Boy the Left REALLY wants us to lower our standard of living….

William Teach lays it out

Funny how so much of what climate scam cultists want is to knock the human race back hundreds and hundreds of years economically

Our addiction to growth is harming the climate
We must wean ourselves off unsustainable economic growth if we are to cut greenhouse gas emissions and avoid catastrophic climate change, say some economists. But what are the alternatives to growth?

Electing Leftists usually limits economic growth.

On the way home from work in your electric car, you stop off at the local discount store and pick up some beef for dinner. The meat was shipped in from Brazil to Germany. The land where the cow grazed was once rainforest. The nickel used in the car made its way from a polluting mine in the Philippines to a European assembly line.

Progress is bad, energy is bad, higher standards of living are bad, and so on. So what do Climate Cultists suggest?

In the US and Europe, the idea of “degrowth” — a movement around downsizing production and consumption, and moving the economy away from infinite expansion in a just and equitable way — is gaining traction.

That’s partly because of the growing gap between rich and poor. Part of the problem is that we measure society’s economic progress and well-being using Gross Domestic Product (GDP), say some economists.

Strange: I’m getting the idea that this whole ‘climate change’ movement is intertwined with all the other Statist/Progressive ideas. But, hey, if these climate scammers really believe this stuff, they should practice what they preach. Oh, wait…

On an individual level, “degrowthers” might choose not to fly or drive a car but they say environmental problems are not individual problems. Solutions must be political and community-based.

In other words, forcing everyone else to comply per government force.

Like everything else Leftism encompasses, this is about control, of you, me, and everyone else.

Cult of Climate Change: Bad news capitalist pigs! You will have to give up your land for the greater good!

Just like every other front of Leftism, climate change leads to Marxism. Pirates Cove explains

But, no, remember, this is all about science” (via Watts Up With That?)

Can property survive the great climate transition?

There is ample activity aimed at making this happen, including through designing and building ecocities, and calls such as that of the Transition Towns movement, which suggests substantial changes to our ways of life might be both necessary and inevitable.

In all of this, very little has been said about the elephant in the urban living room – property. Property systems are the codification of our relationship to place and the way in which many of us make a claim to place, including a roof over our heads.

If our cities are to become more resilient and sustainable, our systems of property need to come along for the ride.

Ah the ride? The ride to the Socialist Utopia of Collectivism

Western systems of property law assume property is delineated and static: the property holder has invested (often substantial) financial resources to secure a claim to that neatly identified parcel of land and/or buildings. Further, the property owner expects to make a nice economic return on their parcel.

Unfortunately, the future doesn’t look neatly delineated or static. Many researchers and practitioners tell us the future might not look like anything we’ve ever seen. Some say we are reaching a tipping point, after which the rules we have constructed will no longer apply or be of use. (snip)

Living in colonised landscapes tells us it might be time to rethink which way around the “ownership” dynamic works in property relationships.

That is, if we are to think about and create property systems that are as dynamic as the landscapes we occupy, we might need to start thinking about ourselves as belonging to and answerable to the land, not the other way around.

So, what would this mean to us, you know, the people? William Teach edifies us

Follow this to the logical conclusion: the government would have all claim to property, and people would be allowed to live in places that government dictates. Because science.

And, of course, we must never, ever, under any circumstances, question the science, which is settled, so, no one dare question the settled science, which is, you know settled! Settled as in you better never, ever say anything like this

Yes, such speech as you see above must stop, because the science, you see, is, well , settled! So what can we expect if the definition of property changes the way Progressives seek? Well, consider this from TransitionNetwork.org

Transition is an approach rooted in values and principles.  These are described slightly differently in different parts of the movement, but broadly:

We respect resource limits and create resilience – The urgent need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and make wise use of precious resources is at the forefront of everything we do.

We promote inclusivity and social justice – The most disadvantaged and powerless people in our societies are likely to be worst affected by rising fuel and food prices, resource shortages and extreme weather events. We want to increase the chances of all groups in society to live well, healthily and with sustainable livelihoods.

We adopt subsidiarity (self-organisation and decision-making at the appropriate level) – The intention of the Transition model is not to centralise or control decision making, but rather to work with everyone so that it is practiced at the most appropriate, practical and empowering level

We pay attention to balance – In responding to urgent, global challenges, individuals and groups can end up feeling stressed, closed or driven rather than open, connected and creative. We create space for reflection, celebration and rest to balance the times when we’re busily getting things done. We explore different ways of working which engage our heads, hands and hearts and enable us to develop collaborative and trusting relationships.

We are part of an experimental, learning network – Transition is a real-life, real-time global social experiment. Being part of a network means we can create change more quickly and more effectively, drawing on each other’s experiences and insights. We want to acknowledge and learn from failure as well as success – if we’re going to be bold and find new ways of living and working, we won’t always get it right first time. We will be open about our processes and will actively seek and respond positively to feedback.

We freely share ideas and power – Transition is a grassroots movement, where ideas can be taken up rapidly, widely and effectively because each community takes ownership of the process themselves. Transition looks different in different places and we want to encourage rather than unhelpfully constrain that diversity.

We collaborate and look for synergies – The Transition approach is to work together as a community, unleashing our collective genius to have a greater impact together than we can as individuals. We will look for opportunities to build creative and powerful partnerships across and beyond the Transition movement and develop a collaborative culture, finding links between projects, creating open decision-making processes and designing events and activities that help people make connections.

Sound like a bad sales pitch? Yep! ut what choice do we have really. The science, remember, is settled! So, Capitalism is out. Private property? Please! The new word is sustainable comrades!

A few weeks ago I came home buzzing from a meeting in a chapel opposite Bondi Beach. That meeting will be remembered as the birth of a non-profit community organization set up “to establish and implement community land trusts as a viable affordable housing option in New South Wales.” Interest in community land trusts is snowballing in Australia, which gives me hope for shareable and resilient cities.

As we go forward with building alternative structures like land trusts, we have a major challenge before us: the broad-scale refit of our existing urban areas into more sustainable forms and systems.

Community Land Trusts he says? How would that work?

Community land trusts (CLTs) started in the United States in the 1970s as a civil rights movement. The model builds on Henry George’s land value tax model and is explicitly inspired by practices of common land ownership in indigenous America, pre-colonial Africa, and India’s Bhoodan Movement, which encouraged wealthy landowners to voluntarily share their property with lower castes, who would then manage the gift as a commons.

Since 1987, the number of CLTs in North America has tripled—and today, there are roughly 200 non-profit organizations holding title to land and sometimes buildings, ideally forever. CLT property holders then hold title to anything from the ground up – whether crops, individual condos, houses, or entire buildings. Property holders can be homeowners, renters, cooperatives, businesses, charities, affordable rental hosing providers, or other community organizations.

To balance the interests, rights, and responsibilities of the individual household, the broader community and the public at large, a ground lease between the CLT and the property holder then spells out use, inheritance, maintenance, resale and other conditions of the property. CLTs stipulate there be no speculation, no absenteeism.

So, the “landowner” would not really “own” the land, house, etc. Here let Julian Brave NoiseCat explain

We live in a world dominated by the principle of private property. Once indigenous people were dispossessed of their lands, the land was surveyed, subdivided and sold to the highest bidder. From high above, continents now appear as an endless property patchwork of green and yellow farms, beige suburban homes and metallic gray city blocks stretching from sea to shining sea.

The central logic of this regime is productivity, and indeed it has been monstrously productive. In tandem with the industrial revolution, the fruits of billions of acres of dispossessed and parceled indigenous land across the Americas, Africa, Asia, Ireland and Australia enabled two English-speaking empires – first the British and then the American – to rise to global dominance. The latter remains the most productive economy in the world.

Property also embodies and upholds a set of values and relationships to land. It propagates a utopian vision called the American Dream, wherein hard work, land and a home are platform for boundless opportunity – or at least escape – from capital domination. It separates humanity from all other animals and cements man’s mastery over the natural world and all living things.

While property has transformed the world, its flaws have never been more apparent. Open land on the frontier, if it ever actually existed for the common man’s taking, is long gone. Homeownership no longer provides the economic security it once did, and appears out of reach for younger generations. The richest 1% holds more wealth than the rest of the world combined. At the same time, environmental degradation and climate change proceed at a terrifying pace.

See! Capitalism is bad, evil, and imperialistic! 

Another, more cutting-edge possibility is to heed the diverse indigenous voices displaced and drowned out by imperialism. From Standing Rock to Queensland, colonized and indigenous people are demanding new relationships to water that sustains the life and land which provides for the people.

This approach entails returning lands and resources to indigenous control and rethinking our relationship to the environment by recognizing and protecting indigenous values and the rights of nature through the law.

So, there we have it. We must cede control of our land, and homes and begin to live as the State dictates we live because sustainability. Sure Capitalism has led to more prosperity, liberty, living conditions and yes, cleaner environments, but we must never argue because the science is, well you know.

So, who is up for handing over control of our land, then eventually the right even own land? Who is ready to be told where we must live? Who is ready to be told, by the State, how big a home, and a family is “sustainable”? Who is prepared to be told what we may eat, how much we can weigh, and what type of vehicle, if any we may own? Who is ready to be herded into large cities, to live in our sustainable homes? What? You do not trust the State to control all of these decisions for everyone? You want to sacrifice sustainability and the common good for your individual liberty? Maybe you should be sent to a re-education, ah, I mean a sustainability awareness program facility comrades!

Cross-Posted at WOW! Magazine

Cult of Climate Change: Dissenters not allowed

Because CONSENSUS!

E.P.A. to Give Dissenters a Voice on Climate, No Matter the Consensus

William Teach knows what they mean by consensus

Once you’ve mentioned consensus, you’ve admitted this is not about science, but politics.

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, plans to convene a team of researchers to test the scientific premise of human-caused climate change, he told coal industry executives on Thursday.

Speaking at a board meeting of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a lobbying group for coal companies and their industry allies, Mr. Pruitt said his staff had already begun preparations for a “red team-blue team” exercise to challenge mainstream climate science, according to two people who attended the meeting but were not authorized to speak about it publicly.

But what of the ever so settled science? What will become of that narrative if it is challenged? It will either stand on its own merits or fall to dust and ashes. The fact that the Cult of Climate Change is so unwilling to participate in open debate, is telling.

Yep, the Paris Climate Agreement sucks

And by sucks, I mean it redefines suckage! It is a sucktacular quagmire of sucktastically sucky suckage!

Pirates Cove explains

As Investors Business Daily notes, the Paris Climate Agreement was considered a sham and a fraud by many hyper-Warmists until Trump pulled the U.S. out of Obama’s signature. It is mostly non-binding when it comes to “carbon pollution” goals, because, what it mostly does is require redistribution of money from 1st world nations to 3rd world shitholes developing nations

‘Climate change’ or cash?: Pay up or they’ll pollute

The climate surrounding President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the pollution-curbing Paris agreement has taken a decidedly chilly turn: Developing nations reportedly are holding their pollution-reduction goals hostage unless they’re paid.

Under the expansive cover of “climate change,” India, South Sudan, Niger, Egypt, Cuba and other nations say they’ll simply keep on polluting unless they receive payments as stipulated under the Paris agreement, The Washington Times reports. Apparently these and other countries “rented their signature for the promise of Paris-related wealth transfers,” says Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

How much is owed? One estimate puts the total requested by developing countries at $420 billion. But many other countries eligible for cash payments to reduce emissions haven’t yet submitted any estimates — which some analysts say could push the total cost into the trillions.

It was, and is, all about the “green” as in cash!

*AUDIO* Mark Steyn: Trump Vs. The Global Warming Lunatics

.

.

Trump kicks useless Paris climate agreement to curb, Liberals tears might flood earth

In short, the Paris Agreement was a Leftist redistribution scam that demanded billions of tax dollars from America, which is one of if not the cleanest nation on earth. At the same time the fiasco allowed nations like India and China, which are big time polluters to raise their carbon emissions. President Trump was perfectly correct to pull us out of this travesty. The Left or course is deeply aggrieved as is the nimrod who got us into this mess to start with

Former US President Barack Obama on Thursday slammed President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, implying his decision would hurt rather than help the US economy.

Yes, because Obama did such wonderful things for our economy right?

“Simply put, the private sector already chose a low-carbon future,” Obama said. “And for the nations that committed themselves to that future, the Paris Agreement opened the floodgates for businesses, scientists, and engineers to unleash high-tech, low-carbon investment and innovation on an unprecedented scale.”

Sure because nothing sparks innovations and advancement and business like international organizations that are generally very ineffective, corrupt, and really just scams to enrich leftists and corporations that get in bed with them. And, on top of that whatever “crisis” these international are designed to fix is either largely fabricated or make any actual crisis worse.

Obama, of course, was joined by other prominent Marxists in decrying the use of common sense by President Trump. Here is a short list

The “Climate Mayors”

The little dictator that could, Mikey Bloomberg and the vaunted Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy

Noted idiot John Kerry really pulled out the heavy panic mongering

John Kerry, who was Obama’s secretary of state when the Paris accord was negotiated, also released a blistering statement Thursday, accusing Trump of turning his back on “humanity’s most existential crisis” and describing the move as possibly “the most self-defeating action in American history.”

“The President who promised ‘America First’ has taken a self-destructive step that puts our nation last,” Kerry said. “This is an unprecedented forfeiture of American leadership which will cost us influence, cost us jobs, and invite other countries to walk away from solving humanity’s most existential crisis.”

“For our economy, security, leadership, competitiveness, and health, the clear-cut choice was to remain in the Paris Agreement,” Kerry added. “There is only one reason to instead make this choice: an ignorant, cynical appeal to an anti-science, special-interest faction far outside the mainstream. That is no basis for a decision that will affect billions of lives.”

Hollywood, of course are, well, being Hollywood

“If this is true he will have the death of whole nations on his hands,” warned scientist/actor Mark Ruffalo. “People will be looking to the USA for retribution for what they lose.”

Beauty and the Beast star Josh Gad took a break from playing make-believe to ponder our fate.

“Our children & our grandchildren have all just been handed a dark future because of a man who tweets at 3:00 AM & doesn’t ‘trust’ science,” Gad tweeted.

Cher, who apparently has some sort of graduate level degree in climatology, posted a bizarre rant, suggesting the nation has been “held hostage by Insane DICTATOR.”

Don Cheadle, known for his esteemed role as a Juicy Burger’s employee in the 1985 film “Moving Violations,” decided to bring Trump’s little boy into the debate.

“If you care about your kids maybe reconsider your #ParisAgreement decision. Barron will thank you when he sees you, whenever that is,” Cheadle tweeted.

Leonardo DeCaprio, who became a famous Hollywood star because of an iceberg, was devastated by the news.

“Today, our planet suffered,” he declared on Twitter.

And so on and so on

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Climate Change Predictions

But, of course folks like William teach should not point out the many lies of the Cult of Climate Change, because the science is, well, you know

Isn’t funny how the Doomy Goal Posts Of Doom are constantly moved? Now we have the World Economic Forum, a hotbed of Warmists and extreme Socialists who love to redistribute Other People’s money making a prognostication

The Arctic is now expected to be ice-free by 2040

The last piece of summer sea-ice in the Arctic is expected to melt away in just 23 years, three decades earlier than previously expected.

Scientists now believe that the summer of 2040 will see the end of the frozen north pole after a rapid shrinking of the ice coverage in recent years, according to a report from the Arctic Council.

Now this dire prognostication might sound scary, until you consider how many other dire predictions have proven as accurate as a blind archer with no hands

Seriously, they just can’t help themselves with their prognostications. And, let’s see, from Watts Up With That?

  • 101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”
  • 106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
  • 6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.” Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

And then you had the prediction that 2016 would be ice-free. And next year or the year after (2017 or 2018). And so many more, including Gore’s prediction which failed.

Their record is pathetic. But it is their agenda-driven propaganda that is most disturbing. No matter what the facts are, no matter how often they are wrong, they just keep bleating out new doomsday scenarios. And, when challenged, they rant about the science being settled. No, the science is not settled. But, the real motives behind the Cult of Climate Change are, and about that 97% of scientists line….

 

Video-Man wearing stupid bow tie embarrassed on TV

People often ask why I hate sweater vests, and bow ties. My answer is because they make anyone wearing such things look like a complete tool. Don’t believe me? Consider that Rick Santorum, who whines, wears sweater vests a lot. And do I really have to explain why bow ties look stupid? I did not think so. And do not get me started on guys who dress like lumberjacks 

lumber

I mean come on!

But, this post is not just about questionable apparel choices by men, no. What this post is really about is Bill Nye, The Science Guy. Nye is an obnoxious ass, and a prominent member of the Gore Church Cult of Climate Change. And he wears bow ties, and he gets owned by Tucker Carlson here!

DICK! Sorry, but Bill Nye is the walking definition of a dick!