Final Copenhagen Text Includes Global Transaction Tax


china
Conservative
#1
Final Copenhagen Text Includes Global Transaction Tax


Obama set to bypass Congress and approve massive transfer of wealth to world government

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 18, 2009
The final Copenhagen draft agreement which was hammered out in the early hours of Friday morning includes provisions for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank, as President Obama prepares to bypass Congress by approving a massive transfer of wealth from America into globalist hands.
As Lord Monckton, Alex Jones and others warned, the notion that the globalists would achieve nothing at Copenhagen has likely been a ruse all along. The elite look set to ram through the lion’s share of their agenda, which would include a massive global government tax at a cost of at least $3,000 a year for American families already laboring under a devastating recession, double digit unemployment and a reduction in living standards.
Hillary Clinton arrived yesterday to rally global leaders around a resolution and Barack Obama is set to be portrayed as the savior of the world by rescuing what was pitched all along as a conference doomed to fail.
“The summit “hangs in the balance,” said Obama this morning. “We are running out of time. The time for talk is over. It is better for us to act than to talk. The question is whether we move forward together or split apart.”
The final agreement may not force countries to meet CO2 emission targets, but it will grease the skids for the biggest tax hike in human history, a fact that establishment media outlets have completely failed to emphasize.
Monckton told the Alex Jones Show last week that the initial secretive draft version of the Copenhagen agreement represented a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” and mandated 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.
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.”
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

As the leak of the Danish text outlined, such taxes, earmarked as “climate financing,” will go straight into the coffers of the IMF and the World Bank. These funds will be used to bankroll the imposition of global governance that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon promised would be achieved at Copenhagen.
According to the latest news out of Copenhagen, the taxes that were included in the initial text are still in the final agreement which is set to be passed later today or in the early hours of Saturday morning.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the final text, “Proposes a range of innovative mechanisms for raising the money, ranging from a tax on air and sea transports fuels to a tax on financial transfers.”
This would form part of an initial commitment of $US10 billion a year from 2010 to 2012, climbing to $US50 billion annually by 2015 and $US100 billion by 2020, although these figures will inevitably increase if the UN ramps up its climate fearmongering as it has done at each successive climate conference since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
The treaty outlines, “Penalties or fines for non-compliance,” in developed countries and the creation of an international police force to “enforce its will by imposing unlimited financial penalties on any countries whose performance under this treaty they don’t like,” Monckton told the Alex Jones Show, saying that it amounted to a total global government takeover on an “unimaginable scale”.
“We’re looking at a grab for absolute power and absolute financial control worldwide by the UN and its associated bureaucracies and 700 new bureaucratic bodies,” said Monckton, adding that if the agreement was signed by Obama, the U.S. would be losing its freedom to a “sinister dictatorship” being formed under the contrived pretext of global warming.
Watch Monckton’s latest interview with the Alex Jones Show below.
 
TenPenny
#2
How could Obama (or Harper) bring in a transaction tax without it being voted on?
 
china
Conservative
#3
Those CRU emails expose Copenhagen as a farce



The facts are: ice coverage is unchanged while global temperatures are falling


By Alexander Cockburn
LAST UPDATED 7:17 AM, DECEMBER 18, 2009 Share
Share16



Let us pass from Oslo where Obama went one better than Carter who, you may recall, proclaimed in 1977 that his crusade for energy conservation was "the moral equivalent of war". Obama trumped this with his claim that war is the moral equivalent of peace. As he was proffering this absurdity, Copenhagen was hosting its global warming jamboree, surely the most outlandish foray into intellectual fantasising since the fourth-century Christian bishops assembled for the Council of Nicaea in 325AD to debate whether God the father was supreme or had to share equal status in the pecking order of eternity with his Son and with the Holy Ghost.
Shortly before the Copenhagen summit the proponents of anthropogenic – human-caused - global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistleblower who put on the web more than a thousand emails either sent from or received at the Climate Research

