Agenda 21

Windweasels Always Try to Deny the Health Experts that Don’t Back up Their Lies!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

An inconvenient study draws fire from the wind/climate coalition

Measuring the effects of low-frequency sound (LFS) on the inner ear, WINDFARMS
An inconvenient study draws fire from the wind/climate coalition

Author
By Guest Column –Mark Duchamp October 6, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |
On October 1st and 2nd, two leading UK newspapers wrote about a new study from the University of Munich which found a way of measuring the effects of low-frequency sound (LFS) on the inner ear (1). This is an important discovery in that it could lead to progress in the understanding of hearing loss, an impairment that affects millions of people and causes much grief.

One of the most controversial sources of LFS lies in the nacelles of wind turbines and around their huge moving blades. Yet, governments stubbornly refuse to investigate their effects on health, thus protecting the wind industry and unprotecting the citizens. So, with reason, the authors of the press articles titled: “Could living near a wind farm make you DEAF?” and “Living close to wind farms could cause hearing damage”. This is a legitimate way of blowing the whistle, in a world where the wind/climate coalition has successfully blocked official research on LFS emitted by wind turbines since the Kelley studies in 1985-1987.

When health authorities refuse to measure accurately infrasound and low-frequency noise emitted by wind turbines, they are obviously protecting the wind industry. But they are also in breach of the criminal codes of most countries, which contain provisions for doing no harm to people, particularly of a physical nature. There is such a wealth of first hand reports of harm to health, chronic sleep deprivation and home abandonment from rural residents (2); there is such a number of relevant studies (3) that politicians can’t just sit there and deny, deny, and deny that serious harm to human health is occurring. They MUST repeat the experiments of the U. of Munich study (1), but in the field this time, next to wind turbines, using actual LFS pulses emitted by these machines, including infrasound. Length of exposure is key, as windfarm neighbours are submitted to this bombardment 24/7 when the wind is blowing and turbines are operating, and this over many years. Thus, the research should span over one year, minimum, and be conducted at various installations: some brand new, some with 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 years of operation, with victims who have lived there since their inception.

World-renowned ear specialists Alec Salt and Jeffery Lichtenhan wrote last year to the health authorities of the State of Victoria, Australia: “There are a number of false statements in your report. One severe example is “…the available evidence does not support claims that inaudible sounds can have direct physiological effects”.

“Below we have provided citations to six publications from our group where we showed how the ear responds to low-frequency sounds up to 50 dB below the levels that would be heard. The experimental methods that were used are well established in the field of auditory physiology. Three of the below citations were peer-reviewed and published in some of the most well-respected journals in the field of acoustics and hearing science. Our publications, which were clearly neglected or conveniently overlooked, show that inaudible low-frequency sounds do indeed stimulate the ear and produce marked physiological effects”. (4)

So YES, the above newspapers did the right thing in blowing the whistle on the risk for windfarm neighbours of damage to their inner ears, which can lead to deafness. The risk exists. As a matter of fact, we have a written testimony of such damage reported by a chronically exposed resident from Germany.

The wind/climate coalition reacted strongly, trying to rubbish the articles which could hurt their business. They used superficial arguments, such as the fact that the U. of Munich study does not mention wind farms. Indeed it doesn’t, because it is about research into the physiological impacts of LFS in general: it does not have to list the possible sources of LFS.

The lesson to be learned is that the U. of Munich study has made an important discovery, and that its experiments need now to be repeated in the field, with wind turbines as the source of LFS stimulation.
References:

1)—University of Munich study: Low-frequency sound affects active micromechanics in the human inner ear

2)—The NASA/Kelley research: As early as 1982, authors find that low-frequency noise is the major cause of adverse health effects for residents living near wind and gas turbines

– Emeritus Professor Colin Hansen et al.: The results show that there is a low-frequency noise problem associated with the Waterloo wind farm

– Testimony of a turbine host: “Whenever we are staying at the new farmhouse and the turbines are operating [2.5 km away] I have trouble getting to sleep at night. Frequently, I wake up in the morning feeling desperately tired, as though I have not slept at all. Often I simply fall asleep from exhaustion but still wake up tired. On numerous occasions I experience a deep, drumming, rumbling sensation in the skull behind my ears which is like pressure and often a pulsating, squeezing sensation at the base of my skull. I also experience irregular heartbeat while I am trying to sleep and while I am relaxing (sitting or reclining) in our house. I did not have any trouble sleeping before the turbines started operating.

Away from that home, I have not ever experienced problems with my heartbeat or with the pressure pulse sensation in my head; and I sleep incredibly well by comparison. My tinnitus comes and goes when I am away from home, but whenever I am living at the new farmhouse it is a constant source of irritation when the turbines are running. Alida does not complain of dizzy spells or head pressure when we are away from home.”

РTestimony of Mrs Linke: The first turbines to be turned on at Macarthur were about 6–7 km from the Linke house. After a period overseas prior to the turbines being commissioned Mrs Linke returned home and immediately began feeling pressure in her ears, and began to experience sleep deprivation.

As weeks passed Mrs Linke began to experience quickened heart beat and an inner vibration. Symptoms such as buzzing ears, pressure, tight chest, rapid heart beat and vibration developed and sleep was disturbed. As time passed Mr Linke also began to experience symptoms. The noise from the turbines is described as rumbling, thundering, humming, thudding and roaring and was often heard over the TV.

– etc.

– Waubra Foundation: sleep deprivation and torture: Sleep deprivation (suffered by thousands who live near wind turbines) is used by certain regimes as a form of torture .

3)—European Heart Journal: evidence from epidemiologic studies demonstrates that environmental noise is associated with an increased incidence of arterial hypertension, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

– Cherry Tree Wind Farm—Waubra Foundation Statement: Waubra Foundation CEO Sarah Laurie’s statement to the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal hearing is the most comprehensive and up to date report on current research into the adverse health effects experienced by those living and working near industrial wind turbines, January 2013.

4)—Dr. Alec Salt, and Dr. Jeffery Lichtenhan: physiological effects of inaudible sound.

Are the Liberals Finally Waking Up, in Britain? Green taxes are Absurd!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Green taxes DO harm the British economy and let other countries carry on polluting, Vince Cable admits

  • Business Secretary said levies on energy were undermining British exports
  • He said Lib Dems had to recognise green tax meant pollution was ‘exported’
  • Remarks will be seized on by the Tories who have warned of green tax harm

By TAMARA COHEN

PUBLISHED: 18:11 GMT, 5 October 2014 | UPDATED: 10:14 GMT, 6 October 2014

Vince Cable has launched an astonishing broadside against the party’s green agenda, saying that it imposes too high a cost on industry.

The Business Secretary said industries with high energy costs such as steel, are struggling against their international competitors because of soaring electricity costs.

Chancellor George Osborne has given £250million compensation to ‘energy intensive’ industries, but Mr Cable admitted this ‘doesn’t go the whole hog’.

It is a surprise admission from a Liberal Democrat, because the party is passionate about renewable energy which is funded by levies on households and businesses.

Vince Cable today warned Lib Dems not to overlook the fact that pollution could simply be 'exported' abroad if green taxes put British companies out of business

+4

Vince Cable today warned Lib Dems not to overlook the fact that pollution could simply be ‘exported’ abroad if green taxes put British companies out of business

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781433/Green-taxes-DO-harm-British-economy-let-countries-carry-polluting-Vince-Cable-admits.html#ixzz3FNBNbfWM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

We Should have Seen It All Along…..It’s the Bat’s Fault…..

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

“Confused Bats” to Blame for “Unprecedented” Wind Farm Bat Slaughter

October 5, 2014 by Leave a Comment

bat2

Wind farms are certified bird and bat slaughterhouses, where millions are clobbered, sliced and diced every year (see our post here).

Now, apparently, it’s turned out to be all the bats’ fault.

If only they’d undergone turbine recognition and awareness training they wouldn’t be belted to kingdom come, night after bloody night.

You see, bats (or at least the dimmest of them) apparently can’t tell the difference between trees (a source of food and shelter) and giant turbines (a guaranteed pathway to the promised land).

Maybe, over time, as Darwin’s rules about survival of the fittest and natural selection start to bite, the eradication of bats too stupid to know the difference between friendly oaks and mechanical bat thrashers will lead to a bat “super race” – not only capable of spotting certain death, but equipped with superlative “blade-dodging” flying powers and indestructible lungs.

