Skip to comments.NASA's Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth
Posted on 01/01/2009 11:15:42 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
Climate realists around the world have contended for years that the real goal of alarmists such as Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his followers is to use the fear of man-made global warming to redistribute wealth.
On Monday, one of Gore's leading scientific resources, Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, sent a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama specifically urging the president-elect to enact a tax on carbon emissions that would take money from higher-income Americans and distribute the proceeds to the less fortunate.
The eco-socialism cat was let out of the bag on page five of a PDF Hansen published at Columbia University's website on December 29 (emphasis added, h/t Britain's Guardian, file photo):
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Global Warming is a political movement that is designed
to promote socialism and eliminate unbridled capitalism.
Global Warming is clearly a mental disorder. This so-called "scientist" Hansen has it bad and needs to be personally "decarbonized".
Inacting Hanson’s ideas would have the same effect as passing Smoot Hawley again. It would probably be even worse..
There is no doubt in my mine that the 'Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth' is the major objective:-)))))))
I was working at NASA back around '74 when, one day, one of the researchers noted gloomily that NASA has just passed a milestone: one administrator for each scientist.
He's insane and evil and extremely power hungry. He was caught red handed lying about the past two decades having all of the hottest years when the 1930s had quite a few
As to the stuff about the hottest years...Well, whaddya know! Turns out that's wrong, too. Figures from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) now show the hottest year since 1880 was 1934. Nineteen-ninety-eight dropped to second, while the third hottest year was way back in 1921. Indeed, four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, while only three were in the past decade.
The real 15 hottest years are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before the chief "greenhouse gas," atmospheric carbon dioxide, began its sharp rise; seven occurred afterwards
Former Rep Cynthis McKinney wants to know whay NASA is planning mroe exploration of Mickey Mouse’s dog....
Happy New Year Bump & A Ping!
Its so sickening that these lying liberals will stoop to anyting to force their way on the world.
I propose a tax on all the uber-libs who love to use other people’s money to fund their wacky ideas. How about a fifty percent of their wealth tax on any of the screwballs, like Hanson and the rest of the Hollyweird ignorati, who advocate these preposterously, nutty notions?
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute explained, "It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their wealth redistribution agenda."
This NASA scumbag, Hansen, is way behind the curve if he just came up with this idea to help Obama shove his socialist agenda down America's throat. The UN has been scheming for years. Of course, it will be amusing to see how this steaming pantload 0bama splits the difference.
He forgot to say ‘’my wealth excluded’’.
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
It certainly isn't about improving the life of mere “humans”, nor about (trying to) change temperatures.
Most of us here have known this for a long time.
What this incidence should do is.....
.....serve as hard and convincing evidence that some of the scientists on this issue are not pure as the wind driven snow
.....serve as hard and convincing evidence that some of the top "scientists" on the AGW side have a conflict of interest and should be ignored.
They say it is the "denier" side that has been compromised by money and politics. The evidence is CLEAR that the AGW side is the one with the agenda. This issue for these people IS NOT about science or "saving the planet", it is about forcing socialism and communism down the USA's throat.
I suppose you didn't notice, but these barbarians have been at the gate for 30 years. I was in college with them when they were young impressionable liberals, and now they are running things. Back then they were anti-nuclear, anti-coal, pro-solar, and wanted us to live more simply with little to no heat and, instead of driving, have us take public transportation everywhere.
Global warming is simply their way of achieving their end, by claiming global catastrophe. Back in the 1970s they could not make this claim; they couldn't even claim their options were more economic.
29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America
Dear Michelle and Barack,
We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.
Barack has spoken of a planet in peril and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.
We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these details could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times. [...]
(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a carbon tax and 100% dividend.
A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.
A rising carbon price is essential to decarbonize the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The publics near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.
The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.
The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.
Cap and trade generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security. [...]
James and Anniek Hansen
United States of America
Historically, famine has been used by governments to control a population. Not very PC today. SO they’re bound and determined to create “energy famines”....