Where did the climate crisis go?

Andrew Bolt:

MPs insist Climategate just hot air

Climategate was a lot of fuss about nothing, claims Britain’s parliamentary inquity into the scandal.

A remarkably generous finding.

Where did the climate crisis go?

Peter Costello is amazed that climate alarmism can be switched off and on at will: are you beginning to suspect all the crisis was politically driven?…

Here, that’s the  (Socialist) spirit:

Save the planet! Scrap democracy

Global warming really does appeal to the inner totalitarian. Takes James Lovelock, the Gaia guru:

Pic thanks to ZIP

The peasants are too dumb to understand climate change. Lets put democracy on hold for a while!

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Before him, Clive Hamilton:

(T)he implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

Ditto from David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith, authors of The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy:

Shearman and Smith argue that liberal democracy—considered sacrosanct in modern societies—is an impediment to finding ecologically sustainable solutions for the planet.

And, of course, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez:

We must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet… That requires a change in the economic model: we must go from capitalism to socialism.

9 thoughts on “Where did the climate crisis go?”

  1. sheikh, dhummi and kaw

    From the previous thread
    sheikyermami wrote: We won’t see a full scale war scenario because that’s not how this war is waged.

    That is what I have been saying from the outset – that this war is essentially a demographic Jihad. All else is mere diversionary tactics.

    Given the larger families of Muslim, they know they will be able to take over in a law abiding manner.

    Consider the situation that all the Imams decided to preach that all Muslims in the UK behave in the most law abiding manner. They did so, because they were aware that they must not do anything to give any excuse to the natives to pass laws that are discriminatory to Muslims and Islam.

    There is then no realistic political strategy that is available that will allow laws that discriminate against Muslims, simply because they have larger families. Our goose is cooked. What then?

    I posit that any thing is better then the Islamisation of the West, for that would be very difficult to reverse . To that end I will go along with anything apart from collective suicide or something like that, that prevents Islamisation.

    Now let us go really off track. Let us say we agree with AGW. We then argue that as AGW is by definition man-made, the continued growth of human population is a danger to mankind, as it is the main contributor to AGW. In the UK, as we are torch carriers of AGW, we then propose that all families are limited to two children, or a woman is limited to two children. The state will not support any more then two children – no state benefits of free education and health care. In fact severe fines will be imposed if the limit is broken. All this you understand, is to save the planet from the extreme danger of Climate Change.

    Note that such a policy does not target Muslims – in fact there is no mention of them. It is also supposedly good for the planet i.e., anti-islamisation is cloaked in what is marketed as a positive good.

    The only trouble is that AGW is a lie and a scam to raise taxes, very possibly to fund crappy Islamic countries lacking in oil. Such a lie cannot be continued for any great length of time, and we will then be back to the same situation.

    What I have proposed as an example, is a policy that limits the main driver of the existential threat against us, without mentioning Islam. Unfortunately it cannot be sustained for any length of time.

    Something policy has to be invented that is politically possible which limits the demographic Jihad i.e., it is possible to persuade the people as well as the MSM and politicians of such a policy, or our goose is cooked.
    sheikyermami wrote: We won’t see a full scale war scenario because that’s not how this war is waged.

    Again go off track.

    Just because Muslims are waging a war that is not a full scale war in te conventional sense, why is it not possible to convert it , step by step, to a full scale war? What must we do to make it a full scale war without being accused of war mongering?

  2. Correction
    A policy has to be invented that is politically possible which limits the demographic Jihad i.e., it is possible to persuade the people as well as the MSM and politicians of such a policy, or our goose is cooked

  3. I was at my brothers place on the weekend, we watched a video he’d recently bought and it was all very interesting. I can’t remember the name of the speaker (I was recovering after a Bourbon-related incident), but it was linked to this website :- http://creationresearch.net/

    I have also recently come accross this page, appears KRudd has come a bit of a gutzer on all this climate change crap :- http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564

  4. Sheikh

    I brought it here for two reasons

    1. The original thread had slipped from view, and the discussion was ongoing.

    2. I used AGW as an example to limit the demographic Jihad, and trhis thread was about AGW.

    This needs to be discussed. Just continuing as before, as we have since 9/11 ( you know me from the very first days since 9/11 on LGF), is not going anywhere. In fact we are slipping back.

    As your blog is how to stop the Jihad, why can we not continue this discussion on every thread, unless it is totally irrelevant for that thread?

    Let me know what you think – its your blog, and it goes without saying that I will abide by your rules.

  5. Thank you Sheikh.

    So. The Greenies are right. We have from Biased BBC quite alarming news.

    Anyone catch this interview on Today this morning with Professor James Lovelock – he of the Gaia theory? The learned Professor casually opined that 7 out of 8 billion people will die because of climate change.


    As AGW is by definition due to humans, then population growth will lead to even more Climate change. Our concern for the future climate of the planet, and starving children in the future, absolutely demands that we impose a two-child policy for every family or woman.

    In addition, no further immigration into the West, as poor people in their own less developed countries use much less energy. If they are allowed into the West, they then have to be supported at an energy usage level that is normal in the West. This leads to even more AGW and future disaster.

    Therefore, for the good of the world, we need to

    1. Stop immigration from the Third world

    2. Limit population growth in the West, by limiting a family or woman to two children. Fines and severe penalties if the law is broken.

    Hell, if smoking is bad, allowing government to interfere in how we amuse ourselves in pubs and restaurants, how much worse it is to alter the climate of the planet, leading to the death of 7 billion people at the least.

    PS: As I wrote earlier, my whole thrust here is to start us thinking outside the box. Continuing on the same path as we (bloggers) have since 9/11, is not going anywhere. We need to start thinking outside the box, and popularizing policies that have some hope of catching on in the wider blogworld and from there to the MSM.

    Sheikh: There is the other issue of full-scale war, but it is too sensitive to be discussed on an open forum.

    Thanks Sheikh. Looking forward to your comments on the issues I’ve raised.

    Remember – we are on the same side.

  6. Global warming was never anything else but hot air being spouted into the atmosphere by none other than head SPOOK, Al Gore.
    Western countries should go a step further besides banning flooding fom third world countries who are invading our shores by hook or by crook. Our governments should seriously consider kicking all these mongrels out lock, stock and barrel. Put them on a plane with $100/ only in their pockets and warn them that the next time they try to enter by boats, they will be used as target practise by our Navy.

Comments are closed.