Among the issues most commonly discussed are individuality, the rights of the individual, the limits of legitimate government, morality, history, economics, government policy, science, business, education, health care, energy, and man-made global warming evaluations. My posts are aimed at thinking, intelligent individuals, whose comments are very welcome.

04 April 2016

Why Do the U.N. and Socialists Push the AGW Hypothesis so Hard?

The United Nations organization and socialists generally are so enamored of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis that they will do anything to distort climate science to pretend that falsified hypothesis is true.  Why?

Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change 2008 - 2015, recently said
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
 We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.
Add this to the statements by Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, just last year:
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.
This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.
Edenhofer says we must allow the Third World countries to use fossil fuels profligately so that they can become rich, but we must so restrict the use of fossil fuels in the developed world that their economies are choked.  The developed countries deserve to be choked because they
 have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community.
Obama's Science Advisor, John Holdren is certainly telling Obama the same thing.  Obama then declares climate change the world's most important problem.  Of course, John Holdren wants to go way beyond redistributing wealth.  He wants a serious culling of the human population.  A massive redistribution of wealth is a way to bring that about as we have learned from the fate of many socialist countries.  Between mass starvation and mass executions, many of these socialist countries have managed to cull a very substantial fraction of their populations.  Some have prevented future additions with procreation controls as well.  But independent of whether there is a repeat of such intranational problems, many will die as a result of income redistribution between nations.

The CIA World Factbook estimates the total world GDP to be $107.5 trillion in 2014 and the world population in 2014 was about 7.2 billion people.  The socialists will not be happy until income is uniformly and equally shared throughout the world.  This means that everyone in 2014 would have had an income of $14,930.  How much R&D, how many advanced factories, how many communication networks, and how many highly mechanized farms result from the efforts of someone with no more income than $14,930 a year?  What fraction of this munificent sum goes into individual saving and hence is possibly available as capital to start or build a business?  Without those modern businesses, what fraction of a population of 7.2 billion people can be sustained in life?

When you make that estimate, understand that that average income of $14,930 a year made immediately upon a sudden redistribution of income will most definitely decrease in the years that follow.  The modern financial system that helps to fund the growth of major industries will suffer mightily, causing first a stagnation of the growth of industries and then their contraction because industries either grow or they contract over the longer term.  And what will be the incentive for the managers of efficient and innovative companies to continue working hard to produce and create when they will not be allowed any more than $14,930 of income?

It is stunning that as obvious as these problems are, so many people are susceptible to the allure of socialism, whether it be Bernie Sanders, Obama the Rabble-Rouser, Clinton the Kleptocrat, John Holdren the Genocide Advisor, or the many officials of the United Parasitic Nations.  The claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or some non-specific climate change is simply a tool to achieve the end of a massive worldwide redistribution of power, income, and wealth.  This is why they do not care whether the effects of fossil fuel emissions actually have catastrophic effects or not.  They only care that there is a perception that they do.  To maintain this perception, they are only too willing to persecute and prosecute any scientist who is not on their bandwagon.  Socialism lives upon lies and cannot find any traction in the minds of anyone who will not maintain its many lies.  Those who defy the lies must die.


Merlin Jetton said...

You wrote, "The socialists will not be happy until income is uniformly and equally shared throughout the world."

I believe you went too far there, Charles. The socialists will want a lot more income for themselves and their active supporters than John Q. Public's income.

"To maintain this perception, they are only too willing to persecute and prosecute any scientist who is not on their bandwagon."

I suggest linking to your March 12 post.

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. said...

I made the link to the persecution and prosecution post of 12 March. I had thought to do that when I was writing, but it had been too long a day by the time I was finishing this post at about 5 AM.

Yes, I was being breezy on the socialists being intent on equal incomes around the world. Some will insist on it right until their incomes are being reduced to about $15,000 a year. I know a young supporter of Bernie Sanders who fought hard to get her non-profit to give her a pay raise itself greater than that universal average. She believes in the good she thinks she does and she has no present problem with the rhetoric of equal incomes and wealth, yet she was not happy with her prior income of several times the $15K universal average. At that salary she could not afford to live in NYC and could not pay for her beloved dance lessons. Yet, there likely are some committed socialists who would go all the way to monetary and property equality in accordance with the principles of socialism.

Now those socialists who would actually rise to power would have to have a real power lust to do so. Almost inevitably, those who have a strong power lust also have a great affinity for income and wealth. They are almost always socialists in name only and only because socialism is a tool for achieving power over others. And they often convince themselves that they have achieved that power for the good of others, so they are the exception and deserve to be paid better than anyone else.