MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Climate Change’

Bill Gates: Covid Fearmongering to “Climate Change” Hysteria?Will Covid tyranny usher in Climate tyranny? Will Covid lockdowns morph into Climate lockdowns? Will Covid lies be replaced by Climate lies? Not if enough think that enough is enough! Don’t miss today’s Liberty Report!

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2021

https://youtu.be/guoGXHOKNrU

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Covid era’s politicization of expertise means we now have medics lecturing us on climate change — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2021

And herein lies the real danger. By exploiting the politicization of expertise, the medical profession is now in danger of undermining the authority of science and knowledge. You do not need a doctorate in sociology to understand why conspiracy theories that are rooted in the mistrust of the so-called experts are growing as they are. 

By going beyond their expertise to add political support to a one-sided and misanthropic debate about climate change, the medical profession is in danger of itself becoming a threat to public health.

Did Eisenhower foresee the Medical-Congressional-Complex?

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/535115-covid-medics-lecturing-climate-change/

Norman Lewis is a writer, speaker and consultant on innovation and technology, was most recently a Director at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, where he set up and led their crowdsourced innovation service. Follow him on Twitter @Norm_Lewis

Would you go to a geologist for a cancer diagnosis? Of course not. So why should we listen to 200 medical journal editors pontificating about the climate emergency? Their intervention in the debate is unwelcome and unnecessary.

When 200 medical journal editors publish an apocalyptic and misleading joint editorial about the dangers of temperature rises, which the Wall Street Journal’s editorial team correctly noted “could have been ghost written by Greta Thunberg,” it reveals that the politicization of expertise we have seen during the Covid pandemic is now limitless.

The intervention by the medical journal editors in the climate debate and its impact on public health ought to be welcomed. We certainly need a broader discussion. But when such an intervention is more about politics than medical science, in the words of the stricken Apollo 13 crew, “Houston, we have a problem.”

The main problem with these journals joining the climate lobby is that they are not doing so to provoke or advance the science of climate change. They have shown themselves to be far from open to debate during the Covid crisis in their field. Many are guilty of having suppressed critical discussions in their pages during the pandemic, from the origins of the original virus, through the effectiveness or not of masks and of social distancing, to the cost of lockdowns. 

They have been the gatekeepers, the medical experts who have maintained a monopoly on what they have chosen to be the truth – truths that we were simply expected to defer to.

Now, encouraged by their new elevated status – a status which is very much the outcome of the failure of politicians to exercise judgement over experts during the pandemic – they feel it their duty to go beyond their expertise to stoke fear ahead of the UN climate change conference COP26 in November. 

As the WSJ points out, there are many dubious claims in the joint editorial, including the suggestion that no temperature rises are “safe” and that higher temperatures are linked to dire health outcomes. To back this up, the joint editorial cites a recent British Medical Journal meta-analysis of studies that examine links between extreme weather and health. They fail to discuss that most of these findings haven’t been replicated, and many conflict. At best, it provides correlations which, as even schoolchildren know, does not prove causation. As the WSJ wryly comments, “obesity has increased at the same time temperatures have. That doesn’t mean heat is making people fatter.”

In reality, extreme cold kills more people each year (1.3million) than extreme heat (356 000), according to a study published in The Lancet last month. Deaths from cold weather have decreased as population rates have increased, mainly because more of the world’s population has had more access to heating. 

They need more, which means what they need is more development and access to cheaper energy. 

As the WSJ points out, “about 10% of the world’s population currently doesn’t even have electricity, and a third still cook with stoves that use wood, coal, crop waste or dung, which “kill millions each year.” If the medical journal editors were genuinely concerned about health outcomes, they would be demanding the greater use of nuclear energy, which would give poorer countries access to the cheap and clean energy they need to combat poverty, which kills more people than anything else.

But there is no mention of nuclear energy. Why not? Because this would be a powerful counterpoint to climate alarmism which sees the limitation of consumption and the lowering of development aspirations as the only solution to what they all agree is a man-made climate catastrophe.

This simply highlights that this medical profession intervention has little to do with fighting for better public health. One can only assume that their motivation has more to do with virtue signalling and opportunism. By joining the climate lobby, they are attempting to insert themselves into a debate in which they have no right to claim any authority in.

And herein lies the real danger. By exploiting the politicization of expertise, the medical profession is now in danger of undermining the authority of science and knowledge. You do not need a doctorate in sociology to understand why conspiracy theories that are rooted in the mistrust of the so-called experts are growing as they are. 

By going beyond their expertise to add political support to a one-sided and misanthropic debate about climate change, the medical profession is in danger of itself becoming a threat to public health.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Covid-Driven Global Takeover Exposes the Real Threat of the Contrived ‘Climate Change’ Agenda – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 14, 2021

“As a geologist, I love Earth observations, but it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a ‘consensus’ that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. ‘Consensus,’ as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/gary-d-barnett/the-covid-driven-global-takeover-exposes-the-real-threat-of-the-contrived-climate-change-agenda/

By Gary D. Barnett

“As a geologist, I love Earth observations, but it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a ‘consensus’ that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. ‘Consensus,’ as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.”

~ Harrison Schmitt (American geologist, retired NASA astronaut, university professor)

As of late, and after a global assault on humanity that is unmatched in history, expansion of the ‘reset’ (takeover) of society is ramping up to epoch proportions. With this will come an onslaught of claimed monsters to frighten the masses into even more panic; the leading one before and after the ‘Covid’ hoax is complete, will likely remain the ridiculously named fraud called man-made ‘climate change.’  In fact, this has already begun, but will vastly escalate over the next few months and beyond in my opinion. At some point, ‘climate change’ will likely be disclosed as the core issue at hand so far as those wishing to gain total control of the masses are concerned, replacing in importance in effect, the other fraudulent tools of tyranny such as ‘virus pandemics,’ but not eliminating them as part of the conspiracy of depopulation and control.

