. Here’s another elite with another plan to tax away our wealth
The elites never rest when it comes to devising new ways to take yourmoney through taxes, inflation, or outright confiscation. The latest Trojanhorse the elites are riding to take your money is climate change.
The climate does change over long periods of time for reasons that arenot well understood except that they are complex and almost impossible tomodel. I lived for many years on Long Island Sound. It’s a beautiful body ofwater that supports fishing, boating, and allows the simple aesthetic pleasureof gazing at the sea.
Yet, I was constantly reminded by looking at the rocky shore that itused to be a glacier during the last Ice Age. (Glaciers push rocks and otherdebris aside creating something called a moraine. When the glacier melts, themoraine remains, which is why former glaciers have rocky shores.) That’sclimate change!
Yet, today’s climate change alarmism is not based on science. Mildglobal warming stopped in the late 1990s. Sea level increases are about seveninches per 100 years; hardly cause for concern and likely reversible throughnatural processes. Polar bear populations are thriving contrary to Al Gore.There is no evidence that C02 causes warming (although there is evidencethat warming causes C02 release, which is why some correlation exists).
So, why all the panic and hyperventilating about ‘climate change’ by theelites? The answer is that climate change is aperfect vehicle to use for the imposition of global taxes and globalregulation.
The climate is global. If you have a global solution, you need a global problem, and climate change fits the bill.
As described in this article, climate change alarmists want developed economies like the US and UK either to impose ‘carbon taxes’ on emissions, or to collect a ‘border carbon adjustment’ tax. This would be a transfer payment from rich countries to poor countries to compensate for the fact that rich countries import goods that contribute to C02 release through poor country manufacturing or extraction processes. By making carbon more expensive, the relative cost of solar and wind power will be more attractive.
The article was written by Adair Turner, a UK super-elite and George Soros front man.
None of this is a free lunch. Basically, it’sa way to tax rich country consumers to subsidise poor country development. Ofcourse, those poor countries are often the source of dictatorships and humanrights abuses.
Climate alarmism is not good science. But,it is a perfect excuse to impose even more taxes on you and me.
III. Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four did not arrive by 1984. Butit’s here now.
Most readers are familiar with George Orwell’s classic dystopiannovel Nineteen Eighty-Four (often published as 1984).It was written in 1948; the title comes from reversing the last two digits.
The novel describes a world of three global empires (Oceania, Eurasia,and Eastasia) in a constant state of war. Orwell created an original vocabularyfor his book, much of which is in common, if sardonic, usage today. Terms such as Thought Police, Big Brother, doublethink, Newspeak, andmemory hole all come from Nineteen Eight-Four.
Orwell intended it as a warning about how certain countries might evolvein the aftermath of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War. Hewas certainly concerned about Stalinism, but his warnings applied to Westerndemocracies also.
When the calendar year 1984 came and went, many breathed a sigh ofrelief that Orwell’s prophesy had not come true. That sigh of relief waspremature.
Orwell’s nightmare society is here today in the form of Communist China.As described in this article, China has most of the apparatus of the totalitarian societies described in Orwell’s book.
China uses facial recognition software and ubiquitous digitalsurveillance to keep track of its citizens. The internet is censored andmonitored. Real-life thought police will arrest you for expressing opinionsopposed to the government or its policies. Millions of Chinese have beenarrested and sent to ‘re-education’ camps for brainwashing (the lucky ones) orinvoluntary organ removal without anaesthesia (the unlucky ones who die inexcruciating pain are swiftly cremated as a result).
The question is not whether we should have a trade war with China. Thequestion is why we should trade with China at all. Americans who support tradeand investment in China are supporting Big Brother. They should hope thatthey’re not soon flushed down the memory hole.
IV. Why Trump will win re-election: not polls or pundits, just commonsense
Political analysts use polls, betting odds, historic trends, and otherinputs to make their (usually wrong) political predictions. We all rememberthat ‘experts’ said Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in 2016 (they gaveher a 92% chance on the morning of the election), and that the UK would vote to‘remain’ in the EU (they gave that a 70% chance of the day of the Brexitreferendum). Both forecasts were wildly wrong. There are many other examples wecould provide.
We use predictive analytic models as well, but they’re much better thanthe norm. Which is how we got the Trump and Brexit predictions correct. One ofthe factors we add that most analysts do not is anecdotal evidence. This couldbe anything from casual conversations with everyday people to counting lawnsigns or observing bumper stickers.
Most analysts reject this kind of information because it’s difficult toquantify and put into equations. My view is the opposite. Anecdotal evidence isthe most valuable information you can gather because it comes straight from thepeople who actually vote and determine outcomes. Why use intermediarytechniques when you can hear or see evidence directly?
Another name for this is common sense. A good example of a reporter whouses common sense is Sharyl Attkisson, the author of this article. She writes that Trump will be re-elected as president next November.
Her basis for this includes the extreme vetting Trump has already beenthrough; (you may like him or dislike him, but there’s not much about him wedon’t already know), and Trump’s track record of accomplishment. Attkissonlists other factors that I would include under the heading of ‘common sense’.Professional analysts don’t think much of Attkisson’s method, but in my viewshe has this exactly right.
Reading the article is a good way to get away from the conventionalnoise and get straight to what’s happening in the real world.
V. If the science is not on your side, just try threats
It’s clear that good science does not support the extreme claims of theclimate alarmists. Yes, there is such a thing as climate change, but it’s slow,difficult to predict, and almost impossible to model because of the complexityof the process.
The climate alarmists have grabbed most of the headlines for the past 10years, but they are slowly losing the scientificdebate as real scientists come forward to debunk their extreme claims.
If climate alarmists can’t win elections or prevail based on science,what’s left? The answer is they will bully corporations and individuals withthreats of fines, penalties, and declining stock prices if they don’t fall inline with the extremists.
Climate alarmists have had some success getting consultants, regulators,investment managers, and foundation directors to sign on to various pledges andgoals designed to advance their agenda. Journalists have also been recruited torepeat the alarmist claims ad nauseam and to bully those who disagree.
This article is a good example of that kind of threatening behaviour. Theconsulting firm of Oliver Wyman just published a report warning investors thatthey should be careful of owning companies that don’t do enough to implementso-called clean energy programs. Wyman warns that those ‘dirty’ companies couldend up paying carbon taxes and fines, which could drag down their stock pricesand causes losses to investors.
This type of threat is designed to getinvestors to dump those stocks (hurting executives who rely on high stockprices) or force target companies to adapt the green agenda (or else).
What Wyman fails to mention is that there are no carbon taxes. There areno fines for C02 emissions. Oil andnatural gas are the lifeblood of the global economy and will remain so fordecades, if not longer.
Wyman’scrude attempt at intimidation is laughable. But, they’re not alone and thiswon’t be the last time you see efforts like this. The climate alarmists are notgood at science or politics, but they excel at threats and intimidation
