Advertisements

TACKLING The Climate ‘Crisis’ Means The End Of Capitalism As We Know It

THE belief that Climate Change (aka Global Warming) is an “existential threat” requiring urgent action, is the product of McDonnell-esq propaganda and a dumbed-down education system

THE belief that the world can painlessly transition away from fossil fuels is the product of an affluent and spoilt society.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The far left journalist, Paul Mason, reveals the real agenda behind the climate wars:

image

When John McDonnell announced plans to de-list the companies wilfully destroying the planet through unchecked carbon emissions, the response from the City was predictably hyperbolic. “Financial totalitarianism,” said one banker. “Kamikaze communism,” said the right-wing propaganda website Guido Fawkes.

Labour’s thinking on industrial, fiscal and central bank policy has taken a sharp green turn under the impact of the Extinction Rebellion protests, and last October’s IPCC report, which dramatically shortened the deadline for halving global carbon emissions. But it is not yet radical enough.

Climate change is a problem where — given the scale and the deadlines — nothing short of dramatic structural change in the way capitalism works can deliver the 2030 target of a 45 per cent cut in carbon emissions. To deliver the net-zero carbon emissions demanded by 2050 will…

View original post 74 more words

Advertisements

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

haiti-v-dominican-republic

Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)


WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!

A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…

Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens

By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59

A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.

The NYT has hired former Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens as a writer and deputy editorial page editor.

Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.

The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.

But the NYT defence has angered scientists.

Climate Scientists Canceling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens | DeSmogBlog

*

Huffington Post also joined the fun…

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column

The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.

29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST
Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost

The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”

But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”

Even the Times’ own reporters publicly questioned the hire.

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column |HuffPo

(via WUWT)

*

STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!

IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.

“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”

A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres Brussels February, 2015

FIGUERES even went so far as to affirm that Communism is the best model to fight global warming.

IN other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

GLOBAL Warming theory has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.

IN 2013, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3 Dr. Ottmar Endenhoefer unleashed this stunning revelation…

 


HIGHLIGHTS from Stephens’ must read column in the times…

Apocalypse Not

Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.CreditMicheline Pelletier/Sygma, via Getty Images

In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”

Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”

I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.

Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.

—–

“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”

In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.

—–

The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.

I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.

—–

Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.

—–

If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.

(Climatism bolds)

Read Stephens’ excellent piece in full here…

•••

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

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ

Donate with PayPal

•••

Related :

Climate Science related :

 


The Rise Of Eco-Bolshevism And The Collapse Of Western Civilisation

If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism

– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First

The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope
.”
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

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)

green-agenda

Image Source : Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism | Herald Sun

•••

An important, must-read article by Emeritus Professor Fred Singer, via ‘American Thinker’ :

A Suicidal Collapse of Western Civilization?

My background is basically European — and more specifically, Western European.  I have lived and worked in many of those countries, and I know most of the major cities intimately — from Stockholm in the north, Newcastle, London, Paris, The Hague, Munich, Vienna, to Rome and Erice, Sicily in the south.  I have also spent several months in Moscow and in Jerusalem as a guest of academic institutions.

Economic Suicide

The ongoing economic suicide of Europe is based on a faulty understanding of the climate issue by most Western politicians and on their extreme policy response, based on emotion rather than logic and science.  The major European economies have reacted irrationally to contrived, unjustified fear of imagined global-warming disastersPerhaps I should explain that the climate has not been warming for the past 18 years — and even if it had been warming, it would be no disaster.  The EU wants to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, a natural plant-fertilizer, by 40% within 15 years — by 2030.  This insane drive to replace energy sources from fossil fuels that release plant-friendly CO2 into the atmosphere has led to greatly increased costs of energy.  As is well understood, such actions not only hurt economic growth, but they increase poverty levels and therefore threaten the social fabric of these nations.

There are some exceptions. of course: France and Belgium rely heavily on nuclear energy; Austria and Norway rely heavily on hydro.  Poland has actively resisted the general trend to demonize CO2, but the UK and Germany, which has been the power-house of European economic growth, are severely threatened by their insistence on installing wind and solar energy.  The latter is especially inappropriate to the Continent and to Great Britain.

The pity of it all is that these economic sacrifices in Western Europe will hardly affect the level of atmospheric CO2 — which is controlled globally by huge emissions from China — and soon also from India.

Unfortunately, during the past few years, and even during the White House administration of George W. Bush, the United States has tended to move in the same direction — and energy costs have gone up markedly.

The regulatory burdens created by the EPA’s “War on Coal,” by holding up permits for pipelines and for exploration-production of fuels on Federal lands, etc, are imposing real costs on US households, which are the equivalent of a large energy tax — except that none of these increased costs flow into the US Treasury.

Cultural, plus even more dangerous Demographic Suicide,

But it is cultural suicide, which adds to economic suicide and spells doom for the future of Western Europe.  I have in mind here the heavy immigration from Islamic nations — with most immigrants unwilling to adjust to the prevailing culture of the host country.

Examples are rampant.  In Great Britain, the dangerous immigration has come mostly from Pakistan and Bangladesh, Islamic successors to the British rule over India; Hindu immigrants present no special problem.  In Southern Europe, the Low Countries, and most of Scandinavia, much of the immigration has been from Somalia and North Africa.  France has experienced massive immigration from North Africa and other African French-speaking former colonies.

In many of these nations now, these immigrant communities have formed enclaves that the native inhabitants can no longer enter safely; even the police have great difficulty controlling law and order in these enclaves.  Examples exist in cities like Birmingham, Amsterdam, Malmo (Sweden), Paris and Marseille.  Germany seems slightly better off, with immigrants from Turkey making some effort to become good Germans.  Of course, the aim of many in these enclaves is to take over the host country — using available democratic means — and institute Sharia (Islamic law).

