DICED is UN's Environmental Constitution for the World and Our Own Constittution Will Be Diced

I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. The Draft Covenant is the “Environmental Constitution of Global Governance.” https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf

 The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’

The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.

All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.
 
In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).

The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”

The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)

The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”

Article 2 describes in detail "respect for all life forms."

Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”

Article 5 refers to "equity and justice," code words for socialism/communism.

Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.

 

Article 19 deals with "Stratospheric Ozone." Rex Communis is the customary international law regime applicable to areas beyond national jurisdiction: in particular to the high seas and outer space." (p. 72)

Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we endorse this document, we must fight a non-existent man-made climate change.

Article 31, "Action to Eradicate Poverty," requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.

Article 32 requires recycling, "consumption and production patterns."

Article 33, "Demographic policies," demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.” In Malthusian model, humans were supposed to run out of food and starve to death. In a similar prediction, this document claims that the out-of control multiplication of humans can endanger the environment.

Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.”The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.

Article 37 discusses "Transboundary Environmental Effects and article 39 directs how "Transboundary Natural Resources" will be conserved, "quantitatively and qualitatively." According to the document, "conserve means managing human-induced processes and activities which may be damaging to natural systems in such a way that the essential functions of these systems are maintained."

Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.

 “Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.

“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”

 "Sharing Benefits of Biotechnology" is a similar requirement to the Law of the Sea Treaty which demands that final products of research and development be used freely, no matter who develops an idea or how much it costs to bring that idea to the market.

Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.

Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, and/or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.

Writers of the Draft Covenant are approximately 19 U.S. professors of Law, Biology, Natural Resources, Urban Planning, Theology, Environmental Ethics, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, chair of the IUCN Ethics Working Group, two attorneys in private practice in the U.S., a judge from the International Court of Justice, a U.S. High Seas Policy advisor of the IUCN Global Marine Programme, foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, and 13 members of the UN Secretariat, including the Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang E. Burhenne. (2006-onwards)

Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a "world constitution for global governance," an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.

Article 20 is of particular interest because it forces the signatories to DICED “to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, “climatologists” from Hollywood and millennials brainwashed by their professors that CO2 is going to destroy the planet and kills us all, took to microphones and podiums to express their displeasure with such a “criminal” decision.

It did not matter that the President explained in a very logical manner that this accord was nothing else than an economic scheme to steal and redistribute wealth from the United States to the third world while real heavy polluters like China and India were allowed to continue to pollute until 2030 when, at that time, they could be bribed to reduce their pollution and perhaps China would install smokestack scrubbers.

President Trump explained how many millions of American jobs would be lost and how our energy generation is getting cleaner while we are exploring other forms of energy.  Once President Obama declared that the science has been settled, the science provided and the IPCC modeling had been adjusted to fit the globalist man made global warming agenda, so called anthropogenic.

Since none of Al Gore’s predictions of islands under water due to the melting of ice cap have turned out true, we have more ice than ever this year, the globalists changed the title of their global warming hoax to climate change. Who would object to that term? Everybody knows that climate change but it is not because of humans spewing CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t see any liberals who have stopped breathing and passing gas. But we do see Hollywood jet set everywhere or sail in their expensive yachts, build mansions on the most beautiful beach side properties in the world, right after they chew humanity out for destroying the planet with our very existence and civilization.

How did man become the main perpetrator of climate change? How did we become so powerful that we can change climate with our very existence but, if we pay carbon taxes to the third world, we correct our guilt of existing, of breathing, and we turn climate into a favorable proposition for all – no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no droughts, no hail, no torrential rains, no earthquakes, no tsunamis, nothing but serene climate year after year.

The Club of Rome, the premier environmental think-tank, consultant to the United Nations and the alleged writer of U.N. Agenda 21’s 40 chapters, explained, “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 is the humanity itself.”

Environmentalists tell us that the science is “settled” yet 31,000 scientists have signed a petition against the theory that humans are causing climate change. There is certainly a need to reduce pollution of our oceans, rivers, soil, and air but humans are not causing climate change. Temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher when there was no industrial activity or even humans.

The Vostock ice core samples taken by a team of Russian and French scientists proved beyond any doubt that CO2 concentrations in deep ice were six times higher than they are today. There are more serious variables that affect the climate, including solar flares, volcanic activity on earth and in oceans, and oceanic currents. Then there is the deliberate government weather tampering by seeding clouds from flying airplanes with various chemicals in order to “mitigate the effects of global warming.”

Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University said, “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Prof. Chris Folland from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research explained, “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, also said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about social justice and equality in the world.”

Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation, said, “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.”

