A new paradigm

I’ve been quietly observing with great restraint and disdain, the “climategate” circus and indeed for a much longer period, the climate change v skeptic debate. I’m not entrenched in either position, but the whole thing disturbs and unsettles me, something is not right. Here are a few of my thoughts.

Climategate = bullshit. Climate change v skeptic is just the new left/ right paradigm. It is exactly what was insidiously planned to be by our caring ruling elite, and it coincides very nicely with people waking up to the last paradigm.

Another division successfully crafted, two more tribes created to fight another war.

Whether you believe or not that climate change can be influenced by human activity, this little planet is disgustingly polluted. There is almost no place left on Earth where inhabitants may still find clean air to breathe.

I’ve seen so called “climate change skeptics” making conjecture such as “CO2 is good for the environment, it makes the trees grow”. This would be a fine argument if it were not for the fact that humans are deforesting the planet so fast that the trees which might utilize our lovely emissions don’t actually exist. That is, not in sufficient numbers relative to volume of emissions.

Something to do with A) : high demands for timber products, B) : high demand for farming produce which requires farming land and oddly enough, that requires the landscape to be free of trees, C) : never ending urban sprawl which equally oddly can not progress with all those f*cking trees in the way.

One might also note that human produced emissions are not purely carbon dioxide; they also comprise carbon monoxide (a poison) and other carcinogens.

I would like to see those who have proposed heavy emissions are an asset; seal themselves within a small garage with an idling car engine, and report back on how they felt afterward.

Millions of people around the globe currently die annually from respiratory illness but hey, it’s good for the trees, if there were trees.

And if there were trees, the “truther’s” would be barking up the wrong one here, fighting to preserve their own oppression. There have never been any other consumer products in history, more successful in enslaving the human race quite like oil and coal have. Every aspect of modern day society is depended upon these resources, which reside in the control of a handful of people, people who see fit to manipulate their value in what amounts to nothing less than extortion.

There are a few decent arguments here and there from both sides of this contrived battle, but overwhelmingly I find individuals from either persuasion unwilling to educate themselves or simply think for themselves beyond popular sound bites. Yes CO2 is life giving but so is water, and a funny thing happens if you are submerged in water, you stop breathing.

It’s entirely appropriate to oppose “cap and trade/emissions trading schemes (ETS)”, but in doing so I have not seen anyone call it out for the smoke screen that it is.

The impression I get from the “truth movement” concerning the revelations of “climategate”, is that it’s the ultimate smoking gun and anyone now still bold enough to voice environmental concerns on any level should be lynched immediately, because they are now and forever more exposed as just deceptive tools for the New World Order agenda.

I would suggest that the true NWO shills are those entities whom have disseminated the meme that sets up environmentalists and scientists as the patsies for blame, while completely ignoring the realities of a fossil fuel driven world.

Neglecting to make any mention of a need for transition away from the westernized world’s unsustainable consumerism of pollution producing resources, only serves to encourage the continuation of business as usual, which is exactly what our ruling elite want. They came up with “plan B”, a new global tax on the poor, encase “plan A” (business as usual) came under threat.

But “plan b” was always designed to fail. Is it not predictable that if; governments tell their people the planet is becoming uninhabitable but we can fix that by taxing you into poverty, the people are going to say SCREW YOU?

Essentially that is what the carbon trading scheme is all about, making the rich richer and the poor poorer in lieu of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer as set out in “plan A”.

Under the schemes, the world’s most prolific polluters (corporate industries) will be granted concessions/carbon credits/offsets and therefore the scheme/scam will do absolutely nothing to curtail global emissions; it in fact allows those big polluters to continue increasing emissions for profit.

Even some of the climate scientists agree on this:

Top climate scientist hopes Copenhagen fails - ABC News

The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.

Professor James Hansen says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

Hansen argues that the process is so flawed because it relies on cap and trade emissions trading schemes. Instead of allowing polluters to buy the right to continue polluting, he prefers a tax on the price of carbon at the mine or the port.

"The whole idea that you have goals that you're supposed to try to meet and that you have outs with offsets means that it's an attempt to continue business as usual," he said.

Scientist quits over ETS 'censorship'- ABC News

A senior CSIRO environmental economist has resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was censored.

Earlier this year he had been expecting his paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, to be published internationally after it was peer reviewed for the British Journal New Political Economy.

His paper questions the effectiveness of carbon trading schemes in industrialised countries and argues that a direct carbon tax might be more effective. He was told that it breached guidelines preventing scientists from commenting on policy issues.

The article ends with one of the best examples of political hypocrisy one might encounter;

The opposition says the Government's election promise to end gags on scientists, which was called Operation Sunlight is leaving Australians in the dark.

That would be the opposition (former Government) whom put Australians into the dark but now scorn the current Government for leaving them there.

I can not argue against the scientists criticizing carbon trading schemes. However I find the idea that; any tax whatsoever would be useful in achieving emission reductions, a contentious one.

The inbred family of hicks who call themselves the “elites”, who have engineered modern day society to be totally depended upon the resources they control, resources that produce toxic pollution on mass scale, not content with the measure of enslavement they already command, now want us to make even more tribute, by paying another tax, this time for pollution which they will continue to disperse, all made possible only because they suppressed over the last century, every viable sustainable alternative energy resource ever investigated.

As for “climategate”, is it really that important that from a pile of stolen emails, a couple of lines were found that revealed certain scientists operating below the threshold of professional conduct? Has no one ever previously heard of scientists being purchased, put on the payroll for various interests? This is an established practice of long standing, granted though it is far more common place to find compromised scientists in the climate change skeptic's camp, shilling for oil corporations who have never made any secret of aggressive opposition to alternative energy sources.

If governments were not owned by and completely subservient to the inbred scum f*ck overlords that rule this planet, and were serious about addressing environmental issues, they might in the first instance, implement policies for significant reductions in the demand for energy.

Within the continent I call home, Australia, temperature extremities can be quite harsh during the summer months. Accordingly, dwellings of the past were always constructed with high roofs and ceilings and the buildings would be encompassed by something known as a veranda. These designs kept the inside rooms nice and cool during periods of uncomfortable heat.

Those simple fore mentioned features, are now lost in time and as a result, no one can live in their little box house without the aid of air conditioning blasting away all day and night throughout the summer.

It is no inadvertent mishap that urban planning over the last fifty years has consistently and progressively become more and more incompatible with the environment.

The government congratulates and credits itself for pretending to do something, like regulating that white goods makers affix five pretty star images to our refrigerators, supposedly indicating how much energy my fridge will guzzle, but concurrently the government in reality does nothing but aid and abet their masters in generating ever increasing demands for energy supplies.

Clothes lines have been replaced with electric clothes dryers, every house has an electric dishwasher, wide-screen TV’s consuming infinitely more power than their predecessors occupy every living room, all city and urban development is designed specifically around the needs of automobiles, and the best plan my government can come up with is to stick f*cking stars on my fridge.

The primary preoccupation of all western governments regarding domestic policy is always with driving consumerism, CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME! Now governments are saying ok, turns out all that consuming is bad for us, so we will have to tax you more, to present the illusion of action, but please don’t stop, CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME!