GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA : Suicide A Climate Change Solution

Cheer up. If we keep our heads we are likely to deal with climate challenges the same way we got to where we are; innovation, markets, democracy and optimism. | The Australian

Cheer up. If we keep our heads we are likely to deal with climate challenges the same way we got to where we are; innovation, markets, democracy and optimism. | The Australian


“Articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony..”
― Chris Kenny

*

FIRSTLY, apologies for the use of “suicide” in the heading to all those who have been directly or indirectly affected by such a horrible and tragic event. I can personally sympathise.

THAT said, the use of the threat of “suicide” by those pushing the global warming climate change agenda is indicative of the desperate, dishonest and disrespectful lengths that climate activists will go to in order to drive their latest fashionable eco-scare.

AUSTRALIAN columnist Chris Kenny with some much needed perspective, clarity and reason to parlay the constant rhetoric of climate change doom and gloom that the Climate Crisis Industry relies on in an attempt to remain relevant…

(Links, Graphs and Bolds added by Climatism)

*

Stop the hand-wringing, humankind will adapt and prosper

Chris Kenny

Chris Kenny

Associate Editor // The Australian
Sydney

WHEN people go public with private tears I am immediately suspicious. Not that I am against tears; as a physical reaction to emotion they are a fact of life best controlled in some circumstances but uncontrollable in others.

But articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony. Telling the world about your saltwater reaction to this or that is perhaps the epitome of virtue-signalling.

“I cried two times when my daughter was born,” was the opening line in a New York Times piece this week. Those sanctimony warning bells rang loud. It was by Iraq veteran, English professor and climate alarmist Roy Scranton, promoting a new book of essays on war and climate change titled We’re Doomed. Now What? And yes, he claims to have shed tears for the planet.

“First for joy, when after 27 hours of labour the little feral being we’d made came yowling into the world, and the second for sorrow, holding the earth’s newest human and looking out the window with her at the rows of cars in the hospital parking lot, the strip mall across the street, the box stores and drive-throughs and drainage ditches and asphalt and waste fields that had once been oak groves. A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.”

Where to start with such inanity? Perhaps with the good news. Max Roser’s work for Oxford University’s Our World in Data project shows that two centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.

*

world-poverty-since-1820-750x535

Global Extreme Poverty – Our World in Data

Global Extreme Poverty - Our World in Data

Global Extreme Poverty – Our World in Data

* Read the rest of this entry »


DRACONIAN Climate Change Policies Making World Hunger Worse

World Hunger UN Climate policy

Climate policies are diverting resources from measures that directly reduce hunger, which according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation is on the rise. | The Australian

ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change” and the control of carbon dioxide, via the supply of energy, has deep roots in a radical yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.

A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.

THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental think-tank and consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.

The common enemy of humanity is man.
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, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
.
– Club of Rome 1993,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

SO, it comes as no surprise that today’s UN is successfully upholding its misanthropic agenda by attempting to starve control the world’s population through a blatant misallocation of resources, in favour of wanting to control the weather, rather than feed the most needy, for a fraction of the cost.

MEMO to the UN – If you want to reduce the world’s population, provide the third-world with cheap, reliable fossil-fuelled or nuclear power generation to lift them out of abject poverty. Wealthy (fossil-fuel/nuclear powered) nations have predominant negative birth rates. Poverty is the enemy of the environment.

Bjorn Lomborg with more via his column in The Australian…

*

Climate-change policies may be making world hunger worse

BJORN LOMBORG // @BjornLomborg via The Australian :

For more than a decade, annual data showed global hunger to be on the decline. But that has changed. According to the latest data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, hunger affected 815 million people in 2016, 38 million more than the year before, and malnutrition is now threatening millions.

Research from my think tank, Copenhagen Consensus, has long helped to focus attention and resources on the most effective responses to malnutrition, both globally and in countries such as Haiti and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, there are worrying signs that the global response may be headed in the wrong direction.

The FAO blames the rise in hunger on a proliferation of violent conflicts and “climate-related shocks”. which means specific, extreme events such as floods and droughts.

But in the FAO’s press release, “climate-related shocks” becomes “climate change”. The report itself links the two without citing evidence, but the FAO’s communique goes further, declaring starkly: “World hunger again on the rise, driven by conflict and climate change.”

It may seem like a tiny step to go from blaming climate-related shocks to blaming climate change. Both terms relate to the weather. But that little difference means a lot, especially when it comes to the most important question: how do we help to better feed the world? Jumping the gun and blaming climate change for today’s crises attracts attention, but it makes us focus on the costliest and least effective responses.

The best evidence comes from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has clearly shown that there has been no overall increase in droughts. While some parts of the world are experiencing more and worse droughts, others are experiencing fewer and lighter droughts.

A comprehensive study in the journal Naturedemonstrates that, since 1982, incidents of all categories of drought, from “abnormally dry” to “exceptional drought”, have decreased slightly. On flooding, the IPCC is even blunter: it has “low confidence” at a global level about whether climate change has caused more or less flooding.

What the IPCC tells us is that by the end of the century, it is likely that worse droughts will affect some parts of the world. And it predicts — albeit with low confidence — that there could be more floods in some places.

Relying on climate policies to fight hunger is doomed. Any realistic carbon cuts will be expensive and have virtually no impact on climate by the end of the century. The Paris climate agreement, even if fully implemented up to 2030, would achieve just 1 per cent of the cuts needed to keep temperature from rising more than 2C, according to the UN.

And it would cost $US 1 trillion a year or more — an incredibly expensive way to make no meaningful difference to a potential increase in flooding and droughts at the end of the century.

In fact, well-intentioned policies to combat global warming could very well be exacerbating hunger. Rich countries have embraced biofuels — energy derived from plants — to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. But the climate benefit is negligible: according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, deforestation, fertiliser, and fossil fuels used in producing biofuels offset about 90 per cent of the “saved” carbon dioxide.

