WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy
Posted: February 21, 2018 Filed under: Australia, BIG Government, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Tax, Climate Alarmism, Climatism, Energy Poverty, Environmentalism, Failed Green Schemes, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Green Energy, ORIGINS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, Population Control, Renewables, RET, Socialism, Solar, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: auspol, Barack Obama, Carbon Dioxide, carbon dioxide emissions, Carbon Tax, Climate Change, Climate Change Alarmism, Climate Change Scam, Climatism, CO2, Energy Poverty, Environmentalism, Fuel Poverty, Global Warming, Global Warming Scam, Green Agenda, Green Energy, John Holdren, Malthus, malthusianism, Paul Ehrlich, Population Control, Renewable energy, Stephen Schneider, The Club Of Rome, UNEP, unreliables, wind energy scam 7 Comments
ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.
GLOBAL Warming aka Climate Change has little to do with the “environment” or “saving the planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “Global Warming” would play to quite a number of the Lefts social agendas.
THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club Of Rome
THE Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.
NOT surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’:
AROUND the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.
THE conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.
WE are given clues as to the motives of this extreme agenda from various statements by prominent environmental ‘icons’…
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“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,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” – Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
*
VIV Forbes on how the control of population growth and people’s lifestyles manifests today through the control of energy supply…
The “zero-emissions” zealots want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power. They oppose the main thing that sets us apart from all other species – the use of fire from explosives, coal, oil, gas or nuclear power.
They have yet to explain how our massive fleet of planes, trains, tractors, harvesters, trucks, road trains, container-ships and submarines will be powered and lubricated by windmills, treadmills, windlasses, solar energy, distilled whiskey and water wheels.
Western nations, driven by a global agenda of climate alarmism, are destroying their profitable industries with carbon taxes; and their promotion of expensive, intermittent green energy is pushing us back down the energy ladder; and our competitors in Asia are climbing the energy ladder as quickly as they can. At the same time, the enormous waste of public money on government promotion of the climate industry has created a global fiscal mess.
Unless reversed, this wasteful de-energising policy will drive much of the world’s population back to the poverty and famines which often prevailed in the past. Some see the inevitable de-population this would cause as a desirable goal.
READ the whole post here: Falling Down the Energy Ladder | US Issues
JO Nova on how the radical environmental movement has succeeded in the implementation of draconian climate change policy that has created an era of energy poverty that is destroying western economies and hurting the poor…
Electricity prices declined for forty years. Obviously that had to stop.
Here’s is the last 65 years of Australian electricity prices — indexed and adjusted for inflation. During the coal boom, Australian electricity prices declined decade after decade. As renewables and national energy bureaucracies grew, so did the price of electricity. Must be a coincidence…
Today all the hard-won masterful efficiency gains of the fifties, sixties and seventies have effectively been reversed in full.
For most of the 20th Century the Australian grid was hotch potch of separate state grids and mini grids. (South Australia was only connected in 1990). In 1998 the NEM (National Energy Market) began, a feat that finally made bad management possible on a large scale. Though after decades of efficiency gains, Australians would have to wait years to see new higher “world leading” prices. For the first years of the NEM prices stayed around $30/MWh.
But sooner or later a national system is a sitting duck for one small mind to come along and truly muck things up.
Please spread this graph far and wide.
Thanks to a Dr Michael Crawford who did the original, excellent graph.
Electricity prices fell for forty years in Australia, then renewables came… « JoNova
***
UPDATE 21 Dec, 2018
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
•••
‘GREEN’ ENERGY POVERTY related :
- CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION : Global Warming Death Toll Rising | Climatism
- ‘GREEN’ Energy Poverty : Thousands Dying Because They Can’t Afford Heating Bills | Climatism
- GREEN ENERGY POVERTY: Volunteer Knitters In High Demand As Soaring Power Prices Leave People Cold | Climatism
- “Runaway Global Warming” Update: 48,000 Brits Dead After Worst Winter In 42 Years | Climatism
Energy Poverty and Skyrocketing Power Prices related :
- IT’S OFFICIAL : South Australia Has The World’s Highest Power Prices! | Climatism
- ENERGY Prices Double In A Year In Victoria And South Australia! | Climatism
- TENS Of Thousands Of Homes Across Victoria Without Power As System Buckles Under Heat – Welcome To Your Wind Powered Future! | Climatism
- UNRELIABLE Energy – Wind and Solar – A Climate Of Communism | Climatism
- German Pols Now Demanding Energy Welfare For Its Citizens – 800,000 Have Had Their Electricity Cut Off!
- THE $Trillion Windmill Industry Is The Greatest Scam Of Our Age | Climatism
- Over 100,000 People in Green Energy South Australia Now Receive Food Donations | Climatism
- POLITICIANS Mad With Global Warming Theory Are Destroying The Economy And Hurting The Poor | Climatism
- DIESEL – Keeping South Australia’s Lights On Til The Next Election! | Climatism
- LIFE In A Fossil-Fuel-Free Utopia | Climatism
- THE Twisted Irony of Deep-Green Energy Policy (RET) | Climatism
- The Cost Of Going Green: Taxpayers Hit With A $60Bn Power Bill | Climatism
- GREEN ENERGY FAIL – World Coal Power Development Up 43% | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- WITHOUT Access To Massive Taxpayer Subsidies There Would Be No “Green Energy Revolution” | Climatism
U.N. related :
- MUST READ : Corrupted UN Must Never Be Allowed To Lecture Us | Climatism
- Shock news : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | Climatism
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism
- WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy | Climatism
- PARIS Accord Based on Fraud | Climatism
- GLOBAL WARMING Might Not Hurt, But Warming Policies Do : Former Australian PM Spells Out The Inconvenient Truth | Climatism
- Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | Climatism
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE Related :
- GLOBAL Temperature Drops By 0.4°C In Three Years | Climatism
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE : The Medieval Warm Period Was Indeed Global And Warmer Than Today | Climatism
ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :
- FATHER Of The 2°C Climate Target Admits Number Is Fabricated : ‘Two degrees is not a magical limit; it’s clearly a political goal’ | Climatism
- THE Orwellian Era Of @NASA Climate Pseudoscience | Climatism
- WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy | Climatism
- TOMORROW’S Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship | Climatism
- CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | Climatism
- Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
- Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | Climatism
- THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists” | Climatism
- UN IPCC : Climate “Has Almost Nothing To Do With Environmental Policy.” | Climatism
- UN IPCC : “Long-Term Prediction of Future Climate States Is Not Possible.” | Climatism
- UN IPCC Rewrote Temperature History To Suit Their Political Agenda | Climatism
- YES! The Climate Changes | Climatism
- OUR Planet Has Enjoyed 10 Warm Periods During The Past 10,000 Years | Climatism
- THE ARCTIC : Ground Zero For Anthropogenic Hubris And Climate Change Hysteria | Climatism
•••
THE Climatism Tip Jar – Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!
(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.
Thanks to all those who have donated and continue on a monthly cycle! Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!
Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!
Click link for more info…TQ! Jamie.
DRACONIAN Climate Change Policies Making World Hunger Worse
Posted: January 21, 2018 Filed under: Climate Money, Climatism, Club Of Rome, Energy Poverty, Fact Check, Fossil Fuels, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Hypocrisy, Population Control, UN, UNEP | Tags: Africa, auspol, Climate Change, Climate Change Policy, Fuel Poverty, Hunger, Malthus, malthusianism, Over population myth, OXFAM, Population Control, Poverty, The Club Of Rome, UN, UNEP 2 Comments
Climate policies are diverting resources from measures that directly reduce hunger, which according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation is on the rise. | The Australian
ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change” and the control of carbon dioxide, via the supply of energy, has deep roots in a radical yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.
A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.
THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental think-tank and consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome 1993,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
SO, it comes as no surprise that today’s UN is successfully upholding its misanthropic agenda by attempting to starve control the world’s population through a blatant misallocation of resources, in favour of wanting to control the weather, rather than feed the most needy, for a fraction of the cost.
MEMO to the UN – If you want to reduce the world’s population, provide the third-world with cheap, reliable fossil-fuelled or nuclear power generation to lift them out of abject poverty. Wealthy (fossil-fuel/nuclear powered) nations have predominant negative birth rates. Poverty is the enemy of the environment.
Bjorn Lomborg with more via his column in The Australian…
*
BJORN LOMBORG // @BjornLomborg via The Australian :
For more than a decade, annual data showed global hunger to be on the decline. But that has changed. According to the latest data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, hunger affected 815 million people in 2016, 38 million more than the year before, and malnutrition is now threatening millions.
Research from my think tank, Copenhagen Consensus, has long helped to focus attention and resources on the most effective responses to malnutrition, both globally and in countries such as Haiti and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, there are worrying signs that the global response may be headed in the wrong direction.
The FAO blames the rise in hunger on a proliferation of violent conflicts and “climate-related shocks”. which means specific, extreme events such as floods and droughts.
But in the FAO’s press release, “climate-related shocks” becomes “climate change”. The report itself links the two without citing evidence, but the FAO’s communique goes further, declaring starkly: “World hunger again on the rise, driven by conflict and climate change.”
It may seem like a tiny step to go from blaming climate-related shocks to blaming climate change. Both terms relate to the weather. But that little difference means a lot, especially when it comes to the most important question: how do we help to better feed the world? Jumping the gun and blaming climate change for today’s crises attracts attention, but it makes us focus on the costliest and least effective responses.
The best evidence comes from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has clearly shown that there has been no overall increase in droughts. While some parts of the world are experiencing more and worse droughts, others are experiencing fewer and lighter droughts.
A comprehensive study in the journal Naturedemonstrates that, since 1982, incidents of all categories of drought, from “abnormally dry” to “exceptional drought”, have decreased slightly. On flooding, the IPCC is even blunter: it has “low confidence” at a global level about whether climate change has caused more or less flooding.
What the IPCC tells us is that by the end of the century, it is likely that worse droughts will affect some parts of the world. And it predicts — albeit with low confidence — that there could be more floods in some places.
Relying on climate policies to fight hunger is doomed. Any realistic carbon cuts will be expensive and have virtually no impact on climate by the end of the century. The Paris climate agreement, even if fully implemented up to 2030, would achieve just 1 per cent of the cuts needed to keep temperature from rising more than 2C, according to the UN.
And it would cost $US 1 trillion a year or more — an incredibly expensive way to make no meaningful difference to a potential increase in flooding and droughts at the end of the century.
In fact, well-intentioned policies to combat global warming could very well be exacerbating hunger. Rich countries have embraced biofuels — energy derived from plants — to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. But the climate benefit is negligible: according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, deforestation, fertiliser, and fossil fuels used in producing biofuels offset about 90 per cent of the “saved” carbon dioxide.
In 2013, European biofuels used enough land to feed 100 million people, and the US program even more. Biofuel subsidies contributed to rising food prices, and their swift growth was reined in only when models showed that up to another 135 million people could starve by 2020. But that means that the hunger of around 30 million people today can likely be attributed to these bad policies.
Moreover, climate policies divert resources from measures that directly reduce hunger. Our priorities seem skewed when climate policies promising a minuscule temperature impact will cost $US1 trillion a year, while the World Food Program’s budget is 169 times lower, at $5.9 billion.
There are effective ways to produce more food. One of the best, as Copenhagen Consensus research has shown, is to get serious about investing in research and development to boost agricultural productivity. Through irrigation, fertiliser, pesticides, and plant breeding, the Green Revolution increased world grain production by an astonishing 250 per cent between 1950 and 1984, raising the calorie intake of the world’s poorest people and averting severe famines. We need to build on this progress.
Investing an additional $US88bn in agricultural research and development over the next 32 years would increase yields by an additional 0.4 percentage points every year, which could save 79 million people from hunger and prevent five million cases of child malnourishment. This would be worth almost $US3 trillion in social good, implying an enormous return of $US34 for every dollar spent. By the end of the century, the additional increase in agricultural productivity would be far greater than the damage to agricultural productivity suggested by even the worst-case scenarios of the effects of global warming.
And there would be additional benefits: the World Bank has found that productivity growth in agriculture can be up to four times more effective in reducing poverty than productivity growth in other sectors.
We are at a turning point. After achieving dramatic gains against hunger and famine, we run the risk of backsliding, owing to poorly considered choices. The stakes are far too high for us to pick the wrong policies.
Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
(Climatism bolds added)
Climate-change policies may be making world hunger worse | The Australian
•••
Related :
- Bjørn Lomborg: Why Africa Needs Fossil Fuels, Not Wind Power & Wishes | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- OVER-POPULATION : Another non-problem | WND
- Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming | Watts Up With That?
- THE Papal Dilemma: Champion Of The Poor or UN Puppet? | Climatism
UN Related :
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism
STANFORD Universities Paul Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Black Africans To Fight Climate Change
Posted: April 24, 2016 Filed under: Alarmists, Climate Change, Climatism, Green Agenda, Malthus, Population Control | Tags: ABC, Black Lives Matter, Climate Change, Ecofascism, Environmentalists, Global Warming, Malthus, Misanthropy, Paul Ehrlich, Population Control, QandA, Royal Society, Stanford University 3 Comments
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
•••
STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident population freak and climate catastrophist Paul R. Ehrlich recently featured as a guest on ABC Australia’s popular “Q and A” current affairs hour.
“Q and A’s” proud boast, popular with its majority Leftist audience, is being champions of equality, compassion and to strictly condemn, name and shame those who fit a predetermined racist bent. I.e conservatives.
That said, did any panel members or audience question Ehrlich about his preference to which colour should be eliminated first?
I thought “Black-Lives-Matter” or is that simply another victomhood slogan designed by the Left to divide and silence?
GST, Gonski, Population and Diversity | Q&A | ABC TV
•••
Stanford Universities Paul R. Ehrlich via Steve Goddard’s Real Science:
Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Africans In Order To Control His Own Neurosis
Notable comments from Climate Change / Global Warming fear-monger and population freak Paul Ehrlich :
- “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Malthusian, eco-alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992
- “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” – Paul R. Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
- “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.” – Paul R. Ehrlich (Population Bomb 1960)
- “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” – Paul R. Ehrlich (1969)
- “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” – Paul R. Ehrlich (1969)
- “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” – Paul R. Ehrlich. Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)
Alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich now works for The Royal Society, (to bolster their credibility /sarc) ~ “Nullius In Verba”
Scan these links to learn more about Stanford Universities Paul Ehrlich, and fellow climate change catastrophists apocalyptic belief systems :
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Opinion: CO2 is the Demon Because Malthus and Ehrlich Were Wrong About Overpopulation | Climatism
- Shock news : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | Climatism
- Climate Change Won’t Kill You – Having No Electrical Power Will | Climatism
- Paul Ehrlich wrong again: World Cereal Production Set To Reach Historic High | Climatism
- Paul Ehrlich joins the Royal Society, rants on Twitter | Watts Up With That?
- Before He Was Pushing The Global Warming Scam, Paul Ehrlich Was Pushing The Global Cooling Scam | Real Science
- Ehrlich : Mankind To Drown In Own Flesh Before The Year 2000 | Real Science
- Ehrlich Shock News : World Was Destroyed In The 1970’s | Real Science
•••
PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To HELP Keep The Good Fight Alive!
(Climate rationalists – you and I – are still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Click link for more info…TQ! Jamie.
•••
Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Africans In Order To Control His Own Neurosis
Posted: November 3, 2015 Filed under: Eco-Activists, Population Control | Tags: ABC, Left, Paul Ehrlich, Population Control, QandA, TheirABC Leave a commentLast night, Stanford Universities population freak and climate catastrophist Paul Ehrlich featured on ABC Australia’s high rating left-wing propaganda hour “QandA”. Their boast, as popular with the sanctimonious left, is being champions of equal rights and to condemn, name and shame those who utter even the slightest racist slur.
That said, did any panel members or audience question Ehrlich about his preference to which colour should be eliminated first?
Maybe “Black-Lives-Matter” is just another PC slogan?
One Of The More Illuminating Articles You May Ever Read On Global Warming
Posted: September 23, 2013 Filed under: Climatism, Club Of Rome, Ecofascism, Environmentalists, Global Warming, Green Agenda, Malthus, Population Control, Sustainability, UN, UNEP | Tags: Agenda 21, Climate Change, club of rome, eco-scares, Environmentalism, Eugenics, Green Agenda, ICLEI, Malthus, Man-Made Global Warming, Population Control, UN, UNEP 1 Comment“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
•••
Having read one of the most influential and eye-opening books of my life, “Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing your Children’s Future“, it was refreshing to stumble across the featured article in this post, penned by the same author James Delingpole, out of the Daily Telegraph.
Delingpole is a writer whose work border’s on literary genius, a grand master of elucidation. A staunch climate sceptic, who’s views and opinions, while rational, measured and considered, sizzle with humour and sarcasm to drive his message home.
He confidently boasts; “I’m right about everything“. When you follow his stuff, you realise that this has nothing to do with ego!
Most importantly, his writing stands in strident defence of our freedoms. A position taken for granted by so many today, yet the most basic right, one we must fiercely protect with constant vigilance.
If you haven’t read Watermelons, make sure you do. It is a true masterpiece that will educate you on issues which are about as critical and important as any, in our lives today.
In the meantime, try to read the below article line-by-line, for the words unlock the true story behind man-made global warming hysteria. A living constant that toys with people’s everyday lives and indeed threatens our “children’s future” much more than any theorised climate event.
•••
Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man
Last updated: April 5th, 2011
Chris Packham, ‘wildlife expert’ (Photo: Paul Grover)
Any minute now I’m going to lay off blogging for a while, for health reasons. But I can’t pretend I’m going to find going cold turkey easy, especially not when there are stories like this around.
It concerns “wildlife expert” Chris Packham – presenter of some of the BBC’s most popular nature programmes including Springwatch and a new series called The Animal’s Guide To British Wildlife – and some deeply unpleasant remarks he made in the course of an interview with the Radio Times.
“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population. I read the other day that, by 2020, there are going to be 70 million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.”
So what does he suggest we do about it? Get people to stop having children?
“Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn’t actually penalise people for having too many children, as I think the carrot always works better than the stick. But what I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.”
What frightens me almost more than these remarks – whose loathsomeness I shall gloss in a moment – is the response of the Daily Mail’s readership. All right, perhaps the Mail’s online audience is not representative of the entire country, but I do think they’re probably close to embodying what the reasonable other person from Middle England thinks, and in this case what they seem to think is frankly bloody terrifying.
All right, so I don’t imagine many of us here would quibble with the most popular comment so far, with 1300 plus positive votes:
How about offering people nothing for not having children as well as not giving them anything when they have ten children? Let them pay for their offspring with their own money for a change. That might make a few people consider the population even if it’s the one in their own home.
This is in line with the very sensible remarks that once got Howard Flight into such trouble. And of course the Tory peer was quite right: it’s absurd to have a situation where the most feckless, unproductive sector of the economy is subsidised by the state to have children they would otherwise be unable to afford.
But here are the second and third most popular comments, with well over 1000 positive votes each:
He is quite right you know, the most eco friendly thing you can do is not breed.
Well done Chris I couldn’t have said it better myself. That is the main problem with this planet — too many people. We require a massive birth control programme, never mind growing more food and building more houses — cut back on breeding is the only answer.
There are so many things wrong with this attitude I don’t know where to begin. But why not let’s start with the plight of only children? Almost everyone I know who was brought up without a brother or sister wishes it could have been otherwise. I myself grew up in a family of seven, and while it’s true that I have never quite forgiven one of them for voting for Caroline Lucas in the last election I count the friendship and kinship of my wonderful brothers and sisters one of the greatest joys of my existence. I know there are many in China who feel much the same way: the tyrannical one-child policy, it is now being recognised, has not only led to much unnecessary unhappiness but is also leading to potentially disastrous economic consequences (especially in its battle for economic supremacy with India, where no such restrictions have applied).
Yet such is the misery that Chris Packham wishes to import to Britain. And to be fair, he is far from the only high profile figure who thinks this way. Very much of the same view is that famously nice, caring natural history TV presenter David Attenborough, concerned environmentalist the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, actress Susan Hampshire, Gaia theory inventor James Lovelock, ex UN apparatchik Sir Crispin Tickell (the man who – briefly – persuaded Margaret Thatcher of the imminent perils of Man Made Global Warming) and chimp expert Jane Goodall. All of these luminaries are – with Packham – patrons of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation which believes that the world’s growing population is “unsustainable” and which is dedicated to finding ways of reducing it.
The problem with the Optimum Population Trust – one of them anyway – is that its very existence is predicated on a vilely misanthropic view of the human species: that there are too many of us, that we do more harm than good.
And yes, superficially, this view of the world makes a kind of sense. It’s what I call an “I reckon” argument: the sort of argument you’d make in a pub, after a few beers, based on information you’ve established from a gut feeling so strong it doesn’t need any awkward details like facts getting in the way of your opinion. I mean obviously more people means less space, and more demand on “scarce resources”, so the more people there are the more trouble we’re in. Stands to reason dunnit?
This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking I address in my new book Watermelons. You’ll forgive me if I don’t come up with all the counterarguments here. (Read the bloody book!). But in a nutshell, it’s that this Neo-Malthusian pessimism – as warped and wrongheaded today as it was in the era of doom-monger Thomas Malthus (1766 to 1834) – is based on fundamental misconceptions about the ingenuity of the human species and about the nature of economic growth.
Sure if all populations did as they grew and grew was use up more finite “stuff”, then we would indeed have cause to worry. But they don’t: as populations increase in size, so they learn to specialise and adapt and find ever more ingenious ways of making more with less. That’s why, for example, the mass starvation predicted by Paul Ehrlich in his Sixties bestseller The Population Bomb never happened: because thanks to Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, crop yields dramatically increased while the area of land under cultivation remained unchanged. If you want to read more about this, I recommend not just my book, but also Matt Ridley’s superb The Rational Optimist or anything by Julian Simon (known as the Doomslayer because of the way he constantly confounded Neo Malthusian pessimism and junk science).
The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.
One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion. [Climatism Bolded]
I do not share this view. Indeed, though I believe that while people like Chris Packham (and Prince Charles; George Monbiot; Al Gore; David Attenborough; Robert Redford; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ted Turner; et al) may believe what they do for the noblest of reasons, their ecological philosophy is fundamentally evil. And I do mean evil. Any philosophy which has, as its core tenet, the belief that mankind is the problem not the solution cannot possibly be one that pertains to good, can it?
This is why I have been fighting this Climate War so hard for so long. And why I have no compunction whatsoever in calling the people who promote that repellant philosophy by the names they deserve. The ideological struggle that is being fought now over the issue of “Climate Change” (and related, quasi-Marxist weasel concepts such as Sustainability) may not yet involve the bloodshed caused in the wars against Nazism and Stalinism, but the threat it poses to individual freedom and economic security is every bit as great. But there aren’t enough of us fighting this war on the right side – and I’m knackered.
•••
Read more of James Delingpole’s cracking work here – James Delingpole – Telegraph Blogs
•••
Club Of Rome quotes via The Green Agenda :
“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.“
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind
“In Nature organic growth proceeds according
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
sustainable growth and world development based on global
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution
“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that
fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order
and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind
•••
UPDATE
via wattsupwiththat
Extract from :
IPCC Climate: A Product of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Built On Inadequate Data
Posted on October 2, 2013 by Guest Blogger
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
The climate debate cannot be separated from environmental politics. Global warming became the central theme of the claim humans are destroying the planet promoted by the Club of Rome. Their book, Limits to Growth did two major things both removing understanding and creating a false sense of authority and accuracy. First, was the simplistic application of statistics beyond an average in the form of a straight-line trend analysis: Second, predictions were given awesome, but unjustified status, as the output of computer models. They wanted to show we were heading for disaster and selected the statistics and process to that end. This became the method and philosophy of the IPCC. Initially, we had climate averages. Then in the 1970s, with the cooling from 1940, trends became the fashion. Of course, the cooling trend did not last and was replaced in the 1980s by an equally simplistic warming trend. Now they are trying to ignore another cooling trend. Continue Reading »
•••
Club Of Rome Related:
- Club Of Rome – “The First Global Revolution” (Archive)
- The Road to Copenhagen Part I: The Club of Rome
- CLUB OF ROME VIDEO – The Original MIT Modellers of Human Pollution Doom – LAST CALL trailer – YouTube
- Abel Danger: club of Rome – the data doesn’t matter – all heretics will be punished – do you believe?
- Unraveling the Club of Rome (part 1) | Recycle Washington
- The Green Agenda
- IPCC Control Calculations of Annual Human CO2 Production For Political Agenda – Dr Tim Ball
- The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | CACA
- THE CLUB OF ROME Official (www.clubofrome.org)
- The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | CACA
Beware the eco-friendly buzzword “Sustainability”:
- The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
- As of 2011, 238 Australian Councils were operating the UN’s ‘Agenda 21’ program through ‘ICLEI Oceania’ – Ironbark Sustainability: About ICLEI Oceania, Low Carbon Australia and Ironbark Sustainability
- Excellent explanation of sustainability: What Is Sustainability?
- UN Agenda 21 Links | CACA
- The United Nations “Agenda 21” and “ICLEI” in one easy lesson
- United Nations Agenda 21 : The Death Knell of Liberty | CACA
- Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | CACA
Climatism Links:
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
- Scientists talking about no warming
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
- UN-Settled Science
- 44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum | CACA
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- A cooling consensus
- Modelling Climate Alarmism
- GLOBAL WARMING THEORY – Circular reasoning at its best
- Obamaclimate and Europe’s Green Energy Basket-Case | CACA
- The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | CACA
Climatism 
Recent Comments