Signs that the climate change advocators are growing desperate.
(Source
for all the links comes via Infowars.com)
1.
A Professor sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon has
called for so-called climate-change deniers to be to be diagnosed as sick and
for them to be treated.
Professor Kari Norgaard, who is
currently appearing the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented
a paper in which she argue that “cultural resistance” to accepting the
premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and
treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.
Norgaard equates skepticism of climate
alarmists – whose data is continually proven to politicized,
agenda
driven and downright
inaccurate – with racism, nothing that overcoming such viewpoints poses a
similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.” (Source: Prison
Planet)
This
is a very scary line from the University
of Oregon Media page that summarizes the “paper.”
“Climate change poses a massive threat
to our present social, economic and political
order. From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected,”
she said. “People are individually and collectively habituated to the way we
act and think. This habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed
at the individual, cultural and societal
level – how we think the world works and how we think it should work.”
(Bold belongs to PACNW Righty)
Anytime
we have these self-anointed liberal elites talking about how the world should
be changed through behavioral changes scares the snot out of me. It almost
seems as if these people are talking about re-education camps or some form of brainwashing.
I know these people think they are smarter than us, but taking it to this
level, insisting on forced behavioral changes (indoctrination), is taking it
too far. And bear in mind, these kinds of people support, with a great deal of
vigor, our current President.
(Side
Note: Please read this
blog post over at Rural Revolution. While it has nothing to do with the
climate change issues, it discusses how schools have lost their focus on educating
our children and become centers of social change and justice.)
2.
The same University of Oregon Professor has also called on President Obama to
suspend democracy and public opinion and implement climate change rules through
Executive Orders.
“Policymakers
should not wait for public opinion to take necessary action,” she writes,
adding, “Public opinion does matters in a democracy, but this is a time when
following it would be a serious mistake.”
But
this isn’t the first time that a climate changer has called for democracy to be
ended for the sake of the climate. Back in 2010 James Lovelock said
the following in an interview with the Guardian in the UK regarding how to
tackle climate change (scroll down):
We need a more authoritative world. We’ve
become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say.
It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical
example – when you can’t do that. You’ve got have a few people with authority
who you trust who are running it. And they should be accountable too, of
course.
But it can’t happen in a modern democracy.
This is one the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one.
But 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. (Source: Guardian
UK) (Bold belongs to PACNW Righty)
Quick question for you Mr. Lovelock: who gets
to decide who these “few people with authority” are going to be, AND who is
going to hold them accountable? A couple more questions: Who gets to decide
when we suspend democracy? And when do we come out of this period of tyranny?
3.
There are even some who are calling for the removal or SIGNIFICANT reduction of
the human population. Keith Farnish has written a book titled Time’s Up where he calls for the reduction
of human by causing (or at least doing nothing to prevent) the collapse of
civilization as we know it. The Telegraph UK sums
it up nicely with a few excerpts from Farnish’s book:
“In short, the greatest immediate risk to
the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is
the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a
terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of
humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people, providing you are
planning on staying with civilization – I wouldn’t recommend it though.”
…
“Unloading essential means the removal
of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals,
razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse
gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation
of many of the thing I have already explained in this chapter, along with an
(almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.” (Source: Telegraph
UK)
Every
once in a while I like to remind some of my liberal friends that this is the
kind of people that support Barack Obama. When they fire back at me that those racist
nutjobs living in the woods espousing the overthrow of our government also
support conservative causes, I like to point out that we conservatives tend to
run away from these guys as fast as we can. However, the media is often more
than willing to gives these leftwing knuckleheads all the press they desire,
and most often, it is glowing terms.
Why would I want to support Obama? He's a supporter of industrial civilization, just like any other politician. Strange conclusion. Take time to read the book rather than grab a piece of text from a newspaper website :-)
ReplyDeleteKeith, point taken, I should be more well-read. However, this does nothing to change my conclusion that climate-changers have grown desparate in their chase for complete domination of our lives.
ReplyDeleteI would venture a guess, that despite what you say about Obama being a "supporter of industrial civilization" that given a choice between Obama and a conservative candidate, you would select Obama. Conservatives happen to enjoy the fruits of our current civilization, and other than to fine turn it every so often, really don't see a need to change things around. And we certainly don't want to see a collapse of civilization in the way your book seems to support.
It is true that I have not read your book, and maybe I shall in the future. But this reminds me of a book I read oh so many years ago titled "Ecotopia" If I recall, it was published locally and wasn't all that great of a hit, but I did read it through. Some very interesting concepts and ideas. But it boiled down to one thing. Relenquishing total control of our individual freedoms all for the "common good." Very scary stuff.
One more thing: I really must thank you for stopping by my tiny little blog and leaving your thoughts. While it should be obvious this is a conservative blog, I relish the thought of idea exchange. Other than personal attacks and foul language, I don't censor in any way. It is not my way. Occasionally I actually lean something new.