Death by Eco-Fascism

Our beautiful world is being vandalized by eco-fascists and those with very dangerous motives. This CO2/climate change scam is the propaganda cover for massive social change, and it is utterly shameful that scientists are prepared to prostitute themselves to this new religion.


As the renowned climatologist R.A. Pielke Sr, (Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder, and Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins) has declared about the scientists behind the latest UK government climate report UKCP09:

The scientists who present the viewpoint of skillful multi-decadal regional predictions to policymakers are deliberately and dishonestly misinforming the public and policymakers.

Why the deliberate disinformation campaign? Digging into a recent study How to get climate policy back on course by the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society at the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Mackinder Programme makes chilling reading in the light of 20th century history:

…climate policy has come to serve many other political and social functions beyond its declared formal objective. Thus, undeclared political, religious, ethical and wider lifestyle and social purposes are being fulfilled…

Because climate policy performs so many other sorts of political, religious and psychological work, it has tremendous momentum within it.

…current conventional wisdom [for reducing CO2]…is grounded upon policies that have not worked in the past and which we know never to have been politically feasible except through the application of unacceptable political forces.

So, there are policies that will not achieve their objectives (the presently declared ones that we are supposed to be suckers for) and then there are policies that will achieve their ends through use of totalitarian force. Fascism pretends to allow private ownership, but controls everything to serve statist agendas, and ultimately morphs into a brand of socialism – not for nothing were German fascists known as ‘Nazis’, short for Nationalsozialisten.  Hitler said in 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system”, and in 1931 declared, “…every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State… The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”

The fascist method is to get the population hooked on the ends (e.g CO2 reductions) and actually lobbying the government to take action, and when the merely unpalatable policies are seen to be largely ineffective, the populace will then accept the unthinkable. Thus in Nazi Germany – get the population to buy in to the aim of Aryan purity, and when it cannot be achieved by mild social engineering, the population will eventually accept mass sterilization, euthanasia, confiscation, war and genocide.

The study continues

…there are four – and four only – macro-scale policy levers in pursuit of [CO2] emissions reductions. These are, respectively, population, wealth, energy intensity (meaning units of energy per unit of GDP) and carbon intensity (meaning the amount of carbon produced per unit of energy). Each of these factors is amenable to the action of a particular lever and each lever prescribes a particular approach to policy.

In the case of population, the lever is population management. In the case of wealth, the lever is to reduce the size of the economy. In the case of energy intensity, the lever is to increase energy efficiency. And for carbon intensity, a switch to energy sources that generate fewer emissions is the primary lever.

For an example of how this works in the hands of treacherous government ministers, look no further than the present UK government (especially the eco-fascist Miliband brothers):

The European country which has been most ambitious in its attempt to legislate a top-down emissions policy has been the United Kingdom, with passage of the Climate Change Act in November 2008. Specifically, it requires Britain, by law, to achieve by 2016 a carbon efficiency…[t]hat would require, for example, building and putting into operation 30 nuclear power stations in 7 years. Thereafter, assuming a GDP growth of 2% p.a., a year-on-year annual rate of decarbonisation of 5.3% is required to reach the Act’s target; whereas there is no record of any economy having achieved greater than 2.0%, and then only for short spells. In sum, this Act requires the UK to achieve the impossible.

In this the authors are mistaken: it is only impossible to achieve with the levers of energy and carbon intensity. So to achieve the legally binding requirements of the Climate Change Act by 2050 will require forces that have hitherto been considered unacceptable: extending and operating the levers of statist control over all areas of life and property, leading to extermination and the confiscation of goods and destruction of wealth. It should not be forgotten that these are the ultimate objectives of the Greens and the eco-fascists, who are man-hating, God-hating socialists. The dangerous Miliband brothers, from a family of  Marxists, liars and traitors, (one is Foreign Secretary and the other Minister for Energy and Climate Change, who is responsible for this Climate Change Act) are particularly well placed to influence in this direction. For example, David Miliband [“Towards an Environmental Union”, Centre for European Reform Bulletin, 50, (October/November 2006)] sees the European Union as the vehicle to ram through statist policies:

Europe needs a new raison d’être….The needs of the environment are coming together with the needs of the EU: one is a cause looking for a champion; the other a champion in search of a cause.

Yes, it needs it like it needs a hole in the head: causes looking for champions and champions looking for causes always end in dictatorship, and this was just how Hitler got to where he did.

Championing this ruinous course will be bad for both humans and the planet. The consequences for Europeans revealed in the Mackinder Programme study show that the policies championed by the eco-fascists are almost in every way destructive, and thus such wonderful weapons in the hands of the eco-fascists, who seek the destruction of mankind.

…setting huge targets for renewable energy in a short time frame (from 8.5% to 20% by 2020) may unintentionally drive the whole of Europe into large-scale wood burning…There will be a huge demand-supply gap. There will be different sorts of hazard also. Decentralized wood burning may increase the already considerable number of deaths caused by fine-particle emissions in Europe. Furthermore, it will increase the atmospheric black carbon load, which is thought to have powerful climate forcing effect: the opposite result of what policy intends.

Likewise, the decision to increase the proportion of bio-fuels in transportation by 5.7% by 2010 and 10% by 2020 is a decision with undesired environmental consequences. Europe intends to fulfil this particular directive by the increased use of 1st generation bio-fuels, the production of which will, according to many academic studies, increase deforestation, world market prices of many basic foods, water consumption, erosion and land degradation, the use of fertilizers (e.g. highly emitting N2O) and pesticides, as well as decrease biodiversity. Recent analysis calculates that it would take 400 years to pay off the global ‘carbon debt’ caused by changes in land use induced by bio-fuel energy production.

The paper referenced for this analysis shows that introducing crop–based biofuels creates up to 420 times more CO2 than they can reduce per year by displacing fossil fuels. Any policy with a ‘payback period’ of 400 years, which will wreak havoc in the short term, is insane.


6 Responses to “Death by Eco-Fascism”

  1. 1 Craig Goodrich September 8, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    … not to mention Wind Plants.

    CO2 is the perfect “pollutant” for the eco-fascists: you can’t burn *anything* — from a romantic scented candle to a ton of coal — without producing it, and it’s impossible to actually reduce its concentration by human action (the ocean contains so much CO2 that it will always stabilize with the atmosphere at some uncontrollable level). So any effort to “control” it will of necessity be futile, which means ever more draconian measures can be introduced at will.

    Likewise the Wind Plant is the perfect “green” power source; it produces no power that is actually useful, while destroying huge swaths of countryside and wilderness, and uses so much cement and steel in construction that it would have to run full power for six years (which it will never do) just to compensate. So it cannot possibly reduce emissions in the slightest, while making the population tolerate incredible inconvenience and ugliness in the name of eco-correctness, thus usefully sheepifying them still further (and, of course, pouring their money in the form of subsidies and “carbon credits” into the pockets of friendly financiers).

    Just perfect. Wonderful. Resistance is futile, we will be assimilated…

    ScientistForTruth responds

    Going back to wind power, which is tremendously inefficient in resource utilization, as you point out, is like going back to before the Industrial Revolution. Anyone who thinks it could be useful would do well to see what happened in Spain when they made massive investments in wind and solar (even worse!) power. Their electricity is now so expensive that their industry cannot compete, and they are thus moving their industries to countries with nuclear or coal generating plant, and pushing millions out of jobs in Spain. Of course, destruction of the economy is just what the Eco-fascists want. After all, they love death.

  2. 2 David January 4, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Here’s another argument against those dreadful wind turbines.
    They INCREASE CO2 production..!
    How come..?
    Simple – because they only produce useful electricity for 25% of the time (33% offshore) – industry figures, not mine – they are in effect a ‘back up’ to the NEW coal and gas-fired generating capacity which is required for all the times that the wind doesn’t blow within the useable speed band..!
    How come none of the wind farm proponents mentions this..?
    Another Inconvenient Truth (how Al Gore must be cursing the day he coined THAT phrase…)

    ScientistForTruth responds

    That’s true. Denmark, for instance, which went crazy building wind generators, being a flat country with little or no hydro power (which can be switched in instantly to cover for failure of wind) has not been able to decommission any fossil fuel plants. It can’t actually use any of the power generated from wind and has to dump it into the Norwegian and Swedish grids to get rid of it.

    Wind proponents do not mention such things because it’s not in their interest to tell the truth. They are essentially like salesmen who know they have a defective product but will tell all sorts of lies to make the sale and close the deal. Their real aim is political, to de-capitalize and de-industrialize the West, and spinning a climate change scare, or making a bogeyman out of CO2 is just a way of getting the populace to accept actions that are evil by making them think that they are doing good. People in Spain, Italy and Germany are still traumatized at having gone along with fascist regimes that conned them into thinking they were doing what was in the greater good.

    It’s quite simple to show that wind power is a huge waste of money and space – and a trip back to before the industrial revolution. It’s very expensive. Divide the capital and maintenance cost by the number of usable kilowatt hours of energy produced over its life gives a quick idea of comparative costs – perhaps three times the cost of gas, coal and nuclear. But solar is even worse – around 7 times the cost, and same problem: the sun doesn’t always shine (especially when you need it most, when it’s bitterly cold!)

  3. 3 Andy Scrase February 3, 2010 at 7:08 am

    I’m interested in the solar debate from the perspective of individual ownership. It does seem that there is maybe a reasonable ROI over some years, and the technology is advancing, I believe.

    Above all, it does provide independence from the grid, to some extent. Independence fom anything you don’t have a control over seems like a very good idea, from my perspective.

    Here in New Zealand we have terribly poor insulation in our houses, and double glazing is a rarity.

    It always struck me that personal environmentalism and thrift could go hand in hand. I have always been suspicious of these charlatans who tell us we need to tax CO2 when they don’t address the common sense solutions I mention above.

    I originally thought these eco-fascism concepts were some daft conspiracy theory, but the truth is rapidly dawning on me.

    Thank you for a very inspiring blog.

    ScientistForTruth replies

    Thanks for your encouragement. I agree with you that there are a lot of measures you can take in your own home – saving water, insulation etc, that make a lot of sense and do have a reasonable payback. As far as solar power is concerned, the systems that use it to heat or pre-heat water by installing collectors on your roof will have a payback. This is a pretty low-grade application (collecting some heat, and raising temperature moderately). However, trying to generate electricity from solar panels is very inefficient and expensive. Dividing the capital cost by the number of units of electricity produced over its useful life gives a rough idea of how expensive it is. Add in the cost of, say, borrowing the money for the investment, and you will end up with a very high cost. Solar electricity generation was tried on a massive scale in Spain, and cost per unit of electricity is around seven times the cost of coal/gas/nuclear generation.

  4. 4 juegos July 21, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    It’s really a great and helpful piece of information. I am happy that you just shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.

  5. 5 Dean Guarin September 15, 2011 at 9:57 am

    I really thouroughly enjoyed reading this topic Death by Eco-Fascism Buy the Truth it seemed to be a real solid browse I am grateful

  1. 1 TWAWKI » The rise of ecofascism Trackback on April 2, 2010 at 9:34 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: