That is also consistent with my point, Boaz.

>>Pericles.. your analysis would possibly hold IF... not for this:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." (Edenhofer)<<

Again, the realist/economist view. If you are off to an international gabfest about carbon, you want to make it crystal clear that you are not there to talk about whether China is worse than the US (in emission terms), or whether Australia may be regarded as a special case. You are there to redistribute money from the rich to the poor.

The point I was making is this: the redistribution is the result of carbon policy, not the cause of it.

Your fiction is that there is a global conspiracy that was set in motion all those years ago by George Bernard Shaw (who was Irish, by the way, not English) to use global warming as the basis of a neo-communist world agenda, or whatever.

I'm just saying the you are putting the cart before the horse, and in doing so fail to notice the horse manure trailing behind you.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Pericles... this is a little chicken and eggish don't you think ?

Is climate policy a product of a rather close knit club of people such as Strong, Gore and others, who see in it an opportunity to

a) Enrich themselves
b) Advance a socialist agenda (while remaining rich themselves)
c) Noble altruism? *cough* I doubt it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih1UPeEK9Ig

Given that Strong was the orchestrator of the Rio Earth Summit, and a major string puller/facilitator of Copenhagen, and knowing more about his background than I hazard a guess you do (at this point at least), it seems the Capitalist Wolves of Strong, Gore and a bunch of Euro progressives (in socialist sheepskin) are the Chicken which produced the 'Global Warming/Climate change' EGG....

There is a very clear and easily identifable network of interconnected people who seem to share these objectives. It's not like a hidden thing.

I know it's emotionally preferable to see it all as 'a perspective' but given this world order is a product of numerous conspiracies...

and there are many layers of those.. it all seems rather obvious to me.

Layer 1 = Political parties
Layer 2 = Factions within them.
Layer 3 = Identifiable ideological groupings in the party.

In the case of Labor... there is the Party-left&right factions-Fabians.

The fabians are probably within the Left side, though Gillard, a Fabian is at least 'outwardly' a contradiction.

Dear Al,

I'm intrigued by your apparent fixation and fear of a plot to redistribute wealth from the "rich" to the "poor".
Why are you so frightened of a more equitable spread of universal wealth and opportunity? Seems to me that Jesus would have been in favour of such a scheme.

Spindoc

I know what Maurice Newman said last March. It was well circulated in mainstream media and all around the blogtraps. Bejeebus, even ABC’s radio, TV and on-line reported it, widely – despite claims to the contrary.

However, I could not find Newman’s remarks in any of the two articles told me to look at in the last Weekend Australian. Sure, his name was mentioned, but:

1st Article, page 1:

Something about John Coombs, long retired as national secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, finding himself in the "same camp as ABC chairman and former ASX chair MAURICE NEWMAN. Both own property at Crookwell on the NSW southern tablelands ... and both have serious doubts about the wisdom of a planned explosion of wind-power developments in the area ..."

It turns out both Coombs and Newman are concerned about the costs, efficiencies and health effects of the new-generation wind turbines planned for their shared region of abode.

2nd ‘article’, page 32:

Start: "More than 400 people turned up for Taronga Foundation’s annual Zoofari charity dinner held in a tented pavilion in Taronga Zoo overlooking the harbour. The evening raised $430,000 for the conservation of the endangered Sumatran tiger. ABC and Taronga Foundation chair MAURICE NEWMAN met with “Tigerman” and mingled with QBE boss Frank O’Halloran, Taronga conservation board member Steve Crane, jeweller Nic Cerrone and MP Frank Sartor. Skye Leckie and Women’s Weekly editor in chief Deborah Thomas also attended." Finish.

spindoc: how is anybody (me included) supposed to have dialogue or engage with you when it appears you deliberately 'doctor' your source material and then 'spin' it as fact? Either that, or you can’t be bothered to do some basic fact checking before you post your comments.

AGIR (Boaz and so forth)
Don’t bother, I understand now – had a look at some of your OLO history.

Poirot
Just read your comment - very good point!

Methinks Al that you are staring to see Communist/Socialist conspiracy theories in the most inocuous of events particularly in environmental causes.

How can you diminish the importance of the environment, something which effects all living forms on earth including man.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/30/3080628.htm?section=justin

The above link shows just what man is doing to his environment and, while I know this thread focuses on the climate change debate,it is disappointing that you continually equate all aspects of environmentalism with radical socialism rather than a humanitarian and compassionate endeavour.

Your hatred of the Greens is will documented but they are thus far the only party that will put environmental protection ahead of other interests. For in the long term if we don't protect what we rely on, that which we have an intimate relationship - the environment, we will risk greater loss of life and possible extinction (worst case of course).

What is your agenda I wonder?

Dear_Poirot

You_ask:
a) "Why are you so frightened of a more equitable spread of universal wealth and opportunity? b) Seems to me that Jesus would have been in favour of such a scheme."

Here is the most fundamental problem mate..... the DIFFerence between Jesus approach and that of the socialist 'hoardes' is FORCE. Jesus did not "force" or make laws. He didn't even advocate redistribution of wealth in a political sense.

An important question.

If you are an entrepreneur, a business man who has sacrificed all your limited resources ..super.. long service leave... savings..EVerything...for the sake of an idea... a vision a dream..and you provide employment for a number of people....THEN..some scumbag tells you "Well.. we've decide to make the top marginal tax rate 80% and distribute your wealth to a little country down in south America.

WOULD.....you still have the incentive, desire, passion, drive to make your business grow ? (that's the question by the way)

Let's now loop back a bit. WEALTH" is a commodity (money) generated by....your vision/sacrifice/dream.....but wait....the government just DESTROYED that vision/dream/passion...and the 'commodity' (wealth) just dries up and *voila* there is NOTHING to 'redistribute'.

"Redistribution of wealth" works fine when there IS wealth to redistribute...but nothing KILLS 'wealth' like taking it away from 'you' (who earned,and worked for it) and giving it to some dill in a far off country or his corrupt dictator, or his corrupt local political commissar or funding some kind of ideologically driven 'entitlement' scheme which itself was driven by pure GREED.

EXAMPLE. SEIU union (the Infamous Andy stern... u know.. "If they won't listen to the power of persuasion, they will listen to the persuasion of POWER") was vitally involved with the shaping of Obamacare etc. They have JUST declared they are reducing benefits from their Union health care fund for children, because of 'unexpected costs' OHhhhhhhhh YEAH! "They" designed the system..now they can't afford it...so..(and this is the good bit) WHAT do they do?

"Wealth redistribution" as follows:

They call out to "The State of New York" to fund their Union health care plan! ! !