Fear Not What Man Can To The Planet, But What Man Can Do To Other Men

Advertisements are simply a way to communicate a message to the public and persuade them to buy or take some form of action. In the case of public service advertising, it supposed to educate and motivate the public about non-commercial issues like global warming. Sometimes it conveys a message. But lately, there has been a disturbing trend coming from the pro-warming crowd. Look at some of the ads below.

Consider this ad from 10:10Global.org:

Or this recent ad from ACT Responsible: 

Or consider this ad from The World Wildlife Fund:

What message do you think the global warming crowd is trying to send to the public? What kind of action do they want you to take?

These ads are nothing more than propaganda is based on an appeal to fear in order to frighten you into joining their cause.  The 10:10 advertisement is particularly offensive because it does more than just push its message through fear, but suggests choosing that non-compliance will result permanent elimination. The irony about it is even though the green crowd says there's "no pressure" and that a person is free to decide not to go green. Yet, if one decides not to play along, he or she will get vaporized. 

No pressure, right? 

If a group, movement or organization that promotes a certain lifestyle, belief or ideology is willing to kill or even suggest eliminating those who disagree with them, then they're pushing something more than just their lifestyle, belief or ideology. The lifestyle, belief or ideology is actually secondary to a more important goal.

And what they are pushing for usually comes down to power or control. 

The common theme in each of these advertisements is fear. They want you to be scared enough that you will run into the protective arms of the government. Only the government will save you and the planet. To accomplish that requires more government control and higher taxes. In other words, only a Marxist or Socialist kind of government is the only solution for the planet. One blogger argues that the 10:10 ad is nothing more than Nazi propaganda.

Regardless of what you call the goals of the green movement, it is a big tent that attracts other movements that who want the government, not the individual, to be the one who makes big and small life decisions. The reason why it is attractive to those who believe the State as the ultimate guide for mankind is because global warming is the cause of everything we do: how we travel, what we eat, what we buy and what we wear. Thus, all human activity is subject to government regulation. Its the totalitarian urge to regulate even the most minor human activities. A quote that has been attributed to Louis Proyect sums up the goals of environmentalism perfectly: 

"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."

The common trend with totalitarian movements that gain political power it always seeks to oppress people at home and abroad. It may start out with noble intentions and goals but it always descends into misery. Therefore, it isn't climate change that we should be afraid of, but political change. 

Fear not what Man can to to the planet, but what Man can do to other Men. 

The Media's Failure to Fact Check Obama & Global Warming

Many news organizations have done some fact checking of some of Obama's claims that he made in the State of the Union Address. 

Yet, no fact checking has been done about Obama's statement he made about climate change during his first State of the Union Address last night.

The President made this statement:  

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. 

Overwhelming evidence!? I think there is a tidal wave of evidence showing that Climate Change is based on very bad science.  Let us go through four recent examples showing how bad the science is on Global Warming?

1) Special interest groups like World Wildlife Fund are the source of many claims made by the "scientific" IPCC AR4 report.

2) Many claims within the IPPC, such as the melting glaciers on the Himalyas, are not even based on formal research but a short telephone interview with a scientist who based his claim on mere speculation.

3) There is strong evidence that Global Weather Stations are being intentionally cherry picked to show an increase in the global temperature. 

4) Scientists in England, New Zealand and Australia have been found to be manipulating, distorting, massaging and dumping their raw data in an effort to promote Climate Change.  In the United States, there a few different lawsuits pending, to determine if science agencies have been manipulating the climate change data too.

I could go on with more examples of reports and articles showing whatever "overwhelming evidence" in support of it rests on bad science. 

All these examples are from recent news articles covering global warming which shows that what Obama is essentially saying is that we should embark on this costly endeavor EVEN IF the science is wrong. Our President either be willfully ignorant or in willful denial about the quality of "science" behind global warming.

And with as much money as our government is spending on programs based on bad science, the media is failing in doing its fact checking  to ensure that our government relies on the right scientific evidence. 

Global Warming: Not About RisingTempratures, But Rising Taxes!!

Whenever politicians talk about Global Warming/Climate Change, they're not talking about an increase in temperature, but an increase in taxes. Listen to the conversation between Al Gore and Represenative Dingell discuss the issue of Cap and Trade:



For those of you who don't know what Cap And Trade is about, here is a brief explanation of how it works:

These measures would set a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect of such a cap would be to impose rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy. Each covered utility, oil company, and manufacturing facility would be given allowances based on past emissions or some other formula. Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by their allowances could sell the excess to those that do not; this is the trade part of cap and trade.

The Cap and trade scheme is essentially saying that business can put out all the CO2 they want just as long as you they Congress to do it. But the truth is that corporations rarely pay taxes because they pass the taxes on to their customers in the way of higher prices. Thus, Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax is nothing more than another attempt for the government to get more money in taxes.

Not only is it a tax but it is another method of redistributing wealth.Notice that Al Gore is in favor of BOTH a Carbon Tax and a Cap And Trade tax. Did you catch the fact that these taxes are "revenue neutral" and that the money will be returned to the "people"!? This is nothing more than a attempt by the government to redistribute wealth via taxes.

So, in the end, ladies and gentlemen, its not the corporations who will be paying these taxes. Its YOU, the regular tax payer.

And politicians wonder why citizens have Tea Parties...

UPDATE (MAY 1, 2009): The debate has no shifted to how much the Cap and Trade Tax will cost the average American family. Republicans argue it will cost every American family as much as $3,100 a year while democrats think the cost shifted to the American public will be minimal.