In 2013, European biofuels used enough land to feed 100 million people, and the US program even more. Biofuel subsidies contributed to rising food prices, and their swift growth was reined in only when models showed that up to another 135 million people could starve by 2020. But that means that the hunger of around 30 million people today can likely be attributed to these bad policies.

Moreover, climate policies divert resources from measures that directly reduce hunger. Our priorities seem skewed when climate policies promising a minuscule temperature impact will cost $US1 trillion a year, while the World Food Program’s budget is 169 times lower, at $5.9 billion.

There are effective ways to produce more food. One of the best, as Copenhagen Consensus research has shown, is to get serious about investing in research and development to boost agricultural productivity. Through irrigation, fertiliser, pesticides, and plant breeding, the Green Revolution increased world grain production by an astonishing 250 per cent between 1950 and 1984, raising the calorie intake of the world’s poorest people and averting severe famines. We need to build on this progress.

Investing an additional $US88bn in agricultural research and development over the next 32 years would increase yields by an additional 0.4 percentage points every year, which could save 79 million people from hunger and prevent five million cases of child malnourishment. This would be worth almost $US3 trillion in social good, implying an enormous return of $US34 for every dollar spent. By the end of the century, the additional increase in agricultural productivity would be far greater than the damage to agricultural productivity suggested by even the worst-case scenarios of the effects of global warming.

And there would be additional benefits: the World Bank has found that productivity growth in agriculture can be up to four times more effective in reducing poverty than productivity growth in other sectors.

We are at a turning point. After achieving dramatic gains against hunger and famine, we run the risk of backsliding, owing to poorly considered choices. The stakes are far too high for us to pick the wrong policies.

Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

(Climatism bolds added)

Climate-change policies may be making world hunger worse | The Australian

•••

Related :

  • Bjørn Lomborg: Why Africa Needs Fossil Fuels, Not Wind Power & Wishes | Climatism
  • “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
  • OVER-POPULATION : Another non-problem | WND
  • Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming | Watts Up With That?
  • THE Papal Dilemma: Champion Of The Poor or UN Puppet? | Climatism

UN Related :

  • UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism
  • Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism

 


Catholic Church: New Priests Will be Expected to Preach Global Warming

The mad Pope, turning religion from God worship to Gaia worship.

Watts Up With That?

pope-francis-environment-encyclical[1]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Catholic Online reports that new priests will be expected to be familiar with and promote efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

New priests to learn about global warming as part of formation

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) — The Catholic Church is intimately concerned about climate change. The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences is the world’s oldest, longest running scientific mission. That body, which advises the pope on matters of science, has concluded that global climate change is real and is caused, at least in significant part, by human activity.

This is important to the Church because creation care is part of our mission. We are called to be stewards of creation. It’s also important because climate change can exacerbate the ills of poverty. Poor people in much of the world are the most vulnerable to changes.

Unfortunately, the issue is politicized. In the…

View original post 217 more words


Blotting Out Global Warming Fantasies…

Anthropogenic “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy), has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.

A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.

The goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….” – Club Of Rome

Climate Change alarmism is born out of the theory or belief that human-produced carbon dioxide will fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy all life on earth. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.

The agenda driven, and in more recent times, money driven fear-mongering is largely succeeding, as western governments fall prey to the populist eco-agenda of climate – enacting draconian climate/energy policy that is curtailing western growth and stifling development in the third world.

This post from “Pindanpost” lists a few of the latest examples of empirical and hard scientific data of why catastrophic human-induced climate change is the biggest scientific scandal ever foisted on humanity, and why you shouldn’t be so alarmed!

At the very least, the “science” definitely ain’t “settled”…

pindanpost

Paper after paper, reports, articles, posts, tweets and more scientific papers all point to the global warming agenda as nothing but activist fallacies and failed agendas. For a start, today’s first few items on Climate Depot demolish a number of Green fantasies:

Go to Climate Depot and check out all the rest.

Four new papers on sea-levels are also debunking the global warming agenda here  at notrickzone

View original post


People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception

Dr. Tim Ball must read via WUWT :


“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”

Watts Up With That?

Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards

Guest Opinion: Dr.Tim Ball

Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?

The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.

“All this…

View original post 1,859 more words


Climate Change Hysteria and the Madness of Crowds

Great essay. Stand-out points:
• the U.N. global bureaucrats crafted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the instrument by which life-sustaining carbon dioxide would be reinvented as the most dangerous threat to the world.”

• According to the Club of Rome: “The common enemy of humanity is man. 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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Population control is the implied remedy.

• Businesses profit from proclaiming that they are “green.” Renewable is the key word for obtaining government largesse.

 

More on “Global Warming” ideology and its intrinsic link to population control :

“In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming”

 

Watts Up With That?

lemmings[1]Guest essay by Charles Battig

Shakespeare’s Hamlet pondered the eternal conundrum of competing choices. His “Aye, there’s the rub” nicely summarizes the conflicts inherent in the present socio/political/scientific arena of climate discussions.

Years of relentless doomsday prognostications by a variety of public voices spanning the political-scientific spectrum have found their mark in a gullible and guilt-prone public. There is a Medusa-like quality in the serpentine web of doomsday prophets, including members of the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb,” and the current White House science advisor, John Holdren. Al Gore came to discover “Inconvenient Truths,” later found to be not so truthful.

View original post 1,038 more words


“IN Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming”

The common enemy of humanity is man.
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, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
.
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

•••

311427_233757580018379_1193965806_n

ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.

A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.

The goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….” – Club Of Rome

The Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.

Not surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’ :

aaaaaa

Around the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (currently President Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.

The conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.

•••

With man’s industrial fortunes fingered as the driver of eco-destructive population growth, it was inevitable that ‘Science’ would be called upon to act as judge, jury and executioner. However, as it turned out, the science of global warming was butchered, tortured and corrupted to prove a hypothesis, rather than to perform objective science.

James Delingpole of The Telegraph elaborates :

The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.

One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion. 

Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man – Telegraph Blogs

ipcc_altlogo_full_rgb

Dr Tim Ball details how the science of climate change came to be “tortured until it fitted in with [the] notion” :

Almost every aspect of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) work is manipulated, selected, and controlled, to prove human CO2 is causing global warming. The objective was to prove the hypothesis, not to perform objective science.

The goal was established by the Club of Rome whose member, Maurice Strong transmitted and translated it into world government policy through the United Nations.

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” — Club of Rome

He was assisted by politicians like Al Gore and Tim Wirth. In 1993 the latter did not hide the naked political objective.

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

They were aided by national weather agencies and bureaucratic scientists with similar political persuasions appointed to the IPCC.

They claimed their goal was achieved in the 2007 IPCC Report which concluded,

“Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin, whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

All the CO2 numbers used by the IPCC are very poor estimates and designed to underline the human impact. They are meaningless figures from the total volumes to the annual flows and the human inputs as depicted in the IPCC carbon cycle (diagram). See more »

————

IPCC wanted to prove human CO2 was causing global warming as part of their belief that industrialized populations would exhaust all resources and had to be shut down. Their only objective was to show human production was steadily, inexorably increasing. Their calculations predetermine that, because human CO2 production is directly linked to population increase. A population increase guarantees a CO2 increase. It is another of their circular arguments that has no basis in science.

See more at: IPCC Control Calculations of Annual Human CO2 Production For Political Agenda

•••

So is the planet overpopulated?

Tim Ball has done the numbers and concludes, “The world is not overpopulated. That fallacy is perpetuated in all environmental research, policy and planning including global warming and latterly climate change.”

Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming

Posted on WUWT on January 5, 2014
413Ai6gFA0LGuest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

“The common enemy of humanity is man. 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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

They believe all these problems are created by humans but exacerbated by a growing population using technology. Changed attitudes and behavior basically means what it has meant from the time Thomas Malthus raised the idea the world was overpopulated. He believed charity and laws to help the poor were a major cause of the problem and it was necessary to reduce population through rules and regulations. TCOR ideas all ended up in the political activities of the Rio 1992 conference organized by Maurice Strong (a TCOR member) under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The assumptions and objectives became the main structure of Agenda 21, the master plan for the 21st Century. The global warming threat was confronted at Rio through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was structured to predetermine scientific proof that human CO2 was one contribution of the common enemy.

The IPCC was very successful. Despite all the revelations about corrupted science and their failed predictions (projections) CO2 remains central to global attention about energy and environment. For example, several websites, many provided by government, list CO2 output levels for new and used cars. Automobile companies work to build cars with lower CO2 output and, if for no other reason than to appear green, use it in advertising. The automotive industry, which has the scientists to know better, collectively surrenders to eco-bullying about CO2. They are not alone. They get away with it because they pass on the unnecessary costs to a befuddled “trying to do the right thing” population. See more »

—————
TCOR and later UNEP’s Agenda 21 adopted and expanded the Malthusian idea of overpopulation to all resources making it the central tenet of all their politics and policies. The IPCC was set up to assign the blame of global warming and latterly climate change on human produced CO2 from an industrialized expanding population. They both developed from false assumptions, used manipulated data and science, which they combined into computer models whose projections were, not surprisingly, wrong. The result is the fallacy of global warming due to human CO2 is a subset built on the fallacy of overpopulation.
See full article here : Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming | Watts Up With That?
•••
UPDATE
via Herald Sun – Andrew Bolt :

Paltridge: this warming pause may destroy the reputation of science

Temperatures have not risen for at least 15 years. The pause now threatens to expose how much scientists sold their souls for cash and fame, warns emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, author of The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming and a former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research:

…there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years…

In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem … in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour…

The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.

The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven…

The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of…

The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the …  Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster… It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.

This is why scientific organisations have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about the global warming pause. Too many reputations are now at stake.

(Climatism emboldened)

•••

UPDATE

MUST SEE You Tube – James Corbett of the Corbett Report, debunks the myth of overpopulation.

The Corbett Report | The Last Word on Overpopulation

•••

FINAL WORD :

The ultimate prize to the eco-activists and their big government benefactors is the control of carbon, which would touch every aspect of our daily lives. Consequently, greenhouse gases and global climate change are of paramount importance to the eco-activist agenda. While much has been written about global climate change over many years, the basic aspects of the issue haven’t changed; we are asked to forget things we once knew and ignore the simplest hypothesis that the earth’s climate is ever changing.

Climate Change Deliberation: Taking Occam’s Razor to Proxy Data — The Patriot Post

•••

UPDATE

UN still pushing discredited “overpopulation” crisis

•••

UPDATE

THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty

•••

See also :

Related :
  • MUST READ : Why there is global warming | WND
  • OVER-POPULATION : Another non-problem | WND
  • The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | CACA
  • Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
  • U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy | TheBlaze.com
  • United Nations Agenda 21 : The Death Knell of Liberty | CACA
  • Where The Global Warming Hoax Was Born | Marjorie Mazel Hecht

United Nations Related :

  • UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | CACA
  • Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | CACA
  • Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | CACA
  • UN: Global prosperity is causing global warming | The Daily Caller
  • IPCC Insider Says That The 97% Consensus Actually Consists Of “A Few Dozen” | CACA
  • Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming | Watts Up With That?

Club Of Rome Related :

  • Club Of Rome – “The First Global Revolution” (Archive)
  • The Road to Copenhagen Part I: The Club of Rome
  • CLUB OF ROME VIDEO – The Original MIT Modellers of Human Pollution Doom – LAST CALL trailer – YouTube
  • Abel Danger: club of Rome – the data doesn’t matter – all heretics will be punished – do you believe?
  • Unraveling the Club of Rome (part 1) | Recycle Washington
  • The Green Agenda
  • IPCC Control Calculations of Annual Human CO2 Production For Political Agenda – Dr Tim Ball
  • THE CLUB OF ROME Official (www.clubofrome.org)

CLIMATISM Hot Links :

  • Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | CACA
  • Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | CACA
  • Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | CACA
  • ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ | CACA
  • The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | CACA
  • The Great Global Warming Climate Shift | CACA
  • Shock news : Australia has always had heatwaves | CACA
  • Judith Curry : Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan | CACA
  • Bureaucratic Dioxide
  • Shock News : Australia’s Carbon Tax Has Killed Jobs And Destroyed Nation’s Competitiveness
Quote Source : The Green Agenda

•••

“Global Warming” is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible. – Thomas Sowell

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To HELP Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate rationalists – you and I  – are still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click link for more info…TQ! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••


Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming

Climatism comment : The information pertaining to this excellent Dr Tim Ball piece; The Club Of Rome, Maurice Strong, UNEP, UN, The IPCC and Agenda 21, are as vital to the topic of ‘anthropogenic’ global warming as are any of the ‘sciences’.

They are most definitely not mutually exclusive.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

“The common enemy of humanity is man. 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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

They believe all these problems are created by humans but exacerbated by a growing population using technology. Changed attitudes and behavior basically means what it has meant from the time Thomas Malthus raised the idea the world was overpopulated…

View original post 1,948 more words


United Nations Agenda 21 : The Death Knell of Liberty

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– UN Agenda 21

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the 1976 report UN’s Habitat I Conference.

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

is

Re-pressed via Gulag Bound :

At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

–  G u l a g  –  B o u n d  –

“The common enemy of humanity is man.  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. […] The real enemy then is humanity itself.

– From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 75 1993

“Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.”
– John Donne (1572-1631)

The death knell for freedom has been tolling for some time, and only now are people starting to hear it.  It started tolling faintly, decades back, and has slowly progressed in volume, until today its tolling is impossible to ignore.

The United States of America — that “shining city on a hill” — had a good run of it, and made a gallant effort at establishing liberty for all.  But as the old saw would have it, all good things must come to an end.

Liberty, after all, is an aberration in mankind’s history — a light that has flared here and there over the centuries, only to dissolve back into the darkness.

America is barreling towards becoming a bit player on the world’s stage, and its vaunted middle class — once the envy of the world — is on the verge of being eliminated.  For the good of the planet, for the good of Gaia. for the good of the collective — freedom is being replaced by servitude, capitalism by socialism, and property rights by “sustainable development.”

I’m not talking about something we need to be on guard against.  It is all already in place.  It has been going on for quite some time, and it will continue to go on, at a greatly accelerated pace.  We are at the “end game” point.

And the Globalists know it.  Why do you think the Democratic (and many Republican) political hacks on Capitol Hill are so dismissive of the American people?  They are essentially putting on a “dog and pony show” for public consumption, while the final pieces for America’s defeat are slid into place.

To a great extent the Globalists own the mass media, the entertainment industry, and the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of government.

Why should they worry?

Already, several generations have been indoctrinated, via our school systems, to value globalization and “social justice,” over personal responsibility and free enterprise.  They have been repeatedly sold the idea that they should,  “Think globally, act locally.”

God has been demeaned, marginalized, and eradicated, at every turn.  Our religions are, in many cases, a watered down and diluted mimicry of true spirituality.

The Globalists have come out from the closets, the woodwork, and from under rocks.  They know that their time of hiding is at long last over.  They are brazen about, and proud of,  their anti-American/pro-global stance.  Their arrogance and hubris is palpable.

Call them Communists, Marxists, Fascists, or Globalists — call them what you will, they are collectivists who despise America’s middle class, capitalism, and free enterprise.

They have been duplicitous, Machavellian, clever, and patient.  And it has paid off — the trap has been sprung.  How did this happen?  America got hit high, and America got hit low.  We suffered sudden catastrophic sneak attacks from without, and insidious long-term betrayal from within.

We were hit low by Alinskyesque “community organizers” in our streets, and propagandists in our schools.  We were hit high by “think tanks” like the Trilateral Commission, the CoR (Club of Rome), and the CFR (Council for Foreign Relations).

They have divided us with special interest groups, vociferous “talking point” attacks, and identity politics.  They have infiltrated our schools, and indoctrinated our children.

They have opened floodgates using the Cloward-Piven Strategy — overwhelming our judicial system, banking establishment, and border security.  They have encouraged corruption and greed at the lowest, to the highest, levels of government.  They have twisted and perverted the U.S. Constitution.

They have promoted and encouraged anything and everything that would help bring America down.

They intend on taking over the planet, but first they need to destabilize, and then destroy, the United States of America.  Because we are a powerful bulwark of freedom, we have to go first.  And to a large extent, go we have.

The Club of Rome (CoR) was founded 1968, in Italy, by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian scholar and industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist.

Over the years the list of its members has included ex-presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, diplomats, and billionaires.  Its membership roster reads like a “who’s who” of the world’s “movers and shakers.”  It includes U.N. bureaucrats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe

After its inception, it split into two additional branches: The CoB (Club of Budapest), and the CoM (Club of Madrid).  The CoB focuses mainly on social and philosophical/religious issues, while the CoM concentrates more on political issues.  In addition, there are over thirty affiliated organizations in other countries — such as the USACoR in the United States.

The CoR first garnered public attention with its 1972 report “The Limits to Growth,” which went on to become the best selling environmentalist book of all time.  Simply stated, its main thesis is that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely, because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil.  It’s sort of an industrialized version of a Malthusian nightmare.

Diagram from The First Global Revolution

Twenty years later, the CoR published The First Global Revolution — a quote from the book appears at the start of this article.  This book also made a big splash, and helped to re-energize and expand the whole environmentalist movement.

Another quote from the book worth keeping in mind is, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary… sucha motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose….”

“One invented for the purpose.”  Enter global warming and greenhouse gases.  But something even more important happened the year before The First Global Revolution came out.

