Tag Archives: Climate change
Preparing for Australia's Carbon tax

Carbon Tax Australia – Everything You ‘NEED’ to Know & Why?

Uploaded by on Jul 23, 2011

Who is Behind It? and Why?

Trilateral Treason?

According to the Australian Constitution, the federal government is required to act in Australia’s national interest, and is sworn to uphold our constitution.
However did the Rudd/Gillard Government act in the national interest, when it hired economics Professor Ross Garnaut, as our chief advisor on climate change?

Professor Garnaut, is currently a member of the Trilateral Commission, which is an international special interest group.

http://www.tinyurl.com/63h5onr

Scientists Partion

http://www.oism.org/pproject

Video by KOOZZOO News

http://www.koozzoo.com

About these ads
100412top4

California Declares War On Family Homes to ‘Save the Planet’

Detached houses virtually “illegal” under global warming laws

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, April 10, 2012

The state of California has declared war on detached family homes, with laws passed to mitigate car use and carbon dioxide emissions now leading to policies that mandate up to 30 homes be built on a single acre of land, fulfilling the goal of climate change alarmists to pack people into densely populated prison cities.

“Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

In some areas of Los Angeles County and five other Southern California counties, 30 housing units per acre are being mandated, all under the auspices of laws passed in the name of cutting car use and limiting CO2 emissions, including the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act and the 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act.

The rules on restricted development are driving up house prices and driving down standards of living. Even if you believe the justification of lowering greenhouse gases, the regulations won’t even achieve that, with greater traffic congestion merely confined to overpopulated cities as additional houses continue to use cars.

Transportation consultant Wendell Cox told the WSJ that the whole process represented an effort to make the construction of detached houses “illegal”.

This is all part of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 project which demands that member nations adopt “sustainable development” policies that are little more than a disguise for the reintroduction of neo-feudalism and only serve to reduce living standards and quality of life.

The true motivation behind this agenda was recently unveiled at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, during which climate change alarmists presented their blueprint for humans to be packed into denser cities (eco-gulags?) so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet, with cars for personal use banned and only accessible to members of the elite.

The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, was best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto.

http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/main.swf

http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-california-war-on-suburbia/90DFDB18-414A-442D-A4CB-749AA4C631B4.html

“We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” Seto told MSNBC.

Also making an appearance at the conference was none other than Professor Kari Norgaard, who published a paper calling for global warming skeptics to be “treated” for having a mental disorder, likening them to racists.

Despite academic establishments Norgaard is involved with hastily rushing to delete and alter information concerning her paper and biography, a letter Norgaard wrote to President Obama soon emerged in which she urged Obama to suspend democracy and push through dictatorial climate change mandates by executive fiat.

That process is already well underway in California.

1270674632

Genocide-Endorsing Climate Alarmist Calls For Global Tax on Carbon Emissions

NASA’s James Hansen previously advocated environmental terrorism

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, April 9, 2012

NASA global warming alarmist James Hansen, who previously endorsed a book that called for acts of environmentalist terrorism and genocide to return the planet to the agrarian age, is set to call for a global tax on carbon emissions in an upcoming speech.

“In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use,” reports the Guardian.

Echoing rhetoric that skeptics of the political agenda behind man-made climate change are akin to racists, Hansen characterizes alleged human-induced climate change a “great moral issue” on a par with slavery.

The report admits that the tax would “greatly increase the cost of fossil fuel energy” even as people struggle with soaring energy costs and that the “the carbon levy would increase year on year.”

The report gives little indication as to how the tax would be collected and by whom, but hints at some kind of hair-brained redistribution of wealth scheme with the promise that the tax would be “paid directly back to the public as a dividend, shared equally, rather than put into government coffers.”

That’s after Hansen’s buddies like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, pioneers of the billion dollar carbon tax boondoggle, have taken their cut of course.

Physicist Luboš Motl responded to the speech by pointing out that Hansen is basically calling for a dictatorial global government.

“People around Hansen have stopped interacting with scientists or sensible people in general many years ago. They’re not even trying to hide anymore that they have switched from attempts to find valid answers to scientific questions – a challenge in which they have failed miserably – to pure political activism. Hansen also wants to introduce a global government:

Under the global carbon tax proposal, the mechanisms for controlling fossil fuel use would be taken out of the hands of individual states influenced by energy companies, and politicians anxious about winning elections.

“Can you imagine how such a thing could possibly work so that it would be anything else than a global dictatorship? How would this international carbon tax agency behave if they were told the truth, namely that they’re stinky thugs and thieves who should f*ck off and who won’t be given another penny? Would they also have a police or army to fight against the dissatisfied? Does Hansen expect that individual nations will dedicate their army to an international junta whose very open goal is to cripple the nations’ sovereignty and take the power of human fates from the people, something he explicitly states? Has he lost his mind completely? If you’re a maniac who wants to get a control over the mankind against its will, you will have to shoot through all the gates yourself.”

“The comparison with slavery is particularly ironic because Hansen’s plan to introduce a global tax is nothing else than a form of slavery, a method for a self-appointed groups of alarmists to steal money from those who actually work, from those who are creating the values for mankind which often if not usually requires to emit CO2, the gas we call life, along the way, and to force them to work even more intensely in order to compensate for the money lost through the tax.”

Hansen will make the call for a global tax after receiving the “prestigious” Edinburgh Medal, an exercise in alarmists back-slapping each other that has previously been bestowed on ecologist James Lovelock, who in 2010 demanded that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

Hansen, head NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has also advocated extreme and authoritarian measures in the name of saving the planet.

In 2010, Hansen endorsed a book written by fellow alarmist Keith Farnish in which the author called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.

“The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization,” writes Farnish, adding that “people will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses”.

Farnish explains his desire to see rampant population reduction in the name of saving the planet.

“In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people,” he writes.

And how is the collapse of industrial civilization to be achieved? By indiscriminate acts of sabotage and eco-terrorism.

“Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage,” writes Farnish.

Writing on the Amazon.com website, Hansen praised Farnish’s “solutions,” commenting, “Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ’system’ is the problem.”

As we have exhaustively documented, now that global warming alarmists are clearly losing the scientific debate, they have resorted to trying to silence their ideological opponents by authoritarian decree, ludicrously equating skepticism with hate speech, while pursuing their agenda with the understanding that it will be enforced by tyrannical conquest, not by consent.

You Tube Now Banning Videos Critical of Global Warming Alarmism

Poking fun at public figure who advocates tyranny violates “community guidelines”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Poking fun at a public figure who openly calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be “treated” as a way of re-educating them is apparently off limits for You Tube, who censored a video in which Alex Jones used absurdist satire as a vehicle to illustrate the crackpot and dangerous beliefs of University of Oregon Professor Kari Norgaard.

As we documented last week, during a climate change conference in London which promoted the idea of forcibly imprisoning humans in ghetto prison cities for the good of the earth, Norgaard presented a paper in which she characterized doubts about anthropogenic climate change as both racist and a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

The video, which can be viewed above via Blip.tv, contains a clip from Infowars Nightly News in which Alex Jones gives Professor Norgaard the coveted ‘Skeksy Award’, which is reserved for only the most ardent promoters of tyranny and authoritarianism.

After Rush Limbaugh also directed scorn at Norgaard’s work, the University of Oregon had to back down and claim the inclusion of the word “treated” in the press release describing Norgaard’s paper was a mistake. Norgaard is now being framed at the victim of the whole piece, despite the fact that her dangerously authoritarian tendencies are shared by a raft of other prominent global warming alarmists.

Indeed, videos made by global warming alarmist groups showing children being blown up and having their guts splatted everywhere for not reducing their carbon footprint are apparently fine by You Tube, but suggesting Norgaard isn’t the most attractive woman on the planet is tantamount to hate speech.

The humor directed at Norgaard is at worst sophomoric – it can hardly be described as being “designed to harass, bully or threaten,” which are the labels You Tube applied in deleting the clip and placing a strike against the Alex Jones Channel.

This is straight out of the playbook of Obama’s information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a 2008 paper advocated taxing or outright banning political ideas not approved of by the establishment – including skepticism of man-made global warming.

The ‘Community Guidelines warning strike’ (see it here), cautions that the account is “not in good standing” because a You Tube user flagged the Norgaard video as having violated You Tube’s community guidelines which pertain to preventing, “predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts.”

When an account is considered by You Tube to be “not in good standing,” privileges are removed and repeated violations can result in termination of the account altogether, and with it the loss of tens of millions of video views and hundreds of thousands of subscribers.

This not only illustrates You Tube’s contempt for free speech – far more repulsive clips are routinely allowed on the platform without a whimper of complaint – it also underscores the dangers of how giant social media websites are taking over the web by forcing, through sheer weight of numbers, everyone to host their content with them and then that content being subject to selectively enforced censorship policies.

