Check out this article
Does anybody else find this really weird? The UN has decided it needs about $86 billion per year to not fight global warming, but to help the poor adapt. Hm, I am not a smart man, but I already have the federal, state, and local government (my property tax went up over 15% this year)taxing my rear end off...why should I pay one penny to these guys? Don't get me wrong, I care about the world's poor and give a portion of my income to helping the poor, so don't think I just hate the poor.
Does nobody else just see this as a ploy to get tax dollars from the US and other wealthier nations? As I'm writing this I have so many thoughts running through my head, I don't know if this post will make much sense or not. To put it simply, I hate taxes in any way, shape, or form. The US government ran for years without tax support, and politicians actually earned their money not by being politicians, but by actually working! Today that isn't true. Our government has to protect us from taxation by outside sources, especially the UN. Let's be honest here, who would trust the UN? Does Oil for food ring a bell? Now they want $86 billion a year from the wealthier countries of the world to help people adjust to a problem that really hasn't been scientifically proven? I still haven't bought into global warming, I have seen too much conflicting data. Even though I'm sure Al Gore is an intelligent man (he did invent the internet you know), I still don't trust him.
All this global warming stuff is fishy to me anyway. Could it all just be a natural cycle anyway? Is the earth really warming anyway? And if it is warming, how in the world did this UN Development Program figure out that it would take $86 billion a year to help people adjust? I mean honestly, how hard is it to tell people to put shorts on if they're hot? $86 billion divided by the 6 billion global population comes out to around $12 a person. Does that mean I can get $12 for every person I tell to put shorts on if they're hot?? I'd take that job, sounds pretty easy. A Wal-Mart greeter could make a killing doing that.
The real kicker for me though is the quote "We're suggesting 1.6 percent of (global) GDP - still very affordable." Um, still very affordable?? Are you trying to sell me a car? 1.6% of GLOBAL GDP?? That's affordable? How about you give back 1.6% of global GDP for suggesting a ridiculous scam designed at getting at the US taxpayer??
I don't know if this post made much sense, but I read this article and had to make a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
hi, came across your blog while googling another Matt Porter. And since it's from November 07, you've probably changed your stance since then, but I still wanted to comment and say that today's climate change skeptic is yesterday's recycling and "green" skeptic. While you're still analyzing that conflicting data, everyone else is already trying to figure out ways to minimize the impact of climate change on the environment and our world.
and you're obviously joking when you write putting on a pair of shorts is adjusting to climate change, but it's not that funny. There are floods, hurricanes and droughts. And they are affecting millions of people in both developed and developing countries.
Post a Comment