Convenient Lies and Governance of the Earth

“The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” (Tenth Amendment)

While the people of Tombstone, Arizona, are waiting to get water back on line, the federal government is asking them for $80,000 in order to tell me why they cannot have it back unless they use only simple tools to do it with, like hand tools and wheelbarrows. Boulders the size of Volkswagens are trapping the waterlines, buried in some places under 12 ft of mud.

USDA Forest Service alludes to provisions in the Wilderness Act, which forbids the use of heavy machinery. According to Joe Wolverton, II, “water rights granted to Tombstone by the previous title owners predate the enactment of the Wilderness Act by about 80 years.” (The New American)

“The Town too Tough to Die” of 1,600 inhabitants had found itself in the middle of a terrible life and death quandary as a result of the Monument Fire in 2011 which destroyed the Huachuca Mountains pipelines carrying water to the town from the source in the Miller Canyon Wilderness Area. (Joe Wolverton, II, The New American)

According to Hugh Holub, water rights expert, quoted by Joe Wolverton, II, “Though the water may originate on National Forest lands, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other federally managed lands, the rights to that water belongs to the farms and ranches and cities.” Lawyers for this administration and environmentalists disagree.

The Club of Rome proclaims in their 1990 publication, The First Global Revolution, on page 75, “The common enemy of humanity is Man.” The paragraph beneath this title describes how they concocted the idea of man-made global warming.

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea of pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…The real enemy is humanity itself.”

Water shortages can be real or government manufactured like the case of Tombstone, Arizona. The EPA started a “green war” against farmers in the fertile San Joaquin Valley in California; it left one of America’s main agricultural regions a dust bowl in 2009. The EPA-made drought put many farmers out of business, thousands became jobless, and millions of Americans paid higher prices for fruits and vegetables imported from other countries that could have been grown in California. EPA and the environmentalists protected a tiny fish, the delta smelt, while endangering humans.

Maurice Strong and Al Gore are members of the Club of Rome and involved in privately owned carbon-trading groups who stand to gain billions if the man-made global warming fraud survives and the EPA continues to destroy our economy, jobs, and our way of life.

A world government is gaining tract through social science consensus. There is nothing scientific about social science; it is strictly the opinion of a group of people who are in consensus or agreement concerning the need to regulate the planet in line with their beliefs. Science is exact and a fact. Social science is an opinion and a belief derived from personal experience, perception, or five-point scale surveys of groups of like-minded individuals and ignorant people.

In preparation for the UN Agenda Rio +20 conference in June 2012, F. Biermann et al., 33 social scientists, published in Science magazine on March 16, 2012, their contribution to the “earth system governance and planetary stewardship.” The article appears under the heading Science and Government, “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance.”

It does not take a rocket scientist to determine that government policy is not science, consensus is not scientific, and the liberals’ mantra, “global warming science is settled,” is a lie.

Biermann et al. proposed “seven building blocks,” the result of social science-based research conducted in 2011 by the Earth System Governance Project. This paper was designed to “contribute to the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which will focus on the institutional framework for sustainable development and possible reforms of the intergovernmental governance system.” The writers believe that, in spite of differences of opinion among social scientists, there is an increasing consensus in many areas, therefore the planet must be ready for one world governance, erasing all traces of sovereignty in the name of saving the planet.

1.      A global environmental agency similar to the World Health Organization should be formed to set agendas, develop norms, manage compliance, assess science, and build capacity.

 

2.      Integrate sustainable development from local to global levels into a powerful United Nations Sustainable Development Council.

3.      “Better integration of sustainability governance requires governments to close remaining regulatory gaps at the global level,” including the sharing of nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and geo-engineering.

Closing regulatory gaps explains the Executive Order on May 1, 2012 on Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. “The purpose of the E.O. is to encourage the harmonization of regulatory requirements to simplify regulatory compliance, reduce costs for transnational companies and facilitate international trade.” (Jonathan H. Adler)

4.      Governments must place a “stronger emphasis on planetary concerns in economic governance.”

5.      Voting on global policy must be weighted for some countries and no veto power granted to anyone in order to speed up international norm setting.

6.      “Global governance through UN-type institutions tends to give a larger role to international and domestic bureaucracies, at the cost of national parliaments.”

A simple translation - global governance would supersede national governments. Countries would be divided into regions and/or different interests such as environmentalists, industry, youth, etc. The United States would thus no longer have states; we would have regions and regionalism under the aegis of the United Nations Sustainable Development Council.

7.      Equity and fairness (read socialism/communism) would guide the transfer of wealth to poorer countries. The paper proposes “novel financial mechanisms to transfer wealth through global emissions markets and air transportation levies for sustainability purposes.” The middle class would completely disappear under such equity and fairness. Everyone would be equally poor and miserable, with the self-appointed global governance elites at the top.

The paper oozes a sense of urgency, like thieves trying to steal as much loot as possible before they are discovered and unmasked. These 33 social scientists do not want to stop just at transfer of wealth, destroying the middle class, erasing national boundaries, and neutering national governments, they want to “change the behavior of citizens,” and re-orient “the private sector toward a green economy.”

When Is Global Warming Enough?

It depends who you ask. Professor Kari Norgaard from Oregon University thinks, “If you don’t believe in climate change you must be sick.” If you are a skeptic of global warming, you are a racist. Overcoming this challenge, she continued in a paper presented at the Planet under Pressure Conference in London, March 24-29, 2012, is similar to overcoming “racism or slavery in the south.”

Yale University Professor Karen Seto, who also attended the conference, told MSNBC: “We certainly don’t want them [humans] strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together.] In her view, humans are foreign to nature, we pollute it, we corrupt it, and eventually destroy it.

The scientists attending the Planet under Pressure conference in London “put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to Mother Nature.” (UK Daily Mail)

“Cultural resistance to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change must be recognized and treated as an aberrant sociological behavior.” (UK Daily Mail)

Even Rush Limbaugh spent a segment on his April 2 show, talking about “environmentalist wackos” who teach “impressionable young skulls full of mush,” and, “they’re coming out of Oregon University believing this. And if they are not challenged anywhere the rest of their life they’re going to believe this anywhere they go, and some of these students end up at the EPA or end up in a Democrat administration either at the statehouse level or at the presidential level. This is what passed for science education for over ten years now, and it is not science. It’s pure politics. It’s pure politics disguised as science.”

Rush continued, “I looked at this woman’s bio. I wanted to find out a little about her. ‘I enjoy being outdoors, especially hiking, whitewater rafting, kayaking, skiing, both telemark and cross-country. Pretty much any excuse I can get to sleep on the ground.’ So it’s okay for her to go out and enjoy nature, but not the rest of us. It’s fine for her because she’s sensitive and understands, and she knows not to trample on the twigs or whatever it is she knows not to damage when she’s out there. Anyway, it all adds up to centralized command-and-control power, federal government getting bigger. This woman would support that to deny people the right to go into whatever she thinks is nature. Look, it’s lunacy. But she’s teaching students. They’re a dime a dozen, these people.  They’re all over the place.”

It would be nice if it were just about the federal government getting bigger. It is the one world government plan headed by the United Nations with its Agenda 21 and the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development. It is about spreading the wealth of developed nations to developing nations, including technology, with stated disregard for patent rights and private property.

Case in point, Professor Richard Norgaard of the University of Berkeley presented a paper at the Planet under Pressure Conference on “Reducing Economic Disparity.” It is about “Planetary Stewardship,” “Sustainable Development,” and “Anthropocene,” all concepts developed by a group of academicians.

David Norgaard, Professor of Energy and Resources at the University of California discussed justice for poor countries and “massive ecological debt” that industrialized countries had incurred.

"We have gained our position by hurting others." We need to make the economy work for us. The invisible hand (of the market) needs to be told where to go. Once it's told where to go the invisible hand will work very well - and so it's not a critique of markets, it's a critique of markets that tell us how we live rather than setting markets up to help us live the way we want to live.”

I think Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave at the bastardization of his “invisible hand,” the hallmark of successful capitalism, unimpeded by centralized government control. Adam Smith did not include any part of socialism, communism, or spreading the wealth to non-producers in his 1776 book, “The Wealth of Nations.”

Elizabeth Thompson, Executive Coordinator of Rio+20 in June 2012, and former Minister of Energy and Environment of Barbados, was asked if decision-makers were ready to act:

 “The level of dialogue is broadening, because all over the world people have marched in relation to current conditions, because people have occupied Wall Street and other locations, because there has been an Arab Spring. And all of it has been saying: let us have sustainable development - we want development but we want it to be sustainable; we want a larger share in democracy and how we are governed.”

I am not sure Americans want democracy and chaos, we saw how well that worked in Greece and the Middle East, especially the ginned up takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood. We are a Constitutional Republic and we certainly do not want UN Agenda 21 with its Sustainable Development and Smart Growth plans that rob citizens of their proprietary rights, self-determination, and sovereignty.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, delivered a video message at the Planet under Pressure conference on the new initiative Future Earth, the contract between science and society. He said, “Scientific advice is sometimes unclear or even contradictory. Scientists themselves often work in silos, ignoring broader factors.” But, “I am also ready to work with the scientific community on the launch of a large-scale scientific initiative.” I am scratching my head when I read these contradictory statements.

The conference introduced a new scientific term, “nitrogen footprint.” Will Steffen informed the conference attendees on the first day, “the nitrogen cycle has been even more disturbed than the carbon cycle.” Sybil Seitzinger, Executive Director of International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, announced in her summary of the proceedings, “The nitrogen footprint of the conference had been reduced by 30 percent through actions taken by the organizers to lower the meat content of the catering facilities and to promote waste efficiency by the use of food bags.” Nitrogen occurs in all living organisms, primarily in amino acids. “The human body contains about 3 percent by weight of nitrogen, the fourth most abundant element after oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. Nitrogen resides in the chemical structure of almost all neurotransmitters, and is a defining component of alkaloids, biological molecules produced as secondary metabolites by many organisms.” (Encyclopedia)

Aside from the fact that liberals are ignoring the truth that water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and sunlight are the building blocks of life, where will the food come from if we are all moved into high-rise, high-density cities in order to give land back to wilderness. Where and how will we grow enough food? Perhaps that is one of the desired consequences, culling the herd through starvation.

December 2011, the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change released its report on global food security and published recommendations for the Durban climate conference. The title of the report was “Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change.”

The climate change/global warming hoax must now be closely associated and connected with the planning, growing, and distribution of food under the United Nations guidance and supervision.

“Consensus is growing we have driven the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene, in which many Earth system processes are now dominated by human activities.” (State of the Planet) Whose “consensus” might that be, the academic ruling elite of the United Nations?

“Politician, public servant, scientist or citizen, community or company, we are the shareholders of Earth Incorporated.” (Elizabeth Thompson) Who formed this one-world-company, Earth Incorporated? Was it third world nations at the United Nation with its 3,000 “experts” in climate change, environmental geo-engineering, international governance, the future of oceans and biodiversity, global trade, development, poverty alleviation, and food security?

Dr. Mark Stafford Smith, conference co-chair of Planet under Pressure said, “But we need to provide more open access to knowledge, we need to move away from Gross Domestic Product as the only measure of progress, and we need a new way of working internationally that is fit for the 21^st century.”

Translating his statement, we must adopt UN Agenda 21 goal of creating a UN Sustainable Development Council to integrate social, economic, and environmental policy at the global level (one world government), steal intellectual property, private property, one set of rules for global sustainability for all nations, regardless of national boundaries, and the taking of wealth in the form of property, land use and water use.

Anthropocene - Age of Man

If you have not seen this word, it is because it was invented by the global warming crowd, supported by United Nations Agenda 21’s goal of total global control through environmental protection policies that will fundamentally alter the way humans exist.

According to a National Geographic article published in March 2011, “Age of Man,” the word “anthropocene” was conceived ten years ago by the Dutch chemist Paul Crutzen who said, “we are no longer in the Holocene, we are in the Anthropocene.” The Holocene was the period between the last ice age, 11,500 years ago, and present time. Paul Crutzen received a Nobel Prize for the discovery of ozone-depleting compounds. (Elizabeth Kolbert)

Antonio Stoppani suggested “anthropozoic” term in 1870 but was derided as unscientific. There was no global warming crowd then with a population control agenda to give it credence. “Anthropocene” was welcome because it fit in with the Malthusian style theory of population growth overwhelming the planet and eventually causing its demise. According to E. O. Wilson, the seven billion people have increased the biomass “a hundred times larger than any other large animal species that has ever walked the Earth.” (Elizabeth Kolbert)

The April 1, 2012 issue of the journal “Earth and Planetary Science” will publish a study by a team from Syracuse University in New York which found that the “Medieval Warm Period’ of approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago extended to Antarctica. (Mail Online)

The lead geochemist Zunli Lu found reliable evidence to study past temperature changes and climate conditions in a rare mineral, “ikaite.” “Ikaite is an icy version of limestone, said Lu. Ikaite is stable in cold conditions and melts at room temperature.”

“Little Ice Age” (300 to 500 years ago) and “Medieval Warm Period” were climate events documented in Northern Europe via crystals found in earth’s layers. Lu and his team were able to ascertain that these two events reached Antarctica because they found and studied heavy oxygen isotopes in the ikaite crystals. “The water that holds the crystal structure together – called hydration water – traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.” (Ted Thornhill)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is still arguing that the “Medieval Warm Period” was limited to Europe.

Common Dreams.org, with its motto “Building Progressive Community,” published an article on March 27, 2012, “On the Brink: Planet Near Irreversible Point of Global Warming.” It does not matter that global warming alarmists and scientists have been debunked. They have hidden or erased the scientific data that proved them wrong. They are marching on with their agenda. The “sky is falling” scientists at the “Planet under Pressure” conference in London said, “we may have already passed the tipping points on global warming.”

Martin Rees of the Royal Society said, “this century is the first when one species – ours – has the planet’s future in its hands.” Apparently, humans are so omnipotent now that we have God-like powers.

Reuter's Agency reports that “global warming is close to becoming irreversible,” world temperatures are going to rise 6 degrees by 2100. It is shocking that they predict with such accuracy and clarity what will happen 100 years from now when they cannot even predict weather accurately for tomorrow.

“Man’s catastrophic damage to the environment and disparities between rich and poor head the daunting challenges facing the Rio +20 Summit in June, experts say. The summit must sweep away a system that lets reckless growth destroy the planet’s health yet fails to help billions in need.” (Agency France Presse)

Therein lies the true intent of the global warming scam and the United Nations Agenda 21 – fleecing developed nations, spreading the wealth to developing nations, population control, energy control, economic control, education control, confiscation of private property, control of the seas, commerce, military, and de-growing the biggest “offender,” the United States, to a primitive lifestyle.

The educational propaganda is getting more intense. Planet under Pressure has commissioned a 3-minute film “from the start of the industrial revolution to the Rio +20 Summit,” the world’s first educational web portal on the Anthropocene. The film exaggerates the growth of humanity in the last 250 years into such a global force “on an equivalent scale to major geological processes.”

This film is deranged, yet it will become part of our children’s education in the classroom. Parents will have no idea that the movie will be shown to their children, just like the video, “The Story of Things,” which distorts capitalism and promotes socialism.

The facts that the planet has corrected itself and human/non-human intervention or occupation had no significant bearing, are ignored in the “logic” of environmentalists. Older and moneyed “greens” have brainwashed our children into Save the Planet activism through intense and expensive propaganda - evil humans are destroying Earth through careless existence and breathing. The planet has always been here and it will be here long after we are gone. We do not need to return to primitive lifestyles in order to please “greenies” and their tyrannical agendas.

Every school this week has encouraged students to turn off their lights for one hour in honor of Earth Day, an event that is insignificant in terms of energy saved or “carbon foot print reduction,” as recognized by environmentalists themselves. It is a symbolic attempt to brainwash students into believing that we are destroying the planet deliberately by using energy and by our mere existence.

Liberals do not seem to care that, if there is no coal, there is little electricity and no electric cars. If there is no oil, there is no energy, gasoline, cars, heat, air conditioning, travel, mobility, and other modern conveniences.

Secretary of Energy Chu wants us to pay $50 for a bulb. Edison’s incandescent and inexpensive bulb that has served humanity well for so long is passé. How many bulbs does the average household have, times $50? Can we afford such expensive bulbs or the mercury-emitting CFL variety, which also poison the immediate environment with mercury when broken? My answer is a resounding no. We must stand up to United Nations and to homegrown environmentalists’ quest to de-grow America, control our lives, and impose their “vision” of the world on the majority.