Google+ Followers

Friday, January 31, 2014

Save the Planet Kill Yourself! Environmentalists Want Humans to Live Shorter Lives



Humans are the enemy! A new study published in Ecology and Society claims that longer life expectancy for us is bad news for the planet. From the study by Aaron Lotz and Craig R. Allen:











We found a positive relationship between life expectancy and the percentage of endangered and invasive species in a country…The overall trend in high-income countries with improvements to the Human Development Index, which includes human life expectancy as one of its variables, is toward a disproportionately larger negative impact on a country’s ecological footprint. However, some lower-income countries have a high level of development without a high impact on ecosystem services (Moran et al. 2008).
Increased life expectancy means that people live longer and affect the planet longer; each year is another year of carbon footprint, ecological footprint, use of natural resources, etc. The magnitude of this impact is increased as more people live longer.
Bad humans!  Bad, bad humans.
The answer is supposedly–it’s becoming a clichĂ©–that we see ourselves as just part of nature:
Fischer et al. (2012) propose a “transformation strategy” that assumes that direct links between people and nature are better than indirect links. This paradigm shift would recouple the social-ecological system.
Wrong. We are the exceptional species. The environment benefits most when we see that it is our duty to manage the environment responsibly because we are human. If we redefine ourselves as just another animal in the forest, that’s just how we will act.
The authors don’t say whether we should try and live shorter lives. But that certainly seems an implication.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/12/save-the-planet-kill-yourself-environmentalists-want-humans-to-live-shorter-lives/

Keystone review mutes environmental concerns, raises pressure on Obama





The long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline got a major boost on Friday as a key State Department review raised no major environmental concerns, muting pipeline foes' main argument and raising pressure on the Obama administration to make a final decision. 
Republican supporters said the report should compel President Obama to swiftly green-light the project. 
"This report from the Obama administration once again confirms that there is no reason for the White House to continue stalling construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. "So, Mr. President, no more stalling -- no more excuses." 
Despite statements from McConnell and other pro-pipeline advocates, the department report stops short of recommending approval of the $7 billion pipeline. Nevertheless, the review could give Obama cover if he chooses to endorse the pipeline. 
Republicans are largely united behind the project, describing it as a needed jobs creator that would have little environmental impact. But it has divided Democrats. The unions have pressed the administration to approve the project, but environmental groups have adamantly opposed it. 
Foes say the pipeline would carry "dirty oil" that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill. 
The 1,179-mile pipeline would travel through the heart of the United States, carrying oil derived from tar sands in western Canada to a hub in Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries in Texas. 
A State Department official said Canadian tar sands are likely to be developed regardless of U.S. action on the pipeline, adding that other options to get the oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries -- including rail, trucks and barges -- would be worse for climate change. A news conference was set for later Friday. 
State Department approval is needed because the pipeline crosses a U.S. border. The Environmental Protection Agency and other departments will have 90 days to comment before State makes a recommendation to Obama on whether the project is in the national interest. A final decision by the government is not expected before summer. 
The new report comes only days after Obama's State of the Union address, in which he reiterated his support for an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that embraces a wide range of sources, from oil and natural gas to renewables such as wind and solar power. The remarks were a rebuff to some of his environmental allies who argued that Obama's support of expanded oil and gas production doesn't make sense for a president who wants to reduce pollution linked to global warming. 
"We believe that continued reliance on an `all-of-the-above' energy strategy would be fundamentally at odds with your goal of cutting carbon pollution," the environmentalists wrote in a letter to Obama. 
Obama blocked the Keystone XL pipeline in January 2012, saying he did not have enough time for a fair review before a looming deadline forced on him by congressional Republicans. That delayed the choice for him until after his re-election. 
Obama's initial rejection of the pipeline went over badly in Canada, which relies on the U.S. for 97 percent of its energy exports. The pipeline is critical to Canada, which needs infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production. The northern Alberta region has the world's third largest oil reserves, with 170 billion barrels of proven reserves. 
In a bid to smooth over relations with Canada and other pipeline supporters, Obama quickly suggested development of an Oklahoma-to-Texas line to alleviate an oil bottleneck at a Cushing, Okla., storage hub. Oil began moving on that segment of the pipeline last week. 
The 485-mile southern section of the pipeline operated by Calgary-based TransCanada did not require presidential approval because it does not cross a U.S. border. 
The latest environmental review, the fifth released on the project since 2010 -- acknowledges that development of tar sands in Alberta would create greenhouse gases, a State Department official said. But the report makes clear that other methods of transporting the oil -- including rail, trucks and barges -- would release more greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming than the pipeline. 
U.S. and Canadian accident investigators warned last week about the dangers of oil trains that transport crude oil from North Dakota and other states to refineries in the U.S. and Canada. The officials urged new safety rules, cautioning that a "major loss of life" could result from an accident involving the increasing use of trains to transport large amounts of crude oil. 
Several high-profile accidents involving crude oil shipments -- including a fiery explosion in North Dakota and an explosion that killed 47 people in Canada last year -- have raised alarms. 
Keystone XL would travel through Montana and South Dakota before reaching Nebraska. An existing spur runs through Kansas and Oklahoma to Texas. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/31/review-raises-no-major-environmental-objections-to-keystone-in-boost-for/

