Unreal… John Kerry Gives First Speech as Secretary of State to Push Global Warming Tax

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey: Global Warming Is Not That Big of a Deal

‘No global warming for 16 years’

The attendees at the recent global “climate” conference in Doha, Qatar, most of them highly influential and powerful in their home countries, were treated to a special address recently.

“There has been no global warming for 16 years (actually 18 or 19 years, on closer examination),” the speaker said. “Even if warming were to occur at the predicted rate this century, it would be many times cheaper to adapt … than to attempt, futilely, to mitigate it today. An independent scientific enquiry would be a good idea, to make sure that the conferences on the climate were still heading in the right direction.”

Those words are what Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, described as the high priest of climate skepticism and a regular columnist for WND, recalls telling the stunned crowd of affluent attendees.

He addressed the conference, which had just finished hours of consultation and discussion of how to prepare for the catastrophe long predicted by Al Gore, that of global warming.

“My intervention in Doha was on the spur of the moment, right at the end of the final plenary session when no one else wanted to speak,” he told WND. “The intervention gained very substantial international publicity, and I had not expected this. As a result, it is now widely known that there has been no global warming at all for more than a decade and a half.

“The fact had been concealed from the world by the news media, now largely controlled (in the West, at any rate) by the hard left,” he said. “Now the media are looking silly, the politicians are beginning to wake up, and perhaps – just perhaps – a little common sense will now creep into the climate debate.

“But it would be wise not to hold one’s breath,” he said.

He agreed recently to an interview with WND on topics including the ice cap, sea levels, warming vs. cooling trends, carbon emissions, greenhouse effect, data padding and others details.

Read more here.

‘Al baby’ Gore threatened with arrest

Lord Christopher Monckton, a WND columnist who describes himself as the “high priest of climate skepticism,” says there will be an investigation, and a conviction, if “Al baby” Gore said anything during a weekend visit to a “green” conference in Gibraltar that could be construed as advocating for the financial interests of his company, Generations Investment Management.

While the company remains largely out of the public view, its interests apparently lie in the financial benefits that could emerge should global warming regulations be imposed and so-called “carbon credits” become an issue.

Carbon credits essentially are suggested by environmentalists to be amounts of carbon emissions that would be allowed for various activities, such as manufacturing. They could be purchased and sold.

Monckton, who repeatedly has challenged Gore to debate the merits of the global warming arguments Gore espoused in his documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth,” was discussing the issue with Mark Gillar on BlogTalkRadio,

Monckton said, “Al baby, if you’re listening to this, I’m still here. I’m still willing to debate, but you’re not.

“However, you are making the very grave mistake of going to Gibraltar, Gibraltar being a territory where British rule still prevails, and the British system of justice still prevails.”

Learn in the “Resisting the Green Dragon” DVD set how environmentalism is becoming a new religion, how it devastates the poor, threatens the sanctity of life and is targeting youth.

Monckton continued, “If you say anything in Gibraltar which has any bearing on the fortunes of Generations Investment Management, if you say anything that is incorrect about global warming, and that’s how Generations Investment Management is making a lot of its money, then you are guilty of an offense under the Financial Services Act of 1988, and you will be arrested, prosecuted and convicted.”

Monckton said Gore’s “bull—” is illegal under that legislation in the United Kingdom and its territories, and, “If you come to any British territory and you talk the rubbish you’ve been talking elsewhere, then you will be arrested and prosecuted.”

Read more here.

Australian Radio Jock Forced Into ‘Factual Accuracy Training’ on Global Warming

For those who would claim liberals are the free-speech champions, see Philip Bump at the eco-leftist Grist magazine. Australian morning “shock jock” Alan Jones, “who apparently belongs to the Limbaugh/AEI school of factual accuracy” on “climate change,” is being cited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (like their FCC) and has been ordered to undergo “factual accuracy” training.

Regulators ruled that Jones breached broadcast rules by claiming Australians contributed just ”1 per cent of .001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the air.” Climate activist scientists will apparently police the radio airwaves in Australia in a way Al Gore and the American Left can only envy:

Controversial shock jock Alan Jones has been ordered to undergo “factual accuracy” training, and to use fact-checkers, in another damaging blow to his credibility.

