GASP!: Prince Charles predicts 18 months until doom

We had an entry earlier this year about Prince Charles and his “super-intelligent” pronouncements; it's obvious those incestuously-enlarged sound catchers of his are tuning in way too many cosmic rays, which are melting his brain.

Have you noticed how the media and concerned parties organize the global warming propaganda campaign?

They primarily use a two-pronged approach—indoctrination duality. The majority of articles focus on fear—scaring you to the point that you'll demand political action. Fear-inspiring articles describe endangered animals, flooded coastal cities, wars, impending cannibalism, increasing storms (and antithetically…greater droughts), melting polar ice, increased diseases, and so on. As a matter of fact, it's laughable to review the plethora of horrors already ascribed to global warming by the media and others.

The other AGW propaganda approach is to “educate” us on the things we do that are contributing to global warming. Most of these things we do, for which the media and hypocritical celebrities and politicians assail us, are related to affluence and capitalism—two currently unpopular American ideals. (Only socialist elites can be wealthy, because only they can utilize wealth RESPONSIBLY!) A recent example is obesity, but there are many other examples: SUVs, computers, cows (we omnivores raise them to eat, but they poot out a bunch of methane), air travel, old-fashioned light bulbs, toilet paper (Sheryl Crow later claimed it was all an elaborate joke used to inspire AGW discussion), and so on. In other words, oil is the fuel of capitalism, and capitalism is destroying the planet. Socialism is the only solution to save the earth, but don't think the socialists will suffer while you give up your creature comforts and pay more taxes.

Why do they use this indoctrination duality? We've discussed that thoroughly as well.

Predictions of worldwide doom are not new to the global warming era; such predictions go hand-in-hand with the history of man, and they've all been wrong thus far. Please review other articles here on this blog where we've had various soothsayers predict our demise at the hands of “anthropogenic global warming”: Al Gore's prediction gives us about 8 more years; the Brit Chicken Little gives us about 40 years; and a Nobel Dodo says we'll run out of atmosphere before we run out of oil.

And you can see what happened with global warming predictions this past year; we were supposed to have an awful, warm winter due to global warming! Instead, it was a record setting, cold winter that reversed “global warming” to 1930s levels (against the dubious baseline) and led to La Nina climate revisionism to explain away failed climate predictions. Now they tell us that La Nina will mask “global warming” for about 10 years. LOL! They must salvage what's left of their reputations and stop you believing sheep from backsliding and turning against the nonsense.

I live here in San Antonio. Four days ago, the forecasters predicted a beautiful, sunny Saturday for us with no precipitation. Guess what? It rained on Saturday, and I noticed they had “revised” their forecast that day. There wasn't much precipitation, but it rained, and it was completely overcast for the first part of the day; the forecast two to three days earlier was entirely WRONG. The smartest among us can't accurately predict our day-to-day weather more than a day or so out, yet many of us are true believers and give full buy-in when the “experts” tell us we'll all be done for in a certain amount of time UNLESS WE ACT NOW (and it's that “act now” part for which they really need you). Let's see…where else have I heard “act now”? Oh yes…infomercials and telemarketing! Talk about your purveyors of truth.

Prince Charles: Eighteen months to stop climate change disaster - Telegraph:

In one of his most out-spoken interventions in the climate change debate, he said a £15 billion annual programme was required to halt deforestation or the world would have to live with the dire consequences.

“We will end up seeing more drought and starvation on a grand scale. Weather patterns will become even more terrifying and there will be less and less rainfall,” he said.

“We are asking for something pretty dreadful unless we really understand the issues now and [the] urgency of them.” The Prince said the rainforests, which provide the “air conditioning system for the entire planet”, releasing water vapour and absorbing carbon, were being lost to poor farmers desperate to make a living.

Greenpeace founder says no proof of global warming!!!

Please put your cup down, so that you don’t blow coffee out your nose!

The founder of Greenpeace admits that there’s no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the Earth to heat up; he’s actually advocating increased use of nuclear energy, but his reasoning is still to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (because though it’s not a problem now, it could be). Wow! One must wonder when more of the alarmist ilk will start breaking ranks when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that Al Gore is a dufus after all.

Isn't this strange? We've got Bush, Gingrich, and Robertson backing global warming solutions, while an environmentalist is saying there's no proof of manmade climate change (even though he still backs action).

Here's the thing--I BELIEVE IN CONSERVING AND PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT too, because it's appropriate to be a good steward of the Earth. However, we shouldn't scare people into doing this based on a lie; it's unethical and highly elitist to do so.

Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power | News Updates | Idaho Statesman:

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.

EPA scientists pressured to bias their results

Still question whether politics is currently corrupting science? A usual tactic often employed by these political elements is to recognize the truth and then claim the opposite: here, the NYT is telling us that politics is corrupting science, EXCEPT that the boogeyman is portrayed as CONSERVATIVE politics that is choosing to ignore “consensus science.” (Funny, because, right now, conservative elites are jumping on the bandwagon just like liberals.)

As a non-consensus scientist, let me state this fact:

There is NO SUCH THING AS CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE! Science DOES NOT work like an L.A. street gang. (Google “Galileo” or Google “Darwin” to read about mavericks who resisted the consensus—and were RIGHT!)

This article couldn't be more poignant at pointing out how politics is currently attempting to corrupt science for its own ends; right now, the lie of manmade global warming has become the centerpiece of worldwide climate politics and environmental movements (not climate science). It's surprising to see the AP publishing this rather frank admission, when they have been guilty of propagandizing this issue themselves for years.

Basically, these EPA scientists are saying, through a survey instrument (which they were initially told not to answer), that federal politicians have been trying to coax and intimidate certain results or answers out of the scientists, so that the politicians would be free to scream “consensus science” when confronted with debate and argument over proposed U.S. and U.N. environmental policies—policies that will cost you money and will increase the power of the politicians involved. In the process, many scientists have begun to wake up and realize that they're corrupting an institution that they've been charged with protecting—the unbiased, untainted scientific search for truth.

REAL climate science is currently under attack. Radical political and environmental elements have seized an opportunity in the theory of human-induced climate change—a theory that, regardless of the way it's portrayed by Al Gore and the media, is still not proven beyond scientific doubt. On the contrary, there are many problems