Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

March 8, 2009

Editors Opinion:

Ontario can no longer be regarded as a province of Canada.  Over the years it has been slowly guided by the will of NWO (New World Order/UN) elite to what it has become today – One more Fascist State of the NWO.

The GEA (green energy act) is a perfect example.

Under the guise of “green energy” the public has been conned into giving up their rights and are now being forced to accept corporate rule. It was CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association) and the NGO’s (Non Governmental Organizations) that came up with the idea of the GEA not the government. The purpose of the GEA  is to remove the democratic rights of “the people” and give those rights to the corporations.

When the govt. gives  corporations the right to write the rules and refuses to listen to the concerns of the people – we have entered into a state of Fascism.

“Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of state and corporate power” – Benito Mussolini

“…somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.” – David Rockefeller – Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.

The GEA goes further – It now gives the govt. the legal right to enter your home under the guise of saving the environment. If you refuse their inspectors entry they can get a court order and if you still refuse to comply you will be fined and possibly jailed.

Ontario becomes a Fascist State the day the GEA is enacted

Read the Green Agenda and Cloak of Green on page bar.

Global Warming the Big LIE!

Network

Green Energy Police

Ontario’s war on carbon

Loss of local control

Ontario’s war on carbon

Al Gore – Madman? or Communist?

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Elitism & Depopulation lurking behin

Mind Maps – A Form of Child Porn?

The New World Order – Explained

Man is the Enemy!

Advertisements

Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?

November 7, 2008

Editor: I believe there’s a saying – new trends start in California. Lets hope this trend spreads far and wide and fast.

Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?

By Noel Sheppard

Californians by very wide margins defeated two green initiatives that anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in the media and in legislative houses across the fruited plain should take heed…but will they?

To begin with, Proposition 7 would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

Proposition 10 would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

Much to the likely chagrin of Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his global warming sycophants in the media, these measures went down, and went down in flames:

Proposition 7 Renewable Energy Generation
Yes 3,294,158 35.1%
No 6,102,907 64.9%

Proposition 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Yes 3,742,997 40.1%
No 5,581,303 59.9%

Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? We’ll see.

ICECAP

Mr. Reporter – The Kinks – 1966

August 9, 2008

Editor:
A little song for all the spin doctors working for the mainstream media and the govt. Before you spin your next piece of “BULLSHIT” go take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror. Ask yourself “WHY”you do what you do.

'Windfarm output is never zero. Sometimes it's less'

July 3, 2008

Editor:This research should, once and for all, answer any questions about wind power.

All pain and no gain for the users of electricity and the environment.
Nothing but a massive con by govt., big business and the media.
Really, what is a wind turbine? A steel stick with a whirligig on top.
Not something I want to depend on for my electrical needs.

Not only is wind a poor way to produce the power required, the turbines are being placed
too close to homes and having a negative affect on people.

Pie in the sky ideas will never provide the power we require. We need real power and we need it now.

Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

In a just-released article for the journal Energy Policy, titled Will British weather provide reliable electricity?, consulting engineer Jim Oswald and his co-authors model the output to be expected from a large, 25+ gigawatt UK windfarm collection of the type the government says it would like to see in service by 2020. Wind is generally seen as the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate, and so it forms the bulk of most renewables plans for Blighty.

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.

Oswald’s analysis says this isn’t true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.

Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences … any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur … These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative …

If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald’s Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.

The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK’s grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a “Supergrid” with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one.

Modelled 25 GW British and actual continental EON wind load factors compared.

Ill winds blow nobody any good.

Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn’t blowing across most of the UK, it isn’t blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

There is good agreement between the model and the [real-world European wind power output] data, which further supports the argument that wind output is controlled by the arrival and dispersal of large low-pressure systems moving over the coasts of Western Europe.

Being an engineer, Oswald examines the worst situations that occurred in his time frame – those that engineers would need to design the system to cope with. The nastiest situation that could happen would be early-evening flat calms in winter.

