I have written extensible about the UN pack, this travelling circus that fly around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and gets wined and dined at expensive restaurants.
All of this of course paid by us, the normal people.
While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.
This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.
They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.
How ironic that today most of this class is leftists and so called “liberals”.
Below is an article by Lorrie Goldstein where he makes the same observations.
As I said in my posts:
”So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:
Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.
Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.
They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.
And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.
So we are talking about 0,03%.
Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.”
”Environmentalism is an anti-human, anti-science-and-technology religion which has gripped the world. It worships a nebulous undefined indefinable entity called The Environment which has some of the characteristics of the Christian Heaven, is an ideal place, existing somewhere on the earth, but without humans. It is a jealous God, demanding ever increasing sacrifices to satisfy its demands.”
The essential dogma of Environmentalism is the belief that humans are destroying the earth, or, as they prefer it, the planet.. Evolution is invariably harmful, and is exclusively conducted by humans. It must be prevented at whatever cost.
”The environment” is envisaged as one or more ”ecosystems”, patterned on the Garden of Eden, unchanging, static, ”balanced” associations of organisms which are ”fragile”, and ”threatened” by evolution, which is wielded exclusively by humans, whose every activity ”damages” this idyllic paradise. Evolution has to be stopped, or even reversed.”
The necessary and universal mechanism of evolution, the extinction of organisms which can no longer survive, to be replaced by the newcomers, is seen as evil. ”Endangered species” have to be preserved at all costs, and the newly evolving ones exterminated as pests.
Sustainability is the reverse of evolution. It is a bedfellow with conservatism and conservation. People dislike change, so we must stop it.
Humans, like other creatures, survive by modifying the world in our favour. There is therefore something to be said for maintainability, such as measures to keep fish stocks at a reasonable level, or to preserve the fertility of soil, but retainability, keeping things the same for its own sake, is futile. Evolution happens whatever you try to do to stop it. Sustainable development is an oxymoron, a contradiction.
The Precautionary Principle does the reverse. The greatest precautions and the greatest costs are to be taken when the risk is small or even zero. All risks are exaggerated and the highest cost and greatest inconvenience are always chosen.
Developments in technology are always harmful and dangerous, and must be prevented. This applies particularly to Genetic Modification and Nuclear Power..
Instead of choosing the cheapest alternative of an action, environmentalists insist on the most expensive, because the Environment requires it. This may take the form of protracted legal cost for permission, or the use of unnecessarily expensive technology.
Thus vehicles must burn biofuels which raise the price of food and increase poverty. An extreme example is the use of hydrogen in vehicles. This is expensive, inconvenient and dangerous, so we must do it.
Reverse economics is now being applied internationally. The disasters caused by environmentalism such as the high cost of energy and food, are being tackled by the least effective method, the printing of money. This is the policy which led to the downfall of the German Weimar Republic, and is the cause of the current disaster in Zimbabwe.
The advertising industry has softened up the public to accept the most outrageous swindles by endless repetition, the use of phony logic and the endorsement by celebrities. Science is in decline and is being taken over by the pseudoscience of the environment. It has thus become possible to put over on the public the most outrageous spin ever. They have selected, distorted and fabricated scientific results to justify the environmentalist creed with huge success. Everything can be ”linked” with disaster whatever the probability.
They get repeated free advertising in nearly all media and ”debate” no longer exists. Every event is referred to environmentalist priests for comment. Other comments are not welcome. Some people make a lot of money out of it.”
“From Fridays Pravda. Pravda, (Пра́вда) means truth. All this was a big joke during communist time when Pravda was the official mouthpiece of the party, together with Izvestia (Известия) which means ”delivered messages”.
Well, it now makes a good point about the blatant hypocrisy from the high Priests of the Global Warming religion, which I have been saying all the time:
I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.
And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the ”motivation” that ”they” are ”saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.
Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.
The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.
And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.”
Se also my posts:
Orgies of consumption
UN climate conferences pull together jet-setters in far flung exotic locales. What a load of hot air
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Last Updated: 23rd August 2009, 4:59am
One of the most reliable ways to determine whether people are behaving hypocritically is to examine what they do as opposed to what they say.
Using that standard, the thousands upon thousands of jet setters who, year in and year out, attend never-ending United Nations climate change conferences in some of the world’s most popular and exotic locales, define the word ”hypocrite.”
This includes everyone from UN officials, to politicians, bureaucrats, celebrities, high-flying global ”green” entrepreneurs and environmentalists.
If everyone in the world would or could generate the massive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions this crowd does as they jet in and out of Bali, Copenhagen, Bonn, Barcelona, Bangkok, Paris, Vienna, Valencia, Sydney, Rio De Janeiro, Washington, New York, Montreal, Anchorage and on and on, the Hollywood disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow would have been a documentary.
That is, if you believe the hysteria these same people incessantly spout about how the world will rapidly come to an end in an Armageddon of weather extremes, unless everyone massively reduces their carbon footprint and leads simpler lives … except them.
The next orgy of UN-inspired carbon-emitting will come in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18, ostensibly aimed at developing a successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, when an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 UN hangers-on will descend upon Denmark’s capital, once again making airline reservations, five-star hotel rooms and rented SUVs an endangered species.
The only good news for the planet is the Danish foreign ministry recently cancelled 20,000 overnight hotel reservations in advance of the conference because not as many people as initially thought may turn up. But don’t hold any tag days for the conference just yet — the Copenhagen Post reports the government remains confident the other 100,000 overnight stays it has pre-booked will be filled.
During a previous UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia in December, 2007, Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, estimated the 10,000 climate change revellers staying in one of the world’s most exotic — and hottest — tourist locales, emitted enough GHG during their 12-day stay to nearly match what the African nation of Chad (population 10 million) emits in a year.
The UN claimed the emissions were only half that, or, as The Associated Press reported, the equivalent to what a modern Western city of 1.5 million people, say Marseille, emits in a day.
The point is, you can’t fool the planet. Flying, air conditioning, caravans of SUVs shuttling around VIPs, exotic food and drink ordered up in five-star hotels (often on the public’s dime) all create GHG emissions, regardless of whether the person doing it is the CEO of an oil company, or a diplomat who’s ”concerned” about climate change.
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer has been asked about this huge disconnect between what these UN conferences preach and what they do, but sees no problem at all.
”Wherever you held it, people would still have to travel to get there,” he said in Bali. ”The question is perhaps: Do you need to do it at all? My answer to that is yes.”
Fine. My answer is ”no.”
No, the UN doesn’t need to stage these orgies of consumption in the name of moderation.
It isn’t necessary in the age of instant global communications and it’s obscene during a world-wide recession.
The last refuge of these scoundrels is that they buy ”carbon offsets” to reduce their carbon footprint to zero, a claim so absurd to anyone who understands the science of global warming, it’s beyond laughable.
Once you emit a greenhouse gas, there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The only way not to emit it, is not to emit it.
That’s just the inconvenient truth.
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>