Global Warming is All About Global Governance, and Global Tyranny

By Rich Kozlovich

If you favor globalization it means favoring global governance, if you favor global warming and this net zero insanity, you favor world tyranny, since that’s the intent behind globalization and this global warming farce. 

Here’s reality. If you play straight with cheaters, you lose, whether it involves economics, the environment, or politics. If countries or activist groups aren’t playing straight, then don’t play!  Because if you do, they get bigger, richer and more dangerous, and the straight shooters get poorer, smaller and defenseless.  

Nixon's  and Kissinger's bringing China into the world's economy is the perfect example. After Mao’s Cultural Revolution China’s economy, and the Chinese Communist Party, were heading for the ash heap of history. Nixon prevented that by opening China to world trade, and now we’re seeing the consequences.  

China is now a superpower, and opening up to world trade didn't generate liberal democracy in China nor any other dictatorial/socialist nation.  Now the democratic nations of the world world are groveling at the feet of the Chinese Communist Party.  And these tyrannous nations became all the more dictatorial because they've now been provide with the economic wherewithal to do so.  Now they're a threat to western civilization.  

China now has the largest navy in the world, and has a massive military.  The west is funding all this.  And what does China want?  The destruction of the United States, and Chinese hegemony over western civilization with a form of world governance they dominate. 

The western world's nations are helping them to do that by committing economic suicide in their efforts to go green, insisting this is absolutely necessary to save the world. No more drilling for oil, no more coal, no more nuclear power, total and complete submission to the secular worship of "alternative renewable energy".

Wind and solar energy are totally incapable of providing the necessary energy for humanities needs, both of which are environmental nightmares.  And batteries aren't the answer, not to mention they're really dangerous.   

As for these economic "carbon offset" schemes, Olivia Murray notes, were ‘probably junk’ that did nothing to negate pollution.  And the scam continues, lucratively I might add.   Olivia Murray asks, have the greenies ever heard of these crazy things called trees?  Yeah they've heard of them and in order to generate clean energy’ California is going to "bulldoze 3,500 Joshua trees, so coastal homes can go ‘carbon neutral’

Let's delve into this suicidal pact for the fantasy of Net Zero.  Milt Davis in his article,  The Other Side Of The Climate Change Coin, states:

At the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, earlier this year, a group of influential individuals suggested that implementing carbon taxes is necessary. They also mentioned that the required framework to implement these taxes is already in place and must be implemented. It was also noted that obtaining more funding and reaffirming the global necessity to combat climate change will be crucial at the upcoming COP29 and COP30 events. However, the previous climate forum, COP28, faced challenges as the meeting's president acknowledged that there was no scientific basis for the fast-paced fossil fuel phaseout agenda.

There is an expression that says if you tell a lie long enough and often enough, people will believe it. By their own admission, there is no scientific basis for the fast-paced fossil fuel phaseout agenda. In other words, the entire story is being fabricated.

In a run away power grab WHO wants to tie all pandemics to global warming, and it's all a fraud.   In 1989 it was predicted by the year 2000 entire nations would be wiped off the face of the Earth, and the nation's of the world only had ten more years to solve the problem of "green house gases" because all the polar icecaps would then be melted causing the world oceans to rise covering islands and coastal cities.  Oops! 

By now the and Antarctic was supposed to have melted to such a degree it would flood the coastal cities.  That was a load of horsepucky, and once again, time and truth are on the same side.  Time and again when you look at their claims of disaster they're invariably fraudulent, and an obfuscation of truth, and in spite of all the evidence of how fraudulent this all is, this propaganda is still being fed to college students working for academic degrees that would stop "phony climate calamities."  

The nation needs cheap, reliable, readily available energy, and that means drilling, hydro power, nuclear power, coal, and natural gas.  Energy independence is essential to any nations well being, and that's what Trump gave America, and that's what Biden took it away.  

The issue isn't global warming, that's the excuse.  The issue is global governance, and there will be no end to the impositions that will be placed on humanity.  And make no mistake, controlling our lives is who and what they are.  The leftists have politicized everything to that end, "because they know best".  

You don't have enough intelligence or depth of understanding to make you're own life choices, so, a tyrannous worldwide system of government is necessary  imposing deep state tyranny.  You will own nothing, you will eat bugs and you will like it....or else!

Funny though, I can't find one Marxist/Socialist successful society that's successful, and China isn't successful, it's being catered to.  I think you will find this article by Mark Lewis, Marx and the Democrats to be profound!

Perhaps you would like to review my  file.  You will find it illuminating in light of what's going on in the world. 

If Green Prediction Was a Corporation, They'd Have a Monopoly on Being Wrong!

By Rich Kozlovich

What inspired this article was this piece, Portland Power Company Takes Control of Home Thermostats to Avoid Outages saying:

Some 200,000 people in the Portland, Oregon, area have handed control of their home thermostats over to an energy company.  What is there to say about a population willing to hand over control of its thermostats to an energy company instead of demanding its government provide enough energy to keep it comfortable?  These people are gerbils.......I’m sure that in their own deluded minds, they have convinced themselves they are noble and virtuous by making this sacrifice for the good of Mother Earth.......And who do these superstitious enviro-nuts believe…? A bunch of witches who have been wrong 54 times out of 54 times.

The linked article is a regularly continually updated piece saying: 

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 [updated to 54] predictions wrong.m In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened. And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

The author goes on to list all these failures, and it isn't just about global warming.  He goes on to say:

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Over the years I've written extensively on the scientific fraud known as anthropogenic global warming, and linked and published many more, but I've also published and linked much about the green/left prediction failures.  By the way, according to these nitwits here's a complete list of things they claim global warming causes.  But time and truth are on the same side, and now..........watch out, here it comes, ........ they're admitting they were....Oh Nooooooo....Say it Ain't So Joe.........They were wrong!  

‘They’ shrieked about ‘global warming’ — but now they admit we were ‘accidentally cooling’ .......When the earth didn’t warm up as much as they predicted, they changed the terminology from global warming to climate change. When hundreds of dire predictions never came true, and they had no scientific data to support their policies to destroy industries and our quality and way of life, they just made things up, just like they did with COVID.......

Well, I've posted a lot about their predictions, and, as noted physicist Niels Bohr is alleged to have said: "It’s Difficult to Make Predictions, especially about the future."  So, allow me to share a few selected posts on the monopoly the green/left has on wrong. 

They ignore the things that are known because they're inconvenient, and fail to support their false narratives.  As for the things they don't know, they make up.  For those scientists who know better and fail to take a stand remaining silent, they are in effect in support of these lies, and cannot escape their culpability.   

In the movie “A Man For All Seasons” Sir Thomas More was accused of being against the king's divorce and remarriage because he remained silent on this issue. He stated in the trial there was no evidence he was against the marriage.  

 

His accusers claimed everyone knows his silence demonstrated he was against the marriage.  He responded this was a court of law, and this wasn't an issue of what everyone knows, it was an issue of law, because in law “silence denotes agreement”.   So it does in the real world also.

1. California's a Mess, And It's Not My Fault, Part IV By Rich Kozlovich
2. WRONG AS USUAL! By Tom Harris
3. Thirty Years of Global Warming Prophecies, By Warren Beatty
4.  Environmentalists Almost Have a Monopoly on Being Wrong, By Rich Kozlovich 
5. 5 environmentalist ideas that have spectacularly backfired. By The green fraud
   
