Global cooling or global warming?

[Shorebreak]

Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus.

So far, there are two predominant camps. The first camp are those who strongly claim that climate change is heavily impacted by man, who are promoted by corporate media and in alignment with the policy makers and globalist corporations who want to impose taxes and strict manufacturing controls at a global level, under their authority.

The second camp is the scientists, leaders, and manufacturers who are not aligned with corporate media or globalists. They are very much larger than the first camp, but they are cast as a dissenting view by media rather than the predominant view. For example, there is a document that is signed by 30,000 scientists who have stated unequivocably that they find no evidence suggesting that human activity has a significant impact on climate change.

When you wade through all of the muck, there are a few key items that stand out:

1. The most indepth support for global action on climate change is coming from globalist entities, such as the UN.
2. All efforts surrounding control of emmissions are centered around generating tax revenue and establishing manufacturing controls and limits - to be decided by globalist entities.
3. Support for these efforts comes primarily from corporate sponsorships (e.g. research funding at prominant universities and research facilities), from governments who are aligned with socialist global unification (the US, UK, France, China, etc), and from corporate sponsored media.
4. Opposed to man-made climate change is briefly highlighted by media but not focused upon. For example, corporate globalist media networks such as the Discovery Channel and National Geographic have been airing programming for many years that treats man-made climate change as a fact without ever presenting a challenging opinion. In addition, many of the programs that are not focused on climate change will include script that adds climate change comments into the narration, as though it is a reality.

My comment for those who believe that man-made climate change is a reality is to be certain that you are entering into this thing with your eyes wide open. There is no cost or Kw equivalent alternative to coal energy today. Neither is there an equivalent to most of the other fossil-fuel driven manufacturing processes that are used to sustain our societal infrastructure, ranging from food production, electricity production, household goods, electronics, and transportation infrastructure.

What you are demanding, without scientific concensus, is global legislation (with authority over domestic laws granted to a corporate controlled global entity) that will not only decimate the US capacity to support our current population, but will also add a significant levy to those operations that remain in production. On top of that, you are demanding that domestic manufacturers who can afford to relocate overseas close up shop and head to other nations with minimal restriction on manufacturing.

And I'm only scratching the surface with the impact. Is that what we really want?

And here's my comment for those who DON'T believe in man-made climate change: Go back and read my last two full paragraphs. That's what we're facing. This WILL be crammed down our throats, whether we want it or not. The White House has already ordered the EPA to send out the CO2 directive. My advice is to prepare now for a worst-case scenario (it's better to be prepared and have nothing happen than to not be prepared at all) as manufacturing is turned down and the economy is minimized. My wife and I are studying the lessons learned by the Argentinian collapse, whose lead-up almost fits the profile for our current circumstances in the US.

I found your post both interesting and informative - thank you.

I'm a huge advocate for a rational and cogent response to the challenges that corporate globalism places in front of us as a nation. For example, I was a keynote speaker last month at an event in my State capital that was attended by leaders in both industry and government. My presentation was essentially a call to action to both prepare to meet the expected challenges by preparing on the manufacturing floor and in the business office, but also to prepare to use science and technology to challenge legislative activity that negatively impacts local economies.

This week I'm attending two similar events - one to promote regional manufacturing, and one to explore a collaborative manufacturing opportunity with a potential regional partner. A mutual relationship will enable both of us to expand our services and capabalities without requiring organic growth - and the overhead that often comes along with it.

My approach is very simple. The science is not "in" on climate change, yet we're facing potentially insurmountable obstacles if legeslative activity - including Cap and Trade - is moved forward. My message is that we need to be prepared for this. At the same time, we need to be aligned in our response that the legislation is NOT supported by scientific concensus, and that the negative economic and societal impact of the proposed legislation will be catostrophic over the next 20 years, with the potential to devastate the economic foundation of the entire country.

I had a discussion last week with the COO of a nearby corporation who was in 100% agreement with me. the outcome of the conversation was a decision to explore a regional round-table for local businesses who need to actively communicate with government over the potential impact of forthcoming legislation. Not a lobby group, but a group of concenred businesses who recognize the potential for a complete loss of our economic foundation.

 

[frazzledgear]

CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. .03% = 0.0003

Lets put it into form you maybe will be able to understand - picture book.

Not all of that CO2 is man-made, less than 1% of the 0.0003. So what does that take the figure down to.

Bullshit.

Lying as usual.

Over loading the system with CO2 is cumulative, it stays in the atmosphere for decades.

His representation of the TINY, MINUSCULE change in the atmosphere measured in a handful of years is actually quite accurate. What people like YOU want to ignore is that without a greenhouse effect, it is impossible for life to even exist on this planet -we MUST have a greenhouse effect so that life can exist. The other is this RIDICULOUS notion that this necessary greenhouse effect is so delicately balanced that a mere increase of just 0.0003 rise in the CO2 level will result in either frying earth or having it freeze over -depending on which drama queen is doing the hysteria speech. Try pumping that level of change in CO2 in your own real greenhouse and see if it causes even a teensy rise in temperature. (It won't.) If it doesn't do that in a totally controlled environment where such an effect would be clearly linked to just that one change, the notion a teensy beensy change will cause doom-and-gloom in an open environment with innumerable variables at work that we are still totally ignorant about is ridiculous. Man cannot reliably predict changes in the weather more than 5 days out or so but to insist that while man still can't reliably do that, man can NOW reliably predict major climate change itself in spite of not knowing why ANY previous climate change happened - takes some real hubris.

Earth's climate has never been static but is cyclical in nature. Earth has actually existed in ice ages the vast majority of the time and the kind of climate we have now for just a teeny fraction of that time -none lasting much more than 10,000 years or so before falling into another major ice age. The planet is actually a couple of thousand years overdue for another major ice age. Ice ages are earth's NORM.

Until scientists -who are NOT trying to deceive the world and are NOT part of the biggest global conspiracy in history and are NOT driven by a POLITICAL agenda -can explain why the earth entered AND left all previous ice ages, the LUDICROUS claim we know all there is to know about what causes major climate changes NOW and it all hinges on a minuscule change of a minuscule level of an ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL GAS NECESSARY FOR LIFE TO EVEN EXIST - is the real LIE here. For the EPA to declare this tiny, minuscule level of what is a critically vital gas for life to even exist on this planet to be a POLLUTANT has laid the foundation for using fraudulent science to justify REALLY messing with life on this planet.

What HONEST scientists admit -is we have NO understanding why earth has ever experienced a major climate change in the past. Not once. We don't know why the planet ever entered any ice age and we have no idea why the planet left any ice age. AND we have no idea how MANY variables that play a role in it we don't even know about yet! In other words, we don't even know what we still don't know plays a role in climate change but it is likely to be far more variables involved than the pitiful few variables that we do know. But the fact we cannot explain even a single major climate change of the past means what we don't know is actually FAR more important than what we think we do know about climate change -and THAT is the ONLY solid scientific truth about climate change!

So claiming we know ALL there is to know about what will cause it to change NOW in light of the fact we have no idea what led to ANY change in the past - actually has zero scientific legitimacy. No amount of drama queen antics can change that. The TRUTH is that 500 million years ago CO2 levels were 20 times higher than exist today -and just think, no drama queens around at the time to insist the planet was on the verge of total doom-and-gloom. Or around to blame man for it all either. The real TRUTH is that CO2 levels dropped from that high. The TRUTH is that CO2 levels rose again 200 million years ago to at least 10 times the level it is today and the REAL truth is that most scientists agree that carbon dioxide has DECREASED over the last 200 million years. The minuscule changes measured in just a handful of recent years notwithstanding. Do you realize how MUCH they have to blow up a chart to make it look like a dramatic increase? It was necessary in order to make 0.0003 look like a catastrophically important level of change. While of course they use a normal chart to show what the level was 500 million years ago and 200 million years ago -which were significantly MANY TIMES higher than today, not just a teensy-beensy fraction higher.

Yet the earth did not self-destruct when CO2 levels were 10-20 times higher than they are today. And most importantly -they found that higher or lower levels of CO2 do NOT coincide or correlate to previous major climate changes. But those FACTS change nothing for the drama queens insisting doom-and-gloom is on our doorstep NOW with much, much lower levels of CO2 than existed in the past at a time when NO climate change occurred as a result of that higher level. Hmmm. How is that possible when the drama queens and those proven lying-ass scientists insist it all hinges on a minuscule change in a minuscule level of a gas that is actually critically vital to life itself?

The fact the very same scientists insisting we know all we need to know about what causes major climate change NOW are the same ones exposed by their own emails to have been instrumental in the global conspiracy -means they have zero credibility. The earth is NOT cooperating with these scientists who admitted in their own emails they do not understand why temperatures are NOT rising as they predicted would happen -even while they also ADMITTED in these emails to doctoring and FALSIFYING their data! The fact they didn't want to face up to the FACT that the latter perfectly explains the former is actually key. WANTING certain results caused them to doctor it so it would look like they got it -only to be faced with reality that wanting it is still not enough to change the scientific TRUTH -which is the planet hasn't gotten their memo that we are on the doorstep of doom-and-gloom! Those insisting those emails change nothing regarding the BULLSHIT global warming hoax - are simply intent on keeping the conspiracy going because of the political agenda of seeing the most massive transfer of wealth from those who created and earned it to those who didn't.

 

[edthecynic]

Earth's climate has never been static but is cyclical in nature. Earth has actually existed in ice ages the vast majority of the time and the kind of climate we have now for just a teeny fraction of that time -none lasting much more than 10,000 years or so before falling into another major ice age. The planet is actually a couple of thousand years overdue for another major ice age. Ice ages are earth's NORM.

Actually, that natural cycle of a new ice age seems to have tried to begin with "The Little Ice Age" which began around 1300 but mysteriously, and possibly unnaturally, ended around 1850, coincidentally also around the time of "The Industrial Revolution."
Whether it was man's doing or not, this post industrial revolution warming period seems to be outside the natural cycle of Ice Ages and Interglacial Warm periods.

To me, the real debate should be whether this undeniable warming trend is bad or not. Certainly a runaway, out of control, Global Warming has the potential for disastrous consequences, but maintaining the present temp or slightly cooler can be potentially beneficial, IMHO.

The Little Ice Age: how climate made ... - Google Books

 

[Oddball]

A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".

 

[Old Rocks]

I remember 6th grade and Earth Day, the first Earthday that was held in our school maybe the first one ever. Our Science teacher did a speech that the entire school has to listen to and we had a presentation done by some group I don't remember who, but the entire thing was geared up to teach us, to teach our parents and family to follow the 3 r's or by the time we were their age it would be another Ice age.

I remembe that same teacher going on and on about how or environment was changing and it was all our fault. Now back then I let most of it go in one ear and out the other but I also started recyling. It wasn't until I was much older that I began to read about how little overall impact that recycling really had on a global scale. It was only a few years later when all of sudden we were struck with GLOBAL WARMING, and then Al gore wrote his rag.

By then I was allready questioning how much Science really understood. After Al Gore wrote his book is when I started researching the topic myself and what I found was shocking. It turns out the science is not clear, at all. Many scientists in fact dispute the validity of Gore's book entirely. When Al Gore said the censensus was in, he must have forgotten the panel of scientists that were split almost 50/50 over whether or not Green House gasses were likely due to human influence or whether they were part of the normal global pattern.

Now I'm not a scientist or even a researcher, but I found enough online from to feel confident that I have NO IDEA what's going on. The UN global warming conference in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC. 400 scientists spoke out at the very same event in 2007. so it grew by 250 + in one years time. UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist said this, "Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever is also a skeptic.

You can find alot of information on this topic including links to other mostly reputiable sites .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Welcome :.

Here is link to the PDF File for the Complete U.S. Senate Report. Here

Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus.

So far, there are two predominant camps. The first camp are those who strongly claim that climate change is heavily impacted by man, who are promoted by corporate media and in alignment with the policy makers and globalist corporations who want to impose taxes and strict manufacturing controls at a global level, under their authority.

The second camp is the scientists, leaders, and manufacturers who are not aligned with corporate media or globalists. They are very much larger than the first camp, but they are cast as a dissenting view by media rather than the predominant view. For example, there is a document that is signed by 30,000 scientists who have stated unequivocably that they find no evidence suggesting that human activity has a significant impact on climate change.

When you wade through all of the muck, there are a few key items that stand out:

1. The most indepth support for global action on climate change is coming from globalist entities, such as the UN.
2. All efforts surrounding control of emmissions are centered around generating tax revenue and establishing manufacturing controls and limits - to be decided by globalist entities.
3. Support for these efforts comes primarily from corporate sponsorships (e.g. research funding at prominant universities and research facilities), from governments who are aligned with socialist global unification (the US, UK, France, China, etc), and from corporate sponsored media.
4. Opposed to man-made climate change is briefly highlighted by media but not focused upon. For example, corporate globalist media networks such as the Discovery Channel and National Geographic have been airing programming for many years that treats man-made climate change as a fact without ever presenting a challenging opinion. In addition, many of the programs that are not focused on climate change will include script that adds climate change comments into the narration, as though it is a reality.

My comment for those who believe that man-made climate change is a reality is to be certain that you are entering into this thing with your eyes wide open. There is no cost or Kw equivalent alternative to coal energy today. Neither is there an equivalent to most of the other fossil-fuel driven manufacturing processes that are used to sustain our societal infrastructure, ranging from food production, electricity production, household goods, electronics, and transportation infrastructure.

What you are demanding, without scientific concensus, is global legislation (with authority over domestic laws granted to a corporate controlled global entity) that will not only decimate the US capacity to support our current population, but will also add a significant levy to those operations that remain in production. On top of that, you are demanding that domestic manufacturers who can afford to relocate overseas close up shop and head to other nations with minimal restriction on manufacturing.

And I'm only scratching the surface with the impact. Is that what we really want?

And here's my comment for those who DON'T believe in man-made climate change: Go back and read my last two full paragraphs. That's what we're facing. This WILL be crammed down our throats, whether we want it or not. The White House has already ordered the EPA to send out the CO2 directive. My advice is to prepare now for a worst-case scenario (it's better to be prepared and have nothing happen than to not be prepared at all) as manufacturing is turned down and the economy is minimized. My wife and I are studying the lessons learned by the Argentinian collapse, whose lead-up almost fits the profile for our current circumstances in the US.

What a batch of lies.

So name one scientific society that declares that AGW is false. Come on, asshole, name one. How about one National Academy of Science? Come on, fellow, name one. OK, just one little major university in any nation? You cannot, because there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists on AGW.

I am not a scientist, although I do have considerable training, at university level, in geology. And I have observed the changes in the snow fields and glaciers of the mountains that I love to walk, the Blues, the Cascades, the Rockies, and the Sierras, for more than a half of a century.

The type of drivel that you have posted does make me angry. I see no chance of avoiding a PETM type of event. And the legacy that you have created for the children of this nation and the world leaves me with nothing but contempt for the intellect you display in flaunting your ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".

Come on, asshole, the thermostat has been set for the next 30 to 50 years. That is the time line for the inertia in the system to respond by to the present level of GHGs.

However, considering that we will do nothing to address this, it is not possible that we will avoid at least a repeat of the PETM. But we have much more clathrates than were available for that period of rapid warming, so we may see an event that move toward the P-t event in severity.

God, I find idiots like you contemptable. Have you ever really looked at what is happening worldwide?

 

[The T]

A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".

Come on, asshole, the thermostat has been set for the next 30 to 50 years. That is the time line for the inertia in the system to respond by to the present level of GHGs.

However, considering that we will do nothing to address this, it is not possible that we will avoid at least a repeat of the PETM. But we have much more clathrates than were available for that period of rapid warming, so we may see an event that move toward the P-t event in severity.

God, I find idiots like you contemptable. Have you ever really looked at what is happening worldwide?

Set by WHOM?

 

[Big Fitz]

A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".

Come on, asshole, the thermostat has been set for the next 30 to 50 years. That is the time line for the inertia in the system to respond by to the present level of GHGs.

However, considering that we will do nothing to address this, it is not possible that we will avoid at least a repeat of the PETM. But we have much more clathrates than were available for that period of rapid warming, so we may see an event that move toward the P-t event in severity.

God, I find idiots like you contemptable. Have you ever really looked at what is happening worldwide?

Set by WHOM?

God.

at last check, He also has the remote, too.

 

[Oddball]

A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".

Come on, asshole, the thermostat has been set for the next 30 to 50 years. That is the time line for the inertia in the system to respond by to the present level of GHGs.

However, considering that we will do nothing to address this, it is not possible that we will avoid at least a repeat of the PETM. But we have much more clathrates than were available for that period of rapid warming, so we may see an event that move toward the P-t event in severity.

God, I find idiots like you contemptable. Have you ever really looked at what is happening worldwide?

Y'know...That's exactly the kind of manic dystopian freakazoid ranting that led me to question the enviro-moonbat movement, back when I still threw in with them.

And y'all are the same Gomers who shriek about dudes like Glenn Beck being nutty.

 

[Shorebreak]

Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus.

So far, there are two predominant camps. The first camp are those who strongly claim that climate change is heavily impacted by man, who are promoted by corporate media and in alignment with the policy makers and globalist corporations who want to impose taxes and strict manufacturing controls at a global level, under their authority.

The second camp is the scientists, leaders, and manufacturers who are not aligned with corporate media or globalists. They are very much larger than the first camp, but they are cast as a dissenting view by media rather than the predominant view. For example, there is a document that is signed by 30,000 scientists who have stated unequivocably that they find no evidence suggesting that human activity has a significant impact on climate change.

When you wade through all of the muck, there are a few key items that stand out:

1. The most indepth support for global action on climate change is coming from globalist entities, such as the UN.
2. All efforts surrounding control of emmissions are centered around generating tax revenue and establishing manufacturing controls and limits - to be decided by globalist entities.
3. Support for these efforts comes primarily from corporate sponsorships (e.g. research funding at prominant universities and research facilities), from governments who are aligned with socialist global unification (the US, UK, France, China, etc), and from corporate sponsored media.
4. Opposed to man-made climate change is briefly highlighted by media but not focused upon. For example, corporate globalist media networks such as the Discovery Channel and National Geographic have been airing programming for many years that treats man-made climate change as a fact without ever presenting a challenging opinion. In addition, many of the programs that are not focused on climate change will include script that adds climate change comments into the narration, as though it is a reality.

My comment for those who believe that man-made climate change is a reality is to be certain that you are entering into this thing with your eyes wide open. There is no cost or Kw equivalent alternative to coal energy today. Neither is there an equivalent to most of the other fossil-fuel driven manufacturing processes that are used to sustain our societal infrastructure, ranging from food production, electricity production, household goods, electronics, and transportation infrastructure.

What you are demanding, without scientific concensus, is global legislation (with authority over domestic laws granted to a corporate controlled global entity) that will not only decimate the US capacity to support our current population, but will also add a significant levy to those operations that remain in production. On top of that, you are demanding that domestic manufacturers who can afford to relocate overseas close up shop and head to other nations with minimal restriction on manufacturing.

And I'm only scratching the surface with the impact. Is that what we really want?

And here's my comment for those who DON'T believe in man-made climate change: Go back and read my last two full paragraphs. That's what we're facing. This WILL be crammed down our throats, whether we want it or not. The White House has already ordered the EPA to send out the CO2 directive. My advice is to prepare now for a worst-case scenario (it's better to be prepared and have nothing happen than to not be prepared at all) as manufacturing is turned down and the economy is minimized. My wife and I are studying the lessons learned by the Argentinian collapse, whose lead-up almost fits the profile for our current circumstances in the US.

What a batch of lies.

So name one scientific society that declares that AGW is false. Come on, asshole, name one. How about one National Academy of Science? Come on, fellow, name one. OK, just one little major university in any nation? You cannot, because there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists on AGW.

I am not a scientist, although I do have considerable training, at university level, in geology. And I have observed the changes in the snow fields and glaciers of the mountains that I love to walk, the Blues, the Cascades, the Rockies, and the Sierras, for more than a half of a century.

The type of drivel that you have posted does make me angry. I see no chance of avoiding a PETM type of event. And the legacy that you have created for the children of this nation and the world leaves me with nothing but contempt for the intellect you display in flaunting your ignorance.

So what now? Does your rant suddenly mean that the globalist finance elites are correct, and that we need to grant them control of global manufacturing so that they can redistribute global wealth under their control?

For what it's worth, I consider myself environmentally conservative. If you're wasting things, you piss me off. If you're polluting the environment, you piss me off. And if you're doing something that has a negative impact on ecosystems and environmental balances, you piss me off.

I'm not trying to win friends and influence people here, so I'll just tell it to you straight on how I feel. Take it or leave it.

I grew up camping in the northern woods and swimming on southern beaches. I've hiked, skied, swam, fished, camped, canoed, snowshoed, climbed, and explored everywhere from northeastern Canada to southwestern California, from British Columbia to South Florida, from the Pennines to the Appennines, and from the Balkans to the Obako Mountains. And Many, many places in between.

I think I'm as equally qualified as anyone else to say that I love the world that we live in and that I want it to remain as beautiful and fruitful for my children as it has been for me. I have five children under my roof whom I am personally responsible for taking every possible step to assuring their growth, development, and security. It is a personal goal of mine to transfer my love and passion for our world to them so that they may take as much pride as I do in maintaining it as a place for their own children as the chain of life moves forward.

That being said, it is also well documented that climate change is a real and present condition. The question becomes "What is driving climate change and what should we do to respond to it, if anything". For example, today is one of the coldest days that my area has experienced in decades on this date. That trend began a couple of months ago and is continuing. Without trying to be facetious, my response is to wear a warmer jacket.

One of the things that I become exposed to as part of my job is temperature trends. Understanding these trends is critical when specifying and verifying the performance of temperature control systems in certain regulated environments. The standard source for this data is the NOAA website where data can be pulled for just about any part of the country. Take a look at the data and you'll see that the trend over the last decade has been cooling. The decade prior was warming.

The interesting part of that is that when the UN and the globalist propagandists (like FOX, CNN, the US White House, PBS, Chase Manhattan etc) began their global warming hysteria in the 90's, they had to swith gears in a hurry when they saw the trends changing to cooling, so they re-labeled the hystria "climate change".

So now the focus is on how to create a tax on all manufacturing, how to create a supra-national governing body with aurthority to direct location and budgets for manufacturing, and how to assure that those companies who don't fall into the control program are taxed and tarrifed out of business. And it's all driven through the funding and organization of global finance elements who are chomping at the bit to take away private industry ownership, and to use their control to implement a global re-development scheme that assures that they can place their puppets into control and that they can use economic control as a tool to orchestrate a global system of trade under their authority.

In my opinion, I've seen too much of this beautiful world and experienced too much individual liberty to sit back silently while such a deception of humanity is occuring. Have you read the actual proposal provided by the UN as the guidance for a gloabl treaty? Among other things, it creates a global body that supercedes national governments of signing countries in managing induatry and manufacturing - including transfer of industry AND funds between signing nations. It is NOT an environmental agreement. It's an economic agreement for a single global economic control.

Is there pollution? Yes. Is it harmful and a concern? Absolutely. But is climate change and a global economic control the solution to the problem? No. Absolutely not. It's nothing more than a bait and switch power grab. If you don't believe it, you've probably been paying attention to media and not paying attention to the goals of those who are pulling the pieces together for their own benefit - the ones whom media ignores so that their agenda is not common knowledge.

 

[Big Fitz]

So what now? Does your rant suddenly mean that the globalist finance elites are correct, and that we need to grant them control of global manufacturing so that they can redistribute global wealth under their control?

Means that regardless of the reason this is the goal. You could say it's because kumquats grown in clay soil are a threat to the world, so we must loot the first world 'for the poor children of the world'.

Ayn Rand was so on the mark with these looting sacks of shit, it's terrifying.

They believe themselves entitled to global control over everything because they are them and they are more enlightened than the rest of we dumbasses. Of course... the key component is always that THEY will be the ones on top, not subjected to their own insanity.

We suffer from their insanity. They love every moment of it.