Do not worry...
CSIS will save us as they have already been working on the solution to these enviro nuts for decades...
A Message to the Environmental MovementYour movement has been hijacked
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
25 November, 2009
The Corbett Report has released a new video message to the environmental movement. Watch the video by clicking here or in the embedded player.
Transcript: This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com and I come here today with a message for you.
You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.
You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.
This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.
This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:
Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.
You have suspected as much for years.
You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.
You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.
You watched with growing unease as the message became
parroted, not argued, worn like a
fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.
You disagreed when the slogans--and then the science--were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.
You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was
factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.
You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme
proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to
ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.
Your movement had been hijacked.
The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome's 1991 book,
The First Global Revolution, which says:
And when you looked at the Club of Rome's elite
member roster. And when you learnt about
eugenics and the
Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of
crypto-eugenics and the rise of
overpopulation fearmongering and the call by
elitist after
elitist after
elitist to cull the world population.
Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.
Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.
Last week, an insider leaked
internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.
We now know that these scientists wrote
programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.
We now know that values
were being adjusted to conform to scientists' wishes, not reality.
We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to
exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.
We now know that these scientists
privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.
We now know, in short, that they were lying.
It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.
With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.
Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.
We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.
We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.
In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.
Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.
We can begin to concentrate on the
serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new,
never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.
We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the
BPA in our plastics and the
anti-androgens in the water.
We can examine regulatory agencies that are
controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.
We can begin focusing on
depleted uranium and the
dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.
Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support 'our' side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.
It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.
We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?
For The Corbett Report, this is James Corbett in western Japan.
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1468/The CSIS Europe and International Security Programs, in partnership with the Noaber Foundation, hosted the launch of "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership," a new report authored by Gen. Dr. Klaus Naumann (Germany), Gen. John Shalikashvili (United States), Field Marshal The Lord Inge (United Kingdom), Adm. Jacques Lanxade (France), and Gen. Henk van den Breemen (the Netherlands), with Benjamin Bilski and Douglas Murray. The event also featured commentary by Robert E. Hunter, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO.From the Executive Summary of the CSIS (Center for Strategic & International Studies):
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/080110_grand_strategy.pdfIn every country, and at all times, we like to rely on certainty.
But in a world of asymmetric threats and global challenges, our
governments and peoples are uncertain about what the
threats are and how they should face the complicated world before them.
After explaining the complexity of the threats, the authors
assess current capabilities and analyse the deficiencies in existing
institutions, concluding that no nation and no institution is capable
of dealing with current and future problems on its own.
The only way to deal with these threats and challenges is
through an integrated and allied strategic approach,
which includes both non-military and military capabilities.
Based on this, the authors propose a new grand strategy,
which could be adopted by both organisations and nations,
and then look for the options of how to implement such a strategy.
They then conclude, given the challenges the world faces,
that this is not the time to start from scratch. Thus, existing
institutions, rather than new ones, are our best hope for dealing
with current threats. The authors further conclude that, of the
present institutions, NATO is the most appropriate to serve
as a core element of a future security architecture, providing it
fully transforms and adapts to meet the present challenges.
NATO needs more non-military capabilities, and this underpins
the need for better cooperation with the European Union.Following that approach, the authors propose a short-, a
medium- and a long-term agenda for change. For the
short term, they focus on the critical situation for NATO in Afghanistan,
where NATO is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure.
For this reason, they propose a series of steps that should
be taken in order to achieve success. These include
improved cost-sharing and transfer of operational command.
Most importantly, the authors stress that, for NATO nations
to succeed, they must resource operations properly, share
the risks and possess the political will to sustain operations.
As a medium-term agenda the authors propose the development
of a new strategic concept for NATO. They offer ideas on how
to solve the problem of the rivalry with the EU, and how to
give NATO access to other than military instruments. They
further propose bringing future enlargement and partnership
into line with NATO’s strategic objectives and purpose.
In their long-term agenda the authors propose abandonment
of the two-pillar concept of America and Europe cooperating,
and they suggest aiming for the long-term vision of an
alliance of democracies ranging from Finland to Alaska.
To begin the process, they propose the establishment
of a directorate consisting of the USA, the EU and NATO.Such a directorate should coordinate all cooperation in the common
transatlantic sphere of interest. The authors believe
that the proposed agenda could be a first step towards a
renewal of the transatlantic partnership,
eventually leading to
an alliance of democratic nations and an increase in certainty.
