Babylon Today | home
OBAMACARE | What Happened? | Why Babylon? | Solutions | Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit | Abortion | Salvation | End-Time Scenario | Episcopalians | Charities and Organizations | The Environment | Forestry | The Constitution | Page of Outrage | The U.N. | General Assets | Stocks Bonds | General Politics | Politics 2004 | Politics 2006-2008 | Politics 2009-end | Bahamas Freedom | Instructions | My Purpose | NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
Environmental, energy, and government regulation in general, should be considered on the basis of risk verses reward, because the costs of regulation will always be passed down through our economy and injure the poorest*, and least able among us, the most.
So it really comes down to how many more poor people you want to kill, or further impoverish, while acting on insufficient evidence and junk science?
THIS LINK discusses who really "owns" the environmental movement. (excerpts) "Far from a grass roots movement, envronmentalism is a big business, funded and directed by the leading families of the U.S. and European establishments."
CO2 AND GLOBAL WARMING
Young people, your generation is being had by "the man" as was your father's. They are out to further control your personal affairs, control your mind, and steal your money in the process (as if the Fed's phony money wasn't doing it fast enough). Just 3 decades ago the hysterical doomsters were telling us we were headed for the next ice age.
update 5-13-09 Does the U.S. want to insist on remaining deaf, dumb and blind to the opportunity for, near immediate, elimination of dependence on middle east oil? Try a Yahoo search like - cng utah
Back in the 1970's hippie days there was a hysterical mantra among those "enlightened" in regard to the world's impending doom, that would result from forecast global cooling. Then, only about 20 years later, it seemed peculiar that a new mantra had developed regarding the horrible fate the world was to experience as a result of global warming. Not only that, but this time it was we evil human beings that were responsible for the dire consequences that our now-fragile planet faced, rather than simply being the innocent victims of it. A little investigation will reveal that historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 are THE RESULT of our oceans warming, rather than THE CAUSE. Cyclically oceans warm, causing CO2 levels to rise, then they cool and CO2 levels drop. According to Al Gore's own chart, warming LEADS increases in CO2, rather than follows it.
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect"
(please see the scientific sources in the above quoted, heavily footnoted article, at this link)
Let's ignore the .53% human impact figure that includes water vapor, and take a look at the 5.53% human impact figure that excludes that most significant factor, in light of a proposed solution. The Kyoto Protocol promises a reduction in greenhouse gasses of 5.2% of those produced by DEVELOPED countries. But let's pretend briefly that it would reduce ALL human contributions by 5.2%.
A reduction of 5.2% of the 5.53% of total greenhouse gasses produced by humans would total a reduction of less than .29% of total atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Or a reduction of 2.9 parts per thousand. Is it reasonable to expect that a reduction of less than 3 parts per 1000 of total greenhouse gasses would actually change our planet's climate?
Of course if we include the very real impact of water vapor, and mankind's contribution at .28% of the cause, then the Kyoto 5.2% of .28% would result in a reduction of less than .015%, or 15 hundredths of 1 one-thousandth of total gasses. Will that be the magic bullet, that "heals" a planet, that's not even sick?
"One of the largest producers of CO2 'may well be termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about ... 10 times ... the present  world production of CO2 from burning fossil fuel." - Dixie Lee Ray - 'Trashing The Planet' p 33
There are some that would still say "So what's the harm in it?"
Besides the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and the waste of so much of our natural resources through destruction of existing equipment, as happened in the case of freon replacement, and further reduction in any remaining U.S. competitive economic edge that hasn't already been lost, what would the cost be in human terms? The cost of government mandate and regulation must ultimately be reflected in prices, and negatively impacts the poorest, and least able among us the most, because that is the group that has to survive with the thinnest amount of disposable income. In other words it boils down to how many elderly and poor are we willing to kill by acting on a preposterously false presumption.
How does a $10 increase in an electric bill effect a Rockefeller or Mellon or Carnegie or Al Gore with his $30,000 annual electric bill? How are the folks who have tons of disposable income affected? Obviously less than a poor elderly woman living alone on a fixed income, who has NO disposable income, and has to make a choice between dinner, her medication, or paying her - now $10 higher - utility bill. Perhaps more of a slow leaking depopulation, as opposed to the mass genocide of hundreds of millions that resulted from the ban on DDT.
Has the earth been warmer? The remains of redwood forests - the actual wood - has been preserved in the ice in the Arctic, and fossils of what were 80 foot tall trees in forests can also be found in the Antarctic. We had global warming, followed by a mini-ice age, as recently as the middle ages. Look up, or click here for medieval warm period. Scientists now say that with the recently observed reduction in sunspot activity we are again headed into another cooling period - even mini-ice age.
So besides the perhaps millions that are employed directly or indirectly by the parasitic government and non-government organizations that have been empowered by global climate change hysteria, at the direct expense of our global competitiveness, who else stands to gain by continuing to beat this drum? Follow the money. Who owns the environmental movement? The global mega-wealthy elite.
