(25 Nov 09) “….In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes….Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it…The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense-- information that told the Al Qaeda international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it…” Bowing to World Opinion , Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com “……Tragically, this administration seems hell-bent to avoid seeing acts of terrorism against the United States as acts of war. The very phrase "war on terrorism" is avoided, as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us….This is not the rule of law but the application of laws to situations for which they were not designed. How many Americans may pay with their lives for the intelligence secrets and methods that can forced to be disclosed to Al Qaeda was not mentioned….As a private citizen, Barack Obama has a right to make as big a jackass of himself as he wants to. But, as President of the United States, his actions not only denigrate a nation that other nations rely on for survival, but raise questions about how reliable our judgment and resolve are…”
REPOSTED FROM AUGUST 2007 Unmasking Global Warming
I have often made the case that it seems to me that the Berlin Wall didn't so much come down (and the associated ideology of The Soviet Union collapse) as just mover further west. In other words, the bricks and mortar came down but not the ideology. This article ( reposted from 5th August 2007 ) further advances that argument.
“…The most remarkable aspect of the man-made global warming claim is the lack of solid scientific evidence for it. Yet there are those whose apparent goal it is to advance this theory at all costs. Blatant in their disregard of the facts , they try to convince as many as would believe of the real nature of this alleged danger. But since this activism does not rest on scientific evidence or hard facts, it must be driven by motives other than those publicly stated. This much at least should be obvious, but sadly far too many people have failed to make this inference….To see just what those motives may be, we need to go no further than Mikhail Gorbachev whose remarkable political transformation offers a striking insight into the true character of the man-made global warming movement. Formerly leader of the Soviet Union , Mikhail Gorbachev is now one of the world's most vocal global warming activists. This is an unlikely role indeed for a man who during his years in power showed no inclination to address environmental issues….The question is how we are to reconcile Gorbachev's past behavior of environmental destructiveness with his present-day activism….” Unmasking Global Warming , The Case of Mikhail Gorbachev by Vasko Kohlmayer “…We would do well to ponder this, because the answer sheds light not only on a wily personal reinvention, but also on the motives of those responsible for the creation and spreading of the global warming hysteria…Gorbachev has not changed his basic ideological convictions. In other words, this life-long party apparatchik remains an unrepentant communist to this day…To remain credible, Gorbachev had to look for a more respectable platform from which to continue his efforts. This he quickly found in environmentalism and less than two years after his fall from power he founded Green Cross International , a Geneva-based eco lobby group….while even the most basic forms environmentalism have proven themselves to be a potent vehicle for advancing socialist ideals, the potential of global warming has exceeded almost all expectations in this regard…It is precisely for these reasons that the idea of man-made global warming so appeals to Mikhail Gorbachev who never did anything for the environment when he was in the position to do so…”
REPOSTED FROM 28JULY 2008 The IPCC's False evidence of man-made global warming
The name Ben Santer has cropped up in this deluge of emails from TheClimatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. Santer features in the book by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred years . As you will see from these two or three pages reposted from 28th July 2008, The IPCC's False evidence of man-made global warming, Santer has form. He singlehandedly was responsible for inserting and deleteing crucial paragraphs into the 1995 IPCC report that totally reversed what the scientists had concluded.
It's worth noting also that the Michael Mann mentioned in the emails is the same Michael Mann that was behind the fraudulent and now debunked Hockey stick graph.
Global Warming IS man-made after all
(23 Nov 09) The fall out continues.... Global Warming IS man-made after all
The Death Blow to Climate Science
(22 Nov 09) “.......Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.... Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley . I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS)...Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn't and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005......” The Death Blow to Climate Science , Dr Tim Ball “......Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort....Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other's work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature . We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names.... These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001... CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming?
(22 Nov 09) “......If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That ) When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.....” Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming? James Delingpole UK Telegraph “.....Hadley CRU has form in this regard . In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU's researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC....Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.....”
Claim That Sea Level is Rising Is a Total Fraud
(22 Nov 09) In an interview with EIR magazine on 6 th June 2007, Dr Mörner pointed out that from 1992 to 2002, satellite data indicated no sea level rise at all: the graph “was a straight line … no trend whatsoever.” Then in 2003, IPCC publications showed a 2.3 mm per year rising sea level trend, for the same data set! Mörner: “those people in the IPCC, choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. … That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set.”
EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?
Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure. That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry..... So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there's no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There's no trend, absolutely no trend. Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it.....” Claim That Sea Level is Rising Is a Total Fraud “..... So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.... I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none —were sea-level specialists . They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing....We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is tectonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding. The rate has been constant over time. A rising sea level would immediately accelerate the flooding. And it would be so simple to record it. And if you look at that 300-year record: In the 20th Century it was going up and down, around the subsidence rate. In 1970, you should have an acceleration, but instead, the rise almost finished. So it was the opposite. If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat.... A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because of deforestation. At the foot of the Kilimanjaro, there was a rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that came snow, and snow became ice. Now, they have cut down the rain forest, and instead of moisture, there comes heat; heat melts the ice, and there's no more snow to generate the ice. So it's a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature. It's the misbehavior of the people around the mountain. So again, it's like Tuvalu: We should say this deforestation, that's the thing. But instead they say, “No, no, it's the global warming!”.
Australia: State of Intolerance
(17 Nov 09) “.....There is something deeply troubling about Kevin Rudd's extraordinary attack in his Lowy lecture on people who dare to be skeptical about the climate change hysteria that is presently overwhelming Australian politics. Certainly its breathtaking arrogance and conviction of absolute certitude, its “naming and shaming” attack on political opponents and commentators, and its relentless dot-point repetition and stylistic vapidity, are worrying enough. However, its depiction of a giant global conspiracy of climate change deniers and skeptics reveals something more, a disturbed mental state first identified in 1965 by the great American historian Richard Hofstadter in his essay on “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”. In this very influential work, Hofstadter described the role played in politics by “a style of mind [characterized by] heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy”, together with “systematized delusions of persecution and of one's own greatness”, and “overheated, over-suspicious, over-aggressive, grandiose, and apocalyptic [forms] of expression”. Hofstadter explains how the paranoid-style politician sees himself as a champion of his society, the vulnerable masses, and indeed the entire world, locked in mortal battle with deeply entrenched conspiracies that aim to destroy them all. As their defender, he “sees the fate of this conspiracy in apocalyptic terms – he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values....” Australia: State of Intolerance , Merve Bendle Quadrant Online “.....Over the past few years Australian politics has moved from a political paradigm defined by a preoccupation with patriotism, history, and a concern with the Australian character, to one increasingly defined by globalism, paranoia, and an obsession with apocalyptic views of the future. John Howard was the master of one, and comfortable with ordinary Australians and their aspirations; while Rudd is making a claim to be the master of the other, and is far more comfortable with foreign heads of state and UN officials, and their aspirations, which are, of course, his own. Therefore, what the climate change imbroglio demonstrates is that the actual real-world interests of our nation and the pragmatic solutions they require will be ignored by a Prime Minister who exhibits no particular aptitude for such day-to-day political activity, but increasingly perceives both himself and his role in the world in absolute, grandiose, and messianic terms. Modern history has demonstrated many times that political messianism is a very dangerous thing and so the question remains: do we have the politicians with the courage required to put the brakes on this increasingly menacing process, or will the future of Australia be sacrificed on the altar of the eco-apocalypse ?..
(16 Nov 09)“……Following a judge's decision at a British employment tribunal that Tim Nicholson, a sustainability officer who was sacked from a property firm, was entitled to legal protection for his philosophical belief in climate change, scientists have been expressing their shock. "As a scientist who works on climate change, I find it deeply alarming," said Myles Allen, who heads the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford. Allen's concerns are entirely understandable. Since the rise of the modern era, science has prided itself on its capacity to explain the world on the basis of experimentation, research and, above all, hard evidence. Science emerged, self-consciously, as an alternative to world views based on faith, moral conviction and other forms of a priori thought. So it is natural that a genuine scientist would feel insulted by judge Michael Burton's ruling that Nicholson's concern with climate change qualified as a philosophical belief under the Religion and Belief Regulations, 2003…..One reason Allen and some of his colleagues are concerned about this decision is that it serves to undermine the pre-eminent authority of science today….if science is recast by a legal ruling as simply a moral or religious world view, then its pre-eminent authority is likely to be compromised. What is to distinguish science from quacks with strongly held principles?.....” Mired in climate of confusion , Frank Furedi, The Australian “….. Science often has the quality of a quasi-religious dogma these days, especially in the arena of climate-change alarmism. "The scientists have spoken," says one British-based green campaign group, in an updated version of the religious phrase, "This is the Word of the Lord." "This is what the science says we must do," many greens claim before adding that the debate about global warming is finished…Unlike science, this new term, The Science , is a deeply moralised and politicised category. Today, those who claim to wield the authority of The Science are really demanding unquestioning submission…Although some scientists feel insulted that their views on climate change have been equated with a religion, there are many green activists who are more than happy to recruit the support of God to their cause….Professional environmental protesters assume they have the moral authority to take matters into their own hands, since they are acting on behalf of The People. They believe their unique philosophical insights entitle them to special dispensation. Now, justice Burton has effectively agreed with them, elevating environmentalism over other, inferior, less worthy beliefs, and democracy is all the more impoverished for it......”
Global Bully Rudd for foreign committee against citizens
(12 Nov 09) “…..The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it's “based on science”, but if you ask for evidence, you're called names— “Denier” , and by our Prime Minister, no less. This is supposed to pass for reasoned debate? In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused . Yet he can't point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself. It's as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible . Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That's for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutche Bank, and HSBC….This global gravy train got rolling in 1988 and when the evidence turned “180”, the train ran off the tracks. Now it levitates above the real world on a cushion of snarling spite and intimidation. It's as if calling someone a “denier” replaces 100,000 radiosonde readings, 6,000 boreholes, 30 years of satellite results and ice cores that go back to a time before homo sapiens was sapien . These things are evidence, but a manufactured “consensus” from a self serving committee is not. “Denier” is an insult, a cheap attempt to bully dissent into submission…” Global Bully Rudd for foreign committee against citizens , Joanne Nova “…..Ratings agencies repacked junk securities into “AAA rated” investments and triggered the credit crunch. The IPCC has repackaged “junk science” and created an “expert triple A rated”, full gloss quasi prospectus called a “Synthesis Report”. The Australian government is buying their unaudited package hook, line and stinker. It's sobering to think this man is in our highest office…. History books will be written about the global warming exaggerations, and people will marvel at how close the world came to feeding a new layer of financial parasites so soon after the economy collapsed due to the last speculative frenzy. Sub prime carbon was on its way….. . Rudd scores an own-goal by saying we are deniers “who do not accept the scientific consensus”. Hell no we don't. We stand by Galileo, Aristotle and Einstein. We demand evidence, and not just opinions…..The carbon scare is a shell game to distract the masses while bankers take Australia's economic sovereignty and lock in a profitable carbon trading scheme for themselves…In any other branch of science this theory would be dead and buried. There are so many flaws, and so many knock-out blows, it's not possible to seriously look at the evidence and think the carbon-crisis theory has any legs left. Sure, new evidence could change that, but it would have to be one mother of an experiment to turn around the results from oceans, sediments, satellites, stalagmites, weather balloons and ice cores…..”
What's behind America's politically correct ‘love' of Islam?
(12 Nov 09) “.....The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: "Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?" Further evidence quickly rolled in: Hasan had reportedly refused to fight fellow Muslims, called the war on terror a "war on Islam," told a co-worker Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans, and reportedly had posted online his astoundingly twisted belief that an Islamic suicide bomber was morally equivalent to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. In other words, although the Army had many warnings Hasan was a certifiable, America-hating, jihadist "ticking time bomb" waiting to go off, it did nothing to avert last week's terror attack. Why?....Why, after the truth about Hasan became undeniable following his mass slaughter, does the government, as well as its mouthpiece the establishment press, agonize in their usual pathetic manner over what could possibly have motivated the Army psychiatrist to coldly, methodically murder 13 and wound 38 others? Why, after a Muslim commits a terrorist act, do authorities always announce almost instantaneously – before they could possibly know – that the attack was not terror-related?...” What's behind America's politically correct ‘love' of Islam? David Kupelian, WorldNet Daily “......Why do the news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth?....Like alcoholics uncomfortable with facing the painful truth, the media retreated into comfortable denial. Their standard analysis of what made Muhammad tick included anything and everything except jihad.... This see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad, speak-no-jihad mindset has become standard operating procedure for the establishment press.... " Political correctness" – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled "Thought Police") conceded this truth when it reported: "PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy." Bottom line: We're intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought.....”
Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate
Whoops!!!! And we thought the science was settled.
(6 Nov 09) “.....Much of the material was developed through the series of brainstorming sessions organised by Gore. Since 2007, the former vice-president has been calling experts together to discuss possible solutions to climate change. He has also held countless telephone conversations with scientists at America's best institutions.....” Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate , The Guardian “......Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide - while the focus of the politics of climate change - produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.....”
The Copenhagen con: same demand, different excuse
(6 Nov 09) From the Andrew Bolt Blog “... 1970, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World - minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary to ensure “human dignity......” The Copenhagen con: same demand, different excuse
The deep green sophistry of 'religious' equivalence
(5 Nov 09) “…..It's official -- putting plastic bottles into the recycling bin or going on a Greenpeace demo is akin to having a religious experience. Rupert Dickinson, who was made redundant by a London property company, claimed that it had discriminated against him on account of his subscription to the theory of man-made global warming and other environmental issues which he said constituted a ‘philosophical' belief. In any rational universe, he would be sent away with a flea in his ear for trying it on. But this is not such a world. At an Employment Appeal Tribunal Mr Justice Burton ruled that because of his belief in climate change Dickinson was entitled to the same protection against discrimination as someone with religious convictions. How hilarious is this? When sceptics like me observe that man-made global warming resembles religious zealotry because it is a dogmatic belief which has nothing to do with actual as opposed to pseudo-science, we are dismissed as anti-science flat-earthers. Yet now Mr Justice Burton has laid down that it is a philosophical ‘belief' which has the same status as belief in a religion…” The deep green sophistry of 'religious' equivalence , Melanie Phillips, Spectator “….The effect of this is to downgrade religion because it elevates other ideas to the same status. Indeed it would appear that just about any idea system however bizarre can lay claim to equal status on this basis. Christians are up in arms and no wonder, since it down-grades real religion as a result…the point about man-made global warming is that it is said to be a process that is actually happening, with scientifically demonstrable effects. Yet as Bertrand Russell argued, philosophy consists of speculation on questions science cannot answer. So by its own ‘scientific' lights, how can man-made global warming be considered a philosophical position? And if it is just ‘speculation' on ‘questions science cannot answer', why should it have the slightest credibility?....Contrary to what the judge declared, according to this argument precisely the same consideration should apply to global warming sceptics, whose belief founded upon science that man-made global warming is a scam of epic proportions should also be considered to be a philosophical idea with equal status to religion. I look forward to the legal case against the media brought by man-made global warming sceptics on the grounds of discrimination under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003….”
