alt.energy.renewable

March 30, 2008



http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2416



QUOTE: "This is why "strategic thinkers" looked away when the use of DDT
was banned worldwide and millions, particularly in Africa, continue to
needlessly die from malaria.

This is why "strategic thinkers" looked away when one of the world's
most extraordinary and affordable refrigerants and fire suppression
chemicals, Freon, was banned from use worldwide with a bogus claim that
"ozone holes" were destroying the atmosphere."







Recently I emailed a gentleman who is highly regarded, nationally and
internationally, as one of the top strategic, military and economic
long-range thinkers of our times. He is the author of several
bestselling books about the way globalization is impacting the lives of
the Earth's population.



In addition to having read his books and magazine articles, I
occasionally visit his blog to read what he is thinking about currently.
I noticed that he was casually referencing "global warming" in a post,
so I emailed to let him know that there is no scientific proof or basis
for the endless global warming claims. I cited all the usual data that
disputes it and I provided the URLs of several websites that could
provide him with even more.



His response was quite revealing. "It doesn't matter one way or the
other. All the same fixes are required for sheer pollution reasons on a
global scale given population increase and consumption increase. You're
arguing the past." He would later post that, so far as the data
debunking global warming, he was "beyond caring."



As I interpret this, no matter how utterly false the justifications are
for the global warming hoax given by Al Gore, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others, leading to
efforts to replace, slow or deter the use of energy sources such as
coal, natural gas and oil, this particular influential intellectual was
beyond caring because the world's population was responsible for
pollution and consuming too much of everything.



At this point global warming has made Al Gore a famous and wealthy man.
He and the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize and Hollywood conferred an
Oscar on the "documentary" that advances global warming lies. He now
enjoys the lifestyle of the ultra-rich.



The "solutions" offered to stop a non-existent global warming include a
Gore suggestion that "pollution" be taxed; that there must be a mandated
reduction of all carbon dioxide emissions; the instituting of a bogus
cap-and-trade credit system for all utilities, manufacturing,
transportation, and other activities; biofuels, greater use of energy
alternatives such as wind and solar; and ultimately, limits on how much
energy people are permitted to use who drive cars, own homes, or run
businesses of all kinds.



In California, for example, proposals and legislation has been put forth
to eliminate the inclusion of fireplaces in the construction of new
homes and that heat or cooling should be controlled by a central command
that will monitor individual energy use and, without concern for the
welfare of the individual user, determine the temperature of their
living space. This is Big Brother writ large.



The federal government long ago imposed standards on how much mileage a
car or truck must have for each gallon of gas consumed and has since
mandated that each gallon must include the engine-destroying,
energy-poor addition of ethanol. The ethanol mandate has created higher
prices for food as corn and wheat supplies diminish.



This is the same government that has already banned the sale of
incandescent light bulbs in the coming years. In time, it proposes to
eliminate the use of all light bulbs except fluorescent ones that both
consume less energy and give less light.



It is the same government contemplating declaring the thriving polar
bear population "endangered" for the sole purpose of putting areas off
limits that are believed to be rich in new oil reserves, not unlike the
prohibition on extracting oil from ANWR.



It is the same government that has declared 85% of the nation's
continental shelf off-limits to any exploration, discovery, and
extraction of our own oil and natural gas reserves.



Are you beginning to see a pattern here?



When the movers and shakers, the rich and powerful of our time get
together in their meetings in Davos or wherever, have they secretly
concluded that "pollution" and "consumption" by the Earth's six billion
people can only be reduced by reducing the world's population? Do they
see great profits in forcing us to only drive electric cars and the
mandatory adoption of similar "green" technologies?



Serendipitously, the International Herald Tribune published an article
by Andrew Ross Sorkin on March 20 titled, "At island retreat, Branson
and friends seek to save a world 'on fire'." It was an astonishing
revelation as it described a retreat hosted by Richard Branson, "the
British magnate" among whose guests was Larry Page of Google, Jimmy
Wales of Wikipedia, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister
who is now a senior advisor to J.P. Morgan Chase.



Richard Stromback, the chief executive of Ecology Coatings, "joked that
a gathering like this might seem nefarious to some people." The reporter
noted that, "Many executives and financiers, including some in
attendance at the retreat, have a lot of money riding on global
warming."



Look nefarious? Yes, it does. Some of the ultra-rich have a stake in the
global warming hoax as a means to further enrich themselves.



If that means cloaking their opinion that the world's population needs
to be reduced by appearing concerned for the fate of the planet, than
there is no better way of doing that than advancing the goals of the
environmental movement.



This is why "strategic thinkers" looked away when the use of DDT was
banned worldwide and millions, particularly in Africa, continue to
needlessly die from malaria.



This is why "strategic thinkers" looked away when one of the world's
most extraordinary and affordable refrigerants and fire suppression
chemicals, Freon, was banned from use worldwide with a bogus claim that
"ozone holes" were destroying the atmosphere.


Note, too, that these bans, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are instrumentalities of the
United Nations. These fraudulent environmental issues benefit the
ultra-rich whose financial interests transcend national borders.



Presently China, India, nor any of the nations around the world whose
economies are responding to the growth in global trade and the
improvement of living standards for their people are going to
voluntarily accept such limitations.



China has apparently concluded that, if the tradeoff is air and water
pollution, that is acceptable until they reach a point where costly
technology can be installed to reduce the pollution. This is already an
option that a wealthy nation like the United States has adopted.



Another case in point has been the utter failure of the signatories to
the original Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions and subsequent
negotiations to achieve an impossible reduction of carbon dioxide, a gas
that constitutes a mere 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere.



I am still trying to understand why our government and others around the
world are subsidizing "alternative energies" to the tune of billions for
wind and solar power when neither is a reliable source of energy and,
together, they produce such miniscule amounts of electricity as to be
essentially worthless.



But my strategic thinker guru says, "You're arguing the past." No. I am
arguing the future.



I am arguing about issues such as private property and the right to use
it for personal gain and profit, the bedrock foundation of our economy,
guaranteed in our Constitution. It is becoming a scarce commodity as the
U.S. government continues to declare vast areas as U.N. heritage sites,
wildlife refuges, national parks, and other excuses to deny their use as
sources of timber, coal, natural gas or oil.



I am arguing about the Green Revolution of genetically modified crops
that can feed the vast population of the Earth without using more
forested land. Despite this, supplies of corn and soy are being depleted
for the purpose of burning these food sources as fuel. The nation's
supply of wheat has been depleted as acreage is diverted to grow these
crops and the cheaper dollar underwrites increased exports.



What better way to reduce the world's population than a manmade famine?



I am arguing against plans to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico
into a North American Union to facilitate exports from China and Asia.



Meanwhile, the great engine of the world's economy and the beacon of
liberty to the world is being undermined by a fifth column of
environmentalists and those who expect to benefit from their agenda.
--



Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"The question scientists should now be asking is not how much it will
warm over the next 50 to 100 years, but why has it warmed so little
during the major carbon dioxide buildup?" Patrick J. Michaels,
Environmental Scientist , University of Virginia