Archive for the ‘Green Party’ Category

Press Release – Wind Farm Demonstration in Paris

October 6, 2008

Editor

If you are fighting wind farms in North America, you are not alone. You have probably been told how well wind is working in Europe (it’s not) and that we should do the same. Well we should do the same.

Stop the wind scourge now!

.

Saturday Oct 4th, in Paris, 2000 to 3000 people coming from France and
various European countries demonstrated peacefully against windfarms.
Antoine Waechter was among them. Green candidate in the 1988 French
presidential election, Mr Waechter subsequently split from the Greens to
found the Independent Ecological Movement. He is shown on the picture
reading my placard. To the right of the picture, the mayor of a village in
France whose inhabitants ALL decided to sell their houses when a windfarm
project was announced in the vicinity. If you wish to know more about the
Village for Sale, please advise.

We received  messages of support coming from all over the
world, including Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Puerto Rico,
Ecuador, South Africa, Japan and Slovenia. See :
http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

The demonstration and conference was backed by 176 associations and
federations : http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

An international platform against windfarms was founded the same day, as
follows :

*Press release
*Paris, Saturday Oct. 4th 2008

*Founding of the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW). *
*
*In Paris today, on the occasion of the international demonstration against
wind farms, German, Belgian, Spanish and French federations and associations
have founded the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW).

This project has received the support of colleagues from 16 countries
representing several hundred federations and associations.

The founding members of this platform have agreed to make the following
declaration :
*1) Ecological deception and financial scandal*.

It has now been proved that industrial windpower does not reduce CO2
emissions and therefore does not contribute
to the fight against global warming. This is principally due to the
intermittent and uncontrollable nature of wind, which makes it necessary to
rely on the back-up of polluting fossil-fuels power stations, 24 hours a
day.

Industrial windpower is subsidized by the taxpayer-consumer.
In France for example, if the national plan is realized ( 12,500 wind
turbines ! ) this burden will amount to 2.5 billion euros annually. In
Germany, it is already costing 4 billion euros a year.
At a time when Europe is facing a deep economic crisis, it is not acceptable
that the standard of living of Europeans be further reduced in favour of
businessmen whose objective seems to be maximizing profits whatever the
consequences.
Industrial windfarms are a threat to the environment.
Landscapes, the natural and cultural heritage, wildlife, quality of life,
the security and health of Europeans are in danger !

*2) The demands made by EPAW : an immediate moratorium and more
transparency.*
The platform demands an immediate moratorium with the suspension of all
windfarm projects, approved or not.

The platform demands that be assessed, under the control of an independent
body, the objective and undisputable effects of wind farms from an
energetical, ecological and social point of view – respectively.
The platform finally demands that the guaranteed pricing of wind-produced
electricity be made the object of both a public and a parliamentary debate,
at national and european levels.

Signed by :
European Associations and Federations participating in the reunion of
October 4th 2008
Spain : Iberica 2000
Belgica : Vent Contraire, Vent de Raison
France : FED : Fédération Environnement Durable (Fédération nationale),
France : FNASSEM – Fédération Nationale des Associations de Sauvegarde ses
Sites et Monuments
Germany : BLS (Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz – landscape protection,
federation of 800 local committees),
Germany : NAEB (Nationale Anti EEG Bewegung – against windfarms)

Contacts :
Kléber ROSSILLON (FNASSEM) : 06 07 21 88 64 kleber.rossilllon@wanadoo.fr
Emmanuel du BOULLAY (FED) : 06 13 54 49 07 emmanuel.du-boullay@laposte.net

Mark Duchamp + 34 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of
collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPAÑOL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques eólicos:
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de víctimas de parques eólicos ( águilas etc. ), incendios de
aerogeneradores, contaminación de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp



Elizabeth May to be Included in National Debate

September 10, 2008

So, Ms. May is on the Agenda now as she should be.

It’s time for the folks of Canada to take a closer look at their environmental sweetheart.

She claims to be a Christian but hangs out with and promotes the people who want a one world religion based on the pagan earth goddess Gaia.

They blame the Christians for hurting “mother earth” through industrialization.

I’m not picking on Ms. May, just attempting to educate Canadians before they get to the polling booth on Oct. 14th

I will be posting about the other candidates in the coming days.

I think the issue this election will be trying to find a candidate who is not a traitor to this country.

Take a little time and check out the links.

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant

Elizabeth May has radical environmental agenda

Cloak of Green – Get a copy of this book or read it online

Wilson row over green 'alarmists'

September 5, 2008

Once again Ireland shows it’s intelligence. First they voted down the Lisbon Treaty and now Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has come out against the fraud of man made global warming. Proud to have a bit of the Irish flowing in my veins.

Sammy Wilson

Sammy Wilson’s view on climate change has angered environmentalists

The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a “hysterical psuedo-religion”.

In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.

“Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it,” said the minister.

Peter Doran of the Green Party said it was a “deeply irresponsible message.”

Mr Wilson said he refused to “blindly accept” the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change.

“The tactic used by the “green gang” is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact,” he said.

The minister said he accepted climate change can occur, but does not believe the cause has been identified.

“Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists.”

From the BBC

Todays Headlines From National Wind Watch

August 27, 2008

Read the news about wind farms that you won’t see on the main stream media. Find out whats going on in the wind industry any where in the world It’s all about politics. Wind  and politics – they go together.

The Oxygen Crisis, “It doesn’t get much more stupid than this.”

August 17, 2008

Inventing the Next Phony Green Crisis
By Alan Caruba Sunday, August 17, 2008

The inventiveness of the Greens, when it comes to creating a new crisis after an old one has run its course, is truly extraordinary.

Since the 1980s we have been living with and refuting the notion that carbon dioxide (CO2) has so filled the Earth’s atmosphere that we are all doomed if we don’t shut down every industry known to man and God. The name given to this invented crisis is “global warming.” The problem for the Greens is that the Earth, since around 1998, is not warming. It’s cooling.

It took a long time for many of the world’s scientists to network sufficiently to begin to respond to the global warming hoax, but now those who led the effort and those that joined it all know each other. In March of this year, the Heartland Institute, a 24-year-old non-partisan Chicago think tank, organized and held an International Conference on Climate Change that was held in New York. I attended.

More than 500 scientists, economists, and other heavy-duty thinkers, people with a fondness for facts and the truth, came together from around the world. Among the speakers at the conference were men with impeccable academic credentials. They were associated with leading universities or had worked in the U.S. government’s space and meteorological agencies.

I am a science writer, not a scientist. From March 8 to March 10, I attended lectures, seminars and presentations that strained my knowledge to the limit. I concluded that what these distinguished scientists didn’t know was clearly not worthy knowing. If they could explain it in ways that even this scribbler could understand, there was hope for the world!

So, when some provocateur named Peter Tatchell published an article in The Guardian, a very liberal British newspaper, entitled “The Oxygen Crisis”, the network of scientists that had organically come together to fight the global warming hoax sprang into action.

If they had learned anything, it was that simply ignoring such deliberate nonsense can create a lot of trouble. Ignore it and pretty soon lawmakers are talking about taxing carbon, swindlers are creating “carbon credits”, and nations are subjected to “cap and trade” schemes involving greenhouse gas emissions.

The August 13 article suggested that there had been a “long-term fall in oxygen concentrations” around the Earth. The basis for the next great crisis, an Earth with less oxygen, was being tested to see if it had any legs.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a NASA scientist, summed up the reaction of his colleagues. “It doesn’t get much more stupid than this.”

Then he provided the real science as opposed to the hodge-podge of nonsense in the Guardian article. “The O2 (oxygen) concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now and the concentration (20.95%) has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements.”

“There is SO much 02 in the atmosphere,” said Dr. Spencer, “it is believed to not be substantially affected by vegetation, but is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure.” The reference to “vegetation” reflects the way all vegetation takes in CO2 for its growth and gives off O2, in the process. Animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. It is the symmetry of all life on earth.

Based on a forthcoming book, “The Oxygen Crisis” by Roddy Newman, the alleged loss of oxygen was causing deserts to spread and forests to decline. It posed, of course, a threat to all mankind.

Full Article at CFP

Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki

February 4, 2008

Editor:

Dear David Suzuki:Have you lost your mind?
Elaine DeWar wrote “Cloak Of Green” which took four years to research. I suggest students pick up a copy and understand once and for all what the “Green Movement” is really about. Once read they may be looking to have you jailed Mr. Suzuki.
Suzuki Says “Sorry, intelligence was never my strong suit.”

 You are worried about Global Warming. Maybe you should start worrying about other things, like the reality that these people envision for you. Enjoy the quotes
Green Agrenda Quotes

 Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki

Environmentalist denounces economists’ obsession with GDP

By Sarah Babbage
The McGill Daily

David Suzuki delivered a scathing and powerful speech to a packed house at McGill Thursday night, calling on young people and business leaders to reverse the demise of ecology at the hand of shortsighted economic theory.

Suzuki, an award-winning Canadian scientist, environmentalist, and broadcaster, kicked off the McGill Business Conference on Sustainability by addressing the conference’s theme of “looking backward and moving forward.”

“The only guide for our future is our past, and we don’t look back,” he said.

Suzuki underlined the importance of looking backward by explaining that, because the past 50 years have seen a boom in technology and population expansion, ideas of economic growth have been skewed.

“That means you have lived your entire lives in a completely unsustainable period,” Suzuki said to the young audience. “You all think [economic] growth and change is normal. It’s not.”

He said we need to do more to look forward, as well. He cited a brochure from 1992 entitled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”, signed by over 600 of the world’s top scientists, that expressed the seriousness of modern threats to the environment.

“No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished,” he read from the brochure.

He noted that no major news outlets deemed the story newsworthy at the time.

“If that brochure was frightening, the response of the media was terrifying,” Suzuki said, adding that the media was instead preoccupied with celebrity figures.

He urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science.

mcgilldaily.com

Environmental Extremism must be put in its Place in the Climate Debate

January 11, 2008

United Nations and crusading celebrities are simply wrong

 Environmental extremism must be put in its place in the climate debate

By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris  Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Earth Apollo 17 picture, NASAAll responsible citizens are ‘environmentalists’, but that is no reason to yield to mass delusions.

Many people are starting to realize that much of what they’ve been told about climate change by governments, the United Nations and crusading celebrities is simply wrong. Not surprisingly, the assertion that “the science is settled” in a field the public is coming to understand is both immature and quickly evolving, is triggering growing public skepticism.  Alarmists respond by upping the ante, making even more extreme and nonsensical forecasts, which in turn further fuels healthy public disbelief.
This pattern of exaggerated, and finally ludicrous assertions influencing debate in society is an old story. Extremists and extremism have always defined the limits for the majority. Climate extremism will increase in the near future as purveyors of politically correct but flawed views of climate change attempt to defend the indefensible.

Realization of this misdirection, and in many cases, deception, leads to the next stage in the life cycle of such mass delusions.  People begin to ask, “What is the motivation for the scare? How was society so easily misled? Why did so many otherwise intelligent people accept or even promote the scare?

In this and subsequent articles I (Dr. Ball) will suggest answers to these crucially important questions.

Like all philosophies that come to dominate society, climate hysteria is part of an evolution of ideas and needs an historical context.  The current western view of the World essentially evolved from the Darwinian view. Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.

A proper appreciation of time is essential to this discussion and the larger theme of climate change. Before Darwin, the English church accepted Bishop Ussher’s biblically-based calculation that the world was formed on October 23, 4004 BC. But Darwin needed a much older world to allow the sort of evolution he envisioned as driving natural change to occur. Religion said God created the world in 7 days; Darwin needed millions.

Sir Charles Lyell provided the answer in a book titled Principles of Geology, which Darwin took on his famous voyage to the Galapagos Islands. The combination of long time frames and slow development resulted in a philosophical view known as uniformitarianism.

If such a term sounds more appropriate to religion than science, that is because it is, in essence, another form of belief system. Uniformitarianism is the idea now underpinning western society’s view of the World. A basic tenet assumes change is gradual over long periods of time and any sudden or dramatic change is not natural. Employing a version of uniformitarianism adapted to their needs, environmental extremists can point to practically any change and say it is unnatural, which implies it is man-made.  But we know from modern science that natural changes can indeed be quite sudden and extreme – Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University, in Ottawa pointed out last year in the Financial Post that “Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6 degrees C in a decade—100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6 degrees C warming that has so upset environmentalists.”  Happening as it did before the dawn of civilization, it was, of course, entirely natural.

Notice also another illogic inherent in the stance of the extremists. If humanity is not ‘natural’ then who are we and why are here? One obvious answer is we were put here by a greater being, a God.  But the entire essence of Darwin’s theory is that there is no God as Darwin was a professed atheist. This debate is actually part of the entire question of environmentalism and the misdirection discussed here. It is also part of today’s debate manifest in best selling books such as Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion”, or Christopher Hitchens’ “God is not Great.”  Dawkins talks almost as if he views Darwin as a God.

Historically, new views of the world take time to filter down and become part of the general fabric of society.  Even then, some people never buy in.  Over 400 years ago, Copernicus proposed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, yet even today polls in Europe showed a significant percentage of people still believe the Sun goes around the Earth as this seems to match the visual evidence.  But for most people it really doesn’t matter – as long as the Sun rises and sets they couldn’t care less. But Darwin’s theory had much greater implication for the average person. To put it in a silly way reflective of the fashion in which he was attacked at the time, Darwin effectively said there is no God and your great grandmother was a gorilla. Now he was talking to, and about, everybody in a personal way.

Science became more personal still with the advent of environmentalism, which began with a symbolic event, the usual agent of change. The famous Whole Earth photograph taken by U.S. Apollo 17 astronaut Ronald Evans part way to the Moon became symbolic and changed how we viewed our planet and our relation to it.  This image quickly became what anthropologists refer to as a catalytic symbol and was a major trigger that ushered in today’s environmental movement.

Apollo17, NASA
“In 1948, the British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle said, “Once a photograph of the Earth, taken from the outside is available…a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose.” U.S astronaut Ronald Evans’ well known Whole Earth photo is now considered by many to be the most important image of the twentieth century.  It has acted as a catalytic symbol helping change the way we think about our world.”

While previously the idea that the Earth was small and finite and we could run out of resources was a philosophical concept appreciated only by a few, now everyone could see the image of our planet floating in a vast and hostile universe. Ronald Evans’ photo showed up in classrooms, school texts and at environmental conferences everywhere and had massive impact on the average citizen’s perspective of humanity’s place in nature.

An entirely new worldview (at least for the bulk of society) developed, called environmentalism.  But, as with all new views, people wondered how far it would, or should, change society, how fast we should implement such changes and what we should preserve from the ‘old ways’. As usual, extremists are defining the limits. They inevitably take the ideas too far or too fast. Extremists also alienate people by assuming they’re the only ones who understand, often complaining that society is now losing more than we are gaining.

At the same time, extremists took on the title of environmentalists as if they were somehow special and the rest of us were not also concerned about, and involved in, environmental protection.  How dare they – we are all environmentalists. Yet extremists continue to imply that they care and we don’t and that we must do things their way or ‘else’.

For example, PR Newswire Association LLC (UK) cites the Washington DC based Center for Science and Public Policy (see link on Breitbart news page), “Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists [i.e. those who question whether human-produced carbon dioxide is causing a climate crisis]. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.”

Environmental extremists have successfully applied intense emotional pressure – both moral and political – ‘you don’t care about the planet, the children, or the future if you question us’, let alone disagree, they assert. .

Complete text at CFP