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Former NASA Scientists... Global Warming Hoax

ClimateGate - global warming hoax

Global Warming is Fake (pt. 1)

Global Warming - Bill Nye Versus Joe Bastardi

Three House Democrats have proposed a resolution that criticizes the teaching of creationism and the denial of man-made global warming as anti-science.

The resolution from Reps. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Mike Honda (D-Calif.), H.Res. 467, proposes the designation of Feb. 12 as "Darwin Day" to recognize Charles Darwin's contributions to science.


"[T]he teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems," it reads. It adds that the validity of Darwin's theory of natural selection is "strongly supported by the modern understanding of the science of genetics."

The resolution also takes a shot at global warming skeptics, by saying the advancement of science "must be protected from those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change."

Febr. 12 is the anniversary of Darwin's birth in 1809, and it says the House supports the designation of that date as "Darwin Day." It also says the House recognizes Darwin as a "worthy symbol on which to celebrate the achievements of reason, science, and the advancement of human knowledge."

Holt proposed a similar resolution last year, which won the support of five additional House Democrats: Reps. Mike Capuano (Mass.), Jared Polis (Colo.), Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and now-Sen. Ed Markey (Mass.)

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/energy-environment/196981-dem-bill-rips-creationism-global-warming-deniers#ixzz2rurCXrg5
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Obama Channel Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska,The all-of-the-above energy strategy





As taglines go, “All of the above” is not exactly phenomenal, lacking the sex appeal of its energy-policy sister, “Drill, baby, drill,” and the historic resonance of, say, “Where’s the beef?” It conjures a standardized test more than economic stimulus.
But President Obama’s use of the phrase to describe his current energy policy leanings – signaling yes to a combination of domestic drilling, alternative energy and conservation — is driving Republicans nuts, because the phrase has been a product of their party’s energy platform for years.
They find it especially galling since Mr. Obama made moves to block, for now, part of the expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mr. Obama has used the phrase while visiting oil-rich areas of the country, and his administration is promoting it every chance it gets.
It is hard to know precisely how “all of the above” came to pertain to energy, although Senator John McCain and his running mate in 2008, former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, made good use of it in their presidential campaign, along with “drill, baby, drill” and that underdog maxim, “mine, baby, mine.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/republicans-cry-foul-on-obama-catchprase/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


Obama’s State of the Union Address laid out his agenda for the next year: the same failed policies as last year.
Despite his soaring rhetoric, Obama will continue to cripple the coal industry and cut off oil and natural gas development while promoting costly renewable energy.
In his speech Tuesday night, Obama was not shy about touting the energy boom occurring under his watch — one of the few bright spots in the economy. The president took credit for the oil and natural gas boom which is helping to revitalize of of the country’s manufacturing prowess.

“The all-of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades,” Obama said in his address to Congress and the American people.
What he failed to mention is that the oil and gas boom is happening on state and private lands, not federally owned lands. In fact, most federally-owned lands are off limits to energy development, and an increasing amount are being dedicated to wind, solar and geothermal power.
“President Obama’s energy and climate messages contradict one another,” William Yeatman, an energy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “In one breath, he incorrectly takes credit for growing U.S. oil and gas production, which, in fact, took place despite his administration, rather than because of it.”
Oil and gas production on state and private lands has boomed in the last few years, all while production on federal lands has plummeted. Oil production shot up 35 percent on non-federal lands from 2007 to 2012, while production on federal lands in 2012 fell below 2007 levels. Natural-gas production in the states and on private property has shot up 40 percent since 2007, while falling 33 percent on federal lands.
On top of falling production, Obama’s ordered agencies to slap hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, operations with more regulations — increasing the costs of the very drilling technique that has caused the oil and gas boom. He is also promising to put more lands off limits to energy production.


“Every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar; every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job can’t be outsourced,” Obama said. “Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it, so that we can invest more in fuels of the future that do.”

Industries shouldn’t get special handouts, but the oil and gas industry’s supposed benefits pale in comparison to what renewable energy gets. The Congressional Budget Office found that green energy got $7.3 billion in energy tax subsidies last year, nearly double what oil and gas supposedly got.
This is on top of the billions the Obama administration spent on failed green energy companies like Solyndra and Abound Solar. In fact, the Department of Energy spent more than $11 million per job created in their green loan programs –yielding only 2,308 permanent jobs. This is all while the oil and gas industry have created 162,000 jobs in drilling, extraction and support activities since 2007, according to federal data — with no taxpayer dollars.

If Obama is serious about fighting income inequality and raising the living standards of Americans, he might do well to facilitate energy production rather than stymying it as these jobs pay seven times the minimum wage, according to industry statistics.
“The president has the opportunity to seize this moment by approving the Keystone XL pipeline, opening up new areas for responsible energy development, and pulling back unnecessary and costly new regulations,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, in a statement. “These pro-growth energy policies would create millions of stable, good paying jobs, which is the American people’s No. 1 priority.”
Despite the huge potential of U.S. energy development, Obama has given a nod to environmentalists that he will continue to stymie oil and gas where he can and continue to burden the coal industry with regulations aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions. All this in the name of stopping global warming, which hasn’t been seen in 17 years.






Tuesday, January 28, 2014

The Kerry Plan: Mandatory Global Warming Plan for US in 2015, What would this 2015 treaty involve? It would be a mandatory version of Kyoto dominated by the European Union

Fresh from his successes in Syria, Iran and Sudan, John Kerry goes to bed every night in his yacht with a bigger dream in mind. A dream of destroying the American economy and impoverishing the country.

His goal is to become the lead broker of a global climate treaty in 2015 that will commit the United States and other nations to historic reductions in fossil fuel pollution.
Shortly after Mr. Kerry was sworn in last February, he issued a directive that all meetings between senior American diplomats and top foreign officials include a discussion of climate change. He put top climate policy specialists on his State Department personal staff. And he is pursuing smaller climate deals in forums like the Group of 20, the countries that make up the world’s largest economies.
Mr. Obama has given Mr. Kerry’s efforts some help. In September, the Environmental Protection Agency began issuing regulations forcing cuts in carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
The rules, which can be enacted without Congress, have effectively frozen construction of new coal-fired plants and could eventually shutter existing ones. Republicans criticize the rules as a “war on coal,” but abroad they are viewed as a sign that the United States is now serious about acting on global warming.
What would this 2015 treaty involve? It would be a mandatory version of Kyoto dominated by the European Union and with the endgame of destroying productive economies the way that so many European economies have been destroyed by the Warmists.
The goal of 2015 will be to tie together all the past agreements into one big mandatory plan. United Nations bureaucrats will end up in control of every detail of life in the United States.
This is one more reason why it’s critical to secure Senate seats in 2014. The risk of a monstrosity like this getting through the Senate will be the effect of Obama’s two terms times twenty.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-kerry-plan-mandatory-global-warming-plan-for-us-in-2015/

Monday, January 27, 2014

Global Warming is Causing Global Cooling?













t’s not as if those in the Northeast have not experienced bone-chilling cold or that it is predicted to extend from the Midwest down into our southern States. There may possibly be a snow storm that will require the National Football League to reschedule the Sunday, February 
2nd Superbowl at the MetLife stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Crews spent 18 hours working to remove the snow from last week’s storm. - 



visit to IceAgeNow.info yielded headlines of news stories last week that included “Record Cold—Millions of Americans hit by Propane Shortage”, “Ice and Snow Closed Texas highways This Morning”, “Ice-cover Shuts Down Work on New Hudson River Bridge”, and so you understand this is a global phenomenon, “Kashmir—Heaviest January Snowfall in a Decade”, “Heavy Snowfall Sweeps Eastern Turkey”, “Romania—Heavy Snowfall and Blizzard”. And “Bangkok Suffers Coldest Night in Three Decades—Death Roll Mounts.”

Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo of WeatherBell Analytics and editor of IceCap says that, as the President addresses the nation on Tuesday, every state will have freezing temperatures and parts or all of 27 states will be below zero.

All this is occurring as President Barack Obama is anticipated to talk about “climate change”, a warming Earth, during his Tuesday State of the Union speech. He will be speaking to the idiots who still think the Earth is warming because they are too stupid or lazy to ask why it is so cold.

Michael Bastasch, writing for The Daily Caller on Saturday, confirmed D’Aleo’s and other meteorologist’s forecasts. “The bitter cold that has hit the U.S. East Coast is expected throughout February, and on Jan 28—the day of the address—the Mid-Atlantic region is expected to be hit with freezing cold air that could drive temperatures below zero in big cities among the I-95 corridor.”

Washington, D.C. will be one of those cities, but as Bastasch reported, “Environmentalists and liberal groups are urging Obama to use the speech to reaffirm his commitment to fighting global warming. ‘President Obama should rank the battle against climate change as one of his top priorities in his State of the Union speech next week’, said Center for Clean Air Policy president Ned Heime.”

For environmentalists, it does not matter if the real climate is a deep cold. They committed to the lies about global warming in the late 1980s and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) has maintained the hoax ever since. Along the way we learned that the computer models on which it based its assertions and predictions were rigged and bogus, but that has not deterred the IPCC which is now referring to a “pause” in global warming. This is lying on a global scale.

It was the environmental group Greenpeace that put out a television advertisement featuring a Santa Claus telling children that he might have to call off Christmas because the North Pole was melting. How malicious can they get? When a group of global warming scientists and tourists took a ship to the Antarctic to measure the “melting” ice down there, the ship got caught in the ice which also resisted the efforts of two icebreaker ships to rescue them.

We are dealing with environmental groups, the IPCC and government leaders like Obama for whom the telling of huge and blatantly obvious lies about global warming is nothing compared to the billions generated by the hoax for the universities and scientists that line their pockets supporting it and industries that benefit by offering ways to capture carbon dioxide or conserve energy by first banning incandescent light bulbs.

The “pause” has lasted now for seventeen years and, as is the case with all climate on the Earth, the reason is the Sun.
A report published by CBN News noted that “The last time the sun was this quiet, North America and Europe suffered through a weather event from the 1600s to the 1800s known as ‘Little Ice Age’ when the Thames River in London regularly froze solid, and North America saw terrible winters. Crops failed and people starved.”

Jens Pedersen, a senior scientist at Denmark’s Technical University, said that climate scientists know the Earth stopped warming 15 years ago. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which Pedersen is an expert reviewer, suppressed a recent report from its own scientists that the U.N.’s climate model has been proven wrong.

“Global warming is nowhere to be found,” said David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Colorado, in a January 16 commentary in The Washington Times. “As frigid conditions settled over the nation, global-warming alarmists went into full denial mode”, adding that “weather extremes also seem to bring out the lunatic fringe” and that is why the public is being told that cold weather has been caused by global warming!

Whatever the President has to say about “climate change” should be taken as just one more example of five years of lies to advance policies that have nothing to do with the welfare of Americans needing jobs or the execrable Obamacare attack on the U.S. healthcare system.

The cold reality may well be a Superbowl played on another day and a President for whom the truth is incidental to his shredding of the U.S. Constitution, the increase in the nation’s ever-growing debt, a lagging economy, and his intention to by-pass Congress rather than working with it.

That kind of thing will put a chill up any American’s spine if you think about it.
- See more at: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/01/27/global-warming-is-causing-global-cooling/#sthash.nvmcTUOy.dpuf

Thursday, January 23, 2014

The Ideas of Daniel Quinn, base on ideas of evolution.The pressure of population growth aka Food Race

The pressure of population growth
Interestingly, Darwin and Wallace found their inspiration in economics. An English parson named Thomas Malthuspublished a book in 1797 called Essay on the Principle of Population in which he warned his fellow Englishmen that most policies designed to help the poor were doomed because of the relentless pressure of population growth. A nation could easily double its population in a few decades, leading to famine and misery for all.

When Darwin and Wallace read Malthus, it occurred to both of them that animals and plants should also be experiencing the same population pressure. It should take very little time for the world to be knee-deep in beetles or earthworms. But the world is not overrun with them, or any other species, because they cannot reproduce to their full potential. Many die before they become adults. They are vulnerable to droughts and cold winters and other environmental assaults. And their food supply, like that of a nation, is not infinite. Individuals must compete, albeit unconsciously, for what little food there is.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14

Ishmael: The Ideas of Daniel Quinn, He also makes a clear case for this method of agriculture and all the systems it has spawned being the cause of Global Warming.

Note a run across a young man on wedenday and he stating talking about Leavers" and "Takers. and the food race , so i did some digging and found as note in this blog



Ishmael: The Ideas of Daniel Quinn

For my final text, I decided to explore the ideas of Daniel Quinn, whose work I had read previously, but found myself thinking about in new ways and with newfound urgency following our readings on chaos & complexity this semester. Quinn's most famous work is Ishmael, but he has authored a set of books -- Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael, and Beyond Civilization -- which all attempt to clarify the same core ideas. I found Quinn's ideas became most clear after reading all four books and exploring the plentiful additional material on the Ishmael Community website, which includes essays, presentations, and direct answers to questions and challenges.
Ishmael (as well as The Story of B and My Ishmael) is written in the format of a novel. In the beginning, a first-person narrator meets a telepathic gorilla (I know), and most of the book consists of the gorilla leading the narrator (and thus, the reader) through a series of discussions about how humankind got to where it is today. The narrator takes the position of the naive reader, asking multiple questions (sometimes ad nausea) and in the process making visible our cultural myths, unveiling how and why humanity is no longer living in accord with the rest of the world, uncovering the origins of society's problems, and showing how we are headed toward cultural collapse if we don't change.
Core Ideas
I believe the core of Daniel Quinn's many ideas can be synthesized as:
1) Population growth is directly related to food production. All living populations -- including humans -- will grow to match their food supply.
2) As long as we produce a surplus of food (on a global scale; not regionally), the human population will continue to swell -- regardless of birth rates, death rates, standard of living, education, etc. (Click here for more detail.)
3) We perpetually produce a surplus of food because we practice Totalitarian Agriculture, which eliminates competing species, destroys biodiversity (some estimates say over 200 species a day are becoming extinct), creates massive waste and pollution, and spreads to disrupt entire ecosystems in order to produce as much food as possible. Ultimately, the increased food fuels rapid population growth, which demands yet more farming -- a feedback loop.
4) The creation of an agricultural system that produces vast surpluses is what has fueled the massive rise and spread of our culture (dubbed the "Takers"), and the cultural myths or stories that accompany it: humans are the ultimate pinnacle of the evolution of life on earth, humans exist differently and separately from the rest of nature, humans should exploit the web of life however necessary to further this "natural" dominance, etc.
5) The creation of this agricultural system and the production of surpluses is what first created systems of class -- there was now something to lock away, to horde and own, and social strata (of this type) emerged. From there, Quinn lays out how all of our civilization's problems evolved from class, overpopulation and imperial cultural myths -- poverty, sexism, racism, crime, depression, etc. He also makes a clear case for this method of agriculture and all the systems it has spawned being the cause of Global Warming.
The Great Forgetting and Cultural Collapse
Quinn claims (in a variety of ways over all four books) that for 3 million years, humans lived a very different sort of lifestyle, a tribal lifestyle governed by an unwritten "Law of Limited Competition" whereby humans hunted and farmed (in other ways) and competed to the fullest of their capabilities, but didn't obliterate other competitors, species, ecosystems or food supplies to do so. Quinn claims that every member of tribe had a specialized function and was valuable, and for the most part people gathered and worked for what they needed from day to day (rather than collecting surpluses or additional wealth) -- a process that took a few hours and left the rest of the day open to other pursuits, as opposed to the 40 hours a week for 40 yearslifestyle that we burn ourselves into the ground with today. Quinn said this lifestyle worked just fine for humans, was naturally selected over millenia, and doesn't find these basic tenets to be "primitive" in the sense of cultural evolution the way, say, Robert Wright does in Nonzero.
Quinn says that about 10,000 years ago, that all changed with the emergence of Totalitarian Agriculture, which produced surpluses and exploded the population and fueled the spread of this practice and the classist cultural ideologies that emerged with it. He says we can trace the exponential human population surge back to this point, and backs this up with a variety of data from different disciplines, gathered by the United Nations and the United States, etc -- all of which point to a major change occurring around 10,000 years ago (most charts actually begin measurement at that time, because there begins to be a large enough change to measure), but without most analysts questioning what occurred then. Quinn calls this The Great Forgetting -- human history omitting the lifestyle that worked well for 3 million years because only the last 10,000 years have been well-documented, and already immersed in Taker culture.
Quinn says that the quagmire of increasingly complex global problems we are facing today are the signs and symbols of a failed cultural experiment -- humans tried this Taker lifestyle of living out of accord with the rest of the living community, and it took about 10,000 years for this experiment to collapse. As an analogy, Quinn presents the idea of someone trying to build an airplane, but whose craft is not in accord with the laws of aerodynamics. The person drives the craft off the edge of a cliff, and for some time is in free-fall. During this time the person yells "Look, I am flying! Gravity does not apply to me!" -- but soon will discover that gravity does apply to them, and in a most drastic manner. We are headed for a crash.
The Food Race and Overpopulation
Quinn states that if there is still time to avoid a crash, it will necessitate ending our current agriculture system, and the race to produce more food globally. He attempts to show in a variety of ways how the world is currently producing far more than enough food for all humans, but because our population continues to skyrocket and there are local famines and food shortages, we operate under a cultural myth that says that we need to push and push to create more food -- which he aggressively states time and time again will only fuel overpopulation in a never-ending cycle.
This line of thinking uncovers one of Quinn's most controversial claims, which is that we should not send food to starving populations in "Third World" countries; they have already outpaced the resources in their environment, and sending them food will only increase their population, causing more suffering. He says this is like pouring gasoline on a fire just because it is a liquid and we feel we must do something in the face of tragedy.
Click here for a fairly accessible (if plodding) slideshow presentation with data about some of these ideas, titled World Food & Human Population Growth. The slideshow includes quotes and findings from Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel.
New Tribalism
Ultimately, Quinn advocates for abandoning our current system of agriculture, "walking away" from our owner/conqueror cultural myths, and finding our way back to a manner of living with the rest of the world that biological and cultural evolution selected for 3 million years -- a tribal lifestyle. He stresses that this doesn't mean giving up all technology, picking up clubs or living in caves. If we are to pull away from Taker culture, our new tribal lifestyles will be something completely original, a brand new idea that hasn't existed before. Quinn rallies against civilizations and forsmaller, self-sustained tribes -- classless and cooperative communities -- that create their own order based on what works best for them within the context of their environment, saying there is no one right way to live, which I see as a nod to the flexibility called for by complexity theory. Far from being primitive, Quinn says new tribalism is about living in accord with the rest of the living community, "an escape route for the billions... who slog stones up the pyramids not because they love stones or pyramids but because they have no other way to put food on the table."
One part of Quinn's argument that I wholeheartedly agree with is that all our tinkering with current systems will mean nothing if we don't find a way to address overpopulation. The Earth's population doubled from 1900-1960, and again from 1960-2000 -- even though the "population growth rate" is currently declining. (Click here for more detail.) Within the span of most of our lives, the number of humans on this planet has doubled. And doubling means billions of people. What will emerge and what will collapse within this infinitely complex adapative system?
--Ross


Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn and the movement it inspired


Ishmael separates humans into two groups — "Leavers" and "Takers." "Leavers" formed cultures that thrived for thousands of years before the agricultural revolution — hunters and gatherers, herders, indigenous societies. Those cultures lived lightly and took only what they needed. "Takers" are us — the people who killed or annexed those cultures and continue to do so; logging and farming in the Amazon threatens some of the last uncontacted tribes on Earth.
"Mother Culture teaches you that this is as it should be," Ishmael tells the narrator. "Except for a few thousand savages scattered here and there, all the peoples of the earth are now enacting this story. This is the story man was born to enact [according to the mythology], and to depart from it is to resign from the human race itself. ... There's no way out of it except through death."
Unlike "Leaver" societies, which sustained themselves and the natural world for thousands of years, our "Taker" society will run out of things to kill and will die. Quinn likens the agricultural revolution to humans' first attempts at flight. Those attempts failed because we tried to mimic a bird. Only when we discovered the law of aerodynamics did we learn to fly.
Through "Ishmael," Quinn argues that no law or theory underpins "Taker" culture — and that's why it has been in free fall since its adoption.
Quinn emphasizes that the natural world, which includes "Leaver" cultures, sustains itself through what he calls the law of limited competition. Under this peace-keeping law, he says, you may not hunt down competitors or deny them food or access to it. You also may not commit genocide against your competition.
"And only once in all the history of this planet has any species tried to live in defiance of this law — and it wasn't an entire species, it was only one people, those I've named the Takers," Ishmael tells the narrator. "Ten thousand years ago, this one people said, 'No more. Man was not meant to be bound by this law,' and they began to live in a way that flouts the law at every point."
People have asked me why I don't just become a hunter-gatherer. I have no interest in becoming a hunter-gatherer — and I know my wife, who focuses on the good in our society, wouldn't, either. I wouldn't know what to do and especially where to go. My problem is less with civilization than the aggressiveness and mindlessness of this one. As Quinn points out in "Ishmael," civilization isn't against the law of limited competition; it's subject to the law of limited competition.
While writing this essay, I took a break to go with my wife and son to see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra perform at the Morton Arboretum. As I listened, I thought about all the beauty this culture has produced.
Yet I yearn to live in a civilization that blends less madness with its music. I yearn to live in a civilization that redefines not only wealth but profit. A new shopping center and fast-food restaurant turns up trees by the roots but lifts no spirit. A lawn built on chemical products kills the dandelion but misses the miracle. A daytime flight over Chicago anticipates the skyline but ignores the slaughter. I yearn to live in a civilization that aviates consciously.
I know of like minds who found inspiration in "Ishmael."
"When I was a legal advocate for chemical victims, I was already well aware of the distorted values at work in our culture," Earon Davis, a former Chicago resident who recently moved to Bloomington, Ind., wrote in an email. "'Ishmael' helped me to see that our entire society's sustainability and adaptability were being jeopardized by corrupted group-think in our mainstream culture."
Davis said he tried to establish a Chicago-based discussion group related to "Ishmael" but got limited participation. He continues to lead a Web-based discussion group, which sees little activity.
"I can see how most people who are initially drawn to 'Ishmael' need to back away from the message of Quinn in order to focus on earning a living, raising a family, and living a 'normal' life," he wrote.
Barbara Ridd said she incorporates "Ishmael" into the curriculum of a course called Ecology of Personal Life at DePaul University's School for New Learning. She said the book offends some students who feel it questions the Bible.
"I think that closes those people off to the greater message, that we have to take stock of ourselves," she said. "I think that sometimes, when given such a blunt look at our existence as mankind, people don't like that as well."
Laura M. Hartman, assistant professor of religion at Augustana College in Rock Island, said she read "Ishmael" for two courses as an undergraduate at Indiana University. "The general concept of 'Takers' and 'Leavers' still resonates with me," she said. Yet she sees a weakness in the book: Instead of providing instructions on how to change the world, Quinn appeals for changed minds.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-13/features/ct-prj-0714-ishmael-lifes-operating-manual-tom-sha-20130713_1_printers-row-journal-chalice-books/2

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Al Gore’s S.S. Burning Planet Expedition Hits Snag…, Note this is Satire

-Satire
It was the Year 2014—fifth anniversary of Al Gore’s confident prediction that “in five years the polar ice will melt.” [sic]  And a band of true believers— Australian scientists and global warming experts led by experienced skipper Harold “Chips” Ahoy—set out to confirm and document the prediction of their hero and International Guru of Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming) Al Gore.

On board the 350-foot S.S. Burning Planet—Gore’s politically correct research vessel powered by methane generated from hog manure and pond scum—were research equipment, food, supplies and a well stocked library of such learned Gore treatises as Inconvenient Humans (The Case for Population Control)© 1985; Melting from Within (How the Center of the Earth is Hotter than the Sun) © 1990; No, Seriously, it is Global Warming © 2012; Banning Beef (The Menace of Bovine Flatus) © 2013.  This hardy band had read every word penned by Gore—the Nobel Prize winner, founder of Al Gorezeera, almost President, Inventor of the Internet, owner of zinc mines and ocean front real estate developer—and were confident in his predictions as they sailed toward what used to be the South Pole and what they were certain was now simply a coordinate in the middle of the ocean surrounded by starving polar bears floating helplessly on ice floes drifting in the ocean. But their confidence was soon dashed.

As they proceeded to that indistinct watery coordinate formerly known as the South Pole, the Burning Planet encountered the unthinkable… ice.  In fact, to the disbelief of the crew the vessel got irretrievably stuck in 6 feet of ice that was not supposed to be there.  Hopelessly locked in 6 feet of Global Warming Residue, the researchers radioed for help and ice breakers from three countries responded in an attempt to free the stranded scientists—but to no avail, for they too got stuck in the frozen ocean.

In irony heaped on irony, the researchers had to be rescued by a helo dispatched from China—the world’s worst air polluter with smog so thick in some cities that one cannot see across the street.
Hearing of the incident, Stoos Views’ own Hugh Betcha, Head of Stoos Views International Climate Change News Bureau, flew the company plane to Australia, leaving behind his home in Wystone, South Dakota where it was, at the time, a balmy19 below zero Fahrenheit.  Hugh, voted “Most Respected Environmental Reporter 2013” by Greenpeace International, and “Reporter We Would Most Like to Hang With, 2012” by MSNBC, hurried to meet the newly-rescued Ahoy to get the scoop on the story.
Sitting down with the rather dejected captain in a local Sydney bar, Hugh introduced himself as the captain gazed into his Fosters, barely raising his head to acknowledge the reporter.

“We were true believers,” he began, ‘there were a lot of depressed folks on board when we spotted that ice. This was just not supposed to happen. Al was, wr…wr…wrong,” the captain stuttered, choking on the words. “Then, to be rescued by a Chinese chopper powered by fossil fuel, well that was just about the last straw.”

“But you accepted the ride.” Hugh noted.

“Yes, we considered at first rejecting the ride—after all they are the biggest polluters of the world’s air and are more responsible for Climate Change than anyone.  But after a close vote we decided to accept the ride. Besides we only had a four-day supply of granola and our latte machine was on the fritz, so there was really no choice,” Ahoy muttered as he took another swig of his Fosters.
Hugh wished him good luck and Godspeed as he got up to leave the sobbing captain.

Hugh’s attempts to contact Al Gore about his ill-fated expedition met with no success. Gore, who is currently developing “Al’s Oceanside Lots” in Phoenix, Arizona, failed to return his several phone calls.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60601?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=422ddc4424-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-422ddc4424-297703129

Chill Out Over Global Warming

The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress, says this year, there will be a major policy battle over "climate change." Why?
We already waste billions on pointless gestures that make people think we're addressing global warming, but the earth doesn't notice or care.


What exactly is "global warming" anyway? That's really four questions:
1. Is the globe warming? Probably. Global temperatures have risen. Climate changes. Always has. Always will.
2. Is the warming caused by man? Maybe. There's decent evidence that at least some of it is.
3. But is global warming a crisis? Far from it. It's possible that it will become a crisis.
Some computer models suggest big problems, but the models aren't very accurate. Some turned out to be utterly wrong. Clueless scaremongers like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., seize on weather disasters to blame man's carbon output. After Oklahoma's tragic tornadoes last year, Boxer stood on the floor of the Senate and shrieked, "Carbon could cost us the planet!" But there were actually fewer tornadoes last summer.
4. If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it? No. What we do now is pointless. I feel righteous riding my bike to work. That's just shallow. Even if all Americans replaced cars with bicycles, switched to fluorescent light bulbs, got solar water heaters, etc., it would have no discernible effect on the climate. China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels.
Weirdly, the only thing that's reduced America's carbon output has been our increased use of natural gas (it releases less greenhouse gas than oil and coal). But many environmentalists fight the fracking that produces it.
Someday, we'll probably invent technology that could reduce man's greenhouse gas creation, but we're nowhere close to it now. Rather than punish poor people with higher taxes on carbon and award ludicrous subsidies to Al Gore's "green" investments, we should wait for the science to advance.
If serious warming happens, we can adjust, as we've adjusted to big changes throughout history. It will be easier to adjust if America is not broke after wasting our resources on trendy gimmicks like windmills.
Environmental activists say that if we don't love their regulations, we "don't care about the earth." Bunk. We can love nature and still hate the tyranny of bureaucrats' rules.
We do need some rules. It's good that government built sewage treatment plants. Today, the rivers around Manhattan are so clean that I swim in them. It's good that we forced industry to stop polluting the air. Scrubbers in smokestacks and catalytic converters on cars made our lives better. The air gets cleaner every time someone replaces an old car with a new one.
But those were measures against real pollution -- soot, particulates, sulfur, etc. What global warming hysterics want to fight is merely carbon dioxide. That's what plants breathe. CO2 may prove to be a problem, but we don't know that now.
The world has real problems, though: malaria, malnutrition, desperate poverty. Our own country, while relatively rich, is deep in debt. Obsessing about greenhouse gases makes it harder to address these more serious problems.
Environmentalists assume that as people get richer and use more energy, they pollute more. The opposite is true. As nations industrialize, they pay more attention to pollution. Around the world, it's the most prosperous nations that now have the cleanest air and water.
Industrialization allows people to use fewer resources. Instead of burning trees for power, we make electricity from natural gas. We figure out how to get more food from smaller pieces of land.
And one day we'll probably even invent energy sources more efficient than oil and gas. We'll use them because they're cost-effective, not because government forces us to.
So let's chill out about global warming. We don't need more micromanagement from government. We need less.
Then free people -- and rapidly increasing prosperity -- will create a better world. 


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/22/chill_out_121316.html#ixzz2r9yZCJ60
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Americans are not buying into the hoax of Global Warming/Climate Change Dems To Double Down On Climate Lie







Democrats in the US Senate are concerned, it seems, that not enough Americans are buying into the hoax of Global Warming/Climate Change.  So they propose doing what Democrats always do when the public refuses to accept their lies ... ram it down our throats.




Some democrats in the Senate intend to bring pressure to bear on the broadcast and cable news networks to be more aggressive in spreading the Climate Change propaganda to their viewers. 





We learned the following from the National Journal recently in an article entitled:  “Democrats Plan to Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change:”

“Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues’ signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they’re ignoring global warming.”




Senator Sanders is quoted as saying:  “Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week ... ”  Sanders made mention of their latest move in “a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats’ new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force.”




Somehow, the democrats seemed to have entirely missed how the public has decided—after being bombarded with Global Warming and Climate Change propaganda for many decades now—that it is, in fact, a lie, a hoax, with almost as much value as a polished cow pie.

Most Americans have figured out that the environmental movement, the greens (or Greenies), is/are sort of like a watermelon.  Like that delicious melon, the environmental movement is green on the outside, but red on the inside.




ast five years with a Marxist President has caused Americans to take a second, harder look at Marxism/Socialism.  Obama Lied About Care, the latest Marxist program to be foisted on the American people has convinced even more that Marxism/Socialism is a rotten philosophy and one that will destroy our country if not stopped in its tracks immediately. 
It took a while


It took a while but finally Americans have seen through the lies of the Left and now see Climate Change for the vicious lie that it is.

I came across a blog site recently that I think pretty much sums up why we oughtn’t to place any trust, at all,  in those who purvey the Global Warming/Climate Change lies and propaganda. 
Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970:
  • “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”Kenneth Watt, ecologist
  • “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”George Wald, Harvard Biologist
  • “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
  • “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
  • “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
  • “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
  • “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
  • “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
  • “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”Life Magazine, January 1970
  • “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.
  • “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
  • “We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
  • “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
  • “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”Sen. Gaylord Nelson
  • “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Kenneth Watt, Ecologist  
It’s almost funny… ALMOST.  My ongoing concern is that so many bought into the lies and propaganda and, what’s worse, continue to do so today.  Thankfully, today the trend is to disbelieve much of the garbage as so much of it has proven false and contrived.  And yet, our President and his cohort in Congress continue to press for new programs, increased funding, and more and more regulations based on what I believe is the false science of Global Warming.
I couldn’t help but notice there was no mention of those “Senate suggested” broadcast reports on Global Warming being balanced.  It would seem the dems are of the mind that any report on Global Warming by the Mainstream Media would, naturally, reflect the philosophy and the narrative of the political Left.  I wonder why?  But that’s another story for another column.