Global Warming, Socialism's Trojan Horse
00ZNB
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html
So who are these former Reds who have converted to Green Socialism? One
excellent example is Mikhail Gorbachev. Mr. Gorbachev is now the
president of Green Cross International (a non-governmental environmental
organization). Among the many issues with which Green Cross
International has become involved, global warming is right at the top of
its list. Gosh, when Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret
Thatcher became so chummy in the mid-1980s, I never once heard the
Soviet dictator express concern about the environment. Clearly, Mr.
Gorbachev has identified environmentalism as a Trojan horse capable of
resurrecting socialism on a global scale.
How can I say that about Mikhail Gorbachev? Didn't he bring glasnost
(freedom of speech) and perestroika (economic and political reforms) to
the Soviet Union? Indeed he did. Yet, these were means to his end of
trying to save Soviet Communism and, therefore, to save his absolute and
unspeakable power (that brought human misery to millions).
Perhaps I am being too harsh on Mr. Gorbachev? To this I simply respond,
read Requiem for Marx (edited by Yuri N. Maltsev). Dr. Maltsev was a
reformist member of the Institute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of
Sciences until he defected in 1989 (he now is an Associate Professor of
economics at Carthage College and is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von
Mises Institute). In writing the introduction to this excellent book,
Dr. Maltsev states: "Gorbachev never learned economics in school. In all
my dealings with him I had never seen even a slight flash of economic
insight, or even the desire to learn more about economics. He preferred
to think like a communist: everything can be done by issuing orders and
demanding obedience, no matter how perverse, contrary to human nature,
and brutal they may be." This certainly isn't the image painted by the
United States' adoring press corps. Gorbachev seems to be so nice.
To this I respond with another excerpt (regarding the "nice" Mr.
Gorbachev) from Yuri Maltsev's introduction in Requiem for Marx:
What he did in the Baltic States - authorizing the Soviet military to
crack the skulls of innocent people in the Baltics - qualified him to be
included among history's litany of murderous rulers, but he was never
included. Even while he was heralded in the West as a great reformer, he
was also running labor camps, committing human rights violations, and
sending people to prison for speech crimes. As the Soviet Union came to
an end, the public had been reduced to a collective of hunter gatherers,
barely living at a subsistence level.
Maybe the former Soviet dictator has changed. Perhaps Mikhail Gorbachev
really does care about the environment and has no interest in
resurrecting socialism. To this, I simply refer one last time to Requiem
for Marx. Yuri Maltsev states: "Before the coup that removed him from
power, Gorbachev told a reporter, 'I've been told more than once that it
is time to stop swearing allegiance to socialism.' 'Why should I?
Socialism is my deep conviction, and I will promote it as long as I can
talk and work'." Without a doubt, Mikhail Gorbachev views
environmentalism (with its anti-capitalist mentality) as the movement
most likely to succeed in defeating capitalism
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada
0B0NZ
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:bf2fb8ed-8d7f-4f80...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> all believe in GW and trying to do something about it. If they're
> socialists, count me in.
It appears that they, along with many others, have fallen for the AGW
hoax!
If they really, really believe that AGW will imminently send us all to
hell in a hand basket, then why don't they spend their total fortunes to
combat it.?
Don't hold your breath.
Actions speak louder than words and all we've had from this lot is
nothing but empty platitudes.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
Solar Flare
"0B0NZ" <0B...@doooooooooooodoooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:47fc1887$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
V-for-Vendicar
I agree with Bonzo. Gorbi, is a great man.
0BN0Z
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9147bfd0-5af1-48d9...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 2:29 pm, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> While you're perfectly entitled to abandon socialism as a goal,
Fran, baby, in case you haven't noticed .... the whole world, bar Cuba,
has resoundly rejected socialism based on bitter experience!
But you along with your pals Gorbachev and Ghadafi soldier on in denial
of this truth ...
Socialsim is unfit for human consumption!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"There is no compelling evidence that carbon dioxide has any significant
control over the direction of global temperature and climate. The
processes that regulate the interannual to decadal fluctuations of
climate are poorly understood and, as yet, unpredictable" William
Kininmonth, Meteorologist, Former Head, National Climate Centre, Bureau
of Meteorology, 1986-1998
V-for-Vendicar
"0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote
> Socialsim is unfit for human consumption!
Socialism is the form of government employed by all first world nations.
The most resistance to Socialism comes from KKKonservative extremists who
have focused their efforts on establishing a pure capitalist nation in the
U.S. with the resulting economic and social destruction of that nation.
0BN0Z
On Apr 14, 3:30 pm, "0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com>
wrote:
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9147bfd0-5af1-48d9...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 14, 2:29 pm, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > While you're perfectly entitled to abandon socialism as a goal,
> Fran, baby, in case you haven't noticed .... the whole world, bar
> Cuba,
> has resoundly rejected socialism based on bitter experience!
If it is, then you're wrong, because virtually everyone is on board.
*****************************
Baby, only the vocal minority of AGW alarmists are "on board".
Most Aussies see scaremongring. for what it is.
************************************
Apparently, 78% of Australians think that sharp cuts in GHGs by 2012
are needed and even more (90%) think that all new power should come
from renewables.
***************************************
Huh?
Rubbish
I notice you haven't given a link.
Made up most probably.
--
Regards
Bonzo
"IPCC staff is working feverishly on a theory that supports global
cooling as proof of global warming. Stay tuned." Addison Gardner
0BN0Z
On Apr 14, 5:55 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7df13f07-3b63-433c...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 3:30 pm, "0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >news:9147bfd0-5af1-48d9...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Apr 14, 2:29 pm, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > While you're perfectly entitled to abandon socialism as a goal,
>
> > Fran, baby, in case you haven't noticed .... the whole world, bar
> > Cuba,
> > has resoundly rejected socialism based on bitter experience!
>
>
> If it is, then you're wrong, because virtually everyone is on board.
>
> are needed and even more (90%) think that all new power should come
> from renewables.
>
Why does someone have to 'explain' it to you? It's perfectly simple
and there's plenty out there if you want to read about it.
> and who
> gets the money from the huge power costs that the wanker brigade are
> forecasting.
> (And the ads saying get our product and we will plant more trees etc,)
Let's say collectively, people think it's a good idea to put the
brakes on emissions of CO2. How should that be done, bearing in mind
that at least some activities that are important to human wellbeing
positively demand CO2 emitting behaviour for the foreseeable future?
Logically, one should prioritise. One could do that through
bureaucratic edict. One would have a central plan, allocate rights to
pollute, emply lots of compliance officers armed with technology and
random audit and search powers and fine/tax heavily those who went
over. I'm guessing you don't like central planning, and of course
there would be serious bunfights over what was essential and what was
not.
**************************************
Fran, baby you've just defined your beloved socialism.
Ergo a socialist plot.
The UN's EcoSocialist Agenda
Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com
29 Oct 2007
The United Nations has just issued yet another scaremongering
assessment of the world's environment. It was put together by the UN's
principal environmental agency, known as the UN Environment Programme
(UNEP). The best way to engineer transformation of the current legal
system to global governance of the environment, under the auspices of
the UN, is for its "experts" to first create the mass perception of an
imminent cosmic cataclysm if humanity continues on its present course.
[1]
The UNEP report, known as "Global Environment Outlook: Environment for
Development (GEO-4)", covers not just global warming. It covers all
dimensions of environmental deterioration that UNEP claims are
imminently putting "humanity at risk". The report warns that we are in
mortal danger of passing "unknown points of no return" on climate
change, the rate of extinction of species, loss of fertile land
through degradation, unsustainable pressure on resources and the
challenge of feeding a growing population.
