Tag: You Love CO2

I’ve read the story about the high school student who stood up to climate change propaganda and, unfortunately, this kind of thing happens more often than we think and at all levels (from junior kindergarten to post graduate studies)

Here is my fifth grade daughter’s experience with the global warming propaganda apparatus, Canadian edition.

On the second last day of school before Christmas holidays (December 17th) a group of 6 and 7 grade students (recommended as “gifted” by the school’s principal) came to my daughter’s class to make a presentation about the alleged effects global warming have on planet’s life. The presentation, which, in the principal’s words, was the result of “wonderful research made by the gifted students,” showed pictures of melting ice glaciers, flooding cities and drowning polar bears and generally used the scare tactics of the environmental groups to “urge the governments to act in order to save the planet.” But the presentation was not only an information session. The sixth graders had a political agenda too and at the end of the show they circulated a petition addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in which they, again, urged him to “act for the future of the planet by signing the Copenhagen Accord.” Needless to say that being pressured (the Principal and two teachers were present in the presentation room and encouraged the students to sing the petition) and not knowing what to do, all the children ended up by putting their names on the list, although some of them, including my daughter, felt deeply uncomfortable doing it. But who cares about little children feelings when is for such a “noble” cause?

The next day I’ve discussed with the Principal and the teachers and they removed my daughter’s signature (and other students’ whose parents complained) from the petition. They also agreed that they will inform the parents regarding any future presentations, so that the parents/legal guardians should decide whether they want their children to participate or not.

Here I’d like to make few points:

1. I’m OK with the freedom of speech. Any individual should be allowed to express their opinions. However, this is a two way street, and one should not impose his or her opinions on others by forcing them to support their views. The teachers showed to be biased regarding the climate change topics and completely disregarded students’ right to question the arguments of the presenters. They didn’t give them the right to refuse to be part of it, and assumed that there was a “general consensus.”

2. The fact that the “gifted students did a great research job” doesn’t give them the right to use other students’ coerced accord to push their agenda. I’m afraid these gifted students have been in fact used by their activists’ parents in desperate search and need for political support. But apparently some parents would do anything, even violate others rights, to impose their views.

3. There is a legal aspect here too. The school doesn’t have the right to disclose its student’s personal information without parents/ guardian consent. In this case a list containing the names and signatures of potentially hundreds of students was allowed to circulate freely with a group of sixth graders. And that with the blessing of the principal and teachers. Is allowing that wise and safe?

4. The presenters used children emotions to push their propaganda. The show implied that the climate change would cause the extinction of polar bears, penguins and other catastrophic effects and suggested that students’ refuse to sign would make them responsible for this. At one point a student asked what would happen it they didn’t sign and one of the presenters answered with a grave tone: “bye-bye world.” This may look unimportant for adults but making 10 year old children feel guilty for the destruction of planet is a despicable act.

All this happened at a number of schools in Canada but I’m sure that, unfortunately, it’s not an isolated case. As mentioned before I managed to have my daughter’s name removed from the petition and the school will inform me about future presentations. It’s a small victory against the system but it’s a victory of truth and freedom of speech.

Sincerely,

Marco Piti,

Canada

By Tom Deweese
For more than fifteen years I have been studying and reporting on international United Nation conferences, treaties, and policies, warning that they are a road map to global governance and eventual UN global government. In addition, I have warned that the international environmental movement is not really concerned about protecting the environment at all – rather it is using mother earth as an excuse for an age-old drive for power and wealth. For those same fifteen years my warnings have fallen on deaf ears in Congress, in state houses and in city councils across the nation. Instead, I and others like me, have been labeled radical fringe and conspiracy nuts. As a consequence, I have been ignored by much of the media, dropped from major nation radio and television news shows that once invited me as a guest on a regular basis. Letters, petitions and meeting requests on Capitol Hill are ignored. Vindication comes in surprising ways sometimes. Case in point, on October 27, 2009, The Washington Times, DC’s “conservative” newspaper ran an editorial entitled: “Green World Government, the UN uses environmentalism to seize control.” Readers of The DeWeese Report, would not have found the Times revelation to be news. What is important is that after my warnings have been one of the lone voices in the wilderness, some in the media are beginning to see the threat – just as it is about to be jammed down their throats. The fact is, the warnings I’ve been sounding are now transformed into urgent alarm bells. The Times editorial was about the coming UN Copenhagen Climate Treaty and it contains just about every threat to our nation’s economy and sovereignty to vindicate my fifteen years of forced isolation. All the players and issues are here to enforce global control over our nation and our personal lives. The UN; World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace; global warming; Sustainable Development; and attempts by the UN to enforce global taxes. I have issued articles on every one of those. And there is the new player in the game – Barack Obama. He of course, is the reason why this new Treaty is causing such a stir and why even some main-stream media is beginning to pick up on the danger. Obama is just nuts enough to actually sign a document that would make our nation subservient to UN schemes of global control. In fact, that is exactly what he intends to do. And here are some of the details of what Obama would be signing – essentially committing the United States to comply. First, The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty will enforce dire restrictions on all humankind. One provision called the “Facility” will be used to “reorder society” to change the structure of civilization, making the environment the ruling principle. The Facility is designed to bring together a massive number of “fragmented” environmental organizations and existing regulating structures, so they can all work together. In other words, any action taken by mankind will be regulated – because anything we do has some impact on the environment. Energy, of course, will be the prime target. The policy won’t be to find more – it will be to cut back on its use. Homes will not be warmed or cooled. Cars will not be driven. And manufacturing will be sharply curtailed – at least in the “developed” countries. The price of everything manufactured by using energy (EVERYTHING) from toothpaste to food will skyrocket. Shortages will abound. Most of all, however, the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty is a vicious global indictment of developed industrial nations. Its pretense is that Third World nations are suffering economically because of their carbon emissions, which have changed the environment, thereby causing them economic and social loss. To compensate these poor victims of unbridled capitalism, the Treaty calls for compensation from the big, bad developed nations (the United States), in the form of at least 0.7% of annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from each nation. That adds up to about $800 billion over five years, with additional funding requirements assessed on an “as needed” basis. However, the Treaty language is not yet complete and there is talk of making that figure as much as 2% of the GDP, which is roughly half of our nation’s total defense budget. To collect these taxes, the treaty will establish a new governing body called the Conference of the Parties (COP), which will be given ultimate authority over the administration and enforcement of the treaty provisions. For additional resources, COP will have the ability to tax aviation and shipping. But, in the small print, things get worse. It says COP’s taxing authority “is not limited to” the above. That means they can tax anything that moves. Again, what’s this money supposed to be used for? Oh yes, compensating those poor Third World nations. The UN calls it a “carbon debt” that the developed nations owe to the rest of the world. This is to be a punishment on the developed nations because they refused to abide by previous UN efforts, such as the Kyoto Climate Change Accord which called for reducing energy use by as much as 30%, and thus would destroy the economies of entire nations. Shame on us for not playing along. The actual language of the treaty says: “The adverse effects of climate change and response measures, due to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries, constitute an additional burden on all developing country Parties (particularly low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems) in reducing poverty, developing strategies to address social vulnerabilities and attaining sustainable development and a threat to achieving the United Nations Millennium Goals.” There it is. We are to be punished for refusing to destroy ourselves. And why were we supposed to do that? Because of global warming. It doesn’t matter that scientists from around the world, including leading UN climate scientists now report that there is absolutely no evidence of man-made global warming. In fact, more and more scientists are reporting an actual cooling taking place. There is no nation drowning under rising oceans. There are no floods or hurricanes consuming nations. Droughts and desertification in most cases is natural. The only man-made desertification taking place in the world is being caused by bad government policy. The worse example of desertification is taking place in the middle of California in one of the previously most productive agriculture areas in the world. Today, because of environmental protection policy, farmers have had their water cut off to save a one inch long fish. Will treaty money be sent to those farmers to pay them back for such policies? Of course not. It doesn’t matter that science shows that CO2 is not a pollutant but a valuable natural substance necessary for the existence of life on earth. Above all it doesn’t matter that the largest emitters of CO2 are China, India, and Brazil, and they are all exempt from the treaty’s massive restrictions on emissions and energy use. How, then, does such a treaty pretend to have anything to do with helping the environment? In truth it doesn’t, and every party involved, from the environmental groups to Barack Obama, knows that this treaty is designed to do one thing- redistribute wealth away from the developed nations to nations that want to suck the life blood out of the United States. Nations like those in Africa are poor, not because of pollution, or lack of resources or even lack of education. They are poor for one reason—bad government. Those that refuse to allow their people to own property and build their own wealth and dreams. Oppressive governments that confiscate the results of the labor of their people. Governments like Robert Mugabe’s in Zimbabwe, who took the breadbasket of Africa and turned it into a desert. And those same governments intend to be first in line to gather their share of the booty from the treaty. Will their people be better off? No. Will the environment be better off? No. Will the United States be better off after Obama signs this monster? No. So who benefits? The United Nations finally gets its global government. The environmental groups finally get their power inside the elite. The totalitarian dictators of the poor, undeveloped nations get their Swiss bank accounts enlarged and all the trappings of wealth that go with it.

If Barack Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty he will be committing national suicide

Will Barack Obama sign the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty? Insider reports indicate that there are two things that could keep him from making the trip. First, if the language isn’t finished by the December meeting deadline he says he won’t go. Second, if the U.S. Congress has not yet passed the Cap and Trade fiasco (the domestic version of the treaty) he says he won’t go. One thing is very clear. If Barack Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty he will be committing national suicide. Americans must not ignore this threat. They must not sleep while Obama and his radicals drive us to destruction. Elected officials and the news media can no longer dismiss these threats as silly conspiracy theories. The time is now to let every elected representative in the Congress know that we will not tolerate Cap and Trade or the Climate Change Treaty. Allow either to become law of the land and stand back and watch the lights go out on the shining city on the hill.
Tom Deweese the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and is the President of the American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia. Tom can be reached at: apc@governance.net

By Clive Francis

We all now appear to be talking about greenhouse gases, global warming and climate change as three interchangeable and emotive subjects; the three being held equally and indiscriminately as the reprehensible consequence of burning fossil fuels. I suggest that the three subjects are all entirely different and utterly separate. Moreover, these three subjects are now being used conjointly and emotively to vilify carbon dioxide and fossil fuels to justify supposedly remedial actions which sane inspection tells us are quite unjustifiable, hopelessly expensive and some plainly quite unachievable.

There has been an undeniable increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last decade. This increase can be made to look huge or miniscule according to your espoused point of view – depending on whether you calculate the rise as a percentage increase or expressed as a fraction of the Earth’s atmosphere. However, in spite of this increase, coupled with the direst warnings complete with complex computer based predictions, the Earth’s temperature has obdurately refused to rise over the last 11 years – in fact it has fallen.

Over geological time, atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been for long periods far higher than at present. The only proven correlation in geological history between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface temperature is that the periodic rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide content have followed rises in global temperature and not the other way round.

Yes, the climate is changing but it has always done so. It has changed throughout Earth’s geological history and continues to change as a result of a number of variables such as the Earth’s wandering axis of spin, the sun’s varying output, solar wind and the solar system’s galactic traverse.

Ice ages, warming periods, glaciation and deglaciation have been the geological history of this Earth. Moreover, local climates change as a result of altering oceanic currents, varying weather patterns, volcanic activity plus deglaciation since the last ice age, etc. Forces are involved which are far more powerful than man’s puny input.

Yes, you may carefully select particular trends over very small periods of history to justify particular points of view and the alarmists are very skilful at doing this. However you just cannot buck the facts of geological history. The alarmists, those who actually believe and the bandwagon opportunists as well, have been ruthless in the pursuit of their religion. They have played on every fear and every emotion to great effect. Sadly, science, fact and common sense had been trampled in the rush.

In the past 100 years or so the scientific consensus has twice held that the earth was definitely cooling (1895-1930 and then 1968-75) and forecast that a catastrophic ice age was approaching.

Scientific consensus has also held on two occasions the contrary view that, instead of cooling, the Earth was dangerously warming up (1930-60 and 1981-now) to the imminent destruction of coral reefs and polar bears. Mankind has been blamed in each of these four separate alarms and thus mankind must do something about it. What a cavalcade of bandwagons these dire warnings have engendered.

Grapes were once grown in Britain as far north as Newcastle, crops and cattle were once raised in Greenland and the Thames has frozen over on occasions. The very same scientists who were forecasting in the 1970s the imminent disaster of the approaching new ice age are now forecasting doom by global warming. What a myriad of businesses this new religion of climate change has spawned and what a bandwagon on which to advance both careers and profit. En passant, an entirely new concept has been created – that of policy based evidence making.

The thinning of the polar ice caps has not just started to happen – it has been going on constantly but irregularly since the last ice age. The Earth’s polar regions have had ice caps for only about 20% of the Earth’s geological history. To parade precariously poised and puzzled polar bears as being the consequence of man’s burning of fossil fuels is political gimmickry of a low order — yet it sells, and how!

Yes, the Arctic ice is thinning but do we hear at the same time about the contemporaneous extension and thickening of the Antarctic ice? Why are some populations of polar bears actually increasing?

If it were not so serious it would be profoundly funny to witness the very building block of life, carbon dioxide, vilified as a pollutant. Nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, sulphur dioxide, the fluorocarbons and the particulates of combustion are all pollutants and do damage. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is an essential part of all life on Earth. Furthermore, atmospheric carbon dioxide is but 0.0001% of the carbon dioxide held in the Earth’s oceans, rock, terrestrial structure, soil and life itself.

There is no notional greenhouse surrounding us. The Earth has an atmosphere composed of a number of gases, some of which absorb and impede heat re-radiated from the Earth but others do not. The atmosphere contains two main absorbers and retainers of Earth’s radiated heat – water vapour and carbon dioxide. Water vapour accounts for some 70% of the retention whilst carbon dioxide accounts for less than 10%, with methane and ozone accounting for nearly all the rest. I.e. by far the largest culprit in so-called global warming is water vapour but do we hear anything about that?

Without these heat-retaining gases Earth’s surface temperature would be some minus 18°C and life, as we know it, could not exist. It is more accurate and meaningful to describe the atmosphere as a sweater round the earth, protecting us from the cold, rather than a greenhouse intent on boiling us and doing us harm.

To ascribe modern climate change to one single variable (carbon dioxide) or, more correctly, a small proportion of one variable (i.e. human produced carbon dioxide) is not science, for it requires abandoning all we know about planet Earth, the sun, our galaxy and the cosmos.

The Kyoto agreement has fallen apart, whilst the Russians for a long time resolutely refused to join it. That is until they belatedly realised just how much money they could make out of the EU with carbon trades. They have made billions out of these trades, to which you and I have contributed involuntarily, without needing to modify their emissions by one puff.

The disaster of chopping down and burning of carbon-absorbing rainforests in order to grow biofuels has added measurable amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere – never mind the immorality of diverting agricultural output for us to drive our cars whilst many in the world are starving. This gives an inkling of the degree of human idiocy involved in trying to interfere with the natural change of Earth’s climate.

In a bid to outdo the EU in idiocy Britain has exceeded the bounds of sanity by passing the Climate Change Act thereby hobbling any attempt to produce a rational energy policy for this country. Britain stands alone in the world in legislating such folly into law. When the lights start to go out in Britain will you blame it on climate change or the Climate Change Act? No other country in the world has embodied into its statute book such a specific and powerful legal prescription for the destruction of its own industrial base.

Meanwhile, the City of London is enjoying the joke tremendously whilst trading Carbon Credits enthusiastically and profitably. This form of trading is an unedifying up-to-the-minute, state-of-the-art, revival of the mediaeval practice of selling indulgences. If you made this up who would believe you?

What a wonderful self-sustaining activity this global warming delusion has generated. We now have a whole new and expensive Government Department, that of Energy and Climate Change, which has brought new lustre and dimension to the term “tilting at windmills”

I pity the party in power when the public arrives at the full realisation of how completely misled it has been by its own Government and how many trillions of their money had been wasted (accompanied by falling standards of living) in vainly trying to pursue the deluded folly of stemming naturally occurring climate change. The two concepts of King Canute and the Flat Earth Society spring to mind. I can just imagine the wrath that will be visited on the party in power when the full realisation sets in.

To summarise: scares may come and scares may go but there is no universally accepted evidence that the burning of fossil fuels and the consequent production of carbon dioxide has anything whatsoever to do with climate change or even temporary global warming.

In ending may I commend and acknowledge valuable help from Nigel Lawson’s book “An Appeal to Reason – A Cool Look at Global Warming”: Professor Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth – Global Warming: the Missing Science”: Christopher Booker’s “The Real Global Warming Disaster.”

I fear that “climate change” has simply become a Convenient Untruth; now being peddled to conceal a hopelessly delayed and utterly inept energy policy for Britain.

—
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age”

– Professor Richard Linden of MIT.

“Global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that cannot be fixed”

– Doctor David Bellamy, Lecturer in Botany and wildlife broadcaster.

Do you Love CO2?
Make your voice heard! Submissions may be emailed to info [at] ilovecarbondioxide.com. Please include full name and email for verification (will not be published if requested). Articles may be edited for space, formatting, and spelling purposes.

By Doug Plumb

I love truth.

Please trust me, I’m one of Al Gores Experts who signed the global warming list many years ago as one of the 2,000 “experts”. But I am smarter than the other signers on the list are because I just have a bachelors degree in engineering. I didn’t have to go get a masters or a Phd in climatology to be an expert and do all that schooling. People that become experts without schooling must be smarter than those who require schooling. Now as an expert I am telling you these people are liars.

If you believe in global warming, you must also believe the official version of 9/11, vaccines are good, chemtrails are being used to stop limit sunlight and slow global warming, pharmaceuticals are good and there is no need for nutrition in health, the government will protect you, everything you see on TV news is true, lawyers are there to protect your rights, doctors are here to save people, and you live in a “free country”

*OR* you just trust liars because they are the authorities and you are therefore a moron.

When the UN web site shows us that drug export for Afghanistan are at $700 billion, up from $40 billion just before the Afghan war and that one million slaves are bought and sold yearly they are BRAGGING !!!! These things are institutionalized. This is verifiable beyond any reasonable doubt and global warming is the biggest fraud in history is also verifiable for those who only trust schooled experts at www.petitionproject.org . Nine thousand Phd’s have signed a note stating that global warming is a fraud.

Doug Plumb

My blog www.dougplumb.blogspot.com

Make your voice heard! Submit your letter, article, or story to info [at] ilovecarbondioxide.com