At the instigation of the CoR, and their ilk, in 1992 the United Nations held the Conference on Environment and Development — informally known as the Earth Summit — in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

At the Earth Summit, 178 nations signed an agreement called Agenda 21 — so called because it dealt with the United Nation’s agenda for the 21st century.

It consists of numerous chapters detailing the role that different parts of society should play in implementing “sustainable development.”  There are chapters for central governments, local governments, businesses, and community organizations.

Ideological model for planned and enforced sustainable development

George Bush senior, then President of the United States, flew down and committed the United States to the U.N. FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) agenda.

Ever since then, the Executive Branch — Republican and Democrat — has been bypassing Congress, and passing “soft laws” foisting Agenda 21 on the American public.

Check out the U.S. Department of Energy website.

Check out the U.S. Department of Agriculture website.

Check out the U.S. Department of the Interior website.

No matter where you go, environmentalism permeates the U.S. Government bureaucracy.  Sometimes it’s blatant and out front; other times you may need to dig a little — but it is always there.

The Agenda 21 Globalists wine and dine each other, and hold conventions and conferences around the world.  They give each other praise, pats on the back, and prestigious awards.  The Norwegian Globalists just gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, and for the same reason that they gave one to Al Gore — promoting globalization and Agenda 21.

Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” also received an Oscar from the Hollywood elite.  These honors have been bestowed on Gore, not for exposing the truth — for “An Inconvenient Truth” is merely a slickly packaged lie — but because the film spreads the falsehoods of Agenda 21 so well.

It can only be shown to school children in the U.K. if accompanied by a disclaimer.  The U.K.‘s “The Daily Mail” reports that “…teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming, and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.”

The Daily Mail also noted that the lawyer who successfully sued to have the disclaimer attached, said it did not go far enough.  “He said ‘no amount of turgid guidance’ could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.”  Yet American students see it over, and over.  With no disclaimer.

In June of 2009, NASA said that global warming is caused by solar cycles — i.e. the sun.  Unsaid was the fact that the greenhouse gas theory is full of holes.  Actually it’s a fairy tale, a convenient lie to force the world to bend to the will of the globalists.

Under pressure from the Obama Administration NASA now teaches that global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect, and “bad” gases like CO2 — which we humans unfortunately emit each time we breathe.  Bad humans!

Al Gore, the CoR, the U.N., and all of the environmental organizations and their adherents, don’t care what the truth is.  They could care less about what causes global warming.  They have their “outside enemy… invented for the purpose,”  and they are not about to let go of it.

The Globalists actually tried Global Cooling first, but for various reasons it didn’t fly.  Look at page 22 in the 1974 Annual Rockefeller Report, and you’ll find the mention of a conference called to investigate “…the future implications of the global cooling trend now underway….”  Things sure warmed up in a hurry.

So what is the “purpose?”  What’s really behind all the global warming hoopla?  Power.  It’s the same old Marxist/Communist/Fascist collectivist schtick, dressed up in new clothes.

Global warming is all about a power grab by a wealthy elite and their collectivist sycophants — using the U.N. as a cover and tool.

Merely a conceptual work of art, “Power Pyramid” at AdamDodson.org

As always, there are numerous “useful idiots” who swallow the party line whole.  Some of them are simply misguided idealists, and some of them are nuts — dangerously nuts.

Behind it all, is a relatively small group of people who are manipulating the world for their own sick, narcissistic ends.  It’s a perfect cover.  Think about it — who doesn’t feel that fresh air, clean water, and healthy environments are admirable ends to work towards?  Any sane person supports such ideals.  But hidden in back of the admirable goals are some diabolical designs.

Video, “Michael Shaw Agenda 21“

Don’t take my word for it, and don’t dismiss me without research.  We all need to know what’s headed our way shortly.  If you aren’t aware of these facts already, then educate yourself on the internet.  At least check out Green-Agenda.com.

What have we seen since the Obama Administration took over?  The brainiacs in charge of America’s finances have been ignoring our debts, and eagerly proposing ways to sink us deeper into the quagmire.  A lot deeper.

At first I thought that they were simply corrupt, venal, self-serving idiots — all of which is undoubtedly true, but they’re also destroying America’s financial foundation, cleverly and intentionally.

They want the American dollar replaced by a new global currency.  They want America’s middle class to hang in the wind, and die on the vine.  They’re Globalists, and they want America to fail.  It’s so easy to see, once you realize what’s going on. (See “Chart: IMF Calls For New Global Currency To Replace Dollar.”)

Why else would they add trillions to an already staggering debt?  Why else would they try to rush through a Cap and Trade bill that will, in Obama’s words, make electricity prices “skyrocket.”  Why else would they jam ObamaCare down America’s throat?  Why else would Obama say he’d bankrupt anybody who built a new coal plant?

Video, “Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket“

Once you grasp Agenda 21 and the sly machinations of the United Nations, and globalizing NGOs like the CoR, it all makes sense.

It’s “The Plan.”  Ruin America’s economy, destroy her middle class, and put a stranglehold on her energy grid.

At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (See, “Maurice Strong and the Collapse of Industrialized Civilizations.”)

He also said, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.”

Club of Rome member, multi-billionaire George Soros [Gulag Bound link] echoed Strong’s statement last fall, when he told an Australian newspaper, “America, as the center of the globalized financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world.  This is now over. The game is out,’ he said, adding that the time has come for ‘a very serious adjustment’ in American’s consumption habits.” (See, “Soros Sees End of US-led Globalized Market System.”)

Forced to cut back on fossil fuel consumption.  Forced to cut back on water usage.  Forced to give up our property.  Forced to eat less.  Forced to warm or cool our homes less.  Forced to give up driving.  Forced to give up these, and many other things that we currently take for granted.  It’s “The Plan” — you had better believe it.

Look at what’s happening to California’s Central Valley — once “the world’s breadbasket,” and now a dust bowl.  All due to Agenda 21.  (See “A Storm Brews over Food, Water, & Power.”)

I assure you that the globalists will not help the farmers.  As the saying goes, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”  The globalists want the land unplowed.  They want it to go “back to nature.” They want to increase the price of food.  They want to ruin the middle class farming community.  It’s all part of “The Plan.”

It is not just America this is happening to, of course.  Australia, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, Germany…  Every country is on the verge of being converted into a vassal state—part of a global hegemony run by the U.N and a power elite.

All this will be more easily accomplished with a greatly reduced population.  Did I mention population reduction and control?

Behind all the warm and fuzzy terminology about “smart growth,” “sustainable development,” and “think green,” lies a very chilling fact.  The Agenda 21 folks want to reduce the earth’s population—substantially.

In 1996, Club of Rome member and CNN founder, Ted Turner, told Audubon magazine, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”  A 95% reduction!  Recently he has said that getting rid of a mere two thirds of the world’s population would suffice.  Getting mellow in his old age no doubt.  (See, “Ted Turner: World Needs a ‘Voluntary’ One-Child Policy for the Next Hundred Years.”)

The hard-core environmentalists are all bio-centrists.  That is, they believe that humanity is no more important than any other species on this planet.  In fact, to hear them tell it, the world would be much better off without any people at all.

Anthropologist and anarchist David Graber put it like this in an L.A. Times book review, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet.  … We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.  … Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

At any rate, because these Globalists are bio-centrists, most of them don’t believe in a divine spark in man, or unalienable rights, or God for that matter.  In short, they don’t have many qualms about killing people.  Something else to keep in mind.

You know the sardonic comment “Well excuse me for breathing?”  These people take that statement literally — and probably won’t excuse you.  After all, you’re adding to the earth’s carbon dioxide level every time you breath out.

http://www.icleiusa.org

ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability — I know, don’t ask) even has a personal Co2 calculator you can use.  ICLEI (pronounced “ick-lee”) believes you should know, and of course want to know, the amount of “your yearly direct personal carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.”  To which I say, directly and personally, “Get lost,” or words to that effect.  (See “United Nations ICLEI and The City of Spokane.”)

My favorite eco-friendly slogan is “Save the Planet — Kill Yourself.”

There’s something deeply disturbed, and disturbing, about too many of these folks, if you ask me.  For example, Yale professor and eco-nut, Lamont Cole, is of the opinion that “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”

You should do yourself a favor and peruse the quotes on Free Republic’s “So you’re an environmentalist…” web-page.  If you don’t come away convinced that most of these folks are nuttier than a Payday candy bar, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Many of these “useful idiots” may be crazy and harmless, but they can also be crazy and deadly.  Behind them, pulling the strings, and waiting to take over, are the Global Elite and their one world government.

Whether or not America will last as a free republic until the 2012 presidential elections is debatable.  Iran’s leadership is aching to nuke Israel, and Israel’s only going to wait so long before taking preemptive measures — and there goes a large chunk of America’s oil supply.  And what happens if Egypt comes under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they decide to close the vital Suez Canal?  Remember that Obama’s drilling ban, declared unconstitutional, is still in effect.  (See “Judge Holds Interior in Contempt over Drilling Ban.”)

Long lines for gas — if you can get any at all; America’s power grid will flicker and intermittently fail.  Time for the Globalists to make their final moves.

So America, freedom, and Western civilization goes down the drain on our watch.  It’s nothing to be proud of, that is for sure.

Is there no hope then?  If there are still enough patriotic Americans who value personal integrity and freedom — there’s a chance we can still turn this thing around, but it won’t be easy.  Far from it.

But make no mistake, if we lose this one, America and the world will sink into an abyss of Godless tyranny for a very, very long time.

Laus Deo.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21

First published October 12, 2009 Canada Free Press.  Revised for Gulag Bound, February 6, 2011.

Gulag Notes:

For more on Agenda 21, see the tag of the same name:
http://gulagbound.com/tag/agenda-21

Please get the word out and face up politicians with this — including at the local and state levels.


Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two.  A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.”  The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel.

This article is an update of Jim O’Neill’s “Agenda 21 and the Death Knell of Liberty,” published at Canada Free Press and Gulag Bound.

Images added by Gulag Bound

The Plan, Agenda 21: The Death Knell of Liberty.

•••

Related Articles :

  • Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | CACA
  • The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | CACA
  • One Of The More Illuminating Articles You May Ever Read On Global Warming | CACA
  • UN Agenda 21 Links | CACA

United Nations’ Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 Essentials :

  • TOP READ : US Sustainable Development aka Agenda 21 to ‘Regionalism’ – The New Frontier of Evil in Florida – The Global Dispatch
  • The United Nations “Agenda 21″ and “ICLEI” in one easy lesson
  • Sustainable Freedom: Surging Opposition to Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development”
  • Sustainable Development Article – DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21
  • MARXISM Admitted: Sustainable Development = Marxism | JunkScience.com
  • AGENDA 21 – 1992 RIO EARTH SUMMIT MANUAL PDF – Official Document
  • HUMAN HABITAT ZONES – AGENDA 21 UNEP HUMAN SETTLEMENT ZONE BLUEPRINT – Agenda 21 – Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development – United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – Official doc
  • The History of Sustainable Development – Connecting the Dots | Beware the Green Menace
  • EXCELLENT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY – TORY AARDVARK – Rio+20 & What Sustainable Development Really Means | Tory Aardvark
  • AGENDA 21 Agenda 21 Course | Understanding Sustainable Development and How It Affects You
  • MUST SEE AGENDA 21 YOU TUBE – ALEXANDRA SWANN Agenda 21: Bankrupting America into Utopia–One City at a Time – YouTube
  • Larry Bell on AGENDA 21 and ICLEI – Global Warming Hysteria – How Many Things You Do Today Will Kill You Or The Planet? – Forbes
  • BRILLIANT AGENDA 21 SUMMARY – TORY AARDVARK – Climate Religion – In The Beginning There Was Agenda 21 | Tory Aardvark
  • MICHAEL SHAW – AGENDA 21 – SUSTAINABILITY – BRILLIANT SPEECH ▶ America’s Choice – Liberty or Sustainable Development (1 of 3) – YouTube
  • Galileo Movement : UN AGENDA 21 (AG21) IN BRIEF (video 1, video 2)

UN Agenda 21, ICLEI and Sustainability Operations in Australia:

  • AGENDA 21 IN AUSTRALIA – Human Free Habitat Zones – Green Dreaming of a Human-Free Environment — Quadrant Online
  • UN AGENDA21 IN AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS TEACHING SUSTAINABILITY ??!! United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014)
  • AUDIO: Australian politician Ann Bressington warning about the United Nations plans for sustainability.
  • AGENDA 21 (Australia) www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/AG21WhyMediaLetUsDown.pdf
  • AGENDA 21 IN AUSTRALIA – Quadrant Online – Green Dreaming of a Human-Free Environment
  • EUROBODALLA SHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA 21 ICLEI
  • AGENDA 21 & ICLEI ALIVE & THRIVING IN YOUR LOCAL AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL
  • ICLEI AGENDA 21 – 238 AUSTRALIAN COUNCILS IN CCP PROGRAM – 2011 – Ironbark Sustainability: About ICLEI Oceania, Low Carbon Australia and Ironbark Sustainability
  • SUSTAINABLE AUSTRALIA 2013 REPORT RELEASE (AGENDA 21) Sustainability ‘a new way of life’ | The Australian
  • MUST LISTEN INTERVIEW: Agenda 21 and the Fabian Society Dr. Amy McGrath| 2GB
  • MUST READ: E-BOOK Download – Agenda 21 and ICLEI – DR AMY McGRATH – Wolves In Sheep’s Clothing
  • The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: Agenda 21: SHUTTING THE DEBATE DOWN
  • NOVA – AGENDA 21 – Agenda 21: Alabama may have outfoxed it. Why you should care. « JoNova
  • AGENDA 21 – AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT 1999
  • MUST SEE VIDEO:  Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome

Quote source – The Green Agenda


One Of The More Illuminating Articles You May Ever Read On Global Warming

The common enemy of humanity is man.
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, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
.
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

•••

Having read one of the most influential and eye-opening books of my life, “Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing your Children’s Future“, it was refreshing to stumble across the featured article in this post, penned by the same author James Delingpole, out of the Daily Telegraph.

Delingpole is a writer whose work border’s on literary genius, a grand master of elucidation. A staunch climate sceptic, who’s views and opinions, while rational, measured and considered, sizzle with humour and sarcasm to drive his message home.

He confidently boasts; “I’m right about everything“. When you follow his stuff, you realise that this has nothing to do with ego!

Most importantly, his writing stands in strident defence of our freedoms. A position taken for granted by so many today, yet the most basic right, one we must fiercely protect with constant vigilance.

If you haven’t read Watermelons, make sure you do. It is a true masterpiece that will educate you on issues which are about as critical and important as any, in our lives today.

In the meantime, try to read the below article line-by-line, for the words unlock the true story behind man-made global warming hysteria. A living constant that toys with people’s everyday lives and indeed threatens our “children’s future” much more than any theorised climate event.

•••

via The Telegraph (UK)

Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man

By James Delingpole

Last updated: April 5th, 2011

chris-packham-460 (1)

Chris Packham, ‘wildlife expert’ (Photo: Paul Grover)

Any minute now I’m going to lay off blogging for a while, for health reasons. But I can’t pretend I’m going to find going cold turkey easy, especially not when there are stories like this around.

It concerns “wildlife expert” Chris Packham – presenter of some of the BBC’s most popular nature programmes including Springwatch and a new series called The Animal’s Guide To British Wildlife – and some deeply unpleasant remarks he made in the course of an interview with the Radio Times.

“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population. I read the other day that, by 2020, there are going to be 70 million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.”

So what does he suggest we do about it? Get people to stop having children?

“Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn’t actually penalise people for having too many children, as I think the carrot always works better than the stick. But what I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.”

What frightens me almost more than these remarks – whose loathsomeness I shall gloss in a moment – is the response of the Daily Mail’s readership. All right, perhaps the Mail’s online audience is not representative of the entire country, but I do think they’re probably close to embodying what the reasonable other person from Middle England thinks, and in this case what they seem to think is frankly bloody terrifying.

All right, so I don’t imagine many of us here would quibble with the most popular comment so far, with 1300 plus positive votes:

How about offering people nothing for not having children as well as not giving them anything when they have ten children? Let them pay for their offspring with their own money for a change. That might make a few people consider the population even if it’s the one in their own home.

This is in line with the very sensible remarks that once got Howard Flight into such trouble. And of course the Tory peer was quite right: it’s absurd to have a situation where the most feckless, unproductive sector of the economy is subsidised by the state to have children they would otherwise be unable to afford.

But here are the second and third most popular comments, with well over 1000 positive votes each:

He is quite right you know, the most eco friendly thing you can do is not breed.

Well done Chris I couldn’t have said it better myself. That is the main problem with this planet — too many people. We require a massive birth control programme, never mind growing more food and building more houses — cut back on breeding is the only answer.

There are so many things wrong with this attitude I don’t know where to begin. But why not let’s start with the plight of only children? Almost everyone I know who was brought up without a brother or sister wishes it could have been otherwise. I myself grew up in a family of seven, and while it’s true that I have never quite forgiven one of them for voting for Caroline Lucas in the last election I count the friendship and kinship of my wonderful brothers and sisters one of the greatest joys of my existence. I know there are many in China who feel much the same way: the tyrannical one-child policy, it is now being recognised, has not only led to much unnecessary unhappiness but is also leading to potentially disastrous economic consequences (especially in its battle for economic supremacy with India, where no such restrictions have applied).

Yet such is the misery that Chris Packham wishes to import to Britain. And to be fair, he is far from the only high profile figure who thinks this way. Very much of the same view is that famously nice, caring natural history TV presenter David Attenborough, concerned environmentalist the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, actress Susan Hampshire, Gaia theory inventor James Lovelock, ex UN apparatchik Sir Crispin Tickell (the man who – briefly – persuaded Margaret Thatcher of the imminent perils of Man Made Global Warming) and chimp expert Jane Goodall. All of these luminaries are – with Packham – patrons of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation which believes that the world’s growing population is “unsustainable” and which is dedicated to finding ways of reducing it.

The problem with the Optimum Population Trust – one of them anyway – is that its very existence is predicated on a vilely misanthropic view of the human species: that there are too many of us, that we do more harm than good.

And yes, superficially, this view of the world makes a kind of sense. It’s what I call an “I reckon” argument: the sort of argument you’d make in a pub, after a few beers, based on information you’ve established from a gut feeling so strong it doesn’t need any awkward details like facts getting in the way of your opinion. I mean obviously more people means less space, and more demand on “scarce resources”, so the more people there are the more trouble we’re in. Stands to reason dunnit?

This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking I address in my new book Watermelons. You’ll forgive me if I don’t come up with all the counterarguments here. (Read the bloody book!). But in a nutshell, it’s that this Neo-Malthusian pessimism – as warped and wrongheaded today as it was in the era of doom-monger Thomas Malthus (1766 to 1834) – is based on fundamental misconceptions about the ingenuity of the human species and about the nature of economic growth.

Sure if all populations did as they grew and grew was use up more finite “stuff”, then we would indeed have cause to worry. But they don’t: as populations increase in size, so they learn to specialise and adapt and find ever more ingenious ways of making more with less. That’s why, for example, the mass starvation predicted by Paul Ehrlich in his Sixties bestseller The Population Bomb never happened: because thanks to Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, crop yields dramatically increased while the area of land under cultivation remained unchanged. If you want to read more about this, I recommend not just my book, but also Matt Ridley’s superb The Rational Optimist or anything by Julian Simon (known as the Doomslayer because of the way he constantly confounded Neo Malthusian pessimism and  junk science).

The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.

One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion. [Climatism Bolded] 

I do not share this view. Indeed, though I believe that while people like Chris Packham (and Prince Charles; George Monbiot; Al Gore; David Attenborough; Robert Redford; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ted Turner; et al) may believe what they do for the noblest of reasons, their ecological philosophy is fundamentally evil. And I do mean evil. Any philosophy which has, as its core tenet, the belief that mankind is the problem not the solution cannot possibly be one that pertains to good, can it?

This is why I have been fighting this Climate War so hard for so long. And why I have no compunction whatsoever in calling the people who promote that repellant philosophy by the names they deserve. The ideological struggle that is being fought now over the issue of “Climate Change” (and related, quasi-Marxist weasel concepts such as Sustainability) may not yet involve the bloodshed caused in the wars against Nazism and Stalinism, but the threat it poses to individual freedom and economic security is every bit as great. But there aren’t enough of us fighting this war on the right side – and I’m knackered.

Continue Reading »

•••

Read more of James Delingpole’s cracking work here – James Delingpole – Telegraph Blogs

•••

Club Of Rome quotes via The Green Agenda :

The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.

– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

In Nature organic growth proceeds according
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
sustainable growth and world development based on global
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”

– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well 
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.

– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that
fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order
and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.

– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion
.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

•••

UPDATE

via wattsupwiththat

Extract from :

IPCC Climate: A Product of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Built On Inadequate Data

Posted on October 2, 2013 by Guest Blogger

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

The climate debate cannot be separated from environmental politics. Global warming became the central theme of the claim humans are destroying the planet promoted by the Club of Rome. Their book, Limits to Growth did two major things both removing understanding and creating a false sense of authority and accuracy. First, was the simplistic application of statistics beyond an average in the form of a straight-line trend analysis: Second, predictions were given awesome, but unjustified status, as the output of computer models. They wanted to show we were heading for disaster and selected the statistics and process to that end. This became the method and philosophy of the IPCC. Initially, we had climate averages. Then in the 1970s, with the cooling from 1940, trends became the fashion. Of course, the cooling trend did not last and was replaced in the 1980s by an equally simplistic warming trend. Now they are trying to ignore another cooling trend. Continue Reading »

•••

Club Of Rome Related:

  • Club Of Rome – “The First Global Revolution” (Archive)
  • The Road to Copenhagen Part I: The Club of Rome
  • CLUB OF ROME VIDEO – The Original MIT Modellers of Human Pollution Doom – LAST CALL trailer – YouTube
  • Abel Danger: club of Rome – the data doesn’t matter – all heretics will be punished – do you believe?
  • Unraveling the Club of Rome (part 1) | Recycle Washington
  • The Green Agenda
  • IPCC Control Calculations of Annual Human CO2 Production For Political Agenda – Dr Tim Ball
  • The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | CACA
  • THE CLUB OF ROME Official (www.clubofrome.org)
  • The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | CACA

Beware the eco-friendly buzzword “Sustainability”:

  • The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
  • As of 2011, 238 Australian Councils were operating the UN’s ‘Agenda 21’ program through ‘ICLEI Oceania’ – Ironbark Sustainability: About ICLEI Oceania, Low Carbon Australia and Ironbark Sustainability
  • Excellent explanation of sustainability: What Is Sustainability?
  • UN Agenda 21 Links | CACA
  • The United Nations “Agenda 21” and “ICLEI” in one easy lesson
  • United Nations Agenda 21 : The Death Knell of Liberty | CACA
  • Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | CACA

Climatism Links:

  • NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
  • Scientists talking about no warming
  • Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
  • UN-Settled Science
  • 44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum | CACA
  • 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA
  • Bureaucratic Dioxide
  • A cooling consensus
  • Modelling Climate Alarmism
  • GLOBAL WARMING THEORY – Circular reasoning at its best
  • Obamaclimate and Europe’s Green Energy Basket-Case | CACA
  • The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | CACA