Posts Tagged ‘Gore’

Top Five Blog Posts

June 30, 2009

There are 584 posts on this blog. These are the top five.

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

15,818 More stats

Mind Maps – A Form of Child Porn?

7,293 More stats

Man is the Enemy!

5,029 More stats

Al Gore and Maurice Strong – Con Artists

4,524 More stats

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

4,441 More stats
Advertisements

Mind Maps – A Form of Child Porn?

April 1, 2008

Editor:
This is one of the most disturbing things I have seen on the internet. No it’s not child porn, as you understand it, but it is just as frightening. It’s what is being taught to the children in schools. It is the willful manipulation of the minds of children. It is, for all intents and purposes, child porn of the mind. They are being Gorified. They are being taught to believe without question a platform put forth by Gore, Suzuki, WWF, Friends of the Earth, The UN and every other organization pushing the fraud of New World Order under the guise of Global Warming. This scares the hell out of me. If you are a parent you better take a close look at what is being fed to your children.  The State wants complete access to minds of the young.

This is State sponsored child abuse

click on the maps for full size

.

Mind maps

Below are various mind maps created by Sharon Genovese about global warming and issues related to it (e.g. population). For further information relating to each mindmap you can download the ebook Global Warming: A Mindmapper’s Guide to the Science and Solution by clicking here. If you would also like to learn how to mind map, click here.small-globwarmMind map 1: Combating global warming

ssm

Mind map 2: The science of global warming

small impacts

Mind map 3: Impacts of global warming

small-pop-impacts

Mind map 4: Population and the planet

small-pop-solutions

Mind map 5: Population solutions

smallskep

Mind map 6: Special interest groups

small gov

Mind map 7: The government

black2yna

Mind map 8: You’re not alone

small-strategies

Mind map 9: Strategies to help behavioural change

goal setting

Mind map 10: Goal setting for a liveable planet

Found at live-the-solution.com

Al Gore's Amen Corner

March 11, 2008
Editor
Global Warming is a scam started by a group of evil bastards who want to control every aspect of the world and your life. Gore is quoting from the Bible telling you to BELIEVE.
Problem, the entire Green Global Warming hoax is based on Gaia, the PAGAN Earth Goddess. The very EVIL that the church warns against is the pulpit that GORE preaches from. He does not preach Christianity. He is a false prophet.

 

Al Gore’s Amen Corner

By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/11/2008

Hailed as a “Baptist prophet,” Al Gore brought his Gospel of Global Warming to Jimmy Carter’s rally for leftist Baptists at a New Baptist Covenant Celebration in Atlanta last week. Gore toted a green Bible as he warned of Old Testament style famine and flood unless the planet hearkens unto the most apocalyptic of Global Warming scare stories.

“The evidence is there,” Gore implored in ever-rising, apocalyptic tones. “The signal is on the mountain. The trumpet has blown. The scientists are screaming from the rooftops. The ice is melting. The land is parched. The seas are rising. The storms are getting stronger. Why do we not judge what is right?”

No hyperbole there.

Gore likened climate change to “a rising storm” eerily like the rise of Nazism in the 1930’s. In case anybody missed his point, Gore quoted Winston Churchill for good measure: “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

Very stirring! And very appropriate for Carter’s new confab of Baptists, who are rallying around political themes of the Left rather than Christian doctrinal creeds.

Gore was addressing about 2,500 like-minded, left-leaning Baptists at a special Global Warming luncheon. Reportedly, 15,000 attended Carter’s overall event. The former president left the Southern Baptist Convention several years ago, miffed over that denomination’s conservative shift in the 1980’s. Carter, and some other Baptist refugees, prefer the Social Gospel activism of failing, mainline denominations to conservative Christianity.

Employing some of his slide show of melting glaciers and mourning polar bears that fueled his apocalyptic documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore added Bible verses to the scenes of environmental disaster so as to “put it in the context of my own faith as a Baptist.” Quoting the prophet Isaiah, the former vice president urged, “Come let us reason together,” he said, “and tell one another the truth, inconvenient though it may be, about the crisis, including the opportunity that we now face.” Shifting to the Book of Deuteronomy, Gore then declared: “The ancient prophet laid the choice before the people,” he said: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore choose life so both thou and thy seed may live.”

FrontPageMagazine

"James Lovelock’s Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy'

January 3, 2008
Editor:
Mr. Lovelock seems to love nuclear and hate wind farms. The “Green Movement” loves wind and hates nukes. Odd. The “Green Movement” is based on the theory of Gaia by Mr. Lovelock.
Gaia is like a religion to the “Greens”. I appreciate Mr. Lovelock’s concern for the planet and I share that concern with him. According to Mr. Lovelock, just about everything the “Greens” are trying to shove down our collective throats, he disagrees with. The problem with the Greens is that their agenda is quite different to that of Mr. Lovelock. Al Gore, Maurice Strong, David Suzuki, Ted Turner and all the other leaders of the “Green Movement” are using Gaia to push for control, power and money under the guise of sustainability. The “Green Movement” is a fraud. They should be honest, they are about globalization or,”One World Order” controlled by the UN or a similar body.
Realistically they should be tried for treason against their respective countries.
alternative energy – “James Lovelock’s Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy’

By: James A. Finch On the front page of the World Nuclear Association website prominently rests a quote from what some consider the world’s leading environmentalist and among the world’s top scientists, Dr. James Lovelock: “There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization.” – James Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness

At age eighty-six, Dr. Lovelock has just published his fourth book, The Revenge of Gaia (Penguin Books, 2006). “Gaia” is Dr. Lovelock’s belief that earth is a living, evolving organism, not just a hunk of rock we all live upon. Through his book, Lovelock refers to Gaia, when he is discussing our third planet from the sun. His latest book is a MUST read for anyone who is following the renaissance in nuclear energy. Environmentalists won’t read this book. Perhaps their bosses will BAN them from reading this book. Those environmentalists who carefully read Lovelock’s latest book may very well become nuclear power lobbyists, if they would bathe, shave and spiff up a bit. Chapter Five, “Sources of Energy,” will instantly disintegrate every ridiculous argument propounded by the naïve and antediluvian anti-nuclear movements across the world.

Dr. Lovelock’s credentials and achievements are light years beyond those of any environmental mouthpiece espousing the “green” movement. More so than anyone alive, Lovelock is first and foremost a giant of the earth’s environmentalist movement. Since 1974, Lovelock has been a Fellow of the Royal Society. Since 1994, he has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green College, University of Oxford. New Scientist described him as “one of the great thinkers of our time. The London Observer has called him, “one of the environmental movement’s most influential figures.” In 2003, he was made Companion of Honour by Her Majesty the Queen. Prospect magazine named Dr. Lovelock in September 2005, “one of the world’s top 100 global public intellectuals.”

How does Dr. Lovelock respond to the question of nuclear waste? He writes, “I have offered in public to accept all the high-level waste produced in a year from a nuclear power station for deposit on my small plot of land it would occupy a space about a cubic metre in size and fit safely in a concrete pit, and I would use the heat from its decaying radioactive elements to heat my home. It would be a waste not to use it. More important, it would be no danger to me, my family or the wildlife.” That should enlighten the yokels arguing against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository.

Chapter Five, “Sources of Energy,” concisely and cogently answers every silly “theory” about renewable energy sources hyped by the “green” movement. Let’s take Biomass, which makes sense to any concerned citizen. Lovelock even agrees with the theory of Biomass, writing, “Used sensibly and on a modest scale, burning wood or agricultural waste for heat or energy is no threat to Gaia.” Please note that he modified his statement with “sensibly” and “modest.” In a nutshell, he explains why Biomass will not become a leading energy source, “Bio fuels are especially dangerous because it is too easy to grow them as a replacement for fossil fuel they will then demand an area of land or ocean far larger than Gaia can afford… We have already taken more than half of the productive land to grow food for ourselves. How can we expect Gaia to manage the Earth if we try to take the rest of the land for fuel production?” He added poignantly, “Just imagine that we tried to power our present civilization on crops grown specifically for fuel, such as coppice woodland, fields of oilseed rape, and so on. These are the ‘bio fuels’, the much-applauded renewable energy source…We would need the land area of several Earths just to grow the bio fuel.”

Wind power gets shellacked as well. For those environmentalists, such as Amory Lovins, who believe “Wind Farms” are going to become a significant energy source, they are full of hot air. According to the Royal Society of Engineers 2004 report, onshore European wind energy is two and a half times, and offshore wind energy over three times, more expensive per kilowatt hour than gas or nuclear energy. Denmark, which pioneered wind farms, is regretting the decision. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries said, “In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense… Many of us thought wind was the 100-percent solution for the future, but we were wrong. In fact, taking all energy needs into account it is only a 3 percent solution.” Lovelock writes, “To supply the UK’s present electricity needs would require 276,000 wind generators, about three per square mile, if national parks, urban, suburban and industrial areas are excluded… at best, energy is available from wind turbines only 25 percent of the time.” German environmentalists, who have recently led the charge for Wind Power, should reconsider. Lovelock writes, “The most recent report from Germany put wind energy as available only 16 percent of the time.”

Surely, solar power must be the answer, right? Wrong! Lovelock writes, “Solar cells are not yet suitable for supplying electricity directly to homes or workplaces, mostly because, despite over thirty years of development, they are quite expensive to make. At the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales there is an experimental house with a roof made almost entirely of silicon photocells. In summer it provides about three kilowatts of electricity, but the cost of installation was comparable with the house itself, and the expected life of the cells is about ten years. Sunlight, like wind, is intermittent and would, without efficient storage, be an inconvenient energy source at these latitudes.”

Solar and wind power were just two of the many energy sources Lovelock sends to the dumpster. Wave and tidal energy, hydro-electricity, hydrogen, fusion energy, coal and oil and natural gas all suffer similar consequences under Dr. Lovelock’s scientific microscope. Geothermal gets a partial endorsement, but Lovelock writes, “Unfortunately there are few places where it is freely available. Iceland is one of them, and it draws a large part of its energy needs from this source.” How many of you know that, while natural gas could cut carbon dioxide emissions by half, if used ubiquitously, some of the natural gas leaks into the air before it burnt? According to the Society of Chemical Industry’s report (2004), this amounts to about 2 to 4 percent of the gas used. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

James Lovelock’s Conclusion on Nuclear Energy

How does James Lovelock feel about nuclear energy? “I believe nuclear power is the only source of energy that will satisfy our demands and yet not be a hazard to Gaia and interfere with its capacity to sustain a comfortable climate and atmospheric composition. This is mainly because nuclear reactions are millions of times more energetic than chemical reactions. The most energy available from a chemical reaction, such as burning carbon in oxygen, is about nine kilowatt hours per kilogram. The nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms to form helium gives several million times as much, and the energy from splitting uranium is greater still.”

Through his book, Lovelock reminds us that nuclear power is the single answer for this century, “We need emission-free energy sources immediately, and there is no serious contender to nuclear fission.”

Lovelock addresses Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, nuclear testing in the 1960s, and many other events over the past fifty years, as nuclear energy has developed. If you wondered about radiation and cancer, Lovelock answers that as well. You may leap up, after reading those pages, and start faxing them off to every environmentalist group you can contact. It may be the most definitive analysis of the disconnect the media and the greens have about nuclear energy and its impact on our health that you have ever read. Lovelock concludes, “The persistent distortion of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy should make us wonder if the other statements about nuclear energy are equally flawed.”

James Lovelock