This scenario has been planned and played out for decades, but is now getting into a very advanced stage in this plot to alter life as we have known it; relegating humanity to a two-tiered societal shift that consists of a controlling class sometimes referred to as the global ‘elites,’ and a slave class made up of the masses. This is meant to culminate with the master class of claimed elites imposing a technocratic hierarchy so extreme as to eliminate freedom of the individual entirely. To accomplish this, it is required that collectivism of the majority be the prevailing manner of ‘thought’ and politics, and that individuality be destroyed in favor of a communistic approach. So describes the postmodern mindset that has consumed the so-called intellectual left for some time, but unfortunately, it is not specific or unique to just the left today, but filters into the thinking of the ruling class of all political levels of thought. Therefore, the façade of right and left being political opposites is exposed as a lie, but this truth is generally avoided at all cost, and this attitude allows for radical totalitarian policies to flourish. Hence, critical thinking, truth, honesty, logic, and reason, disappear from view to be replaced by mass ignorance and indifference. Because of this great paradigm shift in societal reality, we are left to either fend off at all costs this assault by the state, or simply accept our slavery voluntarily.

The fraudulent ‘Covid’ pandemic scare has been, and is now being used, to lockdown and cripple society. As fall approaches, the predicted escalation of tyranny is ramping up aggressively in the forms of threats, mandates, and blame against the ‘unvaccinated.’ The unvaccinated are now public enemy number one and the country’s highest terror threat according to the Biden administration. Yesterday, the evil Biden ordered “sweeping new federal vaccine requirements for as many as 100 million Americans — private-sector employees as well as health care workers and federal contractors — in an all-out effort to curb the surging COVID-19 delta variant.” He said: “We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.” The unvaccinated minority “can cause a lot of damage, and they are.” This sounds like a threat of extreme force is imminent by the state against all that refuse to comply with these draconian and asinine poisonous injection orders.

‘His’ plan consists of six parts:

Vaccinating the unvaccinated, including new mandates for federal employees and an OSHA rule mandating large employers require vaccinations or weekly testing

Further protecting the vaccinated, including a booster program to be rolled out by September 20

Keeping schools safely open, including a new vaccine requirement for Head Start program teachers and staff

Increasing testing and requiring masking, including using the Defense Production Act to boost the availability of rapid and at-home test kits

Protecting the economic recovery, including strengthening the COVID Economic Injury Disaster Loan program

Improving COVID-19 treatments, including a 50% boost in weekly shipments of monoclonal antibody treatments to states

“This is not about freedom or personal choice,” Biden said. “It’s about protecting yourself and those around you.”

In the midst of ‘Covid’ insanity, the agenda of ‘climate change’ is first and foremost on the minds of the globalists. In fact, this fake pandemic is being used (as purposely planned) to advance that agenda, and as stated by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum: “Climate action must stay top of the global agenda as we emerge from COVID-19.” According to these monsters, ‘climate change’ is the real threat, and this ‘pandemic’ is “laying the groundwork for the efforts required to tackle climate change.” In addition, the climate and ‘Covid-19’ are considered to be completely interconnected and a convergence of crises.

The United Nations is parroting this same line of propaganda in saying that in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, our challenges are interconnected and can only be addressed through reinvigorated multilateralism with the UN at the center of our efforts. They have pledged to strengthen global governance for the sake of present and coming generations. The UN’s Secretary General stated that: “The Covid-19 pandemic has served as a wake-up call and with the climate crisis now looming, the world is experiencing its biggest shared test since the Second world War.”

The fraudulent ‘virus pandemic’ has led the way to the future’s real and most major agenda being sought by the globalists, which is climate change legislation and mandated climate policy used to destroy the economic and monetary systems, to destroy farming and agriculture, to eliminate the individual, and to reshape the world into a complete technocratically controlled global society that will solidify the completion of the 2030 Agenda.

While this may seem like the end of the so-called crisis to some, it is only the beginning of hell on earth. The next few months will tell the tale, as every manner of tyranny possible will be attempted, and the citizens responses to this assault on humanity will be gauged in order to see just how far and how fast this takeover plot can be driven.

“Our Common Agenda is an agenda of action, designed to strengthen and accelerate multilateral agreements – particularly the 2030 Agenda – and make a tangible difference in people’s lives.”

~ UN Secretary General’s Report—Our common Agenda 2021

Additional Source links:

Channeling frustration toward the unvaccinated

Vaccine Mandates for 100 million Americans

UN’s Common Agenda

Climate action must stay on top of the global agendas

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

You Were Warned: Automakers Team Up With Biden To Force Electric Cars On Consumers – Issues & Insights

Posted by M. C. on August 7, 2021

A Manhattan Institute study found that “Optimists forecast that the number of EVs in the world will rise from today’s nearly 4 million to 400 million in two decades. A world with 400 million EVs by 2040 would decrease global oil demand by barely 6%.”

That’s to say nothing of the fact that battery manufacturing at the scale needed would have its own huge environmental impacts, and the phenomenal increase in demand for electricity would come at a time when Biden is also trying to force power companies to abandon fossil fuels.

For climate alarmists, this is a dream worth pursuing. For automakers, it signals their complete surrender to government autocrats. For everyone else, it will just be a nightmare.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/08/06/you-were-warned-automakers-team-up-with-biden-to-force-electric-cars-on-consumers/

I & I Editorial Board

n eight years, half of American car buyers will be forced to purchase overpriced, underperforming electric cars they don’t want, courtesy of the federal government and a compliant auto industry. That, at least, is what President Joe Biden announced at the White House on Thursday, and it’s just as we predicted in this space three months ago.

With a wave of his pen, Biden ordered that 50% of new cars and trucks sold by 2030 are to be electric. Since the auto companies already have their 2022 model year cars in production, that means they have less than eight years to figure out how to comply with the most massive, disruptive, and anti-consumer mandate ever to come out of Washington.

The automakers have only themselves to blame for that. As we noted in early May, they’d already caved to the green police and announced ambitious plans to electrify their fleets, even though consumers have little interest in buying battery-powered cars.

Despite massive taxpayer rebates handed out to electric car buyers, a multitude of subsidized recharging stations, and the constant talk about how electric automobiles will save the planet, sales of plug-ins accounted for a tiny 2% of all cars sold in the U.S. last year.

GM sold twice as many of its gas-guzzling Silverado pickups in 2020 as the combined sales of every company’s electric cars. Electric vehicles, in other words, are still very much a niche product. And for good reason. Owning one means hunting for recharging stations, waiting interminably for the battery to recharge, and confining yourself to short trips – shorter still if you have to turn on the A/C or the heater.

It’s the impracticality of these cars that explains why a fifth of electric vehicle owners in California reported trading them in for automobiles with good-old internal combustion engines.

Given this strong consumer disinterest, the only way automakers could justify dumping massive amounts of money into electric car R&D was on the promise that the government would require Americans to buy them. We said that:

If consumers continue to flock to the remaining gas-powered cars available to them, the only way to stop such ‘misbehavior’ would be to have the government outlaw the sale of such cars.

Sure enough, that’s just what happened on Thursday, when in coordination with the White House, General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis (the company that now owns what’s left of Chrysler) announced “their shared aspiration to achieve sales of 40-50% of annual U.S. volumes of electric vehicle by 2030 in order to move the nation closer to a zero-emissions future.”

Honda, BMW, Volkswagen, and Volvo issued a separate statement singing the praises of Biden’s draconian mandate, as did the beleaguered dictator in training also known as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said that “the climate emergency demands no less.”

These auto giants admit full well that a “dramatic shift” the electric car sales from 2% today to 50% in a relative blink of an eye won’t be driven by consumer demand.

In fact, the Big Three U.S. automakers state that this massive transition “can be achieved only by the timely deployment of the full suite of electrification policies committed to by the (Biden) administration in the Build Back Better Plan, including purchase incentives, a comprehensive charging network of sufficient density to support the millions of vehicles these targets represent, investments in R&D, and incentives to expand the electric vehicle manufacturing and supply chains in the United States.”

In other words, massive taxpayer subsidies. Biden wants to dump $174 billion – with a B – to pay for subsidies, grants, and tax incentives to car buyers, to build electric charging stations, and to replace the entire federal fleet of cars and trucks, including all those used by the already financially desperate U.S. Postal Service.

So, what Biden and the industry are teaming up to accomplish will not only harm consumers, who will be denied the full range of choices they have now, but also taxpayers, who will have to pay for an unprecedented experiment in industrial policy.

And for what? What will all this disruption, inconvenience, cost, and taxpayer money gain us?

Absolutely nothing.

Even if Biden were to achieve this dream, working arm-in-arm in fascistic fashion with automakers, it would barely make a dent in global oil demand and have no measurable impact on global temperatures.

A Manhattan Institute study found that “Optimists forecast that the number of EVs in the world will rise from today’s nearly 4 million to 400 million in two decades. A world with 400 million EVs by 2040 would decrease global oil demand by barely 6%.”

That’s to say nothing of the fact that battery manufacturing at the scale needed would have its own huge environmental impacts, and the phenomenal increase in demand for electricity would come at a time when Biden is also trying to force power companies to abandon fossil fuels.

For climate alarmists, this is a dream worth pursuing. For automakers, it signals their complete surrender to government autocrats. For everyone else, it will just be a nightmare.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Unmasking the Latest Bipartisan (and Dangerous) Climate Bill | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 4, 2021

There is a larger issue at work that we should not forget. The notion that government programs somehow are going to result in better weather should give anyone pause.

https://mises.org/wire/unmasking-latest-bipartisan-and-dangerous-climate-bill

William L. Anderson

It is summer in the United States, which means temperatures are hot and western forests and grasslands are burning—as has been the case as long as people have lived here. In our current age, however, in which there is alleged to be a political “solution” to nearly every problem, politicians believe they can use governmental policies to give us better weather and change the nature of wildfires.

So far, Congress, state legislators, and the Biden administration have launched a blizzard of new programs and initiatives that sponsors claim will reverse what they call the “climate crisis” and return our country, and even the whole world, to “normal” weather patterns. There are the Green New Deal, state mandates for utilities to purchase electricity from “renewable” sources such as solar panels and wind power, and the Biden “Build Back Better” campaign, in which the president has promised “millions of new jobs that help us recover from the pandemic and tackle climate change.”

Advocates of these initiatives claim that because current methods of producing energy ostensibly release gases that change the earth’s climate for the worse, governmental authorities should be redirecting resources to ensure results that will guide worldwide temperatures downward. Elites in government, the media, and academe have accepted these utopian notions as being self-explanatory and believe that once a progressive politician has announced certain “goals” commensurate with progressive thinking, the goals always are worthy and within reach—if governments allocate and spend enough money.

