• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

M

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This analysis begs the question, how do we cooperate internationally to protect the environment?

The United States is a major producer of pollution, but we have striven to take steps to limit it and to clean it up however unsuccessful such attempts might have been.

Yet we see nations like China, and other growing economies like Indonesia and India who seem to view massive pollution as a necessary by-product of their economic development. For example, China is the primary source for waste products, especially plastics, that are damaging the ocean's ecosystems. Preventing this seems to be a very, very low priority in their economic model.

I oppose globalism when it comes to a "one world government" schematic. Yet we need some kind of global plan and agreement on environmental protections and methods of universal enforcement or our environment will suffer.

That is the conundrum; how to do that without stifling national independence?
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
This analysis begs the question, how do we cooperate internationally to protect the environment?
Click to expand...
The answer begins with identifying the correct problem first, We have an energy problem, not a CO2 problem.
Currently, and likely for many years to come, hydrocarbons represent the bets way to carry around energy for use.
Being able to store alternate energy as hydrocarbon fuels, I believe is the best way to protect the environment.
At some point the market price of oil will increase to where it is more profitable for a refinery to buy wholesale electricity
and make their own feedstock for water, and atmospheric CO2. At that point the carbon neutral fuels will be the cheapest at the pump,
and people will choose it.
Once we work out the bugs int he US, we market the technology to the world.
 
marke said:
Investor's Business Daily, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
Click to expand...

What a totally dishonest article. Per your link, this is what she said:

"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."

Then your biased link draws some ridiculous conclusion, by paraphrasing and changing the woman's words. Somebody in China can do the same thing, and say that this statement condemns communism, and have the same amount of credence as this sick article.Pathetic...
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
What a totally dishonest article. Per your link, this is what she said:

"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."

Then your biased link draws some ridiculous conclusion, by paraphrasing and changing the woman's words. Somebody in China can do the same thing, and say that this statement condemns communism, and have the same amount of credence as this sick article.Pathetic...
Click to expand...

Why did you not include the entire quote?
"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,"
So what economic development model has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution?
That would be capitalism, since practiced statewide communism started barely 100 years ago.
 
marke said:
Investor's Business Daily, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
Click to expand...

Bingo - This quote from February 2015 needs to be banged home continuously:

"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."​

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary - UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.​
​

People need to understand what the United Nations and its Panel on Climate Change is all about.
 
longview said:
Why did you not include the entire quote?
"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,"
So what economic development model has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution?
That would be capitalism, since practiced statewide communism started barely 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Or communism, or fascism, or clerical governments, etc., etc. And what leads you to believe that Capitalism has only been around since the Industrial Revolution? It dates back to pre-Roman empire. With her reference to the industrial revolution, she is obviously speaking about the worldly economic model since that time, since that is the beginning of CO2 emissions.

But as usual, deniers prefer to make scientific references into political references.
 
marke said:
Investor's Business Daily, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
Click to expand...

Most people simply don't understand that the majority of the UN member states are against American values.
 
This would not be the first time that the U.N. has announced the intent of the green movement as a wealth redistribution scheme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
This would not be the first time that the U.N. has announced the intent of the green movement as a wealth redistribution scheme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So the conspiracy is not just the vast majority of scientists in the world, but the UN is also involved? Wow, Hollywood should hire Mel Gibson and make a movie.
 
Media_Truth said:
Or communism, or fascism, or clerical governments, etc., etc. And what leads you to believe that Capitalism has only been around since the Industrial Revolution? It dates back to pre-Roman empire. With her reference to the industrial revolution, she is obviously speaking about the worldly economic model since that time, since that is the beginning of CO2 emissions.

But as usual, deniers prefer to make scientific references into political references.
Click to expand...
Believe as you wish!
 
Media_Truth said:
Or communism, or fascism, or clerical governments, etc., etc. And what leads you to believe that Capitalism has only been around since the Industrial Revolution? It dates back to pre-Roman empire.
Click to expand...

What the heck is the 'pre-Roman' empire???

So you don't think CO2 emissions occurred before the Industrial Revolution? What about all those fires used to keep warm during the winters??

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth using surface infrared.
 
Media_Truth said:
So the conspiracy is not just the vast majority of scientists in the world, but the UN is also involved? Wow, Hollywood should hire Mel Gibson and make a movie.
Click to expand...

Argument from randU fallacy.
 