Read the full report

Decision to block Lewis turbines project – The Wind Industry, as Promoted, is a Fraud

April 23, 2008

Editor:

The wind industry, as promoted, is a fraud.

The McGuinty govt. is guilty of pushing the fraud and in the process, knowingly putting the health of individuals and their property at risk. This is a crime.

The McGuinty govt. is guilty of fraud – on a grandiose scale – against the citizens of Ontario. There really is no other way to say it. They have allowed the wind industry to run over the rights of the very citizens they are charged to protect. Read Agenda 21.

They have put the health of people at risk – allowing the placement of wind turbines too close to homes.

They have put the economy at risk – unnecessary increases to the cost of electricity.

They have put individual investment at risk – value of property.

They have lied to the public about wind energy – inferring wind will significantly cut CO2 emissions.

They have refused to put the scrubbers on the coal plants – unnecessarily putting peoples health at risk.

Mr.McGuinty cannot defend his decision to allow the bastardization of this province based on groundless propaganda.

Mr. McGuinty you are guilty of putting the economy of the Province at risk by, knowingly and unnecessarily, pushing up the cost of electricity.

Mr. McGuinty your are guilty of pushing biofuels, which increase C02 emissions and unnecessarily increase the cost of food – another part of the UN Agenda – depopulation. Read Agenda 21.

Mr. McGunity, you are guilty of allowing the brainwashing of the children in our schools, another part of the “Sustainability UN Agenda”. Read Agenda 21

Mr. McGuinty you are guilty of allowing the spraying of chemicals, known as Chemtrails, on the people and their property. Another UN initiative.

Mr. McGuinty, you are guilty of putting the wants of Maurice Strong and the UN Agenda ahead of the citizens of the Province of Ontario.

Mr McGuity, You are guilty of TREASON against the people and the Province of Ontario.

Mr. McGuinty, pull your head out of the ass of the UN  for a moment and make an  attempt to wrap your mind around the information below. Show the people of Ontario that you are more than a puppet of the UN and Agenda 21.

Mr. McGuinty it is time to explain yourself to the people of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. McGuinty, if you, or you govt. can prove any of the above statements are untrue, they will be corrected. Until then, these statements will stand.

.

WE, the people, await your response.

.

Decision to block Lewis turbines project has revealed the myth of wind power

Reaction to the Scottish Government’s refusal to construct one of Europe’s largest onshore wind farms, 181 turbines on Lewis in the Western Isles (your report, 22 April), has exposed the myth of wind power.

In response to Scottish industry’s concerns that its lights may go out, Britain’s power industry had to admit it would not make one iota of difference as wind power is too unstable to be included in any calculations of how much power is needed to satisfy the country’s needs – whether or not the wind is blowing our power stations will still burn the same amount of fossil fuel.

A spinning turbine’s only value, for the environmentalists, is as an icon of their power over the vulnerable and as an “at least we are doing something” comfort blanket for gullible politicians, plus, of course, an exponential currency generator for the wind industry.

BRIAN CHRISTLEY

Bryn Gwyn

Abergele, Conwy

————

With Scottish ministers having rejected Lewis Wind Power’s proposal to build a massive 181-turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis, the renewables industry can now be seen for what it truly is: not a saviour of the planet, but an environmental vandal driven by financial greed.

Lewis Wind Power and the few supporters it was able to persuade to come on side for this ill-conceived proposal, which included the Western Isles Council, will no doubt continue to see the Scottish Government’s decision as a “huge missed opportunity” for Scotland. However, I suspect the many thousands who objected will see the decision to reject in a far more sensible and less blinkered light.

NEIL McKINNON

Tulchan Garden

Glenalmond, Perthshire

————-

Perhaps PhD student Richard Crozier (Letters, 21 April) should read the Sustainable Development Commission’s Windpower in the UK, for it states that at wind farm installations of 20 per cent, fossil power station back-up of 80 per cent is required and that at greater proportions even more back-up is required. This sort of defeats the purpose doesn’t it?

Power stations cannot be adjusted to suit variable wind generation and without this back-up there would be no reliable supply of electricity.

Can you imagine running an electric train service on wind power? Tear up the timetables.

A R NELSON

Scarletmuir

Lanark

————-

The Scotsman

23 April 2008

EU industry sees emissions rise

April 2, 2008
Editor:
There are only two ways to lower C02 emissions. Build nuclear or shut down heavy industry.
I predict that both will happen. Because China and India are not subject to Kyoto and they have low labour costs, you will see heavy industry move to those countries. The EU will be forced to build nuclear or pay high carbon emission taxes. All the wind farms and solar panels in the world will not power heavy industry. You can wish and hope all you want but in the final analysis it takes ‘real power’ to run heavy industry.

.

EU industry sees emissions rise

By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News

PA)

Power generation was the only sector to exceed its emissions limit

Carbon dioxide emissions from Europe’s heavy industry sectors rose by 1.1% in 2007, say carbon market analysts.

The estimate is based on initial data from the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which includes more than 10,000 large industrial plants.

Environmentalists say it shows that the scheme, the EU’s main mechanism to meet its Kyoto target, is not working.

But market watchers say the ETS, in the long term, will help deliver the EU goal of cutting emissions by 20%.

“The main thing we have seen from the data released today, although incomplete, is that emissions are up from 2006 to 2007 by about 1.1%,” explained Henrik Hasselknipp, senior analyst for Point Carbon, a research company.

He added that initial analysis of the data also showed that only a few countries’ emissions had exceeded their national limit.

Get the level of cap wrong and, as we saw in Phase One of the ETS, the carbon price could drop to very low, potentially unworkable, levels
Robert Casamento,
Ernst & Young

Most notable was the UK, he said, which went over its allocation by about 85m tonnes for the three-year period between 2005 and 2007.

He suggested that power generators in the UK, Italy and Spain were the only sectors that had exceeded their allowances.

From the BBC

Earth Hour March 29 2008

March 27, 2008

Behind the Gore Barrick Link: Maurice Strong and the 1001 Club

Behind the Gore Barrick Link: Maurice Strong and the 1001 Club

APRIL 13, (LPAC)–Although Al Gore has cancelled the Barrick Gold-sponsorship of his speaking engagement in Chile, as the result of a building, LPAC-triggered scandal over Barrick’s ties to the genocide in the Great Lakes region of Africa in 1994, the former Vice President’s ties to the Canadian firm run a whole lot deeper than one overpriced speech. Although former President George H.W. Bush and former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney are both Barrick board members, the company was founded and is, to this day, run by Peter Munk, a Canadian businessman who also happens to be a protege of Gore’s own mentor Maurice Strong. The Canadian-born Strong is a righthand man to Prince Philip at the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), and is also a pivotal figure in the shadowy WWF funding front, the 1001 Club. 1001 Club was a joint venture of Prince Philip and the late “Nazi Prince” Bernhard of the Netherlands, who launched the private, by-invitation-only Club in the late 1960s to bankroll the worldwide green offensive. At any given time 1001 prominent, wealthy individuals are members in the Club, and they each pay a $10,000 admission fee and annual dues, providing WWF with a revolving $10 million private operating fund. When the 1001 Club was first put together, Maurice Strong helped hand pick the members, and personally vetted all of the Canadian members–including Barrick Gold’s Peter Munk.

Strong has been linked with Gore in a string of shady “green” business ventures, including Molten Metal, a Massachusetts firm that claimed to have invented a sewage treatment system. The company milked the Federal government out of tens of millions of dollars, the patented system proved to be a dud, and Strong, along with Al Gore’s one-time chief of staff and current business partner at the Generation hedge fund in London, Peter Knight, sold off their company shares at a handsome profit based on inside information, just before the stock and the company tanked.

Source

Earth Hour Scam – World Wild Life Fund Scam?

