Journal/Blog

UN Agenda

posted Feb 22, 2012, 2:57 PM by TL Crain   [ updated Feb 23, 2012, 5:57 AM ]

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said, “The science has made it quite clear. The impact has been felt seriously around the world. Now only lacking largely is a political will," said Ban. "As a human being, a whole international community is standing at the very critically important juncture. Whether or not we address this issue properly and collectively, the whole future of our generation and planet Earth will depend.”

The United Nations still has a clear agenda and that’s to put as much of the world’s power as possible in its hand, and global warming is the tool they will use. Even after one of the coldest years in 50 years you can find blogs spouting that 2007 is second warmest year on record. The UN will push such information, even when it’s just not supported by fact.


An article from ABC news said, “When this reporter pointed out that some scientists are writing books and saying in public that they believe this crisis is so serious that if humanity goes on with business as usual -- not significantly cutting overall greenhouse gas emissions -- it could seriously lead to the collapse of civilization, even in the lifetime of today's children”

General Ki-Moon replied, “I think that is a correct assessment. People say that action should have been taken yesterday. If we take action today, it may not be too late.”

You have someone as important as the United Nation’s general chairman saying that civilization will collapse if we don’t do something about green house gas emissions. That alone should convince you that this is a politically contrived agenda.

.  civ·i·li·za·tion   Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[siv-uh-luh-zey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.


Above is the definition according to Dictionary.com. The collapse of civilization is huge. It basically says mankind will revert to what they were thousands of years ago. We will become no more than animals because the world got warmer. Even if man made global warming is real, this type of rhetoric is scary.

Why aren’t world leaders condemning such rhetoric, because they want a slice of the global warming pie? They want the power and money that goes along with global warming. We, the sheep, are just going to hand it over to them, or will we? I think most people will go along with the global warming agenda for as long as it doesn’t affect them personally. As soon as people are forced to walk, to be herded into mass transit, or forced into soviet style housing, they will rebel.

Mankind wants to move civilization forward, and except for cataclysmic circumstances… will. Mankind always finds a way to survive or deal with the environment around them. I feel that no matter what happens, man will cope… and cope well. Mankind will cope without the help of people like General Ki-Moon, and despite people like the Secretary General.

I hate repeating myself, but if the Secretary General and those like him really believe the rhetoric, why aren’t the costal areas being evacuated as we speak? Why are we still issuing building permits in flood prone areas all over the world? Is it possible these people don’t really believe their own rhetoric?

The answers are simple. Even if they do believe their own words, they know if they push the people too hard, too fast, they will rebel. They will begin to look past the rhetoric and to the facts. The facts are the last things the ecophobes want us to see.

As always, it’s about smart decisions.

Wind, the next panacea

posted Feb 22, 2012, 2:15 PM by TL Crain   [ updated Feb 23, 2012, 6:03 AM ]



Every time you turn on the news all you hear is about Rockville, Missouri’s announcement that they are running on 100% wind power. How wonderful that sounds. It makes every citizen in the world and run out and want to urge their local government to do the same. Then there are the logical few that stop to look at this panacea.

I’m not sure where you live, but the wind never blows 100% of the time in any of the places that I know of. I’m not sure there is more than a hand full of exotic places where it does, if any. At this time I couldn’t find what percentage of the time that the wind blows in Rockville, Missouri. I’ve heard it’s as low as 10% and I will bet that it’s not over 50% of the time. This is actually wind that can generate electricity.

This makes me curious, just where do they get the power when the wind isn’t blowing? I have read that they can store it as hydrogen, which is feasible, but as of yet I have read nothing that indicates any storage. So what does Rockville, Missouri do on the days the wind doesn’t blow? My guess is they use the same power the rest of us use, coal, nuclear, and natural gas.


It’s not that I have anything against wind; in fact I welcome it where it’s cost effective. There are few areas across the USA that can use wind power effectively. There are places such as where I live, South Carolina, that wind is pretty much useless for producing electricity. Our coast is the only viable area for wind power generation.

We need to look realistically at all forms of energy, wind is just one of them, but might the money be better spent to build nuclear power plants? In my state, South Carolina, we will be building nuclear power plants while everyone else is building these feel-good windmills.  In South Carolina we already produce 51% of our electricity with nuclear. We will be producing your power when those turbines are not turning in windless skies. We will be charging your electric cars while the windmills sit idle. There is only one reason windmills exist in today’s word, and that is because it has zero carbon emissions. If you want to jump on the windmill bandwagon then buy enough batteries so that you can have power when there is no wind, or live without power until the wind sees fit to blow again. You will only see windmills when there are government subsidies.

Every time we turn on the television there is some democrat telling us that we need more wind and solar. They want us to be free of oil. That is global warming talk, not energy independence. It takes all forms of fuel to free us from importation of energy. That includes oil, and lots of it. If wind was a viable energy source, don’t you think every electric company in the world would be building towers in mass? Imagine they could sell you electricity when it cost them almost nothing to produce it. Do you think they want to build coal-powered plants just because it’s dirtier, or that so they can make less money? Anytime you stop and look at this logically you can see the holes in most of the leftist energy policies.

Every save the world idea coming from the left requires electricity. Wind will not do it. Solar is decades away. Nuclear is the only viable clean source of electricity we have. The left surely aren’t going to tell us to build new nuclear power plants. Take this all in account when you go the ballot box.


1-2 of 2

Comments