External trainers will conduct training sessions for Jones and other news and current affairs staff at [radio station] 2GB.…

University of Melbourne climate change scientist David Karoly said Australians were in fact responsible for .45 per cent of total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. ”Obviously, we would much rather prefer that the comments of people like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt were, in fact, correct, so it is pleasing to get this ruling from ACMA,” Dr Karoly said.

The radio station told ACMA Jones’ claims should have been taken as commentary, because his show was neither news nor current affairs, but, ”overwhelmingly … the personal opinion and comment of Jones”.

But the authority said any ”ordinary, reasonable listener” would have taken his claims to be fact.

The media authority said 2GB had ”some” fact-checking and verification measures in place, but these had shortcomings in the case of Jones’ show. ”The editorial pieces, the subject of the ACMA investigations, did not involve the wider production team.”

The station volunteered to ”pre-broadcast fact-checking by the program’s executive producer of any material provided by non-media sources or third parties”.

Read more here.

Actual AP Headline: ‘Experts: Global Warming Means More Antarctic Ice’

For many years, climate realists have pointed to expanding ice in Antarctica as a counter to the claim that decreasing ice in the Arctic is necessarily proof of anthropogenic global warming.

The folks at the Associated Press on Wednesday came up with an unbelievable answer to that in an article unbelievably titled “Experts: Global Warming Means More Antarctic ice”:

While the North Pole has been losing sea ice over the years, the water nearest the South Pole has been gaining it. Antarctic sea ice hit a record 7.51 million square miles in September. That happened just days after reports of the biggest loss of Arctic sea ice on record.

Climate change skeptics have seized on the Antarctic ice to argue that the globe isn’t warming and that scientists are ignoring the southern continent because it’s not convenient. But scientists say the skeptics are misinterpreting what’s happening and why.

Shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic this time of year — both related to human activity — are probably behind the increase in ice, experts say

Read more here.

Newest weapon in war on women: Global warming?

A bizarre row has broken out among EU politicians over whether climate change is a feminist issue.

Members of the European Parliament will vote today on a report by a French Green party MEP who claims global warming ‘is not gender neutral’.

Women, claims Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, ‘consume more sustainably than men and show greater willingness to act to preserve the environment’ as they tend to organise household consumption and childcare.

She said that discrimination against women could be made worse in the developing world if climate policies do not take gender discrimination into account.

She was yesterday subjected to a withering attack from Marina Yannakoudakis, a Tory MEP for London, who called her motion ‘bonkers, baseless and bad for women’.

The report – Women and Climate Change – calls for a 40 per cent female quota on all EU delegations in climate negotiations and on the committees that allocate climate aid from member states. Funding is set to reach £62billion a year by 2020.

The report also calls for new EU-funded initiatives to help women’s groups get involved in climate policies, and for the EU to start gathering data on the ‘gender sensitive’ effects of climate change on women.

Mrs Yannakoudakis said: ‘This is the kind of thing that gets the EU in general – and its Women’s Rights Committee in particular – a bad name.

Read more here.

NYU Idiot Makes Case for ‘Human Engineering’ to Curb Manmade Global Warming

Most ideas to help mitigate so called manmade global warming involve changing habits or how we use products, such as increasing energy efficiency of electronics, reducing dependence on gasoline by switching to battery powered vehicles or something as simple as making the choice to go meatless on Mondays.

But a New York University philosophy and bioethics professor, who believes humans are the cause of global warming, wants to take it right to the source: the genetics of humanity itself. Matthew Liaoof NYU and two Oxford co-authors (Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache) are making the case for several ideas that they believe are less risky solutions to global warming compared to other ideas, such as geothermal engineering.

Their argument was presented in the academic journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment in February. The authors explicitly describe the idea as “human engineering,“ or the ”biomedical modification of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change.” It should be noted, that the authors are not stating that this sort of engineering should be adopted, but they merely want to make the case for it “alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change.” If human engineering were ever to be truly considered as an option, the authors state it should be voluntary with the potential for tax breaks as an incentive.

One of these ideas would be literally engineering humans to have shorter statures. For the past 150 years, the human race has been growing taller. In industrialized nations, the average height has increased by about 10 centimeters. Liao makes the argument that if humans were genetically engineered to be shorter, it would reduce their consumption of goods and subsequent effect on the environment — often known as the carbon footprint:

Human ecological footprints are partly correlated with our size. We need a certain amount of food and nutrients to maintain each kilogram of body mass.

