Worse
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 ...
I'm awaiting his follow-up letter where he suggests Obama implement mandatory abortions for any woman who already has two children. Given how much of a misanthropic Kool Aid drinker this guy seems to be to me, it wouldn't surprise me to find out he supports Chinese population control efforts.
The irony, of course, is that once Obama gets done slashing NASA’s budget, they won’t have enough money a janitor.
PAH!
uncle fenders said:"Separation of church and state" only applies to traditional, Christian churches. The ones with crosses on top.
why don’t we get global warming and environementalism declared actual religions, then when ever they open their mouths we can use the seperation of church and state line on them...
There's no separation of Mosque and state, or coven and state. Environmental religions would get freedom of expression, but no prohibition of establishment. According to liberals, the establishment clause only applies to Christians, and possibly Jews sometimes.
Remarkable story—the truth appears so rarely these days.
Can’t they put him in a rocket and send him plunging into the depths of Uranus?
Worse
Hay moron, give them all your money, leave mine alone!
Good to see Hansen coming right out with his true motives behind global warming as a tool for social manipulation.
Either he works for NASA or he hawks the Global Warming Hoax—he can’t do both.What did you think NASA is kept for? Space walks?
You so called conservatives who despise governmet programs but love NASA are hypocrites.
NASA, AKA a black hole for government funding, is another tool for the left and should be defunded like any other government program.
James E. Hansen (science fraud), needs the words “science fraud” permanently attached to his name. He should rightfully join the panoply of the great science frauds of history: But he also has a place in their highest tier, of those frauds who did so with intent of malicious harm to as many people as possible, as well as science itself.
Trofim Lysenko
Paul Ralph Ehrlich
James E. Hansen
What do you say we start with Hansen’s wealth?
Sounds like a good population-control measure as well with the two half-shares per family proposal.
Wasn’t it Newsbusters who had that article from the London Telegraph about 2008 bringing and end to the fallacy of man made global warming and how most of the European politicians had given up on the issue, while the US liberals were digging in deeper?
I disagree with this, and with the headline, as an interpretation of Hansen's remarks. He states up front that his goal is to "decarbonize" the economy, and his tax idea is aimed at that. It's clear enough to me that Hansen is a true believer, and charges that he is engaged in fraudulent science for the sake of a socialist agenda are specious.
Still, it is true that his per capita redistribution idea springs from an egalitarian imagination, although Hansen tries to justify it on the basis that it is something the public will accept.
Aside from this question, he makes some very puzzling statements about his proposal.
His claim that, "A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money." seems completely insupportable to me. It's a person, or household, that USES less than average that will nominally get more back than he, or it, pays.
Also, he says, "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." How does he figure this? The newspapers regularly remind us that high energy prices strap the "poor", so one would have to think that they are aleady doing everything they can to reduce usage.
Of course, the real lulu is "No large bureaucracy is needed." This just highlights the naivete of a would-be philospher king.
Only drugs or insanity could produce a comment like this:
“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.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.