatha Iyer
pleaded against the salt tax[8][9][10].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India
The Salt Tax was criticized at a public meeting at Cuttack in February
1888. In the first session of the Indian National Congress held in
1885 in Bombay, a prominent Congress member, S.A. Swaminatha Iyer
pleaded against the salt tax[8][9][10].
It would be unjust and unrighteous if the tax on salt should be
increased. It is a necessary article both for human as well as animal
well-being... it would be bad policy and a retrograde movement to
raise the tax, especially at a time when the poor millions of India
are anxiously looking forward for a further reduction of the tax....
As any increase, therefore, of this tax will fall heavily upon the
masses of the people of the land, I would strongly urge upon the
attention of this Congress the necessity of its entering its strong
protest against any attempt on the part of Government to raise the tax
on salt[1]
At the Allahabad session of the Indian National Congress in 1888,
Narayan Vishnu, a delegate from Poona vehemently opposed the Indian
Salt Act. A resolution was passed wherein the delegates present
declared 'That this Congress do put on record its disapproval of the
recent enhancement of the salt tax as involving a perceptible increase
to the burden of the poorer classes, as also the 'partial adoption, in
a time of peace and plenty, of the of the only financial reserve of
the Empire.' The 1892 session at Allahabad concluded thus: '... We do
not know when the tax will be reduced. So that there is every
necessity for our repeating this prayer in the interests of the
masses, and we earnestly hope that it will he granted before long'. A
similar sort of protest was also issued at the Congress session at
Ahmedabad.
The Salt Tax was also protested by eminent people like Dadabhai
Naoroji. On August 14, 1894, he thundered in the House of Commons:
Then the Salt Tax, the most cruel Revenue imposed in any civilised
country provided Rs. 8,600,000/- and that with the opium 'formed the
bulk of the revenue of India, which was drawn from the wretchedness of
the people.... It mattered not what the State received was called -
tax, rent, revenue, or by any other name they liked - the simple fact
of the matter was, that out of a certain annual national production
the State took a certain portion. Now it would not also matter much
about the portion taken by the State if that portion, as in this
country, returned to people themselves, from whom it was raised. But
the misfortune and the evil was that much of this portion did not
return to the people, and that the whole system of Revenue and the
economic condition of the people became unnatural and oppressive, with
dangers to the rulers. So long as the system went on, so long must the
people go on, living wretched lives. There was a constant draining
away of India's resources, and she could never therefore, be a
prosperous country. Not only that, but in time India must perish, and
with it perish the British Empire[1]
In 1895, George Hamilton stated at a session of the House of Commons
that:
Time has, however, now come when the Government finds itself in
possession of larger surpluses and it is, therefore, its duty as
guardian of public exchequer, to reduce taxation on salt
When the Salt tax was doubled in the year 1923, |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:09 pm
|
|