Greenpeace descends to upsetting children:  ‘Santa’ Threatens to ‘Cancel Christmas’ Due to Global Warming

Greenpeace UK is soliciting donations to combat global warming with a video entitled “An Urgent Message From Santa.”

The video features a deeply depressed, creepy-looking Santa who claims that “melting ice” at the North Pole will force him to “cancel Christmas” unless world leaders act to stop global warming.

The Greenpeace “Santa” is played by British actor Jim Carter, a member of the environmental group who also plays the butler in the popular PBS “Downton Abbey” TV series.

But the only thing this doom-and-gloom “Santa” has in common with the beloved Jolly St. Nick figure is his familiar-looking red and white suit.

“Dear children, regrettably I bring bad tidings,” the Greenpeace “Santa” says, speaking from what looks like a stark, dimly lit bunker. “For some time now, melting ice here at the North Pole has made our operations and our day-to-day life intolerable and impossible, and there may be no alternative but to cancel Christmas.

“I have written personally to President Obama, President Putin, all world leaders. Sadly, my letters have been met with indifference. Needless to say, these individuals are now at the top of my naughty list.

“My home in the Arctic is fast disappearing and unless we all act urgently, then I have to warn you of the possibility of an empty stocking forevermore. Please help me.”

However, the video doesn’t mention the fact that the latest available data from the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that last month the Arctic ice sheet covered nearly four million square miles [bigger than the USA], including the North Pole.

If the sight of a deeply depressed “Santa” isn’t enough to convince donors to reach for their checkbooks and credit cards, Greenpeace’s “Save Santa’s Home” website drives the message home by claiming that the North Pole is “melting away” and “world leaders are ignoring the reindeer’s cries for help as they sink in the melting ice.”

“The North Pole is Santa’s home, and where he, the Elves and Mrs. Claus produce, organize and deliver presents for all the children of the world. But the North Pole is only a frozen ocean and it’s melting away faster and faster. Santa can no longer function. His warehouse is flooded. All the presents are ruined,” according to the Greenpeace website.

“That’s bad enough. But oil companies are trying to drill in the Arctic Ocean around him. They want to extract the oil that – when it’s used – will make the melting of the Arctic all the quicker….Even the threat of being on Santa’s naughty list hasn’t prompted a rescue operation,” the website claims.

But Greenpeace may have gone too far by attempting to co-opt a mythical figure associated with generosity and joy, not climate apocalypse.

“It looks like a hostage video, but instead of Al Qaida, it’s Santa,”

CNN’s Jeanne Moos commented. “Not since a real-live bandit robbed a Nashville bank dressed as St. Nick have we seen such a sorry excuse for a Santa.”

SOURCE






The Greenie Origins of National Socialism

Few scholars have influenced culture as much as Prussian-born Professor Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). In the 1860s he hatched the scientific discipline of “Ecology” and the philosophical doctrine of “Monism.” In 1906 Haeckel launched the Monist League, which within a few years recruited several thousand members including many prominent intellectuals.

By 1914, within German-speaking academia, Monists dominated the biological, zoological, and anthropological faculties. In addition to an impressive involvement in the life sciences, Monism shared other similarities with modern environmentalism.

Monists believed their superior knowledge of nature and evolutionary biology afforded them unique insights into social problems.

Monists disparaged “Western Civilization” for the inflated importance it extended to humanity and for invidiously separating Man from Nature.

Monists romanticised primitive cultures and disparaged urban-industrial society.

While Monists cannot be considered leftist, they did oppose capitalism and were particularly militant in their desire to rid the land-use system of the “scourge of capitalist speculation.”

Monists fixated on an elitist and racist population-control/eugenics agenda.
While posturing as hard-headed scientists, Monists described “Nature” in mystical, pantheistic terms. They attributed living qualities, even souls, to inanimate objects and to the world itself. Phrases like “Mother Earth” and “World Soul” appear ubiquitously in their writings.

Believing Christianity to be both an antiquated religion and an impediment to their political agenda, Monists sought to replace it with forms of neo-pagan Nature worship.

Professor Gasman is adamant that:

The modern theory of the totalitarian fascist state was adumbrated by the political and social ideology advanced by Haeckel and his followers. Its (Monism’s) major assumptions and proposals were in all important respects identical with the political and social program of later 20th century National Socialism.

The Scientific Origins of National Socialism came out in 1971 and was re-issued in 2004 with a lengthy new introduction. The original text was written without Gasman, having access to the Haeckel Archives. Two trips to these archives in 1991 to peruse hitherto unseen materials reinforced the connection between Haeckel and fascist ideology and provided grist for a separate text (Haeckel’s Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology).

Much more HERE




Morano Smacks Down Sierra Club Director: ‘Sierra Club Took 26 Million From Natural Gas’

For years, climate alarmists have dishonestly accused global warming skeptics of taking money from Big Oil to do their bidding.

On CNN’s 11th Hour Tuesday, when Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune made such a claim, Climate Depot’s Marc Morano marvelously fired back, “The Sierra Club took 26 million from natural gas and Michael has the audacity to try to imply that skeptics are fossil fuel funded”

"MICHAEL BRUNE, SIERRA CLUB: All of what Marc said would be very compelling if it were true. This is something that has been settled. The science is settled right now. The top climate scientists in the world, thousands of them, are now as confident that climate change is real as they are that cigarettes make people sick. The only folks who are arguing this are the occasional climate skeptic or the people who are paid for by the fossil fuel industry. We know that the extreme weather events that we're seeing, the record wildfires, the record droughts, the extreme storms that we're seeing, the hurricane that we saw with 1,000-mile diameter that hit the eastern seaboard late October of last year, are precisely what scientists have said would be the cause of global warming and climate change."

A few moments later, host Don Lemon asked Morano about a new study in the journal Nature claiming Arctic ice levels are linked to extreme weather further south. Morano responded:

"MARC MORANO, CLIMATE DEPOT: It's a wild theory. They had similar theories in the 1970s trying to blame extreme weather on these kind of variables. The bottom line is the Arctic ice was started monitoring in 1979 at a high point of the 1970s global cooling scare. We lost ice. This year by the way we rebounded depending on what dates you want to pick almost a third or more of the ice, and global sea ice currently is highest in 25 years. Antarctic sea ice is at or near record, which no one wants to talk about Antarctic sea ice because it's inconvenient to the narrative.

But the idea that we’re having extreme weather, listening to Michael talk there, it's mind boggling. I mean, the earth is geologically billions of years old and we're sitting around here scratching our heads saying wow we had a hurricane last year which was barely a category 1 when it hit. And then, by the way, it's not me, and he's mentioning funding by the way which I think is funny. The Sierra Club took 26 million from natural gas and Michael has the audacity to try to imply that skeptics are fossil fuel funded."

Not surprisingly, Morano was right. TIME magazine reported in February 2012:

"TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. Though the group ended its relationship with Chesapeake in 2010—and the Club says it turned its back on an additional $30 million in promised donations—the news raises concerns about influence industry may have had on the Sierra Club’s independence and its support of natural gas in the past."

But it's not just industry that funds global warming activism. A 2009 study by the Science and Public Policy Institute claimed that in the past two decades, the United States government has spent $79 billion on research and developing green technologies.

Just imagine where that figure now stands after almost five years of Barack Obama in the White House.

As such, the money spent on debunking this theory is dwarfed by the dollars allocated to advancing it - but don't expect the liberal media to point that out.

That said, kudos to CNN and Lemon for airing this segment.

Although it was a two on one - Philippe Cousteau Jr was also on the panel - it's nice to see a news network other than Fox bring on someone to present the skeptical side.

Beyond that, Lemon came prepared with some good questions for all of his guests.

SOURCE




More Tax Dollars for Neighborhoods Where Walking, Biking,Public Transit Is 'A Way of Life'

 Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency planned to be in St. Louis Tuesday to award $29,623 to an environmental group that promotes a culture of walking and bicycling instead of driving.

"Trailnet advocates for creating neighborhoods where walking, biking and taking public transit is a way of life," the EPA news release said.

EPA says Trailnet’s Neighborhood Greenways St. Louis project will prevent and reduce pollution, help with watershed management, and reduce rates of obesity and asthma by making it possible for more people to walk or bike to their destinations.

Trailnet is getting the money from EPA's Environmental Justice Grant Program, which allows community groups to "develop solutions to local health and environmental issues in low-income, minority and tribal communities overburdened by harmful pollution."

According to Trailnet's website, people "value" biking and walking; people who bike tend to make shorter, more frequent trips to local stores and restaurants, spending more money overall; people traveling on foot and by bike have more opportunities to talk to neighbors, make spontaneous stops at stores, and meander through parks on their route; people are safer when there's more space on the street for bikers and walkers; and with safer streets, people who can't or don't want to drive have more options for getting to school, work, stores, or wherever they may need to go.

As CNSNews.com reported four years ago, President Obama's first Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was a champion of using federal tax dollars to get people out of their cars and onto bicycles, walking paths or commuter transit.

In an appearance at the National Press Club in May 2009, LaHood plugged the idea of "creating opportunities for people to get out of their cars--and we're working with the secretary of HUD, Shaun Donovan, on opportunities for housing, walking paths, biking paths.” He described his vision as "livable communities.”

"Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?” LaHood was asked at the event.

LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars."

SOURCE




Ski  Season Renews Calls for Federal Government to ‘Combat Climate Change’

Despite early snowfalls in many places

With the ski season underway in the United States, a petition that was announced in May asking lawmakers to address “climate change” is again in the spotlight as climate change advocates launched a video campaign on social media last week.

The 1-minute, 36-second video shows skiers in dramatic footage linked by messages about the economic benefits of the ski industry and the threat of climate change.

“We must tackle climate change to ensure #moresnowdays,” the video message states.

Ceres, a U.S.-based environmental advocacy group working for a “sustainable global economy” and its BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) asked ski resorts and ski-related businesses to sign its “climate declaration,” which is “calling for U.S. policy action on climate change.”

“Tackling climate change is one of America’s greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century,” the declaration states.

To date, some 700 groups have signed on, ranging from Mt. Bachelor ski resort and Nike in Oregon, to the Leadership Council of the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Michigan and Ben and Jerry’s ice cream in Vermont.

The press release announcing the petition states that ski areas in the U.S. employ approximately 160,000 people and generate approximately $12.2 billion in annual revenue.

The National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) calculates that visitors to U.S. ski areas spent $5.8 billion at those resorts over the course of the 2011/2012 season, the press release states.

“The past ski season was a banner year for our guests and for our resort, but we can’t gamble on the weather in an uncertain climate,” Jerry Blann, president of the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort in Wyoming is quoted as saying in the press release. "We have to take action.

“Resorts have made tremendous efforts to raise awareness on the issue of climate change and to adjust our operations to reduce carbon emissions and manage resources efficiently,” Blann said. "We need Washington to take those strategies seriously through stronger policies.”

According to snowfall analysis on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), this season is starting out with record amounts of snow fall in the the U.S.

"During October, the wetter and cooler than average conditions across the Central and Northern Rockies and Northern Plains were associated with above-average snow,” the website states.

"According to data from the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the monthly snow cover extent across the contiguous U.S. during October was 132,000 square miles,” the web site states. "This was more than 60,000 square miles above the 1981-2010 average and the fifth largest October snow cover extent in the 46-year period of record.

"During the month, above-average snow cover was observed across the Central and Northern Rockies and the Northern Plains,” the website states

SOURCE




GREENIE ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA

Four current articles below

Hoagy is at it again

After his own research showed that corals recover rapidly from damage, Hoagy went quiet for a couple of years -- but it looks like he is back at his old stand now.  And even his fellow Warmists are  predicting a temp rise of less than 4 degrees.  And guess where corals thrive best  -- in the warmest waters!  Hoagy is a crook!

RISING sea temperatures might sound nice for us wanting to go for a warmer dip, but it could kill off the Great Barrier Reef by the end of the century, a scientist claims in a new book.

The coral would have to move 4000km southward over 100 years to survive scientists' worst-case scenario of a 4C degree rise in sea temperatures by 2100, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg says.

In his book, Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a Hot World, the University of Queensland reef specialist says the outlook for the reef is bleak.

"In a four-degree world, the Great Barrier Reef will be great no longer. It would bear little resemblance to the reef we know today," he wrote.

"There is little evidence that marine resources like the Great Barrier Reef possess the resilience to withstand the impacts of a dramatically warming world." Even a more conservative 2C temperature rise estimate would likely be too much for the reef to handle, he wrote.

The death of the almost 2300km-long reef would destroy its $6 billion tourism industry as well as other areas like fishing. The book looks at how Australia will adapt to a warmer and drier climate in the next 100 years.

Warmer and more acidic seawater is a knock-on effect of increased atmospheric carbon levels.

Prof Hoegh-Guldberg wrote that sea temperatures rose by 0.5C in the 20th century but the effect is expected to speed up this century.

The result is that coral cannot move fast enough to cooler southern seas or genetically adapt fast enough to stay where they are.

"Unless we dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions which are acidifying our oceans and leading to their warming, we will face the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and serious decline in our marine resources," he wrote.

SOURCE




Coastal developments approved in Qld.

Greenies will all be holding their breath at the moment  -- building up to a massive tanty.  Note that Gladstone is South of  the GBR anyway.  There is no reef to speak of offshore from Gladstone

Several massive resource projects have been approved on the Great Barrier Reef coast by the federal government including the dredging and dumping of spoil near the reef and a new coal export terminal.

Environmentalists have hit out at the decision, with the WWF and the Greens saying it further industrialises and threatens the world heritage protected icon. Environmental campaigners Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Australian Marine Conservation Society, dressed as Nemo and turtles, will protest against the approval in Brisbane's CBD on Wednesday.

The projects approved by Environment Minister Greg Hunt late on Tuesday include the dredging of 3 million cubic metres of spoil - which will be dumped in the reef's waters - for the development of three coal export terminals at Abbot Point.

Mr Hunt also approved the building of a new coal terminal at Abbot Point by Indian mining giant Adani.

Approval was also given to a new processing plant for coal seam gas on Curtis Island, which includes 1.4 million cubic metres of dredging at Port Curtis and the mouth of the Calliope River near Gladstone. A pipeline to the plant - being proposed by Arrow Energy - was also approved.

In making the decision Mr Hunt said he had imposed 148 strict environmental conditions on the Abbot Point and Curtis Island developments. They included conditions to ensure the water quality impact from the dumping of dredging spoil was offset.

Mr Hunt said the offsets - which would stop sediments entering the Great Barrier Reef marine park from land sources such as farm runoff - would require an overall gain in water quality.

"It is important to note that each of these sites is already heavily industrialised and that the processes were highly advanced at the change of government," Mr Hunt said.

"The conditions I have put in place for these projects will result in an improvement in water quality and strengthen the Australian government's approach to meeting the challenges confronting the reef."

Water quality is a significant problem for the Great Barrier Reef with increasing pollutants and nutrients resulting in damage to corals, sea grass and other important marine habitats. There is also emerging evidence that poor water quality can encourage populations of a damaging starfish know as crown of thorns that has plagued the reef.

The World Heritage Committee has also been alarmed by increasing development on the reef's coast - with a number of major resource projects approved in recent years - and will consider in 2014 whether it should be placed on an "in danger" list of world heritage sites.

Richard Leck from WWF said Mr Hunt had failed the reef and had turned his back on scientific evidence of the damage dredging would cause.

"Approving a massive amount of sediment to be dumped at a time when the reef's health is so low, it really is against what the science tells us," he said.

Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche welcomed the decision and said it confirmed that industry could co-exist with the reef.

SOURCE





WA shark policy a 'cull by another name'

The Green/Left never have cared about human life, of course. Six people being attacked warrant no action at all to them.  They prefer sharks to people anyway

Experts and conservationists have bitten back at Western Australia's tough new policies to prevent deadly shark attacks, which include the establishment of licensed offshore "kill zones".

Following the sixth fatal attack off the WA coast in two years last month, the state government announced tougher measures aimed at preventing attacks, but denied it was a cull.

Professional shark hunters will be paid to patrol WA waters, with a licence to kill any shark bigger than three metres spotted in designated zones spanning large parts of the metropolitan and south-west coastline.

And baited hooks will also be placed along the coast to catch sharks, with a larger strike team ready to scramble into action in the event of an attack.

Premier Colin Barnett said he knew the measures were controversial but refused to acknowledge he was sanctioning a cull.

Shark academic Christopher Neff, from Sydney University, disagreed.  "This is a tool that is used to kill sharks and to reduce populations - that is by definition culling," Mr Neff said.   "It is an unfortunate policy."

Two 'Marine Monitored Areas', stretching one kilometre offshore from Quinns to Warnbro in the metropolitan area, and Forest Beach to Cape Naturaliste and Prevelly in the state's south, will be established in coming weeks.

And drum lines - drums with a baited hook fixed to the ocean floor and designed to attract sharks - will be placed one kilometre from the shore of beaches and surf breaks, and will be monitored daily.

Federal environment minister Greg Hunt was consulted about the policies before they were revealed.

But Greens senator Rachel Siewert said she would move a motion in parliament calling on the federal government to maintain protection of the great white shark.

"The WA government's announcement opens the door to sharks being caught and killed. Measures based on the capture and killing of a threatened and protected species is not a responsible step," Ms Siewert said.

Piers Verstegen, director of the Conservation Council of WA, claimed the move could actually increase shark attack risk.

"This new cull policy amounts to indiscriminate fishing, and will not only cull potentially risky sharks, but we can expect to see dolphins, turtles, seals, nurse sharks and a range of other marine life killed off our beaches."

Treasurer Troy Buswell, who gains the fisheries portfolio on Wednesday admitted it was likely other marine animals would be caught with the baited hooks, and it was possible tagged sharks used for research could also be caught by the new policy.

But the government insisted public safety came first.

"This does not represent a culling of sharks. It is not a fear-driven hunt, it is a targeted, localised shark mitigation strategy," Mr Buswell said.

Experts from the University of WA - who are working with the government on research into sharks - have already said a cull would be a pointless reaction, and that a surge in shark-bite incidents off WA's coast are linked to the growing population, which means more people in the water.

SOURCE




Bat removal in Charters Towers in north Queensland goes off with a bang

Hundreds of people lined the streets of Charters Towers in north Queensland yesterday to see 80,000 bats driven from the town.

The sounds of horns, helicopters, gun blasts and even fireworks last night filled the air in Charters Towers to try and scare away a colony of bats that have infested a local park.

The Charters Towers council says it was forced to take the drastic action after other measures did not work.

Local residents were overjoyed to see the animals go.  "They're terrible and the smell pervades everything," one resident said.  "The droppings - everywhere - you can't even park your car here for one day."

Shop manager Ayla Pott says the smell of the animals drive away customers.

"It stinks, it smells - some days it's that unbearable you can't open your doors," she said.

But conservationist Priska Sussli says the removal was inhumane, because some bats were too young to fly away.

"How can people do this, why?" she said.

"It's just very bad timing to do this dispersal."

The council will use the drastic measures every morning and night for the next 10 days and monitor the park to see if the bats come back.

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************