OPIE Climate Initiatives Build Green Cartels

05/19/2014 08:00

by Administrator

Summer is on the way and the I.C.L.E.I. agenda has already begun. OVERview magazine, put out several times a year by the city of Overland Park, chronicles Agenda 21 development.  While these Agenda 21 projects proceed, many buildings housing longtime businesses flourishing in the 1990's now lie vacant waiting for the next special interest development. The magazine overall is chock full of information on how citizens should live as it’s obvious from the content that the public is incapable of making even the most rudimentary decisions for themselves.

Since the death of common sense, OVERview has leapt into the gap, offering poignant advice on such key topics as remembering to keep your garage doors locked, measuring the height of your grass so as not to exceed 8 inches in length (laying or standing), specifying how much air should be in your tires and how your property should be maintained so as not to offend anyone casually observing it.  But, what the magazine fails to note is that city taxpayers are forcibly subsidizing the UN’s sustainable development program, specifically the International Council on Local Environmental Issues (I.C.L.E.I) projects. It is an un-American and unconstitutional alliance of states with a foreign entity.

Apparently,  the City Council is unaware that there is actual ‘doubt’ in the populace as to the need for more UN green projects.  It remains highly questionable as to the supposed anthropological contributions to warming by carbon dioxide. However council prefers a more quixotic approach as Overview's OPIE responds to a reader’s question:  “CO2 is produced whenever fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, gasoline, or coal are burned to produce energy”.  – OVERview magazine, summer 2014

Is that so? So, what about CO2 being released by things that don’t produce energy as in volcanic emissions, forest fires raging in California and other western states?  What wood doesn't produce CO2? How about the CO2 emitted by the breathing 0f 7 billion inhabitants on earth not to mention animals and insect flatulence?  But this doesn’t directly support the UN’s climate initiative and so OPIE disregards it.  It’s why Overland Park refuses to consider combusting municipal waste to generate steam and electricity, preferring to recycle and filling up vast tracts of arable land with resident’s solid waste.

OPIE’s climate recommendations on reducing CO2 emissions aren’t about fighting global warming, they are about the creation of green cartels where consumers will be forced to buy products under an environmental umbrella for the benefit of a privileged elite.  Not to mention paying road tolls and other fees for the carbon footprint left behind.  For example, replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs or mercury containing fixtures while wildfires alone offset any purported benefit that these new devices could impose on CO2 releases.  Few people would buy LED’s of their own volition because of the expense and so an appropriate narrative on the impending environmental doom from switching on your incandescent light is needed and where that fails, forcing it by law.  When government tells you what you must do in order to be a good citizen, then you’re ruled by fascism.

Not unexpectedly OP council remains undaunted by reality, preferring the fear mongering tactics of the global propaganda machine from the University of East Anglia and its alternate reality narratives now embroiled in scandal.  The UK Guardian reports:  “Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the [University of East Anglia climate e-mail scandal] said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt.  His investigation concluded they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism and that key data was freely available and could be used by any "competent" researcher..”.

That’s strange because many others and myself still doubt climate science.  But unless you agree that climate change is occurring, you are NOT a competent researcher, no matter what your scientific accomplishments are. The public is invited to read some examples of dissent:  Cold Facts on Global WarmingForbes: Latest IPCC Report Deliberately Excludes, Misrepresents Important Climate Science,  Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, and Sioux Falls Argus Leader: The Eroding Case Against Carbon Dioxide

East Anglia ‘scientists’ don’t debate openly, they sneer, mock, censor, character assassinate and permanently ban anyone who isn’t in their particular clique.  Only when you meet their approval, can you discuss whatever tripe they put out.  Doubt that? Then Go to The Panda’s Thumb and try to have a rational debate. When you don’t address criticism of your own research without subterfuge then your reputation is in doubt regardless of any protestations.

The Guardian continues:  “But the panel said the scientists' responses to "reasonable requests for information" had been "unhelpful and defensive".  The inquiry found "emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them" and that there had been "a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness".  Scientists also failed to appreciate the risk their lack of transparency posed to the university and "indeed to the credibility of UK climate science".

What credibility?  This seems to be the best response Sir Russell can manage in his 6-month “white wash” of obvious scientific deception.  Retraction Watch is full of examples of fraud in peer reviewed papers that have had to be retracted. Here are a few examples,  Retractions appear in case of former Kansas water scientist rebuked for misconduct,  and Faulty model forces rapid retraction of paper on sea ice and climate change  Apparently, council is equally unaware of the rampant fraud perpetrated in peer review journals. Obviously, the windfall in potential climate related taxes is just too great to be ignored.

Responses do tend to be defensive when you’re standing on nothing but lies.

The public may expect to pay dearly for I.C.L.E.I green initiatives as in the Solyndra battery company that went defunct.