23
Sep
2014
Using IPCC’s Own Numbers to Defeat UN Climate Policy Agenda
In honor of the summit in NYC, I used the latest IPCC report to show that a popular policy goal fails a global cost/benefit test. Now you know why they are moving the goalposts.
It’s coming full circle. Now it’s a population problem:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-change-isnt-the-problem-a-population-bomb-is-killing-us-2014-09-23?siteid=yhoof2
Population growth is simultaneously a self-solving problem and the largest contribution to expanding carbon dioxide emmissions.
“Billionaire philanthropists met secretly in Manhattan five years ago: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and others. Each took 15 minutes to present their favorite cause. Asked what was the “umbrella cause?” They all agreed: Overpopulation, said the billionaires.”
Self anointed elite are perpetually looking for that magical issue they can advance to command and control the masses. They thought they had it with Global Warming but that fell apart. Facts are inconvenient things. Now it’s back to overpopulation. Ecosystems will stabilize themselves. We don’t need elite central planners doing it.
If the above referenced elites truly believe in their cause, perhaps they should lead by example.
So why do billionaires hold this position? I’m always very interested in how underlying beliefs support peoples policy positions. For example, I’m quite aware that my fierce independence underlies my libertarianism. Is it that they assume that if there were much fewer people, those left would be more like themselves? I’m not sure it’s simply the desire for power, but I don’t know. It could be. For some reason (he he) I have trouble thinking like G. Soros.
Dave,
Good question. Each probably has slightly different motivations but underlying all of it is hubris. I suspect very few reach the Billionaire status and not believe they are divinely special and entitled to unencumbered resources on the planet to “best serve the masses”
But if you are all will to send me a billion dollars I would be pleased to get inside the doors of the club to find out for sure and report back to everyone. 🙂
Bob, would you agree that there is a difference between climate science on the one hand and its effect on the economy (and the costs of mitigation for that matter)?
Since they are different you can say there agreement on one and disagreement on the other?