In the meantime, however, they’ll continue to cop a battering. Here’s The Telegraph on the “unprecedented” wind farm bat slaughter.

Bats lured to deaths at wind farms ‘because they think turbines are trees’
The Telegraph
Emily Gosden
29 September 2014

Flashing red lights may be needed to prevent bats making potentially-fatal mistake, scientists say

Bats may be lured to their deaths at wind farms because they think turbines are trees in which they can find shelter, food and sex, according to new research.

The creatures fly towards slow-moving turbines, only to be killed when gusts of wind spin the blades, scientists investigating “unprecedented” numbers of bat deaths at wind farms suggested.

Flashing red lights may need to be installed at wind farms to help prevent the animals making the potentially-fatal mistake, they said.

Bats were “attracted to and actively approach” turbines when they were either stationary or moving only very slowly, according to the researchers from the United States Geological Survey.

About 600,000 bats are estimated to have been killed by wind farms in the US in 2012.

“Bats may not have the cognitive ability to differentiate wind turbines or other tree-like structures from real trees either at a distance or at close range,” the researchers said.

“The simplest explanation for bats closely approaching turbines may be that they are seeking places to roost in what they perceive as trees while migrating.”

The scientists suggested that the central pole of the wind turbine resembled a tree trunk, while blades resembled branches.

These misleading visual signals – “such as similar silhouettes against the night sky” – were compounded by similar airflow patterns generated by the stationary turbines.

Bats were less likely to approach turbines when the blades were spinning quickly, potentially because this created turbulence, according to the scientists.

“Our observations that tree bats show a tendency to closely investigate inert turbines and sometimes linger for minutes to perhaps hours … highlight the plausibility of a scenario in which bats are drawn toward turbines in low winds, but sometimes remain long enough to be put at risk when wind picks up and blades reach higher speeds,” they said.

The scientists suggested one remedy would be to alter the appearance of wind farms, for example by installing lights on the turbines, which might “might make some bats less likely to mistake them for trees”.

They cited the example of one wind farm in Texas where “fewer fatalities of eastern red bats were found under turbines with flashing red aviation lights”.

They suggested that wind farm operators should also only allow the turbines to spin when the wind speeds were consistently high, in order “to prevent gusts from intermittently pushing blades to lethal speed during low-wind periods”.

In a paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, the researchers said that as well as seeking shelter, bats may also be lured toward turbines with the expectation of finding “social opportunities or food”.

Bats may head toward what they think are trees in search of a mate, especially as some species of bat carrying out mating displays at trees. The highest death rates from bats at wind farms were documented around the start of the mating season.

The bats may also be drawn toward the tree-like machines with the expectation of finding insects. The researchers said it was not clear whether the bats actually found insects when they arrived at the turbines – as some previous theories have suggested – but that the animals “may be acting upon the expectation of resources rather than the actual presence of resources”.

Other theories have suggested that bats may suffer bends-like symptoms from air pressure changes caused by the turbines, resulting in their internal organs exploding.
The Telegraph

bat

Don’t Follow Germany’s Green Path…..They’re Lost! Epic Fail!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Germany’s Green Energy Failure

  • Date: 29/09/14
  • Doug L Hoffman, The Resilient Earth

The first grand experiment in renewable energy is a catastrophe. The vast scale of the failure has only started to become clear over the past year or so.

A new analysis answers the question “should other nations follow Germany’s lead on promoting solar Power?” That question was asked on Quora and answered by Ryan Carlyle, BSChE, and a Subsea Hydraulics Engineer. His detailed and well reasoned answer is the most forceful possible NO. According to Carlyle Germany’s program has the “absurd distinction” of hitting the trifecta of bad energy policy: bad for consumers, bad for industry, and bad for the environment. So while misguided greens point to Germany as a solar success, a rising tide of opposition and resentment is growing among the German public.

