Posts Tagged ‘Suzuki’

Welcome to Ontario – Monty Python

March 16, 2009

The part about the Lady of the Lake – Think Gaia, Earth Goddess and the environmental movement. Is the toady beside the King, Smitherman or is it Suzuki? I can’t make out the face.

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

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

"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