Australia PM's advisor: "Climate change is a UN hoax to create the new world order"

servantx

New member
Sep 16, 2009
851
26
0
#1
"The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order – provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.


Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.


“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN..."


“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”


http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/08/australia-pms-adviser-climate-change-is-un-hoax-to-create-new-world-order?utm_content=buffer99b13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#2
When an organization which is eminently political at its very heart (the UN) suddenly devises its own science organization (IPCC), and installs a former railroad engineer with a penchant for writing low-grade smut (Pachauri) as its leader... and THEN reaches out to a questionable US politician (Gore) to be its primary spokesman..... what could go wrong? ;)


The UN has always, is, and will always be about gaining more control and more money for itself.


RMT
 

DulceBASS

New member
May 12, 2015
10
0
0
32
#3
I don't know, it seems a lot more plausible that if there was a conspiracy surrounding global warming, that it would be to suppress evidence of it in order to preserve the status quo. I'll grant you that environmental concerns like that require big societal/political changes. There just seems to be more money in keeping things the way they are now, ie people consuming unsustainably buying tons of things they don't need which encourages greenhouse gases. I'm more inclined to believe that transnational organizations are interested in their profits over the short term rather than what happens over the long term and the way they treat the environment bears that out. The way the debate over global warming within the sciences has shaped up seems in line with something out of Kuhn's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" in that global warming is an accepted paradigm which is why the people who claim to have evidence to the contrary aren't taken as seriously by the mainstream.


Even thinking long term, I'd assume a power grab would happen after some major disaster rather than before. Humans aren't the greatest at heeding environmental warnings. Even now where the mainstream argument is that global warming is a threat, we don't see a lot of changes to everyday behavior.
 

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#4
DulceBASS;


They don't want anyone to stop consuming. That has nothing to do with it. They want to TAX your consumption, all the way down to the smallest level, even if they have to make that level up. If given their way, eventually, the animals raised for human consumption will be taxed, paid by the farmers, and ultimately the consumer, for their carbon footprint. Then even people will be required to pay an existence tax to "help" the government offset their carbon contribution. It is pure BS and is used as the cover to take more from "producers" because of their production and the government will, of course, put that money to better use for us, the hapless citizen.
 
May 12, 2015
21
0
0
33
#5
\ said:
DulceBASS;
They don't want anyone to stop consuming. That has nothing to do with it. They want to TAX your consumption, all the way down to the smallest level, even if they have to make that level up. If given their way, eventually, the animals raised for human consumption will be taxed, paid by the farmers, and ultimately the consumer, for their carbon footprint. Then even people will be required to pay an existence tax to "help" the government offset their carbon contribution. It is pure BS and is used as the cover to take more from "producers" because of their production and the government will, of course, put that money to better use for us, the hapless citizen.
But it is NOT the UN who taxes citizens, it's the governments. So why would the UN be behind this "conspiracy theory" and not the governments themselves? There is a lot of evidence to support climate change... in fact climate change IS A FACT. Now if it's caused by human behaviour is still something that cannot be confirmed or denied with 100% proof.
 

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#6
The UN is used as a shell company to further the desires of the governments that support it. The US, BTW, funds over 22% of the UN's general budget and the majority of the cost of sub-divisions of the UN. The next closest country is Japan at 10%. The US, under this current regime, has pushed AGW/Climate Change. Obama has threatened to use the UN to push his Nuke deal with Iran. If, the supporting countries of the UN, wish to "allow" the UN to assess a Global Tax on each countries carbon emissions, who do you think will be paying that tax? Each country can then use the UN as the reason carbon taxes need to be collected, "from the producers of the carbon emissions". The ignorant consumers, a direct result of the "Government controlled schools", will happily support this call for a carbon tax, all the while, having no clue THEY will intimately be paying for it. So, governments, especially liberal led US and European governments, if not directly, will indirectly tax the people. The UN is just the cover, as I already stated.


As far as GW or CC being a fact, you're correct. It has been a fact for 4 billion years. For 3.9999999(00) billion of those years, SUV's and the people that drive them had nothing to do with it... but suddenly... they do.
 
Likes: Einstein
May 13, 2015
92
8
0
40
#7
How come Global Warming is now called Climate Change ? Climate change has always been happening long before humans appeared on the planet. Human's can effect climate by building dams or massive deforestation. But is there a clear link between CO2 and global warming is debatable. Climate change in my opinion is a way to put a tax on CO2 to stop developing countries from advancing.


Saying all that the Oz PM has an extremely bad reputation for environmental concerns. But we would be better off to worry about pollution and deforestation as opposed to CO2 output.
 

ScornedTramp

Active member
Sep 18, 2014
218
30
28
England UK
#8
I think that the 'nature' vs 'humanist' debate is pretty irrelevant. We want to survive and continue so the debate should be, stand back and accept our fate or study and learn and decide to save ourselves from the world
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#9
\ said:
How come Global Warming is now called Climate Change ?
They changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change when, all of a sudden, the globe stopped warming, which was in direct opposition to what their (non-validated) climate models predicted.

\ said:
Climate change in my opinion is a way to put a tax on CO2
Bingo. CO2 is plant food. It has been proven by plenty of data that the increasing CO2 levels have lead to a GREENER planet, and also to higher crop yields, thus the ability to feed more people. The California Air Resources Board's (CARB) own criteria for measuring automobile exhaust emissions is based on how much CO and CO2 is exhausted. The more CO an auto emits, the worse its score on CARB scale and the more likely the auto has to be fixed. Now here is the kicker: The HIGHER the ratio of CO2 that the engine puts out, the cleaner the emissions are (because higher CO2 reflects more complete combustion, thereby minimizing the amount of truly toxic emissions). The cleanest engine is one that emits nothing but CO2 and water vapor.


RMT
 
Likes: Gpa
May 13, 2015
92
8
0
40
#10
\ said:
Bingo. CO2 is plant food. It has been proven by plenty of data that the increasing CO2 levels have lead to a GREENER planet, and also to higher crop yields, thus the ability to feed more people. The California Air Resources Board's (CARB) own criteria for measuring automobile exhaust emissions is based on how much CO and CO2 is exhausted. The more CO an auto emits, the worse its score on CARB scale and the more likely the auto has to be fixed. Now here is the kicker: The HIGHER the ratio of CO2 that the engine puts out, the cleaner the emissions are (because higher CO2 reflects more complete combustion, thereby minimizing the amount of truly toxic emissions). The cleanest engine is one that emits nothing but CO2 and water vapor.


RMT
Just for sake of argument, lets say that it is scientifically proven that increased CO2 increases global temperature. That means the developing world should have 200+ years of CO2 tax credits. The developed world build all of their infrastructure pumping out as much CO2 as the pleased. Then they are saying that China and India for example should have to build their infrastructure while paying a CO2 tax.


So to be fair, they should figure out how much CO2 the developed world pumped out over the last 200 years, and then allow China and India to pump out the same amount of CO2. Afterwards they should have to pay the same CO2 tax as the developed world.


China and India do pump out a lot of pollution, but they are attempting to catch up to the developed world. Per a capita China and India are pumping out a lot less pollution then the developed world.


So beneath the surface global warming is racist.