On the gargantuan lie of climate change science

Here is an excellent deconstruction of the anthropogenic climate science scam by Denis G. Rancourt.

In all of human history, what was believed and promoted by the majority of service intellectuals (high priests) in each civilization was only created and maintained to support the hierarchy and the place of the high priests within the hierarchy. To believe that the present is any different regarding any issue managed by our “experts”, whether in medicine, psychology, cosmology, economics, law and governance, population health or ecology, is pure distilled idiocy.

Never mind that the whole climate change scam is now driven by the top-level financiers newly eyeing a multi-trillion-dollar paper economy of carbon trading and that this is the reason it’s now a dominant mainstream media and corporate messaging presence [1].

Never mind that this paper economy of carbon trading will be the largest financial extortion enterprise since the invention of the US-centered military-backed global finance structure of predation itself.

Never mind that establishment scientists are service intellectuals who virtually never diverge from supporting power, who at best look for sanitized and hypothetical “problems” that do not threaten hierarchy and who feed their false self-image of relevance [2][3].

Never mind also the pathetic recent historical record of science with regard to identifying or solving public health and environmental problems [4][5][6].

Never mind all that. Take the red pill by considering the climate “science” fairy tale itself and examine its story elements.

Here goes, in five story-element steps.

Read on…

Carbon Tax – A Classic Socialist Ploy

At first glance the net result of the proposed Carbon Tax, taxing suppliers who will pass the increases on to consumers and then compensating consumers for their tax burden, would seem to be a fair evening-out of the process because the consumer, in theory, will be paying no more or less than before.

However, just consider for a moment the social implications of this process. Taxpayers who would, without the Carbon Tax, be able to hang on to their wealth or dispose of it however they want totally independent of government interference. They have earned their income and feel that it is their property with all the pride and satisfaction which accompanies this.

Now compare this to the taxation/compensation process whereby a proportion of taxpayers’ earnings is initially lost to them and is only retrieved by the good graces of Government. Consider this. Are we creating a class of dependent citizens? One which will be expected to show gratitude towards its benefactor, the Government?

Since winning the election of 2007 the ALP has displayed a penchant for appearing to be generous. I have a friend who, upon returning to Australia after having spent four years in the UK, was a little peeved to have just missed out on the $900 stimulus payment in 2009. I explained to him that it was not really a gift. It was a refund from tax already collected. I was wrong though. I now see it more as a loan which was to be called in at a later date. This one-off payment, the home insulation and school hall building was an expenditure, dressed as a gift, which needed to be recouped and, I suspect, the Mining and Carbon taxes are part of that recovery. The NBN of course has provided an extra incentive to increase tax receipts.