Minutes count when saving Earth

March 27, 2008

Editor
Show the world you still have a working brain. On March the 29th

FLICK ON

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, March 27, 2008
 
Minutes count when saving Earth
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

checkCookie();

This Saturday, March 29, starting at 8 p.m., 24 “global cities,” including Toronto, will be participating in “Earth Hour.” The aim is to encourage people to turn their lights off for an hour to promote awareness of man-made global warming.HERE IS MY ITINERARY:

8:00 p.m. — Turn off lights before leaving house — naked — mindful of George Monbiot’s warning in Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, that the campaign against global warming is a campaign in favour of austerity. In this light, I have decided to give up clothes, the manufacture of which is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

8:01 p.m. — Hug tree.

8:02 p.m. — Lecture next-door neighbour about his stupid idea of holding community barbecue to celebrate Earth Hour, noting burning charcoal, propane and natural gas to heat barbecues emits GHG. Angrily ask neighbour why he is cooking chicken and hamburger, given that meat production is a major source of GHG. Demand neighbour serve chicken and hamburger to guests raw, noting food poisoning is a small price to pay for preventing cataclysmic climate change and making the world safe for Al Gore.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

8:05 p.m. — Run screaming from climate denier neighbour chasing me with spatula yelling “you !@$%$#$ idiot, get off my property!!!!”

8:10 p.m. — Hastily enter car, using keys strategically hidden for this purpose in hair. Drive to Hwy. 401 entrance ramp, refusing to turn on headlights in tribute to Earth Hour, ignoring frantic warnings by climate denier fellow motorists that my headlights are off.

8:15 p.m. — Travelling at 100 clicks per hour in centre lane of Hwy. 401, with no headlights, turn engine off in order to coast to stop, making important symbolic statement about car travel being a major contributor to global warming.

8:20 p.m. — Drive quickly away from 35-vehicle crash immediately behind me, caused by climate denier motorists foolishly driving on highway at speed limit with headlights on, attempting to avoid my stopped vehicle in centre lane with headlights off.

8:25 p.m. — Contact David Suzuki Foundation by cell phone, challenging them “to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing into jail” so-called environmentalists who self-righteously lecture everyone else about reducing their carbon footprint, while having fathered five children in two marriages, perhaps because they missed the Environment 101 class in university about Zero Population Growth.

8:30 p.m. — Contact Nanticoke coal-fired electricity-generating station by cell phone, pretending to be Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, demanding to know why GHG and pollution-spewing plant hasn’t been shut down as I promised voters in 2003. Challenged by switchboard operator to provide proof I really am Dalton McGuinty, I promise not to raise her taxes.

8:35 p.m. — Attempt to evade capture by climate denier Ontario Provincial Police officers chasing me down highway in cruisers, after climate denier Nanticoke switchboard operator contacts them complaining about some lunatic pretending to be the premier of Ontario.

8:40 p.m. — Place call to family from holding cell at OPP headquarters, asking them to come down and bail me out on numerous charges. Also ask them to bring clothes.

8:50 p.m. — Lecture climate denier OPP sergeant while leaving station that he should replace incandescent light bulbs in holding cell with fluorescent lighting to save planet.

9:00 p.m. — Return home. Take prescribed sedative. Go to bed.

Toronto Sun

Show the world you still have a working brain. On March the 29th

FLICK ON

Climate change: The deniers

March 25, 2008
Editor
If you get through the links below and you still think Global Warming is real, a visit to the doctor might be in order. Caring about the environment is good. Getting sucked into a massive scam is not.
Don’t forget to protest Earth Day by turning on your lights. Make a statement March the 29th.

