Red Ice Creations | NASA and CISCO systems welcomes you to the prison planet, a global surveillance infrastructure is being built up. This is total "control" and monitoring on all activity on earth. Just imagine feeding this data into an artificial intelligence.
The following is from the Planetary Skin website:
Planetary Skin Institute will research, develop and prototype an approach to provide near-to-real-time global monitoring of environmental conditions and changes. This will deliver the required decision support capabilities to manage global resources, risks and build environmental markets. Planetary Skin proposes an open and unifying approach to develop the required decision support capabilities to manage global resources, risks and enable the necessary environmental markets.
Dead Man Musings | Since its inception, the environmental movement has been perpetrating one fraud after another as a means of moving us towards a New World Order. For Example:
1."The Greenhouse effect" : Purportedly Caused Global Warming by trapping the heat from the sun in Carbon Dioxide and other "Greenhouse Gases" in our atmosphere.
2." Global Cooling and the Coming Ice Age": In this scenario pollution blocks out the rays of the sun and the earth plunges into another ice age. I call this the lie before the lie.
3.Ozone Holes: In this scenario we will all be fried by UV rays getting through a hole in the ozone layer. The culprit was freon and aerosol cans.
I could go on and talk about overpopulation, the rain forest, water shortages etc. Instead of focusing on the fraud itself, I will focus on the reasons behind it and the perpetrators.
If you remember nothing else, remember this: The Illuminati are both Fascists and Communists. They want to maximize profits and consolidate political power under a tyrannic one world government. In order to accomplish this, they need to destroy the middle class and industrial bases of North America and Europe.
They know that Americans, Canadians, and Western Europeans won't work for starvation wages or as wage slaves. So, they focus their efforts on undermining our economic and political systems.
1. Tariffs are the enemy to globalism. The United States ran on tariffs for the first part of its existence. Tariffs are taxes on imports that prevent multi-national corporations from "dumping" cheap manufactured goods from a foreign country on a developed country's soil.
2. NAFTA, GATT etc., have taken down these walls of protection that are necessary for an industrialized nation to have a healthy economy and solid industrial base. Now instead of Americans competing against Americans, we have Americans competing against North Korean slave labor.
3. Free Trade is an Illuminati Illusion that will always have a winner and a loser. One country will be depleted at the expense of the other country's growth.
So, what does this have to do with the environmental movement? Plenty! By imposing environmental regulations on developed and industrialized societies, the Illuminati take away their ability to compete globally. Regulations and laws cost money and businesses pass that cost on to the consumer. The result is higher production costs and a loss of competitive advantage.
The organization behind this massive fraud is the Illuminati front organization known as the "Club of Rome":
"The Club of Rome calls for urgent action to avert the growing risk of catastrophic climate change. The most recent scientific data presented to the Assembly by the world’s top climate scientists demonstrate the accelerating impacts of climate change on the natural systems of the planet. Beyond this existential threat to the future of humanity, the Club stresses the need to find a new path for world development to resolve the connected challenges in the fields of environment, global development and the restructuring of economies onto a sustainable path.
"We insist that responsibility for care in the use of energy and resources,responsibility for the environment and social inclusion are not simply costs to the economy, but investments in the future of humanity. Governments have directed trillions of dollars to stabilize the financial system: we call for the required levels of finance to salvage the future of the planet.
We should not aim to recover to the pre-crisis path of economic growth, which leads towards disaster. We call on governments and the business community to recognize the reality and urgency of the problems we face and to provide the leadership and sustained commitment to resolve the challenges of the 21st Century so as to leave a decent future to our children and grandchildren." (Source)
Founded in 1968 at the Rockefeller's Italian Estate, the Club of Rome has played the leading role in propagating the falsehoods of climate change:
"Headed by Anglo-American elites and European nobility, the Club of Rome is an elite 'think tank' specializing in crisis creation via the Hegelian dialectic: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. The main purpose of the club is to formulate crisis, through which the world can be "united" under a world socialist government.
A few notable past and present members of the club include:
* Al Gore - Former U.S. Vice President * Mikhail Gorbachev - Former President of the Soviet Union; co-author of the Earth Charter * Ted Turner - media mogul, founder of CNN * Maurice Strong - head of the U.N. Environment Programme; co-author of the Earth Charter * David Rockefeller - Donated the land where the UN stands in NY * Henry Kissinger - Former U.S. Secretary of State * Javier Solana - Secretary-General of the EU * Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
In 1991, the Club of Rome published The First Global Revolution, authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. On pp. 104-105 are found the following statement:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (Source)
Such illustrious organizations like "Greenpeace" look to the Club of Rome for Leadership and Guidance. I quote the following from Greenpeace America's blog:
"The Club of Rome and I share a great Louis Talarico deal in terms of how we view the opportunities and problems that our leaders must address. Here is a good point they make.
"Systems of education are less and less adapted to the new issues, to the new emerging global society we are presently involved in. New priorities force us to redefine the role of education, which should be conceived as a permanent learning process. Transmission of knowledge is no longer sufficient, and new objectives such as developing one's own potential and creativity, or the capacity of adaptation to change are becoming essential in a rapidly changing world.
The Club of Rome considers that education is both part of the global problematique and also an essential tool to become an effective actor in control of one's own life and within society. If there are "Limits to Growth", there are "No Limits to Learning" (titles of two Reports to the Club of Rome)." (Source)
While breathing clean air, drinking clean water, and living in a clean environment are what I want for myself and family, the Illuminati really could care less. They haven't eliminated these things. They have simply moved them "off-shore" to developing countries. An example of this is China's use of coal powered plants to produce the electricity needed to run its industrial revolution. (source) Right now, it is the biggest producer of Greenhouse Emissions on the planet. (ibid)
But, it never was an issue of climate after all. Its more of an issue of profit.
And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won't work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets.
Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:
The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.
[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases...
Who is Blythe Masters?
She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps, and is now heading JPM's carbon trading efforts. As Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the above-linked Bloomberg article):
Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities...
As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank.
Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap.
Some in congress are fighting against carbon derivatives:
“People are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we’ll be in trouble,” says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You can’t stay ahead of the next tool they’re going to create.”
Cantwell, 51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right to ban unregulated financial products. “The derivatives market has done so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a very-high-stakes casino -- except that casinos have to abide by regulations,” she wrote in a press release...
However, Congress may cave in to industry pressure to let carbon derivatives trade over-the-counter:
The House cap-and-trade bill bans OTC derivatives, requiring that all carbon trading be done on exchanges...The bankers say such a ban would be a mistake...The banks and companies may get their way on carbon derivatives in separate legislation now being worked out in Congress...
Financial experts are also opposed to cap and trade:
Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in July. “That’s why financial types like me like it -- because there are financial opportunities”...
Hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands [and unrelated to Blythe Masters] says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities...
The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.
“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.”
Indeed, as I have previously pointed out, many environmentalists are opposed to cap and trade as well. For example:
Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst in San Francisco for Friends of the Earth, isn’t convinced.
“Should we really create a new $2 trillion market when we haven’t yet finished the job of revamping and testing new financial regulation?” she asks. Chan says that, given their recent history, the banks’ ability to turn climate change into a new commodities market should be curbed...
“What we have just been woken up to in the credit crisis -- to a jarring and shocking degree -- is what happens in the real world,” she says...
Friends of the Earth’s Chan is working hard to prevent the banks from adding carbon to their repertoire. She titled a March FOE report “Subprime Carbon?” In testimony on Capitol Hill, she warned, “Wall Street won’t just be brokering in plain carbon derivatives -- they’ll get creative.”
Yes, they'll get "creative", and we have seen this movie before ...an inadequately-regulated carbon derivatives boom will destabilize the economy and lead to another crash.
Malthusians and Social Darwinists have hijacked the environmental movement
Steve Watson
Prison Planet | In order to fully grasp the magnitude of the ClimateGate scandal, one must understand what purpose the data massaging and blackballing of conflicting science has as part of a larger agenda to use an environmental crisis for social manipulation and control.
Use of the perceived environmental crisis by special interests operates on two different levels.
Firstly, it provides a pretext for controlling the living standards of the masses while acting as an engine for vast financial profitability for the controllers.
From so called “green police”, and children being encouraged to become “climate cops”, to the impending introduction of a global carbon tax, the solutions being offered to combat climate change only serve as forms of social control. They do nothing to overturn or prevent changes in the Earth’s climate which we are incessantly told are threatening our continued existence on the planet.
Furthermore, some “solutions” have had devastating effects on living standards of poorer populations. Speaking about replacing one third of agricultural land to be used for growing bio-fuels instead, Lord Christopher Monckton has pointed out that it has led to a doubling of food prices in just one year.
“If we have to pay twice as much for our food – it’s inconvenient. If you are in a poor country – that difference of a 100% in the price of your food is the difference between life and death,”.
Secondly, the perceived environmental threat is being used as a device to frame the concept of population control and even depopulation. Such ideas on the surface are clearly detestable and are associated with genocide and Nazi eugenics ideology.
However, a disturbing trend being set by several “green” groups is to associate climate change with over-population and suggest that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.
ABC’s Planet Slayer website featured a cartoon series, complete with a tool called “Prof Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator” to help kids work out their carbon footprint.
The calculator also estimates at what age a person should die so they don’t use more than their fair share of the Earth’s resources. If users were found to have used too much CO2, they were portrayed as an exploding pig, leaving behind a pool of blood and gore.
In 2007, a report published by green think tank the Optimum Population Trust announced that children are ‘bad for planet and ‘having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.
Perhaps the most notorious to endorse the idea of depopulation is current White House science advisor John P. Holdren, who called for lowering global fertility by artificially medicating municipal water supplies in his 1977 book Ecoscience.
Since radical environmentalists are pushing to completely de-industrialize the world, reversing a trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have, if climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation will become a problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.
Of course, the globalist agenda to reduce world population by 80%, a figure achievable only via draconian and genocidal measures, has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with whittling down the number of slaves so that they can be more easily controlled on the plantation.
The eugenics movement never went away, it simply re-packaged itself to be more palatable to an increasingly skeptical public and its primary camouflage now fronts as the global warming doomsday cult.
While you may think Ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.
Alex Jones’ Films Endgame and Fall Of The Republic address the hijacking of the environmental movement by elite social Darwinists in more detail.
Shell Oil and British Petroleum express their vehement support for a global carbon tax in “Copenhagen Communiqué”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet | The big irony behind top globalists descending on Copenhagen in luxury private jets and stretch limos is not just the fact that their own behavior completely contradicts their self-righteous hyperbole about CO2 emissions, but that their propaganda is vehemently supported by the very same big oil interests they accuse climate skeptics of pandering to.
Probably one of the most flagrant examples of climate cronyism to emerge from the climategate scandal were emails in which CRU scientists, the body that provides much of the foundational global warming data for the UN IPCC, discuss how they conducted meetings with Shell Oil in order to enlist them as a “strategic partner” while getting them to bankroll pro-man made global warming research.
“Now who is the shill for Big Oil again?” asks Anthony Watts. “Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.”
A “Copenhagen Communiqué” put out by leaders of over 500 global corporations in advance of this week’s summit calls for drastic measures on behalf of developed countries to “de-carbonise their economies” – a move that would completely devastate living standards and lead to gargantuan levels of unemployment.
The communiqué also demands that a global carbon tax be implemented via a carbon trading system. Bear in mind that the very people calling for such a system are the same people who will benefit from it to the tune of billions, as we shall explore later.
The statement calls for, “Measures to deliver a robust global greenhouse gas emissions market in order to provide the most effective, efficient and equitable emission reductions. It would be comprised of a growing series of national or regional “cap-and-trade” markets linked together, in which the “caps” are brought down in line with the
targets that have been adopted for emission reduction.”
The document also states that CO2 emissions need to be reduced by a staggering 50-85% by 2050, a process that would return humanity to a near stone age level of development.
And who are the radicals calling for such severe measures in the name of fighting the evil life giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe? Greenpeace? Al Gore?
Namely – James Smith, chairman of UK Shell Oil, Tony Hayward, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum, along with hundreds of other global corporate giants, many of whom are directly tied in with big oil, and central banks who, far from bankrolling climate change skeptics, are directly invested in the scam of human-induced global warming.
A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.
According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.
In a speech earlier this year, Tillerson brazenly called out the cap and trade agenda for what it was, an effort to impose a carbon tax camouflaged only by a slick sales pitch and deceptive rhetoric.
“It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,” said Tillerson. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,” he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.
Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.”
Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was subsequently restated by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”
Exxon Mobil and their ilk are not concerned about a carbon tax eating into their profits because they know they won’t have to pay it – the tab will be picked up by the ignorant taxpayer at the fuel pump at an inflated cost which if anything will hand the transnational oil cartels an even bigger cut.
Ideologically, Al Gore and Exxon Mobil are on exactly the same page – the only difference between the oil companies and global warming alarmists is the squabble over who will get to sink their teeth into the taxpayer and reap the dividends of the climate change scam.
Whereas parasites like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, the people who own the very carbon trading systems they claim will save the earth from CO2 emissions, want to enrich themselves to the tune of billions under a cap and trade scheme where they take a percentage of each transaction, the oil companies want to bypass this completely by simply imposing a direct CO2 tax. The consequence for the taxpayer under either scenario will be exactly the same, and the profits under both schemes would go towards filling the coffers of the global government that will enforce the whole scam.
Emphasizing again that oil companies are firmly behind the idea of man-made climate change and the introduction of a CO2 tax, in 2007 the Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the new world order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.
At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a “Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice.”
Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to “Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide.” Rules that no doubt will benefit the Rothschild family empire due to their personal ownership of a huge chunk of the carbon trading market.
Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to exploit global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.
During the 2007 meeting, elitists along with oil industry kingpins called for imposing a $1 dollar per gallon tax at the fuel pump under the justification of fighting pollution and climate change.
Globalists love global warming. Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.
Claims by climate change alarmists that “deniers” are all funded by oil companies is yet another crudely contrived hoax. In reality, oil companies are the most vocal proponents of man-made climate change and the most aggressive in pushing to tax CO2 emissions.
The clips below, taken from Alex Jones’ new documentary Fall Of The Republic, expose how Al Gore serves as the front man for the global carbon tax cap and trade scheme, which is designed to bankrupt the United States and drastically lower the living standards of the American people, while introducing nightmare levels of regulation and bureaucracy into their everyday lives. Get the full DVD here.
WeAreChange Chicago | On Tuesday, November 24th 2009, We Are Change Chicago attended a book signing with former vice president Al Gore, at the Borders Bookstore on 150 N. State Street.
The previous Thursday, news had begun to circulate that hacked documents and communications from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) had been published to the internet. The information revealed how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise that man-made factors are driving climate change. Please reviewClimateGate for Dummies.
To ensure the public that the media and Al Gore are aware of the facts that prove global warming to be a hoax, patriots from WAC Chicago marched to the book signing. Scattered throughout a crowd of a few hundred were members of WAC Chicago ready to ask Al Gore what he thought about ‘ClimateGate.’
First up was Saad Ali. As he approached Gore, he peacefully and respectably asked, “Sir, can you comment on the emails and documents that were hacked [ClimateGate] that reveal… that the research was a fraud and that it was all manipulated?” Gore, with an evil smirk, claimed that “he never read them.” By the look on his face and his stutter, it became quite clear that Gore was extremely uncomfortable with the question, so he quickly glared towards his security. The agents grabbed and assaulted Saad, escorting him away from Gore for merely asking a simple question. The press took notice and started filming and snapping pictures of what was going on. One of which appeared the next day in the Chicago Sun Times.
Following Saad’s confrontation, Sati Word, a member of WAC Chicago, questioned Gore on why the IPCC hasn’t released any reports on sunspot activity. However, before he could get an answer from Gore, security grabbed Sati and escorted him out of the building.
A little while later, Anthony, an activist from We Are Change Ohio, approached Gore and handed him the petition of the 31,486 scientists who say that Global Warming is a complete hoax. Anthony asked, “What do you think about the science behind this sir?” Mr. Gore rolled his eyes, and security escorted him out of the building.
Steve (swizzlesteve), was the last activist to question Gore. Within seconds of asking, “Any comments on ClimateGate? The emails that prove it’s a scam, a farce, that global warming is a joke, any comment?” Mr. Gore is heard to utter a few “uhhhhhhhs” and security quickly steps in to remove him as well.
The press was waiting outside Borders. They wanted to find out who this group was, that dared question what the elite had forced us to consume as truth. WBBM news radio, 780, ran a sound bite of WAC Chicago, WGN news ran footage, Medill Reports wrote an article, and blog posts were popping up all over the internet about the Al Gore confrontation in Chicago. Many also asked about the footage of WAC Chicago chasing after Gore’s SUV after the event. You will find all of it in this video. Al Gore was confronted multiple times in line, outside the event as he rushed to his waiting Mercedes SUV, (were you expecting something electric?), and once again in the streets of Chicago. We Are Change had people outside with signs, banners, fliers, and DVDs. Activists were inside asking questions and demanding answers; the world is waking up, it’s a great time to be alive.
The Wall Street Journal | The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents — posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center — that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.
“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”
Climate change alarmists engaged in desperate whitewash, but scandal is not going away
By Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet | In response to the astounding revelations arising out of the hacked CRU emails, Senator Jim Inhofe has stated that unless something is done within the next seven days, he will lead the call for a rigorous investigation into mounting evidence that top climate scientists conspired to manipulate data to hide evidence of global cooling while engaging in academic witch hunts to eliminate scientists skeptical of man-made climate change.
Speaking on the Americas Morning Show earlier today, Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new revelations proved what he has been warning about for over four years, that politicians and bias-driven climate scientists affiliated with the UN IPCC have been fraudulently “cooking the science” to conform to their agenda.
“If nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation,” said Inhofe. “Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.”
Asked what he would call for an investigation of, Inhofe responded, “On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”
Meanwhile, even some pro-man made global warming advocates have conceded that an investigation is necessary.
Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, told the London Guardian that only a rigorous investigation could clear the names of those accused of manipulating the data, admitting that the emails “created the impression of impropriety,” which is a lot further than most have gone in accepting the damning nature of the hacked data.
Indeed, the British Met Office performed the equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears by merely attempting to dismiss the emails altogether, without even explaining what was meant when scientists at CRU talked about pulling “tricks” to “hide the decline” in temperatures.
A spokesman at the Met Office, which jointly produces global temperature datasets with the Climate Research Unit, said there was no need for an inquiry. “If you look at the emails, there isn’t any evidence that the data was falsified and there’s no evidence that climate change is a hoax. It’s a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world’s most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be. It’s no surprise, with the Copenhagen talks just days away, that this has happened now.”
As James Delingpole of the Telegraph highlights, alarmists are not going to be effected by the scandal, because they will allow nothing whatsoever to corrupt their religious belief system. “They’ve made up their minds and no quantity of contrary evidence, however devastating, is going to shake their considered position of “Nyah nyah nyah. Got my fingers in my ears. Not listening. The world IS warming and it’s man’s fault. Must tax carbon now….”
Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel
Telegraph | Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.
Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.
If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.
Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.
Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday.
An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances.
He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."
However, some have criticised the move as "Orwellian" and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.
Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: "This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It's Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business."
Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.
AFP | The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a "green" road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.
"Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill," the transport ministry said in a statement.
Ownership and sales taxes, about a quarter of the cost of a new car, will be scrapped and replaced by the "price per kilometre" system aimed at cutting the Netherlands' carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent.
"Traffic jams will be halved and it helps the environment," the ministry said.
Dutch motorists driving a standard family saloon will be charged 3 euro cents per kilometre (seven US cents per mile) in 2012. That would increase to 6.7 cents (16 US cents per mile) in 2018, according to the proposed law.
Every vehicle type will have a base rate, which depends on its size, weight and carbon dioxide emissions.
Taxis, vehicles for the disabled, buses, motorcycles and classic cars will all be exempt.
"An alternative payment will be introduced for foreign vehicles," the ministry statement added.
The Dutch cabinet approved the road tax bill on Friday. It will need the backing of parliament before it becomes law.
Raw Story | United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in an opinion piece published by The New York Times, laid out a number of benchmarks for success in the upcoming global climate talks, planned to be held in Copenhagen.
Among them, Ki-moon argued in the Tuesday edition that a "global governance structure" must be levied to ensure that nations collaborate on how resources are deployed and managed.
The editorial, entitled "We Can Do It," urges world leaders toward the accomplishment of three key points: Curbing emissions, investing in green growth for third world nations and establishing a supranational structure to oversee resources.
"Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation," Ki-moon wrote. "Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty."
He continued: "A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built."
The secretary general's editorial comes amid doubts of the potential for a successful global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gasses. On Monday, a U.N. official with the Climate Change Support Team said, "it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go," according to the Associate Press. He reportedly added that it is unlikely a treaty will emerge from Copenhagen.
While the secretary general has praised the Obama administration's strong backing of global climate action, "support for climate change as a political issue is [...] declining in the United States," CBC News noted.
"[A Pew Research] poll of 1,500 adults found just over half of Americans favored setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, while 56 per cent supported U.S. participation in international agreements.
"But more alarming [...] was that the poll found only 57 per cent of Americans believe there is strong evidence that the Earth has grown hotter in the past few decades, down from 77 per cent in 2006."
"American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen," The Guardian noted. "But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill - which does not have solid support even among their own party - before the meeting in Copenhagen."
The Washington Times| President Obama is on a path toward establishing a one-world government. This is the warning of Christopher Monckton, a former major policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
In December, world leaders will descend upon Copenhagen to sign a United Nations climate change treaty that will succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and set to expire in 2012. An agreement has been drafted.
The goal of the Copenhagen treaty is to erect an international cap-and-trade regime to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, said to be responsible for man-made global warming. Recently, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned of a "climate catastrophe" - a rising wave of floods, droughts and shrinking food crops - unless the treaty is signed. Mr. Brown even said global warming would inflict more damage than both world wars and the Great Depression combined; the world has only several weeks to save itself from impending doom.
"If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice," he said. Mr. Brown has thus outdone former Vice President Al Gore in fear-mongering and inciting public hysteria.
Global-warming alarmists are using the myth of climate change to impose an embryonic socialist world government. Following the collapse of communism, the West's progressive elites desperately searched for a viable ideological alternative. They found it in environmentalism.
Although the Green movement wraps itself in the flag of empirical science, it represents the very opposite: a dogma that provides meaning and purpose to its rabid followers. The ideology justifies massive tax increases and government control of the economy; it seeks to cripple free enterprise and curtail market-driven growth. Many of today's Greens are yesterday's Reds.
Global warming is the greatest fraud of our time. The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that, rather than getting hotter, the Earth's temperatures are cooling. Increasing numbers of leading scientists are challenging the flawed computer models used by eco-alarmists.
Mr. Gore and his supporters cannot answer several simple questions. If the Earth's temperatures are no longer rising, then how can CO2 emissions be responsible for global warming? How could previous dramatic increases in global temperatures - such as the end of the Ice Age - have taken place without concentrations of CO2? The answer is obvious: Carbon emissions are not connected to fluctuations in global temperatures.
The mad drive for an international cap-and-trade system is really geared toward achieving the left's long-sought goal: the destruction of democratic capitalism and national sovereignty. The Greens are poised to succeed where the Reds failed.
The Copenhagen treaty must still be negotiated. Final agreement is far from certain, especially from emerging industrial powers like China, India and Brazil. Yet the draft version is clear about the treaty's essential elements.
It calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world. The United States would be forced to spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to pay for a so-called "climate debt" - a provision to punish wealthy countries for having historically emitted large amounts of CO2, while compensating poor ones for not contributing to greenhouse gases.
The Copenhagen treaty seeks to implement a bureaucratic redistributionist agenda; it is a way for Third World kleptocracies to extort enormous sums of money from America and other rich nations.
Moreover, Mr. Monckton points out that, in paragraph 38, Annex 1, the Copenhagen draft calls for a U.N.-created "government" responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution. In other words, the draft treaty explicitly demands that the world body erect an international mechanism with the power to impose emission-reduction targets for each country, determine acceptable levels of CO2 and levy global taxes.
The United States would lose control over its environmental policy. Also, it would sign its death warrant as a functioning democracy, enabling the United Nations to administer a fledgling world government possessing the authority to regulate and tax the American economy. The treaty is a sword aimed at the heart of our national sovereignty.
If Mr. Obama signs the Copenhagen treaty, he "will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever," Mr. Monckton recently told an audience in Minnesota. "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created."
Yet the U.S. Senate can avoid this disastrous course. A supermajority of 67 votes is required to ratify the treaty. In 1997, the Senate in a 95-0 vote rejected the Kyoto Protocol, thereby preventing the United States from joining. Mr. Monckton believes that, in order to avoid defeat, Mr. Obama will try to circumvent the ratification process. If he does, he will spark a political revolt that will make the Tea Party protests look tame by comparison.
Mr. Obama has vowed to create a "green economy" based on "green-collar jobs" and "a green New Deal." The Copenhagen treaty would enable him to accomplish his revolutionary ambitions. It would mark his Cultural Revolution - the permanent transformation of America.
German climatologists are pushing for the creation of a "world climate bank" which would allow industrialized countries to purchase emission rights from less-developed nations. The revenues would enable poor countries to finance environmentally friendly economic development.
Der Spiegel | A new study by advisers to the German government has revealed that industrialized nations must radically reduce their CO2 emissions if they want to reach the internationally agreed target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. The climatologists are proposing setting up a "world climate bank" to allow countries to trade emission rights.
According to the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Germany would have to halve its CO2 output compared to current levels by 2020 and cut emissions to zero by 2030 if it wants to remain on track. "These findings are as surprising as they are shocking," WBGU executive Hans Joachim Schellnhuber said about the report, prepared ahead of December's international climate summit in Copenhagen. The German government has up until now been planning much less ambitious cuts.
Climatic Imbalance
The WBGU scientists estimate that no more than 750 billion tons of CO2 can be emitted by all countries collectively between now and 2050 if there is to be a 67 percent chance of the 2-degree goal being met. The target was set at July's G-8 summit in the Italian town of L'Aquila, where leading developed nations discussed measures to limit the effects of global warming.
In their calculations, the researchers allocated the total permissable quantity of CO2 equally among the world's total population. That approach was based on a proposal made in 2007 by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that every individual in the world should have the right to emit the same amount of CO2.
Based on that assumption, each country has a different time limit for cutting its emissions, depending on its consumption of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. For example, relatively poor Bangladesh could maintain its current CO2 emission levels for the next 384 years and still meet the target for its share of total CO2 emissions by volume. India, for its part, could continue at current levels for 88 years. However industrialized states would have to drastically cut emissions within just a few years.
The WBGU experts are proposing that industrialized countries could buy "emission rights" from less-developed countries if they want to continue emitting higher levels of CO2. They suggest setting up a "world climate bank" which would allow industrialized nations to buy emissions quotas from countries with lower levels of CO2 output. The experts estimate that the global trade in emissions quotas could generate annual revenues of between €30 billion and €90 billion ($45 billion and $129 billion). That money could then be used to help the world's poorest countries to finance environmentally friendly economic development.
Germany is already struggling to meet its current climate goals. A recent report by Aachen-based engineering and consulting firm EUtech, commissioned by the environmental group Greenpeace, revealed that Germany would not reach the 40 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 that the government has set as its official target.
Prison Planet | The vampiric and gluttonous feeding frenzy currently being enjoyed by the federal government under the pretext of climate change is set to be expanded with a range of new taxes on products disposed of via waste water, including cosmetics, toothpaste and toilet paper.
The “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” H.R.3202, introduced last week by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), will be “financed broadly by small fees on such things as bottled beverages, products disposed of in wastewater, corporate profits, and the pharmaceutical industry,” according to Blumenauer’s fact sheet.
Though the taxes are “designed to be collected at the manufacturer level,” only the most naive would doubt that multinational corporations would just pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, as is routine.
Items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil will be subject to a 3% excise tax, while water beverages will be hit with a 4% tax, “because these products wind up in the water stream and require clean up by sewage treatment plants,” according to the bill.
The legislation also cites “climate change mitigation” as a justification for imposing the taxes. The Feds’ new feeding frenzy will rake in around $10 billion dollars a year.
The bill even defines “toilet tissue” in section 4172. “The rulemaking to define what rises to the level of a bottom-wipe is in the name of a good cause: to tax the stuff,” writes Chris Horner. “The current band of feds don’t think you’ve paid enough tax — this has been established ad nauseam — and now want a dedicated revenue, er, stream, to pay to replace corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems nationwide.”
The necessity of cleaning up a water supply poisoned with the toxic soup of human disposals seems like a reasonable proposal, especially in light of evidence that antiandrogens in our rivers and lakes are contributing to global sperm reduction and essentially chemically sterilizing men, and yet when the filters are ready to be installed at water treatment facilities that would remove this junk, the government steps in and blocks them under the justification that they contribute to CO2 emissions.
The fact that the global warming feeding frenzy has now reached a level of insanity to the point where the federal government is essentially preparing to tax us to defecate and urinate shows how far down the line we really are. What’s next? A tax on breathing? After all, we humans exhale that evil life-giving poisonous gas carbon dioxide. The New York Times actually introduced the idea of the government imposing a tax on breathing in a March 2007 editorial.
As we are lectured about the necessity of why we must have every aspect of our lives regulated and taxed in order to save the earth, we learn that the government’s last efforts to do so, during the ozone layer scare of the 80’s and 90’s, actually harmed the environment.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), introduced in the 90’s to replace ozone-depleting gases in deodorants, fridges and air conditioners, actually “act like “super” greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.” So while the government was brow-beating us about the evils of emitting CO2 because it apparently caused global warming, they were actually mandating that we use a gas which contributed to global warming to an substantially greater degree.
Climate Depot | Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”
“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.
“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.
Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)
Gore’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000.
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added.
Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, “Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.” Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN’s Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”
‘Global Carbon Tax’ Urged at UN Meeting
In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”
Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”
The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”
The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.
Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”
‘Redistribution of wealth’
The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]
We just slashed our prices to bare minimum on winter and summer gear at our Cafepress storefront. Most of out T-shirts are $19.99, take advantage of these prices throughout the Spring and help us expand the reach of JustGetThere to your neck of the woods.
Support Us
Help us continue to be a source for illuminating information. Any amount is appreciated. Thanks!
Steve (swizzlesteve), was the last activist to question Gore. Within seconds of asking, “Any comments on ClimateGate? The emails that prove it’s a scam, a farce, that global warming is a joke, any comment?” Mr. Gore is heard to utter a few “uhhhhhhhs” and security quickly steps in to remove him as well.
Recent Comments