If you still think politicians are worried about the so called global warming...I mean global cooling....I mean global climate change...read this article "The Coming Climate Dictatorship" and make your voice be heard or else you will be bowing down and scraping before the Climate Change know it alls who will dictate to you where you can live, eat, vacation(huh what's that?), what kind of house you can buy, what source of energy (if we have one left) you can use, what car you can drive...etc. etc. This is serious folks. This will be a biggest power grab even than the hoax of the Universal Health Care bill making its rounds as we speak in Washington. Scary stuff.
Control: The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a "climate emergency." As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
If you thought the House health care bill that nobody read has hidden passages that threaten our freedoms and liberty, take a peak at the "trigger" placed in the byzantine innards of both the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill just passed by Democrats out of Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee.
As Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation points out, the Kerry-Boxer bill requires the declaration of a "climate emergency" if the concentration of carbon dioxide and other declared greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exceeds 450 parts per million (ppm). It was at about 286 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and now sits at around 368 ppm.
What figure was picked out of a hat because the warm-mongers believe that's the level at which the polar ice caps will disappear, boats can be moored on the Statue of Liberty's torch and dead polar bears will wash up on the beaches of Malibu.
...Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner says "this agenda transparently is not about GHG concentrations, or the climate. It's about what the provision would bring: almost limitless power over private economic activity and individual liberty for the activist president ...
Writing in the Financial Times recently, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, author of the book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles," said: "As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism."
Klaus, who has challenged Al Gore to a debate and has rejected Europe's embrace of Kyoto, told the Cato Institute recently that "environmentalism is a religion" that accepts global warming on faith and seeks to exploit it to reshape the world and economic order. Continue reading at IBD.
Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Rachel Carson's Evil Legacy
We must challenge Rachel Carson - who single handedly is responsible for the deaths of millions of children in Africa from Malaria. Watch this video - the truth about global warming will out sooner or later and Gore's lies as well.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The United Nations, G-20 Summit and Obama Wants Others To Help Us Run Our Economy at PJTV
Don't you feel that it's creepy for the United States President to be cavorting with basically half a room full of thug dictators like Chavez, the nuclear bomb nut from Iran and the other nut from Libya? AND APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA! HOW DARE HE?
Yaron Brook from ARI and Terri Jones from IBD discuss Obama's New World Order, Violent Protests from the Far-Left at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh while Obama makes his apology tour and continues to push environmentalism by making us into a solar/battery nation. Well worth a listen at PJTV.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2495
Yaron Brook from ARI and Terri Jones from IBD discuss Obama's New World Order, Violent Protests from the Far-Left at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh while Obama makes his apology tour and continues to push environmentalism by making us into a solar/battery nation. Well worth a listen at PJTV.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2495
Friday, April 04, 2008
Environmentalism - The New Communism and Threat to Liberty
I say that each American has the obligation to investigate this so called "Global Warming catastrophe" being pimped by the likes of Al Gore and Moore and see what the other side has to say. Something to remember that many scientists get government funding for their research especially climate research so it is to their benefit to come up with "proof" of the disaster that will follow "Global Warming". But I think Americans are smart enough to investigate this for themselves and see what the opposition has to say. The reason Mr. Klaus has such interesting comments on this topic is because he lived under Communism which was also all about controlling people and money. Let's put on our thinking caps folks and not let ourselves be hoodwinked into another form of communism or control.
Vaclav Klaus, the President of Czechoslovakia, has some inciteful answers to questions posed to him at The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. The following are some of his comments.
"My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom.
"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.
"The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an indisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design."(READ THE REST HERE). (Also go here). For some real cool videos go here.
Vaclav Klaus, the President of Czechoslovakia, has some inciteful answers to questions posed to him at The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. The following are some of his comments.
"My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom.
"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.
"The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an indisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design."(READ THE REST HERE). (Also go here). For some real cool videos go here.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Environmentalists Don't Even Want You To Have WATER
A good example of the real face of environmentalism - every species comes before Man.
Ayn Rand Institute Press Release
Environmentalists Are Muscling In on Atlanta's Water Supply November 7, 2007
Irvine, CA--With the Southeast suffering a prolonged drought, the city of Atlanta, Georgia, has only about a three month supply of readily accessible water. Nevertheless, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Army Corps of Engineers continues to drain more than a billion gallons a day from Lake Lanier, Atlanta's main water source, to release it downstream for an endangered species of mussel.
"The Endangered Species Act is a danger to the human species," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "People find it hard to believe that environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act could really require the sacrifice of human beings to nature. But that is exactly what they have to mean in practice; they mean that in order to sustain some obscure mussel species, the people in Atlanta must go without water.
Environmentalists claim that blaming the mussels is unfair. They say it is just a way of diverting attention from the real causes of the water crisis, which, in their view, are a lack of strict water conservation mandates and the 'unbridled development' of metro Atlanta over the last few years."
But, says Lockitch, "this amounts to the bizarre claim that the problem is not a failure to build reservoirs and expand water capacity, but a 'failure' to obstruct economic progress and impose draconian water restrictions on Atlanta. In other words, the environmentalists' view is that Atlantans should sacrifice even more to nature.
"In fact, the opposite is the case. Solving the Southeast's water problems requires the rejection of the Endangered Species Act and environmentalist obstacles to development and growth. Indeed, the real solution is more profit-driven development. What is needed is a water management system that is entirely owned and operated by private individuals and companies, who would be driven by the profit motive to ensure a sufficient water capacity. A wholly private system would protect the rights of all users with a legitimate interest in the Chattahoochee River Basin--including metro Atlanta as well as the energy plants downstream and the Florida seafood industry in the Gulf--with no one requiring that human beings be sacrificed to mussels."
(Ayn Rand Institute)
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Ayn Rand Institute Press Release
Environmentalists Are Muscling In on Atlanta's Water Supply November 7, 2007
Irvine, CA--With the Southeast suffering a prolonged drought, the city of Atlanta, Georgia, has only about a three month supply of readily accessible water. Nevertheless, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Army Corps of Engineers continues to drain more than a billion gallons a day from Lake Lanier, Atlanta's main water source, to release it downstream for an endangered species of mussel.
"The Endangered Species Act is a danger to the human species," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "People find it hard to believe that environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act could really require the sacrifice of human beings to nature. But that is exactly what they have to mean in practice; they mean that in order to sustain some obscure mussel species, the people in Atlanta must go without water.
Environmentalists claim that blaming the mussels is unfair. They say it is just a way of diverting attention from the real causes of the water crisis, which, in their view, are a lack of strict water conservation mandates and the 'unbridled development' of metro Atlanta over the last few years."
But, says Lockitch, "this amounts to the bizarre claim that the problem is not a failure to build reservoirs and expand water capacity, but a 'failure' to obstruct economic progress and impose draconian water restrictions on Atlanta. In other words, the environmentalists' view is that Atlantans should sacrifice even more to nature.
"In fact, the opposite is the case. Solving the Southeast's water problems requires the rejection of the Endangered Species Act and environmentalist obstacles to development and growth. Indeed, the real solution is more profit-driven development. What is needed is a water management system that is entirely owned and operated by private individuals and companies, who would be driven by the profit motive to ensure a sufficient water capacity. A wholly private system would protect the rights of all users with a legitimate interest in the Chattahoochee River Basin--including metro Atlanta as well as the energy plants downstream and the Florida seafood industry in the Gulf--with no one requiring that human beings be sacrificed to mussels."
(Ayn Rand Institute)
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
What Will It Be America? Modernity or Backwardness?
I listened to a very revealing interview with an environmentalist activist from India, Sunita Narain on the BBC (listen). The interviewer, while clearly sympathetic to the guest, tried several times to pin her down on several questions where she had seemed evasive. I thought she was clear as a bell.
She declared that climate change is very important particularly for India so government must take climate change seriously – because if glaciers melt as it seems to be the case then water will become an issue. She boldly made the claim that green house gases therefore economic growth, are directly linked to climate change, ignoring the fact that more and more scientists are questioning the so called facts behind rising CO2 emissions and it’s effect on climate (Gore’s Nobel Prize notwithstanding).
I’ll try to paraphrase some of her utterances but you’ll have to listen to the interview yourself to get the full idea of what she is really advocating.
She says that India must be allowed to emit CO2 in order to grow. She says “We have to share growth between the nations. Cooperation is not possible without justice and equity – this is not about coercion. We are definitely asking the rich countries to cut their emissions.”
Then the interviewer says: “Yes the rich are responsible for 70% of the emissions but in 25 years it’s the developing countries that will be responsible for 70%.”
Ms Narain exclaims: “Exactly the point. If you’re really talking about this one world let the rich decrease their emissions so the poor world can increase. But we don’t want to be as irresponsible as the rest of the world was.”
“But then don’t you need legally binding limits imposed on you?” (Interviewer)
“Absolutely! But for the rich! By 2050 we must reduce carbon emissions by 80% if we want half a chance to save this world…There is an over fascination that there is a technological fix for our problems – there isn’t.” (Ms. Narain)
“With what face and what morality can anyone in the rich world even speak about climate change today? We in India are emitting but we are also suffering for the problems we did not even initiate.”
Apparently, Ms. Narian’s vision of the proper model to emulate is the Himalayas. Why? “That lifestyle teaches us how you can live with so little…you can build a rural economy with resources from the environment. We can learn from the rationality and the frugality of the poor people.”
More and more pressure will be placed on the United States and other countries that have chosen reason as their means of climbing out of backwardness, to cut their emissions. Remember cutting carbon emissions means cutting production which means regressing to poverty. My question is – Are our leaders in Washington and state governments philosophically armed to be able to defend our way of life and do they have the backbone to prevent the ‘do-gooders’ from turning us into a third world country? I have very grave doubts indeed. What this woman appears to be advocating is one world rule.
So as the number of these self-appointed saviors of the world increase, it will be interesting to see which road we choose as a nation: progress, modernity and all the conveniences that applying reason and science to problems brings, or, decline, backwardness and all the drudgery that anti-reason brings to human life.
To quote Ayn Rand from her book "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" - published in 1971:
She declared that climate change is very important particularly for India so government must take climate change seriously – because if glaciers melt as it seems to be the case then water will become an issue. She boldly made the claim that green house gases therefore economic growth, are directly linked to climate change, ignoring the fact that more and more scientists are questioning the so called facts behind rising CO2 emissions and it’s effect on climate (Gore’s Nobel Prize notwithstanding).
I’ll try to paraphrase some of her utterances but you’ll have to listen to the interview yourself to get the full idea of what she is really advocating.
She says that India must be allowed to emit CO2 in order to grow. She says “We have to share growth between the nations. Cooperation is not possible without justice and equity – this is not about coercion. We are definitely asking the rich countries to cut their emissions.”
Then the interviewer says: “Yes the rich are responsible for 70% of the emissions but in 25 years it’s the developing countries that will be responsible for 70%.”
Ms Narain exclaims: “Exactly the point. If you’re really talking about this one world let the rich decrease their emissions so the poor world can increase. But we don’t want to be as irresponsible as the rest of the world was.”
“But then don’t you need legally binding limits imposed on you?” (Interviewer)
“Absolutely! But for the rich! By 2050 we must reduce carbon emissions by 80% if we want half a chance to save this world…There is an over fascination that there is a technological fix for our problems – there isn’t.” (Ms. Narain)
“With what face and what morality can anyone in the rich world even speak about climate change today? We in India are emitting but we are also suffering for the problems we did not even initiate.”
Apparently, Ms. Narian’s vision of the proper model to emulate is the Himalayas. Why? “That lifestyle teaches us how you can live with so little…you can build a rural economy with resources from the environment. We can learn from the rationality and the frugality of the poor people.”
More and more pressure will be placed on the United States and other countries that have chosen reason as their means of climbing out of backwardness, to cut their emissions. Remember cutting carbon emissions means cutting production which means regressing to poverty. My question is – Are our leaders in Washington and state governments philosophically armed to be able to defend our way of life and do they have the backbone to prevent the ‘do-gooders’ from turning us into a third world country? I have very grave doubts indeed. What this woman appears to be advocating is one world rule.
So as the number of these self-appointed saviors of the world increase, it will be interesting to see which road we choose as a nation: progress, modernity and all the conveniences that applying reason and science to problems brings, or, decline, backwardness and all the drudgery that anti-reason brings to human life.
To quote Ayn Rand from her book "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" - published in 1971:
"The immediate goal is obvious: the destruction of the remnants of
capitalism in today's mixed economy, the establishment of a global
dictatorship. This goal does not have to be inferred-many speeches and books on the subject state explicitly that the ecological crusade is a means to that end."
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Noble Prize for the Biggest Scam of the Ages
The seams in Gore's global warming scam are being ripped apart as more and more people have a closer look at what this man is spouting (Robert Tracinski at The Intellectual Activist does an excellent job of covering this issue).
"If you must declare a debate over, then maybe it's not. And if you have to gussy up your agenda as "our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level," then it deserves some skeptical examination." (John Stossel)
"Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10."
"Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn't want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.
"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.
"Considering that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?" (Steven Milloy).
Michael Asher reports on the fact that the foundation of the global warming scam-the Greenhouse Gas theory-is under serious attack from new research funded by the US National Science Foundation.
Gore's rants about global warming is part of the whole environmentalist movement that hates modern life and uses the cloak of science to legitimize their goals of dismantling all that humans have accomplished over the centuries. Global warming is a fantasy and a wish based on the desire of these environmentalists' to live in nature and their deep down hatred of man and progress. But even deeper they hate reason the foundation for man's rise from Neanderthal to Homo Sapiens. Remember the unabomber Ted Kaczynski? He openly stated "I wanted to live like a Neanderthal".
We used to live "in nature" but as man painstakingly rose from bare existence to a technologically advanced civilization they did one thing that environmentalists do not do - use reason to solve problems and create a life filled with rewarding challenges and benefits.
"If you must declare a debate over, then maybe it's not. And if you have to gussy up your agenda as "our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level," then it deserves some skeptical examination." (John Stossel)
"Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10."
"Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn't want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.
"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.
"Considering that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?" (Steven Milloy).
Michael Asher reports on the fact that the foundation of the global warming scam-the Greenhouse Gas theory-is under serious attack from new research funded by the US National Science Foundation.
Gore's rants about global warming is part of the whole environmentalist movement that hates modern life and uses the cloak of science to legitimize their goals of dismantling all that humans have accomplished over the centuries. Global warming is a fantasy and a wish based on the desire of these environmentalists' to live in nature and their deep down hatred of man and progress. But even deeper they hate reason the foundation for man's rise from Neanderthal to Homo Sapiens. Remember the unabomber Ted Kaczynski? He openly stated "I wanted to live like a Neanderthal".
We used to live "in nature" but as man painstakingly rose from bare existence to a technologically advanced civilization they did one thing that environmentalists do not do - use reason to solve problems and create a life filled with rewarding challenges and benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)