Bioethics Professor: Humans need to be “biomedically modified”

by Paul J. Watson
Infowars.com
March 13, 2012

A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment argues that serious consideration should be given to mass drugging the population to make them more environmentally conscious while also proposing that babies should be genetically engineered to be smaller in order to reduce their carbon footprints.

In an interview with The Atlantic the lead author of the paper, New York University bioethics professor S. Matthew Liao, argues that humans need to be be subjected to “biomedical modifications” in order to help combat climate change.

Followed to their logical conclusion, Liao’s proposals outstrip anything Aldous Huxley wrote about in Brave New World, a 1932 dystopian novel about a future scientific dictatorship that seeks to drug, genetically manipulate, and medically induce humanity into complete slavish subservience.

Expressing regret that carbon taxes will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, Liao suggests other methods, including “pharmacologically induced meat intolerance” where people would take drugs which would trigger extreme nausea or wear patches that would “stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins.”

In order to reduce an individual’s “carbon footprint” and make sure they consume less, Liao suggests that a policy similar but more flexible to China’s one child policy be introduced, where parents can choose between having one large child, two medium sized children or three small children.

This would be accomplished by “preimplantation genetic diagnosis,” where embryos would be implanted based on height, or by using “drugs that reduce or increase the expression of paternal or maternal genes in order to affect birth height.”

Asked if genetic manipulation of babies is ethical or fair, Liao responds by citing the need to address “climate change” as the more pressing moral concern.

Liao subsequently suggests that drugging the public could positively influence their “will” to donate money to charities like Oxfam, which support the global warming agenda, by means of “pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism”.

“For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check,” says Liao.

Of course, by the same token drugs could be used to make someone more inclined to do anything. Depending on what authority is in control, this basically represents an opportunity to chemically castrate free will.

Read Full Article →

U.N. Official: Climate Issue is for Wealth Redistribution

by Raven Clabough

Assertions made by climate-change skeptics that there are ulterior motives behind climate-change legislation were confirmed by a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

The interview went as follows:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet — and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11,000 to 400 — there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

The Media Research Center reports that Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Edenhofer confirmed what many Americans have asserted all along: cap and trade will penalize Americans and American industry. The American Chronicle article entitled “Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax will Cause Redistribution of Wealth Among States and Working Families” cites the Congressional Budget Office as stating that cap and trade would cost the average American household an extra $1,600 per year. It would increase the price for a gallon of gasoline between $0.61 to $2.53, and would increase electricity costs anywhere from 44 percent to 129 percent.

In 2009, Our Changing Globe wrote of cap and trade: “The intention is that the industrial world would pay the underdeveloped world huge sums of money for doing nothing at all, and you can easily imagine the bureaucracy and corruption that would occur if this nonsense were ever to come into being.”

It added, “The flawed idea behind Cap and Trade is that companies that were penalized would work hard to reduce their pollution, and even though the technology is presently not available and won’t be in the foreseeable future, Obama is promising that the U.S. will reduce its pollution by 80 percent, which would take it back to levels that existed before the industrial revolution.”

Evidence of this plot for the world’s wealth redistribution dates back as far as 1990, when Maurice Strong, head of the United Nations Environmental Program, suggested this scenario: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle [sic] risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” Strong allegedly posed this scenario as a speculative plot for a novel that he considered writing, though he has never penned a novel in his life, either before or after 1990.

Today, progressives and Marxists have seized upon claims that the planet is in peril in order to negotiate cap-and-trade and climate change policies. Through the formation of the Chicago Climate Exchange, coupled with the potential passage of the cap-and-trade bill, innocuously named the “American Power Act,” industrialized “wealthy” nations, such as the U.S., are forced to pay for carbon credits. The process takes American wealth and redistributes it to the rest of the world.

Ironically, confirmation that cap and trade is in fact a scheme comes in the same week that “marks the one year anniversary since the ‘Climategate’ scandal erupted,” as noted by The Blaze.

Chicago Climate Exchange Closed

by Bob Adelmann

On Election Day 2010, Reuters noted briefly that Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) was “shedding some 40 employees from its … Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) by the end of the year, with further cuts [expected] in 2011.” In its curt announcement, Reuters said that all trading on that exchange had virtually stopped in July “due to the lack of U.S. action on climate change.”

Steve Milloy expected much more fanfare from the media. Commenting on the news, Milloy said that over the last 15 years, “cap and trade has been one of the most stridently debated public policy controversies … but it is dying a quiet death.”

Incredibly (but not surprisingly), although thousands of news articles have been published about CCX by the lamestream media over the years, a Nexis search conducted a week after CCX’s announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise. [Emphasis added.]

Outside of a report in Crain’s Chicago Business and a soft-pedaled article in a small trade publication, the media has entirely ignored the demise of the … effort at carbon trading. Even Glenn Beck, who has dedicated quite a bit of Fox News airtime to exposing CCX, has yet to mention the news.

Founded in 2002 by Northwestern University professor Richard Sandor with $1.1 million of grant money from the left-wing Joyce Foundation, CCX was to be the jackpot winner for those planning to profit from the coming cap-and-trade bills pending in Congress. The exchange found investors ranging from Ford, DuPont, Motorola, the University of California, Tufts University, Michigan State University, and the National Farmers Union all the way to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management.

As Raven Clabough wrote, cap and trade “is a system that redistributes wealth from successful companies to less successful companies … by forcing companies that emit more gas [than allowed by the government] to give money to companies that emit less gas. It is Marxism at its best (sic).” The market has been estimated at between $500 billion and $10 trillion and the consequent profit potential is gigantic.

Congress was on a roll. When the Waxman-Markey bill (aka, the Owellian-named American Clean Energy and Security Act) passed the House in June, 2009, it was touted as a system “under which the [federal] government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally. The cap is [then] reduced over time [in order] to reduce total carbon emissions.” Producers of those greenhouse gases would be issued “allowances” that they could then sell to others, using the CCX to facilitate those trades. Those producing more than allowed would be required to purchase allowances from those under producing, thus the moniker “cap and trade.”

Critics included the Heritage Foundation, which concluded that such caps would

– reduce GDP by $7.4 trillion by the year 2035
– destroy 844,000 jobs
– raise electricity rates by 90 percent, and
– increase the federal debt by nearly 30 percent

The Competitive Enterprise Institute declared that the bill would be “the largest tax hike in world history.”

But momentum for the Waxman-Markey bill began to fade as the Great Recession continued, Climategate exposed the truth behind global-warming claims, and the Tea Party began to push back against big government. Investors in CCX began to bail out, leaving the founder, Professor Sandor with a nice $100 million profit, and the ICE holding the bag.

As Milloy put it,

With the demise of CCX carbon trading, only the still-pending Waxman-Markey bill is keeping cap and trade alive – technically at least – in the U.S…. Despite this good news, opponents of carbon regulation will need to remain vigilant. While radical greens and the…”clean energy” industry are down, they are not out.

Film: Children Assassinated For Not Reducing Carbon Footprint

Paul Joseph Watson

A new climate change infomercial released by a prominent global warming activist organization depicts children being assassinated for not reducing their carbon footprint, as AGW skeptics are grotesquely blown up with innards and blood splattering everywhere, a frightening reminder of the fact that the environmental agenda is merely a veil for a hideous religion of death, and that the vehemently discredited and increasingly desperate global warming movement is in the last death throws of its existence.

Entitled “No Pressure,” the clip begins by showing a teacher brainwashing children about CO2 emissions, before blowing up two kids who do not go along with the mantra and refuse to lower their “carbon footprint”.

The video continues in the same vein, as climate skeptics are liquidated and their bodies horribly ripped apart for having the temerity to hold a different viewpoint, in scenes that wouldn’t look out of place in the most stomach-churning horror movie.

Watch the Clip below

Stunned by the massive backlash the video has generated in just the first few hours of its release, the organization behind the stunt, 10:10 Global (email them), pulled the clip from their own website. “Sorry, we’ve taken this video down for now. More info coming very soon,” reads the text on the page where the video formerly appeared.

This video represents one of the last major death throws of the global warming movement. The sheer level of desperation, vitriol and idiocy contained in the four minute clip is indicative of an ideological group who are losing the scientific debate and are therefore forced to resort to crass and vile propaganda in a bid to shove their discredited message down people’s throats.

“What were they thinking? They weren’t, because this is going to have the exact opposite effect they intended it to have. I don’t have words to describe my disgust with the video,” wrote prominent climate change skeptic Anthony Watts.

“This is hate speech, pure and simple. It legitimizes almost any action against or characterization of those who do not agree with the most hysterical version of Catastrophic and Cataclysmic Climate Change–shoot ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out,” writes Thomas Fuller.

Using ten-year-old kids as both props and victims is a particularly nice touch.

When DDB created an ad for the WWF showing planes crashing into the World Trade Center as an advertisement asking for support for green activism, it was grotesque, tasteless and an insult to all who suffered losses on September 11th, 2001. It would have been impossible to imagine a cruder, less sensitive call to green action.

Until now.

For any of those on the activist side who wonder why skeptics (and lukewarmers) don’t trust the communications put forward by their team, they might wonder just how much any sign of reason might be contaminated by the stench from garbage like this.

Czech Physicist Luboš Motl goes even further in his condemnation of the clip, unloading on X-files actress Gillian Anderson who provided the voiceover for the video. “is she really such a disgusting bloody Nazi bitch?” he asks.

It was the choice of the 10:10 movement to openly promote genocide. They are not just promoting it….they are planning it. They are genuinely planning ways how to reduce the global CO2 emissions by 10% a year. And indeed, genocide similar to what they present in the video is the only plausible way how something of the sort may be achieved.

The CIA, FBI, and others should go after the neck of the inhuman scum behind the 10:10 movement and those who harbor them. These people are a genuine threat not only for your well-being but for your health (or life), too.

“James Lee killed himself too early: he would have surely been delighted by this film,” adds Motl, referring to the gunman who entered a Discovery Channel building with explosives and took hostages in a protest against lack of attention on global warming before being killed by police.

Like the characters in the video, Lee expressed his penchant for killing babies and children in an online screed posted before his planned rampage.

The 10:10 Global organization’s sick and twisted vision of murdering climate skeptics and indeed anyone who refuses to adopt their belief system is one shared by the vast majority of prominent climate change alarmists.

As we have exhaustively documented, the global warming movement is merely a front for the religion of death – neo-eugenics – and the agenda to impose draconian population control measures and eco-fascism in the name of saving the earth.

Leaders of this new cult include people like Finnish environmentalist guru Pentti Linkola, who has called for climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.

Linkola would feverishly enjoy using the red button depicted in the climate ad to liquidate skeptics, since he once observed that another world war would be “a happy occasion for the planet” because it would eradicate tens of millions of people.

As we have documented, although not going quite as far as Linkola, the eco-fascist movement is attracting prominent advocates, including James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis. Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet.

This sentiment was echoed by author and environmentalist Keith Farnish, who in a recent book called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.

Another prominent figure in the climate change debate who exemplifies the violent and death-obsessed belief system of the movement is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

The current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocates the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in the name of environmentalism. In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

Given that these are the individuals at the forefront of the environmental movement, is it any surprise that we are now seeing their talking points appear in depraved and debauched infomercials like the 10:10 Global film, which openly promotes the idea of a “final solution” for dissenters who refuse to be brainwashed by the climate cult?

This movie proves beyond all doubt that the AGW alarmists have well and truly lost any rational scientific debate as to the causes of climate change and have just resorted to barbarous veiled threats about mutilating and killing anyone who disagrees with them.

Although the organization behind this film hoped to mark down the 10th of October as a date on which their eco-fascist message would be widely broadcast and swallowed whole, as a direct result of the vulgar and frightening tone of this movie, all they’ve actually achieved is to plant the seed of their own destruction, and a guarantee that 10:10 will go down as another nail in the coffin of global warming alarmism.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Biofuels Emit 400 percent more CO2 than Regular Fuels

Although CO2 is not the pollutant crazy environmentalists portray it to be, where is the environmental solution on the current use of biofuels if they emit more of that ‘pollutant’ than gasoline or diesel?  There isn’t any.  It’s all about monopoly and control.

By Ethan A. Huff

A recent report issued by the European Union has revealed that biofuels, or fuel made from living, renewable sources, is not really all that beneficial to the environment. Rather than reduce the net carbon footprint as intended, biofuels can produce four times more carbon dioxide pollution than conventional fossil fuels do.

Common biofuels like corn ethanol, which has become a popular additive in gasoline, and soy biodiesel, which is being used in commercial trucks and other diesel-fueled vehicles, are often considered to be environmentally-friendly because they are renewable. But in order to grow enough of these crops to use for both food and fuel, large swaths of land around the world are being converted into crop fields for growing biofuels.

In other words, millions of acres of lush rainforests are becoming corn and soy fields in order to provide enough of these resources for their new uses. The net carbon footprint of growing crops for fuel is far higher than what is emitted from simple fossil fuel usage.

According to the report, American soybeans have an indirect carbon footprint of 340kg of CO2 per gigajoule (GJ), while conventional diesel and gasoline create only 85kg/GJ. Similarly, the European rapeseed, a plant similar to the North American canola, indirectly produces 150kg/GJ because additional land in other nations has been converted to grow rapeseed for food in order to replace the native crops that are now being grown for fuel.

Ironically, the amount of direct and indirect resources used to grow food for fuel is quite high compared to that of conventional fossil fuels. Biofuels also do not burn as efficiently and can be rough on the engines they fuel. Ethanol-enriched gasoline can also reduce gas mileage efficiency by upwards of 25 percent, depending on the vehicle.

Growing food for fuel ends up increasing the price of food for consumers. It also puts additional strain on families, many of whom are already having difficulties making ends meet in current economic conditions.

When all is said and done, biofuels seem to be a whole lot of hype with not a lot of benefit. Environmentally, fiscally and practically, biofuels are a disaster. Fossil fuels may not be an ideal form of clean energy, but at this point in time, they make a lot more sense than biofuels.