6.  18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Were Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year, By Mark J. Perry
7.  A Prince Who Was Potty, is Now a King Who is Potty, and Dangerously So! By Rich Kozlovich
8. Another Nail In the Global Warming Coffin, By John Hinderaker
9.  Is There a Penalty For Wrong Predictions?, By John Hinderaker
10.  Why are the predictions on climate change always so wrong? By Jack Hellner
11. On global warming, so many problems with the data, By Jack Hellner
12. Greenpeace Wrong — The Great Barrier Reef Is Thriving!, By Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris
13. Charlie's a Loon, By Rich Kozlovich
14. Mitt Romney: Master troll, By John Green
15. How To Think Like A Liberal Supreme Court Justice By Francis Menton
16. Good news sucks for climate cultists, By Ron Ross
17. Biden Administration Has Issues With Science and Sanity, By Rich Kozlovich
18. Global Warming and How Some Things Never Change, By Rich Kozlovich 
19. It’s Earth Day. Again. Contain Your Excitement, By Steven Hayward
20. Prediction is Really Hard: Especially About The Future!, By Rich Kozlovich

Well, that's 20, and there are many more, but I think that will do for now.  You may wish to review my

Ross McKitrick exposed the global warming fallacies of the Hockey Stick Chart and the IPCC reports, so, let's end with this quote by him from many years ago saying:

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent.  

I think that pretty much says it all.

18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Were Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year

By Mark J. Perry April 21, 2022 

Editor's Note:  This appeared here. I've not asked for nor have I received permission to publish this in full, but given the state of things, I think this needs as broad a distribution possible.  If the author objects, I will break it down to a link.  RK

Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded again this year with dire predictions of “gloom and doom” and “existential threats” due to climate change. And let’s think about the question posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030?

Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, longer life expectancy, and lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: 

“There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future – and the present – never looked so bleak.”

In other words, the hype, hysteria, and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by virtue-signaling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC, who said several years ago that we have “only 12 years left to stop the worst impacts of climate change.”

WRONG AS USUAL!

2023 Continued the Lies of Climate Alarmists

By Tom Harris

Imagine if every time your doctor gave you advice or wrote you a prescription, it turned out to be dramatically wrong. Indeed so wrong that, had you followed his or her advice, and took the medication prescribed, you would now be sicker still or perhaps even dead. No one could fault you for trying to find another doctor.

And that is, in fact, the Achilles Heel of the climate scare: virtually everything climate activists and their friends in the media tell us about climatic conditions in the past, present and future is scientifically wrong—temperatures, sea level, polar bears, extreme weather, ocean pH, you name it, real world data shows that they are wildly off base on practically everything. In many cases, the trend is precisely the opposite of what climate alarmists tell us. Readers are encouraged to simply check real world data to see how wrong these prophets of doom actually are.

A good example is the NOAA extreme weather database which shows when state-wide records were set that still stand today. These records include record temperature (high and low), wind speed, snow fall, rain fall, hail stone size, and so on. As illustrated in the graph below, in 2023, only two records were set—a 5.25 inch diameter hailstone in Colorado in August and 11.28 inches of percipitation in 24 hours in Kentucky in July. In 2022, no records were set at all, in contrast to 27 in 1936. Clearly, neither the incidence, nor the severity of extreme weather is increasing.

Throughout 2023 the group I lead, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), has published on our website entertaining, easy-to-understand monthly CLIMATE FACT CHECKS that reveal some of the many mistakes in the press about climate change. A group led by Steve Milloy, a widely recognized leader in the fight against junk science and the publisher of JunkScience.com, has been digging into the climate science facts that put the lie to the alarmism we see every day in mainstream media. Besides Mr. Milloy, who writes most of the fact checks, and ICSC, these brief but important documents are presented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, Energy & Environment Legal Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and Truth in Energy and Climate.

