Let me ask you something. Do you believe in the sanctity of human life? Do you believe our opposable thumbs and ability to reason makes us exceptional? Do you believe infants are “human”?
There are people who don’t. You probably know that and you probably dismiss them, as I did, as fringe radicals no one pays attention to. There are the extreme environmentalists who think animals and Mother Earth are superior to humans. For them Environmentalism IS their religion because nothing to the contrary can shake their faith.
Then there are the far Left, the Utopians who believe if we all had the same standard of living and way of life we would all be blissfully happy. Social Justice is their mantra. They believe the rights of the individual need to be replaced by the “Common Good”.
There are good people who sincerely believe these things. But there are other people who don’t care about the truth or justice of these things. They use them as vehicles for personal wealth, power and control. I learned the last two days; these are the people who are planning our future.
Last Sunday and Monday I went to “BIG FOOTPRINT: Is Green the New Tyranny” at UCLA. It was organized by American Freedom Alliance. Video and transcripts are on their web site http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org. Lord Monckton (advisor to Margaret Thatcher) was the moderator. Speakers were scientists (meteorology, climatology, physics, astronomy, fusion, etc), energy planning specialists, lawyers, land use specialists, wildlands specialist, a few Planning Commissioners, etc. Michael Shaw, lawyer, author and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism said he was a bit intimidated at being the dumbest man in the room.
I learned in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, more than 178 nations pledged to adopt and implement the United Nations “Agenda 21”. President George H. Bush signed for the USA. Although not a treaty and not authorized by Congress, in 1993 Clinton, by executive order, established the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development for the purpose of implementing “Agenda 21”. In 1998, J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the Presidents Council for Sustainable Development said, “Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many who would actively work to defeat any elected official …undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as “Comprehensive planning”, “growth management” or “smart growth”. Or (my addition) “Sustainable Development”. How many times have you heard “sustainable” these days?
Mr. Lawrence was certainly correct. If Obama gave a speech saying individual rights were no longer going to be considered and in the name of “Common Good” and “Social Justice” there would be no more private property, no more suburban housing, ranches, dams, reservoirs, mines or fossil fuels. (Now I understand why poor countries aren’t allowed to build damns). We’re going to take way your cars, move you all into apartments in cities, and redistribute your wealth equally around the world…..oh, and reduce the population by 2/3rds”. Would any of us, Conservative OR Liberal, agree?
On local levels this is being implemented (and has been for 15 years) by ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Culver City, Ventura, Santa Barbara are all ICLEI cities. The two Planning Commissioners at the conference explained how they were able to remove ICLEI from their areas. They said their city councils had no idea ICLEI was a UN policy. Given the information people don’t want the UN planning their future.
Monday night we all watched a documentary, “Cool It” and spoke to the producers. It is about a Danish climatologist, Bjorn Lomborg. Bjorn was a member of Greenpeace. He resigned from Greenpeace (as did it’s founder) because it stopped being about the environment and became political. He did believe the earth was warming and man was causing it, however, he didn’t think it was catastrophic or that the solutions being implemented were the only answer. He investigated many solutions and their cost as compared to regulating CO2. He also studied the effects and cost of doing nothing and simply adapting to the effects. He wrote a book about his findings and he spoke before Congress. He thought, “Pulitzer Prize”. Instead, even though he is a Liberal and an Environmentalist, the Left attacked him viciously, sued him and threatened his life for even suggesting there were other solutions.
Bjorn took his documentary to London and screened it for Lord Monckton. Both Lord Monckton and Bjorn agree that even IF man was causing warming, regulating CO2 would cost trillions and destroy the economy of the world while producing virtually NO reduction in CO2. Lord Monckton showed Bjorn that the IPCC claims were not correct and Bjorn concluded he was correct. Bjorn said, however, he couldn’t say it. He had been attacked so viciously for even suggesting regulating CO2 wouldn’t help and there were other solutions, if he said it wasn’t caused by man no one would listen at all.
In Bjorn’s documentary, Professor Stephan Schneider was interviewed. He was the scientist who said in 1974 that the world would freeze over by 2000 and he is the scientist who is helping Gore sell Global Warming now. He had nothing nice to say about Bjorn. He also said if they didn’t scare the public they wouldn’t get funding. THERE YOU ARE, FOLKS! This is NOT about saving the world.
Science is not decided by consensus. It is decided by provable facts. Results that can be reproduced every time. Computer models are NOT science. They could not be used as evidence in a court of law, so why are we allowing them to change our lives in radical ways for no perceivable benefit? The IPCC won’t even give a list of the scientists involved in it. There were as few as a couple hundred to as many as a thousand. Some quit and some were added. Many who quit have spoken out against it and more than 31,000 scientists signed a letter saying they disagreed with the IPCC conclusions. There IS no “consensus” and the science is NOT settled and you don’t need to be a scientist to understand that. Regulating CO2 is the only solution they will consider because it is the best way to control the population and everything we do. And the best way to get us to go along with it.
There was MUCH more. Briefly, Barbara Boxer said turning off the water to the San Joaquin Valley farms was more complicated than just turning it back on. I understand what she meant now. Water was turned off to save “Smelt” a 1 inch bait fish. It has been proven that the population of smelt hasn’t changed since the water was turned off, so there is no reason not to turn it back on. This is Agenda 21 at work. Endangered species and wetlands are being used to restrict use and take over private property.
We talked about nuclear and fusion energy. Nuclear rods now can be burned 100% so there is NO waste. And small (about the size of a garage) community nuclear plants are now possible. If “clean” was the goal, nuclear is the answer. But environmentalists will never allow them. They will point to Japan. People in Japan died from the earthquake and tsunami not from the nuclear plants. Fusion is clean and uses sea water (no radiation) but at least 50 years away. We talked about all alternative energies. Wind and solar are not and can not replace fossil fuels….and will never be cheaper. We HAVE “clean” coal plants but environmentalists keep moving the goal posts. We HAVE clean air. USA has the cleanest air in the world. Regulating CO2 is not about air pollution because CO2 is a nutrient not a pollutant. Flower growers pump more CO2 into their greenhouses to produce bigger and more blossoms. Many scientists think an increase is a good thing.
I thought the NASCO highway plan had been abandoned. I was wrong. It is moving along and sadly, Governor Perry is a supporter. I don’t believe the citizens of this country would agree to have our country cut in half by a 20 lane highway and railroad. I’m outraged that plans like these are being made without the knowledge or consent of the citizens.
As long as they can make us believe the boogieman is under our bed they can get us to agree to give up our Liberty. We can’t allow them to do that.