Posts Tagged ‘carbon tax’

Maurice Strong turns 80

August 18, 2009

Happy Birthday Maurice!

No one has done more to undermine the sovereignty of Canada than You!

maurice_strong_hires2

Maurice Strong: Godfather of the international environmental movement

The Green Agenda

Nancy Pelosi–conspirator in pearls – Delivering American sovereignty over to the United Nations

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant

Man is the Enemy!

The Green Agenda

The History of the Global Warming Scare

Cloak of Green

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Is Global Warming Man Made?

Understanding the Environmental Movement

Global Warming – Scam of the Century

Global Warming Exposing the Scam

Green Agenda Quotes

AL GORE, THE UNITED NATIONS,

Advertisements

The Green Energy Act – Tom Adams

July 5, 2009

Tom Adams talks about new powers in the Green Energy Act that allows the govt. to impose unlimited energy taxes.  Fascism has arrived in Ontario!

Playing politics with global warming

June 12, 2009

Editor:

One more reason to question global warming.

We are being manipulated into accepting a global carbon tax propagated by dubious science.

If they succeed in their “EVIL” scheme, your life and the lives of your children will be negatively impacted forever.

Think about it!  A tax on ever aspect of your life because without carbon NOTHING exists.

Playing politics with global warming

Mark W. Hendrickson

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge.

Let’s take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”

A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”

Clearly, the IPCC does not speak as one voice when leading scientists on its panel contradict its official position. The solution to this apparent riddle lies in the structure of the IPCC itself.

What the media report are the policymakers’ summaries, not the far lengthier reports prepared by scientists. The policymakers’ summaries are produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries.

In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

To better understand the “consensus” presented in the policymakers’ summaries, it is helpful to be aware of the structure of the IPCC. Those who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude to modify the scientific reports.

Page four of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work states: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group of the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

In other words, when there is a discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the authors of the policymakers’ summaries want to say, the latter prevails.

Here is a specific example: One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic [i.e., man-made] causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

Elsewhere, Rule 3 of IPCC procedures states: “Documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

In practice, IPCC sometimes bypasses scientific peer review, and the policymakers’ summaries reflect only governmental (political) review.

This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific, entity. It is the “Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change,” not a “global SCIENTISTS’ panel.”

Also, “consensus” is a political phenomenon, a compromise, whereas scientific truth is not subject to obtaining a political majority.

(Actually, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the “consensus” that human activity is dangerously altering the Earth’s climate. Consider that against the 2,500 scientists cited by IPCC — many of whom publicly refute IPCC’s press releases.)

To its credit, the IPCC debunks many of the alarmist exaggerations of radical greens. However, its scientific authority remains irreparably compromised by political tampering.

When a U.S. State Department official writes to the co-chair of the IPCC that “it is essential that … chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner,” the political character of IPCC is plain.

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal.

In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

[Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City (Penn.) College.]

The Citizen

Protest at the Enbridge Wind Farm

April 13, 2009

Carbon Offsets for Dummies

January 4, 2009

The Carbon Credit Offset Scam Explained

I’ve been waiting for someone to make a video like this. This, is how much sense Al Gore’s Carbon Credit scam makes. Tom Nelson found it.

In the Do As I Say Cult, all that matters is that you feel good about yourself. They don’t seem to understand, a fart is a fart. And just because some other guy is paid not to fart in another country, it doesn’t cover up the fact that you farted here. (and probably a lot more than the normal person)

Al Gore as GOR_ILLA

November 16, 2008

Editor: I got bored

groilla

New World Order

November 13, 2008

Editor: The heading on the drop down list for the BBC news feed is New World Order. The story does not mention the NWO directly, but it does confirm that the west is screwed. Please take the time to read the Green Agenda

Insight: ‘Bretton Woods Two’?

By Bridget Kendall
BBC diplomatic correspondent

A deep-seated global crisis is often a chance to redraw the map, reflecting shifts in the balance of power in different ways.

First, the crisis can confirm or nudge ahead trends which seem to be happening anyway – like the shift of power from Western to emerging Eastern players.

Second, it can put flesh on reforms already in the air – like plans to overhaul the international financial architecture to be discussed at this weekend’s summit being hosted by President Bush in Washington.

source BBC

Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax

November 11, 2008

Editor: This pretty much sums up Gore’s reason for pushing the phony Global Warming Scam.

Al Gore Carbon Trading Scam

Al Gore Carbon Trading Scam

This article appears in the March 30, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax

by Richard Freeman and Marcia Merry Baker

Look behind—if you dare—Al Gore and his science hoax, and you find the very same London-centered oligarchical financial crew that drove the 2003-2006 oil and commodity price increase, amidst the bubbles and hyperinflation that characterize the breakdown-phase of the financial system. The centerpiece of the U.S. emerging market for carbon emissions trading, is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), created in 2003 as a “voluntary,” or pilot agency, part of a London-based network positioned to reproduce the oil bubble on a scale orders of magnitude greater and more dangerous, while at the same time, destroying what’s left of the physical economy.

The idea is that if governments cap CO2 emissions, then the “market” will take off for the buying and selling of emissions “allowances.” This is the whole point of the “cap-and-trade” plan for CO2. If it sounds crazy, it is. But Gore is just one of the most visible parts of the elaborate (and bi-partisan) schemes that have been set in motion under cover of climate change. Gore’s personal financial involvement is blatant, especially through Goldman Sachs—a large shareholder of CCX, and in 2004, the creator of Gore’s very own London-based hedge fund, Generation Investment Management.

Full Article

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

Community Revolt Over Wind Farm

September 24, 2008

The headline says “revolt” but it’s just a larger protest than normal.

But, a revolt is exactly what it will take to stop the march of the windmills.

This needs to be looked at for what it is, an invasion. Your democracy is being removed by an army of bureaucrats who want One World Order.

Instead of bombs, they are using “Green Rhetoric” which will turn out to be just as destructive.

Govt.’s everywhere have sold out to the idea of A New World Order.

Al Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

At this point, citizens have only one of two choices.

Lay down

or

Stand Up.

Community revolt over wind farm

Thousands of people have joined the fight against a massive wind farm development on mountains north of Swansea.

Opposition to the scheme by Npower Renewables is growing as organisations sign up to the campaign to save Mynydd-y-Gwair from 127-metre wind turbines.

The Gower Society, Swansea Civic Society, Pontarddulais Town Council, Betws Community Council, Mawr Community Council and the West Glamorgan Commoners’ Association are all objecting to the company’s plans.

This week around 150 people attended a public meeting in Felindre where Save Our Common Mountain Environment chairman Glyn Morgan revealed a slideshow of pictures from similar windfarm developments elsewhere.

He said locals were left “aghast” when they saw the damage caused to the environment, particularly at the Ffynnon Oer wind farm.

“People were horrified. It is surprising when we show them what it entails — it has an immediate reaction,” said Mr Morgan.

“We are up to a couple of thousand objecting now.”

Asked whether he thought the council would reject Npower’s plans, Mr Morgan said: “They should not be ignoring the groundswell of feeling in this area about the wind farm. They should take note.

“We are on the periphery of the City and County of Swansea but we are still citizens of Swansea. We are in danger of losing one of the last wildernesses in West Glamorgan.”

He said the outcome of the meeting was unanimously against the development.

“Nobody said anything in favour of the plan at all and that’s good news for the group and everybody in the area.

“We have a united voice,” said Mr Morgan.

Evening Post

The History of the Global Warming Scare – Birth of the carbon tax scam