UNEP's GEO-4 report places primary blame on over-population and the
"the rising consumption of the rich". The solution, according to the
authors of the report, requires "fundamental changes in social and
economic structures, including lifestyle changes."
UNEP is serving up repackaged socialism, which one could call eco-
socialism. Essentially it is saying that we have to choose between the
capitalist free market or a habitable planet.
Bolivian President Evo Morales Ayma put it more bluntly during the
United Nations meeting on Climate Change in New York last month:
"I think that capitalism is the worst enemy of humanity and if we do
not change the model, change the system, then our presence, our
debate, our exchange, and the proposals that we make in these meetings
at the United Nations will be totally in vain... Where does this
pollution come from? It comes from, and is generated by, the
unsustainable development of a system which destroys the planet: in
other words, capitalism.
I feel that it is important to organise an international movement to
deal with the environment, a movement that will be above institutions,
businesses and countries that just talk about commerce, that only
think about accumulating capital. We have to organize a movement that
will defend life, defend humanity, and save the earth.
I think that it is important to think about some regions, some sectors
and some countries repaying what has often been called the ecological
debt."
The UNEP report adopts the Bolivian president's eco-socialist
philosophy. Its authors have little faith in free market technological
solutions to environmental problems, or what they call "the technology-
centred development paradigm". They are bringing back to life the long
discredited economic theory of Thomas Robert Malthus, who predicted in
the late eighteenth century that population growth would outstrip the
growth of the world's food supply, leading to a catastrophe of
subsistence-level living conditions.
UNEP's answer to its Malthusian dilemma is to re-organize political
and economic institutions around an international structure dedicated
to saving humanity and the planet. It is building on earlier UN-
sponsored reports that criticized the political and economic
principles of national sovereignty and free market institutions on the
grounds that they prevented serious attention to the international
dimensions of man-made environmental problems.
The UN Environmental Programme agency is positioning itself to serve
as the "focal point" for concerted international action under what its
website describes as "a coherent system of international environmental
governance." A grand vision for UNEP is to be on par with the World
Trade Organization, with powers to require member states to act in
accordance with established international norms and to take legal
action it deems necessary against member states and private persons
who violate these norms.
In the same week as the UNEP report was issued, the president of the
UN General Assembly delivered a speech at the Harvard Business School
which attacked traditional notions of national sovereignty. In his
words, we need to "disaggregate, redistribute and devolve sovereignty,
particularly at the individual and international level". Under this
scheme, the UN would have an "overarching role". Although denying that
he was calling for world government, he proclaimed that a "globalized
world requires some degree of global governance."
What would this mean in the environmental sphere? It would mean the
creation of new mechanisms to "redistribute and devolve" national
sovereignty to a much more powerful UNEP or some other global
environmental organization overseeing a special world environment
court. This court would have binding enforcement powers over member
states and private parties.
Indeed, just a month ago it was reported that as "the United Nations
takes an increasingly dominant role in guiding the climate change
debate, there is renewed interest in a longstanding proposal for the
creation of an international court to try environmental crimes."[2]
Momentum is on the side of the environmental advocates who are
relentlessly pushing for such a special court to try states, companies
and individuals for environmental crimes. Based on the model of the
International Criminal Court, which can try individuals for violations
of international law, an environmental court would be the supreme
legal authority for settling issues regarding harm to the environment
of any sort. The basis of its legal operations would be a global
environmental charter.
Make no mistake about the likely outcome of such global court
decisions. Americans will be the losers. As in all UN bodies except
the Security Council, where we retain our veto power, the anti-
American bloc will usually prevail. There will be no appeal to our own
courts established under the U.S. Constitution, including the Supreme
Court.
We can address common problems like the environment that transcend
national borders without forfeiting self-government under our own
Constitution. Each country should be able to enact and enforce its own
laws under that country's governmental process rather than submit to
some supra-national rulemaking or judicial behemoth, run through the
United Nations or a spin-off international body. This is in keeping
with the UN Charter's original goal-setting approach to global
problems that transcend national boundaries, to be achieved through
cooperation among sovereign nations. It is also the only way to keep
faith with our own Constitution. Global interdependence can be
acknowledged without giving up national independence.
The United Nations and its backers around the world have a very
different agenda. They are trying to bring about a paradigm shift in
international relations. They want to move away from state-to-state
dealings, where only the UN's member states have been the subjects of
binding treaties and international law dispute resolution. Instead, on
every issue that they believe affects human rights, including the
environment, they want to establish a body of international law
prescribing basic universal rights and obligations. These
international norms would be enforceable against any transgressor in
one or more global forums that are open to individuals who claim that
their rights have been detrimentally affected. The global forums would
be vested with authority to assign individual liability to defendants
and to generate enforceable remedies.
This is the direction that we may be heading, particularly if the left
re-captures the White House. Even President Bush is bowing to
political pressure. He supports the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty that is
now sailing through the Senate for ratification. Just imagine what
President Hillary Clinton will do when she takes office. What scarier
thought can there be during this Halloween season!
ENDNOTES:
[1] It should be noted that this report is in addition to the alarmist
global warming report issued several months ago by the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel
peace prize with its fellow alarmist, Al Gore.
[2] Environment: An Int'l Court to Try Ecological Crimes? by Thalif
Deen, Inter Press Service (September 24, 2007).
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN's Stealth
Assault on America's Freedom
--
Warnest Regards
Bonzo
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods
but by perpetual repetition." Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of
Meteorology, MIT
0BN0Z
On Apr 15, 12:22 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
> Sunny wrote:
> > "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7df13f07-3b63-433c...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 14, 3:30 pm, "0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>news:9147bfd0-5af1-48d9...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Apr 14, 2:29 pm, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>> While you're perfectly entitled to abandon socialism as a goal,
> >> Fran, baby, in case you haven't noticed .... the whole world, bar
> >> Cuba,
> >> has resoundly rejected socialism based on bitter experience!
>
>
> > If it is, then you're wrong, because virtually everyone is on board.
>
> > Apparently, 78% of Australians think that sharp cuts in GHGs by 2012
> > are needed and even more (90%) think that all new power should come
> > from renewables.
>
Aussies had very few guns. One of the features of Australia is that
the main people carrying guns about are security guards and police.
The move to restrict gun ownership further was a result of one of the
worst spree killings in the history of the world, after a mentally
distrurbed person massacred 35 people in Tasmania. The move to crack
down on guns was led not by a socialist or even a liberal but an
avowed conservative -- US ally John Howard, who even today nominates
that as one of the measures of which he's most proud. He even
announced that at a dinner recently with George Bush snr.
> .... No one accused them of being smart,
> just flies duped into the socialists spider web.
By a right winger? Hmmm
> When it comes to a mass
> of people the dumbest 51% seems to screw it up for 100% of the
> people.
That's an interesting observation given that about half of you
Americans don't even vote in your own Presidential elections. Are you
saying the smart ones stay out and 100% of the electorate is stupid?
I reject the idea that people are by and large stupid.
*******************************
Really????
Just look at what is most popular on television and then
try to tell us again that the bulk of the masses are not stupid!!!!!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"In scientific circles, C02 is referred to as a `trace gas' that, for
hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five
ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume. Even among the so-called
`greenhouse gases' (GHG), C02 accounts for less than 4%, with water
vapour being by far the most significant GHG. C02 is clearly a
miniscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and
cause climate change."
Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
(NRSP.com), Former Professor Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
0BN0Z
On Apr 15, 11:34 am, "0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com>
unfounded claims that most people are 'waking up to the AGW scam' you
earnestly believe most people are stupid, and accordingly, what you
really mean is that most people are prone to fall under the spell of
your disinformation, and to misidentify their interests with those of
the GPC.