[…]

As well as needing to eat more, larger people also consume more energy in less obvious ways. For example, a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person than a lighter person […]

The group suggests use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to “select” for children that would be shorter or use a hormone to help control height during development.

Read more here.

Education Department indoctrinates kids in global warming myths.

Ideologues in our federal government are pushing falsehoods on children in order to spread the doctrine of the Church of Global Warming. CNSNews.com reports that the Department of Education hosted an event in which children were read scientifically baseless claims from books featuring Sponge Bob Square Pants and Dora the Explorer. A character in the Sponge Bob book explains:

Ya see, Earth has these gases called greenhouse gases. They’re in the atmosphere to keep the temperature of the planet just right. Carbon Dioxide is one of those gases. But when we make more greenhouse gases than the planet needs naturally, like you’ve been burnin’ tires and fuel, it locks the heat in the atmosphere. That makes the planet hotter than it should be. That’s global warming. And that’s not good.

In another book, Dora explains what kids “can do to save the Earth.” Among the mind-numbing tips:

· If you have water left in your drinking glass, you can use it to water your house plants.

· We can also turn off lights during the day.

· My abuela (grandmother) is careful about saving energy too. When’s she’s cooking or preparing food she always decides what she wants to get before opening the refrigerator door.

Adults at the event pushed “The Big Green Help” series running on the Nickelodeon children’s cable channel as well as Simon & Schuster’s “Little Green Books.” LGBs are printed on recycled paper and feature appeals to children about “making the world a greener place.”

Kids were treated to a brain-liquefying sermon which claimed that “peace” can be achieved by “keeping the water blue for all the fish,” by “giving shoes to someone who needs them,” by “wearing different clothes,” by “keeping the streets clean,” and through “everyone having a home.”

Where’s Al Gore when you need him?

What Is Agenda 21?

Most of my energy has been focused on domestic issues in our fight to restore our country back to its original values. I have heard Agenda 21 mentioned in many forums including Facebook and Twitter, but I have not paid much attention to what this nefarious plan means to the future of America. To be frank, many of the people who I hear mentioning Agenda 21 follow up comments with references to the Bilderbergs, CFR and Illuminati, which automatically turns me off. But as I peel back the layers of this onion, I find that this plan is anything but a conspiracy.

Agenda 21 made its public debut in Rio back in 1992 at The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or the Earth Summit and more than 178 nations adopted the plan including the United States. Agenda 21 states that it ”is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment.” To further secure the implementation of UNCED, the United Nations developed the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in December 1992. The use of the word sustainable should send chills down your spine when you think about the fact that Obama has chosen Eugenicists as members of his cabinet and that much of the world, particularly the Communist Chinese, believe that the earth is becoming overpopulated. CSD was ”to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels.” The goals of Agenda 21 were reaffirmed in Johannesburg in 2002.

Barack Obama declares on a regular basis that everyone needs to be on “fair” footing, that everyone needs to have shared sacrifice and that we need to bring about shared prosperity and spread the wealth. This ideology is a core goal of Agenda 21. This section of the document details combating poverty and states:

3.1. Poverty is a complex multidimensional problem with origins in both the national and international domains. No uniform solution can be found for global application. Rather, country-specific programmes to tackle poverty and international efforts supporting national efforts, as well as the parallel process of creating a supportive international environment, are crucial for a solution to this problem. The eradication of poverty and hunger, greater equity in income distribution and human resource development remain major challenges everywhere. The struggle against poverty is the shared responsibility of all countries.

It would be easy to relegate Agenda 21 to a powerless United Nations’ resolution. Easy, if not for the fact that Agenda 21 has slowly been implemented right here in America and right here in the state of Florida where I live. The United States signed onto Agenda 21, but it was never ratified by Congress. One reason why I abhor Executive Orders is that it gives the President power never intended by the Constitution. It allows the President to subvert Congress and erases checks and balances. President Bill Clinton went forward with the plans first laid out by President George H. Bush by signing Executive Order 12852 in 1993, The President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD).

Read more here.

%d bloggers like this: