Environmental Brainwashing Of Children

When one hears the question "How can anyone be so stupid as to believe Al Gore and the idea that mankind is causing global warming and climate change?" , we are rightly puzzled as to how this can be.  Well, I think the following article helps explain why.  It is not because anyone is "stupid".  It is because our children and grandchildren (almost two generations) have been fed an endless series of distortions, myths, and outright lies about nature, Earth history, and our environment.  We see evidence of this and its consequences all around us.

This does not give me good feelings about our public education system.  Do teachers THINK about what they are teaching, or do they just read a script dictated by others?  This is comparable to our unknowing, inexperienced but charming President, reading from his teleprompter.  Do teachers have any control over what they teach?  I thought that is why teachers teach, because they are "educated", not merely puppets repeating what someone in our government says they should say.  How can they go to work everyday if they know they are being used to deceive and manipulate?  To put it mildly, that is not very intellectually honest.  Maybe teachers are not taught very well.
Peter



The Environmental Terrorizing of Children

Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs | April 09 2012

In many ways, the worst aspect of environmentalism is why Greens not only feel free to terrorize children with doomsday scenarios, but feel compelled to do so.

I have been reviewing books for some fifty years and with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in 1962 and books such as Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” have been offering scenarios intended to move people and governments to take action that, in retrospect, were based on bad “science” and absurd doomsday predictions.

If you were fooled by global warming, they are counting on you to be fooled again by "sustainability", their reworking of Marx’s communism in the form of a grandiose scheme to control all of the Earth’s bounty. In June the United Nations will hold a Rio+20 conference that will declare that governments exist to ensure "sustainable well-being and happiness." The Declaration of Independence offers the opportunity to pursue happiness. It does not guarantee it, nor does it suggest that it is government's job to provide it.

A key element of the Green’s endless indoctrination schemes has been to reach children, the most vulnerable among us and for this reason our schools have been turned into Green prisons where their version of the Earth is pumped into the minds of children here and around the world.

Their primary teaching tool is fear. Fear that the oceans will rise and wipe out entire cities. Fear that the rainforests are disappearing. Fear that entire species are being destroyed by the hand of man. Fear that the use of any kind of fuel, coal, natural gas, and oil is despoiling the planet.

I have reviewed books for some fifty years at this point and I could not put a number on the books for children that hammer home these and other terrifying themes. One crossed my desk the other day, “Our House is Round: A Kid’s Book About Why Protecting Our Earth Matters” by Yolanda Kondonassis and illustrated by Joan Brush. It has been called “the perfect children’s introduction to environmental issues” by Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
The author is not a biologist, a geologist, a meteorologist, or any other kind of scientist. She is a Grammy-nominated classical harpist. A harpist!

“Our Earth has gotten messy. What should we do?” she asks her young reader. What does she mean by “messy”? Her answer is that “cars, trucks, and factories make pollution, a kind of dirty gas or liquid that goes out into the air and into our rivers, lakes, and oceans.” This book is written for children age five to nine!

Imagine now what it must be like to be that age and be told that the air is polluted and the water is as well. This verges on child abuse.

“Pollution goes up into the sky and forms a blanket of gas that holds heat within Earth’s atmosphere. That makes our whole Earth warmer and leads to unclean air for breathing, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns. Scientists call this warming of our Earth’s temperature CLIMATE CHANGE.”

It is a LIE. The Earth has been cooling for fifteen years.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a gas as vital to all life on Earth as oxygen is to the life of living creatures. Without it, not a single blade of grass or tree or the vegetation we call “crops” would not grow. Livestock and wildlife depend on that vegetation. If you are age five to nine, you likely are unaware of this.

This book and all the others that incorporate these lies are a form of psychological terror.
The same week I received “Our House is Round”, I also received “The Big Green Book of the Big Blue Sea” and “Earth-Friendly Buildings, Bridges, and More.” You could stack all the environmentally-themed children’s books I’ve seen and it would reach up several stories.

They are a corruption of geophysical and biological science. They have nothing to do with “saving the planet” and everything to do with distorting children’s understanding of the real world.
It does not matter that the Ms. Kondonassis thinks she is serving humanity. The great lie of communism is that it will create a collectivist utopia. In reality it has always depended on terror to maintain itself and it has failed wherever it has been tried. Environmentalism is its latest permutation.
It is the same reason that communism derides religion for its emphasis on life and morality.


I have devoted my life to freedom of the press, freedom to publish, freedom to speak out, and to urge participation in the life of the greatest nation on Earth, but some books like “Our House Is Round” are the worst kind of mental pollution.

Environmentalism, like all tyrannies, begins by indoctrinating children.
Editor's Note: In 1974 Alan Caruba was a founding member of the National Book Critics Circle.
Source

If You Don't Want To Help Solve Our Energy Problems?......Then Get Out Of The Way.....

If you feel the pinch on your budget when you're filling up at the gas pumps, look no further than the environmental lobbyists and activists for the culprits.  America has more oil and gas reserves than most people understand.  See here.

We don't have to be spending Billions (Trillions?) on foreign wars to protect the oil supplies in the Middle East.  And of course there is no way to put a value on the lives lost and damaged.  Do we want to be free and independent or be ruled by elitist armchair environmentalists?  These people, (Al Gore and Solyndra come to mind, are laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayers money in their pockets.)  We need to encourage oil and gas production.  We know we have the resources, we know how to use them, and now we know the whole man-caused global warming/climate change alarm was a giant hoax.
Peter

‘Enough of This!’ -- Boehner Tells 'Radical' Greens to Stop Standing In Way of Energy Policy

By Elizabeth Harrington

February 28, 2012

 

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he’s had enough of environmentalists standing in the way of energy production over the last three decades, remarking, “It’s just about damn time that we ought to have a national energy policy and do something the American people want us to do.”

At a Tuesday press conference on Capitol Hill with several other House Republicans, Boehner was asked about the relationship between high gas prices and investment speculators on Wall Street.
Boehner said, “The price of gas is driven by two factors. It’s driven by supply and it’s driven by demand. And the fact is, is that supply, most of it, comes from the Middle East where there’s an awful lot of turmoil. People are concerned about whether that flow of oil is going to continue.”

Boehner continued: “Secondly, when you look at demand we’re moving into the summer driving season and the [Environmental Protection Agency] EPA requires 30 different blends of gasoline to be produced, now for the summer months in most of the country. And then to try to produce those 30 different blends and then ship them puts an awful lot of demand on the system as a result. You’ve got much higher prices.”

“Americans understand that we can produce more of our own energy,” he said.  (Democrats don't seem to understand this.  Peter) “And they don’t understand why 35 years -- since the oil embargo of 1974 -- that we’ve never had a national energy policy.”

“We’ve got a handful of environmentalists groups -- radical environmental groups -- who’ve stood in the way of having a national energy policy all of these years and it’s just about damn time that we ought to have a national energy policy and do something the American people want us to do,” said Boehner. “Enough of this! Get out of here!”

(continued here)

Many Consensus Environmental Predictions Have Come And Gone

Are there any examples of past environmental predictions being wrong? Yes, many, and they have been outrageously, grossly, dangerously wrong. Just so no one thinks that man-caused global warming "must be true" because there is a "consensus", and the United Nation's IPCC says so, and a failed Presidential candidate is spending $300 Million in an advertising (propaganda) effort to convince us it is true. Beware, look at the historical record of environmental and "scientific" predictions.
Peter

source

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."

C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

Deadly Environmentalists.......This Is Not A Joke

This is pretty strong stuff. There are many serious accusations being made in the following article and the book "Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous To Your Health", upon which the article is based.

What are the implications of these accusations? Can any of them be discredited? What is the public to believe when it seems we're being lied to from all sides. What do you think?
Peter

From: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200708/COM20070815b.html


Deadly Environmentalists
By Walter E. Williams CNSNews.com Commentary August 15, 2007

Environmentalists, with the help of politicians and other government officials, have an agenda that has cost thousands of American lives. In the wake of Hurricane Betsy, which struck New Orleans in 1965, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed building flood gates on Lake Pontchartrain, like those in the Netherlands that protect cities from North Sea storms. In 1977, the gates were about to be built, but the Environmental Defense Fund and Save Our Wetlands sought a court injunction to block the project. According to John Berlau's recent book, "Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health," U.S. Attorney Gerald Gallinghouse told the court that not building the gates could kill thousands of New Orleanians. Judge Charles Schwartz issued the injunction despite the evidence refuting claims of environmental damage.

We're told that DDT is harmful to humans and animals. Berlau, a research fellow at the Washington, D.C-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, says, "Not a single study linking DDT exposure to human toxicity has ever been replicated." In one long-term study, volunteers ate 32 ounces of DDT for a year and a half, and 16 years later, they suffered no increased risk of adverse health effects. Despite evidence that, properly used, DDT is neither harmful to humans nor animals, environmental extremists fight for a continued ban. This has led to millions of illnesses and deaths from malaria, especially in Africa. After WWII, DDT saved millions upon millions of lives in India, Southeast Asia and South America. In some cases, malaria deaths fell to near zero. With bans on DDT, malaria deaths and illnesses have skyrocketed.

Environmental extremists see DDT in a different light. Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, said, "In Guyana, within almost two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time, the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem."

Jeff Hoffman, environmental attorney, wrote on grist.org, "Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria. More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life? . . . I don't see any respect for mosquitos in these posts."

Berlau's book cites many other examples of contempt for human life by environmentalists and how they've made politicians their useful idiots.

In 2001, thousands of Americans perished in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. In the early 1970s, when the World Trade Center complex was built, the asbestos scare had just begun. The builders planned to use AsbestoSpray, a flame retardant that adhered to steel. The New York Port of Authority caved in to the environmentalists' asbestos scare and denied its use. An inferior substitute was used as fireproofing. After the attack, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) confirmed other experts' concerns about asbestos substitutes, concluding, "Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires, which were not normal building fires, the building would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing."

Through restrictions on asbestos use, our naval vessels are more vulnerable to our enemies, a disaster waiting in the wings. The Columbia spaceship disaster was a result of the EPA's demand that NASA not use freon in its thermal insulating foam. Congress mandates auto fuel mileage standards -- Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards -- resulting in lighter, less crashworthy cars. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences calculated that CAFE standards caused 2,000 additional traffic deaths each year. In 1999, a USA Today analysis of government and Insurance Institute data found that since the 1970s CAFE standards went into effect, 46,000 people died in crashes which they would have likely survived had they been riding in heavier cars.

None of this is news to politicians. It's just that environmental extremists have the ears of politicians, and potential victims don't.

(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute. The views expressed are those of the writer.)

British Environmentalists Planning Protest Against "Climate Criminals"

Do these British environmentalists know anything about global warming and the science behind it? It will be interesting to hear what their ideas are.
Peter


Green Activists Plan Mass Action Against 'Climate Criminals' at Heathrow

By Kevin McCandless CNSNews.com Correspondent August 13, 2007
London (CNSNews.com) -

Hundreds of environmental activists will descend on Heathrow Airport this week to protest climate change supposedly caused by an expanding economy. They said they want to strike a blow against the "corporate climate criminals of the world."

Organizers behind the Camp For Climate Action said they intend to open up a "temporary eco-village" next to one of the world's busiest airports on Tuesday, charging that it was time for governments and corporations to get serious about global warming. Coming at the peak of the British vacation season, the camp will monitored by scores of police officers, potentially setting the stage for internationally televised clashes between demonstrators and law enforcers. On Sunday, an advance guard of 150 activists began setting up tents, compost toilets, and kitchens in a sports ground just north of the airport perimeter fence. The Guardian newspaper reported that police, in turn, blocked all approaches to the camp, as well as stopping and searching anyone suspected of planning to join the protestors. The camp is scheduled to run for seven days, with most of the time spent on a variety of workshops on climate change. However, organizers also are planning 24 hours of mass action and civil disobedience, beginning at noon on Sunday.

Spokeswoman Alex Harvey said the exact nature of the mass action would be decided by camp participants during the week. Despite speculation that protestors would invade the airport itself, Harvey said that any action would steer clear of the runways or doing anything that would endanger lives. The British press has been reporting on the planned camp in recent weeks, but London police say they have very little firm information about what is going to happen. Jo Kaye, the commander in charge of security operations around the camp, told reporters on Friday that organizers have not been open about their plans. He acknowledged that Heathrow is a potentially hazardous environment, but said the London Metropolitan Police is "very experienced" in handling these kinds of protests. "We've planned for what we know and looked at a huge range of contingencies," Kaye said.

"The plan that we have in place is based on our experience and is flexible enough to deal with a range of events. "Police in northern England made over 35 arrests at last year's Camp For Climate Action, held outside one of Europe's largest coal-fired power stations. Kaye urged organizers of the Heathrow camp to work more closely with police. "I would like to stress that what we want to do is facilitate lawful and legitimate protest," he said. "That is our role and we want the protestors to work with us so we can safely make it happen. "In the run-up to the camp, the British Airports Authority (BAA), which operates Heathrow, tried to get a court injunction against protestors. However, despite warnings that the camp could be a dangerous distraction in a time of possible terrorist attacks, BAA was only successful in banning three named activists from entering the airport. A BAA spokeswoman said Heathrow security has been planning for the protest camp for months, together with police.

Travelers from the United States should not have to worry about any disruption, she said.All three major British political parties have endorsed the need to combat "global warming," but the Camp For Climate Action organizers say mainstream solutions are not enough to "save the world."They argue that it is not possible to have an endless expanding economy "on a planet that's not getting any bigger," dismissing as a myth the view that consumers can avert catastrophe by becoming more green-minded.
digg_skin = 'compact'

Quotations From Environmentalists

The following comes from the MSNBC Discussion Board titled "Climate Change". These quotations are quite revealing and very chilling. What do you think? Are these the kinds of people we want running the country and the world?
Peter

DocNavy
Message #84 - 07/27/07 02:22 PM
Notice,
Maybe you're right...maybe I'm wrong about the Enviromentalists. Let's just see what our "Green" friends actually have to say about Humanity, and Population control...

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner (speaking about world population levels_- CNN founder and AGW supporter - quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute - quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, p.166

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world" -- John Shuttleworth, founder of The Mother Earth News magazine.

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery, Writer and celebrated environmental activist.

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem" -- Lamont Cole, an ecologist at Cornell University, reviewed Silent Spring in Scientific American. (There is now an award named after him for an outstanding paper by a graduate student in ecology at Cornell.)

" The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them." -- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

Found this... thought it was pretty interesting.
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

See how EASY it was for me to connect the dots between the "Green" Movement and the killing of little children?? These are QUOTES from the leaders of the modern Eco/Enviro movement. They DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMANITY!!! It's everything else that matters to them. so, once again... their motto: "Save a tree, kill a child." Still don't believe that the CORE philosophy, the foundational belief of the Eco/Enviro movement is Pro-Earth, ANTI-Human?? Check THIS out.
Doc
PS: Sorry about that spittle. I was trying to work up enough to hawk a loogie at an Earth First! Protester.

OK, What Else is New, Gore is a Hypocrite

GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE WASHINGTON, DC -

Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge" today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today's global warming hearing.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca


Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” (Mr. Gore's now infamous "documentary") where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.


Commentary:
Of course Mr. Gore refused to take that kind of pledge. What member of Congress, or Hollywood celebrity could live up to that kind of pledge? It was a rather simplistic attempt to reveal Mr. Gore as a hypocrite. All rich liberal environmentalists are hypocrites. That much is painfully obvious to everyone and in my opinion it misses the major issue. Attacking Mr. Gore personally misses the point, (even if it is a bit fun).

Of primary concern is the total absurdity of Mr. Gore's entire premise that mankind is causing global warming and catastrophic climate change. There is no scientific "consensus" that global warming is even occurring, or exactly what could cause it, and there are only nebulous ideas of how anything practical could be done to reverse such a warming trend, or a cooling trend for that matter. The foundation of his total argument is what needs to be convincingly disproven, discredited, and put to sleep. There is more than enough evidence to do so. (Read the rest of this blog to start. http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/ The sooner the better.

Personal attacks on Mr. Gore are just blown off by his believers as politics as usual. This is a scientific issue folks, not some kind of high dollar, Hollywood reality show-debating game. It may be a game to the people profiting from this charade, but to you and me, ordinary taxpayers who are going to pay the bills, this is very serious stuff.

Don't let them scare you with pictures of cute polar bears, they're going to do just fine. Of course nobody wants filthy, poisoned water, and food, or air that kills you to breathe it. We all love a clean, healthy environment. That is not what this is about at all. Let's get that straight, can we? This entire man-caused global warming scare is a hoax. If we allow it to continue it may be the greatest hoax and con-job of all time. If Al Gore is already laughing and half-way to the bank, that doesn't bother me at all.
Peter