Unit at the University of East Anglia headed by Dr Phil Jones, who has since stepped down from his post – whether temporarily or permanently remains to be seen.
The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling, a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons.
Coolers transmuted into Warmers and the CRU became one of the climate modeling grant mills supplying the often loaded data from which the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has concocted its reports which have been since their inception – particularly the executive summaries - carefully contrived political initiatives disguised as objective science.
The CRU emails undermine Warmers' claim to the moral high ground
Soon persuaded of the potential of AGW theories for their bottom line, the energy giants effortlessly recalibrated their stance, and as of 2008 the CRU included among its financial supporters not only Shell and BP, but also the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex Ltd, a company in the nuclear waste business.
After some initial dismay at what has been called, somewhat unoriginally, 'Climategate', the reaction amid progressive circles – 99 per cent inhabited by True Believers in anthropogenic global warming - has been to take up defensive positions around the proposition that deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate and, although embarrassing, the CRU emails in no way compromise the core pretensions of their cause.
Scientific research is indeed saturated with exactly this sort of chicanery. But the CRU emails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers – always absurd to those who have studied the debate in any detail – that they commanded the moral high ground.
It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the sceptics as intellectual *****s of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate modeling enterprises. There's now a vast archipelago of research departments and "institutes of climate change" across academia, with a huge vested interest in defending the AGW model. It's where the money is. Scepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker.
By Alexander Cockburn
LAST UPDATED 7:17 AM, DECEMBER 18, 2009 :void(0)" target="_blank">Share
Share



By the same token, magazines and newspapers, reeling amidst the deadly challenge of the internet to their circulation and advertising base have seen proselytising for the menace of man-made global warming as a circulation enhancer – a vital ingredient in luring a younger audience. Hence the abandoned advocacy of AGW by Scientific American, the New Scientist, Nature, Science, not to mention the New York Times (whose lead reporter on this topic has been Andrew Revkin, who has a personal literary investment in the AGW thesis, as a glance at his publications on Amazon will attest).
Many of the landmines in the CRU emails tend to buttress long-standing charges by sceptics that statistical chicanery by Prof Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the twentieth century, a historical fact which made nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilisation of the twentieth century.
Here's Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an email written on September 22, 1999: "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple... I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago."
Now, in the fall of 1999 the IPCC was squaring up to its all-important 'Summary for Policy-Makers' – essentially a press release, one that eventually featured the notorious graph flatlining into non-existence the Medieval Warm Period and displaying a terrifying, supposedly unprecedented surge in twentieth century temperatures.
Briffa's reconstruction of temperature changes, one showing a mid- to late-twentieth-century decline, was regarded by Mann, in a September 22, 1999, e-mail to the CRU, as a "problem and a potential distraction/detraction". So Mann, a lead author on this chapter of the IPCC report, simply deleted the embarrassing post-1960 portion of Briffa's reconstruction. The CRU's Jones happily applauded Mann's deceptions in an e-mail in which he crowed over "Mike's Nature trick". Like politicians trying to recover from a racist outburst, AGW apologists say the "trick" was taken out of context. It wasn't.
Other landmines include particularly telling emails from Kenneth Trenberth, a senior scientist and the head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. On October 14, 2009, he wrote to the CRU's 'Tom': "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"
In other words, only a few weeks before the Copenhagen summit, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that "we are not close to knowing" how

Greenhouse gasses in the cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth

the supposedly proven AGW warming model might actually work, and that therefore "geo-engineering" – carbon-mitigation, for example - is "hopeless".
This admission edges close to acknowledgement of a huge core problem – that the "greenhouse" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body without compensation. Greenhouse gasses in the cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. Readers interested in the science can read mathematical physicist Gerhard Gerlich's and Ralf Tscheuchner's detailed paper published in The International Journal of Modern Physics, updated in January 2009: "Falsi?cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics".
"For the last eleven years," as Paul Hudson, climate correspondent of the BBC said on October 9, "we have not observed any increase in global temperatures". Recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on climate4you.com, show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has decreased significantly for the last eight years or so.
CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras at five times present levels. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with human emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance. The average Arctic ice coverage has essentially remained unchanged for the last 20 years, and has actually increased slightly over the last three years. The rate of rise of sea level has declined significantly over the last three years, and its average rate of rise for the last 20 years is about the same as it has been for the last 15,000 years, since the last glacial cooling ended and we entered the current interglacial warming as the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska started to flood and became the Bering Straits.
In the early 1970s, the UN spearheaded the highly progressive notion of a new world economic order, one that would try to level the playing field between the First World and the Third. The neo-liberal onslaught gathering strength from the mid-1970s on destroyed that project. Eventually the UN, desperate to reassert moral leadership, regrouped behind the supposed crisis of climate change as concocted by the AGW lobby, behind which lurk huge corporate interests such as the nuclear power companies. The end consequence has, as represented by the power plays over "carbon mitigation" funding at Copenhagen, been a hideous travesty of the 70s vision of a global redistribution of resources.
The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith-based, with no relation to science or reason. So were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophic warming caused by a man-made CO2 build-up and that human intervention – geo-engineering - could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, it's a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy.
 
china
Conservative
#4
Ten Penny ,

Quote:

How could Obama (or Harper) bring in a transaction tax without it being voted on?

I don't think that would be difficult , especially in countries blinded with their "Democracy".
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#5
This is all hype, did you notice the wording of much of this stuff, it was all for show and nothing more. Besides, if either actually did this, the people of both countries
would throw them out in respective elections. The western world better look out
we are slowly watering down our advantage in the world, and I for one have no
intention of watching my country become a third world back water to appease the
third world. We are nice enough to share some of our riches with the third world
but that can only go so far. Sharing until our cupboard is bare is nuts to say the least.
 
china
Conservative
#6
Quote:

The western world better look out
we are slowly watering down our advantage in the world, and I for one have no
intention of watching my country become a third world back water to appease the
third world. We are nice enough to share some of our riches with the third world
but that can only go so far. Sharing until our cupboard is bare is nuts to say the least.

I like the above .
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#7
China we agree on something, here. I am in many cases a New Democrat but even
that can only go so far. I believe we have to be socially progressive, and fiscally
conservative. This giving everything away has it problems. The more we give the
ungrateful buggers then start demanding we do something. Why don't they
themselves do something. Instead of begging, they could put an end to their civil
wars and purchasing weapons. That would give them money to help their people
eat and get an education. Once they did that, they would have the expertise to
develop their own economy. Instead they keep whining, that they are so hard done
by, we should give them more. I am not saying we shouldn't help, but we should
only assist to a level that ensures the third world will invest in its own constructive
future. We can help but we can't and should not do everything for them.
 
Francis2004
#8
What amazes me is that anybody would think anything is FREE..

Does pollution not cost to clean up ? Does it not cost the medical system ?

Do you think anything that impacts the Earth will not have some associated cost in some form, shape or fashion ?

As to Lord Monckton.. One would wonder why one would believe this "business / politician" man.. He has stretched the truth in the past and has very good reason to keep money flowing into the family coffers..

Quote:

The biggest puzzle surrounding the aristocrat dubbed the scourge of Scotland is not the new game he invented, nor the #1 million prize he offered to the first person who completed it. What is really exercising minds is why the Honourable Christopher Monckton is now claiming he will have to sell his Scottish mansion to meet his cash promise because his game has proved unexpectedly easy to master.

Sunday Herald investigations have revealed that Monckton, 47, previously took out an insurance policy to cover himself against an early claim on the #1m and that in any case, the game was well on its way to selling enough to cover that loss.

Could it be his claims of impending disaster were nothing more than a gimmick to drum up interest in his invention in the run-up to Christmas - and to encourage potential buyers to think the big prize was within their grasp? "If this is a PR stunt it has certainly worked," said Monckton, infamous for his newspaper columns which lambasted Scots for being "subsidy junkies" soaking up money made in the south of England.

Monckton's "financial crisis" has earned him extensive coverage in several newspapers. A former adviser to Margaret Thatcher who now runs a management consultancy firm advising "large corporations and small governments", he thought he was onto a winner when he invented Eternity, a geometrical jigsaw puzzle. Now, he claims, his brainchild is actually a flop. Eternity is far easier to complete than he first thought and, fearing one of the 150,000 people who have already bought it will claim the #1m cash prize, he has put Crimonmogate, his stately home near Fraserburgh, on the market.

Curiously, though, Monckton is unable to answer some easy questions. Why does he have to sell his house for a bill which has not arrived yet and which is covered by insurance anyway?

Monckton, the son of a viscount, denies conning the public. He says selling his home is not a PR stunt to boost sales of Eternity. He also denies his claims about the game are a clever ploy to promote the sale of Crimonmogate, expected to fetch between #2.5 to #5m.

Aristocrat's game plan puzzle | Sunday Herald, The Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET
 
Dixie Cup
Conservative
#9
Oh goody - more fraud and corruption are in the works! Just what my family needs - to work harder for less whilst others, (not those who actually need it) pocket the dough!!

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside!
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#10
This thread is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering.

Get out your tin foil hats the guvment is coming.

What a joke.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

This thread is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering.

Get out your tin foil hats the guvment is coming.

What a joke.

This adds so much more than a C&P.... I see your point.....
 
Kakato
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

This thread is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering.

Get out your tin foil hats the guvment is coming.

What a joke.

Hard to believe anything Alex Jones says,he still thinks Bush brought down the twin towers.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

This adds so much more than a C&P.... I see your point.....

Oh, I could ramble on and on and on about why this is BS but really....what would be the point?
 

Similar Threads

35
Copenhagen- What was Gained
by EagleSmack | Jan 2nd, 2010
4
Copenhagen!
by Andem | Nov 12th, 2005
1
Problem with html includes
by Anonymous | Jun 13th, 2002