Along with all the other troubles besetting the world, Germany has watched its economy, the so called “engine of Europe,” stumble. This is mostly attributable to the horribly botched shift to a renewable energy economy. In Carlyle’s own words:

I was shocked to find out how useless, costly, and counter-productive their world-renowned energy policy has turned out. This is a serious problem for Germany, but an even greater problem for the rest of the world, who hope to follow in their footsteps. The first grand experiment in renewable energy is a catastrophe! The vast scale of the failure has only started to become clear over the past year or so. So I can forgive renewables advocates for not realizing it yet — but it’s time for the green movement to do a 180 on this.

Pretty strong stuff, but as good skeptics we should demand evidence to back up these statements. Fortunately, the author provides data to back up his claims. Here are some of Carlyle’s “awful statistics”:

Germany is widely considered the global leader in solar power, with over a third of the world’s nameplate (peak) solar power capacity. Germany has over twice as much solar capacity per capita as sunny, subsidy-rich, high-energy-cost California. (That doesn’t sound bad, but keep going.)

Germany’s residential electricity cost is about $0.34/kWh, one of the highest rates in the world. About $0.07/kWh goes directly to subsidizing renewables, which is actually higher than the wholesale electricity price in Europe. (This means they could simply buy zero-carbon power from France and Denmark for less than they spend to subsidize their own.) More than 300,000 households per year are seeing their electricity shut off because they cannot afford the bills. Many people are blaming high residential prices on business exemptions, but eliminating them would save households less than 1 euro per month on average. Billing rates are predicted by the government to rise another 40% by 2020.

Germany’s utilities and taxpayers are losing vast sums of money due to excessive feed-in tariffs and grid management problems. The environment minister says the cost will be one trillion euros (~$1.35 trillion) over the next two decades if the program is not radically scaled back. This doesn’t even include the hundreds of billions it has already cost to date. Siemens, a major supplier of renewable energy equipment, estimated in 2011 that the direct lifetime cost of Energiewende through 2050 will be $4.5 trillion, which means it will cost about 2.5% of Germany’s GDP for 50 years straight. That doesn’t include economic damage from high energy prices, which is difficult to quantify but appears to be significant.

Here’s the truly dismaying part: the latest numbers show Germany’s carbon output and global warming impact is actually increasing despite flat economic output and declining population, because of ill-planned “renewables first” market mechanisms. This regime is paradoxically forcing the growth of dirty coal power. Photovoltaic solar has a fundamental flaw for large-scale generation in the absence of electricity storage — it only works for about 5-10 hours a day. Electricity must be produced at the exact same time it’s used. The more daytime summer solar capacity Germany builds, the more coal power they need for nights and winters as cleaner power sources are forced offline. This happens because excessive daytime solar power production makes base-load nuclear plants impossible to operate, and makes load-following natural gas plants uneconomical to run. Large-scale PV solar power is unmanageable without equally-large-scale grid storage, but even pumped-storage hydroelectricity facilities are being driven out of business by the severe grid fluctuations. They can’t run steadily enough to operate at a profit. Coal is the only non-subsidized power source that doesn’t hemorrhage money now. The result is that utilities must choose between coal, blackouts, or bankruptcy. Which means much more pollution.

The emphasized passages are the author’s from the original posting.

Full post

– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-green-energy-failure/#sthash.fFTAlKrn.dpuf

Fighting an Imaginary Green Catastrophe, is costing us a Fortune!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Fight against climate change ‘may cause more harm than global warming’

Owen Paterson, who was sacked as environment secretary in David Cameron’s reshuffle, claimed that the fight against climate change did more harm than global warming
  • Owen Paterson
    Owen Paterson, who was sacked as environment secretary in David Cameron’s reshuffle, claimed that the fight against climate change did more harm than global warming Will Oliver/Getty Images
Matt Dathan
Published at 7:46PM, September 28 2014

Measures to combat climate change may be causing more damage than current global warming, a former environment secretary has said.

Owen Paterson, who was sacked in David Cameron’s reshuffle in July, attacked what he described as a “wicked green blob” of environmentalists for failing to explain the pause in global warming.

“There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years, some people say 26 years,” he told a fringe event at the Conservative party conference. “So the pause is old enough to vote, the pause is old enough to join the army, the pause is old enough

Windweasels are Held Responsible For Airplane Crash….Wrongful Death Verdict! Must Pay!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ag plane crash leads to $6.7 million wrongful death verdict

Credit:  By Stephen Pope / Published: Sep 25, 2014 | Flying | www.flyingmag.com ~~

When Steve Allen, a highly respected Northern California ag pilot with 26,000 accident free hours, crashed his Rockwell S-2R into a whisper-thin, barely visible galvanized steel wind observation tower on January 11, 2011, a dark and sickening secret about personal greed and avarice was exposed for all the world to see.

The $6.7 million wrongful death settlement the aviator’s family was awarded this month will hopefully help ensure other similar tragedies won’t happen in the future.

The tower, measuring just inches under 200 feet, was hastily erected in 2009 by wind energy interests “prospecting” for the perfect site for a new wind farm in Contra Costa County east of San Francisco. The odd height of the tower is central to the case — any tower under 200 feet doesn’t need to be lighted or reported to the FAA. But because these towers can pop up almost anywhere and are nearly impossible to see in flight, they pose a special danger to aerial application aircraft.

Allen, 58, was spreading winter wheat for a local farm when he flew his single-engine turboprop into the unlit, unmarked tower. According to the National Transportation Safety Board accident report, the pilot was never told about its existence and never saw it.

The meteorological evaluation towers, known as METs and equipped with small wind anemometers, have been cropping up all across the country as investors seek to cash in on the wind energy craze. By keeping them just below 200 feet, wind farm entrepreneurs save the money, time and hassle of registering them with the FAA — while putting ag pilot’s lives at risk.

“No amount of money is ever going to compensate the Allen family for the loss of Mr. Allen,” said Roger Dreyer, the family’s lawyer. “He was an exceptional pilot, father and husband. We can only hope that those individuals in the wind industry, agricultural field and those who manufacture and install these MET towers understand that their failure to mark them adequately with lights and obstruction warning devices puts aviators, like Mr. Allen, at risk of losing their lives when there is absolutely no reason for taking that risk.”

Source:  By Stephen Pope / Published: Sep 25, 2014 | Flying | www.flyingmag.com

Politicians Should Be Jailed for Pushing the “Unreliable Renewables” scam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Lunacy of Wind & Solar Power Policy: Political Incompetence or Conspiracy?

September 26, 2014 by

john kutsch

John Kutsch heads up the Thorium Energy Alliance an outfit that aims to see power generated using thorium enjoy a place at our reliable energy table.

Thorium is an abundant silver-gray element named for the Norse god of thunder. It’s less radioactive than the uranium used to power conventional nuclear plants; it produces less waste; and is more difficult to turn into nuclear weapons.

Advocates like Kutsch want to adapt traditional nuclear plants to use thorium as a fuel or replace them with a completely new kind of reactor called a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (pronounced “lifter”). The LFTR would use a mixture of molten chemical salts to cool the reactor and to transfer energy from the fission reaction to a turbine.

Kutsch argues that such a system is more efficient and safer than existing plants, which use pressurized water to cool uranium fuel rods and boiling water or steam to transfer the energy they create. Kutsch says: “A molten-salt reactor is not a pressurized reactor. It doesn’t use water for cooling, so you don’t have the possibility of a hydrogen explosion, as you did in Fukushima.”

Kutsch and other advocates say that a thorium-fueled reactor burns hotter than uranium reactors, consuming more of the fuel. Kutsch says that “Ninety-nine percent of the thorium is burned up. Instead of 10,000 pounds of waste, you would have 300 pounds of waste.”

STT isn’t about to weigh into the debate about thorium, but we’re on the same page as Kutsch when he slams into the lunacy of wind power.

Here’s a video of John belting into the infantile logic of trying to rely upon power sources delivered at crazy, random intervals. Oh and it comes with a “PG” warning: John’s frustration at our political betters leads to one or two “F” bombs.

blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/b6668f91-9d89-49a1-9a99-190b7f2f361a

AGENDA 21….WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!! Fight Agenda 21!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

AGENDA 21: THE ROCKEFELLERS ARE BUILDING HUMAN SETTLEMENT ZONES

MARCH 27, 2014  

According to many “experts”, such as the World Health Organization, and the United Nations, 70% of the world’s population will be living in cities, by 2050.  Usually left out of the reporting of this statistic, are the determining factors that will be causing people to move off of rural land, and into the crowded cities.  What would make so many people leave their quiet, rural community, to go and live in a city, that is becoming evermore crowded, or what would stop someone that is living in a crowded city, from moving to a more quiet, rural community?  Surely more than 30% of the people in the world will want to have their own piece of land, with a house, away from the city, in 2050.

What these organizations are not telling you is that a massive shift of the population into cities is not a random projection, but a planned goal of many of the world’s top “leaders”, and leading organizations.  By causing an increase in the cost of owning, and living on, property in rural areas (property tax, car tax, utilities, etc.), governments will cause a shift of population from rural communities to the city.  This is one of the goals of United Nations Agenda 21.  Agenda 21 is a massive plan, or program of action, for the 21st century, developed by the United Nations, and connected organizations, that would require every resource in the world, including humans, to be collectivized, and controlled.  If you have never heard of, or are looking to become more familiar with, UN Agenda 21, I have read, and analyzed, the document, and have written a report titled, A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 – United Nations Program of Action, which I highly recommend.

In the following report I will be attempting to convey to the reader, the reality that Agenda 21 has made its way into our local communities, pushed using friendly-sounding terms like “livable communities”, “complete streets”, and “resilient cities”, and is being used to cause a demographic shift, away from rural communities, and into cities, as envisioned, and planned, by the United Nations….

http://www.thegoodmanchronicle.com/2014/03/agenda-21-rockefellers-are-building.html

This is a continuation of the great ripoff of the 1930’s by other means.  And it implies depopulation, psychological control (by obstetrical abuse, circumcision, “diet, injections, and injunctions”) and social regimentation.

Communists Masquerading as Environmentalists…..Watermelons!

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda

September 23rd, 2014 – 4:31 pm

Communists along with a few environmental groups staged a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland, California on Sunday, September 21, in conjunction with the larger “People’s Climate March” in New York City on the same day.

Wait — did I say communists? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?
Well…no.

At the New York event, many people noticed that gee, there sure are a lot of communists at this march. But in Oakland — always on the cutting edge — the entire “climate change” movement at last fully, irrevocably and overtly embraced communism as its stated goal. Any concerns about “optics” or operating in “stealth mode” were abandoned.

The “climate change” “crisis” is now nothing but the latest justification for “total revolution” and getting rid of capitalism forever.
Yes, capitalism itself is the problem. The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.

Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.

Below you will find irrefutable proof that communist ideologies, organizations and phraseologies have completely moved to the forefront of the “climate change” movement. (I was originally tempted to say that the communists, as they are wont to do, have merely “co-opted” environmentalism. But that would imply that the goal of global warming scaremongering was something other than “destroying capitalism” in the first place. At this point I now know that destroying capitalism has always been the goal; the only thing that changed on Sunday is that the mask was dropped.)

This proof will necessarily entail posting a lot of photographs; in situations like this, the only way to conclusively demonstrate a point is through repetition of evidence. One could summarize the evidence with a few shorthand images, but that would leave open the possibility that the case was being overstated. To quash that counter-argument before it arises, I will post lots and lots and lots and lots of images from all over the rally, from the sponsors, to the attendees, to the booths, to the speakers, to show beyond any doubt that the entire rally was thoroughly saturated with communism and socialism to the point where these ideologies were the overarching theme of the event.

Ready? All the photos below were taken at the People’s Climate Rally in Oakland on September 21, 2014.
As you enter the rally you encounter booths hosted by Socialist Action, a Trotskyist/Marxist group…
…and the Communist Party USA, a Marxist-Leninist political party who like to think of themselves as the communists, since they’ve been around for almost a century…
…and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist political cult devoted to overthrowing the United States in a total revolution.

Along the way, you encounter the rally’s attendees, carrying signs advocating concepts like…
…”eco-socialism,” which I nominate as “word of the day,” since the theme of the rally was the fusion of ecology with socialism.
“Another Big, Fat, straight, Midwestern, White Man for WORLD REVOLUTION.”
“Capitali$m is Destroying the Environment.”

Do I even need to point out that socialist and communist countries like China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and elsewhere have absolutely appalling environmental histories, past present and future, which far exceed in ecological destruction anything encountered in capitalist societies? No, I don’t need to point that out, because you already know it. You do — but apparently the people at this rally live in a fantasy world where “socialism” is the opposite of “pollution.”
“Capitalism is Killing the Planet. FIGHT FOR A SOCIALIST FUTURE!” This same message from the International Socialist Organization, a self-professed Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist revolutionary group, was also prominent at the New York climate march.

If you enter the rally from the other side, you encounter
The Socialist Alternative, one of the few socialist parties to actually have a member elected to public office in mainstream society…
…The Democratic Socialists of America, a comparatively mild-mannered group who want to make America communist via peaceful democratic transition instead of the violent revolution advocated by most other extreme left revolutionary parties….
…and Freedom Socialist, a lesser-known group who nonetheless managed to gain control of the coveted “socialism.com” URL which they use to promote their radical feminist version of communism in “the living tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.”

Many of these Marxist, communist and socialist groups, by the way, were official sponsors of the event. They weren’t hangers-on — they helped to organize the rally.
Children were encouraged to hang out in the protest’s kid-friendly zone, where they could draw their own signs promoting “revolution.”

Had enough? Sorry. I apologize. Because we’re just getting started with the proof that communists dominate the narrative of the climate change movement.

Everywhere I turned, I encountered people with the message, “System Change, Not Climate Change.” If anything, this was the motto of the entire rally.

Why Have So Many People Gone Enviro-Mental? It’s a Scam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 BY STEVEN HAYWARD

FULL-FRONTAL ENVIRONMENTALISM: WE KNEW IT ALL ALONG

There’s an old line that environmentalists are “watermelons”—green on the outside, red on the inside. A lot of environmentalists will take great offense if you say this: No no! We like economic growth and capitalism just fine! We just want it to be “sustainable,” whatever that means. And don’t ask for specificity about what “sustainability” means in detail, unless you have a lot of time and a full bottle of hootch handy. Before long you’ll figure out that “sustainable” is just a code word for green things we like, and that it has no rigor whatsoever aside from old-fashioned factor-efficiency, which economists figured out over a century ago at least.

No it doesn't.

But anyway, environmentalists resist being called socialists. But next week Naomi Klein is coming out with a book called This Changes Everything. In case you’ve forgotten your show notes, Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine, a book ragingly popular with the far left that is so far gone into absurd conspiracizing and looney renderings of “neoliberalism” that it makes Lyndon LaRouche look positively staid by comparison.

What is the “this” that “changes everything” in her title? Why climate change, don’t you know? And what does it “change”? Why capitalism, of course. The argument of the book in one sentence is that only overthrowing capitalism can solve climate change. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s how the progressive lefty site CommonDreams described it today: “Forget everything you think you know about global warming. The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism.” For this bit of candor about what we’ve long suspected of the climate campaign, we owe Klein and her followers a debt of thanks. I’m going to send her a bouquet of (sustainably-raised) flowers.

Climate change is just the ultimate in “late capitalism” I guess but what’s really getting late is the odor of this badly decayed Marxism. (Klein still uses the uproariously hilarious term “late capitalism” without a trace of irony in her pre-publications articles.) Talk about trying to sell something past its “use by” date! Wasn’t World War I the crisis that “changed everything”? Then the Great Depression? Then the Cold War? The panic and crash of 2008? “This changes everything,” as G.K. Chesterton probably said somewhere, is the refrain of the lunatic in the asylum who thinks he’s Napoleon. It’s always something.

The book unwittingly reveals that none of this crusading and posturing is about the environment at all. Bill McKibben’s dust jacket blurb gives the game away: “This is the best book about climate change in a very long time—in large part because it’s about much more.” Silly me: I thought it was about greenhouse gas emissions.Thought experiment: if we wave a magic wand, will Klein, McKibben, et al suddenly say, “Oh, I guess capitalism is okay after all”? Anyone want to buy some sustainable swampland in Florida?

It will be interesting to see whether “mainstream” environmental groups will distance themselves from Klein’s book. I intend to ask them about her argument at every opportunity. I expect every kind of weasel excuse imaginable. So I guess I better put in for a large order of free-range, gluten-free, sustainably-raised Green Weenies.