To read the climate facts the media got wrong in the previous month, just visit the ICSC website at any time and click on the fact check banner at the top of the page. Right now, for example, you will see the following image which links to the January 2024 fact check: 

But now Milloy has gone one step further and, with input from our team, prepared WRONG AGAIN: 2023 EDITION – Hottest Lying Ever which starts as follows: 

Last month, Fox News reported on WRONG AGAIN as well as The Climate Narrative Is Changing against Net-Zero, Electric Vehicles, Offshore wind, and ESG, a joint open letter to Rep. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives signed by myself on behalf of ICSC and the following allied groups:

• James Taylor, President of The Heartland Institute
• Steve Milloy, Senior Policy Fellow, Energy & Environment Legal Institute
• Jason Isaac, CEO of American Energy Institute (AEI)
• Craig Rucker, President of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
• Frank Lasee, President of Truth in Energy and Climate  

Here are the highlights of the open letter:

“At the forefront of the melting climate narrative [during 2023] was the public emergence of 2022 Nobel physics prize winner John Clauser who boldly declared: ‘There is no climate crisis.’ Clauser won his Nobel prize for proving Einstein wrong.”

“In addition to 2023’s climate science claims falling far short of reality and honesty, President Biden’s Green New Deal climate policy agenda is also in rapid meltdown and countdown to disaster:

“• Net zero. The US utility industry … concluded that no amount of wind turbines, solar panels, hydropower, nuclear power, battery power, electrification of fossil-fuel technologies or energy-efficiency technologies will get our economy to net zero by 2050. The Energy Information Administration came to same conclusion in 2023…

“• Electric vehicles. … EV’s are becoming a casebook study in the failure of government industrial policy. Taxpayers are subsidizing this disaster at the rate of $50,000 per EV over a 10-year period.

“• Offshore wind. … The 1973 ‘Save the Whales’ campaign has essentially been replaced by federally-permitted and taxpayer-subsidized “Kill the Whales” [by the construction and operation of wind turbines] profiteering for the benefit of mostly foreign and some domestic offshore wind companies.”

Here are excerpts from the first two entries in the WRONG AGAIN: 2023 EDITION – Hottest Lying Ever report to whet your appetite to read more:

“BOILING OCEANS? In January at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos Al Gore loudly raved: ‘We’re still putting 162 million tons [of greenhouse gases] into [the atmosphere] every single day and the accumulated amount is now trapping as much extra heat as would be released by 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every single day on the earth. That’s what’s boiling the oceans…’”

“Wrong Again. The warmest ‘average ocean temperature estimate in 2023 was 21.1°C (~70° F) [see graph below], which occurred on August 24. And that estimate excluded much colder polar waters. Either way, that is way short of the boiling of water, 100°C (212°F) and within a mere 0.5°C (0.9°F) of the range of recent temperature estimates….”

“GLOBAL BOILING? United Nations chief Antonio Guterres said in July that: ‘The era of global warming is over; the era of global boiling has arrived.’

“Wrong Again. “Global temperature” is an imaginary concept [see my video explaining this] invented for global warming alarmism. It has no physical meaning. Yet estimates of it are made, nonetheless. At the time Guterres proclaimed “global boiling,” global temperature estimates ranged from about 57.5°F (14.2°C) to 62.5°F (16.9°C). Those estimates are clearly far away from the “boiling” temperature of 212°F (100°C). Even at Death Valley, California – reputed to be “the hottest place on Earth” – the highest temperature reached in 2023 was 128°F (53.3°C) on July 16. And that temperature was significantly below Death Valley’s all-time high of 134°F (56.7°C) reached on July 10, 1913.”

The Wrong Again report then goes on to refute alarmist statements about:

•  2023 as the “hottest year ever”
• The first week in July being the “hottest week in 120,000 years”
• Phoenix setting a heat wave record
• Humanity wiped out by 2023
• Climate change killing whales
• Maui wildfires caused by climate change
• Hurricane Hilary being “unprecedented”
• Record rain in New York City
• California’s 1,200-year drought, and
• Butterflies going extinct

Read the whole report and get a good laugh while learning the facts you need to thoroughly debunk the climate scare at your next city council meeting!

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Please share this article and support the International Climate Science Coalition through its GiveSendGo crowdfunding webpage at GiveSendGo - THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!: The Leader in Freedom Fundraising.

 

A Prince Who Was Potty, is Now a King Who is Potty, and Dangerously So!

By Rich Kozlovich 

This from a piece I wrote in 2014, and  given his recent lunatic blathering at COP 28, I think this is information that needs to be brought forward to reaffirm the fact a Prince who was potty, is now a King who is still potty, and is still dangerously so.  

When he was Prince Charles he was criticized a lot over the years, including for claiming how ‘crucial’ it is to talk to plants. He claims:

"I happily talk to the plants and trees, and listen to them. I think it's absolutely crucial," "Everything I've done here, it's like almost with your children. Every tree has a meaning for me."

I’m willing to bet the ancient Druids felt the same way.   One thing we must come to understand about these ‘green’ loons is this.  The issue is now and has always been, the battle between nature worshipers and worshipers of God. Modern environmentalism is nothing more than a secular neo-pagan nature worshiping movement that is irrational, misanthropic and morally defective, dressed up to appear modern and science based in its approach and thinking.

I’ve been reading R. Mark Musser’s Nazi Oaks, which outlines the historical accuracy of my statement. The policies, philosophy and programs promoted by the Green movement in the West, including the Prince’s, originated in the dark mist covered forests of ancient Germania and the nature worship of the ancient Celtic religion of the Druids, who were the educated, professional class of their culture, and, whose function was to be the intermediaries between the gods and mankind. They would make the decisions for their people.  Sound familiar?

In the mid to late 1800’s German philosophers attempted to define these pagan originated concepts into a modern philosophy, and people like Martin Heidegger, who promoted his green claptrap well into the 20^th century, helped to develop it into codified law under the Nazis. Everything the green movement has espoused in modern times is nothing more than a carbon copy of Nazi green laws, including the Precautionary Principle.

It has been claimed that the Precautionary Principle originated in the 1970's, with the German green movement and the influence of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. That may have been a strong influence for adopting it in the Maastricht treaty, but while the origin is clearly German, the philosophy goes back much further. According to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen in a chapter which appeared in the book “Interpreting the Precautionary Principle” edited by Tim O’Riordan and James Cameron, the Precautionary Principle;

“evolved out of the German Socio-legal tradition, created in the heyday of democratic socialism in the 1930’s, centering on the concept of good household management. This was regarded as a constructive partnership between the individual, the economy and the state to manage change so as to improve the lot of both society and the natural world upon which it deepened for survival. This invested the precautionary principle with a managerial or programmable quality, a purposeful role in guiding future political and regularity action.

In short, under the concept of Precautionary Principle, which no matter what is claimed is virtually indefinable in the real world, or if you will, unendingly re-definable according to someone's whims, was codifying central planning for everything by elitists bureaucrats that “know best” for everyone and who would make all the decisions using ‘saving the planet’ as a theme to justify tyranny. Remember who ran Germany in the 1930’s? Adolph Hitler! A monstrous incompetent whose:

“Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick considered those who were mentally ill, incurable sick or handicapped to be useless eaters”. He was one of the primary authors of Nazi euthanasia law. Accordingly his contribution to “Nazism was to envisage the monstrous and cloak it in law”.

Please keep that sentence in mind as we go along.  The Prince has been quoted as saying:

 "I got a lot of flak for a lot of things”….."I mean, potty this, potty that, loony this, loony that." 

Well, maybe there’s a reason for those expressed views.  They're accurate!

This is a future monarch who privately ‘consorts’ with government ministers to promote his pet policies, including his views on climate change, modern agricultural practices, genetically modified organisms, which he claims:

 “despite all evidence to the contrary, will lead to mass extinction of our species”. 

And he knew this how?  If all the evidence was to the contrary, how does he justify saying all that will lead to the extinction of our species?    One journalist, Jeff Randall, suggested to the Prince that the future of farming perhaps should be with industrial-scale production, the Prince 'exploded' saying:

'That would be the complete destruction of everything!'  

Okay, and just how is that destruction to come about, and what is the "everything" he's so worried about?  Just like all these leftist loons he's strong on emotional and rhetoric, but stunningly low on facts, and/or specifics.  If he wasn't a royal would any rational person listen to anything he says?   And yet after all his blathering over the years he was frustrated because no one in government will go along with his ‘potty’ views on things like 'complementary medicine’, which would include coffee enemas as a cure for cancer.  Coffee enemas for a cure for cancer, imagine that. 

Quite frankly, before Prince Charles, I never understood why the British has a Constitutional Monarchy that’s not permitted to express opinions, privately or publicly.  Now I know.

It’s claimed Charles isn’t an unkind man, in fact it appears just the opposite according to one writer, but the caliber of his mind must be called into question. It’s been said:

“If you are waiting to be the King of the United Kingdom, and you’ve waited a very long time, you genuinely have to engage with something or you’d go spare.” 

Well, perhaps that’s the problem. This is man who has lived an amazingly privileged life, for which he did nothing to earn, and desperately desires to be meaningful.  Well, he chose poorly, and from my viewpoint, he’s a failure, and I think that's the way he'll go down in history!

One writer noted;

“While he is always accorded the reputation of being a 'progressive', in fact, he is a spectacularly reactionary figure, whose ideal vision of Britain is a kind of pre-industrial paradise — which never existed.“

There are a number of things we know for sure. The policies Charles promotes are:

“renewable energy only, no pesticides, no industrial-scale farming — would lead to a crippling increase in the prices of everything from home heating to the cereal we feed our children.” “The point is that all the technological advances the Prince detests have been designed to reduce the cost of living for the public. Yes, the companies that make those breakthroughs are motivated above all by the desire to increase profits — but that does not make their achievements contemptible. “

As for Nobel-Prize winner Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution which saved untold millions in India - the Prince denounced it. Truth is the sublime convergence of history and reality, and the ‘self sufficient and sustainable’ practices the Prince promotes “slaughtered millions of populations on the subcontinent”. Is it possible he can’t be aware of that? That’s a historical fact he must be aware of.  The Prince is, as all the world’s leaders, at the center of the information world.  How can he be unaware of the history of what occurred before modern agriculture?

Norman Borlaug was what Prince Charles would love to be: A truly great man!  Who may have been the greatest man to live in the 20^th century for his “Green Revolution”, possibly saving the lives of a billion people from starvation. A man who earned all the accolades accorded to him including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal and India’s second highest civilian honor, the Padma Vibhushan.

When Borlaug's work has been challenged by these prominent pampered people like the Prince he states:

'They have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be outraged that fashionable elitists were trying to deny them these things.”

Charles is dangerous in a number of ways because he has a platform on the world's stage:

1. He’s is either historically ignorant, or chooses to be.  
2. He is intellectually and scientifically ignorant, or chooses to be.    
3. He must be morally clueless, and clearly chooses to be.
4. He’s chosen to ignore the history and science showing all his views are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.
   

Charles and his misanthropic cohorts make the claim they’re saving the planet, but the reality is they’re codifying or attempting to codify laws that would be monstrous to billions of people. They’re not saving the planet they’re attempting to impose a worldwide government that will plan and execute laws at the expense of the people living on it. The number one thought that's shared by all these greenies is there are too many people on the planet.  The 'moderates' among them wish to eliminate between four and five billion people.  The minority wishes for mankind to cease to exist.   The ancient druids would be totally comfortable with the modern green movement since they share the need for human sacrifice. 

Just like the Nazis, the green movement, along with the wealthy elite pushing these insane initiatives, "envisage the monstrous and cloak it in law”.  I've often wondered if a man that clueless could be elected to a position of power and authority, and then I found out.  Joe Biden became President of the United States.