Capitalism in its current form should be dismantled. We need a resource based economy right now. Any economic model that does not factor in huge population numbers and environmental resource consumption is not operating on reality. The endless growth model is not sustainable within a finite system. There is a ceiling and pretending there's not makes no sense, except for the few who stand to gain.

It doesn't matter if we want capitalism gone or not, it's going to change by necessity in the coming decades. We're probably going to go through a really painful period of resource scarcity combined with dual class transitional capitallism: uber wealthy people vs. mostly poor people, with a very small middle class.

Until all our technological wonders are used for the equal betterment of humanity and the ecosystem instead of stuffing the fat faces of bourgeois capitalists, this planet is doomed. 100 of the world's top companies produce 71% of the world's pollution. It has to stop. Making money for money's sake is getting us nowhere as a species, and consumer capitalism is a horribly inefficient system at distributing innovation.

If the UN report claims capitalism is to blame for the world's current ecological crisis, then it's 100% correct. That's not "trying to destroy capitalism", it's pointing out the obvious. Consumer capitalism has served its purpose: to expand material networks and increase production of necessary materials. Now we are in gross excess. We're basically ****ting where we eat, and poisoning all other life.

Global warming is only one part of it. We're eradicating ancient forests and biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, while filling the oceans and lands with our garbage. It's time to grow up and stop using capitalism to play games like little children. We have bigger fish to fry.

I don't know about you, but I wasn't born on this earth to work like a slave for someone who doesn't care about anything but making imaginary currency, just so I can sit on my couch watching Netflix and stuffing my face all day. The meaning of life matters to me and part of that meaning is seeing humanity live up to its potential. It can't do that under the current model. Any system that requires all other life to FOAD just so that one or two generations can get ahead at the expense of future thousands of years is patently psychopathic.
 
Last edited:
At no point does "destroy capitalism" appear in the statement. Yet another garbage opinion piece from that rag.
 
marke said:
Investor's Business Daily, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
Click to expand...

right031.png


They also report on politics, especially through their editorial section with a very strong right wing bias. Investors Business Daily strays from the consensus of science in regards to climate change and they have made outrageous and false claims, such as Stephen Hawking would be dead if he lived under England’s Government health care system. This is a false propaganda statement as Stephen Hawking is a citizen of the UK and lives there. Hawking claims the British Healthcare system saved his life and kept him alive to old age. A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers. Overall, we would rate Investors Business Daily Right Biased based on right leaning economic and market positions. We would also give them a High factual rating on strictly investing and market news. However, editorially IBT is clearly a Questionable source with promotion of right wing conspiracy theories and numerous failed fact checks.
Click to expand...
Source: Media Bias/Fact Check - Investors Business Daily

Since it was the message they wanted to hear, none of the Trumpers such as Captain Adverse bothered to check the legitimacy of the source.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This analysis begs the question, how do we cooperate internationally to protect the environment?

The United States is a major producer of pollution, but we have striven to take steps to limit it and to clean it up however unsuccessful such attempts might have been.

Yet we see nations like China, and other growing economies like Indonesia and India who seem to view massive pollution as a necessary by-product of their economic development. For example, China is the primary source for waste products, especially plastics, that are damaging the ocean's ecosystems. Preventing this seems to be a very, very low priority in their economic model.

I oppose globalism when it comes to a "one world government" schematic. Yet we need some kind of global plan and agreement on environmental protections and methods of universal enforcement or our environment will suffer.

That is the conundrum; how to do that without stifling national independence?
Click to expand...

The GW narrative is nonsense but most people do not understand that. People generally believe what the ignorant mob believes and don't bother to question those beliefs. The changes the UN is advocating are not for the good of American free market capitalism but for the promotion of one world atheistic socialism.
 
marke said:
The GW narrative is nonsense but most people do not understand that. People generally believe what the ignorant mob believes and don't bother to question those beliefs. The changes the UN is advocating are not for the good of American free market capitalism but for the promotion of one world atheistic socialism.
Click to expand...

Name one ****ing change you think they are advocating :lamo
 
marke said:
Investor's Business Daily, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
Click to expand...

This has been seen by many. It is starting with the redistribution of wealth, globally. That's why a majority of UN members are on board with this.
 
Deuce said:
Name one ****ing change you think they are advocating :lamo
Click to expand...

Heavy fines for industrial nations, China and others excluded. No fines for poor nations. Destruction of economic way of life in America, not in other nations. Other nations burn coal and oil all they want but the UN wants America to pay heavily for doing the same thing. That is redistribution of wealth in the communist scheme of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom