noworldsystem.com


The Church of Global Warming

The Church of Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QL_HaYgLYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkLOLFBRXVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lE81_rWvZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV2Wp3BpDKU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qZvCpWM6uA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0iOvWlR6qE

 



Copenhagen Treaty Creates Global Government Tax

Copenhagen Treaty Creates Global Government Tax

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 9, 2009

Lord Christopher Monckton warns that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.

Speaking with The Alex Jones Show, Monckton, who is in Copenhagen attending the UN climate summit, said that when he attempted to obtain a copy of the current draft of the negotiating text agreement, he was initially rebuffed before he threatened an international diplomatic incident unless the document was forthcoming.

“I insisted and it took about 10 minutes and they consulted each other with three or four of them arguing over it – none of them would produce the document….I said I know this treaty exists because this is what the conference is all about,” said Monckton.

Only after Monckton threatened repercussions was he handed the the current draft of the treaty, and the details it contained are perhaps a clue as to why the UN officials were so keen to keep it under wraps.

“Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government,” said Monckton, adding that the word “government” was no longer used but the process of further centralization of power into global hands was clearly spelled out in the treaty.

Monckton said that the new world government outlined in the treaty would be handed powers to, “Tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, to impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….and to close down effectively the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third world countries – all of that is still in the treaty draft.”

As the leaked document out of Copenhagen reported on by the London Guardian revealed yesterday, this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.

“The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions,” reported the Guardian.

Monckton illustrated the size of the new taxes being proposed by noting they amounted to at least half of the entire US defense budget.

“This is how they are going to fund this vast new government they’re setting up,” said Monckton, adding that he counted around 700 new bureaucracies that would be created as a result of the treaty, which would be bankrolled by taxpayers even outside of the raft of new taxes the treaty would create.

Monckton outlined how the new taxes would be enforced, stating, “They’re going to auction allowances to emit greenhouse gases and if you don’t buy an allowance to emit greenhouse gases, you won’t be allowed to emit them,” adding that the text contained a provision for a “uniform global levy of $2 dollars per ton of CO2 for all fossil fuel emissions,” as well as an additional tax on every commercial plane journey, except ones that go in or out of poorer countries.

There would also be a “global levy on international monetary transactions – that means every transfer of money across borders will be taxed,” said Monckton, adding that this would be on top of the GDP tax.

 

Lord Monckton: Obama may sign a “Copenhagen Agreement” instead of Treaty

LifeSiteNews
December 9, 2009

In a brief video released on the Internet, Lord Christopher Monkton is seen giving a speech today in Copenhagen warning that President Obama will try to use his Executive Authority to sign an agreement, rather than a treaty, to commit the United States to undertake measures against climate change that will seriously damage the freedoms and prosperity of America.

Monkton states, “President Obama is going to come here (Copenhagen) and sign the Copenhagen Agreement.” He says it’s no longer being called a treaty specifically because US Senators “know they can’t get a treaty through the US Senate.” Monkton continues explaining, “so, President Obama is going to sign this agreement by his executive authority and he will then put it through both houses of Congress by a vote of simple majority.”

Monkton states that this executive agreement will stand “with almost the same force as a treaty” under the US Constitution. The one large difference, Monkton however notes, is that an Executive Agreement can be repealed by a following president, but a treaty cannot be repealed. Therefore, The British Lord and science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher noted, “one power that President Obama does not have is to commit the United States unilaterally to measures of a scale and horror envisaged in this treaty or agreement…”

The recent “climategate” revelations provided the basis for especially condemning closing comments from the internationally famous climate sceptic and campaigner against climate hysteria.

Monkton emphasized, “there is no longer any basis whatsoever for saying that any action is required over the climate. We have seen now in the climategate that a couple of dozen bad and extremely malevolent and unpleasant scientists – this clique, this cabal, this conspiracy, because that is what it is, have tried to bend, fiddle and fudge the data, year after year and they’ve now been caught and exposed by the activities of one gallant whistleblower at this very moment when we now know that the climate fraud is the fraud that we all expected it to be.”

Monckton concluded with a warning that the president, “either unaware or aware and uncaring wishes to sign” American “freedom and prosperity away.”

See Lord Monkton’s detailed, one hour, fascinating expose of climate change

Also see Lord Monkton interview on Michael Coren television program

UK’s richest man could make more than £1bn from carbon trading scheme

Abbott warns of $400bn tax bill under draft Copenhagen agreement

 



ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil

ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil

News Busters
December 5, 2009

The Climatic Research Unit at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal sought funds from Shell Oil in the year 2000.

Other e-mail messages obtained from the University of East Anglia’s computers also showed officials at the school’s CRU solicited support from ExxonMobil and BP Amoco, although the nature of this support was not identified.

As climate alarmists and their media minions love to claim that global warming skeptics are all paid shills of Big Oil, it makes one wonder how the press will report these startling revelations discovered by Anthony Watts Friday:

Mick Kelley to Mike Hulme

    Mike
    Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
    agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
    partner and will contribute to a studentship fund
    though under certain
    conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
    after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
    asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
    etc. By email? In person?
    I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim
    who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
    make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
    I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach
    will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off
    Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
    what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
    new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s
    within the remit.
    Regards
    Mick

Earlier that same year, the recipient of this e-mail message, Mike Hulme, sent a message of his own concerning getting “support” from a number of entities (emphasis added):

Mike Hulme to Simon Shackley

    Simon,

    I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

    – Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
    – Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
    – Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
    – ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
    […]
    >SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
    >sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
    >contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
    >Amoco
    contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
    >engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
    >
    >We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
    >Does anyone know any investment bankers?
    >
    >Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
    >finalise the list.
    >
    >I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
    >support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
    >used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
    >in brackets).
    >
    >Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
    >Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
    >Jenkins]
    >Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
    >Shepherd]
    >Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
    >[Mike Hulme]
    >Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
    >Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
    >Shackley]
    >Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
    >Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
    >Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
    >
    >
    >Possibles:
    >Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
    >Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
    >Jenkins]
    >Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
    >[Nick Jenkins]
    >Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
    >Cannell]
    >Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
    >
    >With kind regards
    >
    >Simon Shackley

Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.

Read Full Article Here

Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics!

Shell calls for derivatives on carbon trading

 



Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

TreeHugger
August 17, 2009

Exxon, the largest oil company in the world has stated that it prefers a carbon tax to a cap and trade system–again–this time, specifically in Australia. This comes on the heels of news last week that Australia’s parliament rejected a cap and trade system for curbing emissions–there won’t be another vote on the bill for at least 3 months (Aussies voted ‘no’ again!). So what’s behind Exxon’s vocal pro-carbon tax stance?

From Bloomberg:

    “A carbon tax is more transparent to consumers, will achieve greater environmental benefits and is more difficult to manipulate than a cap-and-trade program,” John Dashwood, chairman of Exxon’s Australian unit, said in speech notes e- mailed ahead of an address today in Melbourne.

A little puzzling is the fact that Australia’s proposed carbon cap featured relatively low emission reduction targets–as low as 5% reduction from 2000 levels by 2020. Hardly a demanding commitment, at least in the short term (this is why many members of Australia’s own Green party voted against the cap and trade themselves–it wasn’t strict enough).

Nonetheless, some economists, along with experts like James Hansen and Al Gore, prefer the carbon tax option. Throw in Exxon Mobil, and you’ve got yourself an eclectic band of misfits. Economists (and presumably Exxon) argue that the tax is a more efficient and inexpensive way to curb carbon. From Bloomberg:

    Imposing a global carbon tax would ease pressure on the climate more cheaply than emissions trading, according to a study released last week by Danish professor Bjoern Lomborg. A $0.50 tax for each ton of emissions may generate $1.51 in avoided climate damage, compared with costs as high as $68 per ton, resulting in 2 cents of avoided damage, under some emissions-mitigations models, the study said.

Another possible reason for Exxon’s sudden support could be good old fashioned political gamesmanship–the idea of a carbon tax is potentially extremely unpopular (as is anything that includes the word “tax” in its moniker). If the company has reason to believe a carbon tax is very unlikely to actually pass Australian parliament, it can voice support for it and appear environmentally inclined without having to make any actual adjustments. However, Exxon makes for a powerful voice of support, and having the oil giant in favor could draw other businesses’, politicians’, and citizen support for a carbon tax, which could eventually create stricter regulations on the oil giant than a cap would.

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics

Shell calls for derivatives on carbon trading

 



Al Gore Set To Make Billions On Carbon Tax Scam

Al Gore Set To Make Billions On Carbon Tax Scam


Obama to help Gore’s pocketbook by signing the ‘global climate treaty’ in Copenhagen, Denmark on Dec.7-18

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 3, 2009

The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.

As is to be expected, the article is largely a whitewash and takes an apologist stance in defense of Gore.

However, the NY Times‘ John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.

“Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years,” states the report, highlighting the fact that Gore is “well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”

“Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in,” writes Broder.

Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

The Times report notes how Gore “has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.” As we reported back in March, before he became President Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGN8_YvQdbM

 

ClimateGate: Phil Jones has collected a staggering $22.6 million in grants

IceAge Now
November 21, 2009

Excerpts from a post by Michael Shedlock – “It’s now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam. The global warming thesis was completely fabricated.

“Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.

“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.

“Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See Briefing Room.

 



Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 3, 2009

A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.

According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.

In a speech last month, Tillerson brazenly called out the cap and trade agenda for what it was, an effort to impose a carbon tax camouflaged only by a slick sales pitch and deceptive rhetoric.

“It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,” said Tillerson. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,” he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.

Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.”

Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was restated last week by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”

Exxon Mobil and their ilk are not concerned about a carbon tax eating into their profits because they know they won’t have to pay it – the tab will be picked up by the ignorant taxpayer at the fuel pump at an inflated cost which if anything will hand the transnational oil cartels an even bigger cut.

Ideologically, Al Gore and Exxon Mobil are on exactly the same page – the only difference between the oil companies and global warming alarmists is the squabble over who will get to sink their teeth into the taxpayer and reap the dividends of the climate change scam.

Read Full Article Here

 



Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Nachi.org
November 19, 2009

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!

This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA….

A License Required for your house

Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded.

However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

* A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.

The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.

* In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
* To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
* Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
* Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
* If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.

The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.

Sect. 202:

Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.

You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.

You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”

Sect. 204:

Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.

And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.

But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.

Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.

Sect. 304:

Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)