New Proposals To Fight Global Warming Would End Civilization, Kill Billions


Richard Moore

New Proposals To Fight Global Warming Would End Civilization, Kill Billions

Washington Post pushes Carnegie document that encourages near-zero carbon output
within decades

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, March 10, 2008

The establishment press is affording sober gravitas to a Carnegie Institution 
report that calls for carbon emissions to be reduced to near zero in order to 
combat global warming, without mentioning the fact that such a move would return
man to the stone age if not end civilization as we know it and kill billions.

"The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise 
in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research 
suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it 
would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of 
decades," reports the Washington Post.

"Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest
that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil 
fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change 
precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."

What would the effects of almost completely outlawing carbon dioxide emissions 

The complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man's 
return to the stone age.

Correction - stone age man at least was able to make use of fire - that too 
would presumably be banned under the measures being proposed.

Global transport of any kind would cease, manufacturing and production would be 
a thing of the past, the global economy would crumble, communications would go 
dark as computer networks and the Internet are abolished. Millions would freeze 
to death as a result of not being able to heat their homes.

We'd be back to living in caves and hunting for food with spears.

Does this sound extreme? The Washington Post calmly reports on the proposals 
without even mentioning the complete devastation they would inflict upon 

Desperation to sell the coming apocalypse on behalf of the climate change cult 
is evident as China, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, 
recovers from its coldest winter for 100 years, and Saudi Arabia reels under an 
unprecedented cold snap that has residents scared to venture outdoors.

The sheer ludicrousness of the Carnegie report is on a parallel with a March 
2007 New York Times editorial, which subtly pushed the notion that humans emit 
carbon dioxide when they exhale, therefore should all be taxed for breathing!

Since those who refused to pay the tax would continue to commit the 
environmental crime of breathing, what would the punishment be? Instant 
execution? Since most of the people who push this kind of quackery also believe 
in global population reduction, they'd probably be all for it.

Of course the supposed science cited by the Carnegie report to justify its hair 
brained conclusions is completely flawed.

As is readily apparent upon a cursory examination of ice core samples - 
increases in carbon dioxide emissionsfollow and do not lead temperature rise. 
They lag behind by as much as several hundred years - proving that natural 
causes such as sun activity drive climate change as has been the case throughout
history, where extended periods of warming and cooling have been observed.

In fact the earth has been warming consistently since the end of the 17th 
century, after the planet emerged from the Little Ice Age, and long before 
industrialization began.

From 1940-1975, when carbon emissions as a result of human activity rapidly 
increased, global temperatures decreased significantly, prompting fears of a new
ice age, before the warming trend picked up again.

Of course none of this matters to the Church of Environmentalism and their 
ever-willing media echo-chamber, whose duty it is to regurgitate the most 
doom-laden dose of demonstrably false fearmongering in order to con us out of 
tax dollars while all the real environmental problems are ignored.

Fortunately, a sizeable portion of the Post's readers are not buying into the 
insanity, with respondents up in arms about the Carnegie Institute's proposals 
for zero carbon emissions.

"With one of the coldest and snowiest Winters on record those who make money 
from global warming start revving their engines. Here we have another keenly 
timed report to buttress their method of controlling the citizens," retorts one 

"The global warming alarmists have left the world of merely stupid behind them 
and have now entered the realm of completely ridiculous. Since even carbon 
dioxide, which we all spew out every time we exhale, has now been classified as 
bad for the environment, how do we get to what these people now suggest? We 
can't. Get over it, get a life. And stop believing this massive hoax," writes 

"What a blatantly dishonest piece of reporting! First, the picture implies 
carbon emissions are producing this horrible haze. This is clearly other 
pollutants such as sulfur -> an unrelated problem. Second, this studies 
predicted temperature rise completely contradicts all the other models the WaPo 
has been touting as telling us the future and there is no discussion of this 
inconvenient truth. Third, the article might want to mention the serious 
consequences of achieving zero emissions -> civilization would end and billions 
would die," concludes another.

newslog archives:

How We the People can change the world

Escaping the Matrix:

The Phoenix Project

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

Community Democracy Framework:


Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)