Carbon Tax (or Cap-and-Trade) is Coming to Us All

Our planet is dynamic and climate change is real; however, blaming CO2 is a political agenda not based on science.

Carbon taxes will raise a bunch of revenue for the government; i.e., take a bunch of money out of the economy, without actual benefit.

Politicians propose to stop climate change by "developing the undeveloped nations," which would be financed by imposing carbon trading schemes on developed nations; aka, redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Of course, development on such a scale will increase overall CO2 emissions....but don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

The world elites are forcing this upon us to jack the rest of the money from our cold, dead hands. We're already taxed cradle to grave in the US. We resemble 16th century England these days. Oligarchy and all.

A carbon tax would correspond to a lump-sum transfer that also affects the poor, so we would have to compensate them with higher social benefits or something for their otherwise reduced purchasing power; in general, nullifying the overall impact for government revenues. So the tax not is also about control. The ones to benefit financially will be the investors running the climate exchanges.


Trading carbon credits in carbon markets is the newest investment scheme. Energy traders and Wall Street financiers are at the heart of this scheme. The Chicago Climate Exchange (a carbon trading exchange), which includes some 400 companies, is now the largest cap-and-trade market in the world. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs.

The people behind this scam are not altruistic environmentalists. They are financiers, investment banks and hedge funds. There is already a Carbon Credit Futures market, carbon credit trading exchanges in European (ECX) and in Chicago (CCX), and carbon credit derivatives products. Sound familiar? This is all about creating billions of dollars, quite literally, out of thin air, based up on a hoax, sold to us by world luminaries and super salesmen like Al Gore, who of course has invested heavily in all things to do with climate change, and is flying around the world in his private jet, peddling his wares. He is set to become the world’s first carbon billionaire, and if the “business” of carbon trading continues expanding, there will be many more to follow. Al Gore is chairman of Generation Investment Management (GIM). David Blood, the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is the CEO. But the bottom line is that GIM is about making money. GIM owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, and the Chicago Climate Exchange owns half of the European Climate Exchange. So if the United States and Europe adopt a government-enforced "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme, Al Gore and his fellow investors will rake in billions of dollars. The man-made global warming scare is the greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind, and its associated carbon credit trading scam is the greatest hustle. [Source]

Remember the Ozone Hole scam ? They forced everyone to change refrigerants and it cost billions... However the single largest user of R 11 and R 12 was exempted from the law... Who was that you ask? The U.S. Government. That's right, all government properties were exempted. Once they made a few billion in taxes we never heard of the Ozone Homes ever again....

The deniers are those who refuse to believe the science which indicates global warming is a hoax propagated by hustlers looking for a profit.

Climate Change is real. And it really is 99.9 percent the result of natural climate cycles, CO2 release from sea beds, volcano activity,  and proximity of the sun and sun spots. We do have an impact but never to the degree, no pun intended, that the money seekers want Gruber's public to believe.

"This is a small victory but an important one," said Senator Barbara Boxer. "It means we are that much closer to controlling every aspect of peoples lives. Something we've been wanting to do for a long, long time." (Okay. I might have made that last part up. But I promise, if she didn't come right out and say it, she was thinking it.)

Carbon dioxide (carbon taxes) was initiated by economists, not a scientists, and has nothing to do with climate change and a lot to do with a vehicle to control the global economy. The error is being more widely challenged by the scientific community and educators, so governments and their agencies are now just calling it 'Carbon' or even pollution.

Economist 1: "What if the tax doesn't influence the carbon price much?"
Economist 2: "Then we gain a boat load of money that doesn't have to come out of inefficient taxes on work and investment"

Economist 3: What if a carbon price doesn't immediately drive emission reductions?
Economist 4: Then the tax will be an effective revenue raiser, much more efficient than a tax on income. 

Leftist1: "What if the tax doesn't make the environment better."
Leftist2: "When we get a boatload more money transferred to the government, it's win-win mate."

So how much do you take in bribes to reverse your decision??? We the people know Congress can and has been bought and paid for for a long time. Decisions are based solely on the desires of the rich. they pay less taxes each year while the working people pay more. So how much money can Congress steal with global warming laws, rules and regulations. Liars, criminals and thieves - the best Congress money can buy..

What Britain or Australia or even the US does about a carbon tax is not going to do anything except make voters and politicians "feel good" about themselves while they're destroying their own economy.

Climate change is a natural part of our planet. Happened many time in the past, and will continue to happen. The age of oil and burning is going to be over soon enough anyway, without some sort of carbon tax to enrich governments. That is why governments are so keen on climate change.

Klaus Hager 44-year veteran German meteorologist, placed dozens of older mercury thermometers side-by-side with modern instruments used today. Over an eight and half year study he found on average that the newer thermometers showed temperatures 0.93 deg C higher than the old mercury types. Germany began replacing their mercury thermometers in 1985 at all 2000 weather stations and completed the task by 2000. "Warming" in Germany began in 1986, stopped in 2000 and has been flat since 2000, and also was flat prior to 1985. Coincidence?

Why not go to the NOAA website and read the page entitled "Global Analysis - Annual 2014" and see for yourself what the changes are? Anyone notice that the latest report on the global temperature for the year 2014 had a 38% level of accuracy/certainty in the report? What the heck does that mean? Seems like they are saying the temperature went up but we are only 38% certain of that. I found that interesting. Not saying the temperature did not go up, just questioning a report that questions itself and is presented in the media without that little piece of the pie showing up. So... if my common core math is correct... that means they are 62% certain that the report is inaccurate. Wonder how come we didn't read THAT in the media.

It is meaningless to discuss climate change unless and until the governments of the world disclose the impact of the almost nonstop spraying of the atmosphere as part of their geo-engineering programs and other military programs. The only solution the UN is offering is a carbon credit tax scheme that they hope will allow it to reap trillions in long term carbon taxes. Keep an eye on Paris: that is where they are hoping to get this structure in place. The only reason the Chinese have tentatively agreed to sign on to it is they don't have to pay anything under the treaty. Which just shows how ridiculous the whole thing is since China is a big time polluter.

Guilt and fear drive legislation. In this case, guilt creates jobs in politics, which is a drain on the economy.

My question is, Why does each side feel they need an "all or nothing" take on this. Why can the climate have a natural change that is not being perpetuated by man into a greater than normal cycle?

What happened to Global Warming ? LOL The narrative is changing because the Al Gore prophesy failed to materialize. The world was supposed to be gone by now according to Al Gore.

It is immensely ignorant to deny that climate change is happening - as it has been happening since the beginning of the earth's existence. The debate is over what effect man has on it - and whether man has the power to change it. It is also debatable if anything man does to change the present course is actually good for the planet. Mirror Lake in Yosemite is gone. It is due to the river silting in. Initially, the Park Service and environmentalists were alarmed, until research showed that this is a normal occurrence over time and has happened before man was even there. They used to fight forest fires in Yosemite - until they realized that Giant Sequoias needed the heat from fires to open their cones and the burn-off of underbrush to allow seedlings to grow. The complexity of God's creation astounds - and its ability to adapt astounds. The only thing that is more astounding is mankind's arrogance in thinking we have any control over what happens to His creation.

I find it very interesting that the global warming advocates, scientists, and weather experts never consider our main source of warming....the sun. These people want to believe that there is some sort of solar thermostat and never consider the fact the sun has been burning hotter. Over the past 30-40 years, sunspot activity has increased.(the result of the sun burning hotter) and the fact that Mars has had dramatic retractions of its polar frozen ice caps. Hmmmm. Not too much fossil fuel emissions and man-made pollution on Mars last time I checked.

This just goes to prove what liberals refused to accept for years. Republicans agree that there is climate change: it has been happening naturally since the beginning of time, before human interference "proved by science." The rest of the claims of how humans affected it and how/if they can change science and natural progression is all hypothetical with contradicted and proven manipulated data, not science....

We are experiencing the NORMAL ebb and flow of temperature fluctuations. It is a historical and meteorological FACT, not fiction. The changes occur over a very regular 500-year sequence, hence the times of the Middle Ages being called a mini-Ice Age. We are now 500 years latter and we are warmer, but likely on the top side of that. Soon this will decline and then everyone will complain about global cooling!!!! That is those that are alive in 500 years.

CO2 is uniquely different from other greenhouse gases and most scientists know we should not look at it by sheer volume, but that is how we are told to look at carbon dioxide. We know that its ability to capture IR is limited to only three narrow wave bands.

MAN ONLY PRODUCES 0.28% OF THE EARTH’S YEARLY TOTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE while naturally occurring CO2 produces 99.72%. Even if you ignore the limited heating ability of CO2, man's CO2 is not the cause of global warming: it is an effect. It could not be a tipping point without first reducing most of the 99.72% of natural occurring CO2.

Global warning IS real. Here is the thing though. From a Geological Standpoint the Earth has been warming up ever since he last ICE AGE ended about 125 million years ago. The Earth has always run in these cycles. It will warm enough that you will start to see more and move Tectonic Activity and Volcanic Activity. That will release ash into the atmosphere which will cool the Earth down again......Now for the Human part. WE ARE having an effect. We are speeding up the cycles with our emissions. Now the cycle will be much shorter. Weather Patterns will be more severe, BUT the earth will continue to Warm and Cool all by itself. That would be happening whether Humans are here or not. How many of these people who claim people are responsible for climate change have huge investments in companies providing products or services to replace so-called people caused climate change products or services. It is just another lie. Wake up America. Yet another Liberal propaganda piece that starts with the same straw man argument. Of course, it's easy to create a villain that doesn't exist and then pretend you're a knight in shining armor coming in to save the day. So once again, let's set the record straight instead of listening to Liberals create lies. NO ONE said that climate change doesn't exist so please just stop with your stupid comments. The issue has always been how much man can impact it. Nothing more, nothing less. And yet, we have to continuously read nonsense like this article and the brainwashed, ill informed Liberal posters that have been fed the lie so long they actually believe it..

Of course climate change is "real" it has been happening for several million years. Caused by humans? Of course not, humans could not exist until climate change brought oxygen to our atmosphere and that was a result of climate change making it possible for plants to grow. It was the plants that released the oxygen. 

The latest development that has global warming alarmists scratching their heads is the sudden expansion of ice covering the North Pole, growing 60 percent in just the past year, according to the UK Daily Mail.This is fascinating considering that in 2007 the scientific consensus was that by now the North Pole would be ice free, exposing the Arctic Ocean for the first time likely in recorded history, based on computer models.

The persistence of the world not to follow the predictions of global warming enthusiasts points to an old warning that most computer analysts have known since the dawn of the computer age. It's based on the principle of GIGO, or garbage in garbage out. If the data being used to create models that predict the ill-effects of global warming is suspect, then so are the models that it is being used to create them.

To be sure, the increase in the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, all other things being equal, should cause an increase in global temperatures. But all other things are never equal. Other factors, such as ocean currents, the presence of particulate matter in the atmosphere, and especially the output of the sun has as much or even more to do about how hot it is as the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Another phenomenon has scientists puzzled is the conspicuous lack of hurricanes for the 2013 season. One of the tenets of global warming theory is that hurricanes should be more frequent in number and with greater wind velocity and thus damage to coasts where they make landfall. Some climate scientists predict that we may still see some hurricanes, but thus far the oceans have been relatively quiet.

The bottom line is that, with all due respect to Al Gore, the science is not exactly "settled" where it concerns the real world effects of human-caused global warming. That chest-beating pronouncements are being used to create dubious public policy, such as carbon taxes and draconian regulations, then skepticism is the more prudent course.

There is money changing hands somewhere and if you don't see the "carbon tax" coming you are blind. Just ask yourself why does there need to be any amendment to a bill authorizing the digging of a ditch, especially one that isn't needed. This is just the front end of the truck that is running us all over. Wake up America, your freedom is hanging in the balance.

US Senate: Yes, climate change is real

January 22, 2015

AFP - In a surprise move, US Senate Republicans joined Democrats and went on record Wednesday acknowledging that climate change is real.

The symbolic amendment, attached to a controversial bill authorizing contruction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, was approved 98-1 after Senator James Inhofe, seen as the top climate change denier in Congress, announced he was supporting the legislation.

Inhofe however strongly rejected any suggestion that human activity was responsible for climate change.

The move can be seen as a critical step forward for US lawmakers, but it is not a revolutionary one.

The 16-word measure states: "It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax."

It makes no mention of the impact of human activity, including the use of fossil fuels, on global warming.

Two other measures attributing climate change to human activity failed to pass the 60-vote threshold in the 100-member Senate, although one got five Republican votes and the other received 14.

"This is a small victory but an important one," Senator Barbara Boxer, top Democrat on the Senate's environmental panel, told reporters.

"It means that there's a softening of the attitude of the deniers. They're losing ground in the face of public opinion."

Senator Brian Schatz, who introduced the failed measure with the most direct attribution of climate change to human activity, said Wednesday's progress "exceeded my expectations."

"There is an emerging bipartisan group of people who believe that climate change is real and caused by humans and solvable," he said.

The measures were introduced by Democrats keen on highlighting differences with some Republicans on the simmering issue of climate policy.

Republicans hold the majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives following November congressional elections.

But with the 2016 presidential race on the horizon, Republican leaders may have agreed to hold votes on the measures now in order to avoid potentially embarrassing climate votes in the midst of a White House race.

Applause rippled through the chamber when Inhofe declared he was co-sponsoring the measure saying climate change is not a hoax.

"Climate always changed," Inhofe said, noting there was archaeological, historic and "biblical evidence" of that.

"The hoax is, that there are some people who think they are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change the climate. Man can't change climate," Inhofe insisted.

During his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Barack Obama chided Republicans for refusing to acknowledge scientific conclusions that human activity is impacting the climate.

Related:

1. US Senate agrees that climate change is real in a 98 to 1 vote The Verge
2. Senate says climate change real, but doesn't agree on cause Associated Press
3. Wicker lone senator to vote against amendment saying climate change not hoax MarketWatch
4. Keystone XL Moves Closer to Congressional Approval The Wall Street Journal