Cap & Trade Already Infiltrated by Organized Crime

Typical of all victimless crimes (drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling), the carbon Cap & Trade system in Europe has already been infiltrated by fraud and organized crime which, according to Interpol.  That's no surprise, though, when you consider that victimless crimes and any politically manufactured market will always be infiltrated by organized crime.  For example, the prohibition of alcohol in the US created an unprecedented rise in criminal activity which slowed when it was repealed.  The situation again appeared when the Federal Government put its clamps on narcotics creating a rise in violent crime on a global scale unprecedented in human history.

In fact, the environmental "market" has already been infiltrated by organized fraud in the US.

Cap and Trade Fraud

And before any of the lefties out there say "how can you believe anything from FOX news who are those right wing fanatics who make 'fake' news"....blah blah blah.  Shut up unless you can disprove the facts.  If you have no evidence of false news, please stop making unfounded accusations.  Lets not forget, ALL news sources are biased.  Your argument that FOX is tainted so you shouldn't believe anything from FOX is based on what is known as the "Ad Hominem" fallacy and is one of the fundamental logical thinking traps that causes failure in reasoning skills. 

Here are other articles about the same thing
Article
Article

So why are we opting for more legislation that will create more laws and restrictions on people's rights in order to get everyone to "obey"?  Especially in light of the fact that we still haven't established anthropogenic global warming as a fact and there is still tremendous scientific and political disagreement on the proposed theory.

Green Cult Gets Aggressive when confornted with facts

Here's a common example of what those of us who question the Global Warming Theory encounter when raising questions: blind hatred and tactics to silence opposition.  Scientists fired from jobs, challenging questions ignored, skeptics assaulted by fanatics.

Climate Cultists Assault Global Warming Skeptic During Live Interview 

During a live interview...a skeptic is assaulted by a global warming follower.  Yes, I say "follower" because the behavior is very much like a religion because : 

A) Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, people still want to believe it

B) People can't prove the point of global warming any more than they can prove their religion so, in what should be rational discussion, they try to resolve the argument by silencing dissenting opinion through intimidation, anger or violence.

Gore Refuses ClimateGate Questions, UN Official Disconnects Mic

 Interviewer tries to question Gore about ANOTHER lie he got caught in but Gore refuses to answer.  UN official illegally disconnects the microphone.  (They don't have the legal right to do that)

Clinton: U.S. Ready to Join $100B Climate Aid Fund

So to be clear...the US (or...the people in charge of the US) is willing to spend $100,000,000,000 (of your money and my money) on an unproven scientific theory.  Nice.  I'm glad she sees fit to increase our federal deficit even more!  We, the taxpayers, don't mind working like dogs to pay for smoke and mirror pseudoscience.

FOXNews.com - Clinton: U.S. Ready to Join $100B Climate Aid Fund

Posted using ShareThis

Growing Disbelief of the Global Warming Hoax

As early as March 2009, increasing numbers of Americans were doubting the "truth" of Gore's doomsday prophecies about Global Warming, according to Gallup


52% of Americans disagree with Al Gore that the "debate is over" on Global Warming while 59% think its based on falsified information.  47% think its totally natural and NOT man made.

 Americans are increasingly sceptical of global warming:Rasmussen Poll

And yet...despite the fact that American people are so divided on this issue and that so many people are unconvinced...our government is going right ahead with plans to hamstring our struggling economy with climate change deals that may be totally wasted efforts and will result in decreased human quality of life,  more controls over how people live and work and more government oppression.

What else is new?  Government stopped representing us a LONG time ago.

Al Gore Caught Fudging the Numbers AGAIN!

Scientist Quoted by Gore Says "Al, I NEVER said that!"

This is another example of the spin machine behind certain elements of the environmentalist movement.  In a move that has become typical of Al Gore and his Ilk, Gore has used fear mongering based on falsified or selectively chosen data.

Notice Big Al's quote and what it means:
"These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

• Fresh figures - Bull!  Read further down "Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore."  So that was a pure lie.
• "Some of the models suggest..." So this also means that other models don't suggest what he's proposing.  So there is no scientific agreement on this!!  Some models also suggest that I am going to suddenly disintegrate into vapors in 10 minutes but there's no reason for me to expect that its likely to happen
• "75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Again....the word could so even Big Al thinks its only a chance.  This also means that there is a 75% chance that it might happen, not that it will happen.  His statement also means that there is a 25% chance that it definitely will not happen.

Tell me again why everyone listens to this clown?  Ultimately all he has communicated through his statement is that he has no facts and the only fact we know of for sure is that he selectively picks his data and doesn't hesitate to make up information when he finds the facts to be inconvenient.

Mind you, I'm not opposing the concepts of environmental responsibility and proper stewardship of our natural resources.  I am simply advocating intelligent decision making based on scientific facts.  Think about it...would you let a doctor operate on you who told you "there is a 75% chance that you might survive but there is a 25% chance that you will not survive"?  Of course not, you would realize that he's pulling numbers out of the air!  So why base our policies and the direction of the human race on something that doesn't pass basic scientific muster?