In answer to the question "Is global warming a threat to the human species?", Richard Dawkins says "Yes. You could say that the human species is a threat to the human species. I recommend Al Gore's film on global warming. See it and weep. Not just for the human species. Weep for what we could have had in 2000, but for the vote-rigging in Jeb Bush's Florida."
So that's pretty clear. Anyway, he's a geneticist, not a climatologist. Just because he's one of the world's most respected scientists, it doesn't make him a leading expert on the climate (although I suspect some of his close friends are). Anyway he has other battles to fight.
Global warming is a cover for one thing and one thing only, to strip country's of there sovereignty and to form a new world order (one world government).
The Tax they want to impose will fund this new world order.
How can people be so bloody naive and blind to what's going on.
Just remember nothing is done without the authority from the committee of 300.
Look up Dr John Coleman.
Again as ever I expect this to be deleted.
Well firstly, I agree with you but in defence of this forum, I think you are wide of the mark. This thread is up and running since I started it, I think there has been some genuine confusion about whether this thread should have been posted in this section but not one of the threads has been deleted. However in terms of the global governance which they seek and which I disagree with and oppose, that in itself does not not disprove it, but the fact that many scientists have opposed to this, proves there is no concensus. The fact that information has been falsified, doctored and or deleted proves criminality and as to the underlying trend, the fact is no one knows what the future holds and these alarmist statements are designed to push us further under the control bureaucrats.
Now my gut instinct even before seeing the various temperature graphs, was 3 fold, carbon taxing has been on the agenda for a long time, secondly on a visit to San Remo the guide who led us, which was back in 2000 informed us that the weathered rock was a result of temperatures being much hotter in the previous 200 years, plus I knew about the polar bears potentially being in scotland by 1980. Now things had come full circle, carbon dioxide is now supposedly a pollutant and because of it the earth will keep warming.
I then had the misfortune to watch that fake al gore spout about the horrors of global warming and the terrible damage it will inflict on the earth unless stop all carbon dioxide emissions in the west. The same al gore who won't appear to debate with anyone, the same al gore who won't appear in his private jet without a 300,000 appearance fee.
It is only when I then start reading further that I saw there is an agreed framework called contraction and convergence. So that these groups who have taken control of everywhere outside of the west, or fed off them, have now made a commitment to reduce the wests wealth 5 fold by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90%. Now lets suppose you believe this has to be done, then putting my objections aside, to then argue that the wests wealth will not be reduced 5 fold is dishonest or just bizarre.
As I stated at the beginning I invite anyone to disprove that contraction and convergence exists and furthermore, if they can't to at least disprove it's end goals, now if you can't, then you need to ask yourself whether you are prepared to live like someone in the third world. If you are, well fair enough, but are you prepared to do so while the main polluters can continue to pollute all they like through the very mechanism of cap and trade, i.e. they buy more credits to "pay" for their pollution.
Also there seems to be a lot of misinterpretation of the planned funds to the third world. There seems to be a perception that they pledge to give 100 billion and the third world gets 100 billion, but that does not factor in the huge administration of the new bureaucracy which this gives birth to. The reality is most of the 100 billion will only line the pockets of the same groups who are robbing us blind right now.
As for the notion that those against this are willing or unwitting stooges of the oil corporations, perhaps you will find this very telling
22 October '09
3:00 AM EDT
No Comments
Policy
Share
BP to Chamber: “We're Staying”
In a speech at the Oil & Money Conference in London, BP CEO Tony Hayward urged for a strong private/government partnership to implement a comprehensive cap-and-trade system.That's a polar opposite stance to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's own anti cap-and-trade position.
On cap-and-trade Hayward said:
At BP we favour a Cap and Trade system because it gives environmental certainty based on an absolute emissions cap.
Such a system needs to treat all carbon as equal and push for the best possible outcome in terms of both the carbon and economic impact across all industrial sectors.
The oil corporations can't lose, there are simple things which they can do to offset their carbon emissions which will make this a profitable venture for them as well as a huge potential profit by investing in carbon trading derivatives.
So this whole idea that oil is against this, is a falsehood and all of this adds up to us  on ourselves if we just blindly support these actions before firstly considering what the implications and consequences are on us. Do I want to see the the third world suffer? no of course not, do i want to see the earth suffer? no of course not, which is why i want gm banned, which is why i want a ban on the usage of depleted uranium amongst many other things but what I certainly don't want is for our standard of living to slip down the toilet and become something more resembling the third world.
I have also heard it mentioned that it will be the IMF who will administer the carbon tax system's monies and if this is true, then wow, just read Confessions Of An Economic Hitman.
Not up with the thread, so ignore me if this has been posted, but I thought this provided a nicely presented summary of the climate change debate that might be of interest:
Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful
Cheers, Carl.
Since when does anything to do with taxes actually have to 'add up'? There are also an uncountable number of 'stealth taxes', but this subject enables the possibility of creating any number of taxes, all out in the open. No doubt supported by some weak evidence formed from some Government 'bright ideas club'.
Anyway, it's all good for me, I have spent the last 10 years selling technology solutions to central Gov at just below Minister level. So I for one will be well and truly jumping on the big fat gravy train 
If you want to get into a debate about sovereignty and the New World Order,then that is one for GC (rather than CC or GW).
The 'New World Order' may certainly be coming about but it is down to the likes of Carrefour, Tesco, Walmart, MicroSoft, GM and t'Internet rather than some rather spurious fears about possible tax increases.
Just seen that the magnetic field is getting weeker which is allowing more sun light in,NG channel mag poles about to swop.
Its good to see that there are people that can see whats happing in terms of the NEW WORLD ORDER.
In terms of who is responsible for trying to create it, you might want to do a bit of research into how there going to fund and create it. The companys you mentioned will have a hand but it will all fall down to the Committee of 300.
This thread has been constructive and hopefully I have put to bed this misconception that the oil industry is opposing this, when in fact there is no substance to that, as the quote I posted illustrates.
As for balancing act, they have hundreds and hundreds of terrorism laws, they have always had on the grounds of national security, backed by real evidence the power to snoop on suspects. They don't need to introduce more, these actions are the antithesis of a free society and make a mockery of the very word.
If they wanted to fire back a salvo at real terrorism, they would not inject fear, would starve them of publicity and would not strip away our rights.
Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970), Unpopular Essays (1950), "Outline of Intellectual Rubbish".
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983).
A timid person is frightened before a danger, a coward during the time, and a courageous person afterward.
Jean Paul Richter (1763 - 1825).
It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable.
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983), The Passionate State of Mind, 1954.