More Global Warming Communist Tactics Pushed at Bali

First, I suggest you go back and read the post I published last month: Going Warming Hoax Update (Where Going Green = Going Red). The UN's pollution spreading conference in Bali is another cover to use Global Warming in order to push a very leftwing agenda upon the world and attack the sovereignty of all nations (please see the Law of the Sea Treaty). The AP has a story on the idiocy and here's a sampling:

The draft lays out three options for how to proceed after Bali -- ranging from non-binding talks over the next two years to a deadline for adopting a new global pact at a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009.

Rich nations should consider ways to step up efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases by setting "quantified national emission objectives," the draft says.

Poor countries should take "national mitigation actions ... that limit the growth of, or reduce, emissions," it says. It adds that "social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities" for poor nations.

Got that? So "rich" nations need to set emissions standards that will drastically reduce "emissions levels" while "poor" nations will be able to ignore this standard in order to socially and economically develop. See the hypocrisy there? The USA is considered a rich nation, but with a large population of poor people. By buying into this system, we surrender economic freedom over the UN and the damage it will have economically on our nation will do nothing to help the poor people but will in fact, do more, to destroy the middle class and create a larger pool of poor people. Conversely, China (a nation completely exempt from The Kyoto Protocol) is considered poor and can do whatever they want, in fact, their levels of emissions make ours look tiny. So got that? USA bad, China good.

Next, let's look at what exactly the UN is getting at by dividing the world into "poor" and "rich" nations, while completely ignoring the socio-economic differences within a nations borders, be it from East to West, rural to urban, etc. The UN is attempting to mandate that "rich" nations re-distribute the wealth into poorer nations under the guise of "Global Warming":

Currently, adaptation money comes from two global funds that rely on voluntary donations from wealthy nations, but falls far short of what is needed. Rich nations have pledged a combined $220.4 million, but as of September had delivered only $116.6 million – a "pathetic" amount, says Ms. Raworth, who puts the immediate needs among the poorest nations at $1 billion to $2 billion a year.

That's right, we all need to pony up for the failings of other nations to develop themselves, and damn it to hell, if that means making those of us who have politically and socially developed tactics that will allow us to grow foot the bill and let those who have made these choices poorly to have exactly what we have, but not to work for it. Sure there are natural advantages, but how does that matter? Should we feel guilty that we have resourceful land? Absolutely not, we should feel blessed. For as much whining the left does about outsourcing jobs the "carbon credit" industry that Al Gore his cronies are making a killing off of, in part by fueling the fear over this hoax, is doing just that:

Under the protocol, a company can earn emission credits by building emissions-cutting projects in developing countries – dubbed a clean-development mechanism (CDM). CDM credits can be traded on the international carbon market, with 2 percent of the value set aside in an adaptation fund. But by some pessimistic estimates, that levy is only likely to generate several hundred million dollars a year. So developing countries want to expand the levy to cover all carbon credits issued under the protocol – not just those issued via the clean-development mechanism. Their goal here is to put the protocol's adaptation fund squarely on the agenda for the protocol's first operational review, slated for next year. The protocol's first commitment period takes effect Jan. 1. In addition, developing countries are pushing to streamline and cut the high cost of applying for adaptation money.

Meanwhile, you still can't get any Democrats on board for Wind Farms because Teddy Kennedy doesn't like the sight of them while sailing, and Democrats specifically blackballing hydrogen and nuclear energy (the only reliable source of clean energy available) from their doomed-to-fail energy bill, while raising taxes immensely on oil companies. Their efforts are reckless and baseless. They ignore the energy solutions that will work and respond the damaging effects of highly inflated gas prices by trying to shove a tax increase what will be passed along and funded by the tax payers. Luckily, President Bush and the Administration are taking a "thanks, but no thanks" approach to the lunacy in Bali as well as the Democrats latest logic lacking bill. Finally, for your consideration, I give you this excellent post by Stephen Milloy, entitled, The Greenest Hypocrites of 2007, a must read.

-Caomhin

Buck the Leftist Scare Tactics. Ethanol Not Feasible. It's Nuclear and Hydrogen or Bust

For all the talk that the Lefties belt out in regards to breaking our dependence on foreign oil, they continually balk at one source that we have that is cheap, effective, and clean. That source, of course, is nuclear energy. The amount of energy that can be derived from a nuclear power plant is awfully impressive, and to increase the number of active plants in this nation, with updated technology would be a huge difference in decreasing the volume of oil we consume. I don't subscribe to the garbage that is the Global Warming scam, but the inevitable fact is that one day, be it 50 years, or 1,000 years, oil will be gone. Our national security dictates that we decrease our needs on foreign oil, and nuclear is our best bet. We have not, however, had a new nuclear power plant built since the 70s. Huge mistake. The technological advances we have made since then are immeasurable. Think of it this way, back then, the Atari was the shit, now compare that to the Xbox 360, and that's just a simple game console. So, this should be a no-brainer bi-partisan effort right? Wrong. Dems are doing their damnedest to stop a nuclear fuel waste facility to be built in a remote part of Nevada. Not shocking, however, when you consider Harry Reid is from Nevada, and the left has so scared the public with the "nuclear is evil" rhetoric in terms of weaponry that the average American is scared to go that route. There's also the whole "Not In My Back Yard," mentality to cope with. It's imperative we use this source. It's cheap, efficient, and mastered. It should be done.

Speaking of alternative energy, if it's possible to turn sewage into hydrogen energy, I'm all for it. The problem of course is that the most promising sources of alternative energy are not endorsed by the Dems. The only one they endorse is the least efficient, a higher pollutant than oil, and one that causes inflation on the masses due to higher prices for corn, which is used much, much more than the average person realizes. The reason they support it is to appear to be behind a made up cause, so that they can profit off of the scare tactic, using tax payer funds to sell the ineffective ethanol to the public.

