Green tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’ - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll.

The survey also reveals that most Britons believe “green” taxes on 4×4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.

The findings make depressing reading for green campaigners, who have spent recent months urging the Government to take far more radical action to reduce Britain’s carbon footprint. The UK is committed to reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, a target that most experts believe will be difficult to reach. The results of the poll by Opinium, a leading research company, indicate that maintaining popular support for green policies may be a difficult act to pull off, and attempts in the future to curb car use and publicly fund investment in renewable resources will prove deeply unpopular.

If you are promoting what Al Gore has been saying you might want to check your own thought processes and the cult leader resister that should have been hardwired into your brain. If it is missing find help.

Arthur Robinson — Nobel Prize for Death

This current food shortage is only the beginning.

We have been down this road before. Unprincipled opportunists — falsely claiming that DDT is dangerous to the environment — managed to engineer a world-wide ban of DDT. DDT had eradicated malaria from the developed world and was well on its way to eradicating it from the less developed countries at the time this ban of DDT was instituted. The initiation of DDT use against malaria was rewarded by a Nobel Prize, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT had saved hundreds of millions of lives.

One of the principal political figures who worked to ban DDT was none other than Al Gore.

As a result of the DDT ban, more than 30 million children in Africa and Asia have died from DDT-preventable malaria, and an estimated 500 million adults are today chronically ill from this disease. The ban of DDT was the worst act of technological genocide in human history.

Now, Mr. Gore is the recognized leader of an effort to ban at least 90% of world use of hydrocarbon fuels. Once again, his claims are based upon bogus science and are motivated by personal financial and political self interest.

Time to get tough with China on trade

The Bush administration has abysmally mismanaged U.S. trade policy. We hope that the next administration learns from its mistakes. President Bush’s solution to the worsening U.S. trade deficit with China was (drum roll please) talk. That’s right. His strategy was talk, talk, talk; journalists call it “jawboning.” In December 2006, President Bush sent our government’s top five financial leaders to China to convince the Chinese to mend their ways and allow the yuan to
appreciate against the dollar. But, in 2007 our trade deficit with China worsened yet again to $252 billion from $229 billion the previous year. Talking loudly while carrying no stick doesn’t work.

FrontPage Magazine

All this should make one thing amply clear – there is enough oil to go around for a very long time. Even on conservative assumptions – accelerating consumption and few new discoveries – earth’s oil supplies should last for at least a century.

This, however, is the worst case scenario. We can be reasonably certain that new exploration and advancing technologies will in coming years greatly add to the quantities of available oil. So much so that Morris Adelman, Professor Emeritus in Economics at Harvard, has argued that the ‘amount of oil available to the market over the next 25 to 50 years is for all intents and purposes infinite.’

The notion that this planet is running out of oil is one of the great misnomers of our age. There is more oil available today than there was a hundred, fifty or ten years ago. And there is every indication that this trend will continue into the future. Instead of lamenting that we are running out of it, it would be far more accurate to say that we are constantly bumping into new oil. This is why two years ago the Economist headlined an article on the topic The Bottomless Beer Mug.
The general public, however, is largely ignorant of these facts. The divergence between the conventional wisdom and reality could hardly be any wider. Profoundly misinformed and alarmed, people place false hopes in misguided alternatives. Rather than implementing harmful, inefficient and expensive substitutes, we should insist that our government lift the obstacles which prevent us from availing ourselves of this superabundant resource.

The meaning of ‘interdependence’

What does interdependence mean in the real world? What does it mean to Brown and its proponents in the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers and the Davos gang?

It means bleeding U.S. taxpayers for welfare-like programs not just for Americans – but for the whole world. It means throwing billions, probably trillions, at the poorest nations run by some of the worst tyrants.

It means making the reduction of “greenhouse gases” the No. 1 environmental agenda item for the developed world – even though the planet is not really warming up as a result of anything mankind is doing.

It means tying the hands of countries like the United States when it comes to defense – mandating only “multilateral” military actions with the consensus of those who hate America.

I don’t know about you, but if the choice is between busybody internationalism or isolationism, I think I will choose isolationism every time.

I don’t want to live in an interdependent world. I want to live in freedom. I want to live in a nation that protects its sovereignty. I want to live in a nation that reveres its independence.

American Thinker: Hamas Needs Shrinks Without Borders

To mark Holocaust Remembrance Day this month, the homicidal maniacs of Hamas outdid even their most deranged Islamic brethren by putting out a film claiming that the Jews secretly planned and carried out 6 million deaths of their own people.

And what is the bizarre reason Hamas television gives for the Jews committing this heinous deception?

Why, the Jews did it, of course, to be rid of their own sick, handicapped and special-needs folks. Everyone knows how brutal the Jews are to their own kin and countrymen.

And, wouldn’t you just know it? Hamas says it has verifiable proof.

In some other-worldly dimension, in whatever kind of perverted reality these people share, this insanity must make some sort of sense.

I haven’t checked, but I think we can be fairly certain that the Israelis will gladly put up the funds and manpower to construct a gigantic asylum, complete with soundproof rubber rooms and as many shock therapy devices as will be necessary to house and properly treat the entire herd of Hamas lunatics, along with their new peace keepers. Just to be on the safe side for the next 100 or so years, we’ll make sure they add a 50-foot wall, with tons of barbed wire and electronic alert devices around the entire asylum.

And if all goes off well, the entire world, not to mention the beleaguered Israelis, will be deeply in the debt of Jimmy Carter and the Shrinks Without Borders.

Environmentalists’ wacky predictions

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Gay’ indoctrination starts in Minneapolis

A special interest program assembled by the Human Rights Campaign to promote homosexuality has been launched in the 91-school Minneapolis district, even as opponents are urging school officials to keep sexuality out of the social culture.

the Alliance Defense Fund said the proposal will make problems.

“The ‘Welcoming Schools’ project incorporates within itself two incorrect and dangerous assumptions – (a) that one’s sex is a mental decision and not a biological fact, and (b) that individuals are born with an immutable ’sexual orientation,’ including children as young as five-years-old having normal same-sex attractions.”

“It is clear that the goal of HRC is to implement an educational program to indoctrinate young children with social viewpoints that are extremely controversial, out of the mainstream, and rely on unproven scientific theory that runs counter to American cultural and scholastic interests,” the ADF advisory said.

“The indoctrination of children with HRC’s anti-religion political agenda will present serious practical and legal problems, especially [as] adults are charged with the safety and security of other people’s children.”

Among other issues, the ADF said, presenting such indoctrination in class would violate the district’s own policy addressing teaching controversial material.

Further complicating the issue would be the program’s targeting children ages 5-7 with a lesson “that sex is an irrelevant biological inconvenience.”

“In fact … HRC embraces the notion that a person can identify as neither male nor female, but instead ‘intersexual,’” the ADF said.

The promotional material’s use of “gender identity” is just an attempt to “socially normalize behavior flowing from a known and recognized mental illness (Gender Identity Disorder),” the ADF said.

Is Wikipedia wicked porn?

A photo of two nude men having anal sex on a bed, and a “fluffer” handing them a towel, is shown to the right of the entry.

Matt Barber, a constitutional law attorney who serves as Concerned Women for America’s policy director for cultural issues, expressed outrage at Wikipedia’s decision to allow sexually explicit images.

“Children use Wikipedia all of the time for reports for school, and this stuff is not just pornography, this is hard-core pornography,” he said. “Much of it may even be in violation of our nation’s obscenity laws.”

Barber said many of the filtering devices people have in their homes and schools are not geared to protect against Wikipedia’s material.

Mark Pelligrini, regional representative for Wikipedia, told WND, “Wikipedia’s goal is to provide an encyclopedia that contains the sum of all human knowledge. To that end, Wikipedia does not censor objectionable material.

Meanwhile, the Consensus Club is mostly made up of those who receive funding to support the junk science hypothesis and people who have a political or monetary agenda. Meanwhile, the Consensus club has the money and power to threaten the livelihood of scientists that would like to come out and expose this fraud. But ain’t democracy wonderful today when most government representatives and media are controlled by a few power elite that have their own global governance agenda?

The scientific tipping point has been reached. Either science will now break free from these control freaks or they will just be their pawns for a disinformation campaigns to bring in total government control and regulation over everything that we do.

So my advise to scientists is that you now have the only chance you will have to break free of this power grap and to get back toward unbiased science. You might think you need to watch what you say and stay within what is allowed by the politically correct controllers but if you do that, why was it that you become a scientist in the first place? Did you really want to learn and teach truth or is it just your stairway to becoming a member of the politically correct Consensus Club. If the scientific giants of history took the route that many of our scientists are taking today we would still be in the dark ages.

Continue in the direction of kowtowing to politically controlled elitists who use you for a means to their end and you can best describe yourself as a shill of control freaks but not a scientist.

We are now at the tipping point. You have the opportunity to tip this debate back toward sanity. Or you can just go along to go along and then be responsible for tipping the earth into untold suffering and the inevitable backlash that will come against all scientists when you are exposed. Then watch the Al Gore’s blame you for the bad science. You don’t really think these people will take responsibility for their irresponsibility, do you? They will just spin it and blame it on everyone else. That is what they do. By the way, all this talk of consensus is Al Gore speak. It is team rule right out of the communist play book. The consensus of the team is all important, not truth, and no opposing voice will be heard after the consensus is agreed upon.

Now you know why they will never give it up. People bound in group think, become like a cult. They have blind faith in group consensus and circle the wagons when confronted.

The climate change deniers - - Breaking News, Political News & National Security News - The Washington Times

The debate over anthropogenic — that is, human induced — climate change, is, in other words, just a bit more complicated than Al Gore suggested on “Oprah.” Few books have captured this cognitive dissonance as well as “The Deniers,” Mr. Solomon’s essential, engrossing travelogue through the world of climate-change dissent.

In “The Deniers”‘ deniers are not the usual suspects paraded out by a media eager for Scopes Monkey Trial II: Flat Earthers’ Revenge. They aren’t blustery, ill-informed television pundits or slash-and-burn polemicists.

Rather, Mr. Solomon introduces us to legendary scientists with impeccable resumes and prestigious appointments at major universities and mainstream research institutes; thoughtful, serious professionals who, at their own professional peril, looked at one or another of the shibboleths of global warming alarmism — from the debunked “hockey stick” graphic and misread ice core samples to the amateurish or incorrect computer models and fear-mongering — and bravely refused to join the herd, profitable as that may be these days.

Likewise, Mr. Solomon’s own position as founder and executive director of the well-regarded international environmental group Energy Probe makes it considerably more difficult for opponents to shellac him as a right-wing reactionary moonlighting as an oil company stooge