It is clear that these immigrants are taking advantage of the democratic nature of the host nations and their willingness to grant asylum status and lavish economic subsidies to any who declare themselves as refugees.  A prime example is Sweden, where multi-culturalism runs wild and is supported by the government-subsidized and beholden media.  So far, no real revolt yet — except for some grumbling from the indigenous population (whom the compliant media denounce as “racists.”)

Least affected have been the Slavic nations, which were formerly under Soviet domination.  Perhaps because of their delayed economic development, they have not been as attractive a destination for immigrants.  Ironically, these East-Europeans may yet save Western civilization.

The United States faces a rather special situation.  There is much immigration, mostly illegal, from south of the border. But these Latino immigrants are not Islamic; they share similar cultural values with native-born Americans — and most are making an effort to adapt to the prevailing culture.  The main danger is one of national security.  With porous borders, potential terrorists can easily slip into the United States and create mayhem.

A peculiar problem exists in Israel, which has experienced illegal Islamic (!) immigration, mainly from Sudan and Eritrea.  We are told that some southern suburbs of Tel Aviv now resemble a Third-World nation.  Efforts are underway to deport these illegal immigrants; but standing in the way is Israel’s Supreme Court, a group of unelected liberal lawyers, who personally oppose the Parliament-passed law of deportation — certainly an anomalous situation by US standards.

Russia has experienced problems of its own, mainly from Islamic provinces in the Caucasus.  The suppression of the Chechen revolt has caused a violent reaction, leading to major terror acts, even in Moscow.

Exacerbating the Islamic “conquest“ of Western Europe is the fact that the indigenous people — from Swedes to Spaniards  — are not reproducing themselves.  Whatever the cause may be, the number of children per family is well below the replacement level of 2.11; in some countries it is as low as 1.30.  The statistics are frightening — as seen in records of births, welfare rolls, and school attendance.  By mid-century, parts of Europe will have a Moslem majority — and even before then it will be too late to rectify the situation.

What of the future? 

With ongoing internal battles within Islamic groups, it is not easy to predict the future.  In Syria, some 200,000 have been killed and millions have been turned into refugees.  The rise of the “Islamic State” in the last few months promises a brutal suppression of any who hold even a slightly different Islamic view.  Their announced goal is to set up a theocratic Caliphate in any lands that have ever been under Islamic rule — including most of the Balkans, Andalus-Spain, and of course Israel.

At the battle of Tours in 732, Charles Martell stopped the advance into France of Moslem armies from the Iberian peninsula.  In 1571, in the great naval battle of Lepanto, off Greece, a Spanish-Italian fleet defeated the Turks.  In their farthest advance into Central Europe, a Turkish army besieged Vienna in 1683.  Christian forces, under the command of King John Sobieski of Poland, defeated the invaders decisively and saved Western civilization.

Americans have twice saved Europe in the 20th century and may soon be forced to defend Europe again against a new threat.  The first assault on Western European civilization came from Nazi Germany and its allies; it took a bloody World-War-II (1939-1945) to defeat them.  Certainly, without US intervention, Western Europe, and even Britain, might now be part of a German-ruled dictatorship, a sort of involuntary European Union.  It is doubtful also whether the Soviet Union could have withstood Hitler’s onslaught without the active material assistance of the United States.

The second threat to Europe came from the post-1945 Soviet Union; it was dominated by the specter of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.  The “Warsaw Pact” encompassed even a large part of Germany.  This “Cold-War” threat was neutralized thanks to the steadfastness of the United States — but also by the internal economic problems brought about by the planned economy of the Soviet empire.

The new threat of course is Islamo-Fascism and its aim to introduce Sharia — in at least those parts of Europe that had been Muslim lands in the past, but aiming really at all of Europe — and eventually the rest of the world.  This new threat uses a method of warfare that is different from the past and more insidious.  Terrorism has come into its own, partly based on large Islamic populations in Western Europe.

Coupled with this external threat is the internal one from Islamic fanatics, many of them born in Europe — and even from converts.  We have seen this happen in Spain, and more recently in Britain.  Their methods have been crude and their weapons have been primitive; but with nuclear proliferation and with the possibility of chemical and biological warfare, these threats have to be taken very seriously.

Fighting these threats takes resources for surveillance, intelligence, sundry military expenditures, and weapons, both offensive and defensive.  Resilience requires above all a strong economy.  And one cannot have a strong economy without adequate energy resources – which gets us back to the issue of climate fears.

The problem now is that while the threat of terrorism is growing, so is the suicidal drive to limit the use of energy and thereby also economic growth.  This internal threat is particularly strong in Europe and has been called, quite properly, eco-Bolshevism.  It would have all the earmarks of the failed Soviet system, with government involvement in every facet of the economy and with energy restrictions reducing economic growth.

There is no question that the policies being discussed now in Europe and in the United States would be extremely costly, would force industrial cutbacks and of course massive job losses.  All of these exacerbate social tension in nations that have a large number of immigrants, who traditionally have the highest unemployment levels.

Will the US step up again and save Europe?  Doubtful

One may ask: Is there any way to stop this steamroller?  There’s probably little hope that such an initiative can come from Europe; it may have to come from the United States.  Somehow we would have to convince European leaders that their policies, based on global-warming fears, are mistaken.  That job may prove to be very difficult — unless there is a drastic change in current US policy.  But it is something that has to be done if we want Europe to survive economically, as an ally against the threat of Islamo-Fascism.
Continue Reading »

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.  An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute.  He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.  In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org].    For recent writings, see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar

H/t to Guy Takamatsu


See Also :

Related :

UN Related :