Post by Mech on Mar 10, 2008 11:32:29 GMT -5
New Proposals To Fight Global Warming Would End Civilization, Kill Billions
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, March 10, 2008
What would the effects of almost completely outlawing carbon dioxide emissions be? The complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.
The establishment press is affording sober gravitas to a Carnegie Institution report that calls for carbon emissions to be reduced to near zero in order to combat global warming, without mentioning the fact that such a move would return man to the stone age if not end civilization as we know it and kill billions.
"The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades," reports the Washington Post.
"Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."
What would the effects of almost completely outlawing carbon dioxide emissions be?
The complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.
Correction - stone age man at least was able to make use of fire - that too would presumably be banned under the measures being proposed.
Global transport of any kind would cease, manufacturing and production would be a thing of the past, the global economy would crumble, communications would go dark as computer networks and the Internet are abolished. Millions would freeze to death as a result of not being able to heat their homes.
We’d be back to living in caves and hunting for food with spears.
Does this sound extreme? The Washington Post calmly reports on the proposals without even mentioning the complete devastation they would inflict upon humanity.
Desperation to sell the coming apocalypse on behalf of the climate change cult is evident as China, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, recovers from its coldest winter for 100 years, and Saudi Arabia reels under an unprecedented cold snap that has residents scared to venture outdoors.
The sheer ludicrousness of the Carnegie report is on a parallel with a March 2007 New York Times editorial, which subtly pushed the notion that humans emit carbon dioxide when they exhale, therefore should all be taxed for breathing!
Since those who refused to pay the tax would continue to commit the environmental crime of breathing, what would the punishment be? Instant execution? Since most of the people who push this kind of quackery also believe in global population reduction, they’d probably be all for it.
Of course the supposed science cited by the Carnegie report to justify its hair brained conclusions is completely flawed.
As is readily apparent upon a cursory examination of ice core samples - increases in carbon dioxide emissionsfollow and do not lead temperature rise. They lag behind by as much as several hundred years - proving that natural causes such as sun activity drive climate change as has been the case throughout history, where extended periods of warming and cooling have been observed.
In fact the earth has been warming consistently since the end of the 17th century, after the planet emerged from the Little Ice Age, and long before industrialization began.
From 1940-1975, when carbon emissions as a result of human activity rapidly increased, global temperatures decreased significantly, prompting fears of a new ice age, before the warming trend picked up again.
Of course none of this matters to the Church of Environmentalism and their ever-willing media echo-chamber, whose duty it is to regurgitate the most doom-laden dose of demonstrably false fearmongering in order to con us out of tax dollars while all the real environmental problems are ignored.
Fortunately, a sizeable portion of the Post’s readers are not buying into the insanity, with respondents up in arms about the Carnegie Institute’s proposals for zero carbon emissions.
"With one of the coldest and snowiest Winters on record those who make money from global warming start revving their engines. Here we have another keenly timed report to buttress their method of controlling the citizens," retorts one reader.
"The global warming alarmists have left the world of merely stupid behind them and have now entered the realm of completely ridiculous. Since even carbon dioxide, which we all spew out every time we exhale, has now been classified as bad for the environment, how do we get to what these people now suggest? We can’t. Get over it, get a life. And stop believing this massive hoax," writes another.
"What a blatantly dishonest piece of reporting! First, the picture implies carbon emissions are producing this horrible haze. This is clearly other pollutants such as sulfur -> an unrelated problem. Second, this studies predicted temperature rise completely contradicts all the other models the WaPo has been touting as telling us the future and there is no discussion of this inconvenient truth. Third, the article might want to mention the serious consequences of achieving zero emissions -> civilization would end and billions would die," concludes another.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, March 10, 2008
What would the effects of almost completely outlawing carbon dioxide emissions be? The complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.
The establishment press is affording sober gravitas to a Carnegie Institution report that calls for carbon emissions to be reduced to near zero in order to combat global warming, without mentioning the fact that such a move would return man to the stone age if not end civilization as we know it and kill billions.
"The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades," reports the Washington Post.
"Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."
What would the effects of almost completely outlawing carbon dioxide emissions be?
The complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.
Correction - stone age man at least was able to make use of fire - that too would presumably be banned under the measures being proposed.
Global transport of any kind would cease, manufacturing and production would be a thing of the past, the global economy would crumble, communications would go dark as computer networks and the Internet are abolished. Millions would freeze to death as a result of not being able to heat their homes.
We’d be back to living in caves and hunting for food with spears.
Does this sound extreme? The Washington Post calmly reports on the proposals without even mentioning the complete devastation they would inflict upon humanity.
Desperation to sell the coming apocalypse on behalf of the climate change cult is evident as China, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, recovers from its coldest winter for 100 years, and Saudi Arabia reels under an unprecedented cold snap that has residents scared to venture outdoors.
The sheer ludicrousness of the Carnegie report is on a parallel with a March 2007 New York Times editorial, which subtly pushed the notion that humans emit carbon dioxide when they exhale, therefore should all be taxed for breathing!
Since those who refused to pay the tax would continue to commit the environmental crime of breathing, what would the punishment be? Instant execution? Since most of the people who push this kind of quackery also believe in global population reduction, they’d probably be all for it.
Of course the supposed science cited by the Carnegie report to justify its hair brained conclusions is completely flawed.
As is readily apparent upon a cursory examination of ice core samples - increases in carbon dioxide emissionsfollow and do not lead temperature rise. They lag behind by as much as several hundred years - proving that natural causes such as sun activity drive climate change as has been the case throughout history, where extended periods of warming and cooling have been observed.
In fact the earth has been warming consistently since the end of the 17th century, after the planet emerged from the Little Ice Age, and long before industrialization began.
From 1940-1975, when carbon emissions as a result of human activity rapidly increased, global temperatures decreased significantly, prompting fears of a new ice age, before the warming trend picked up again.
Of course none of this matters to the Church of Environmentalism and their ever-willing media echo-chamber, whose duty it is to regurgitate the most doom-laden dose of demonstrably false fearmongering in order to con us out of tax dollars while all the real environmental problems are ignored.
Fortunately, a sizeable portion of the Post’s readers are not buying into the insanity, with respondents up in arms about the Carnegie Institute’s proposals for zero carbon emissions.
"With one of the coldest and snowiest Winters on record those who make money from global warming start revving their engines. Here we have another keenly timed report to buttress their method of controlling the citizens," retorts one reader.
"The global warming alarmists have left the world of merely stupid behind them and have now entered the realm of completely ridiculous. Since even carbon dioxide, which we all spew out every time we exhale, has now been classified as bad for the environment, how do we get to what these people now suggest? We can’t. Get over it, get a life. And stop believing this massive hoax," writes another.
"What a blatantly dishonest piece of reporting! First, the picture implies carbon emissions are producing this horrible haze. This is clearly other pollutants such as sulfur -> an unrelated problem. Second, this studies predicted temperature rise completely contradicts all the other models the WaPo has been touting as telling us the future and there is no discussion of this inconvenient truth. Third, the article might want to mention the serious consequences of achieving zero emissions -> civilization would end and billions would die," concludes another.