(4 Nov 09) “......Environmental alarmism is being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty. The latest threat to American liberties may be found in the innocuous sounding Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which will be discussed at the United Nations climate-change conference in mid-December..... Treaty supporters market the agreement through fear. Even though mean global temperatures have been on a downward spiral for several years after peaking in 1998... It is critical that they cultivate a sense of impending doom to justify the sweeping restrictions and new powers enshrined in the treaty. The sky is falling and they want us to act now, act swiftly, act before it is too late - but don't read the fine print. The governing authority envisioned by the document reads like a bad George Orwell knockoff. The treaty establishes a body called the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is given ultimate authority over administering and enforcing the treaty. Its executive arm is something called the Adaptation Fund Board, under which is the Copenhagen Climate Facility, also known as "the Facility." Green world government , The editorial, Washington Times “......The Facility is necessary because in order to save the planet, "the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally."...T he Facility will be run by an executive committee, the membership of which "may include representation from relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental stakeholders." So left-wing pressure groups, animal rights fanatics, tree-huggers, Al Gore or any other part of the environmentalist fringe would be eligible for executive committee membership.... A "massive scaling up of financial resources" will be required to fund the COP's activities. The United States and others will be required to transfer $800 billion over five years,.... The COP will have taxing authority "including, but not limited to, a levy on aviation and maritime transport." The ability to tax aircraft and shipping is bad enough.....the phrase "including but not limited to" authorizes any tax they can imagine. The treaty language would be farcical but for the fanaticism of its proponents. The environmental movement is driven by a millenarian determination to save humanity from itself, regardless of its impact on real people.....” .
Gullible eager-beaver planet savers
‘The environment' is the most ingenious cover story ever devised for Big Government
(4 Nov 09) “.....Tim Flannery, the jet-setting doomsaying global warm-monger from down under, was in Ottawa the other day promoting his latest eco-tract, and offered a few thoughts on “Copenhagen”—which is transnational-speak for December's UN Convention on Climate Change. “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery . “ We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will in?uence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society . ”Hold that thought: “They deal with every aspect of our life.” Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen?.....Tim Flannery's disarmingly honest characterization passed almost without notice, reported as far as I can tell only by Brian Lilley of CFRB Toronto and CJAD Montreal. But professor Flannery has it right. Government transport policy is about transport, and government education policy is about education, but environmental policy is about everything, because everything's part of “the environment”: your town, your county, your planet—and you. “We are the environment. There is no distinction,” declared another renowned expert, David Suzuki, last year. And just as the government now monitors air and water quality so it's increasingly happy to regulate your quality...” Gullible eager-beaver planet savers , Mark Steyn “...... In 2006, to comply with the “European Land?ll Directive,” various municipal councils in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland introduced “smart” trash cans—“wheelie bins” with a penny-sized electronic chip embedded within that helpfully monitors and records your garbage as it's tossed into the truck.....And once Big Brother's in your trash can, why stop there?... Consider a recent British plan for each citizen to be given an of?cial travel allowance. If you take one ?ight a year, you'll pay just the standard amount of tax on the journey. But, if you travel more frequently, if you take a second or third ?ight, you'll be subject to additional levies—all in the interest of saving the planet for Al Gore's polar bear documentaries and that carbon-offset palace he lives in in Tennessee. The Soviets restricted freedom of movement through the bureaucratic apparatus of “exit visas.” The British favoured the bureaucratic apparatus of exit taxes: the movement's still free; it's just that there'll be a government processing fee of £412.95. And, in a revealing glimpse of the universal belief in enviro-statism, this proposal came not from Gordon Brown's Labour Party but from the allegedly Conservative Party......At their Monday night poker game in hell, I'll bet Stalin, Hitler and Mao are kicking themselves: “ ‘It's about leaving a better planet to our children?' Why didn't I think of that?... Last year, David Suzuki suggested that denialist politicians should be thrown in jail. And only last month the New York Times 's Great Thinker Thomas Friedman channelled his inner Walter Duranty and decided that democracy has f*cked up the planet.....”Reposted from August 21 st 2009 Global Warming or Global Governance
(21 Aug 2009) Take 1 hour 20 minutes out of your life and witness the greatest fraud in the history of humanity. And you're about to become a victim. Global Warming or Global Governance
For other interesting features be sure to visit October 2009