One of the conservative criticisms of climate change policies is that they follow the historically failed patterns of central economic planning, with resources directed politically without regard to their relative scarcity and paying no attention to the negative secondary effects that always follow. To counter the command-and-control measures environmentalists and their political allies impose, many conservatives have urged that the government, instead, pursue “market-based” solutions.

For example, to reduce automobile air pollution, the US government in 1975 required automakers to install catalytic converters on cars made in the USA, as well as on imported vehicles. While these devices are effective, a market-based mechanism would permit automakers to find their own solutions and likely would result in lower emissions (and lower pollution abatement costs) than what we see.

The idea behind market-based pollution abatement programs is that regulated parties use market mechanisms like prices and property rights to reduce toxic emissions or some other form of environmental harm. Such initiatives set pollution reduction goals and then provide incentives for regulated entities to best determine the overall strategies of abatement. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 permitted and organized market-based policies that were relatively successful.

Now four US senators, Mike Braun (R-IN), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have reintroduced the bipartisan Growing Climate Solutions Act, which has won praise from conservative groups, because it allows for some market-based activity in reducing “greenhouse” gases blamed for climate change. The conservative-leaning advocacy group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions has praised the proposed law, declaring:

When our farmers, ranchers, and foresters go the extra mile to help reduce America’s carbon footprint, they should be rewarded, not penalized. The Growing Climate Solutions Act is exciting because it would allow valuable carbon credits to be harvested along with any crops farmed using climate-friendly practices. By normalizing how those credits can be sold on voluntary carbon credit markets, the GCSA also makes it easy for farms of all shapes and sizes to connect with and sell these credits to the scores of American companies and utilities that have committed to going carbon neutral but can’t do it alone.

The GCSA is a free-market win for agriculture producers, businesses, and the climate; it is a solution that helps restore the environment without heavy-handed government mandates or driving up the cost of food and energy production.

But intentions are one thing. Reality is quite another.

First, while there is no doubt that using a market price system to move resources will be more economically efficient than a command-and-control system, nonetheless government still is determining the direction resources move. There is little doubt that a carbon-credit trading system will result in less release of carbon dioxide and methane gases than would be the case with a typical government regulatory regime.

But that farmers will be using some free market devices does not mean that the entire system suddenly has turned into free enterprise. While farmers may be able to be more cost efficient in carrying out government emissions mandates, nonetheless their actions will still be mandated and there is no reason to believe government regulators and their green allies who are imposing the mandates know what the optimum levels of emissions should be. For all of the talk about science, the only thing we truly know is that whatever the emissions reductions might be from the farm belt, they will have zero effect on the world’s climate.

The second problem is that while the Growing Climate Solutions Act of 2021 might try to arrange market-based abatement systems, what actually happens ultimately is up to the regulators, who always are given wide berths to set policy. No matter what the original legislation might declare, regulators are going to govern in a way that reduces their own costs while enhancing their own authority. Perhaps the best analogy is that of Lucy, the character from the cartoon strip Peanuts, who is famous for pulling up the football after inviting Charlie Brown to kick it.

One more point to remember is that while market-based emissions reduction programs will be more effective than traditional bureaucratic command and control, these still are contrived markets in which the value of tradable permits and other mechanisms is set by government agents. Thus, that value in trade will always be arbitrary, as opposed to the value being set by the interaction of real consumers and producers.

There is a larger issue at work that we should not forget. The notion that government programs somehow are going to result in better weather should give anyone pause. As H. Sterling Burnett recently wrote, government regulators in pursuit of abating climate change are slowly destroying the capacity of US electric power production by requiring so-called renewable production such as wind power and solar panels while forcibly phasing out production using coal, oil, natural gas, and zero-emissions nuclear power.

No doubt, environmental advocates will claim that the deterioration of the American electric grid is temporary and that whatever up-front costs electricity users incur using “renewables” are still less than the “real” costs that accompany conventional fuels. Don’t count on it. If we know anything about economic central planning from American political authorities, it is that there always are huge hidden costs that come with policy initiatives. That they put a free market happy face on the latest policy prescription does not change the fact that the original policies regarding climate change are terribly flawed.

Author:

Contact William L. Anderson

William L. Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan – Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Posted by M. C. on August 2, 2021

Despite the raging debate over the impact of man-made climate change, left-leaning politicians, lobbyists, and most significantly, billionaires, have declared it settled science, using the issue as a means of gaining control over the energy arena.

Notably, the Rockefellers bankrolled the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project’s demonization of the oil company.3 However, both Schneiderman’s investigation and Columbia Journalism School’s publications were years in the making.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-familys-covert-climate-change-plan/5678775

By The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute

First published in December 2016, this article is of relevance to an understanding of the ongoing debate on Climate Change as well the Green New Deal,  largely controlled by the financial establishment. The Rockefellers also play a key role in World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Proposal.

***

“Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (excerpt from Report)

The following text is the Executive Summary of  a full length report by The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016.

This informative report is brought to the attention of Global Research readers. The CRG does not necessarily endorse the title nor the contents of this report.

What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?

Michel Chossudovsky, November 24, 2019, March 6, 2021

Read full report here.

***

The Rockefellers are arguably the wealthiest and most powerful family in the history of the United States. For more than 100 years, they have shaped and directed America’s economic, financial, political, and public policy while simultaneously amassing one of the largest family empires in the modern era.

Most Americans hold the billionaire philanthropists in high esteem, associating the Rockefeller name with “oil” and “capitalism.” In reality, the Rockefellers are intent on controlling nearly every major institution in America, using philanthropy as a means of increasing their influence on the world stage under the guise of advancing various social causes. Their avid opposition to the very fossil fuel industry that made John D. Rockefeller America’s first billionaire shows that the Rockefellers are not political ideologues. Instead, they are mere opportunists who support political agendas convenient to enhancing their leverage in the global arena.

Through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities, they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment. Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources.

Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980s, their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming). Their crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy in well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol – to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry. Through their Sustainable Development Program, the Rockefellers continue to promote their self-serving “clean energy” policies throughout both the federal government and general public.

As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21. With the immeasurable influence that accompanies mass wealth and power, the Rockefeller empire has proven an effective puppeteer of advancing its main objective: the destruction of the fossil fuel industry to increase its clout over the energy sector.

Image result for eric schneiderman

On November 5, 2015, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (image on the right) launched an unprecedented investigation into ExxonMobil to determine if the company had defrauded investors by not disclosing the risks that climate change could have on its business.1 This occurred only weeks after the Columbia Journalism School’s (CJS) Energy and Environment Reporting Fellowship accused Exxon of misleading the public through its Los Angeles Times article, “How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change.”2

Despite the raging debate over the impact of man-made climate change, left-leaning politicians, lobbyists, and most significantly, billionaires, have declared it settled science, using the issue as a means of gaining control over the energy arena. Research shows that Eric Schneiderman’s legal investigation, as well as Columbia Journalism’s negative portrayal of ExxonMobil were neither objective nor independent. In fact, substantial evidence leads to the premise that both Columbia Journalism School’s accusations against ExxonMobil and Eric Schneiderman’s legal investigation into the oil giant were not only financed, but orchestrated by the Rockefeller family.

Notably, the Rockefellers bankrolled the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project’s demonization of the oil company.3 However, both Schneiderman’s investigation and Columbia Journalism School’s publications were years in the making.

The Rockefeller Family Fund hosted and led two closed door meetings with prominent climate activists – one in 2012 and one in January 2016. Uncovered emails show that the main issue at both gatherings was how to best take down the fossil fuel industry.4 Aside from key leaders of the Rockefellers’ many foundations, both summits included the major players in the climate movement such as: Matt Pawa (attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law), Sharon Eubanks (director of the Department of Justice’s tobacco litigation effort in the 1990’s and known anti Exxon activist), representatives of Greenpeace, and Carroll Moffit of the Climate Accountability Institute.5 During both summits, Eric Schneiderman was considered the possible catalyst to spearhead the legal investigation, while ExxonMobil was repeatedly mentioned as the possible target.

Schneiderman’s fervent outspokenness against “climate deniers,” and public call to enact policies conducive to increasing renewable energy use made him a perfect and willing candidate.6 When announcing his crusade against Exxon, Schneiderman cited studies from the Rockefeller funded outlets Inside Climate News and Columbia Journalism School’s Exxon reports.7 Revealingly, numerous members of the Rockefeller family had long urged Schneiderman to investigate the oil company.

However, as evidenced in the Rockefeller-hosted La Jolla 2012 meeting report, the family and climate activists needed a well-known, respected, and objectively perceived media outlet to push the public narrative. Although not disclosed in the summit’s documentation, it appears they found one in the Columbia Journalism School. While arguably the most prestigious journalism school in the country, the Columbia Journalism School is not only a beneficiary of millions in Rockefeller donations, it is composed, almost entirely, of professors closely affiliated with the green movement.

Image result for Steve Coll

In 2013, a year after the plan was crafted, climate alarmist and author of a well-known book condemning ExxonMobil, Steve Coll, was appointed Dean of the Columbia Journalism School.

Not surprisingly, Coll spearheaded the school’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship’s project that smeared Exxon. Coll is closely tied to the Rockefellers, as he previously chaired the climate change proponent New America Foundation, which received significant funding from the family. These revelations suggest that the Rockefellers used their influence over both the Columbia Journalism School and Steve Coll to put Coll in place as Dean, providing him the platform to do what he had done voluntarily and enthusiastically once before: publically and thoroughly castigate ExxonMobil.

Along with Coll, as a bastion of climate activists, the Columbia Journalism School was likely an eager participant in the plot to smear Exxon. At least seven CJS professors are directly connected to green activist billionaire George Soros, receiving either awards or significant amounts of money from the socialist philanthropist. Moreover, several CJS alumni board members are prominent climate change advocates, including Scott Dodd, and Thomas Watkins.

This report proposes that the assault on ExxonMobil was neither the idea of Eric Schneiderman, nor the Columbia Journalism School. Instead, the Rockefellers, with the help of other billionaires and prominent climate activists, carefully orchestrated both the legal and media investigations into ExxonMobil in an effort to achieve their goal of collapsing the fossil fuel industry to gain control over the energy sector.

Read full report here.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 Chris Mooney, “New York is investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change,” The Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2015, Accessed April 16, 2016.

2 Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni and Susanne Rust, “How Exxon Went from leader to skeptic on climate change,”Los Angeles Times, Oct. 23, 2015, Accessed April 16, 2016.

3 Susanne Rust, “The Energy and Environment Reporting Fellowship,” Columbia Journalism School website,Columbia Journalism School, Accessed April 16, 2016.

4 Alana Goodman, “Memo Shows Secret Coordination Effort Against ExxonMobil by Climate Activists, Rockefeller Fund,” The Washington Free Beacon, April 14, 2016, Accessed April 28, 2016.

5 Katie Brown, “Wait Till You See These Secret Memos Laying Out Activists’ Plans to Target Exxon,” Energy InDepth, April 15, 2016, Accessed April 29, 2016.

6 “Schneiderman Delivers Speech on #Climate2014: “It’s Time for Action on Climate Change,” YouTube, Sep. 22,2014, Accessed April 20 2016.

7 Jon Entine, “How the Columbia Journalism School Smeared Exxon,” New York Post, March 1, 2016, Accessed April 21, 2016.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

3 Radical Government Programs and What They Mean for You Today

Posted by M. C. on July 10, 2021

All three of these initiatives in isolation would be (and should be) horrifying to any freedom-loving individual. Collectively they are the equivalent of grabbing the global economy, hoisting it up onto your shoulders, and then tightrope walking across the Grand Canyon blindfolded with a swarm of mosquitoes biting you, but only after drinking an entire bottle of Absolut vodka. You might make it across to the other side, but the odds are right up there with finding a juicy T-bone steak at a vegan festival.

https://internationalman.com/articles/3-radical-government-programs-and-what-it-means-for-you-today/

by Chris MacIntosh

When initiatives like vaccinating the planet, “climate change,” and implementing a minimum global corporate tax are on the G7 agenda, and they’re selling it to a citizenry who would be content with their peanut butter on toast because “they are doing their best for us,” you know that freedom-loving people are in for a lot of trouble.

All three of these initiatives in isolation would be (and should be) horrifying to any freedom-loving individual. Collectively they are the equivalent of grabbing the global economy, hoisting it up onto your shoulders, and then tightrope walking across the Grand Canyon blindfolded with a swarm of mosquitoes biting you, but only after drinking an entire bottle of Absolut vodka. You might make it across to the other side, but the odds are right up there with finding a juicy T-bone steak at a vegan festival.

What these initiatives cement is a collapse in living standards of the global citizenry and ultimately a rather dramatic increase in the likelihood of a major international war.

Why? By pushing the climate hysteria agenda with its bedfellow of “CO2 reduction” and forcing it upon developing nations, they will be forcing not just a decrease in living standards but sending billions of people (literally) into extreme poverty.

First off, it’s important to understand where you’re at in any cycle, especially for long-term, deep-value macro investors (such as ourselves). We must attempt to parse noise from trends and focus on the latter while realising the former for what it is.

You’ll notice that one thing that is prevalent in all Western “liberal democracies” is that the leadership all act like angry stubborn old farts desperate to hang onto their own power. Karl Marx was right about one thing.

What Karl never went on to say but should have is the following: Aside from genocide, communism always also leads to shortages, stagflation, and a collapse in the standards of living of any who are unfortunate enough to live under it.

But we are where we are, and the average punter doesn’t see it, his mind being unable to believe that this is actually happening. That and a steady indoctrination have led him to actually believe this. It is being couched in feel-good terminology like “sustainability.” I mean, who doesn’t want that? There is “equity,” which, on the face of it, is about fairness. Again, who doesn’t want that? And of course, there is “stakeholder capitalism,” which is the new marketing term used to make communism sound palatable.

This means that the average punter is more buggered than an altar boy at the Vatican, but unfortunately, we’re all caught up in this insanity, and if we’re not very careful, we may suffer alongside the zombies.

It is under this magnificent collapsing system that we find ourselves today with “leaders” acting out their part, and so it isn’t a surprise that the focus is on hanging onto power (at all costs, it would seem).

To communists, a minimum global 15% corporate tax sounds perfectly swilling. This, of course, will come in addition to all the other taxes already hanging around the necks of government subjects.

This global tax will do little to harm large technology companies or even large corporations, but it will spell the death of many small and medium-sized businesses.

Arguably, though, what is more important is to think about what this means on an international playing field. Namely, on an international basis, this will be terrible for any small countries that are in need of attracting capital investment. If they are forced into this collective, their economies will suffer, with those aforementioned technology giants taking up much of the market share. Everyone loses, but large, multinational corporations get richer.

In fact, don’t be surprised when some of these large conglomerates mysteriously score a bevy of tax breaks and subsidies. You see, the new form of communism will not be like the old form. The reason for this is simple but very, very important to understand. The leaders you see on the idiot box are not in charge. They are stooges.

All presidents and major political figures are being micromanaged by handlers providing a carefully scripted cardboard-cutout image meant to look palatable to a gullible populace.

Whether it be small- and medium-sized businesses or small nations, they will lose their dynamism as well as their attractiveness for capital investment. This, in turn, means that because they will have fewer reserves to invest and grow in the future, their credit conditions will weaken, forcing them to raise interest rates in the face of declining collateral, which itself is deflationary for the respective companies.

But what needs understanding is that this will decrease the supply of … well, everything.

This at a time when these clowns are providing trillions of dollars in “stimulus” spending as now fiscal spending for their pixie land “build back better,” which is, of course, a green boondoggle.

Editor’s Note: The 2020s will likely to be an increasingly volatile time. More governments are putting their money printing on overdrive. Negative interests are becoming the rule instead of the exception to it.

One thing is for sure, there will be a great deal of change taking place in the years ahead.

That’s precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team released an urgent new report titled Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions for the Raging 2020s.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article-Australia, UN face off over reef

Posted by M. C. on June 23, 2021

The One World UN government that many desire is trying to dictate life for one of it’s subjects and that subject doesn’t like it.

Oh the irony of it all. The country that continues to enforce the hardest of hard virus lockdowns on it’s own citizens balks at a possible tourism lockdown by the UN.

Is this the first symptom of an emerging climate lockdown? Whatever this is, I am sure there will be more to come.

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=06908c12e_1345de3

Rod McGuirk ASSOCIATED PRESS CANBERRA, Australia – Australia said Tuesday it will fight against plans to downgrade the Great Barrier Reef’s World Heritage status due to climate change, while environmentalists have applauded the U.N. World Heritage Committee’s proposal.

The committee said in a draft report on Monday that ‘there is no possible doubt’ that the network of colorful corals off Australia’s northeast coast was ‘facing ascertained danger.’

The report recommends that the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem be added to UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger, which includes 53 sites, when the World Heritage Committee considers the question in China in July.

The listing could shake Australians’ confidence in their government’s ability to care for the natural wonder and create a role for UNESCO headquarters in devising so-called ‘corrective measures,’ which would likely include tougher action to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Any downgrade of the reef’s World Heritage status could reduce tourism revenue that the natural wonder generates for Australia because fewer tourists would be attracted to a degraded environment and dead coral.

Reef cruise operators said the report was wrong and that tourists continued to be awed by dazzling coral and multicolored fish. But some tourists said the reef had seemed more colorful during visits decades ago.

Environment Minister Sussan Ley said she and Foreign Minister Marise Payne had called UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay to express the government’s ‘strong disappointment’ and ‘bewilderment’ at the proposal.

Australia, one of 21 countries on the committee, will oppose the listing, Ley said.

‘This decision was flawed. Clearly there were politics behind it,’ Ley told reporters. ‘Clearly those politics have subverted a proper process, and for the World Heritage Committee to not even foreshadow this listing is, I think, appalling.’

The network of 2,500 reefs covering 134,000 square miles has been World Heritage-listed since 1981.

But its health is under increasing threat from climate change and rising ocean temperatures.

The report found the site had suffered significantly from coral bleaching events caused by unusually warm ocean temperatures in 2016, 2017 and last year.

Australian Marine Conservation Society environmental consultant Imogen Zethoven welcomed the committee’s recognition that ‘Australia hasn’t done enough on climate change to protect the future of the reef.’

The reef would become the first site to be added to the List of World Heritage in Danger primarily for climate change reasons, Zethoven said.

‘It would be a very significant step for the World Heritage Committee to make this decision and one that we really hope that it does make because it will open up a lot of potential change,’ she said.

Richard Leck, a spokesman for the environmental group WWF, said listing the reef as in danger would be ‘a real shock’ to many Australians.

In 2014, Australia was warned that an ‘in danger’ listing was being considered rather than being proposed for immediate action.

Australia had time to respond by developing a long-term plan to improve the reef’s health called the Reef 2050 Plan.

The committee said this week that plan ‘requires stronger and clearer commitments, in particular towards urgently countering the effects of climate change.’

Ley said climate change policy debate should be restricted to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

‘I know … that climate change is the biggest threat to the reef, and in no way am I stepping away from that recognition, and countries including European countries have got strong views about what policies different countries should have on climate change, and I understand that as well, but this is not the convention in which to have those conversations,’ Ley said, referring to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Observers say the swearing in on Tuesday of new Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, who opposes action on climate change that increases prices, signals Australia is likely to set less ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Terry Hughes, director of the Australian Research Council’s Center for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies, said Australia’s refusal to commit to a net zero carbon emissions target by 2050 made the country a ‘complete outlier.’

‘This draft decision from UNESCO is pointing the finger at Australia and saying: ‘If you’re serious about saving the Great Barrier Reef, you need to do something about your climate policies,’’ Hughes told Australian Broadcasting Corp.

The U.N. World Heritage Committee says Australia’s Great Barrier Reef faces ‘ascertained danger’ and proposes lowering its status. Kyodo News via AP

Australian Environment Minister Sussan Ley said the U.N.’s proposal to list the Great Barrier Reef as ‘in danger’ is flawed and politically driven. Lukas Coch/AAP via AP

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Is America’s Cause in the World? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2021

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/06/patrick-j-buchanan/what-is-americas-cause-in-the-world/

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Take away this pudding; it has no theme,” is a comment attributed to Winston Churchill, when a disappointing dessert was put in front of him.

Writers have used Churchill’s remark to describe a foreign policy that lacks coherence or centrality of purpose.

For most of our lifetimes, this has not been true of the United States. The goal of our foreign policy has been understandable and defined.

From 1949-1989, it was Cold War containment of the Soviet Empire and USSR.

Ronald Reagan believed in a “rollback” of communism, once telling an aide that his policy might be summed up as: “We win. They lose.”

At the Cold War’s end, George H. W. Bush said America would now lead mankind in the creation of “a New World Order.”

George W. Bush was going to deny to all “axis of evil” nations — North Korea, Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — access to the “world’s worst weapons,” with our ultimate goal being “ending tyranny in our world.”

According to the Biden Democrats of today, America’s goal is the preservation of “a rules-based international order,” which is less inspiring than “Remember the Alamo!” or “Remember Pearl Harbor!”

What are the causes that actually animate Americans?

A March survey of 2,000 registered voters, done by the Center for American Progress, reveals that most Republicans still share the foreign policy priorities of Donald J. Trump.

Asked to identify their first three foreign policy priorities from a list of a dozen, two-thirds of Republicans, 65%, gave as their principal concern “Reducing illegal immigration.” And 57% of Republicans put “Protecting jobs for American workers” right behind it. Independents agreed that these should be the top twin goals of U.S. foreign policy.

What does this tell us?

Economic nationalism is alive and well in the GOP, and securing the border remains a central concern of America’s center-right.

In third position, at 31% among Republicans, was “Taking on China’s economic and military aggression.”