-Caomhin

Global Warming Cult Take Heed, We're on To You

Wow, the news does come hard and fast, I'll tell you that much. It's amazing the cult that the Global Warming Enviro-Fascists have built up so quickly. Down right scary actually. I'm sure Charles Manson is sitting in jail right now, thinking, "wow, that Al Gore is something else."

First up on the agenda for this post is news that this is somehow a Generational Test for Republicans. Really? The premise of this article is that young people are entirely indoctrinated by the Global Warming rhetoric to the point where a Republican travels to Greenland on the advice of his children to see "first hand" how global warming is "decimating" the area. The children, you see, are already infected with the cult persona of the global warming moonbats. It's a very, very well documented fact how left wing colleges have been and have moved even further to the left. There is another take on how "global warming" is effecting Greenland, however, and that take is that...it's ACTUALLY A GOOD THING FOR GREENLAND. Sure the BBC throws in some of their global warming diatribe, but read the article, see what the people of Greenland think about the cyclical change of the ice levels.

Second, let's return to my point about indoctrinating young people (I hate using that term, but I'm 29, I'm getting old). The cult mentality is something the left wing Global Warming Hoax perpetrators have been doing for quite some time and have been quite effective at doing. Leonardo DiCaprio's now-infamous quote that "we need to get kids young," is exactly what they are doing. The Marin Independent Journal has an article on just how young they need to "get" and its quite scary:

On Friday, Rancho students will be given bilingual "Cancel-a-Car" coupon books filled with ways they can fight global warming.

Once the coupons are returned to school, teachers will track what conservation efforts are made and the date. Teachers will help monitor the progress. As the carbon reduction increases, images of cars will be crossed out on a giant poster kept at school.

So got that? Cars are bad. Children should be brainwashed as young as possible. Another all important, "get them young so that they will not resist while old" and encourage them to go after their parents on the issue like the Children of the Corn. After all, it's a classic Liberal tactic to hide behind and then have children do their dirty work. It's gotten so bad that Portland, OR, a strong bed of classic hippie activity, is set to impose a "carbon tax" that will enforce taxes on home builders, which, as you know, will undoubtedly be passes on to consumers. So homes are bad if they don't invest in the carbon offset program, got that?

Let's also note how opposed the Dems are to Nuclear Energy, the actual and only short and long term solution to our energy woes that are decimating the dollar. It's not exactly a secret that the dollar is getting crushed due to extremely high commodity prices. We have not built a Nuclear Energy plant since the 70s. Nuclear Energy is also the one source of clean burning, extremely energy efficient fuel that will have the largest single impact on reducing our dependence on oil. It's a technology that has improved immensely since the 70s and would be that much more effective for our nation if we moved towards it, but the Liberals are opposed to this because they are, basically, scared by technology, "Unga bunga, me live in cave, new techology frightens me, where is my club," sayeth the Liberal Neanderthal.

Wind sounds good too, right? Well not so much for the Liberals, after all, Democrat Ted Kennedy, was outraged, outraged I say, by the proposition of a wind farm near Cape Cod because, "That's where I sail, and I don't want to see them." Now that's what I call taking a stand. I'm sure Mary Jo Kopechne didn't want to see water rushing into the car that Teddy left her to drown in either.

Liberals are also vehemently opposed to increased drilling in Alaska and off the coast of Florida in order to increase the output in crude as temporary fix to the energy crunch. So let's re-cap:

1. Carbon is evil and gas should not be used.
2. Carbon should be taxed and the average citizen should pay more for using anything with carbon.
3. Nuclear Energy is evil and should not be used.
4. Wind Energy is a great talking point, but God forbid an elitist should be in view of it, therefore it should not be used.
5. Rising gas costs are a problem, and should not be addressed by increasing supply, but rather taxed even more.
6. Houses are evil if not made of balsa wood and/or Saran Wrap (wait, that's not bio-degradeable), if not made of imaginary structures that spew out carbon eating penguins.

Gee, you really have to wonder if they want any energy being used at all. In fact, the patron saint of Global Warming, Al Gore, makes a shit load of money off of promoting this crap and then having you invest in his Carbon Offset scam. It was also reported recently by the UN that urbanization is horrible and that the population essentially needs to be thinned out, because they are just too many humans. So, here you have a situation where they don't want you to have a car, gas, nor live in an urban setting. So basically they just want you to live amongst the trees keeping yourself warm by the campfire. Oh, that's right, wood contains carbon that goes into the air when burned. So basically, their premise is that they want you to freeze to death in a rural area while unemployed. I mean, if you lived in a rural area and had a job, you'd have to drive to get to work right? Meanwhile the Liberal elitists, buoyed by the new enslaved masses through their enormous carbon taxes burdened upon the citizenry continue to fly all around the world to scold other people on their consumption habits. The fiefdom makes a comeback.

Meanwhile, not everyone is fooled by this nonsense. The founder of the Weather Channel exposes the scam for what is, just that, a scam. If nothing else READ THIS WHOLE ARTICLE. It's a political, economic scam of unmatched proportions. Personally, I find this to be Y2K on crack, a great marketing scheme but nothing else, but the joke here is on the average man, woman, and child, and lets the Liberals make a strong run at your pockets while taxing you back to the Stone Age, quite literally, justified by a the scam they perpetrate and using children, and false science as a cornerstone.

Finally, I leave you with this gem from Glenn Beck:

-Caomhin