Lew Rockwell interviews Marc Morano of Climate Depot

A great episode of the Lew Rockwell show:

Marc Morano talks to Lew about all the eco scares designed to wreck human civilization.

• Marc Morano’s Climate Depot website
• Marc’s Special Report: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
• Marc’s Special Report: A-Z Climate Reality Check – Sub-Prime Science Exposé: ‘The claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing’ – Presented to UN Summit

Australia: leading the world in insane carbon-phobic tyranny

Holy shit. What the fuck is wrong with Australia these days?

"SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact."

Yes, I see the word 'wrongly' in that sentence, so no doubt the scum will claim it's only a requirement to tell the truth, but the obvious effect of such a ludicrously over-the-top measure is to prohibit anyone in business mentioning the very unpopular carbon tax (which, prior to the election, the PM promised she would not implement), and, of course, there will be the 'necessity' to create parasitical hoard of jumped-up 'carbon cops' to snoop and shake down businesses.

Hat tip: Infowars

Meanwhile, what the fuck is this?

Obviously this is supposed to be an amusing way of getting the enviro-mentalist message across, and it certainly reveals the twisted thinking of such zealots. Who wants to live in a place where, even in the smallest room, you are being observed? Worse still, accosted and assaulted a bullying worm-weasel?

I guess, what with 'the consensus' and 'the debate' being over, now comes the time to pummel people into compliance.

Going down the rat-hole of the carbon-phobic nutters

Four Guardian articles:

"Diageo to end funding of Heartland Institute after climate change outburst"
"Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job"
"Heartland associate taught 'biased' climate course at Ottawa University"
"Cancel Lord Monckton's university lecture, say academics"

As is the way with the internet, one link leads to another. In the first article, it's not surprising that a corporation stops funding a group if doing so will be perceived as controversial, as is the case with the Heartland Institute's latest ad campaign. What I find disturbing is this quote from its spokesman:

"Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this."

Huh? Why would a drinks company 'vigorously oppose' one side in a scientific argument? I could understand a company saying: 'we take climate change seriously and are doing what we can to love the planet for our children ... and our children's children', but 'vigorously opposing' a widely held view in an on-going scientific debate? What else, I wonder? What is the corporate position on String Theory? Sadly, Diageo owns Guinness, a favourite tipple of mine. Perhaps I should take my custom elsewhere.

The second article is more interesting if you imagine the reverse situation to the one discussed: i.e. a journalist working for the Heartland Institute using dishonest means to get information out of one of the propaganda production units of the global warming industry. I'm imagining; shock! outrage! demands for the long arm of the law and exemplary punishment.

With the third and fourth articles (the latter from last year) we descend further into a hellish pit of scientologistical jacobinism, where 'academics' attempt to stifle debate and ban contrary voices, so hysterically fearful are they that the edifice of half-truths and assertions they call 'the consensus' will come crashing down as soon as someone pokes it with a pencil. Thus:

The letter, which is addressed "from the Australian academic community" to Notre Dame, a Catholic university in Western Australia, was originally drafted by Natalie Latter, a political science postgraduate student at the University of Western Australia. The letter says Monckton's lecture is particularly unwelcome in light of recent death threats made against Australian climate scientists.

D-D-D-D-Death threats? What, these death threats? The ones you made up and got caught lying about by the Aussie Info Commissioner?

WWF: a journey into the Heart of Darkness of the enviro-lunatic eugenicists

Here are a couple of things worth reading:

Autonomous Mind's piece on the Met Office, and Euro Referendum's piece on the WWF, which leads on from Christopher Booker's column in the Telegraph.

I guess the only point I'd add is when you consider who set up WWF - Julian Huxley (head of the Eugenics movement in Britain, who proclaimed the task of Unesco, of which he was also head, with the rehabilitation of eugenics after Hitler had somewhat sullied its reputation), Prince Philip (of the 'I would like to be reincarnated as a particularly nasty virus and help deal with the population problem' quote) and Prince Bernhard (the ex-nazi who formed the Bilderberg Club), I'm not too surprised to see what they get up to.

'Saving the planet' for these people means saving it from us, the commoners, so they can have it all for themselves - just one big safari park for our so-called betters to roam free. Ah, the good life!

Climate Quacks fake death threats to demonise opponents

I think it may be time to designate a new level of baseness. Nestling underneath the proverbial belly of a snake we find the kind of fake scientist who would lie about receiving death threats.

Tory betrayal moves from tragedy to farce

My fellow bloggers Autonomous Mind, Calling England and The Quiet Man have all covered this, and no doubt many others too, once they've pinched themselves, checked the date-line isn't 1st April and quickly moved through various emotional stages of disbelief, consternation and rage, before settling down to comment of the latest abomination to issue from the Save-The-Planet-Nazi section of the political establishment.

The plan itself, which involves the state preventing people replacing their household boilers or undertaking home improvements unless they hand over additional money for 'green improvements', such as additional insulation or whatever else these delusional regulatory fetishists deem appropriate.

It is, I would say, very clearly not the work of the current government, by which I mean that collection of jostling egos at Westminster, but rather the permanent government which we rarely see - the zealous control-freaks who festoon the ministries, who never need face the people, who take their orders not from us but from the next highest lacky in their insulated demi-monde. Certainly the hand of EU can be seen, no doubt with the usual mailed glove of British government 'gold-plating' - the term used to euphemise taking ludicrous rules from Brussels and amplifying them to show additional contempt for the people of this country.

My advice to the Tory MPs; go back and read a few of the statements you made in opposition. Refamiliarise yourself with the image you then wished to portray. Note the references you no doubt made to small government, reducing bureaucracy, standing up to Brussels, even, some of you, individual liberty, because it is such phrases as these which will be your indictment and, hopefully, your epitaph.

World government under the cover of 'saving the planet' continues apace

Via Infowars, I note the 'Planet Under Pressure' conference that has just taken place in London. No surprises. All the usual suspects spouting their usual bullshit, demanding their usual solution, that being a world government, run by 'the experts' who are selflessly offering up themselves to 'serve' the rest of us, and indeed Gaia herself, in the role of philosopher kings. Here's an extract from their 'State of the Planet Declaration', telling us what we need:

Fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions is required to overcome barriers to progress and to move to effective Earth-system governance. Governments must take action to support institutions and mechanisms that will improve coherence, as well as bring about integrated policy and action across the social, economic and environmental pillars. Current understanding supports the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level. There is also strong support for strengthening global governance by including civil society, business and industry in decision-making at all levels.

My interpretation of that paragraph is that these scumbag motherfuckers want to see the world ruled over by a central-planning institution which will make the Soviet Union look like a village fete cake competition organising committe tea-and-biscuits afternoon at the vicarage.

The last sentence talks about 'including civil society' etc. This would be wholly contradictory with the above interpretation, if it were more than a flick of the bullfighter's cape. If you have a global committee deciding things, that is the decision-making process. The ordinary individual will have absolutely no influence, and neither will any number of individuals banding together, unless they are capable of defying the military might of an angry UN.

Even more stomach-churning is Annex 3: "Supporting statement from young people representing the voice of youth". One question: WHO THE FUCK APPOINTED YOU TO REPRESENT ANYONE?.

So, go read it and seethe.

Monbiot swings fist at libertarianism, misses, ends in crumpled heap on floor in puddle of own urine

George Monbiot obviously hasn't learnt from his mistakes. He has again launched a feeble attack on libertarianism, using as a jumping-off point a piece by someone called Matt Bruenig, who is some kind of communist as far as I can tell. I may write something separate on him later, if I feel like playing whack-a-mole on his sixth-form level sophisms.

The attack from these two is based on the following:

A complete rejection of property rights.

A claim that property rights are untenable when faced by issues of environmental pollution.

A claim that because they are untenable, libertarians are forced to reject environmentalism.

On the first point; readers, please feel free to occupy and make use of George's palatial residence, seeing that, according to him, property rights are laughable. I suspect, if anyone of us were to move in, start watching his telly, eating the food out of his fridge, sleeping in his beds etc he would very swiftly rediscover his understanding of property rights, which, when he's sitting in his intellectual ivory tower, strangely deserts him.

On the second point, libertarian property rights with regard to environmental issues are not at all untenable, and actually provide the means to address such matters and bring redress where justice dictates. As I noted last time George decided to parade his hostile ignorance, it was the refusal of 19th century courts, i.e., the organs of the state, to uphold property rights with regard to industrial pollution on the spurious grounds of a collectivist 'greater good' which prevented the law from dealing with the issue, and, anecdotally, I pointed out to George how, in the socialist countries of the Soviet bloc, environmental degradation was often worse, due to them sharing George's collectivism and hatred for property rights.

On the third point, it is not the case that libertarians are constrained to reject environmentalism, only that we are constrained to address such matters from what we consider the correct and just starting point, that being individual liberty, property rights and the non-aggression principle.

Leaving aside the science for a moment, George Monbiot and those of the environmental movement who mill around his tattered standard, are so inherently hostile to libertarian ideas and so slavishly in thrall to an ideological mish-mash of collectivism, state-worship and neo-pastoral utopianism, that we are duty-bound to fight back against his poisonous views.

This would be the case, even if every doomsday prediction he trots out was 100% veritas, because the solutions he proposes are monstrously illiberal. What we would support are solutions that adhere to the principles I note above; individual liberty, property rights and non-aggression.

Yet again, Monbiot refuses to engage with actual libertarian philosophy and prefers to duff up a strawman version, which may satisfy his unthinking followers. It is, I suppose, somewhat gratifying that he has identified libertarianism as the main enemy, in other words, the most consistent and rational antidote to his sub-marxoid, misanthropic madness.

Hat tip: An Englishman's Castle

Cross-posted at Libertarian Home

Scientists they ain't

Leaving aside the collapsing world paper money economy, I note the beneath-the-empty-barrel state of the global warming fear-mongering industry on show in this Grauniad article:

"Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists"

Yep. It's a chance we can't afford to take. Best shut down our civilisation and wipe ourselves out in a Khmer Rouge-style return to nature, in order to stave off the risk.

Hat tip: Infowars.

Can somebody please tell Cameron what party he's supposed to lead

Tories, eh. What's the matter with them? Their only virtue is they're not socialists, but they are so tragically dull-witted, that they are often led by socialists without even noticing. What would it take to make them pay a fucking tention to what their party is, compared to what it is supposed to be?

How about this one? David Cameron is rushing to the defence of Julia Gillard's loony carbon tax that the Australian Labor Party is foisting on the resentful nation, after promising she would not do so at the time of the election. The Telegraph reports:

His letter, congratulating the leader of the Australian Labour Party, said it was a “bold step”.

“Climate change is one of the most pressing threats we face and we need to take urgent action to reduce emissions and put economics on a more sustainable low carbon footing,” he wrote.

That's right, Tory fools. Your comrade leader is weighing in to the domestic political scene of Australia to support the most unpopular, controversial policy its deluded socialist government is attempting. Does that give any of you pause for reflection?

Lib Dem government:: Huhne of the Khmer Vert; Kable the Keynesian

Chris Huhne, the government's energy mascot, is something of a sore loser it seems, as he has launched an inquiry into MEPs who voted down his favoured Pol Pot style, Return to Nature plan to destroy what's left of our industry with a crippling tax on harmless gas carbon dioxide.

Roger Helmer, Tory MEP commented:

"I'm happy for Huhne to investigate whatever the hell he likes. I just wish he'd spend more time investigating the huge economic damage that his green policies will do."

and;

"The prime minister is in no position to 'bring Conservative MEPs into line'. I vote in what I conceive to be the best interests of my country and my constituents: the party whip comes a poor third."

Elsewhere Vince Cable, another from the Mouse that Roared Party, decides to join sides with Barry O in his dramatic struggle with Congress on the debt ceiling. Cable, who laughably has attempted to portray himself as some kind of economic guru, on the basis that a copy of 'The Wealth of Nations' once sat on his bookshelf or some other grounds of similar magnitude, calls the resisters 'rightwing nutters'.

That's fine, Vinny, say what you like. We understand that you wish to draw attention away from the Euro project, that you've slavishly worshipped for your entire political career, and its present woes. It makes sense for you to point the finger at 'rightwing nutters' in America, to bolster your image amongst the down-in-the-mouth social democrats in your party.

It's certainly reassuring to hear Cable speak, as this means at least we know he's not somewhere else, such as near the levers of power. A further quote exposes more of Kable's Keynesiastabatory illogicKal Klusterfuck:

"There is a genuine problem with demand, consumer demand. Again, it is not surprising there have been big shocks, world commodity prices going up has had a big effect on confidence here," he said, adding that quantitative easing (QE) would be the right approach if demand remained suppressed.

Translation: If people won't buy shit because they're skint, we'll print loads of money. Fucking genius.

Oz PM Gillard and her 'word games'

When politicians wonder why their profession is ranked by the public somewhere between tax-collector and kiddie-fiddler, they may like to study Australian PM Julia Gillard's campaign to convince us that black is white, up is down and a clear statement that 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead' actually means the exact opposite. Whether or not she manages to brush off criticisms of her gross dishonesty as an exercise in 'word games' remains to be seen. We shouldn't put it past her, she's already achieved the seemingly impossible task of making Tony Abbott look like a safe pair of hands.

Naturally, when the BBC reports this, there's not a mention of her pre-election promise, nor any critique of the ludicrous anti-science of calling carbon dioxide 'pollution'. But that's the BBC for you, totally un-biased as long as you are imprisoned in the same fallacy echo-chamber as they are.

HT: The Humble Servant

UPDATE: Via Counting Cats I see this report from renowned scholar (ahem) Andrew Bolt:

Climate cult carries on regardless

Hat tip: Counting Cats

Ghengis Khan: eco warrior

Ghengis Khan is the new poster boy for the eco-lunatics, it seems.

"Genghis Khan's Mongol invasion in the 13th and 14th centuries was so vast that it may have been the first instance in history of a single culture causing man-made climate change, according to new research out of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, reports Mongabay.com.

Unlike modern day climate change, however, the Mongol invasion cooled the planet, effectively scrubbing around 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

So how did Genghis Khan, one of history's cruelest conquerors, earn such a glowing environmental report card? The reality may be a bit difficult for today's environmentalists to stomach, but Khan did it the same way he built his empire — with a high body count."

Hat tip: Infowars

Eco-Fascists call for prison cities

Holy shit! The headline is no exaggeration. Just watch this and start stock-piling ammo. This is even worse than 10:10's murder-fest.

Hat tip to Paul Joseph Watson at Prison Planet, who writes:

"The threat posed by the kind of scenario being promoted by Forum for the Future, the group responsible for the chilling video below, cannot be emphasized enough. The dictatorial hellhole of 2040, where cars will be banned, meat rationed, farming completely abolished and overtaken by the state, behavior catalogued on “calorie cards,” and careers ordained by the government, is the ultimate goal of the control freaks who have seized the reigns of the environmental movement."

Those charming Gaia people

Following on from the last post, and via Not Evil, Just Wrong (a name which is too charitable, I'd say), I note this delightful poster from the Enviro-mentalists. It seems to be a bit of a leitmotif amongst the Gaia crowd, killing kids. I guess there are two aspects to it: firstly to provoke alarm in the general public, who see such an image as above and at a deep level want to do something to save the kid, and secondly killing children seems to appeal to the sicko enviro-nuts, for whom the death of a child represents a reduction in carbon use.

"Do as I say, not as I do"

It's the age of stoopid alright, when people take lectures from the 10:10 crowd, flying around the world, preaching that people should stop ... err ... flying. Oh, wait a sec, it's common people who shouldn't fly, it's okay if you're important movie people like Franny, Tristram, Ukelalie and the Notting Hill crowd. Poor old Phelim gets booted out of the press area, but maybe he should count himself lucky they didn't scatter his blood and body parts to the four winds as a sacrifice to Mother Earth.

Hat tip: Dick Puddlecote

Ready for tomorrow?

Tomorrow is, of course, the 10th of the 10th, a day to draw attention to the scourge of that naughty gas CO2. Here we see one of 10:10's supporters explaining why it's important to get behind the campaign.

(P.S. Don't read this at the Boiling Frog, it may lead you astray)

Does Richard Curtis have a cocaine problem?

It would go some way to explaining his 10:10 "murder those who disagree" movie. I hear a lot of 'creative types' enjoy the old nose powder, which has, amongst others, the draw-back of making people think they're really interesting, witty, and their ideas are great, when in reality, they're borish tossers and their ideas are shit.

10:10 - agree to our agenda or we will murder you

What can you say about 10:10's campaign video in which people who disagree with its agenda are murdered in the most graphic way? I'm lacking the hyperbole to describe this. Whatever words I can muster will not express just how monstrous these people are. I imagine that no one will drop by to my little blog to justify this outrage, but there are plenty who are prepared to do so at the Guardian. Apparently it's funny to see people who are prepared to disagree with the group-think being murdered. It's funny to see people covered in other people's blood. It's just a bit of fun to get a 'serious message' over. I agree with this last point: there is a serious message in there: if people disagree with 10:10, murder them. This film is arguably incitement to murder.

They hate humanity. They want to kill us all. We must stop them. We must turn this propaganda weapon on them.

Hat tip: Mr Eugenides