Posts Tagged ‘Kyoto’

Global Warming – The Real Agenda

September 7, 2008

Editor:

I have always believed that in order to understand what is happening now – you first have to back up.

Here is a perfect example from 1998

Yes folks – global warming is a scam and it’s time to wake up.

In the 2008 Canadian Federal Election you are being asked to vote for your choice of TRAITOR.

Regardless of which party you vote for – you are voting for traitors.

In 2008 you need to vote independent or refrain from casting your vote.

If you vote for any of the main parties you are voting against CANADA.

In essence you have become a traitor.

Same holds true in the USA

Read the Green Agenda

Editorial by Terrence Corcoran
Copyright 1998 Financial Post (Canada)
December 26, 1998

What is the most important problem facing Canada? When the annual Maclean’s/CBC year-end poll asked that question, there was at least one clear answer: Not the environment; in fact, anything but the environment. Ranked by percentage of people who identified one subject or another, the top worry among

Canadians is unemployment (15%), followed by government spending, the economy, health care, national unity, taxes, poverty, education and crime. At the bottom of the list, garnering only 2% support, is the environment.

The possibility that 98% of Canadians are not in a state of high anxiety over global warming, freaky weather, ozone depletion, pollution and scores of other Green scares must be a teeth-gritting irritation to environmentalists. They have, after all, spent decades fertilizing the idea that we are on the brink of environmental disaster. Ottawa and the provinces have spent billions on the campaign, which includes turning the weather into a propaganda tool and the school system into an indoctrination camp that begins in kindergarten.

The poll is a testament to the good sense of Canadians. Despite relentless scare-mongering by bureaucrats and activists, Canadians remain unwaveringly fixed on a national economic agenda of growth and prosperity rather than on fantastic claims of apocalypse. When David Suzuki says global warming ‘is the most urgent slow-motion catastrophe facing humankind,’ nobody is paying much attention.

Except our politicians. Backed by an army of bureaucrats and researchers, governments are systematically preparing to shut down the engines of economic progress in the name of environmentalism. In Canada, the heart of the stop-growth campaign is Environment Canada, where key bureaucrats dedicated to imposing an environmental agenda on the country have seized control. The focus of their effort is global warming and climate change, which they intend to use as a lever to impose what can only be described as a new economic order.

The politician nominally in charge of all this is Environment Minister Christine Stewart. Whether Ms. Stewart fully understands what’s going on around her is unknown, but during a recent visit with the editorial board of the Calgary Herald she certainly demonstrated her conversion to the religion of global warming.

Ms. Stewart said that, ‘as minister of the environment, I am very worried about global warming,’ which for a politician isn’t saying much. Politicians are habitually ‘very worried’ about one thing or another. The trouble starts when they use their power to fix problems they’re worried about, even if the problems don’t exist. Ms. Stewart said she’s prepared to do exactly that. ‘No matter if the science is all phony,’ she said, ‘there are collateral environmental benefits.’

Environment Canada, therefore, is prepared to act on global warming even if there’s no such thing as global warming. On the strength of phony science, the federal government would still be willing to impose new taxes on energy consumption, cut economic growth, reduce our standard of living, and create bookshelves filled with new regulation governing most facets of the lives of Canadians.

In another statement quoted by the Herald, Ms. Stewart gave another reason for adopting the religion of global warming. ‘Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.’ Here she gets closer to the core motivation of some of the leading global warming activists. Where socialism’s attempt at a global redistribution of wealth ended in economic catastrophe, global warming is being wheeled in as the next new economic crusade.

Consolidating Ms. Stewart’s statements, we reach some horrific conclusions. Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians – and most citizens of the world – would not otherwise accept.

Ms. Stewart, perhaps unintentionally, has identified the two key foundations of the global warming movement. One is based in environmentalism, which essentially claims that human beings are a problem in nature. The other foundation is the old business of economic redistribution. Both these movements are linked in the international climate change treaty Canada signed in Kyoto. Environment Canada has already given up trying to examine the science. It never really tried. Instead, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars churning out propaganda on the hypothetical effects of global warming. Its latest reports include hundreds of studies warning of everything from spreading insect-borne disease to increasing forest fires.

The Maclean’s poll shows Canadians aren’t going along with the government or the claims of environmentalists. If they knew what Ms. Stewart has in store for jobs and living standards, and why, they might take a greater interest.Link

Read the Green Agenda

Advertisements

Enron and the Environmental Movement

March 25, 2008
Editor
Notice in the article where it refers to “some scientists” not a consensus Enron got the cap removed from gas and Enron got the first incentives for wind farms. Because wind farms are intermittent and they are backed up with gas Enron stood to make a fortune, as do players today. The worst part is that your tax dollars are subsidizing the scam. It’s now 2008, when does the scam get shut down.

Mention Enron and the response is always the same.

SCAM

So what is different today? NOTHING. Same scam different day. Enron on steroids is the only way to describe what is taking place today. Enron didn’t care about the environment and neither does Gore.
They care about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
and they are quite prepared to surround your house with wind turbines to get it.
It appears Gore liked what he saw from Enron and decided to carry on where they left off. You have to give Gore credit. He’s the only one I know that has managed to get both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for a scam. Good work Al.
Give Me Your Money – NOW
121707goreal.jpg

 

 

Enron and the Environmental Movement:
Global Warming Politics Makes for Strange Bedfellows

by Amy Ridenour January 2002


With a payoff worth tens of billions of dollars at stake, Enron Corporation laid out millions in campaign contributions in the 1990s apparently in part to persuade the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate to support the Kyoto global warming treaty.

Enron hoped to cash in on the Kyoto treaty by masterminding a worldwide trading network in which major industries could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide – the inert gas that some scientists and most environmentalists believe contributes to global warming.

The Houston firm’s lobbying push appeared to be on the verge of success when Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol in November of 1998.

There was a fly in the ointment, however. Ratification of the treaty would have required the U.S. to cut back its CO2 emissions levels by seven percent from 1990 levels, while the treaty allowed major emerging nations such as China, India and Indonesia a free hand in developing industries that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The Clinton Administration’s interest in obtaining an international agreement to fight global warming meshed with Enron’s dream of huge profits from new investments in natural gas utilities and pipelines. Ratification of the Kyoto treaty would have played into Enron’s greed by forcing the U.S. to switch from coal-fired power plants to ones fueled by cleaner-burning natural gas. The trading surge in emission credits thus would have funneled an ever-increasing flow of cash into its coffers.

As overseer of a global trading network, Enron almost certainly would have leap-frogged ahead of many older, established companies that actually produce far more energy than Enron, essentially an energy broker.

When the Senate took a hard look at the potential overall economic impact of the Kyoto proposal, it quickly voted 95-0 to urge the White House not to send it any treaty that would have an adverse impact on the nation’s economy.

Indeed, the Clinton Administration, although pressured heavily by Enron and such unlikely company allies as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council, never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Two studies by impartial third parties show why: The Energy Information Administration, the official forecasting arm of the Energy Department, found that meeting the Kyoto greenhouse gas limits would increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent, and decrease our national gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 percent.

A study by Dr. Stephen Brown, Senior Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Texas, found that under a best case scenario, reducing CO2 emissions seven percent below 1990 levels – as required under the Kyoto accord – would represent a loss of between three percent to 4.3 percent of U.S. GDP. That comes out to $921 to $1,320 per person and $3,684 to $5,280 for a family of four. Under a worst-case scenario, meeting the Kyoto mandate could cost the average family of four $6,400 a year.

When it became apparent that the Kyoto treaty had little chance of Senate ratification, Enron’s well-heeled lobbying corps began seeking ways to implement the treaty provisions most favorable to them through backdoor means.

As part of the strategy, CEO Kenneth Lay signed Enron onto the Business Environmental Leadership Council of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, a left-leaning think-tank headed by Eileen Claussen, a former Environmental Protection Agency and State Department official in the Clinton Administration.

The Pew Center has waged an expensive propaganda campaign over the past few years aimed at convincing journalists that global warming is a dire threat.

Other companies joining Pew’s Business Environmental Leadership Council also stood to gain vast sums if federal regulators imposed strict new limits on carbon dioxide emissions, including such powerhouses as Boeing, British Petroleum, International Paper, Lockheed-Martin, Maytag, 3M, Toyota, Weyerhaeuser and Whirlpool.

Lay, a close personal friend of leading Republicans and Democrats, also joined two far-left environmental groups – the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council – in calling for new curbs on emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Enron might well have been successful in its latest campaign to persuade the Bush Administration to announce far-reaching restrictions on CO2 if the company’s apparently devious financial machinations hadn’t plunged it into collapse.

Its intricate involvement in, and financing of, a national campaign to ratify the Kyoto global warming treaty and impose carbon caps on much of American industry raises important questions that Congressional hearings likely will explore in the weeks ahead. Among them:

* How much of the campaign was financed by money from Enron’s coffers? In spreading it around did the company violate federal election and lobbying laws?

* How duplicitous were the environmental groups that joined Enron in its crusade for Kyoto? Did these organizations financially benefit from their strange bedfellow alliance with giant energy company?

* Did federal and state lawmakers and federal officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations intentionally violate campaign or fraud laws by accepting gifts, gratuities or future high-level positions in return for supporting the company?

Interesting questions all, and the answers likely will determine just how far the unfolding net of the Enron scandal travels and whom it ensnares. The public deserves complete and comprehensive answers to those questions, no matter whose illusions are shattered.

# # #


Amy Ridenour is President of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Comments may be sent to aridenour@nationalcenter.org.

Source nationalcenter.org

Protest Earth Day

FLICK ON

The Fluid Envelope – A Case Against Climate Alarmism

February 11, 2008

Source EcoWorld

Editor’s Note: Our charter to report on clean technology and the status of species and ecosystems seems to always bring us back to one overriding distraction – global warming alarm – and small wonder. We are in the midst of one of the most dramatic transformations of political economy in the history of the world – and nobody is watching. “The debate is over on global warming,” goes the consensus, and even if that were a healthy or accurate notion, why has this consensus translated into hardly any vigorous debate over what would be a rational response?

Despite ongoing rhetoric to the contrary from virtually every environmental nonprofit in existance, the United States has been an extraordinarily responsible nation. We listened to our environmental movement; we institutionalized it. On every front there has been huge progress over the past 30-40 years. Our air and water are orders of magnitude cleaner even though our population has doubled. Our landfills our ultra-safe. We have set aside vast tracts of wilderness, rescued countless endangered species. Our food supply is scrupulously monitored. And every year our technology and our prosperity delivers new options to eliminate more pollution and live healthier lives. So what happened?

In the rest of the world there is also reason for great optimism, despite some discouraging challenges that continue to grip humanity. Human population is voluntarily leveling off, so that within 25-30 years the number of people on planet earth will peak at around 8.5 billion – and every time the projection is revisited, that estimate drops. At an even faster pace, humanity is urbanizing – and this voluntary movement is taking people out of the vast and potentially endangered forests and other biomes faster than population increase replaces them. Land is becoming abundant again. So what’s wrong?

Technology promises abundant energy within a few decades, using clean fossil fuel as we systematically replace it with solar, nuclear, run-of-river hydroelectric, enhanced geothermal, wind, possibly biofuel. Technology promises abundant water within a few decades, as we learn how to recycle every drop of water used in the urban environment, convert many crops to drip irrigation, and develop massive desalination capacity. So why don’t we get to work?

The reason is because of global warming alarm. The bells of warning are ringing so loud that CO2 is all that matters anymore. Want to stop using petroleum? Then burn the rainforests for biofuel. Want to stop using coal? Then forget about installing affordable scrubbers to remove the soot that billows from coal fired power plants across burgeoning Asia – why clean up something that needs to be shut down? Want to save allegedly scarce open space? Then cram everyone into ultra-high density “infill” and destroy every semi rural neighborhood in the western world. Make housing unaffordable, then mandate taxpayer-subsidized affordable housing. And do it all in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.

Today, after reading two documents from the website of the Attorney General of California, “Mitigation Measures,” and “Global Warming Contrarians and the Falsehoods they Promote,” I became so alarmed at what we are willingly, blindly bringing upon ourselves because of all this CO2 alarm that I contacted Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has already contributed two lengthy articles to EcoWorld, “Current Behavior of Global Mean Surface Temperature,” and “Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?” I asked Dr. Lindzen if he still held the views he does. He replied emphatically in the affirmative, and sent me the article that follows. Dr. Lindzen, along with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., with whom EcoWorld recently published the exclusive “Interview with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.,” are both internationally respected atmospheric scientists. And both of them, in somewhat different ways, are quite concerned about the overemphasis on CO2.

Anyone who is championing extreme measures to reduce anthropogenic CO2 should attempt for themselves to understand the science. As Dr. Lindzen wrote me earlier today, policymakers such as Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger “can be excused given the degree to which the environmental movement has taken over the professional societies.”

“Science” has become the trump card that drowns out reason – what great irony. And the scientific establishment itself has become politicized. And if you read the mitigation measures being proposed, just imagine if there was nothing we could do to affect global warming – which even some of the lead authors of the IPCC studies themselves acknowlege – and see if you want to live in the brave new world we are leading ourselves into by our own gullible noses.

Dramatic and positive global economic and technological developments, along with voluntary and irreversible global demographic trends, are about to deliver us a future where we enjoy unprecedented environmental health, abundance and prosperity. But to do this we need to preserve our economic and personal freedoms. Will the measures being proposed – especially in trendsetting California – fruitlessly combat a problem that doesn’t exist, crush economic growth and trample on individual freedom, and rob humanity of this hopeful destiny?
– Ed “Redwood” Ring

The Fluid Envelope – A Case Against Climate Alarmism
by Dr. Richard Lindzen, February 2008

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
What will be his legacy?

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.

Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the Goebbelian substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and previous warm periods appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages.

Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we dont fully understand either the advance or the retreat. For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface.

Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man. This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising. According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86 % of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man.

This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no significant global warming for the last ten years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UKs Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCCs iconic attribution. Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past decade is acknowledged.

Whether or not someone is a climate alarmistᅠshould have no
bearing on the strength or purity of their environmentalist convictions.
(Read “Global Warming Questions“)

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished.

However, the really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind.

The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal. Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring is almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts: famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more.

This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

Given the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 2 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue.

California Attorney General
Jerry Brown
What is his dream?

The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power and influence are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true.

After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for saving the world. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further.

The case of ENRON is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities . The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to ones carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant.

The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (Americas largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol is already leading to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance).

And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.

About the Author: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(http://web.mit.edu).

Source

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail.

February 7, 2008

By any means necessary

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?

Terry O’neill, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

(See hardcopy for Photo Description)Brent Foster, National Post(See hardcopy for Photo Description)

No one knows how many forests have been felled to print all the stories that have been published about David Suzuki, Canada’s much-honoured but continuously controversial environmental crusader. The dead trees probably number in the many thousands, a (supposedly) global-warming-causing harvest so plenteous as to lead one to assume that preacher Suzuki might have begun moderating his apocalyptic sermonizing, lest he trigger yet another round of clear-cutting.But no. Instead, Suzuki has lately pumped up his rhetoric with even more frantic language, apparently as part of an all-out, last-ditch attempt to persuade Canadians that the world is fast approaching an environmental meltdown. It’s not clear whether he’s changing any minds with his new bellicosity, but he has at least been doing his bit to keep the country’s loggers busy.

So what exactly has Suzuki, who is on the university-lecture circuit these days, been saying? For starters, he told a University of Toronto audience last month that the next federal election ought to be about the environment. No problem there. However, as reported by a student newspaper, he then opined that government leaders who aren’t acting quickly enough to save the environment “should go to jail for what they’re not doing right now … What our government is not doing is a criminal act.”

His allegation of law-breaking was apparently no mere slip of the tongue. Speaking a few weeks later at McGill University, Suzuki again equated governments’ alleged inaction on the environment with a criminal act; in fact, he is reported to have said students ought to find a legal way to throw politicians in jail for ignoring climate-change science.

The geneticist-turned-broadcaster had particularly harsh words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Ed Stelmach of Alberta because of their alleged favouring of economic growth over environmental protection. “It is an intergenerational crime” — there’s that concept again — “that, in the face of the work of scientists over the last 20 years, they keep dithering as they are,” Suzuki declared.

Suzuki’s alarmism is nothing new, and more-prudent scientists have long ago answered his hyperbole and exposed his faulty logic. And it’s also long been abundantly clear from his speeches and books that his position is driven by both a quasi-religious zeal and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of humanity’s relationship with the natural world.

On this latter matter, he told the McGill crowd there is actually no difference between human beings and the environment in which they live. “We are the environment. There is no distinction,” he declared, thereby equating, for example, a newborn baby with a mud puddle. How heartening.

But this is old ground. What we haven’t seen from him until now is such an incendiary call to arms. Taking to the streets to protest climatechange inaction is one thing. Calling for the jailing of politicians is quite another — especially considering the fact that, the last time I checked anyway, there is nothing in the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent the Prime Minister from attempting to enhance both the country’s economy and its environment. It’s called balance.

We shouldn’t really be surprised at Suzuki’s latest tactic. Eco-pirate Paul Watson, formerly of the Sea Shepherd Society, has long argued that he answers not to the law of man, but to the law of nature. And we’re not talking here about his need to take bathroom breaks while chasing down whaling ships on the high seas. Suzuki now seems to be adopting a similar philosophy: that human-written law should be subordinate to that of Mother Nature (except, of course, when it comes to incarceration; human-constructed jails are so much more reliable than caves or thickets). And, of course, it’s only Watson and Suzuki’s special hot-line to Gaia that allows them to interpret nature’s law; the rest of us unenlightened ones need not apply.We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki’s “lock ’em up” rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we “celebrate our differences,” there’s a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent “human-rights” prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn’t agree. It’s only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too. Perhaps U.S. author Jonah Goldberg ought to be thinking of adding a chapter to his high-profile new book, Liberal Fascism, to explore this subject further.

Actually, Czech President Vaclav Klaus (who, coincidentally, is up for reelection tomorrow) has already done a lot of thinking in this area and has concluded that environmental zealotry poses as great a threat to human freedom as did communism. Klaus, whose book Our Planet is Blue not Green will soon be translated into English, believes that climate-change alarmists persuade governments to launch costly and unnecessary programs that have the ultimate effect of impoverishing people, thereby making them less free.

“When we look at it in a proper historical perspective, the issue is — once again — freedom and its enemies,” Klaus wrote last year. “Those of us who feel very strongly about it can never accept the irrationality with which the current world has embraced climate change (or global warming) as a real danger to the future of mankind, as well as the irrationality of [anti-globalwarming] measures because they will fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity.”

Suzuki is actually supporting a more direct attack on freedom than that which worries Klaus. Suzuki’s plan would lead to a loss of freedom, not though punitive economic measures, but through the incarceration of politicians with whom he disagrees. I have a better idea: Let the court of public opinion decide this at the polls. And if Suzuki doesn’t like the democratic outcome, he can always show his displeasure by giving us back his Order of Canada medal.

oneills@telus.net – Terry O’Neill is a Vancouver editor and writer.

Source National Post

The new CEO of Sharia Green

January 24, 2008

 Editor:
Life is strange. I never cared for the Toronto Sun or Stephen Harper, but they seem to be the only ones trying to inform Canadians about some very important realities. Harper is blocking Kyoto because he knows what it’s about. It’s about giving up the sovereignty of Canada to the UN. I’m not sure why Harper is working behind closed doors to integrate Canada the USA and Mexico. To save us from the UN takeover? The result will be the same, the lost of Canada’s Sovereignty.
Send Lorrie an email or a letter to the paper and encourage him to continue to inform his readers about the reality of “GREEN” 

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, January 24, 2008
The new CEO of Sharia Green
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Lorrie Goldstein reporting live for Sun TV. Today it’s my pleasure to introduce you to a global warming expert who’s taking the world by storm — Osama bin Kyoto, founder and CEO of the environmental organization, Sharia Green.

“Mr. Osama bin Kyoto, welcome to our show.”

“Thank you, infidel.”

“May I call you Mr. Kyoto?”

“Of course, infidel.”

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

“Thank you. Mr. Kyoto, what is your reaction to the latest roller coaster ride of the world’s stock markets and hysterical media reports of impending global economic collapse?”

“This is wonderful news, infidel. We applaud global economic collapse because it’s the only conceivable way major industrialized nations can achieve their greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Kyoto accord. How do you think Russia and all those other former Soviet satellites got to be world leaders in reducing GHG emissions and now have billions of dollars of hot air credits to sell to suckers … uh, I mean to countries like yours? Energy-efficient light bulbs? Wind farms? Solar panels? Stop, you’re killing me! No, they achieved it through total economic meltdown. Why do you think we chose 1990 as the base year for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just as the Soviet Union was imploding?”

“Uh … to screw the United States?”

“Exactly!”

“But Mr. Kyoto, surely you’re not suggesting global economic collapse and the resulting human carnage, social deprivation and widespread suffering that would result would be a good thing?”

“Of course it would be good, infidel! Economic collapse means you will have less money to buy stuff and the less stuff you buy, the fewer greenhouse gas emissions there will be. Our computer models show that for every 2,000-point drop in the Dow, not only will your retirement date be pushed back five years, but 56.7 polar bears in the Arctic will be saved from drowning.”

“But Mr. bin Kyoto, you folks can’t even agree on whether last year was the second, fifth or seventh warmest in the past century or so. How can you have a computer model that relates drops in the Dow to my retirement date and polar bear drownings?”

“It’s the same one that allows us to predict the precise impact of a carbon tax on the cost of living 50 years from now. Next question.”

“Mr. bin Kyoto, suppose China stops using coal to power energy plants. Suppose the developing world abandons the use and development of fossil fuels. Won’t millions of people in the poorest countries die as a result? Why do you only talk about shortened life spans people might suffer due to climate change, never about the certain deaths we know will occur if the developing world never … uh … develops.”

“Why, infidel? Because that’s complex thinking and we prefer mindless simplicity. So what if a few billion people die? People are a major source of man-made global warming — except for me, of course.”

“But Mr. bin Kyoto, your position is just knee-jerk anti-growth, anti-development, anti-capitalist, anti-Western and especially anti-American. It shuns complex thinking in favour of simplistic and false moral imperatives its adherents accept on blind faith and which ultimately hold human life to be cheap. Mr. bin Kyoto, you and Sharia Green sound a lot like Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.”

“Your point, infidel?”


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to

Cloak of Green The Links between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business

January 20, 2008

Editor:
This book was published in 1995 and after you read it you will never look at the Green Movement or your govt. the same way again. A massive con of the public by the Greens, govt. and the media. One world govt. is the end game for these groups. Follow the link at the bottom of the page to read the book online, get it at your library or order a copy, but read the book. Follow your tax dollars.

Now that Elizabeth May is in politics, and presumably hoping to attract progressive-minded people, she will have to live down her reputation, so caustically described by Elaine Dewar in her book, Cloak of Green, about the environmental movement, of being on all sides at the same time.

Dewar first ran into May when she (May) was a member of the Canadian government delegation to the preparatory meeting in Nairobi for the upcoming Rio summit on the environment. Since May was national director of the Sierra Club, as well as executive director of Cultural Survival Canada, Dewar found this rather puzzling. After a little further questioning Dewar came to the conclusion that May had become an NGO interface with government.Rogelio A. Maduro 21st Century Science and Technology : “Cloak of Green … is a devastating expose of the shady finances of the international environmental movement… if you’ve been snookered into supporting the groups that raise money to prevent environmental doomsdays, this book just might help save your money for real causes.”

Publishers Weekly : “Cloak of Green probed the dark underbrush of environmental politics…”

Joe Woodard BC Report : “This is a must-read for anyone interested in environmentalism and the “global environment” movement…this account of [the author’s] determined four-year journey through environmentalism is a triumph of truth over ideology.

Cloak of Green is truly honest reporting of a threatening future.”

Book Description
Most concerned citizens trust environmental groups to fight on behalf of the public for sensible solutions to the world’s most pressing problems. But Elaine Dewar discovered that this trust is often misplaced.

In this book the award-winning journalist explores links between key environmental groups, government and big business. Written like a mystery, Cloak of Green follows the author from a Toronto fundraiser for the Kayapo Indians of Brazil to the Amazon rainforest and the global backrooms of Brasilia, Washington and Geneva. Along the way she meets some fascinating people–Anita Roddick of the Body Shop, businessman-politican Maurice Strong, and activists who run key Canadian and American environmental groups. She discovers some disturbing revelations about these groups and their relations to “green” corporations and government.

Cloak of Green is a penetrating investigative study that challenges many established pieties of the environmental movement.

About the Author
ELAINE DEWAR is a prominent journalist and author with many National Magazine Awards to her credit.Cloak of Green can be read on line here

Tories oppose carbon tax

January 7, 2008

Editor:
Why the big push from the advisory committee? The scam that is global warming is starting to fall apart. Talk of global cooling is starting to appear. Carbon tax has nothing to do with global warming. Never did. It’s about control and cash.
That’s what it should be called, “Control and Cash” not “Cap and Trade”.

I’m not a big fan of Stephen Harper or his govt, I am however, a big fan of Canada and it’s people. Carbon trading will have adverse affects on the economy and the jobs people depend on and therefore it should not be implemented. I am therefore asking that you encourage Mr. Harper to base his policy on up to date science.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Tories oppose carbon tax

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has flatly opposed the idea of a carbon tax in the past, as has Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

On Monday, the federal Liberals seemed to be more receptive to the idea.

At a press conference in Ottawa, long-time Liberal and environmental activist John Godfrey said his party currently favours a carbon trading system, but will keep an open mind about carbon taxes and is waiting to see what research emerges on the topic.

The Conservatives, however, stuck to their position.

Environment Minister John Baird said Monday that he welcomes the report’s call for fixing a price on carbon, but would not consider a carbon tax. He said his government is instead working to regulate industry emissions by pushing for major polluters to significantly reduce their emissions by 2010 and encouraging an eventual carbon trading system in North America.

“What we’re not going to do is be like Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who constantly change their position and their policy,” Baird told reporters outside the House of Commons, referring to the Liberal’s apparent softening stance on a carbon tax.

“I understand the Liberals are now entertaining dumping their current policy — policy No. 8 by my count — and adopting a completely new policy. Every time a report comes out, you can’t change your mind.”

Murray said he is optimistic that Parliament will support carbon prices and measures like carbon taxes and carbon trading.

“It’s time to move the discussion forward because there isn’t a realistic case that we have seen yet where we can achieve reductions without a price [on carbon],” Murray said.

“You’ll now quietly hear people talking very seriously about cap and trade systems,” he added. “Our job [as an advisory panel] is to push government, not just the governing party, but Parliament and Canadians.”

‘Significant’ impact on Ontario, Alberta

Murray noted that the costs of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system could particularly be “significant” on Alberta’s oil producers and Ontario’s manufacturing sector.

But he stressed that in the development of any new policy, there would be investments in green technologies that would ultimately benefit both provinces significantly.

He said any policy would have to be created to ensure all regions are treated fairly, and that Canada’s industry as a whole doesn’t suddenly find itself on an “unlevel playing field” with the rest of the world.

Murray said the development of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system must include industry officials, environmentalists and representatives from all regions of the country.

Representatives from all sectors were already involved in the creation of the panel’s report, he said, noting that 65 groups were consulted and extensive economic modelling was done.

GDP wouldn’t be seriously affected

David McLaughlin, CEO of the advisory panel, said the report has concluded that Canada can feasibly reach its 2050 target of a 65 per cent emissions reduction, and that reaching this target will not be detrimental to the Canadian economy as a whole.

Canada has enough green technology in place to meet the goals, although the development of more technology would be encouraged, according to the panel’s findings.

“Our findings suggest in the long run the overall effect on Canada’s gross domestic product will not be significant, amounting to the equivalent of approximately one to two years of lost growth of GDP between now and 2050,” McLaughlin said at the press conference with Murray.

While the Liberals applauded parts of the report, they accused the Conservatives of putting constraints on the advisory panel, giving it a mandate to work with the Conservative government’s environmental targets, instead of the targets proposed under the international Kyoto Protocol.

“The report reminded us once again that this Conservative government has unilaterally abandoned Canada’s international legal obligations,” Godfrey said.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Canada signed under a Liberal government in 1998, requires that the country reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

The Conservative government created new environmental goals in April 2007 that see Canada meeting its Kyoto commitments years behind schedule. Under the new plan, Canada’s overall emissions will be cut by up to 65 per cent by 2050 and 20 per cent cut by 2020, all based on 2006 levels.

McLaughlin said the panel used the new targets because they are feasible and focused on the long-term, giving Canada enough time to make necessary changes.

Kyoto’s targets are too focused on the short-term, McLaughlin said.

CBC

Kyoto snow job by Lorrie Goldstein

January 7, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Mr. Goldstein for bringing this to the attention of his readers. Write or call him and encourage him to continue to enlighten his readership with news that matters.
Health care,Education,Energy and Agriculture, all vital to our economy and well being,  and all badly under reported.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

more quotes
Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, January 6, 2008
 
Skip the Kyoto snow job

Canadians will back a realistic green plan — we just haven’t seen it yet

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Let’s examine what the Kyoto treaty on man-made or “anthropogenic” global warming (AGW) is and isn’t.

First, it’s an example of globalization, despite the fact many of its advocates claim to oppose globalization.

But it is not, primarily, an environmental treaty.

If it was, it would require the developing world to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as it does for a relative handful of industrialized nations, including Canada.

The lack of targets for the developing world reveals Kyoto as primarily a mechanism for redistributing wealth from the First World to the Third, unsurprising given its origins in the United Nations.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Then there’s Kyoto’s accounting tricks.

Russia is in compliance with Kyoto and has billions of dollars of “hot air” credits to sell to countries like Canada — not because of its environmental policies, but because the base year for Kyoto was deliberately set at 1990, just as the economy of the former Soviet Union was imploding, causing the shutdown of many GHG-producing industries. Similarly, Germany and the European Union benefit from the collapse of the East German economy.

Kyoto envisions the First World paying billions of dollars to the Third in the faint hope the latter will use that money to reduce its rapidly-growing GHG emissions.

Kyoto’s successor will be even more controversial.

To be environmentally credible, it must compel developing nations like China (the world’s largest or second largest GHG emitter in tandem with the U.S., depending on whose calculations you believe) to cut its emissions.

But forcing the Third World to do so will be an example of the First World imposing its priorities on the Third, the very thing critics argue is immoral about globalization.

Besides, does anyone seriously believe totalitarian countries like China, given their low public health, environmental and manufacturing standards, will comply with GHG cuts, even if they agree to them?

That said, we must ignore simplistic environmental rhetoric that portrays nations which meet (or try to meet) their Kyoto targets as “good” while those that don’t as “bad.” In reality, all countries act in their own perceived best interests.

China rejects GHG cuts (as has the U.S. through both the Clinton and Bush administrations) not because it favours global climate catastrophe several decades from now if Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric is correct, which is unlikely.

It does so because it has more pressing problems, such as feeding its 1.3 billion people today.

It’s pointless to condemn China for acting in its own interests, just as it’s silly to portray Canada as an energy glutton, a favourite guilt-inducing tactic of environmentalists.

In fact, Canadians have shown a serious commitment to environmentalism, when they are provided with realistic ways to do so.

But we are also a big, cold, sparsely-populated, northern country, which has logically used our fossil fuel resources to improve our quality of life, exactly what China and the developing world aspire to today.

If we’re telling them, post-Kyoto, they cannot even attempt what we did through industrialization powered by fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, we had best offer them better reasons than Gore’s doomsday hysteria.

Why do you think the Liberals, for all their pro-Kyoto rhetoric, let Canada’s GHG emissions skyrocket during their 12-year reign, despite promising in their 1993 Red Book to cut them well beyond what later became the Kyoto standard?

They (like the present Conservative government) knew accomplishing this would demand enormous sacrifices Canadians might well reject, if the choices were put to them clearly and honestly.

INCREASE POVERTY

For us to comply with Kyoto now would see huge spikes in the price of everything sensitive to the cost of fossil fuels, meaning gasoline, electricity, heat and water as well as transportation, most manufactured goods and food, all of which are directly or indirectly sensitive to the price of fossil fuels.

This would dramatically lower our standard of living and just as dramatically increase poverty.

Despite what Kyoto propagandists and opportunistic politicians pretend, this isn’t about making an easy choice between “good” and “bad.”

It’s about making intelligent choices from the options we have, all of which have positive and negative consequences.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change

January 6, 2008

Editor:
I can see the headlines now. We must, at all costs, get wind farms up and running ASP. Only the wind farms can save us from global cooling. The govt has decided to put heating coils on the massive wind turbine blades to help warm the earth and save us from impending DOOM. No need to read fiction, just listen to the media.

Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
January 2, 2008
Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.
Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.
“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”
As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing – an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” Full report here:
space-and-science-research-center.pdf

Maurice Strong: Godfather of the international environmental movement

December 30, 2007

Editor:
I have posted the last part of this paper. It is important that you follow the link to read the full paper. In order to understand what is going today it is important to understand the history that got us here. Maurice Strong has been a very busy man over the years. The environmental movement is about power, money and control.
By Neil Hra
web posted December 24, 2001
Key Environmental Strategy: Strengthen the U.N.

Twenty-five years ago Strong sketched out a global political framework that would curtail the sovereignty of nations and expand the power of the U.N. and other international organizations. Strong’s downpayment on this vision have been the policies he subsequently has helped advance at a series of U.N.-sponsored conferences from Stockholm and Rio to Kyoto and, next year, Johannesburg.

Strong appears to rule out a formal world government when he suggests that “the technological society [his shorthand expression for life in a globalized world] cannot be managed by traditional systems of hierarchical control.” Instead, “it requires a network of institutions, governmental and non-governmental, local, regional, national and international, to perform the wide variety tasks and functions necessary to the operation of that society.”

This new network does not exactly end nation-state sovereignty. Instead, it should lead to the creation of a formalized “system of international organizations” whose purpose will be to “provide the instrumentalities for carrying out those common tasks which it is either not feasible or advantageous for [individual nation-states] to carry out themselves.”

There’s no need to describe the peril of handing over U.S. sovereignty – a sovereignty that guarantees the freedoms of U.S. citizens – to a centralized and often corrupt foreign bureaucracy whose agenda is frequently at odds with U.S. policies and values. Strong’s enthusiasm for the U.N. completely ignores its history of failure in numerous policy areas. In the years since Strong’s 1974 speech the U.N. has failed to alleviate poverty – and ecological devastation – in Africa and other developing nations. And its peacekeeping efforts in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia failed to deter aggression in the 1990s.

Global Warming Alarmism

Critics say Strong and other environmentalists are transfixed by disaster scenarios built on junk science. Nowhere is this more apparent than Strong’s attitude toward global warming.

Global warming is the theory that rising man-made carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, autos and other industrial activities will cause a dangerous increase in temperatures that will wreak havoc on the planet’s climate in myriad ways, from melting the polar ice caps to causing powerful storms and severe droughts.

In Where on Earth Are We Going? Strong presents a fictional “Report to the Shareholders, Earth Inc.” bearing the date January 1, 2031 and built around the imagined impact of global warming. In Strong’s telling North America will be a hell on earth. The Midwest will be struggling through a tenth straight year of drought, and New Orleans will be ravaged by tropical diseases to such an extent that it becomes little more than a “shrinking fortress held only with poisonous amounts of lethal pesticides.” In Los Angeles, “water vendors with armed guards roam the streets…” Both cities are better off than the state of Florida, which will have fallen under the sea.

Strong advocates ratification of the Kyoto treaty to stop the impending crisis. Negotiated by the Clinton Administration in December 1997, the treaty requires the U.S. to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 to 40 per cent by 2010. But according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, that could cost the economy $400 billion per year, raise electric utility rates by 86 per cent, hike the cost of heating oil by 76 per cent, and impose a permanent “Kyoto gasoline tax” of 66 cents per gallon. In total, each U.S. household would have to spend an extra $1,740 per year on energy. WEFA, an economic information and consulting firm, reports that 2.4 million jobs would be lost and manufacturing wages cut by 2.1 per cent.

This gives Strong no pause. Indeed, he seems to want to inflict economic damage on Western industrial democracies. When it comes to environmental policy, Strong says, “Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease.”

Strong supports Kyoto despite the scientific evidence. The U.N. has repeatedly scaled down its prediction of rapid temperature increases in coming decades. In 1990, for instance, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that global temperatures would rise six degrees farenheit by 2100. Just three years later, the IPCC adjusted its projection downward to a rise of less than two degrees farenheit. NASA satellites, the most accurate measure of global temperature, show that the Earth has slightly cooled since 1979, contradicting doomsayers who predicted global warming should have caused the temperature to increase six-tenths of a degree by now.

Scientists who once strongly believed in the theory are now more skeptical. Dr. James Hansen, the NASA scientist who inaugurated the global warming debate in 1988, said then that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the temperature to increase and lead to increased drought by the end of the 20th century. In 1998, Hansen candidly admitted his predictions had not come true because he didn’t know enough about the climate system. In 2000, Hansen went further and said carbon dioxide is not responsible for global warming. Hansen still subscribes to the global warming theory but he believes the treaty should be abandoned because it targets the wrong greenhouse gas and harms international relations by turning developing and developed nations into “adversaries.”

Conclusion

Environmental politicians like Maurice Strong don’t follow the science. They push for power. Strong has devoted his life to establishing international legal procedures to enforce his vision. And his imagination is haunted by a parade of environmental horribles. Scientists doubt they may ever come to pass, but Strong, like many contemporary environmentalists, is motivated more by fervent conviction than scientific evidence. Paul Ehrlich’s “population bomb” never exploded, and the Club of Rome’s reports on the limits to growth are famously wrong. Not one catastrophe hypothesized by Strong and other environmentalists has occurred. But that hasn’t stopped them from building the environmental movement. Continue Reading

Neil Hrab is a graduate of the University of Toronto and served as a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow at Capital Research Center.