Monday, April 23, 2012

Climate Changers Growing Desperate

Signs that the climate change advocators are growing desperate.

(Source for all the links comes via

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.


  1. 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 :-)

  2. Keith, 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.

    I 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.