That's why you keep lying and dissembling. You have no rational
objection to the AGW hypothesis or to the proposed mitigation
measures. Most people understand well enough that it makes sense,
**************************************
Huh????
It will never make sense to me and many other rational people to spend
trillions of dollars "fixing" the hypothetical results of a flukey
hypothesis
and installing an authoritarian world socialist order in the
process!!!!!
0BN0Z
On Apr 15, 11:25 am, "0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com>
**********************************************
Most Australians alarmed at climate change
NINE out of 10 Australians are worried about climate change, but most
are unconvinced Labor will do a better job cutting greenhouse
emissions than the Coalition.
**************************************************
ROTFLMAO
Dodgy Polls
I wonder how they phrased their questions????
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 06:45am
I don't trust the Climate Institute's polls, but if you do you'll wonder
how the disillusion set in so fast:
NINE out of 10 Australians are worried about climate change, but most
are unconvinced Labor will do a better job cutting greenhouse emissions
than the Coalition.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism
0BN0Z
On Apr 15, 1:11 pm, "0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com>
the challenge of doing something for the longterm
***************************-
Much ado about nothing, methinks!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Let me say it plainly: The environmental movement has been taken over
by anti-capitalist radicals who are using it to wage war against
capitalism and campaign for liberal Democrats. Protecting the
environment is now number three, or lower, on their list of priorities."
Joe Bast, President, Heartland Institute, One-time Ardent
Environmentalist, Has seen it from both sides.
V-for-Vendicar
"0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote
> "In scientific circles, C02 is referred to as a `trace gas' that, for
> hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five
> ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume. Even among the so-called
> `greenhouse gases' (GHG), C02 accounts for less than 4%, with water
> vapour being by far the most significant GHG. C02 is clearly a
> miniscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and
> cause climate change."
> Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
> (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
And once again you are caught lying. Timothy Ball isn't a former professor
of climatology, and the University of Winnipeg has no climatology program.
Ball is a former geography teacher with no training in climatology who
couldn't make it as a university professor (pubishing a total of 4 papers in
his entire career), who then cashed in by jumping on the big oil Gravy
train.
You should ask Ball about the little incident concerning the
Misappropriattion of University Resources at the University of Calgary by
his propaganda group - Friends of Science..
V-for-Vendicar
V-for-Vendicar
"0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote
> Baby, only the vocal minority of AGW alarmists are "on board".
> Most Aussies see scaremongring. for what it is.
I see the measured temperature record for what it is.
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******************o***************
1959 14.06 ********************o************
1960 13.99 *********************o******
1961 14.08 **********************o************
1962 14.04 ***********************o********
1963 14.08 ************************o**********
1964 13.79 **************===========o
1965 13.89 *********************====o
1966 13.97 **************************o
1967 14.00 ***************************o*
1968 13.96 **************************==o
1969 14.08 *****************************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************************o
1971 13.90 **********************=========o
1972 14.00 *****************************===o
1973 14.14 ********************************o******
1974 13.92 ***********************==========o
1975 13.95 *************************=========o
1976 13.84 ******************=================o
1977 14.13 ************************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************************============o
1993 14.14 ***************************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************************o**
1998 14.57
*******************************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************************o*****
2002 14.56
**********************************************************o*********
2003 14.55
***********************************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************************o**
2005 14.62
*************************************************************o**********
2006 14.54
**************************************************************o****
2007 14.57
***************************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
V-for-Vendicar
"0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote
> It will never make sense to me and many other rational people to spend
> trillions of dollars "fixing" the hypothetical results of a flukey
> hypothesis and installing an authoritarian world socialist order in the
> process!!!!!
Get with the program BONZO. The Trillions schtick was used up a long time
ago when the very same denialists as today were claiming that Ozone
depletion was a global socialist conspiracy and was going to cost 100
trillion and kill 1/3rd of the human population.
BONZO = MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN