Posted by
rycK on Monday, May 19, 2008 7:43:15 AM
300 Years of British Inbreeding Brings us Flop Ears the EcoNazi Prophet of Doom
As a well-known architectural critic in LondonTown, the unexciting consort of Princess Diana now joined with the EcoNazis and embraced their psychosis. Someday they will dig up some key graves in Merry Olde England and see who was screwing whom and provide us with an analysis of the mental effects of incest.
300 Years of British Inbreeding culminates in this form of rant:
“"It is immensely complex so it is not just a question of stopping deforestation in its tracks, but you have to start looking at all the other interrelated elements such as water, agriculture, and of course governance and transparency", Prince Charles advised.
"Halting deforestation would be the easiest and cheapest way of helping in the fight against climate change.
"Waiting for all the new technologies to come on stream is... not going to be soon enough."[1] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]
This is a big money maker for the European elites such as the shrunken remains of the House of Windsor. The scam is called ‘cap and trade’ where some government sets CO2 emission limits and then sells ‘credits’ to those who exceed these artificial limits. A lot of money can be madder here in terms of an environmental tax. No matter that CO2 has nothing to with global warming[2], the thirst of more taxes drives this hysteria. The actual basis is a mere tax scam. Governments need new and wonderful means of taxing corporations and this is their most important grunt and grab escapade.
EcoNazism is now a political bandwagon with even the hysterical John McCain and others trolling for dollars and votes in this circus.
“Matthias Duwe, director of the campaign group Climate Action Network Europe, was one of the few participants in the hearing who criticised the proposals from an environmental, rather than a commercial, perspective.
He argued that the revamped system would still have serious shortcomings.
The overall aim of the Commission's blueprint is to ensure that companies covered by it reduce their emissions by 21 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels. This target, according to Duwe, is "no way near what is necessary" to prevent climate change from having increasingly dire consequences for humanity.”[3]
Translated, this means the money is wasted and we face doom anyway. And, this also means huge costs for business as they have to compete now with India and China who will not participate in this farce. So, if we are going to die anyway and resort to cannibalism as Ted Turner[4] suggests why let the Chinese and Indians slurp up the last profits before we boil? When the Royal Rectum blesses us with its daily dose of flatulence how much does accelerate our doom?
“José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, has indicated that he would be prepared to continue giving free allowances to firms in such sectors as chemicals and steel production if no agreement can be reached on setting up an international emissions trading system. Barroso's comments followed concerns expressed by European companies that they would not be able to compete with the U.S. and rising economic players like India and China if they have to pay for licences to pollute.”
Well, what is the CO2 level we need to reach if a 21 percent reduction is not enough? How about 50% or 75%. The Scots think that 25% of their emissions come from farming.[5] Soon, we easily approach the Zero Emission Limit and our society collapses, which is fine with the EcoNazis and their Stooges in the Royalty. The worst estimates of human’s contributions to the CO2 levels are estimated to be 35% since the industrial revolution[6]. Does this mean that we have to cut back our industry by [25/35] or 67%?? How would we produce food or heat our homes? If we banned all cars on the planet would the levels drop 10%? Where area the answers to these questions?
This is a political essay in new ways to tax and that is all it is. The surface and air temperature of the earth is controlled by the sun and there is no way, as yet, to tax that energy source. Parasitic politicians like Al Gore[7] fly around the planet spewing out tons of CO2 while calling for others to cut back and then create corporations to squeeze high profits from the carbon credit auctions. There was no shame when their famous computer models that predicted new hurricanes and higher average temperature were shown to be wrong only last year. The temperature went down as the CO2 levels apparently raise. Do they look like fools now?[8]
Flop Ears and his inbred associates see a great opportunity to hike taxes and attack capitalism, the mechanism that has destroyed their precious Marxist and socialist dreams.
Their predictions are hilariously backward and they look like fools so oppose these EcoFreaks wherever possible. They are greedy, lying ghouls and worse.
rycK
Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com
[2] 21,000 Scientists Refute the Phony Global Warming Follies as The Biggest Attempt to Tax The World Has Even Seen.
Monday, January 28, 200810:46 AM
http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/c9173a36-97a1-4108-9e7d-cdaa38b28cbf
“I have a general distrust of politicians as their craft is not based on truth but on persuasion. The disgraced Russian politician and pseudo scientist Lysenko and US liberals have much in common.[2] When I see some movement where huge tax revenues are to be directed into specific areas where politicians or their supplicants may benefit I become suspicious. I have commented before on Global Warming. [2] We saw some ‘computer models’ predict 14 major hurricanes after Katrina of the next year [there were zero] and ‘about the same’ for 2007 and we also saw zero! Where is the top-shelf science in weather prediction when we get 0 for 14 twice in a row? We saw the beginning of this brand of phony science with the 1972 with the publication of the book The Limits to Growth [2] , a book that made hilarious predictions and made the authors look like fools as they used their ‘computer model’ to alert us that we would run out of out of oil by 1992, diminish our supplies of copper and lead about the same time and then run out of natural gas by 1993. Is there no shame here? Can the political left think they can just make wild predictions and that we must follow their follies? Why can they not explain where their predictions went wrong? The answer is political.
We must remember Rachel Carson’ Silent Spring[2] and the phony ‘science’ behind the DDT ban that was not based on good science. This was a political victory for the far left who vacated the government pressure groups world wide when the USSR crashed in 1989. That is when the Sierra Club and other organizations suffered an influx of far left political operatives who have only an attack on capitalism as their thrust. I have discussed some of this phony science before.[2] This is not science; this is gutter-level politics of the far left. Their psychotic hatred of capitalism is driving this phony Global Warming Circus as a means of producing the biggest tax haul in the history of the Universe.”
The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming
$27.95 http://store.demanddebate.com/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html
Great Global Warming Swindle DVD
$19.95 http://store.demanddebate.com/great-global-warming-swindle-dvd.html
[6] “Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass. The mass of the Earth atmosphere is 5.14×1018 kg [14], so the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0×1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes). Its concentration varies seasonally (see graph at right) and also considerably on a regional basis: in urban areas it is generally higher and indoors it can reach 10 times the background atmospheric concentration.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; see greenhouse effect for more.
Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[15] In 1999, 2,244,804,000 metric tons of CO2 were produced in the U.S. as a result of electric energy generation. This is an output rate of 0.6083 kg (1.341 pounds) per kWh.[16]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Isolation