Social Equality Means Saving The Planet?

This is pathetically absurd. It really is.

Hey folks,

Everyone knows that Global Warming, "Man-Made Global Warming" is a SCAM. More and more Scientists, even some of the same ones Gore cited in his Propaganda Movie, say it is a SCAM. Or the Science is unsettled to say the least. Even mainstream News Outlets like the Wall Street Journal are starting to tell the truth. Wall Street Journal: No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

We have talked about Natural Cycles. That is all we have. It's cold, hot, dry, wet, storms, no storms. Really bad storms that hit land. Storms that never make it to land. Snow, no snow. Cycles. We warm, we cool. Most "Experts" you talk to today say we are COOLING now. Hence the name change from Global Warming, to Climate Change. Well, of course, the Climate is changing. It changes all the time. So whatever the weather, they can say, SEE, man-made Climate Change and it's going to kill you all. Unless of course you,

1 - Listen to us and believe the Scam.
2- Give up certain Freedoms, and allow US to think for you, and tell you how to live your life.
3- Give us your money.
4- Try to convince others that what you are doing IS the right thing to do.

Then, and only then, when WE are in charge of all, will we have a Utopia here on Earth. You will be a hero, because YOU helped to save the Planet.

If this was just a few kooks out there, the Chicken Little Crowd, then it would be kinda funny. But it's NOT. It is those that seek total Power, Control, and Money. Check this out in the AFP - UN panel says retool world economy for sustainability

The world can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of economic growth and must redefine the very concept of national wealth, a UN panel of heads of state and environment ministers said Monday.

The panel challenged leaders to recognise that "current global development is unsustainable."

"We need to chart a new, more sustainable course for the future, one that strengthens equality and economic growth while protecting our planet," UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in Addis Ababa to mark the release of the panel's report, which outlines more than 50 policy recommendations.

By 2030, the report warned, the planet will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water.

{Sigh} 40 years ago we were heading for a mini Ice Age. We only had like 10 years to act. Then Global Warming. We only had like 20 years to act. Then we only have 10 years. Again. Then the Sea Levels were going to rise and wipe out entire Countries. NOW they are telling us that by 2030?? Really? Wait, I thought the World was going to end THIS year. Is it not? {Smile}

These needs are emerging "at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply," it said.

Continuing along the same path as today risks "irreversible damage to both ecosystems and human communities."

In other words folks, no, I'll save that till the end of this piece. Please, continue on.

Entitled "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing," the 100-page report seeks to shape in broad strokes the agenda for the Rio+20 summit this summer.

The June 20-22 event in Rio de Janeiro takes place 20 years after the landmark 1992 Earth Summit that set down the UN conventions for protecting biodiversity and tackling global warming.

Led by Finnish President Tarja Halonen and South African President Jacob Zuma, the 22-member panel said a new blueprint for growth and low-carbon prosperity must be "mainstreamed" into economic policy as quickly as possible.

Social and environmental costs must be factored into how the world prices and measures economic activity, and into a revised measure of wealth that goes beyond the narrow calculus of gross domestic product (GDP), it said.

"Our report makes clear that sustainable development is more important than ever given the multiple crises now enveloping the world," Zuma said in a statement.

Remember last year, or was it the year before, that they were saying this is the very Last Chance to do anything before we all Burn. They go into their little Climate Talks, and what did they decide in this "Last Chance Meeting?" Uh, to talk more about it next Year, or maybe the Year after.

The report called for:

-- a new nexus between food, water and energy. "All three need to be fully integrated, not treated separately, if we are to deal with the global food security crisis";

-- a stronger interface between science and policy. "We must define what scientists refer to as planetary boundaries" beyond which human activity could wreck the planet;

-- reducing social exclusion and closing the widening gap of social inequality.

European Union Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard, one of the report's authors, said it should be a "wake up" call for action.

"Government support for fossil fuel industry is about seven times more than for renewable energy," she said in a statement.

"We simply can't continue as if business as usual was the cheapest solution. It is not."

Hedegaard said the Rio+20 summit was an opportunity to "kick off this global transition towards a sustainable growth model for the 21st century."

This is pathetically absurd. It really is. "Closing the widening gap of social inequality." Social Equality means saving the Planet? Well yeah, in their eyes. Take everyone that has money and then they will be equal to the peasants out there. They never talk about helping those with nothing get something. They always talk about TAKING from those that do.

Folks, what this is all about is that they need to find new ways to FORCE people, and in this case, entire Countries to give them Money. There is no more money to be had with the Global Warming Bunk. None. There are very few people that still believe this garbage, hook, line, and sinker. So they want to create new Laws to TAKE the Money. But don't worry. It's for your own good.
Peter

Legislation will support research, surveillance, planning and interagency coordination

To tell you the truth, I had no idea where to place this.

Hey folks,

Is this the "Health and Science," the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up," the "IWA?" Maybe I should just create a New Segment for this sort of thing, the "BS" Segment. Did you catch this?

WASHINGTON, May 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Trust for America's Health (TFAH), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) praised legislation introduced late yesterday to improve the public health response to climate change.

The bill is sponsored by the Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health, U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (CA/Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Ventura County), and cosponsored by U.S. Reps. Doris Matsui (CA/Sacramento) and Tammy Baldwin (WI/Madison, Beloit).

The bill introduction follows the official finding in April by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that climate change endangers human health and welfare, and the introduction of draft climate legislation, "The American Clean Energy and Security Act," by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and House Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA). Global warming is expected to worsen many health problems, including heat-related illness, diarrheal and other infectious diseases, and respiratory illness associated with ozone and allergens in the air.

Climate change is a concern to most public health agencies, but few of them have resources to tackle the problem, according to a national survey conducted last year by Environmental Defense Fund, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and George Mason University. Congress needs to provide $200 million to sponsor research for climate change and public health in federal agencies, according to a recent report in Environmental Health Perspectives, the peer-reviewed journal published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The bill, the Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Act, would direct the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop, in consultation with other governmental and non-governmental partners, a national strategic action plan for addressing the impacts of climate change on public health. It would also authorize funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research the health effects of climate change and identify greenhouse gas reduction behaviors that are health promoting, as well as bolster climate change preparedness planning around the country.

"As a nurse for two decades, Rep. Capps understands that climate change will be a life and death issue for many Americans if we don't prepare for its health impacts," said EDF Chief Health Scientist Dr. John Balbus, who is a member of the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research and Medicine. "Reps. Matsui and Baldwin also deserve credit for cosponsoring this bill because it is a critical step in protecting public health from the varied threats posed by climate change."

"Reps. Capps, Matsui and Baldwin are providing invaluable leadership by recognizing and promoting new and innovative ways to prepare for the health risks of climate change," said Jeff Levi, Ph.D., Executive Director of TFAH. "We're already witnessing how climate change is leading to new health problems. This bill would help ensure that public health officials across the country -- who we rely on to protect us from infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies -- can meet the challenges we face."

"Children, the elderly, and people with many common medical conditions -- such as diabetes and asthma -- are especially at risk as the climate warms and health threats multiply," said Gina Solomon, M.D., M.P.H., Senior Scientist at NRDC. "We need to prepare today, so people don't suffer tomorrow."

The Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Act also would authorize the CDC to:

Provide technical support to state, local, and tribal health departments in forecasting local effects, developing preparedness plans, and communicating with the public about the health effects of climate change;

Develop training programs for public health professionals on the health risks and interventions related to climate change;

Enhance domestic and international tracking capacity for infectious diseases and environmental health indicators;

Contract with the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine to prepare a report that assesses the needs for health professionals to prepare for and respond to climate change impacts on public health and recommends programs to meet those needs. The report would be due within 18 months after the bill becomes law.

Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense Fund has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. For more information, visit www.edf.org

Trust for America's Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.

CONTACT: Dr. John Balbus, +1-202-572-3316, jbalbus@edf.org, or Jennifer Andreassen, +1-202-572-3387, jandreassen@edf.org

I'm not even going to waste time posting the reports. That's why I left the links in for you to check them out yourself. This is all about the money folks. We are not even WARMING. All this, and all the reports are, well, BS. Complete and utter BS. {Bad Science} or whatever you care to substitute here. {Smile}

Just to touch on a few of these patently absurd statements. First, and the biggest, we are not warming anymore. Anyone with an IQ over 10 will tell you we are actually in a cooling cycle now.

Second, "We're already witnessing how climate change is leading to new health problems." Really? Where, what, who, how? Oh yeah, you need not back any of this up. Right?

As you well know, sickness and disease are spread mostly during cooler temperatures. Hence the reason that the Flu season happens during the cooler parts of the year.

Third, "We need to prepare today, so people don't suffer tomorrow." Then they talk about $200 million and an on going contract in which they can get a continuous supply of cash. This seems to be the new tactic of the LWL. Justify out of control spending now, for future benefit. In other words, "We will take your money now. You will not see any benefit from it for YEARS later. But trust us, we must do this NOW." This way, by the time the SCAM is proven to be that, a SCAM, they would have already gained power and control, and or course, made a lot of money.

I could keep going on and on about all the nonsense of this, but it's time to move on to more Idiocies, the IWA. Be right back.
Peter

The Cost Of The Scam Of Global Warming

Hey folks,

Yes I know there was a Republican debate last night. No I did not watch it. Yes I know you want to know what I thought. OK, from what I have seen, They all blamed Bush in an attempt to separate themselves from a President with the lowest approval ratings. They believe, and most likely are right, that they will get more press by doing so. Some of the lessor known long shots tried to stand out, and the front runners continue to be Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. Giuliani was asked AGAIN about his Abortion stance. Nothing really stood out. Nothing is really new.

You see, this is my point, it is way too soon to make a decision yet. I will let you know when something really does happen. When I decide who I’m certain really stands a chance, I assure you, you will be the first to know.

But what I do want to talk about today is this. According to AP-Climate change battle could spell new disasters By Gerard Wynn

Rich countries meeting in Germany this week will agree that they need to confront climate change, but unpleasant tradeoffs are already emerging.

Unless properly managed, a rush to reshape the world's economy to arrest climate change could end up trampling the lifestyles of the rich, the livelihoods of the rural poor, and the earth's most vulnerable habitats.

But remember folks, this is a good thing.

A tequila shortage is perhaps one of the least-expected results of planting lucrative, "climate-friendly" biofuels -- as Mexican farmers set ablaze their fields of cactus-like agave to make way for corn, a feedstock for ethanol. Biofuels are also blamed for raising food prices and destroying forests.

The result of misguided climate policies could be to undermine public support for action and discourage businesses from buying in.

You mean that people will start see this as the scam it is?

"Definitely there'll be tradeoffs between climate change and the local environment, and with energy security," said Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises rich countries.

"We are not in the luxury of being able to choose from hundreds of energy types."

Just how mankind plans to battle climate change is still sketchy, but one buzz word is "scaling up" -- for example by boosting research into and deployment of clean energy technologies like wind and nuclear power and biofuels.

As long as you do not put any of these things in Liberals back yards.

Urgency has been spurred by a series of U.N. climate reports this year confirming threats like desertification, droughts and rising seas and calling for action now to cut the long-term cost.

But evidence is emerging of the repercussions. British charity Christian Aid says Colombian rebel groups are forcing poor people off their land to grow lucrative palm oil for biodiesel, likening it to diamonds financing African wars.

"You could have blood biofuels in the same way as blood diamonds. It's a classic case of exploiting natural resources behind the veil of conflict," said Christian Aid climate policy analyst Andrew Pendleton.

"Unscrupulous private sector operators, rebel groups, are keen to make a fast buck."

I have been telling you folks, it’s all about money and power. The whole scam has never been about anything else. I keep seeing report after report, article after article about how the poor will suffer the most with Global Warming. Turns out, that the poor are suffering MORE now, in the name of FIGHTING Global Warming.

Biofuels already occupy an area equal to all of the arable land in France, says the IEA, and they are blamed for raising the cost of corn, sugar and other foods they compete with for land.

But negative repercussions are hard to prove.

Hard to prove? If corn products use to cost one dollar, in a country where a weekly salary is eight dollars a month, now it costs three? Or as this very article stated.

But evidence is emerging of the repercussions. British charity Christian Aid says Colombian rebel groups are forcing poor people off their land to grow lucrative palm oil for biodiesel, likening it to diamonds financing African wars.

Someone has a home and now they do not, it’s not hard to prove.

A hike in the price of tortillas, a Mexican staple, was blamed on biofuels and sparked riots, but may have more to do with the monopoly power of dominant tortilla producers, says Annie Dufey, research associate at Britain's International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Such fears risk fatalism and favor the status quo, said Bert Metz, chair of a major U.N. report published last month on policy options.

"Problems of land ownership and poor people are there, let's do something about it, but not blame it on climate change," he said.

"There's no basis for supposing climate policies will create more problems than they solve, provided they're put in place wisely. I'd view that as another excuse for doing nothing."

They already ARE creating these problems you moron. They will create a lot more. All in the name of the Global Warming Religion.

The report did not weigh the cost and benefit of the recent consumer fad of boycotting air freight and travel to reduce carbon emissions, which could inadvertently hurt African exports and tourism.

"It's inequitable, tokenism," said the IIED's Bill Vorley of such consumer concerns.
Fresh fruit and vegetable exports from sub-Saharan Africa accounted for less than 0.1 percent of total British greenhouse gas emissions, but supported more than one million people, the IIED estimates.

It also doesn’t really matter. It just does because some idiotic and ignorant scientists CLAIMS it does. Now here is something I have been looking into a bit more lately. Mainly because of the outrageous electric bills I have gotten. When I asked why they are so high, I actually had someone from the local and ONLY power company here tell me, that’s just the way it is. WRONG answer to give me.

In an interview with Reuters, Clemens Betzel, the president of Cardiff-based solar power company G24 Innovations, put on a table a bendy, solar power generator the size of a sheet of paper.

It produces enough power to run a mobile phone or light bulb, but there's plenty of demand for that, he said.

"People sit on a street corner selling power from a car battery. They're paying $60 to a $100 a year for kerosene to light their home," said Betzel, who said he could market his product for $20.

"We're going into Africa, India, China."

There is some solar companies that will sell you the total package. You can be energy self sufficient completely off the grid. The technology is there, and improving at an unbelievable rate. Imagine that, a completely renewable endless supply of imaginable power. The Sun. Why do we not spend more time and money looking into this?

Yes folks, the Gwarians out there are now trying to find a way to spin this to say they are NOT to blame for hurting poor people. Meanwhile, they want to keep telling you, you need to pay them for your sins. They do not have to change. YOU do. I keep telling you, this is nothing but a scam. There is going to come a time when you are going to have to make up your mind. Which do you believe?
Peter

Cow Drug? What About Us?

Hey folks,

In what is becoming a continuing series "Health and Science," along with the "here we go again" category, here comes more untested tampering by science to our health. What am I talking about? This new drug for cattle.

The government is on track to approve a new antibiotic to treat a pneumonia-like disease in cattle, despite warnings from health groups and a majority of the agency's own expert advisers that the decision will be dangerous for people.

The drug, called cefquinome, belongs to a class of highly potent antibiotics that are among medicine's last defenses against several serious human infections. No drug from that class has been approved in the United States for use in animals.

The American Medical Association and about a dozen other health groups warned the Food and Drug Administration that giving cefquinome to animals would probably speed the emergence of microbes resistant to that important class of antibiotics, as has happened with other drugs. Those super-microbes could then spread to people.

Echoing those concerns, the FDA's advisory board last fall voted to reject the request by InterVet Inc. of Millsboro, Del., to market the drug for cattle.

Yet by all indications, the FDA will approve cefquinome this spring. That outcome is all but required, officials said, by a recently implemented "guidance document" that codifies how to weigh the threats to human health posed by proposed new animal drugs.

So they know that this is a danger, but yet, because of certain rules they are going to allow it?

Most glaring, they say, is that the guidance makes it almost impossible to say no to a new animal drug unless it is likely to threaten the effectiveness of an antibiotic that is a critical player against food-borne illnesses. By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends saying no if approval would spur resistance to any antibiotic that is important for fighting "serious human disease" -- not just food-borne illnesses.

Cefquinome's primary threat is that it may undermine the usefulness of the closely related human drug, cefepime. But as it turns out, the FDA does not consider cefepime a front-line drug against food-borne infections. So although it is a highly important drug in human medicine generally -- and although the Infectious Diseases Society of America even recommends it against some food-borne bacteria -- that risk does not count under the terms of Guidance #152.

So how great is the risk to us?

An analysis of E. coli bacteria in pigs and other animals in Spain, published in December, found high levels of the resistance that renders fourth-generation cephalosporins useless. A January report from Britain documented similar resistance patterns emerging at 10 farms.

Microbes resistant to fourth-generation cephalosporins have also begun to pop up in European patients. Such resistance is virtually unknown in the United States, where fourth-generation cefepime has been used in patients since 1997. That suggests that the resistance emerging in Europe is a result of veterinary use, said Steve Roach of the Food Animal Concerns Trust, a Chicago public interest group.

Roach says he is concerned that history is about to repeat itself. U.S. cattle were free of bacteria resistant to third-generation cephalosporins in 1997, but by 2003 one of every five samples was resistant. "This is exactly what should be avoided with cefquinome," he said.

Even some top Politicians are getting into the mess. I agree, yes. I said I agree with Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who chairs the House Rules Committee.

In January, New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter, a Democrat who chairs the U.S. House of Representatives Rules Committee, sent the FDA a letter asking it not to approve the drug. She is a microbiologist.

"Over the past several years, the integrity of the FDA's drug review process has been called into question amid allegations that your agency has put the interests of industry and politics above science," Slaughter wrote at the time.

"Given the recent outbreaks of E. coli and other food borne illnesses across the nation, it is hardly the time to ignore the advice of scientists, and potentially impair our ability to treat deadly infections," she wrote.

Absolutely! We are going to be told that it’s OK to use this drug in animals, yet there is a risk to human health. This is just another Big Drug Company looking to make even more money, at the risk to YOUR health, with the Federal Government assisting them to do it. Well, more profit for the drug company, more taxes to the Government. It is ALWAYS about the money.
Peter

Sources:
Washington Post- FDA Rules Override Warnings About Drug
Reuters-FDA set to approve controversial cow drug: report