Young people, like was said back in those hippie days, you've been "had by the man" ... again.
Why not carefully consider both sides, and ALL of the cause AND effect, and then decide where you should cast your lot? With the elderly and economically defenseless, or with the parasites?
Some old hippies that seem to have failed to mature properly are still fighting against nuclear power, even as a country as liberal and populous as France derives 80% of it's power from nuclear sources. What good is producing electric cars when we generate electricity with diesel? Those same old hippies are also doing everything in their power to get speech like that expressed here, and in scientific circles, classified as "hate speech". Al Gore already characterized it as equivalent to holocaust denial.
When I was in college the term non-conformist was popular. Certainly the quoted sources don't tell the whole story. Perhaps you'll conclude it's worth killing elderly and poor people after all.
But really, why be so lazy as to simply lay down and drink the Kool-Aid?
For another point of view, grounded in risk vs reward, why not read Dixie Lee Ray's "Trashing the Planet" or "Environmental Overkill"? Lots more has been written since those books.
(Don't let the name fool you. She was chair of the Atomic Energy Commission and governor of the State of Washington.)
Video version end 5-13 update.
ON DEVICES THAT MEASURE WARMING
Update July 16, 2009 "If fighting global warming may cost the economy $9.6 trillion and more than 1 million lost jobs by 2035, as the Heritage Foundation forecasts, it'd be a good idea to be sure there's a sound basis before making such a massive sacrifice.
We've noted before that climate change is occurring as it always has. Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is minuscule. There are some theories but no convincing proof that increased emissions cause increased temperature.
Now another serious doubt has been raised concerning how much of the 1-degree centigrade increase over the past century allegedly caused by escalating emissions has even occurred.
"We can't know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the data," said Anthony Watts, veteran broadcast meteorologist, who for three years organized an extensive review of official ground temperature monitoring stations, in conjunction with Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and professor emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Colorado-Boulder.
The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings, previously reported in this column, were alarming.
They found 89 percent of stations "fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements" that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.
"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat," Watts reported.
Stations also had added more sensitive measuring devices, heat-generating radio transmission devices and even latex paint to replace original whitewash, resulting in greater heat retention and reflection.
At one location, Watts said when he "stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air from the nearby cell phone tower equipment sheds blowing past me! I realized this official thermometer was recording the temperature of a hot zone ... and other biasing influences including buildings, air conditioner vents and masonry."
These influences produce readings higher than actual ambient temperatures, Watts said.
Moreover, the research revealed "major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors."
These inflated, error-prone, tinkered-with temperature recordings are one of several measurements cited by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as evidence man-made global warming is a threat. But the Heartland study concluded, "The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be ‘the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable."
Before devastating the economy to fix a problem that may not exist, we ought to get the numbers right."
I also remember reading that when the Soviet Union went broke, they stopped collecting data, from many of their stations that were responsible for some of the coldest temperatures that added to the data stream. (link to article) end 5-13 update.
Let's look at the math of a proposed "fix" if global warming were a problem. If Kyoto promises a reduction in CO2 of 5.2% of that produced only by "developed" countries, and all these countries actually complied, what would we gain? Given that natural sources of CO2 are 29 times that produced by ALL fossil fuel burning, and forest prescribed burning combined, Kyoto would then reduce total CO2 produced from all sources - natural and manmade - by far less than (because undeveloped countries are producers too) 5.2% of 1/29th. So at that rate, 5.2% divided by 29 = .1793%. Is it reasonable to expect that a Kyoto CO2 reduction of 18 hundredths of 1% - that is - a reduction of 1.8 parts per 1000, would actually have an impact on the climate?
Global Warming and U.N. Mind Control
Additionally: "To appreciate how small a portion of the atmosphere CO2 makes up, consider this example. The driving distance from Hartford, CT, to San Fransisco, CA is just under 3000 miles. If that distance were to represent the total atmosphere, then you'd have to drive from Hartford, CT, to 28 miles west of Cleveland, OH, to represent the portion of the atmosphere consisting of oxygen. To represent the atmospheric portion consisting of CO2, you'd have to drive from Hartford, CT, just one mile down the road!"
"Natural production of CO2 is 29 times greater than that produced by humans through all burning of fossil fuel and prescribed forest land burning. One of the largest producers of CO2 'may well be termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about ... 10 times ... the present  world production of CO2 from burning fossil fuel.' - Dixie Lee Ray - 'Trashing The Planet' p 33. (Dixie Lee Ray
It is important to understand who stands to gain - particularly power - through environmental organizations. The political whores in government make it obvious, but what about the shadow government? But then, if it is your desire to kill poor people, the hysterical - rather than scientific - environmental band wagon may well be for you.
Is it a surprise that a marxist like JFK Jr. is demonizing industry by calling those that don't march in lock step behind his environmental hysteria, "traitors"? Is it a surprise that Al Gore's ilk is labeling those of us that wish to consider both sides of the issue the equivalent of "holocaust deniers"? How long will it be before the voices of reason are outlawed as environmental "hate speech" given this buffoonery to demonize those who don't wish to line the pockets of those that profit from environmental hysteria?
"There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance." Johann Wolfgang von GOETHE
German poet (1749-1832)
The single most important element in this discussion is the relationship between CO2 and global warming. Long term historical records of this relationship demonstrate that an increase in CO2 IS THE RESULT of an increase in global temperatures. That's right. First the climate warms, AND THEN the CO2 increases. This is not a chicken or egg argument. Global warming causes increases in CO2, not the other way around.
"Carbon dioxide has never driven temperature. In fact, the evidence shows that historically, temperature has driven CO2."
"In other words, the ocean acts as an enormous organism that exhales carbon dioxide during warming periods of earth's history, and absorbs it during periods of cooling."
How many more hundreds of millions of poor people do we want to sacrifice on the alter of frivilous and dishonest run-away pseudo environmentalism, in order to further empower the global family elites?
ACT NOW - STUDY LATER
Since termites alone, produce 10 times the CO2 of all fossil fuel burning, and all natural sources of CO2 combined are about 29 times that produced by all of man's (anthropogenic) fossil fuel burning and prescribed forest burning combined, there is one question that must be asked before creating regulation, or increasing taxation, on our ever-shrinking productive sector. How many poor people is it worth killing in the process, and how sure are we that the result produced will have any significant impact whatsoever on the environment? The deaths of the poor are a matter of fact. The environmental reward from the legislation that killed them ..... ?
Hundreds of millions of dead are the result of the ban on DDT and subsequent loss of malarial mosquito abatement programs. When a politician like Kennedy Jr. demonizes a power plant for example, and decides it appropriate to punish the utility, who pays? The expense is passed along to the consumer. No problem for Kennedy to pay a 20% higher electric bill. But how does the added expense effect the working poor who have little to no disposable income? They obviously have to make such choices as those between lights or medicine, etc.
THIS LINK TO CONGRESSIONAL Testimony of Fred L. Smith, Jr., President, The Competitive Enterprise Institute before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
House Committee on Science, November 6, 1997 - Hearings on the status of the global climate change negotiations - helps to show who gets injured by frivolous environmental legislation the most. This is one of the most important links on this entire website.
"There are risks of global warming, but there are also risks of such global warming policies which we believe are much greater."
As soon as the Democrats took power (by Jan 4th) they erased the above testimony of Fred L. Smith from the house science link, and replaced it with a democrat Bart Gordon promotion of democrat Bart Gordon.
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent [man] looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15
THE OREGON PETITION (anchor)
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." - Michael Crichton
The following is from what is generally referred to as the "Oregon Petition". Here is the peer reviewed paper on which the petition is based.
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Some of the 1,400 signers are reluctant to remain committed, because they have been threatened with job loss (particularly public employees, NASA, etc.) if they don't tow the hysterical environmental power-grab line.
"Global warming has galvanized the developed world. Liberals sound the warning, Conservatives respond with gradually mounting enthusiasm. Clergy fall to their knees in prayer and repentance. Atheists find new purpose and a moral lodestone. Americans slap concerned bumper stickers on their SUVs and flock to "An Inconvenient Truth"."
"Perhaps you are wondering where Gore got his article proving the undisputed "consensus" on global warming. The original review of the scientific literature was published in a non-peer reviewed essay section of Science, written by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at UCSD. Her search included articles with "climate change" as a keyword. The study was cited and expanded in a paper in the political journal, Globalizations, which added the analysis of popular media. A statement by Dr. Oreskes that was not included in the Globalizations article read, 'The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility….' In light of that, I encourage you to look at the evidence for yourself, but I recommend you start with peer-reviewed articles before resorting to the essay section of Science, let alone the science section of Globalizatons or Newsweek."
GLOBAL COOLING TO GLOBAL WARMING IN LESS THAN 20 YEARS (bookmark)
It was as recent as 1975 that America's environmental activist-alarmists were wringing their hands over the looming disastrous effects of global cooling*. They declared that we were headed for the next ice age and within 10 years our global food production was supposed to have been reduced catastrophically. Not surprisingly many of these same people were in the forefront of the global warming* hysteria, even less than 20 years after their global cooling religion. It should come as no surprise then that the real scientific community does not subscribe to either a global cooling or a global warming theory.
Are those who express alarm in regard to global warming* simply furthering the latest myth to the advantage of our would-be-masters in a global socialist state? Certainly their paychecks depend on keeping the hysteria going, in order to continue to parasitize the taxpayer through "research" grants and frivolous lawsuits brought against government and industry.
These organizations were often started by family foundations today include globalist families that rake in billions of dollars per year. "The foundations are run by America's top patrician families. One such individual was Thornton F. Bradshaw, who, until his recent death, was chairman and program director of the MacArthur foundation and a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Conservation Foundation. At the same time, Bradshaw was chairman of the RCA Corporation and a director of NBC, the Atlantic Richfield corp., Champion International, and first Boston, Inc. Bradshaw was also a member of the Malthusian Club of Rome and director of the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, organizations that have played a critical role in spreading the "limits to growth" ideology of the environmental movement." Are people whose livelihoods dependent on this income likely to "research" with open minds, let alone report contrary conclusions?
In order to help further would-be global masters agenda they have even created an environmental religion*, perhaps toward a global Babylonian "earth worship" religion, to aid in destroying U.S. sovereignty by replacing U.S. laws, which are inconveniently rooted in the Constitution and in God's laws, with secular U.N. laws. Romans 1:22-23: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
HURRICANE KATRINA; PRODUCT OF GLOBAL WARMING?
You may have heard some eco-alarmists suggest that hurricane Katrina, and the active hurricane seasons we have had as of late are the product of global warming caused by human activity. The fact is that this is similar to a hurricane cycle we had in the 1940s. The phenomonen is known as the "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO". It would be silly to believe someone who claims to have diagnosed permanent change, and even to know the cause, using data from a few years, out of thousands.
IS THE EARTH WARMING? (bookmark)
Some suggest that surface temperatures indicate that the earth may be warming.. Others suggest that this is an inappropriate and inconsistent way to measure. One simple fact that seems to be absent from this debate is that we are indeed perhaps still emerging from an ice age. Does human activity have anything to do with the warming? This would be a pretty human-centered and perhaps human ego driven point of view since natural sources of CO2 produce 29 times that produced by man. Termites alone produce 10 times the CO2 of all fossil fuel and forest prescribed burning combined. "Some estimates from large volcanic eruptions in the past suggest that all of the air polluting materials produced by man since the beginning of the industrial revolution do not begin to equal the quantities of toxic materials, aerosols, and particulates spewed into the air from just three volcanoes: Krakatoa, Mt. Katmai, and Hekla." - Dixy Lee Ray (1990). Has the earth been warmer? It appears that it has been lots warmer. There are some compelling arguments that support global cooling, as was so highly touted in the mid-seventies.
"The first is the Medieval Warm Period, a time of warmer than average temperatures. According to Dr. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."" (Getting Burned by Bad Science)
REMAINS OF TEMPERATE TREES IN ARCTIC CIRCLE AND ANTARCTIC (bookmark)
The remains of redwood forests have been preserved in the ice in the Arctic and fossils of what were 80 foot tall trees in forests can also be found in the Antarctic. Perhaps the entire earth was tropical or near tropical, since alligator and turtle fossils have been found in the Arctic circle. "These fossils are chemically preserved at a level you usually would expect to see in something that’s only 1,000 years old." If anything, the evidence of these trees compared to today's temperatures would indicate a radical cooling of the earth. Or consider the decline of the warm weather loving Sequoia trees in California which appear to be being chilled to death after 600 years on location. New seedlings seem to have trouble establishing in this perhaps now-too-cool and inhospitable of environments.
OK so there's not a person alive that can demonstrate that we are in a long term, or even a reasonably measured short term, global warming trend. And OK, sure, so the five warmest periods of the last 100 years were all before 1950 which really doesn't help anyone who pretends to, make their case. By now you have probably even heard them say that the recent cooling trend is because of global warming! But then what about that ever growing ozone hole caused by CFCs? Or is there? The pattern is pretty clear and at least the extremists are consistent in regard to one thing; their feigned hysteria that facilitates their continued parasitism of productive Americans, whether through law suits brought against government and industry, or confiscation and nationalization of private lands and then offering control to the likes of Fidel Castro through device such as the World Heritage initiatives.
WHAT ABOUT CO2
"Natural production of CO2 is 29 times greater than that produced by humans through all burning of fossil fuel and prescribed forest land burning. One of the largest producers of CO2 'may well be termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about ... 10 times ... the present  world production of CO2 from burning fossil fuel.' - Dixie Lee Ray - 'Trashing The Planet' p 33. (Dixie Lee Ray was a scientist that headed the Atomic Energy Commission as well as having served as the governor of the state of Washington). What is the truth regarding global warming?"
WHAT'S WRONG WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY?
So-called environmental organizations have been preventing the construction of nuclear energy production facilities in the U.S. for several decades, while countries like France get up to 80% of their energy needs met by nuclear power plants.
TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE BAN ON DDT (bookmark)
Here is the result of the ban on DDT. This agricultural material was originally banned primarily as a result of hysteria surrounding a book written by a biologist named Rachael Carson (Silent Spring) that was largely unscientific and larded with personal bias. Even shorts and T-shirt wearing, barefoot, third world applicators who sprayed huts in jungles around the world, on a daily basis, had no greater incidence of health problems than the general population of their respective countries. In early 1972, the hearing examiner for the new Environmental Protection Agency, after scrutinizing 9,000 pages of documents and considering testimony from 125 expert witnesses on all sides of the issue, reported that DDT "is not a carcinogenic hazard to man" and that the "uses of DDT under the registrations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." Nevertheless, in June of that year EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus issued an order banning the pesticide as of January 1, 1973, except for a few minor uses. "The Malaria Foundation International reports that due to Sri Lanka’s use of DDT in a mosquito abatement program, 'in only 8 years, Sri Lanka went from a million cases of malaria a year to only seventeen.' When the DDT spraying was stopped, however, 'malaria rebounded to nearly a million cases a year' within a decade." "During the debates over DDT in the late 1960s, Dr. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the radical Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), responded to a reporter’s question about DDT’s life-saving potential by saying there are too many people on the planet already. Banning DDT, he said, "is as good a way to get rid of them as any." "Them" refers to all of the millions of hapless victims — primarily in developing countries — whom people like Wurster view as excess baggage. "Them" includes "all those little brown people in poor countries," as fellow depopulationist Dr. Van den Bosch of the University of California so indelicately phrased it." Here is the Constitution Party on the environment.
DID DDT CAUSE THINNING OF BIRD EGG SHELLS?
In regard to thinning of bird egg shells: "The most significant cause of thin eggshells is calcium deficiency." "Calcium-starved birds often eat their own eggs," Dr. Edwards noted, "a syndrome that is then of course also blamed on DDT...." He cited a 1969 study published in the British science journal Nature which blamed DDT for eggshell thinning. It was later learned, however, that researchers had deliberately fed birds only calcium-deficient food, then attributed the resulting eggshell problems to the DDT and DDE that was also added to their diet. Dr. Jones wrote, "After much criticism for their use of calcium deficient diets that they knew would give the false impression that DDT caused shell-thinning," the researchers "repeated their tests with DDT and DDE, but put adequate calcium in the birds' diet. They thus proved that with sufficient calcium in their food the quail produce eggs without thinned shells.""
DDT ACTUALLY HELPED INCREASE BIRD POPULATIONS
In regard to insect resistance to DDT, bird shell thinning, and especially a reduction in predatory birds, the fact is that during the peak use of DDT in the U.S. the predatory bird population exploded since their prey were more numerous because the disease causing insect vectors were reduced in number. Look carefully at sites that make any negative environmental claims no matter what the subject. You will quickly find that sites that refute the environmental hysteria are generally meticulously footnoted or linked, whereas sites that are on the hysterical bandwagon are almost always devoid of the same. You will notice that not only are they often not footnoted, but often any footnotes that are included are from the site author's own writings. Google the subjects for yourself and draw your own conclusions from the EVIDENCE. Many of these sites give the fraudulent appearance of government, or other authoritative agencies, but are conspicuously vacuous of fact and larded with propaganda. While they speculate about possible negative health effects of DDT that remain unproven after over 50 years, the materials that have been developed as pesticide substitutes are far more dangerous for the applicators, and have often been found to be more dangerous regarding their negative environmental effects and also general population health effects, and wind up being banned for factually supported reasons.
To quote Ronald Reagan - A Time For Choosing (in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential bid) (full text). "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but just that they know so much that isn't so."
I would appreciate it if someone could inform me regarding work done with the use of Bacillicus Thuringiensis (a natural bacteria) for mosquito control in third world countries. The fact that there is a dearth of information on the Internet in this regard leads me to believe that the ban on DDT (mosquito control) in third world countries is, in fact, intentional mass genocide facilitated by the self-anointed global depopulationists such as Ted Turner, who believes maximum global population should be about "250 to 350 million".
More misguided environmentalist nonsense; this time regarding wolf reintroduction.
A morass of wetlands myths.
AMERICANS WHO DONATE TO ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS ARE RESPONSIBLE
Update on October 28, 03. Everyone who has donated money to environmental groups that have spoken against or obstructed prescribed brush/forest burning and other forest management practices in California and elsewhere (which includes virtually every environmental group) has the destruction of at least 2000 more homes and the blood of at least 18 more people on their hands.
WHAT'S YOURS IS MINE, AND WHAT'S MINE IS .... MINE
From the same folks who promise to help the poor by stealing the hard earned money from others while personally offering a pittance to charity, we find the same kind of personal sacrifice for the environment. The "inconvenient truth" is that Al Gore's personal utility bill tops an average of $30,000 per year.
"Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
'If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.'" Article
And then there's another pesky inconvenient truth about flying in private jets....
"Environmental" organizations are parasites that produce little more favorable results than poverty, death and destruction, while sucking the life-blood out of the taxpayer and productive small business while engratiating mega corporations and dynastic family foundations.
WHO OWNS THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT? (link)
Connect the dots: Kennedy, Rockefeller, Kissinger, MacArthur, Bradshaw/RCA/NBC, Amoco, Chevron, Arco, BP.....
Excerpts from an article By Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer that was adapted from Chapter 10 of the "Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling" - published in June 1992 by 21st Century and now in its second printing.
Follow the Money.... "TOP 15 RECIPIENTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PROTECTION, AND EDUCATION
Recipient Foundation Grant in $
World Resources Institute MacArthur Foundation 15,000,000
World Resources Institute MacArthur Foundation 10,000,000
Nature Conservancy R.K. Mellon Foundation 4,050,000
Nature Conservancy Champlin Foundations 2,000,000
Oregon Coast Aquarium Fred Meyer Charitable Trust 1,500,000 International Irrigation Mgmt Inst. Ford Foundation 1,500,000
Open Space Institute R.K. Mellon Foundation 1,400,000
Internat'l Irrigation Mgmt. Inst. Rockefeller Foundation 1,200,000
Chicago Zoological society MacArthur Foundation 1,000,000
Native American Rights Foundation Ford foundation 1,000,000
Wilderness Society R.K. Mellon Foundation 800,000
World Resources Institute A.W. Mellon Foundation 800,000
University of Arkansas W.K. Kellogg Foundation 764,060
National Park Service Pillsbury Co. Foundation 750,000
National Audobon society A.W. Mellon Foundation 750,000"
Funding from the Foundations
"Table 1 lists the annual revenues of a sampling of 30 environmental groups. These few groups alone had revenues of more than $1.17 billion in 1990. This list, it must be emphasized, by no means includes all of these envirobusinesses. It is estimated that there are more than 3,000 so-called nonprofit environmental groups in the United States today, and most of them take in more than a million dollars a year.
The Global Tomorrow Coalition, for example, is made up of 110 environmental and population-control groups, few of which have revenues less than $3 million per year and land holdings of more than 6 million acres worth billions of dollars, is just the best known of more than 900 land trusts now operating in the United States."
"Where do the environmental groups get their money? Dues from members represent an average of 50 percent of the income of most groups; most of the rest of the income comes from foundation grants, corporate contributions, and U.S. government funds. Almost every one of today's land-trust, environmental, animal-rights, and population-control groups was created with grants from one of the elite foundations, like the Ford foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. These "seed grants" enable the radical groups to become established and start their own fundraising operations. These grants are also a seal-of-approval for the other foundations.
The foundations also provide funding for special projects. For example, the Worldwatch Institute received $825,000 in foundation grants in 1988. Almost all of that money was earmarked specifically for the launching of a magazine, World Watch, which has become influential among policy-makers, promoting the group's antiscience and antipopulation views. The Worldwatch Institute's brochures report that it was created by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to "alert policy makers and the general public to emerging global trends in the availability and management of resources -- both human and natural".
"Foundation grants in the range of $20 to $50 million for the environmental cause are no longer a novelty. In July 1990, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a $50 million global environmental program. The specific purpose of the program is to create an elite group of individuals in each country whose role is to implement and enforce the international environmental treaties now being negotiated." (I guess if you can't get elected as president of the U.S. you elect yourself president of the world)
The foundations are run by America's top patrician families. These families channel billions of dollars into the organizations and causes they wish to support every year, and thereby exert enormous political clout. By deciding who and what gets funded, they determine the political issues up front in Washington, which are then voted on by Congress. It is all tax free, since the foundations are tax-exempt. The boards of directors of the large foundations are made up of some of the most powerful individuals in this country, and they always overlap with power brokers in government and industry.
One such individual was Thornton F. Bradshaw, who, until his recent death, was chairman and program director of the MacArthur foundation and a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Conservation Foundation. At the same time, Bradshaw was chairman of the RCA Corporation and a director of NBC, the Atlantic Richfield corp., Champion International, and first Boston, Inc. Bradshaw was also a member of the Malthusian Club of Rome and director of the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, organizations that have played a critical role in spreading the "limits to growth" ideology of the environmental movement.
Another individual perhaps better known to readers is Henry A. Kissinger, former U.s. secretary of state and a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. For years Kissinger was the director of the fund's special Studies Project, which was in charge of special operations."
"Further, it reports, "The Nature Conservancy's 1990 report reflects contributions of over $1,000,000 from Amoco, over $135,000 from Arco, over 4100,000 from BP Exploration and BP Oil, more than $3,200,000 (in real estate) from Chevron, over $10,000 from Conoco and Phillips Petroleum and over $260,000 from Exxon".
"From the scant information publicly available (largely annual reports from the major environmental groups), one can conservatively estimate that corporations contribute more than $200 million a year to the environmentalist movement.
This should come as no surprise. Over the past 20 years, giant corporations have discovered that by using environmental regulations they can bankrupt their competition, the small- and medium-sized firms that are the most active and technologically innovative part of the U.S. economy."
Funds from the U.S. Government
"The EPA doles out huge amounts of money to environmental groups to conduct "studies" of the impact of global warming and ozone depletion. President Bush has made the Global Climate Change program a priority, so while the Space Station, vaccinations for children, and other crucial projects have been virtually eliminated from the budget, $1.3 billion is available for studies of how man is fouling the Earth. Similarly, scientists who challenge global warming and ozone depletion as hoaxes do not receive a penny in funding, while those who scream doomsday receive tens of millions in research grants from the "climate change" program.
How much funding do the environmentalists receive from the federal government? Officially, the U.S. government gives away more than $3 billion a year in grants to support environmental groups and projects. The actual total, however, is impossible to estimate. A top-ranking official of the department of Energy who spent two years attempting to cut off tens of millions of dollars in "pork barrel" grants going to environmentalist groups, discovered that for each grant she was eliminating, environmentalist moles in the department added several new ones. The official resigned in disgust."
"The environmentalist capture of Washington, which was consolidated during the Carter administration, produced radical changes in the Washington, D.C. establishment. This process of subversion was described by [Peter] Metzger in a speech given in 1980, titled "Government-funded Activism: Hiding Behind the Public Interest.""
"For the first time in history, a presidential administration is funding a political movement dedicated to destroying many of the institutions and principles of American society. Activist organizations, created, trained, and funded at taxpayers' expense, and claiming to represent the public interest, are attacking our economic system and advocating its replacement by a new form of government. Not only is this being done by means already adjudicated as being unconstitutional, but it is being done without the consent of Congress, the knowledge of the public, or the attention of the press.
It all began when President Carter hired individuals prominently identified with the protest or adversary culture… the appointment [by the Carter administration] of several hundred leading activists to key regulatory and policy-making positions in Washington resulted in their use of the federal regulatory bureaucracy in order to achieve their personal and ideological goals.
Already accomplished is the virtual paralysis of new federal coal leasing, conventional electric generating plant licensing in many areas, federal minerals land leasing and water development, industrial exporting without complex environmental hearings, and the halting of new nuclear power plant construction…
The consequences of those sub-cabinet appointees having then made their own appointments, and those having then made theirs, so that now, there are thousands of [environmentalist] representatives in government…"
According to Metzger, this new class, "enshrined in the universities, the news media, and especially the federal bureaucracy, has become one of the most powerful of the special interests." Read much more.
And of course, most recently, Hollywood will not do without their share of the spoils putting on special programming to further propagandize the issue in an effort to help drown out the voice of common sense being censored from our more intellectually challenged couch potatoes. All of the above groups and individuals, and all who donate to environmental organizations have the blood and suffering of poor people around the world on their hands.
CAN'T WE OPERATE FROM A PLATFORM OF COMMON SENSE?
"The global warming issue is itself highly complex with major scientific, economic and political uncertainties. Information on all aspects of the topic exists and is gradually improving; still, today, much of this information remains partial and conflicting. What decision procedure should we use in reviewing the conflicting evidence and deciding an appropriate course of action?
Advocates of an international treaty find this an easy question. They invoke the "Precautionary Principle" — any change that might create any risk should be prevented. The use of energy might be warming the earth. That warming might produce catastrophic results. The speed of this change might require immediate action. Governments might be able to prevent that warming by an aggressive global carbon withdrawal policy. That is, the evidence might demonstrate the validity of the global warming hypothesis.
But, of course, one or more of these statements might not be true. Further scientific analysis might find that mankind’s energy use patterns have little impact on the climate and that solar activity or some other factor dominates climate. On balance, we might find that the impacts of warming are positive, that there might be little need for haste, and that the proposed global conservation policies might fail. That is, the evidence might demonstrate that the global warming hypothesis is wrong.
Sequential decision theory suggests one way of addressing such complex policy questions. One begins with an hypothesis — the world is warming — and one collects data and conducts analysis over time (sequentially) to test out that hypothesis. There are two possible choices, either to accept or reject the hypothesis, and thus two possible errors: A Type I error occurs when we reject a correct hypothesis (the global warming advocates have it right and society ignores their advice), and a Type II error occurs when we accept an incorrect hypothesis (the global warming advocates are wrong and we impose needless costs on the world economy). Our challenge is to assess the costs of both error types and weigh each of them. We compare the expected costs and select accordingly. As information is derived on both the likelihood and consequences of the various errors, we are able to make a better decision.
Our decision, of course, depends in part upon what we believe to be the best way to insure ourselves against probabilistic risks. In the global warming area two broad types of insurance have been proposed: a Prevention Strategy and a Resiliency Strategy. The first is the conventional prescription of the Precautionary Principle and is championed by the environmental establishment and its political allies. It would seek to restrict fossil energy use and therefore seek to stabilize anthroprogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Change is the culprit; stop change and we reduce the risk. The second strategy argues that change is best managed by encouraging economic and technological growth. Adaption or resiliency would best improve the ability of mankind to surmount increased risks. Change is inevitable and rarely predictable; a wealthier more advanced society reduces the risks of unforeseen changes......
There has been far less attention given to the likelihood and consequences of Type II errors (the losses incurred if the global warming hypothesis proves false and we have foolishly slashed fossil fuel use). In many respects, the science, economics, and politics of this issue have all been neglected by the global warming advocates. Over the last decade, much knowledge has been gained about climate, the influence of human activity upon it, and the extent and speed of any induced shifts. We’ve also learned much about the possible consequences of global warming and, at long last, have given some attention to the question as to whether a carbon withdrawal policy would prove effective. The results have generally been reassuring. We’ve become more aware that carbon dioxide increases and temperature increases have beneficial as well as negative impacts. The impacts of global warming, were it to occur, seem now to be less severe and more gradual than once feared. We’ve also gained greater understanding of the difficulty of implementing any carbon withdrawal policy — and the costs, burdens and inequities that such restrictive policies might entail.
Given these trends, the current rush to judgment is especially unfortunate. Our people deserve better. In a world in which information is never perfect, but opportunity costs are inescapable , environmental policy should be determined in the sequential risk-risk framework outlined above. We must consider the likelihood and consequences of Type II as well as Type I errors to decide whether prevention or adaptation offers the superior path. Exhibit I illustrates the sequence of possible outcomes that must be considered. First, there are the science questions: Are man’s activities significantly warming the planet? Second, there are the socio-economic questions: Would such warming be on net catastrophic, neutral or beneficial, and would it be abrupt or gradual? Finally, would the carbon withdrawal strategy proposed by global warming advocates prove effective or not? There are four possible outcomes: Outcome A, the global warming hypothesis is correct; Outcome B, the global warming fears are correct but the carbon withdrawal option fails; Outcome C, man is affecting the climate but the results are slow and/or benign; and Outcome D, mankind is not affecting significantly the climate at all.
The impact of each outcome depends upon the insurance option we have selected. Exhibit 2 summarizes the consequences under each outcome of either a prevention or a resiliency strategy. Note that the prevention strategy favored by the environmental establishment is never an obvious best strategy, even when the global warming hypothesis is right. Even a feasible carbon withdrawal policy might prove a more costly way of addressing the more adverse weather brought about by man’s activities. In the other three possible outcomes, the prevention strategy is clearly inferior to the resiliency insurance strategy. Thus, in summary, while we should be concerned about the risks of global warming, we must also be concerned about the risks of global warming policy!......
In October 1992 the 'Heidelberg appeal to the Heads of States and Governments' signed by 425 members of the scientific and intellectual community stated they wanted ecological prescriptions based "on scientific criteria and not irrational preconceptions" and warning "to the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and irrelevant data".
The document 'Seven Good Reasons to Overturn the Montreal Protocol' signed by over 100 international scientists was sent to attendees of the November 1992 United Nations Program of the Environment stating:
1. There is no long-term depletion of the ozone layer.
2. "Ozone holes" had been observed long before CFCs were in general use.
3. Sinks for CFCs exist in the atmosphere.
4. Chlorine of natural origins must be taken into account.
5. The danger represented by the increase of ultraviolet rays has been vastly overestimated.
6. The Montreal Protocol will be costly for the west and announces a certain death toll for Third World countries.
7. The unseemly haste to sign the Montreal Protocol was motivated by essentially political reasons.
I am personally no fan of any kind of genetic engineering of food or any other kind of crop. I believe it is akin to infants experimenting with nuclear weapons, however, I am not well studied on the issue. I don't believe that humans/science will ever be in a position to know the full effects of their laboratory creations. We have come a long way through the process of genetic selection. We would have come a lot further were it not for such extensive use of hybrid seed for food production, with accompanying seed company intentional destruction of lineages of open pollinated varieties.
3 VOLCANOES = ALL AIR POLLUTING MATERIALS SINCE
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Some estimates from large volcanic eruptions in the past suggest that all of the air polluting materials produced by man since the beginning of the industrial revolution do not begin to equal the quantities of toxic materials, aerosols, and particulates spewed into the air from just three volcanoes: Krakatoa, Mt. Katmai, and Hekla. - Dixy Lee Ray (1990)
Consideration of the amounts and relative activities of the environmental (DDT, PCB's, dioxin, etc.) and natural estrogens consumed in the average diet shows that the total estrogenic activity of the environmental compounds is 40 million fold lower than that from the natural components of vegetables and other foods.... The suggestion that environmental [compounds] contribute to an increased incidence of breast cancer in women or male reproductive problems is not plausible. - Stephen Safe (1995)
One look at the Saturday morning cartoons and what passes for politically-correct environmental "fact" in school demonstrates why children swallow animal "rights," dislike business, believe the nation is running out of trees and every other resource, and are convinced that pollution will doom the planet. - Perry Pendley - Mountain States Legal Foundation
[T]he militant fringe in the EPA refused to accept the legitimate studies, demanding that dosages of Alar be stepped up until researchers finally produced one lonely mouse tumor at 22,000 times the maximum exposure that children would receive. - Dixy Lee Ray (1993)
The myth [of manmade deserts] was perpetuated by self-interested officials in the international bureaucracy, which has spent billions of dollars on "anti-desertification" projects. - Julian Morris - The Political Economy of Land Degradation