Only 9% of Republicans listed “Fighting global poverty and promoting human rights” as top foreign policy priorities. Last among GOP priorities, at 7%, was “Promoting democratic rights and freedoms abroad.”

Indeed, this was the least popular foreign policy option among all voters.

Conclusion:

The priorities of the Bush presidencies and the neocons — democracy crusades, free trade, the New World Order, open borders — have failed to recapture the constituencies they lost in the Trump years.

While “Combating global climate change” rests near the bottom of Republican concerns at 10%, it is the No. 1 priority of Democrats, with 44% listing it first.

When it comes to “Ending US involvement in wars in the Middle East,” that goal ranks 5th among all voters. Democrats, Republicans and independents all support that objective.

Since the last CAP survey in 2019, the greatest change is the reduced concern over “terrorist threats” from al-Qaida and ISIS. Fewer than 1 in 4 voters now view this as a top priority.

As Matthew Petti writes in an analysis of the CAP survey, today, Americans “prioritize getting out of Middle East wars over confronting Middle East adversaries.”

This survey would thus seem to provide public support for the Trump-Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan, and for Biden’s effort to reengage with Iran and renew the 2015 nuclear deal.

Also ranked high among Democrats and independents, but less so among Republicans, is “Improving relationships with allies.”

What does the survey tell us?

Illegal immigration and economic nationalism energize the GOP rank-and-file; climate change does not. There is no enthusiasm in either party for new democracy crusades. And there seems to be no enthusiasm in either party for a clash with Iran, North Korea, Russia or China.

Only 14% of Democrats wish to address China’s “military and economic aggression,” though 31% of Republicans do.

But the overall impression here is one of democratic confusion.

We Americans are all over the lot about what our foreign policy should be and what it should do. One is reminded of an insight from Walter Lippmann about U.S. foreign policy confusion before World War II:

“When a people is divided within itself about the conduct of foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interest. It is unable to prepare adequately for war or safeguard successfully its peace. Thus, it course in foreign affairs depends, in Hamilton’s words, not on reflection and choice, but on accident and force.”

Should we energetically promote democracy worldwide, because it is the right and moral thing to do, though the American people clearly do not see this as America’s cause?

Should we intervene to help Ukraine retrieve Crimea?

Should we fight to prevent China from consolidating rocks, reefs and islets of the East and South China Seas?

Is preserving the independence of Taiwan, which we conceded half a century ago is part of China, worth a war with a nuclear-armed China?

What role should U.S. public opinion play in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy?

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever See his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article-Go green on housing with no additional cost

Posted by M. C. on June 4, 2021

“Go green on housing with no additional cost”

The point here is “no additional cost” really means “free government money” pays the tab. This person, vice president of the Environment Program at the JPB Foundation, is delusional.

Free government money comes from 3 places. Taxes (not free to the taxpayer), loans from other countries and entities (the resultant interest is not free) and printing money which generates the hidden tax that is inflation which is now again rearing it’s ugly head (paid for by everyone).

The sad part is the author and most of the unwashed masses may actually believe free government money is really a free lunch.

The real housing crisis is sky high home prices. And that is courtesy of free government money supplied by the Fed.

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=276b95073_1345dd0

Go green on housing with no additional cost

Your Turn Dana Bourland | Guest columnist Two of the biggest problems we face today — a shortage of decent, affordable housing and climate change — are connected. Fortunately, the solutions are connected as well. That’s why we must not only ‘build back better’ in the wake of pandemic and recession, but build back greener.

Most housing in the United States is inefficient and expensive to heat and cool. That means high utility bills and higher carbon emissions; residential energy use accounts for a fifth of climate-changing greenhouse gases emitted in the United States.

At the same time, the facilities that produce the power to build and operate our homes — like coal-fired power plants — contribute to a changing climate. Because they are often located in communities of color, these facilities also exacerbate environmental injustice. And producing the petrochemicals used in adhesives, cabinets, carpets, insulation and other building materials not only contributes to climate change, but pollutes the air outside and inside our homes.

The good news is that we can address our housing crisis and our climate crisis with green affordable housing at no additional cost.

President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan includes a large allocation for housing — an important first step. And the much-needed recent expansion of the Weatherization Assistance Program will make homes more comfortable and efficient.

But these investments can accomplish so much more, by ‘greening’ the entire building supply chain. That means going beyond energy consumption in our homes to address energy usage and petrochemicals in the manufacturing and transportation of materials.

In other words, how we build is as important as what we build. We can’t make one home green while polluting other communities in the process.

Biden’s ‘American Jobs Plan’ calls for investing $213 billion in the nation’s housing infrastructure. This includes $40 billion to repair public housing, $45 billion for the national Housing Trust Fund, an expansion of the Housing Choice Voucher program and more.

The administration can ‘green’ this investment by requiring these programs to use holistic green affordable housing criteria. These should go beyond energy efficiency to include the use of sustainably produced, non-toxic building materials. In this way, the infrastructure bill could stabilize the climate and improve public health while expanding access to affordable housing.

Similarly, the Weatherization Assistance Program could be expanded to include health and safety improvements as well as energy-efficiency upgrades, creating well-paying jobs for contractors while reducing triggers for asthma and other health impacts.

To solve our housing and climate crises, we must integrate how we think about both. We do not have the time or the resources to meet our housing crisis without considering how to meet our climate crisis. And if new investments in infrastructure deploy green building practices, we can score a triple win for housing, health and the climate.

Dana Bourland is vice president of the Environment Program at the JPB Foundation and author of ‘Gray to Green Communities: A Call to Action on the Housing and Climate Crises.’

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »