By Karlis Salna, News.com.au
An ABC website has been accused of portraying farmers and forestry workers as evil and telling kids how much carbon they can produce before they die. The Planet Slayer website, which can be accessed via the science section on the ABC home page, also demonises people who eat meat and those involved in the nuclear industry, a Senate estimates committee heard.
See full size image here
The site has several features including a cartoon series, Adventures of Greena, and a tool called Prof Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator to help kids work out their carbon footprint. The calculator lets users compare their own carbon output to the “average Aussie greenhouse pig” and estimates at what age a person should die so they don’t use more than their fair share of the Earth’s resources. Too much carbon production causes a cartoon pig to explode, leaving behind a pool of blood.
Victorian Liberal senator Mitch Fifield today questioned the accuracy and appropriateness of some of the imagery and content on the website. “Do you think it’s appropriate that the ABC portray the average Australian as a pig and is it appropriate for a website obviously geared towards kids to depict people who are average Australians as massive overweight ugly pigs, oozing slime from their mouths, and then to have these pigs blow up in a mass of blood and guts?”
ABC managing director Mark Scott said the site was not designed to offend certain quarters of the community but to engage children in environmental issues. “The site has been developed to appeal to children and its been done in an irreverent way… to make it engaging,” Mr Scott said. Read more here. See the sick site here. See Anthony Watts right on comments here.
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic
President Václav Klaus criticized American presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John McCain for their “sad and tragic” fight against global warming, ČTK wrote on Thursday. “Environmentalists think they have the right to sacrifice the freedom of others to realize their own ideals,” said Klaus, who was in the United States to promote his book “A Blue, not Green, Planet”. Global warming has marginal significance and does not merit the huge amounts of money being invested to stop it, which could be put to much better use for other purposes, Klaus added. Klaus’s book has been published in English by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Meanwhile in the WEBcommentary story by Christopher Adamo, Chris reports “Recognizing the potential menace of the current situation and how liberals are exploiting it, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus has boldly challenged Gore to an open debate on the entire topic of “climate change.” Knowing that the tenets of his “green religion” cannot withstand intense scrutiny, it is a challenge that Gore cannot afford to accept. “
The liberal agenda, whether in relation to planetary catastrophe or the latest effort to confiscate and redistribute the private property of citizens, cannot tolerate honest examination. Thus, any effort to demand scientific evidence to support Gore’s frenzied allegations will result in immediate charges of being a “global warming denier,” an obvious attempt to link the honest skeptic to those anti-Semites who claim the Nazi holocaust never happened. Sadly, far too many on the political scene who should recognize the “global warming” alarmism as the transparent power play that it is, instead choose to seek safe haven by accepting the premise of cataclysmic man-induced climate destruction. Others, hearing constant warnings of impending disaster, may actually be impressed by their shrillness and intensity, and thus prone to believe them.
With unassailable insight, Klaus properly characterizes the moral arrogance of the global warming advocacy, again likening it to the ravages of communism with which he was so painfully familiar. At a national press club gathering last week, he compared the two sinister ideologies, sternly warning that “Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the Marxists or the proletariat. This time, in the name of the planet.”
To the degree that the major media and liberal political machine take notice of President Klaus and his effort, it will undoubtedly be only to demean and undermine him. Yet as someone who understands the consequences of allowing a monster of this nature to grow unchecked he continues his fight, grimly confident in the knowledge of what awaits western civilization if the “global warming” apostles ever gain the power which they crave.
By Dr. Roy Spencer
It is well-established that the ancient Mayan, Aztec, Incan, and Toltec peoples offered human sacrifices, probably in the belief that such rituals would placate the gods who were in charge of nature; for instance, to help bring life-giving rains to their crops. Although we shudder at the thought of such barbaric practices, I believe that we have unwittingly reinstituted human sacrifice in modern times. But while the list of justifications has grown immensely, our new rituals are still performed in the name of avoiding the wrath of the gods of nature.
Our environmental protection practices have already caused the deaths of millions of people, mainly in poor African countries. By far the most humans - mostly women and children - have been sacrificed in the mistaken belief that the use of any amount of the pesticide DDT would harm the environment. As a result, the preventable disease malaria has continued to decimate Africa. Only recently has this genocide disguised as environmentalism been partly reversed through the reinstituted practice of twice-yearly DDT treatments of the entryways to homes. While most environmentalists continue to insist that there is no connection between international bans on DDT and human deaths, such protestations really are like denying that the Holocaust ever happened.
Now, the Senate is preparing to debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which aims to limit carbon-dioxide emissions in the belief that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is disrupting the Earth’s climate and ecosystems. Since we now have the scientific method, we rely on computer models to predict these future catastrophes rather than on our fears and prejudices. While this gives the illusion of modern objective precision, the truth is that all we have done is enlisted one of our modern idols - the computer - to justify what we want to believe anyway. And that fundamental belief is that anything mankind does to nature is inherently evil.
To be sure, the scientific method can help us understand the physical world… something the ancients could not do. But global-warming theory, unfortunately, is out of the realm of being a legitimate, testable scientific hypothesis. For instance, to be a valid scientific hypothesis, there should be some kind of climate behavior observable in nature that would be inconsistent with the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming. But instead, everything we observe has now become consistent with the theory. Floods and droughts. Too much snow and too little snow. More hurricanes and fewer hurricanes. It is sometimes pointed out that a theory that explains everything really explains nothing.
Read more here.
=
Icecap Note: Also note the revolts in the UK to the green policy’s effects on the costs of energy and food. See also these two videos from the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth on Lieberman Warner