Climate Democracy

The point is fundamental. Whether warming or cooling is beneficial depends largely on where you live. Federal control of climate is therefore inappropriate. International control, even worse. Climate democracy requires local control. If the political discussion remains national during this election season, the candidates should – at the very least – choose vice presidential running mates who favor warming: at least acknowledging that the north matters.

Local climate control: how can it be done? – the facts are these. To say that climate engineering is in a pre-early stage of development is a vast understatement. There is no such thing. Governments can no more control climate globally than they can locally. We have a long, long way to go technologically before any such thing as climate democracy can become reality. Wake up and smell the crap – it’s a scam! They want to raise taxes and increase government control over earthly endeavors and you won’t get anything for it in return.

clipped from
I’ve never been one to disparage a glacier, but that doesn’t obscure my recognition of the manipulation in Mr. Gore’s message when he attempts to convince us that we have no choice. Balderdash! If government can control the earth’s temperature, then it can be forced in either direction. More importantly, if politicians are going to assume the authority to manipulate climate, voters should decide which way it goes.
Mr. Gore lives in the southern United States where I can well understand that a few degrees of cooling seems like a good thing. Try walking around Baton Rouge, Louisiana on a hot, humid summer day. Given a democratic choice, the south will likely rise in favor of cooling. But put yourself in the middle of a snowstorm in northern Minnesota and your perspective will change dramatically. Several degrees warmer would be a relief. Make it colder and Minnesota will suffer physically and economically.
blog it

Green Communism

Owning a car opens up possibilities to a person that is beyond their reach otherwise, it opens up a freedom that many millions do not currently enjoy. The ability to find work at further distances from their homes than ever gives them more choices to find lucrative employment opportunities, the ability to find markets and entertainments are also greatly expanded. All this greatly expands individual freedom.If many millions more of the people of India (and around the world) find themselves able to afford this new car, it will incredibly improve their standard of living. It will also force the government to redirect their own efforts to internal improvements to accommodate this rise in cars that will add even more to raising the standard of living in once poor countries.

Green communists do not care about people and these two stories add to the ever growing proof that enviro-communists have gravitated to environmentalism as a replacement for an overt espousal of communist ideals.

clipped from
If you need any more proof that the concept of Global Warming is less “science” and is more just a replacement for the kind of failed concepts of communism and socialism that is increasingly being rejected by the world, two recent stories helps clarify the point.

In a piece titled “Deadly Ozone From Drive-Thru Mania,” our Miss Hastings pours out her considerable “intellect” into the theory that drive thru windows are destroying the planet and making us a bunch of fatties.
Yeah, it’s all because of … you guessed it… capitalism. Her solution, of course, is to put an end to all this capitalism stuff like all good communists aim to do.
Isn’t this great news? Not to the communists of Greenpeace who are protesting this new product. Green communists are attempting to forever keep the poor in the grinding poverty in which they currently wallow.
Their pals in the media are happy to fan the flames of alarmism over the supposed “global disaster” of this incredible new freedom-promoting car.
  blog it


For those who have better things to do than keep track of the latest in a long series of UN sponsored playtimes about the environment, there is one going on in Bali now. Of course a ton of very, very, VERY serious bloggers like this one, writing very, very, very, VERY, VERY serious posts:

The next three days might prove to be among the most crucial in history. If countries can agree to talks that will lead to the cuts in emissions that will keep global conditions within tolerable levels, then humankind could have a bright future. If, however, governments fail to rise to this challenge there could be very rough times ahead…………

Leadership and resolve is now needed from those countries who say they see the danger posed by rapid climate change. The EU must keep its nerve, and not only argue for an obligation on industrialised countries to cut emissions by a sufficient amount, but to also resist those countries who are trying to wreck these talks by insisting that developing countries should take on legally binding targets as well. The rich nations have the means to act and are largely responsible for the global temperature increase we already have……….

Some thoughts in response:

1. The next three days might prove to be among the most crucial in history.

Its overblown rhetoric like this which actually harms your own cause. The globaloney left and parasitic bureaucrats from the United Nations and all the associated NGOs have been crying doom about everything for such a long time that the sound becomes some sort of background noise.

You don’t really believe that the next 3 days will determine the fate of the earth. Otherwise why aren’t you spending every penny you own, mortgaging your house and car and all your possessions, and bringing every single resource you have in an effort to get your desired outcome? By your own words, this is the most crucial 3 days in all of human history and all you can do is sit around observing and yammering about it? You don’t do more than whine about the issue because you know this is more about some sort of money shakedown and an anti-capitalism kabuki dance.

Your governments certainly don’t believe that what you are saying is true. The heads of state aren’t convinced that its true or they would be there. The most cruical days in all human existence? The government representation is a lot more about a nice pre-Christmas vacation in a Pacific paradise. With a great opportunity to bash America, but that’s just gravy to the UN lickspittles and their ideological kin walking the beaches of Bali.

2. Leadership and resolve is now needed from those countries who say they see the danger posed by rapid climate change. The EU must keep its nerve

This would be the same EU that is growing its carbon dioxide emissions faster than the United States? Your moral slip is showing – and you don’t have any leadership on this either. Are you leaders willing to stand up and tell your citizens that they need to reduce their standard of living by 40%? No more flying, no more driving, no more building individual houses, no more than one sheet of toilet paper per use? Of course not. Because its just another sheet of paper with silly writing on it that the EU and all other countries in the world know they can ignore with absolutely no consequences to themselves. But it will make them feel really, really good to stand up and say they did something for the environment.

If you really wanted to effect global change you should encourage all the oil and coal use you can. Only when the oil and coal are gone will the global economy change to something else.

3. The rich nations have the means to act and are largely responsible for the global temperature increase we already have

You actually think that mankind now possesses the power to terraform the entire planet? Again, I don’t believe you do. The whole article is about some vauge plan to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2020, but specifics on how that is to happen are thin on the ground. And will this have any effect on the global temperature? Not that anyone can prove with any measure of certainty. We don’t know the daily rainfall of the Earth. We don’t know the cloud cover percentage of the Earth to any certainty. We don’t know the temperatures and effects of the different currents in the oceans. There is so much we don’t know about the global atmosphere and especially how all the parts work together over this huge planet. And yet your religious belief in carbon emissions as the only source of global warming (see that big ball of fire in the sky? might it have some influence on the atmosphere?) means that you want everyone on the earth to give up technology? to stop driving cars? to stop heating or cooling their homes?

Again, you don’t really know what 40% reduction means or implies. Somehow you violated the earth with carbon emissions by flying from Britain to Bali. Journalists are exempt? Are you willing to accept nuclear power for your electricity? No nasty carbon emissions with nuclear. I couldn’t say for sure, but since most eco-nauts love the planet and hate nuclear power it is a guess you wouldn’t like that solution at all. But this is the end of days for the earth – would you be willing to compromise your “no nukes” stance to save the earth? Just how are you going to get your electricity? And don’t say wind power – it might sound good, but since you can’t depend on the wind 100 percent of the time every wind farm has to have some backup generation capability that will work when you can’t get power from those huge turbines. Your own government in the UK is proposing to put 2 giant wind turbines on every single mile of coastline, but they still admit that you have to have some backup power generation – if you want reliable electricity anyway.

So you use hysterical rhetoric, don’t actually believe in what you are saying, want to have some sort of moral stance taken rather than anything that would interrupt your own comfortable life, and believe in imaginary solutions to real world problems.

And then you wonder why we don’t believe you?