The sad thing is that many mayors around the country have decided to disobey President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Accord and reported publicly that they will continue their membership even though such a move is illegal under our Constitution. Art. VI, paragraph 2, states, …”and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

According to the Tennesseestar.com, the mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry, said that “The Constitution does not apply here in Nashville: ‘I am committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement . . . Even if the President is not.’”

Mayor Barry, who is joined by the mayors of Knoxville, Madeline Rogero, the mayor of Chattanooga, Andy Berke, and “187 U.S. mayors, mostly Democrats, representing 52 million Americans,” have decided to ignore Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states governments, including towns in those states, from “entering into any treaty, alliance, and confederation.”

http://tennesseestar.com/2017/06/05/nashville-mayor-megan-barry-i-am-committed-to-meeting-the-goals-of-the-paris-agreement-even-if-the-president-is-not/

 These dissenting mayors have not pledged their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution but to the Global Covenant of Mayors, one of the arms of implementation around the globe of U.N. Agenda 21, now morphed into Agenda 2030. Using grants from our own government, the Compact of Mayors and the European Union’s Covenant of Mayors have influenced initiatives at the local, city, and state governments, forcing their globalist agenda called “visioning” on the hapless population who are now forced to accept decisions made by mayors and boards of supervisors that are robbing them of freedom of movement, of their property rights, of the use of their cars, of farming, in the name of “transitioning to a low emission and climate resilient economy,” a pie in the sky goal. The real goal is to transform and redistribute the wealth of developed countries and to arrest their development by eventually curbing completely the use of fossil fuels and turning them into a more primitive society dependent on unreliable solar and wind power. Such a global society would have no borders, no sovereignty, no suburbia, no private property, no cars, and would be controlled by the United Nations umbrella of octopus NGOs.

There is no surprise that there is such a drive from the left to have a Convention of States (COS) in order to replace our U.S. Constitution with their own environmental constitution of the world, which is called The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED).

James Delingpole wrote in a recent article at breitbart.com that “Global warming is a myth – so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/

The scientific “consensus” about the global warming lie, cited by the left without hesitation, is not science and President Trump was right in pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate agreement, an agreement based on the pretense that the massive lie of global warming is true. http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#stash.ktFOtSb7.rFipkQZb.dpbs

India alone needs $2.5 trillion between now and 2030 to comply with the requirements of the Paris Climate agreement, a sum which would come from the largest developed countries, mainly the U.S. And there are many other third world nations that would demand such redistribution of wealth from us in order to “decarbonize” and reduce pollution. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/

Delingpole cites in the above article the quote given in an interview to Dr. Charles Battig on November 13, 2010. Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Co-Chair of Working Group 3, stated, “We [UN-IPCC] redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/

Dr. Charles Battig amply documents the advancement of Agenda 21 in the United States via ICLEI and gives successful examples of municipalities who were able to extricate themselves from the global warming hoax pushed at the local level by the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an arm of U.N.’s many octopus Agenda 21 non-governmental organizations  (NGOs) who use federal grants, mayors, and local boards of supervisors to insinuate their own plans called “visioning” onto the local community who, most of the time, has no voting rights nor input into the plans. http://www.slideserve.com/zilya/by-charles-battig-md-piedmont-chapter-va-scientists-and-engineers-for-energy-and-environment

Patrick Wood wrote in LinkedIn, Exposing: AGENDA 21, “It’s time to go tell your city leaders to kill climate change initiatives. #StopTechnocracy.” It is time that American mayors follow the U.S. Constitution and not the U.N.’s environmental Constitution called D.I.C.E.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Climate Change Industry and the Hoax of Global Warming

Cherry Blossoms Photo: Ileana Johnson 2015

It’s late April 2015 and it is still quite cold and the growing season is behind – an unusual late and frigid spring. The trees are just now sprouting green leaves and a few brave ones have even bloomed. If you ask the environmentalists, it is global warming. If it snows, it is global warming. If it’s hot, it is global warming. Everything is global warming and must be redressed immediately or the earth will perish. Hundreds of billions have already been spent around the globe on a deliberately manufactured panic.

I am not sure who coined the term “climate change industry” but it is an apt description of the snake oil salesmen who have become billionaires on the unfounded and irrational fear of debunked global warming and of climate change based on manufactured consensus science. The climate has been changing for millennia in cyclical periods dominated by either unusually cold or unusually hot temperatures.

It is convenient to the promoters of the climate change industry to purposefully confound weather events with climate. Having declared that the “science is settled,” the global warming scaremongering environmentalists are moving on to the next target of limiting our property rights and freedoms via carbon footprint and draconian, coal-industry destructive EPA regulations.

After all, the number one threat to our national security has been declared to be climate change. It is not the crushing out-of-control debt, it is not the planned and unchecked flood of immigrants into countries around the world, changing the demographics and eliminating sovereignty to the benefit of global elitist control, it is not ISIS beheading Christians and occupying the formerly liberated towns and provinces in Iraq, and it is not Iran with its nuclear bomb program, threatening to wipe Israel off the map, our ally and the only sane patch of reality in the Middle East.

The climate change industry has admitted through a Freudian slip that their agenda of climate change is “disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow.” Of course climate has been changing and we are in a cooling period now but truth cannot impede the liberal political advocates’ agenda of taxing rich countries more, spreading the wealth, and destroying our economy in the name of protecting the Earth.

The climate change industry has managed to transform a natural phenomenon of climate change into a global disaster that needs to be addressed by bureaucrats through fundamentally changing how we live, what we own, how our economies are run, by carbon footprint taxation, Smart Growth, Green Growth state and local programs around the world, and through weather modification spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere. This spraying of chemicals (chemtrails) is really affecting the weather and the growing season for agriculture, reducing yield. The climate change industry has become such a religion of environmentalism gone berserk that they are now trying to ban farming.

Electricity costs are going up, smart meters that catch on fire have been installed everywhere in order to control people’s energy consumption and in-home ambient temperature, and many electricity generation plants are scheduled to be closed due to draconian EPA regulations. The government’s all-out assault to redress climate change through regulatory planning and financial control is having a serious impact on our economy, the coal industry, the oil industry, and on everybody’s lives.

The hypothesis that rich nations caused climate change by burning fossil fuels to produce energy has never been proven by IPCC’s computer modeling. The fact that now the hypothesis changed its name from global warming to climate change in the face of obvious 18 years of global cooling is enough evidence that the purveyors of the industry of climate change are desperate but are not giving up. There is never a shortage of young, idealistic rioters-for-hire who, for a nominal fee will demonstrate anywhere against global warming, even in Quebec in the snow. Fleecing rich countries with carbon taxes is too lucrative a scam to give up the agenda.

The real reason behind the global warming scare and why the United Nations’ alarmists have been driving us into forced submission of environmentalist stewardship is that they want capitalism destroyed and replaced with their vision of a utopian communist economy that has never worked across the centuries.  These progressives have a problem with the Industrial Revolution, with “fossil fuels,” (They are not so fossil since the earth keeps producing them), with the only successful economic model that has provided generous income to all these hot-air spewing, idle bureaucrats, who have nothing better to do than meet in exotic locales planning the destruction of the goose that lays the golden eggs that feed their exorbitant lifestyles, salaries, bonuses, and pensions.

Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Convention on Climate Change, disclosed the real reason for the climate change industry when she told us that they are not interested in saving the world from global warming Armageddon but they want to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Copyright: Ileana Johnson 2015

The Climate Change Industry

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” 
-  John Adams, a Defense of the American Constitutions

Sunset on York River Photo: Ileana Johnson, 2014

I am not sure who coined the term “climate change industry” but it is an apt description of the snake oil salesmen who have become billionaires on the unfounded fear of debunked global warming and of climate change based on manufactured consensus science.

The climate has been changing for millennia in cyclical periods dominated by either unusually cold or unusually hot temperatures. It is convenient to the promoters of the climate change industry to deliberately confound weather events with climate.

Having declared that the “science is settled,” the global warming scaremongering environmentalists are moving on to the next target of limiting our property rights and freedoms via taxation. Case in point, the Washington Post reported that the “U.S. Forest Service wants to charge $1,500 to take photos on federal wild lands.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/24/us-forest-service-wants-to-charge-1500-to-take-photos-on-federal-wild-lands/

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden stated that “The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone. Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.” http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/forest_service_says_media_need.html

The “climate change industry” is admitting through a Freudian slip that their agenda of climate change is “disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow.” OK, they were referring to the fact that global warming/climate change is affecting our lives. Of course climate has been changing and we are in a cooling period now but truth cannot impede the liberal political advocates’ agenda of taxing rich countries more, spreading the wealth, and destroying our economy in the name of protecting Mother Earth.

The “climate change industry” has managed to transform a natural phenomenon of climate change into a global disaster that needs to be addressed by bureaucrats through taxation and through weather modification spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere. This spraying of chemicals (chemtrails) is really affecting the weather and the growing season for agriculture, reducing yield.

Electricity costs are going up, smart meters that catch on fire have been installed everywhere in order to control people’s energy consumption and in-home ambient temperature, and many electricity generation plants are scheduled to be closed due to EPA regulations passed under the guise of climate change. The government’s all-out assault to redress climate change through regulatory and financial control is having a serious impact on our economy, the coal industry, the oil industry, and on everybody’s lives.

The “climate change industry” has become such a religion of environmentalism gone berserk that they are now trying to ban farming.

Because the Commonwealth of Virginia passed a law in 2014, also known as the Boneta Bill, named after activist farmer Martha Boneta, a law meant to protect small farming but highly opposed by conservationist activists and environmental NGOs, a “land war” is taking place in the historic York County. According to Watchdog.org, “more than 130 Dandy residents have signed a petition asking the Board of Supervisors to ban commercial farming.”

The “land war” started with a court challenge by Anthony Bavuso, a local oysterman, who is of the opinion that York County cannot require him to purchase a special use permit for his oyster-farming operation at York Point.

York County Attorney James Bennett believes that local officials can obstruct the law, “asserting that the county of 66,000 people could cite lot sizes and other considerations to quash farming activities.”  www.watchdog.org/170548/county-farming-ban/

Martha Boneta told watchdog.org that “Property rights and freedom are inseparable, and I am heartbroken that family farmers may no longer be able to engage in farming on their land.”

Joel Salatin, a farmer and farming rights advocate, said, “I think we have too many people trying to tell other people what to do.” That is exactly the intent of the environmentalist/property rights control agenda.

 

 

 

Is Carbon Dioxide Guilty and Global Warming Settled Science?

If you ask the global warming alarmists, scientists with a liberal agenda who hide and delete research data to fit their talking points, corrupt third world countries that run the United Nations, and the globalist proponents of UN Agenda 21, the answer is yes.

If you ask students brainwashed into the environmental worship of Mother Earth, investors who stand to make a fortune from selling carbon swaps, Hollywood know-it-alls, and bureaucrats who charge carbon taxes, the answer is yes.

If you ask corporations and countries like Brazil who profit from pushing biofuels (ethanol and DieselMaxx), the EPA, those green on the outside and red on the inside who want to bankrupt the coal industry, those who want energy prices to skyrocket, and those who receive huge government grants and subsidies to profit from expensive wind and solar energy, the answer is yes.

If you ask real and honest scientists, 100 of whom took a full-page ad in the Washington Post to denounce the global warming hoax, the protesting people around the globe who are starving or paying much higher prices for their daily food staple, corn, that is now being turned into ethanol, and if you carefully read the evidence and recent scientific data that is not doctored or manufactured, the answer is no.

If the much maligned CO2, a plant nutrient, is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to accelerate the growth and size of their plants? The generators are made in the U.S. and run on propane and natural gas, turning fossil fuels into CO2.

A recent study showed that a slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has actually helped re-green deserts, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs, and grasses which produce oxygen. The American Geophysical Union concluded that it was the “fertilizer” effect of CO2 increasing vegetation cover by 8 percent in the last 28 years (1982-2010). Researchers adjusted for potential changes from rain, air temperature, sunlight, and land use. http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-24.shtml

Nobody can make pronouncements with 100 percent accuracy but it does not stop global warming proponents to say that they are 100 percent sure that man-made CO2 production since the industrial age began is the only culprit for global warming. How can they be so sure? It is the accepted “consensus” of like-minded globalists, not incontrovertible facts. The science of man-made global warming is based on “consensus” and biased computer modeling. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060413-658776-study-shows-co2-rise-is-causing-deserts-to-get-greener.htm

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models, said Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful,” said Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University. http://www.green-agenda.com/

“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, said Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment. (Stewart, Christine. Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998)

Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo call carbon dioxide the “Houdini of Gases.” They wrote on September 5, 2007 that studies compiled by geologist Tom Segalstad show “earth’s biological and chemical processes recycle CO2 within a decade,” contradicting United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusion that carbon dioxide remains in the air for up to 200 years. “A CO2 molecule you’re exhaling at the moment is bound to be captured by a plant or a rock or the ocean just a few years from now.” http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide_The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf

Global warming alarmists always murky the waters by interchanging “climate” with “weather.” They are two different concepts. It is self-evident that over millions of years, the earth’s climate has changed independent of human activity, due to solar activity, solar flares, cloud cover, ice cap melts, refreezes, and direction of oceanic currents. Catastrophic weather events have occurred prior to the industrial revolution when human activity could not be connected in any way to earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, and floods.

Professor of Climate Science and chair at Macquarie University, Australia, Dr. Murry Salby, the author of the book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate,” said that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 present over non-industrialized regions, e.g., the Amazon, not over industrialized regions. Ninety-six percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4 percent is man-made.  http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/10/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby-explains-why-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

Dr. Salby said in his speech in Hamburg, April 18, 2013, “IPCC [temperature prediction] models have no predictive skill.” In other words, global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2, there are other important variables such as cloud cover, solar activity, solar flares, oceanic currents that the IPCC modeling did not take into account. http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=10877

Dr. Klaus Kaiser explained in his article, “Pushing Back on Misinformation,” that there is no such thing as “carbon pollution” or “carbon dioxide pollution.” Carbon is an essential element of anything organic and carbon dioxide is necessary for plant life on earth.

As he points out, if atmospheric concentration of CO2 should drop from 0.04% to 0.02% (most bureaucrats and environmental groups demand to cut CO2 emissions in half – perhaps they could hold their breath or genetically engineer a non-flatulent cow), “it would be insufficient to sustain photosynthesis in most plants. Without growing plants, the bottom of the food-chain would disappear.”

Dr. Kaiser also discredits the theory of “greenhouse gas that traps heat” that had been proven a false hypothesis a hundred years ago but “resurrected in the 1970s by interest groups who saw it as a convenient means to exert control over energy sources.”

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56183

Larry Bell encapsulated the true agenda of the maligned carbon dioxide and the global warming proponents in his Forbes article, How Many Things You Do Today Will Kill You Or The Planet? http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/25/how-many-things-you-do-today-will-kill-you-or-the-planet/2/

-          Control by environmentalists such as the World Wildlife Fund and Sierra Club (The polar bear population they claimed, unlikely to survive, has made a miraculous recovery. Emperor penguins in Antarctica are going to survive as well and have doubled in population.)

-          Wind power (too expensive and only suitable for a few locations; chops up quite a few birds; the darling of liberals as long as the ugly and noisy windmills are not installed in their own back yards)

-          Solar power (also expensive and inefficient at night when we need it most; I might add that it needs lots of surface land to deploy the panels, land which is better suited for agriculture)

-          Maurice Strong and his 1992 Rio Summit with his UN Agenda 21, “centralized control of every aspect of human life: energy use, water use, housing and stock allocation, population levels, public health, dietary regimens, resources and recycling, social justice and education”

I realized how widespread and powerful the hoax of global warming is when I saw the words of one my favorite fiction writers, Michael Crichton, who described the environmentalist Gaia religion. “We are energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment, just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs imbibe.”

 

 

 

Green Scam, I Am

More and more liberal MSM outlets and environmental groups with deep bank accounts and lavish support from Hollywood celebrities are expanding their propaganda and indoctrination of GREEN to the low information Americans who only hear sound bites delivered with such assurance and expensively made videos that the information seems true. But I see the scam of GREEN, the Green Growth of wealth being redistributed by Uncle Sam, with the help of environmentalists with an agenda that coincides with U.N.’s Agenda 21.

USA Today dedicated on March 1, 2013 a special report and a video to the indoctrination of the masses that had little basis in fact. It enumerated how climate change is responsible for a host of problems in America: “More American children are getting asthma and allergies, and more seniors are suffering heat strokes. Food and utility prices are rising. Flooding is overrunning bridges, swamping subways and closing airport runways.  People are losing jobs in drought-related factory closings. Cataclysmic storms are wiping out sprawling neighborhoods. Towns are sinking.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/28/climate-change-remaking-america/1917169/

My question is, if this is true, and flooding will swallow beaches, islands, and any state with an opening to the sea, why do Hollywood celebrities and political elites build lavish homes on the water front, beaches, and tropical islands? If it is not sustainable for us to use fossil fuels, build where we want, and emit CO2, why is it sustainable for them to live in a McMansion, fly in personal jets, own numerous cars, and leave behind a huge carbon foot print? Why not ride bikes, five minutes from home and work like the rest of us are supposed to do?

Do sound principles of Economics explain that the price of food, utilities, and the unemployment rate are caused by global warming? One only needs an elementary knowledge of economics to know that such statements are false. Where do current government regulatory, monetary, and fiscal policies come into place as a cause of the above ills?

The fear mongering does not stop there. The glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park are going to melt, the sea levels are rising and the oceans are becoming more acidified. Climate change, heat waves, downpours, drought, wildfires, flooding are the result of burning fossil fuels and are likely to increase. It is so bad that “a remaking of America is likely in our lifetimes – a flicker in geological time. This will transform how and where we live, work, and play.”

I happen to agree that there is a remaking of America in our lifetime, affecting every facet of economic activity, where we live, work, and play, but it is accomplished by U.N. Agenda 21 which has been implemented across the world since 1992. I have discussed this in great detail in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3AUN+Agenda+21%3A+Environmental+Piracy&keywords=UN+Agenda+21%3A+Environmental+Piracy&ie=UTF8

The author of the USA Today article, a self-described “reformed luddite,” who built an eco-friendly home in 2011, defines the planet as being affected this year by the highest concentration of “heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions in at least 800,000 years.”

According to real science, not political consensus, the planet has actually cooled in the last 17 years. Climate change does occur all the time and should not be confused with catastrophic weather events which may come in a cyclical pattern. No mention is made of the Little Ice Age which affected Europe from 1350-1850.

Sebastian Luning and Fritz Vahrenhold wrote in The Cold Sun about the impact of sun on the earth’s climate. The Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, with only 50 sunspots during a 30 year period (normal sunspots 40,000-50,000), coincided with the Little Ice Age. During this period, agricultural production was seriously reduced and the widespread human suffering was painfully evident in the historical records of that time.

The tomes published by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered, are a strong scientific rebuttal to United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The recorded temperatures in the 1900s do not form an up and down slope that follows the industrial revolution’s spikes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Instead, the temperatures follow the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles. “Temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s.”

From late 1970s to late 1990s, the natural cycle turned warm and the global warming alarmists used it to their advantage. However, “satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.”

How are land surface temperatures manipulated? According to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), every 25-30 years the oceans undergo the natural cycle of colder water from below roils to replace the warmer water at the surface, affecting global temperatures by fractions of a degree. PDO was cold 1940s-1970s and warm 1970s-1990s. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was similar. (Peter Ferrera)

United Nations’ IPCC made in 2000 the prediction that global temperatures would rise by 1 percent by 2010 which was obviously wrong. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, predicted that temperatures would cool and he was right because he knew PDO had turned cold in 1999.

Peter Ferrera explained that “natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

The International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute held a conference in Chicago, May 21-23, 2012, discussing the economic implications of high cost energy as a result of unnecessary regulatory schemes, carbon taxes, carbon swaps, and the push to replace fossil fuels with renewables. http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/

Real scientists can explain with irrefutable data what causes weather events and temporary changes in temperature. Political scientists and journalist alarmists who promote climate Armageddon cannot defend in a public debate how humans are the cause of “global warming.” Yet based on their alarmist theory, world governments are expanding regulation and taxation in lock step with the dictates of U.N. Agenda 21.

Thinking Americans are skeptics – we do not believe in the “human-induced climate change” environmentalist consensus. The following examples given in the USA Today article do not constitute irrefutable scientific evidence of global warming:

-         “My windows and doors are rotted away and the village is sinking” (Stanley Tom on flooding risk in Alaska)

-         "My house isn't straight anymore. It's tilted." (Jeff Miskill on repeat flooding in Norfolk, Va)

-         "Who's going to hire me now?" (Barbara Roberts on beef processing plant closing its doors in Texas)

Could it be that floods in coastal cities occur because they are built below sea level like New Orleans? Is it not possible that land is naturally sinking? Could it be that some homes are built on unsteady terrain? Is it not possible that oceanic air currents, cold/hot air mass collisions, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes are contributors to catastrophic weather events? Could it be that solar flares are contributors to unusual high temperatures? Is it not possible that sink holes and sinking in general develop naturally in certain prone areas regardless of human activity?

Dr. Heinz Hug, citing peer reviewed sources said, “IPCC assertion that increased global greenhouse gas water vapor causes global warming is wrong.”

Dr. Kaiser said, “The reality also is that all the models used by the IPCC and their followers make untenable assumptions, contain internal inconsistencies and totally disregard the physical basis necessary.”

Science is exact; it does not work by “consensus” as declared by United Nations or activist environmentalists. “Consensus is a societal or judicial term which has no place in science.”

In the same article, Dr. Klaus Kaiser gives a very good explanation why the tropospheric CO2 causes a net cooling effect on our planet, not a greenhouse “blanket.”

“Look at planet Mars. Its atmosphere contains 950,000 parts per million (ppm) CO2 versus 400 ppm on Earth. Yet, on the side of Mars facing the sun, the temperature is about 30 °C like on Earth, but on the opposite (night) side it is well below MINUS-100 °C (approximately MINUS-200 °F). The thick layer of CO2 on Mars does not at all provide a “warm blanket” on its night side – au contraire – all that CO2 in the Martian atmosphere produces a cooling effect through outward radiation of IR energy its molecules.”

Al Gore’s global warming predictions that the sea levels will rise, flood, and swallow islands and lands opening to the ocean are wrong. Nils-Axel Mörner, sea level expert, has recently criticized main stream media alarmists, including the United Nations IPCC, for claiming that Bangladeshi floods are caused by man-made global warming. Independent scientists have proven that floods in Bangladesh are caused by rain over the Himalayas and cyclones that push water inland. “This has nothing to do with the sea,” said Mörner.

We are transforming our way of life fundamentally, our cities, in the name of “greening” them or “smart-growing” them, at great expense and pain to all, based on environmental lies, scientific misinterpretation of data, faux “consensus,” and U.N. Agenda 21’s schemes to redistribute wealth and to control every facet of life. Would it not be easier if the U.N. and its ardent supporters just came in and confiscated our “ill-gotten wealth” overnight instead of stealthily stealing from us in the name of saving the planet?

No matter how much logical and scientific explanation we bring to shed light on the global warming/climate change hoax, and the deliberate misinformation of our population, coupled with the brainwashing in school into the scam of GREEN, we are losing ground to the powerful progressive media that controls the irrational and hypocritical debate.

 

So Tolerant, We Are Stupid, or Vice Versa

John Kerry said to a crowded internet café in Berlin, “In America you have the right to be stupid, if you want to be... and we tolerate that.” Let me translate. Conservatives, you have the right to be wrong, and we, liberals, tolerate your right to be wrong. I would like to add that you also have the right to open your mouth and eliminate any doubt of stupidity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284792/John-Kerry-says-Americans-right-stupid-tells-lost-diplomatic-passport-age-12-sneaking-Soviet-controlled-East-Berlin-1950s.html#ixzz2M46DIy6N

How contrasting these words are to John F. Kennedy’s, in his famous speech in Berlin, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” in which he told Germans indirectly that he understood their plight of living with a country separated by the Wall of Shame, the Berlin Wall, erected by the Russians. Families living on opposite sides of the same street had found themselves separated overnight by a tall concrete wall and barbed wire, guarded by East German soldiers who shot for keeps from looming towers.

President John F. Kennedy had told the roaring crowd that he was a jelly doughnut, yet the world and the Germans applauding him knew what he meant even though the German phrase he had spoken had one too many words, “ein.” Ich bin Berliner, I am German like you.

John Kerry is no JFK. On a nine-country tour of Europe and the Middle East, the newly-minted Secretary of State is promoting religious and political tolerance by showcasing the tolerant America and its multiculturalism. Tolerance is 'something worth fighting for,' he said.

John Kerry continued, “We live and breathe the idea of religious freedom and religious tolerance, whatever the religion - and political freedom and political tolerance, whatever the point of view.” He forgot to mention that this tolerance is one-sided, as long as conservatives agree with the liberal and Democrat points of view. If conservatives disagree with their talking points, they are racists and hate mongers.

“As a 12-year-old, I saw the difference between the east and the west. I saw people were in darker clothing and there were fewer people in the street. There were fewer cars. I didn’t feel the movement and the energy that existed elsewhere.”

Kerry had lived in Berlin in the 1950s with his American diplomat father and his family. He had snuck out one day to the other side, to East Berlin, part of the German Democratic Republic, a totalitarian state established by the Soviet Union with the communist party in power and a socialist collectivist economy.

Kerry first speech as Secretary of State promoted global warming fear mongering and population changes in a speech at the University of Virginia. “We as a nation must have the foresight and courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and grandchildren: an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly super storms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate." It does not matter how many times the non-existent global warming is de-bunked. Arrogant liberals, who think they can control nature and weather-related disasters that have occurred since the beginning of time, continue to promote their manufactured global warming/climate change crisis because there is too much money to be made from carbon swaps and carbon taxes. Well-informed Americans are getting weary of misinformation and propaganda. “Americans are tired of being tired.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-gives-first-foreign-policy-speech-climate-change_703024.html#sthash.zZ9n9Np3.dpuf

Global warming and population change/manipulation are enshrined in the U.N. Agenda 21, a form of global communism control operating on the premise that the environment must be protected from faux man-made global warming and destruction.  Carbon-taxing citizens from developed nations, redistributing their property to third world countries with the help of the United Nations, and social engineering, moving people from the land into high-rise, congested living/walking/areas into the city would somehow restore the planet to its “pristine” condition. When the definition of “pristine” is evaluated carefully, a scary picture emerges in which man can no longer occupy the land it owns or desires to own, capitalism is a dirty word, and man becomes “persona-non-grata,” an unwanted person.  

That is exactly what communists did to people in East Germany and behind the Iron Curtain when they moved people off the land. Yes, we had fewer cars, wore dark, drab clothing, hid in our dirty grey concrete multi-story apartments without heat, water, or electricity for endless weeks and months, and standing in long lines to get our daily rations of food if we could get to the front of the line before they ran out. It is hard to be energetic when you are hungry and beaten down psychologically. Yet liberals promote U.N. Agenda 21, the return to the very same type of existence. To “protect” the environment that renews itself, they demand fewer cars on the road, public transportation, buses, trains, biking, and walking to work/school, dependent on government for all our needs, a government that cannot run anything right except the military.

We are so tolerant in America that we accept the killing of millions of innocent unborn who want to live as “choice,” we tolerate and reward financially millions of illegal aliens trespassing our borders as “undocumented Americans,” we accept political gridlock, we allow government intrusion into our lives, health care, we endure political correctness, we accept Sharia Law which is incompatible with our Constitution, and permit the deliberate incompetence and corruption of politicians. Yes, we have the right to be stupid in America and, unfortunately, we are fully exercising that right, to the shock and delight of the rest of the world.

UN is Fleecing US and the EU Carbon Tax

The EU charges a carbon emissions fee, an “extra terrestrial tax.” This is viewed by non-European governments as an attack on sovereignty. China’s airlines have refused to comply. “Some non-European airlines may have to choose whether to obey the law of their land or that of Europe.” Companies refusing to comply would be fined and denied the right to land in the 27 countries that are members of EU.

The European Court of Justice has already rejected the legal basis of a challenge raised in London by North American airlines. Carriers have until April 30 to calculate their damaging annual emissions and to buy polluting rights for 2012. Delta Airlines has already added a surcharge to passenger tickets. The scalping of the developing world continues. Each flight will cost us an additional $32 of a round-trip long-distance ticket. The financial gains are substantial for the bureaucrats since 655 million people flew to Europe last year.

The United Nations is pushing for a global deal through its International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It does not matter that global warming has been debunked, the EU and UN coffers must be replenished by hapless developed world citizens and the wealth must be spread to developing nations in the name of “social justice.”

The media did not report on the temperature rise in the U.S. during the time period when no airplanes flew after the 9/11 attack, proving that pollution from airplanes does not increase temperatures, on the contrary, it provides a level of cooling protection. (Lord Monckton)

Never mind that the United Nations no longer lives up to its charter of world peace and is indoctrinating children and the population into the green sustainability hoax. UN wants more than the $516.3 requested from the United States for its regular budget and more than the $2.182 billion requested for the peacekeeping budget.

In 2009, U.S. contribution to the UN octopus was $6.347 billion. US have provided aid to UN since 1945, currently giving 22 percent of UN’s operating budget and 27 percent of its peacekeeping budget. (OMB)

Aaron Cantor, USAF (retired) perfectly encapsulated the peacekeeping mission of the United Nations “Ready, Aim, Flee.”

The Congressional Research Service revealed that we are giving hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world’s richest countries while borrowing billions from them. More specifically, we gave $1.4 billion to 16 foreign countries that hold at least $10 billion in Treasury securities. China received $27.2 million, India $126.6 million, Brazil $25 million, and Russia $71.5 million.

Palestinians receive $400.4 million in economic aid, $100 million to support the Palestinian Authority police training, $61.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid after Israel’s “assault on Gaza,” an actual retaliation for all the rockets fired randomly from Gaza into Israel.

Fritz Vahrenhold and his geologist colleague, Sebastian Luning, work for the German utility company RWE. They published a book last month, “Die Kalte Sonne” (“The Cold Sun”) in which they claim that important research about climate change was hidden and “cries of an impending catastrophe are misleading.” “The world is not facing a climate catastrophe.” The authors are dismissing the “CO2 lie” – it is not greenhouse gases that cause problems, it is the sun that determines climate change.

The most relied upon source of information on the topic is the climate report produced by the United Nations, more specifically the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The report, produced by civil servants and not researchers, is full of misinformation and doubts. Yet countries around the world are basing their policies and fundamental changes of their citizens’ lives on a bogus report produced by bureaucrats.

Many climate researchers question the quality of computer models used to forecast climate change. “Knowledge of the effect of particle from industry, heating, and auto emissions as well as from oceans, volcanoes and from the soil is very low, according to the IPCC report. These particles serve as seeds for clouds, and some estimates suggest that an increase in the cloud cover by just one percent could offset a doubling of the CO2 in the air.”

Making matters worse, a trading scheme is now part of European Union laws. The EU is trading on emissions that would limit the release of “harmful greenhouse gases.” Prices for CO2 certificates have dropped constantly to about half, around $10.60 per metric ton, in spite of the closure of eight German nuclear power plants in 2011 and the increase in demand for coal power. The CO2 trading system is not working and is producing nothing but deceptive hot air because politicians decide the amount of CO2 that industries in the EU may emit way into the future.

Why are CO2 certificates so cheap? Other than the obvious that people understand it is a fleecing scheme, Germany for one spends billions on renewable energy. “With CO2 certificates so cheap, generating power from environmentally harmful fuels becomes even more than a good deal - which explains why brown coal consumption increased by nearly 4 percent in 2011, bucking the general trend.”  Emissions trading is not stopping climate change, but actually speeding it up. (Alexander Jung)

Politicians in America and the current administration are fleecing the American public with their Green Environmentalist Agenda 21 driven by the United Nations and its bureaucrats. Do we want to become subservient to the laws of the European Union and United Nations or follow the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution?