Forum Sceptique

MOSSAD a écrit :Non, je ne suis pas pro-capitaliste. Ö que non...

(et surveille ton langage mon jeune ami...)

Au contraire, ce sont des globalistes et des capitalistes qui promeuvent ces nouvelles politiques fondées sur la fausse science du "réchauffement planétaire causé par l'activité humaine". Les globalistes (l'Union européenne est à la tête de ce mouvement) se servent de la théorie du réchauffement planétaire (qui n'est pas du domaine de la politique) pour faire gober de nouvelles taxes et un contrôle plus serrré de notre mode de vie.

En bout de ligne, cela va servir à justifier un NOUVEL ORDRE ÉCO-FASCISTE MONDIAL.

Zwielicht a écrit :Commençons donc par le Dr. Ross McKitrick, la personne-contact pour l'étude dont tu parles : économiste (BA, MA, Ph.D. Economics). Évidemment, l'économie est la science fondamentale derrière les mécanismes intervenant dans les changements climatiques .

Trouve-moi les 49 autres qu'on rie un peu!

With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/stor ... 68,00.html) to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions” (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm). Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads” (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 80,00.html). That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li ... 392644.ece) for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel (http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_426235932). The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4610755.stm). This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps” (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... hange/home), mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls” (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 338123a0fb), to combat climate change.

The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770). Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”

I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste ... 54,00.html) nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 ... _to_p.html). No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

MOSSAD a écrit :Bush unveils voluntary plan to reduce global warming
February 14, 2002
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITIC ... index.html

Mossad a écrit :Au contraire, ce sont des globalistes et des capitalistes qui promeuvent ces nouvelles politiques fondées sur la fausse science du "réchauffement planétaire causé par l'activité humaine". Les globalistes (l'Union européenne est à la tête de ce mouvement) se servent de la théorie du réchauffement planétaire (qui n'est pas du domaine de la politique) pour faire gober de nouvelles taxes et un contrôle plus serrré de notre mode de vie.

En bout de ligne, cela va servir à justifier un NOUVEL ORDRE ÉCO-FASCISTE MONDIAL.

(...)

Donc, toujours en suivant cette pata-logique, les mouvements verts européens et nord-américains sont des néo-fascistes d'extrême droite (pléonasme, ici)! CQFD

A global tax on greenhouse gas emissions

Motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads”

“Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”

Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps

Region-wide’ road tolls”

Spying on homeowners to make sure they go green

A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska

A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year (...) for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year.

ti-pol a écrit :En aucun temps il est mentionné McKitrick fait parti des 50 scientifiques en question

ti-pol a écrit : et tout ce que tu peux objecter a ce résumé de ces études indépendantes devrait etre de mise pour le résumé émit par des bureaucrates au sujet des multiples études du GEIC.

ti-pol a écrit :Une analyse indépendante

ti-pol a écrit :par 50 scientifiques indépendants

ti-poil a écrit :Zwizwi coincé est tellement con qu'il ne se rend pas compte qu'on est en face de deux résumés fait pas deux groupes qui ne sont pas du meme avis concernant les études du GEIC.

ti-poil a écrit :Oui Zwizwi dit nous qui dit vrai?

MOSSAD a écrit :Ce mois-ci dans Executive Intelligence Review (Lyndon Larouche, qui a été mis en prison par Bush pour ses "idées subversives".)

Zwielicht a écrit :J'en ai d'autres pour toi (et aussi pour petroune) : si l'hypothèse du réchauffement de la planète causé par les humains est une invention des globalistes, comment se fait-il que l'Institut Fraser, qui comporte comme membres (entre autres) la femme de Conrad Black et messieurs Mike Harris, Ralph Klein et Preston Manning (bilderbergers), a récemment publié une analyse qui tente de dénigrer l'hypothèse du réchauffement de la planète causé par nos émissions de CO2 ?

MOSSAD a écrit :Vous ne considérez même pas ce que je vous dit au fond: ça va servir à nous prendre nos libertés, point final.
Je suis environnementaliste dans mon style de vie, mais les globalistes se sont emparés de ce discours désormais politiquement correct pour nous passer un sapin!

MOSSAD a écrit :C'est clair qu'en fait ces nouvelles mesures de "lutte contre les émission de CO2 et le réchauffement planétaire" ne vont pas aller réduire la pollution à sa source (les grandes industries comme Exxon qui devraient devenir 'Vertes', sans compter les vraies sources de réchauffement : les océans émettent du CO2 à la tonne, l'activité solaire accrue) mais plutôt taxer et contrôler le consommateur...

Je suis d'accord qu'il faut lutter contre la pollution, mais le réchauffement planétaire est inévitable...