FLICK ON 

Climate change: The deniers
Posted:  by Ronald Nurwisah


The Post’s series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Here is the series so far:

Statistics needed — The Deniers Part I
Warming is real — and has benefits — The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science — The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice — The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold — The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change — The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? — The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability — The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming — The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 — the Deniers Part X


End the chill — The Deniers Part XI

Clouded research — The Deniers Part XII
Allegre’s second thoughts — The Deniers XIII
The heat’s in the sun — The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science — The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC — The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us — The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate ‘fluff’ — The Deniers XVIII

Science, not politics — The Deniers XIX
Gore’s guru disagreed — The Deniers XX

The ice-core man — The Deniers XXI

Some restraint in Rome — The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic — The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren’t new — The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? — Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced – Part XXVI
Forget warming – beware the new ice age — Part XXVII
Open mind sees climate clearly — Part XXVIII
Models trump measurements — Part XXIX
What global warming, Australian skeptic asks — Part XXX

In the eye of the storm of global warming — Part XXXI
From chaos, coherence — Part XXXII
The aerosol man — Part XXXIII
The Hot Trend is cool yachts — Part XXXIV
You still need your parka in Antarctica — Part XXXV

IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save — Part XXXVI
Why melting of ice sheets ‘is impossible’ — Part XXXVII
Climate change by Jupiter — Part XXXVIII

Photo: NASA picture of the North Pole. (Getty Images)

nationalpost.com/np/blogs

Is Nimby the new "N" Word

March 19, 2008

Editor
Over the last year and a half I have had the opportunity to attend many council meetings dealing with wind farms. I have been called a Nimby several times, even though I am not directly affected, nor will I be, by any wind turbine installation. So, why was I called a Nimby? Could it be that I asked questions the govt. and the wind industry don’t want to answer, or can’t answer, without exposing the fraud.

The word Nimby was chosen to effectively remove the voice of, and belittle, a segment of society.

The word Nimby is being used in the same context and for the same purpose as the word “Nigger’ was used in the past. To marginalize people.

Years ago, Blacks were run off their land without compensation. The same thing is happening today. People who can no longer deal with the negative health affects of living near wind turbines are being forced to move, without compensation.

In most cases the people who are, or will be affected by a wind farm have no one to turn to for help. Not their council, upper levels of govt. or the media. They are alone in their misery, just as the Blacks were years ago. I know how these people feel because I have met many of them and they deserve better.

Sure, I have talked to people in the govt., the media and people on the street who agree with me and the other “Nimby’s” but are afraid to, or not allowed to speak out. Kind of reminds me of Black history.
When I was twelve, I’m 53 now, I got to experience “Nigger” first hand. A black family moved into my town, I believe they were the first. They had a son the same age as me and we became friends.

I remember walking down the street with him when some older guys started calling him “Nigger” and to go back where he came from. You could see the hurt in my friends eyes. What did he do wrong? Nothing. Did he do something to those calling him names? No. So, why did they call him names, because that is what Sheeple do.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaCite This Source

Sheeple is a term of disparagement, a portmanteau created by combining the words “sheep” and “people“; a reference to herd mentality. It is often used to denote persons who acquiesce to authority, and thus undermine their own human individuality. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by authority figures, without processing it to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them.

Ignorant people, with lazy minds is what allows govt. and media to continue to use propaganda instead of truth. Both govt. and marketing firms know this and use Sheeple to their advantage.

Sheeple let others think for them. So when the media and govt. tags someone or some group with a derogatory label, like Nimby, the Sheeple not only accept the tag, they use it.

The same thing has happened with “Global Warming”. Anyone, and that includes some of the best scientists in the world, are called Skeptics and Deniers.

These names are used to discredit and marginalize anyone who would dare question or attempt to engage in debate.

The way I see it, you are either a Sheeple or a Nigger.

Call me a Nigger.

They fought for their rights.

Instead of joining the Sheeple on Earth Day and turning out your lights. I suggest we turn on the lights, the music and celebrate the fact that

Nimby’s, Skeptics and Deniers still roam the earth.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Cite This SourceShare This nig·ger <img nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. Definition 1a, however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.

Please spend some time educating yourself about renewable energy, the Green Movement and the New World Order. They are all connected.

Give your mind a well deserved workout, spend some time with a Nimby, Skeptic or a Denier. They won’t bite