Tag Archives: environmentalism

Doug Casey on Earth Day

From Casey Research:

L: So, Doug, people around the world just celebrated Earth Day, and I know you have ideas on the subject. Did you ride a bike instead of driving a car that day?

Doug: Well, as you know, I love to drive high-performance cars, but I’m in downtown Buenos Aires now, and don’t have a car here because the taxis are so cheap and convenient. So I used taxis on Earth Day, just like any other day. I don’t bicycle and recycle to save the planet. But I did notice, with a sort of morbid fascination, the observation of Earth Day by many people around me.

It’s amazing to me – though maybe it shouldn’t be – the way Earth Day has caught on among idiots in general. It’s on its way to becoming just as bad news as May Day, which is the creation of the same sort of people. May Day – May 1 – is the Labor Day of most of the world, and it’s basically a Marxist holiday. April 22 is Earth Day. So you have a green Earth Day, followed by a red May Day. They ought to call this time of year “Watermelon Week,” because the so-called Greens are really watermelons: green only on the outside, but red through and through.

L: Can you substantiate that?

Doug: Apart from the fact that there’s about a 95% correlation between Reds and Greens everywhere in the world? Sure: just look at their policy proposals. Mainstream environmentalists never propose any market approaches to improving the environment; they only propose more socialist regulations and government controls. There are a few free-market environmentalists out there, but they are very few and far between. If the movement was all about the environment, there would at least be a mix of policies, constructively looking for whatever works best. But it’s not. In my opinion, concern for the environment is just the latest excuse for the same tired old collectivist/statist thinking that’s been such a disaster for the last hundred years.

Earth Day is nonsense and a bad idea. People of good will should ignore it, and work against government efforts to enshrine it.

L: Okay, but wait a minute. You know I agree that real environmentalism should be about the environment, not advancing a leftist agenda without regard for environmental consequences. But we do live on this one planet, and I don’t like breathing polluted air – and I doubt you like it any better than I do. What’s wrong with celebrating the planet we live on, as well as honest – and voluntary – efforts to keep it clean?

Doug: There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. I like green trees, blue skies, the birds and bunnies and so forth, as much as the next person. But that’s not really what’s going on here. But first, we have to put all of this in perspective…

L: What perspective would that be?

Doug: You have to realize that the earth is just a ball of dirt, circling an insignificant star, lost in an insignificant galaxy among a hundred billion other stars – and our galaxy is itself only one of a hundred billion galaxies, and maybe more, in the known universe. Further, there’s increasing conjecture that our universe is just one out of an infinite number of parallel universes, which may include any number just like ours. So on a cosmic scale, anything we do or don’t do to this planet is completely and absolutely insignificant. Making a religion out of worshiping the planet, and fomenting hysteria about it, strikes me as being cosmically stupid.

L: Literally.

Doug: Yes, literally. The earth has an evolution of its own, and is constantly in the process of changing, regardless of the activities of men – the ice ages, as one tiny example, show how drastic those changes can be. Incidentally, we’re probably just in an interim period between glaciations, from the perspective of geological time. And periodically, other things happen that make human activities pale in significance. The next super volcano, as we talked about in our conversation on global warming, will change the earth’s surface environment tremendously. But maybe the environmental extremists will like that, because it could wipe out most of the human race. And though humans evolved on this planet just like all the other species, these people have it in their heads that humans and everything to do with them is somehow unnatural.

L: Well, maybe not, because such a volcanic event would also wipe out countless entire species of plants and animals.

Doug: You’re right, but some of these people are so virulently anti-human, they might rejoice anyway, and see it as just being a few eggs you have to break to make an omelet. A big asteroid strike could do the same thing. There are plenty of other things that could sweep all these insane – and unnatural – efforts to freeze nature in its present state aside like piles of leaves in a hurricane. My attitude about all this was summed up perfectly by George Carlin in this video. It’s a work of both comic and philosophical genius. I suggest everyone watch it at least once a week, until it sinks in and is grokked in its fullness.

L: Even if there’s no such cataclysm, as you like to say, everything gets folded into the earth’s mantle eventually anyway.

Doug: [Chuckles] That’s right. That is absolutely inevitable – and natural. That should, if only for that reason, appeal to Greens, even though they’re generally innocent of any knowledge of science in general, or geology in particular. But most places won’t be folded into the mantle for many millions of years – or at all, if the sun goes nova first. Meanwhile, if you value human life – which many of these people consciously and explicitly do not – this planet is here strictly for our pleasure. At least until we can find something better.

Save the trees, saves the bees. Save the whales, save the snails…. What about people? The arrogance of these people is at once breathtaking and pitiful. And many come right out and say that they would eliminate all humans if they could, because humans are a disease on the face of Mother Earth – or Gaia, as they call it.

L: I met a young man who said exactly that, once, in Peru. I asked why termites – which destroy every other living thing in an expanding circle around their nests – are superior to humans. And he’s not the only one I’ve met. Somehow, when I suggest that if they think the earth would be better off without humans, they could start helping by removing themselves, none of them ever take action. No, no, it’s other people whose choices they do not approve of who should go first.

Doug: Yes. These are perfectly horrible people who are polluting the intellectual environment on this planet with this new religion. And it is a religion. It has almost no basis in real science, though they like to doll it up in scientific terminology. Greenism is rife with politically motivated pseudoscientific gobbledygook masquerading as scientific research. Rather like Marxism, again – and not coincidentally, in my opinion. Lots of fundamentalist Christians can’t seem to wait for the world to come to an end with the Rapture, and Yahweh only knows how many other apocalyptically scary memes. And many hardcore Muslims are at least as anti-life and fanatical. It seems that everywhere one turns there’s somebody with plans to improve the world – or improve you. Anyone with any sense should want to get off this ball of dirt populated by so many busybody lunatics, and find some place with better vibes. But I fear religion is almost a genetic impulse in mankind; I certainly prefer the company of those who lack that gene. Of course, any time you turn anything into a religion you automatically, and perhaps necessarily, require dogma. Then you get heretics. Then, religious wars.

L: Well, religion has existed for an evolutionarily significant period of time, so in spite of the religious wars and whatnot, I figure it must have some value for its believers. However, having tried to reason with a number of such environmental extremists, I’m inclined to agree with you about them. And the worst part of it is that this intellectual pollution – this Gaia religion dressed up as science – is being deliberately targeted at children, in school, in cartoons, everywhere. It’s bad enough to fill young minds with errors and faulty logic, but they are scaring children, telling them they are doomed because the evil corporations control the governments and will never stop polluting the planet until we’re all dead, and so forth.

Doug: That’s exactly why it’s important to stand up and be counted as being against things like Earth Day, in no uncertain terms. This garbage needs debunking. It’s not enough to say, “Well, it’s a good idea, but it’s misguided in application.” That’s what people said about Marxism, which they said was a nice idea meant to help poor people, when in fact it was one of the most destructive ideas ever hatched for poor people. Especially for poor people. It’s important to look these people right in the eye and tell them they are wrong and doing great harm – don’t give ‘em an inch of moral high ground.

Call a spade a spade. If they are going to talk about treating the human race as a disease and eliminating it, they are talking about mass murder – genocide. That’s the plain truth. These people are psychologically damaged, and dangerous. They should be opposed, unabashedly, and at every opportunity. But that’s the moral argument. Entirely apart from that, I despise them on a visceral level, and find their company revolting. And boring.

L: I’ve run into that argument about Marxism as well. A lot of leftist apologists will say that Marxism was a good idea – or at least a noble one, but that it was not practical, or never had a real chance, because the evil capitalists never gave it one. But it wasn’t a good idea. Marxism might work for ants, but not for humans. Leftist governments of every stripe tried very hard to implement Marxist ideas for many decades, and all we got was a body count in the tens of millions. There is nothing noble about trying to organize a society in a way that’s inconsistent with human nature – and there is such a thing as human nature.

We’re up against something very similar with this earth-worship meme going around. For the true believers, it seems to be much more about being anti-human than about being pro-clean-environment. That’s why you see all sorts of environmental proposals that pay scant heed to large and painful human costs in pursuit of the benefit of every other species on the planet.

Doug: Just so. Mother Earth doesn’t exist, and if she did you’d find her a bad-tempered bitch who couldn’t care less for the carbon-based biological units covering her skin. She’s not a conscious, thinking being. Our planet is just a ball of silicon, carbon, iron, nitrogen, and such. I can hear the Greens now. “Save the beryllium! Save the hydrogen! Don’t save the uranium! We’re not sure about saving the carbon…”

In any event the planet itself has no rights.

Incidentally, I happen to really like most other living things, and want them to live long, happy, and peaceful lives – just on general principles. And I do what I can to see that that happens. But the Greens want to turn the earth into a political issue – which is to say an issue where they can use coercion to boss around their fellow humans. Like all true believers, they suffer from either stupidity – defined as an unwitting tendency to self-destruction – or a psychological aberration.

L: Good point. Rights are a human construct, that have meaning only among people. Actually, if you observe nature, concern for other species is unnatural. To a wolf or a worm or a germ, other things are either food, or not food; threats, or not threats. Any animal, plant, or microorganism on earth – any and every living thing besides humans – will expand as fast and as far as food supply and space allow, without any regard to the consequences for other species.

Humans do consider the well-being of other species, and this is a noble thing unique to us on this planet – but it should be a matter of aesthetics, not ethics, because ethics has no meaning beyond an intelligent species like ours. Giving hikers and bears equal rights only increases the number of hikers who end up inside of bears. Giving the planet rights would make it impossible for any species, from humans to termites, to live at all; we’d never get permission to build houses or nests, because Mother Earth does not speak.

Doug: Agreed. So, even assuming you want to look at it from the perspective of Mother Earth, the only way for things to get better is to let people get wealthier. Humans are not just going to go away. Relatively few of the six billion people here will agree to drink the environmentalist extremists’ Kool-Aid. Most of the most prominent environmentalists are rich hypocrites, driving around in limos, and flying around in private jets – people like Al Gore. And, as you’ve pointed out, people are a natural part of this planet as well. That means you’ve got to find solutions that include humans and motivate them in the right way.

The fact is that the most destructive societies and individuals for the environment are the poorest ones. Rich people don’t generally throw trash on the ground – many poor people do it all the time. The amount of trash blowing in the wind is one obvious way you can see whether a neighborhood is rich or not. The same thing applies to entire societies. From Canada to China, from Germany to Guatemala, the higher the per-capita GDP of any society, the less polluted the country. Poor people are not bad, they just don’t have time to care about such niceties – they are struggling to survive. Wealthier people have the time and the means to clean up their environments, so they do.

L: I see this all the time, as I travel the world looking for potentially profitable mining projects. To me, it seems to be clear evidence for your watermelon hypothesis that so-called environmentalists often accept “artisan” miners – generally poor indigenous people – but go apoplectic at the mention of an international mining company. But these evil companies have to live up to international standards of environmental protection, remediation, and reclamation – and, with a few criminal exceptions, they do. They often go above and beyond the legal requirements, because the people working for the companies actually do care and don’t want to dump toxic substances into rivers, etc.

But the artisan miners, they are worse than termites. They strip all the vegetation in the area for fuel or building material; they dig without regard for worker safety; they use cyanide and mercury to process gold and dump the residues in the creeks and rivers; and they make no effort whatsoever to protect the environment they work in, remedy any harm they do, or reclaim their work sites to a more natural state when they are done. But somehow, this is better to environmental extremists than letting an evil multinational company put a clean, modern mine in.

Doug: It’s true, I’ve seen it too – like that time we went to Bolivia and saw little boys working in the artisan mining camps… In a wealthier society, that wouldn’t happen. Not because of laws, but because kids don’t need to do it just in order to survive. And how do you make a society wealthier? Cut taxes, repeal regulations, and get the government out of the way of entrepreneurs. In short, you don’t actually have to do anything. Just let people create wealth and keep what they create. That will mend more harm than anything else, over time.

L: Okay, so wealth is a great antidote to environmental poison; what else?

Doug: Technology. Pollution can be defined as a waste of resources. It is an economic phenomenon, and lends itself to economic solutions. The more modern and high-tech the industry, the less pollution there tends to be. Looking ahead, micro-manufacturing will eliminate the great industrial slag heaps of the past. Ultimately, when practical nanotechnology arrives, there will be no pollution, because things will be assembled one atom at a time, precisely and with no waste. And anything that does get discarded, or becomes trash, is just more atoms someone can use as raw material for making something new. If you love the earth, but don’t hate humans, there is only one way forward: push for the fastest advance in technology possible.

L: Makes sense to me… anything else people can do, if they want a cleaner environment?

Doug: Embrace reason. So much of what people believe about the environment simply ain’t so, and most of it is pure hysteria – or outright scams. Global warming, as we’ve discussed in the past, is certainly a gigantic scam.

Incidentally, one of the worst things about the global warming scare is its effect on science. After it has been thoroughly debunked – which I’m confident will happen, and sooner rather than later – it may actually serve to discredit science itself. That’s because most people believe the lie that science has shown that anthropogenic global warming is real. I fear people will come to regard scientists as unreliable, and throw the baby out with the bath water.

But there are lots of other nasty aspects of the ongoing Green hysteria. A big one is how it actually wastes resources, even while it’s telling people to conserve them. For instance, the mandate for so-called “green jobs.” Or the drive for biofuels, which is moving a lot of corn production from food to fuel, which is raising food prices, destroying capital, and increasing hunger around the world. Carbon! Carbon, one of the basic elements in all living things, has become an environmental bogeyman. Children are being taught to feel guilty about their “carbon footprints.” All of these things misallocate resources, which is destructive of wealth.



What Friends of Freedom Can Learn from the Socialists — To Win Freedom! by Richard M. Ebeling

Richard Ebeling writes:

On March 14, 1883, a German philosopher living in exile in London passed away. When he was buried three days later in a modest grave where his wife had been laid to rest two years earlier, fewer than ten people were present, half of them family members. His closest friend spoke at the grave-site and said, “Soon the world will feel the void left by the passing of this Titan.” But there was, in fact, little reason to think that the deceased man or his long, turgid, and often obscure writings would leave any lasting impression on the world of ideas or on the course of human events.

That man was Karl Marx.

Advocates of liberty often suffer bouts of despair. How can the cause of freedom ever triumph in a world so dominated by interventionist and welfare-statist ideas? Governments often give lip service to the benefits of free markets and the sanctity of personal and civil liberties. In practice, however, those same governments continue to encroach on individual freedom, restrict and regulate the world of commerce and industry, and redistribute the wealth of society to those with political power and influence. The cause of freedom seems to be a lost cause, with merely temporary rear-guard successes against the continuing growth of government.

What friends of freedom need to remember is that trends can change, that they have in the past and will again in the future. If this seems far-fetched, place yourself in the position of a socialist at the time that Marx died in 1883, and imagine that you are an honest and sincere advocate of socialism. As a socialist, you live in a world that is predominately classical liberal and free market, with governments in general only intervening in minimal ways in commercial affairs. Most people—including those in the “working class”—believe that it is not the responsibility of the state to redistribute wealth or nationalize industry and agriculture, and are suspicious of government paternalism.

How could socialism ever be victorious in such a world so fully dominated by the “capitalist” mindset? Even “the workers” don’t understand the evils of capitalism and the benefits of a socialist future! Such a sincere socialist could only hope that Marx was right and that socialism would have to come—someday—due to inescapable “laws of history.”

Yet within 30 years the socialist idea came to dominate the world. By World War I the notion of paternalistic government had captured the minds of intellectuals and was gaining increasing support among the general population. Welfare-statist interventionism was replacing the earlier relatively free-market environment.

The socialist ideal of government planning was put into effect as part of the wartime policies of the belligerent powers beginning in 1914, and also lead to the communist revolution in Russia in 1917, the rise to power of fascism in Italy in 1922, the triumph of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany in 1933, and the implementation of FDR’s New Deal policies in 1933, as well.

Socialism triumphed during that earlier period of the last decades of the 19th and early decades of the 20th centuries because while socialists advocated collectivism, they practiced a politics of individualism. They understood that “history” would not move in their direction unless they changed popular opinion. And implicitly they understood that this meant changing the minds of millions of individual people.

So they went out and spoke and debated with their friends and neighbors. They contributed to public lectures and the publishing of pamphlets and books. They founded newspapers and magazines, and distributed them to anyone who would be willing to read them. They understood that the world ultimately changes one mind at a time—in spite of their emphasis on “social classes,” group interests, and national conflicts

They overcame the prevailing public opinion, defeated powerful special interests, and never lost sight of their long-term goal of the socialist society to come, which was the motivation and the compass for all their actions.

The Lessons for Freedom

What do friends of freedom have to learn from the successes of our socialist opponents? First, we must fully believe in the moral and practical superiority of freedom and the free market over all forms of collectivism. We must be neither embarrassed nor intimidated by the arguments of the collectivists, interventionists, and welfare statists. Once any compromise is made in the case for freedom, the opponents of liberty will have attained the high ground and will set the terms of the debate.

Freedom advocate, Leonard E. Read, once warned of sinking in a sea of “buts.” I believe in freedom and self-responsibility, “but” we need some minimum government social “safety net.” I believe in the free market, “but” we need some limited regulation for the “public good.” I believe in free trade, “but” we should have some form of protectionism for “essential” industries and jobs. Before you know it, Read warned, the case for freedom has been submerged in an ocean of exceptions.

Each of us, given the constraints on his time, must try to become as informed as possible about the case for freedom. Here, again, Read pointed out the importance of self-education and self-improvement. The more knowledgeable and articulate we each become in explaining the benefits of the free society and the harm from all forms of collectivism, the more we will have the ability to attract people who may want to hear what we have to say.

Another lesson to be learned from the earlier generation of socialists is not to be disheartened by the apparent continuing political climate that surrounds us. We must have confidence in the truth of what we say, to know in our minds and hearts that freedom can and will win in the battle of ideas. We must focus on that point on the horizon that represents the ideal of individual liberty and the free society, regardless of how many twists and turns everyday political currents seem to be following. National, state, and local elections merely reflect prevailing political attitudes and beliefs. Our task is to influence the future and not allow ourselves to be distracted or discouraged by who gets elected today and on what policy platform.

Let us remember that over the last hundred years virtually every form of collectivism has been tried—socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, interventionism, welfare statism—and each has failed. There are very few today who wax with sincere enthusiasm that government is some great secular god that can solve all of mankind’s problems. Statist policies and attitudes continue to prevail because of institutional and special-interest inertia; they no longer possess the political, philosophical, and ideological fervor that brought them to power in earlier times.

There is only one “ism” left to fill this vacuum in the face of collectivism’s failures. It is classical liberalism, with its conception of the free man in the free society and the free market, grounded in the idea of peaceful association and individual rights. If we keep that before us, we can and will win liberty in our time—for ourselves and our children.

Untintended Consequences of “health care reform”

Any time you raise costs to business they will eventually get passed on to the consumer…

NyPo reports (by way of EPJ):

A Manhattan health benefits consultant says insurance companies are telling employers they will pay have to pay much more in 2011 — and for reduced coverage.

“It should be noted that premium increases were in excess of 30 percent over the previous year,” said Barbara Brody of Barbara A. Brody & Associates. Brody said average rate increases next year for Manhattan-based firms she advises could be as high as “67 percent but will average 30 percent.”

That’s because insurance companies, faced with higher costs after the passage of a giant health reform measure, plan to pass most of the costs onto consumers, according to several industry observers.

The additional costs for the insurance companies include: covering dependents up to 26-year-olds as well as pre-existing conditions of new enrollees and coverage for the currently uninsured.

And they will see hefty premium hikes and out-of-pocket expenses rise, they add.

These increases would be in addition to big hikes already put in effect this year, Brody says…

Brody, who read the 2,000-page healthcare bill twice, says there are many things in the bill that were never discussed in detail.

For instance, the bill contains a category of pharmaceuticals called biologics, Brody explains.

The bill allows the brand-name use of biologics over generics for some 14 years. That will result in millions of dollars of additional costs, she says.

Maybe, she suggests, these things were missed because numerous elected officials predicted the bill would never become law.

“Every insurance carrier in New York state has filed for rate increases,” Brody says. She says carriers are anticipating the cost mandates of the new law.

These increases, she adds, will lead companies to cutbacks. Among them will be:

* Higher deductibles and larger co-payments

* Higher out-of-pocket maximums each year

* Specific tests and drugs dropped from the policies

Can Politicians Help Us?

Can Politicians Help Us?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010 by

The word “politician” usually comes with a negative connotation. It often brings to mind thieving, lying, corruption, and malfeasance. Nonetheless, most people seem to look to politicians to manage their world for them, to protect them, and to make their lives better. In every instance of local or national elections, citizens are deeply focused on choosing the politician they think will do the best for their community or nation. They seek politicians with experience, knowledge, insights, and ideas. They seek a leader.

But can our elected officials, even if honorable and well-intentioned, really improve our lives? Let’s take a look at the various possible avenues of assistance.

Currently, the main demand placed upon politicians is to create jobs for us. But, since it is companies — not the government — that create jobs, such a task is impossible. Government can expand and draw more workers into its ranks, or it can directly finance the creation of specific jobs in a specific marketplace with taxpayers’ money. In either case, a destruction of wealth is involved, and the jobs — unlike private-sector jobs — do not pay for themselves but in fact require ever more taxpayer funding each year, which further reduces capital in the economy.

If jobs are not profitable — if they are not part of a production process that results in creating at least the same amount of sales revenues as the costs that went into generating those revenues — then they use more resources than they create; they destroy wealth. That ultimately means fewer goods available for each person, and at higher prices.

But even if the government subsidizes unprofitable jobs (e.g., green jobs) and “funds” (i.e., subsidizes) that work to make up for its lack of profit, there is still a net destruction of wealth. This is because subsidies come directly from what would otherwise be our incomes.

When money is taken from us through taxes to pay the extra costs required to produce something that we would not voluntarily choose to purchase on our own at that higher total price (i.e., the selling price plus the subsidy we paid out of pocket to make the item “worth” producing), our money is wasted. Other goods we would prefer will not become available because the resources used to make those goods were instead used in making the product we didn’t want.

Except for building space stations, military bases, or other government-funded, wealth-destroying activities, government creates and builds nothing. It thus has no power to create real jobs in the marketplace; it can only “manage” and regulate.

To repeat, only individuals and individual companies produce and create; their ideas and capital are what profitably creates jobs.

Year by year, most of the currently existing companies would hire more workers if only they were allowed. For example, suppose a company has $100 to pay out in wages. Suppose further that it has hired 9 people for an average wage of $11.11 per hour each ($11.11 × 9 people =$100). If there had been a tenth person available to perform work at the company and help increase its production, why wouldn’t the company have hired that person and spread the $100 across 10 people, instead of 9, at a wage of $10 per hour each ($10 × 10 people = $100)?

continue reading…

Global Cooling and the New World Order

By James Delingpole
The Telegraph

Bilderberg. Whether you believe it’s part of a sinister conspiracy which will lead inexorably to one world government or whether you think it’s just an innocent high-level talking shop, there’s one thing that can’t be denied: it knows which way the wind is blowing. (Hat tips: Will/NoIdea/Ozboy)

At its June meeting in Sitges, Spain (unreported and held in camera, as is Bilderberg’s way), some of the world’s most powerful CEOs rubbed shoulders with notable academics and leading politicians. They included: the chairman of Fiat, the Irish Attorney General Paul Gallagher, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Dick Perle, the Queen of the Netherlands, the editor of the Economist…. Definitely not Z-list, in other words.

Which is what makes one particular item on the group’s discussion agenda so tremendously significant. See if you can spot the one I mean:

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.

Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling.

Which means one of two things.

Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.

Let me explain briefly why this is a bombshell waiting to explode.

Almost every government in the Western world from the USA to Britain to all the other EU states to Australia and New Zealand is currently committed to a policy of “decarbonisation.” This in turn is justified to (increasingly sceptical) electorates on the grounds that man-made CO2 is a prime driver of dangerous global warming and must therefore be reduced drastically, at no matter what social, economic and environmental cost. In the Eighties and Nineties, the global elite had a nice run of hot weather to support their (scientifically dubious) claims. But now they don’t. Winters are getting colder. Fuel bills are rising (in the name of combating climate change, natch). The wheels are starting to come off the AGW bandwagon. Ordinary people, resisting two decades of concerted brainwashing, are starting to notice.

All this, of course, spells big trouble for the global power elite. As well as leading to  food shortages (as, for example, it becomes harder to grow wheat in northerly latitudes; adding, of course, to such already-present disasters as biofuels and the rejection of GM), global cooling is going to find electorates increasingly angry that they have been sold a pup.

Our fuel bills have risen inexorably; our countryside, our views and our property values have been ravaged by hideous wind farms; our holidays have been made more expensive; our cost of living has been driven up by green taxes; our freedoms have been curtailed in any number of pettily irritating ways from what kind of light bulbs we are permitted to use to how we dispose of our rubbish. And to what end? If man-made global warming was really happening and really a problem we might possibly have carried on putting up with all these constraints on our liberty and assaults on our  income. But if it turns out to have been a myth……


Well then, all bets are off.

The next few years are going to be very interesting. Watch the global power elite squirming to reposition itself as it slowly distances itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming (”Who? Us? No. We never thought of it as more than a quaint theory…”), and tries to find new ways of justifying green taxation and control. (Ocean acidification; biodiversity; et al). You’ll notice sly shifts in policy spin. In Britain, for example, Chris “Chicken Little” Huhne’s suicidal “dash for wind” will be re-invented as a vital step towards “energy security.” There will be less talk of “combatting climate change” and more talk of “mitigation”. You’ll hear enviro-Nazis like Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren avoid reference to “global warming” like the plague, preferring the more reliably vague phrase “global climate disruption.”

And you know what the worst thing is? If we allow them to, they’re going to get away with it.

Our duty as free citizens over the next few years is to make sure that they don’t.

Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Tim Yeo, Michael Mann, Ted Turner, Robert Redford, Phil Jones, Chris Huhne, John Howard (yes really, he was supposed to be a conservative, but he was the man who kicked off Australia’s ETS), Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Yvo de Boer, Rajendra Pachauri….The list of the guilty goes on and on. Each in his own way – and whether through ignorance, naivety idealism or cynicism, it really doesn’t matter for the result has been the same – has done his bit to push the greatest con-trick in the history of science, forcing on global consumers the biggest bill in the history taxation, using “global warming” as an excuse to extend the reach of government further than it has ever gone before.

It is time we put a stop to this. In the US, the Tea Party movement is showing us the way. We need to punish these dodgy politicians at the ballot box. We need to ensure that those scientists guilty of malfeasance are, at the very least thrown out of the jobs which we taxpayers have been funding these last decades. We need to ensure that corporatist profiteers are no longer able to benefit from the distortion and corruption of the markets which result from green regulation.

We need a “Global Warming” Nuremberg.

It would be very funny if it wasn’t true…

The Flower Police

The Flower Police Video