It also offers an insight into the mindset of the individual that flagged the video for You Tube’s censors to kill it. Global warming alarmists are so vehemently losing the debate on man-made climate change that they have openly resorted to attempting to crush the free speech of their ideological opponents in a bid to silence debate.

Indeed, as we documented on Monday, global warming alarmists have stripped away the veneer of their liberal, touchy-feely rhetoric in recent years to stridently call for the abolition of freedom and democracy, with some even advocating that climate change skeptics be forcibly “re-educated,” incarcerated in concentration camps, treated like Nazi war criminals, or even executed.

While some may find it offensive that Jones referred to Norgaard in a derogatory manner, what’s a thousand times more offensive is her gall in brazenly advocating that anyone who dares challenge the man-made global warming mantra be “treated,” presumably with the aid of pharmaceutical drugs, for having a psychiatric disorder, or that they be smeared as racists simply for disagreeing on a highly contentious scientific issue.

Not challenging that kind of arcane, ludicrous and despotic rhetoric, which has been embraced by others in the scientific field, is far more dangerous than Alex Jones cracking jokes about Norgaard being a stereotypical cat lady.

scc fisherman on dry reservoir

Prefessor Proclaims Climate Change Skeptics A Disease

Uploaded by

Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism

Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists — whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate — with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.”

“Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good. It’s not a new idea: trick-cyclists in Blighty and the US have lately called for a “science of communicating science” rather reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional “Psychohistory” discipline, able to predict and alter the behaviour of large populations,” reports the Register.
http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-tre…

Earth from Space_Kapl

Let there be light: ‘Human Achievement Hour’ to coincide with Earth Hour

As millions of people sit in the dark during Earth Hour to call for action against climate change this weekend, a libertarian think tank wants you to fight the power by keeping the lights on.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute plans to commemorate Earth Hour 2012 with its “Human Achievement Hour,” 60 minutes to gather with friends in a heated home, watch television and surf the Internet instead of dimming or shutting off the lights altogether to draw attention to climate change.

“HAH is an annual event meant to recognize and celebrate the fact that this is the greatest time to be alive, and that the reason we have come is that people have been free to use their minds and the resources in their environment to experiment, create, and innovate,” reads a CEI website on the event scheduled to coincide with Earth Hour 2012 from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. local time Saturday.

Participants in the event understand the “necessity to protect the individual persons from government coercion,” according to the Washington-based think tank.

The event is about saluting the people who “keep the lights on and produce the energy.”

- Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute

“Observers of Earth Hour want world leaders to ‘do something’ about pollution and energy use,” the website continues. “What this means is that they want politicians to use legal mandates and punitive taxes to prevent individuals from freely using resources, hindering our ability to create the solutions and technologies of the future.”

Myron Ebell, CEI’s director of energy and global warming policy, said the event is about saluting the people who “keep the lights on and produce the energy” that makes human achievement possible.

More than 5,200 cities in 135 countries worldwide participated in Earth Hour 2011, according to the event’s website. It was originally conceived in 2007 in Australia by the World Wide Fund for Nature and was expanded globally the following year.

“Earth Hour encourages individuals, businesses and governments to show leadership on environmental solutions through their actions, to use Earth Hour as a platform to showcase to the world what measures they are taking to reduce their environmental impact,” EarthHour.org reads. “Taking the first step is as easy as turning off your lights.”

Requests for comment from Earth Hour officials on the counter event were not immediately returned.

Those who do flip the switch, however, are encouraged only to turn off non-essential lights and not those that affect public safety. Candles to be used in lieu of lights should be 100 percent beeswax or soy varieties, according to Earth Hour officials, because they are non-toxic and non-allergenic.

Source

Kari-Norgaard

Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor

Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, March 30, 2012


Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists – whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.”

“Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good. It’s not a new idea: trick-cyclists in Blighty and the US have lately called for a “science of communicating science” rather reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional “Psychohistory” discipline, able to predict and alter the behaviour of large populations,” reports the Register.

As Jurriaan Maessen documented yesterday, the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ confab at which Norgaard is appearing to push this insane drivel is nothing other than a strategy session for neo-eugenicists to hone their population control agenda.

A statement put out by the scientists behind the event calls for humans to be packed into denser cities (eco-gulags?) so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet.

The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, is best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto.

“We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” Seto told MSNBC.

The effort to re-brand legitimate scientific dissent as a mental disorder that requires pharmacological or psychological treatment is a frightening glimpse into the Brave New World society climate change alarmists see themselves as ruling over.

Due to the fact that skepticism towards man-made global warming is running at an all time high, and with good reason, rather than admit they have lost the debate, climate change alarmists are instead advocating that their ideological opponents simply be drugged or brainwashed into compliance.

Norgaard’s effort to equate climate skepticism with racism as a disorder that requires “treatment” also serves as a reminder of the story we covered earlier this month about the establishment’s efforts to push the pharmaceutical heart drug Propranolol as a “cure” for racist thoughts.

center_image

Global Warming Exploited to Steal Aussie Land

Uploaded by

Time to Talk hosts Malcolm Roberts who is convinced Global Warming is a manufactured phenomenon designed to create fear and rob people of their basic human rights. The residents of Lake Cathie, near Port Macquarie, have launched a campaign to fight their local council against moves to force some to vacate their homes.

The global warming controversy includes a variety of disputes about the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The debates are more in the popular media than in the scientific literature.[1][2] The disputed issues involve the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether such a warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[3][4][5] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[6] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions

meds-small-for-web

Bioethics Professor: Drug The Population Into Accepting ‘Green World Order’

“Pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism” needed to address climate change

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, March 13, 2012

A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment argues that serious consideration should be given to mass drugging the population to make them more environmentally conscious while also proposing that babies should be genetically engineered to be smaller in order to reduce their carbon footprints.

In an interview with The Atlantic the lead author of the paper, New York University bioethics professor S. Matthew Liao, argues that humans need to be be subjected to “biomedical modifications” in order to help combat climate change.

Followed to their logical conclusion, Liao’s proposals outstrip anything Aldous Huxley wrote about in Brave New World, a 1932 dystopian novel about a future scientific dictatorship that seeks to drug, genetically manipulate, and medically induce humanity into complete slavish subservience.

Expressing regret that carbon taxes will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, Liao suggests other methods, including “pharmacologically induced meat intolerance” where people would take drugs which would trigger extreme nausea or wear patches that would “stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins.”

In order to reduce an individual’s “carbon footprint” and make sure they consume less, Liao suggests that a policy similar but more flexible to China’s one child policy be introduced, where parents can choose between having one large child, two medium sized children or three small children.

This would be accomplished by “preimplantation genetic diagnosis,” where embryos would be implanted based on height, or by using “drugs that reduce or increase the expression of paternal or maternal genes in order to affect birth height.”

Asked if genetic manipulation of babies is ethical or fair, Liao responds by citing the need to address “climate change” as the more pressing moral concern.

Liao subsequently suggests that drugging the public could positively influence their “will” to donate money to charities like Oxfam, which support the global warming agenda, by means of “pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism”.

“For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check,” says Liao.

Of course, by the same token drugs could be used to make someone more inclined to do anything. Depending on what authority is in control, this basically represents an opportunity to chemically castrate free will.

Liao makes it clear at the end of the interview that the pharmaceutical industry is enthusiastic about the potential financial windfall from “biomedical modifications”.

“I recently gave a talk about this paper at Yale and there was a man in the audience who worked for a pharmaceuticals company; he seemed to think there might be a huge market for modifications like this,” he states.

The Atlantic’s Ross Andersen fails to denounce Liao’s ideas for precisely what they represent – the tools of a hardcore scientific dictatorship wrapped in a trendy, liberal, touchy-feely package.

The authors of the paper emphasize that all of this would be “voluntary” and not coercive. However, as we have seen with the vaccine agenda, parents who try to protect their children from dangerous inoculations, or whatever particular medical trend is in vogue, face consequences almost equivalent to if vaccinations were compulsory, since the state and the medical establishment engages in harassment and hands out punishments to the same degree.

Liao’s advocacy for pharmacological “enhancement” of the population is by no means the first time it has been mooted. As far back as 1977, current White House science czar John P. Holdren wrote in his book Ecoscience that the population should be sterilized with infertility drugs to help save the planet.

The usefulness of mass drugging as a means of creating a docile population has also been promulgated through the media, where the idea of putting lithium in the water supply as a “mood stabilizer” has been afforded serious credence. Other prominent professors and psychiatrists have also called for psychotropic drugs to be added to drinking water.

This marks the second time in a matter of weeks that the shockingly non-ethical recommendations of bio-ethicists have made the headlines. The previous controversy centered around a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics which argued that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 277 other followers

%d bloggers like this: