I won’t deny that human activity may be a factor in the “climate change” debate but the discussion must also recognize non-human factors as well. Ian Pilmer presents, in the following videos, evidence to believe that Man is not as significant in altering climate as Al Gore and his disciples would have us believe. Enjoy!
(if you don’t have time to watch the videos, American Conservative University makes a podcast available for listening here)
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Let me state up front that I am a skeptic of strictly “man caused” climate change – we may have some impact but solar activity and natural cycles deserve more credit in my opinion. That being said the issue of climate change will be the driving force behind the next attempt at immigration reform. I say this based on my below summary of a news story out of the Copenhagen climate summit and my thoughts that follow.
Climate Change Tent City?
At the recent Copenhagen summit to discuss climate change, WorldNews reported on a “substantive paragraph” dealing with “adaptation to climate change” that is being considered for inclusion into any agreement out of the summit. The text of the paragraph is not released but the focus is on dealing with people impacted or displaced by the effects of climate change. A name for these displaced people started out as “climate refugees” but has been dropped and may be replaced by the phrase “climate change-induced displacees”.
There will be a demand to provide logistics and financial support for the “displacees” as well as international cooperation and the expectation that nations will open their borders to accept the “refugees”. Buried in the story are references to people affected by natural disasters, conflict and generalized violence. Estimates for people displaced by rising sea levels and natural disasters have grown from 50 million in 2010 up to as much as a billion by 2050.
Here is the complete WorldNews story.
A few thoughts occurred to me as I read this article.
List of countries and territories by fertility rate – Wikipedia.
World Population by Nation – Wikipedia
Same Leftists, Different Protest
Here again are a bunch of bussed-in protesters with prepared banners, slogans, chants demanding reductions in carbon output at the upcoming Copenhagen summit. I’d be curious to see the modes of travel, the lodging, the food consumption, and carbon footprint of this crowd.
And I’m guessing many of the attendees and the organizers are the same as those seen protesting WTO events or any other event where they can slam wealthy nations and demand “justice” for less wealthy nations. Actually I think they are looking more toward “vengeance”. And I don’t intend to wallow with them in their suicidal ideology.
To be honest, I’m glad to see climate-change advocates talk openly about population control. It lays bare more of their intent to control us!
Fund family planning ‘to cut CO2′Meeting the demand for family planning in poor nations is a cheap and effective way to cut CO2 emissions, a new website initiative claims.
The UK-based Optimum Population Trust says human activity is exacerbating global warming and higher population levels mean higher emissions.
It asks people to fund contraception, saying it is better value than wind turbines, solar power or hybrid cars.
Critics would argue the analysis is too simplistic, a BBC correspondent says.
The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin says they could contend that reducing the number of people born in the US would make a big difference in achieving reductions in CO2 levels.
Our correspondent added that carbon emissions from people in most of sub-Saharan Africa are so low that they can barely be counted.
According to the OPT, every £4 spent on family planning saves one tonne of CO2.
It estimates that a similar reduction would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.
It is promoting a scheme in which wealthy people can offset their own carbon emissions by funding contraceptive programmes in the developing world.
Story from BBC NEWS:
a UK-based organization, has a web site that promotes population control and even reduction to cut CO2 emissions and to reduce resource usage. A subject worthy of discussion but as you can see in the below BBC story they vomit that same talking points as the rest of the ”climate change” community.A couple of points in the article were slightly disturbing yet not surprising:“…reducing the number of people born in the US would make a big difference in achieving reductions in CO2 levels.”Sounds like a threat to me!“…wealthy people can offset their own carbon emissions by funding contraceptive programmes in the developing world.”Again, the hypocrisy of “buying offsets”. If we have to pay others for the program we should have some oversight and decision-making role.http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8392193.stm
Reading the text you’ll note “experts” and UN representatives saying climate change “could” drive women into prostitution, “could” reduce income from farming and fishing, and insinuates other examples of human suffering being the direct result of Al Gore’s baby. These hypotheticals may be worth consideration but the title of the news item makes them sound factual and irrefutable.
The real problem that becomes apparent in the article is that population growth has and continues to outpace what the land and sea can support. It is estimated that the Philippine population will grow from 92 million to 146 million in the next 40 years. We should wonder rather than using “climate change” as a fear tactic to immediately reduce human consumption whether we must also drastically reduce human reproduction because half as much for twice as many makes little difference, if any.
Text of article follows:
In a campaign speech given in Oregon on May 18th, 2008 Barack Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” This may have just sounded like typical campaign rhetoric to most casual consumers of politics, without any conviction but sounding good to the softened sycophants. By itself this statement seems harmless, but taken in context with calls for limiting our use of resources and apologies for what we have used, it supports the call for “Carbon Reparations” where the developed nations, with the United States specifically in Mr. Obama’s mind, pay the developing nations for our past gluttony and allow them to use more while we use less.
President Obama’s current foreign policy stances may seem anemic with regard to Islamic extremism, the pursuit of nuclear energy by nations that can’t be trusted with the rational and peaceful use of such power, and the increasing aggression by our old cold war enemies. Fortunately he is firm with regard to improving America’s standing in the world. As part of his demonstrated attempts at apologizing for America’s past transgressions (re: Cairo Speech) the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, recently urged India not to emulate America’s “mistakes,” and accepted responsibility on behalf of the U.S. and other developed nations for contributing towards climate change. A few excerpts from a (CNSNews.com) story provide a bit of meat for this bone:
The U.N. is again proposing a new program to tax oil in rich nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in order to “revive the world economy and protect the environment”. $750 billion green investment could revive economy: U.N. | Environment | Reuters . The latest is in addition to proposals to cap/trade/tax CO2 emissions in order to reduce greenhouse gases as the Kyoto Protocol would have done.
This latest “Green New Deal” is touting the figure of $750 billion and suggesting it could be raised by a tax on oil consumption. To listen to the proponents of this program one would think it had been designed after the policies of Barack Obama, by promoting investments in “green” technologies for transportation, energy production using wind and solar power, and improved energy efficiency for buildings. The nonspecific benefits of such efforts are expected to satisfy the vague lofty goals of creating jobs, curbing poverty and fighting climate change.
In fact, the head of the U.N. Environment Program sounded like Rahm Emanuel when stating “The opportunity must not be lost”, and repeated the same dire warnings of the climate change activists. Much of the rhetoric used by the U.N. officials discussing this program seems as though it was lifted from the speeches of President Obama. Conversely, I would suggest that the President had been using standard Leftist ideological positions, which he shares with the Leftist-leaning United Nations. The linked article compares the program to FDR’s New Deal, which may not be a positive comparison given that there is much controversy about the real “benefits” of the New Deal and whether or not it extended the Depression.
My concern now is that our government will accept this program and other international programs claimed to protect the environment and help the global economy, willingly accepting damaging consequences to our economy and way of life. Our national sovereignty is currently at risk given the control the Democrats have achieved in Congress and the White House, and not simply moderate Democrats but true socialist ideologues. If proposals such as this “Green New Deal” are being considered or actually being negotiated by our elected officials or unelected bureaucrats (ala E.P.A) we must be watchful and raise our voices in dissent when necessary.
Every effort to undermine the worlds remaining superpower is now underway with the presidential election of Barack Obama. Beyond socialism and taking control of the free market, the next and perhaps most frightening step is the regulation of CO2.
E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide and Other Heat-Trapping Gases – NYTimes.com.
How far would such regulation go? Could they justify controlling the temperature of my house, limiting my travel, restricting the foods and products I consume, and eventually taxing the CO2 that I exhale? How soon before we have a CO2 offset market? I’ll breathe less so Al Gore can breathe more!
The E.P.A. is a bureaucracy that has been authorized to create and implement regulations for protecting the environment. With a nod from the President and “greenie” supporters I worry that our liberties and lives will be further subjugated by the unconstrained bureaucracy we have enabled.
Climate change activists and their Democratic party puppets talk of taxing cows, restricting production and controlling other CO2 sources. When will this discussion turn to taxing human beings? The result will be accelerating the demographic demise of the West. A human CO2 tax will have the effect of taxpaying producers slowing their breeding while poor non-taxpayers will continue breeding unabated, knowing that the kindness, dare I say laxness, of Western cultures will provide for the welfare of such dangerous unbalanced breeding. Read Mark Steyns’ ”America Alone” to understand more thoroughly the negative effects of contemporary demographic trends in the West.
