‘This Is The Hunger Games’: Fashion Week Costumes Aren’t Just Ugly, They’re A Symbol Of Elite Contempt

Seated in the front row at Schiaparelli’s couture runway during Paris Fashion Week, Kylie Jenner donned a strapless velvet black dress with a giant lion head attached to and covering most of her torso. Two seats from Jenner, Doja Cat wore a bright red satin corset, a detailed beaded skirt, knee-high boots, and 30,000 red Swarovski crystals, all over her outfit and body — including her eyelids. 

Doja Cat was applauded by critics for “pushing boundaries” in fashion, while Kylie received mixed reviews from “slay” to “disturbing,” after some alleged her attire was promoting trophy hunting. However, the consensus from regular people outside the corporate media and fashion sphere went in an entirely different direction. 

“This is ‘The Hunger Games,’” said one TikToker, showing pictures of Jenner and Doja Cat, explaining that “the rich and the elites [are showing] blatant, grotesque forms of wealth while common people are being pitted against each other for their own entertainment because they’re bored.”

“Like, we get it, we’re all crying about paying $10 for eggs while y’all play dress up,” stated another.  

Video after video likens our current celebrity class to the greedy, maximalist-dressed elites living in the fictional capital of Panem (the country where the “Hunger Games” series takes place), and parallels the impoverished and oppressed peasants in the book to everyday Americans. 

Celebrities have always strutted around at fashion shows and galas in extravagant costumes that are as costly as they are absurd, but the divide between the rich and poor is becoming more prominent as the middle class continues to shrink. Americans, and Westerners in general, are struggling to make ends meet thanks to the globalist climate agenda supported by the very celebrities prancing around at Fashion Week.

The climate agenda has sparked a catastrophic cost of living crisis across the globe. Powerful celebrities and business elites alike have joined forces with the World Economic Forum in pushing Western governments to redistribute their wealth and transition their economies away from relying on coal, oil, and natural gas, and instead depend on insufficient supplies of green energy. 

To add insult to injury, the people who want us to eat bugs and throw out our gas stoves are the same ones gallivanting to climate conferences in Switzerland and Egypt in private jets. 

Not only do climate fanatics have massive carbon footprints and promote policies that impoverish people, but their methods are also actively harmful to the environment. The best way to promote environmental stewardship and mitigate human impact on the Earth is for people to be wealthy enough to be able to prioritize the environment. Yet driving up the cost of living is doing the exact opposite: it’s annihilating the middle class and making the poor poorer. 

The modern celebrity class has completely abandoned the concept of “noblesse oblige,” which stipulates that the rich and powerful have a responsibility to aid the less fortunate. Instead of investing in people, the world’s elites often invest in their “climate” fantasies, which hurt the poor. 

Bill Gates has spent billions in Africa trying to squelch the birth rates of black women in the name of “climate change.” But large families act as a safety net for many non-Westerners since they rely heavily on family members to care for them in old age. Already the United States, parts of Europe, and Japan are suffering from a birth rate crisis that is going to have deeply negative effects on the economy and consequently the environment in the future. 

This year’s Fashion Week outfits didn’t “slay.” They are symbolic of the growing and troubling divide between average families and the out-of-touch snobs who wish for us to own nothing and be happy about it.

Evita Duffy is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.



SGT Report – Feb 2nd, 2023

Get 24 filling grams of clean, pasture-raised, premium protein per serving in a creamy ice-cream shake flavor: http://lowcarbwithsgt.com/
Get It Today for 51% OFF ^^ CLICK NOW^^

James Perloff returns to SGT Report to expose the United Nations Agenda 2030 New World Order World Economic Forum plan for 15-minute gulags where human freedom will go to die.

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

The Billionaires Behind “Electrifying Everything” and “The Gas Bans”. “The Climate Imperative”

The Billionaires Behind “Electrifying Everything” and “The Gas Bans”. “The Climate Imperative”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


The Climate Imperative Foundation is the newest and richest anti-hydrocarbon, anti-natural gas group you’ve never heard of.

How rich is Climate Imperative?

According to the latest report from Guidestar, the group took in $221 million in its first full year of operation. (Guidestar calls the income “gross receipts.”)

That means that Climate Imperative, which is less than three years old, is already taking in more cash than the Sierra Club, which bills itself as the “nation’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization.”

According to Guidestar, the Sierra Club collected $180 million in its latest reporting year. Climate Imperative is also taking in more money than the Rocky Mountain Institute which collected about $130 million in its latest reporting year. I use those groups for comparison because they are pushing anti-gas initiatives across the country. More on them in a moment.

The emergence of Climate Imperative — which has received virtually no attention from legacy media outlets — is important for several reasons.

First, it shows that the effort to “electrify everything” and ban the use of natural gas in homes and businesses – and that includes gas stoves — is part of a years-long, lavishly funded campaign that is being bankrolled by some of the world’s richest people.

Second, despite numerous claims about how nefarious actors are blocking the much-hyped “energy transition,” the size of Climate Imperative’s budget provides more evidence that the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex has far more money than the pro-hydrocarbon and pro-nuclear groups.

Indeed, the anti-hydrocarbon NGOs (most of which are also stridently anti-nuclear) have loads of money, media backing, and momentum. As can be seen in the graphic below, the five biggest anti-hydrocarbon NGOs are now collecting about $1.5 billion per year from their donors. (All data is from Guidestar.) That sum is roughly three times more than the amount being collected by the top five non-profit associations that are either pro-hydrocarbon or pro-nuclear.

Third, banning the direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses may be worse for the climate.

You read that right. Burning gas directly allows consumers to use about 90% of the energy contained in the fuel. Using gas indirectly — by converting it into electricity and then using that juice to power a heat pump, stove, or water heater — wastes more than half of the energy in the fuel.

That point was made by Glenn Ducat, in his excellent new book,

Blue Oasis No More: Why We’re Not Going to “Beat” Global Warming and What We Need To Do About It. Ducat is a Ph.D. nuclear engineer who worked at Argonne National Lab, as well as at two electric utilities.

He explains

“Burning natural gas by residential commercial and industrial customers is at least twice as efficient and emits about half as much CO2 as processes that use electricity produced from fossil fuels. Converting process-heat applications to electricity before the electricity grid is completely carbon-free will increase CO2 emissions.” (Emphasis in the original.)

I began tracking Climate Imperative in late 2021, when Axios published a story headlined, “climate movement veterans launch major new foundation.”

Axios reported that the new group has “a planned budget of $180 million annually over five years.” That number caught my attention. Here was a new group with a planned five-year budget of $1 billion, and yet, Axios was the only media outlet to report on it.

On its website, the group makes it clear that the electrify everything push is a major focus of its work, saying its “imperatives include rapid scaling of renewable energy, widespread electrification of buildings and transportation, stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, reducing pollution from major industrial sources, and economy-wide pathways to reduce emissions from the biggest sources.” The website lists some of Climate Imperative’s grantees, a group that includes the Building Decarbonization Coalition and the American Lung Association.

Axios went on to note that the San Francisco-based foundation, “began making grants in the spring of 2020.” It also noted that the group is headed by two former Sierra Club officials: Bruce Nilles and Mary Anne Hitt. Nilles spent more than a decade heading the group’s Beyond Coal campaign. Climate Imperative’s advisory board includes Margo Oge, a former top EPA official, and Bill Ritter, the former governor of Colorado.

Where is Climate Imperative getting its money? The board of directors likely holds the answer. The most recognizable names on the six-person board are Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The other board members include Anita Bekenstein, Sanjeev Krishnan, Greg Nelson, and George Pavlov. A source with knowledge of the group’s funding told me this week that the majority of the money is coming from Doerr and Jobs. Forbesmagazine estimates that Doerr has a net worth of $12.7 billion. Forbes puts Jobs’ net worth at $17.7 billion. None of the other board members appear on Forbes’ list of America’s richest people.

The effort to demonize gas stoves began in early 2020, at about the same time Climate Imperative was launched. That year, the Sierra Club claimed that gas stoves are “linked to respiratory illnesses, and children who live in homes with gas stoves are 42% more likely to have asthma.” The source for that claim was a paper by the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Colorado-based non-profit founded by renewable-energy promoter Amory Lovins.

One of the first legacy media outlets to publish an article promoting claims about bad air quality from gas stoves was The Atlantic. In October 2020, it published an article headlined “Kill Your Gas Stove.”

It may be a coincidence, but The Atlantic is owned by Laurene Powell Jobs. It’s also interesting to note that in 2018, The Atlantic published a piece titled “How the Gas Oven Changed Humans’ Relationship With Fire,” and noted that the “ability to turn flames on and off at will was ‘one of the single greatest contributors to human happiness in the kitchen.’”

Since 2020, the Rocky Mountain Institute has continued its anti-gas crusade. Earlier this month, a spate of news stories were published after the group released a paper that claimed 12.7 percent of childhood asthmas are due to gas stoves. One of the authors of that paper, Talor Gruenwald, works at RMI. Gruenwald is also a research associate at Rewiring America, a San Francisco-based outfit that calls itself the “leading electrification nonprofit, focused on electrifying our homes, businesses, and communities.” (Rewiring American doesn’t publish a Form 990. It is sponsored by Windward Fund, which took in $273 million in 2021.)

But RMI’s asthma claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps the most-definitive analysis of the issue was a 2013 study published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine which studied half a million school children in 47 countries over a multi-year period. It relied on questionnaires filled out by the mothers of children. What did it find? “We detected no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.”

Furthermore, just a day or two after the RMI paper came out, the group walked back its claim about asthma, with one RMI official telling the Washington Examiner that the study “does not assume or estimate a causal relationship” between childhood asthma and natural gas stoves.

Where does RMI get the money to push its electrification agenda?

Some of it is coming from Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos. In 2020, the Bezos Earth Fund gave RMI $10 million, which the group said will be used to “reduce GHG emissions from homes, commercial structures, and other buildings, enabling RMI to increase its current work with a coalition of partners in key states. The project will focus on making all U.S. buildings carbon-free by 2040 by advocating for all-electric new construction…”

Bezos is also a big backer of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the group that shamelessly bragged about its role in the premature closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York. In 2020, the NRDC issued a press release touting the $100 million grant it got from the Bezos Earth Fund. It said the money “will be used to help NRDC advance climate solutions and legislation at the state level, [and] move the needle on policies and programs focused on reducing oil and gas production…” (Emphasis added.)

The Sierra Club has been a prime beneficiary of former New York City mayor  Michael Bloomberg’s Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has pledged $500 million to the Beyond Carbon project. In 2019, the pledge was considered the largest ever “philanthropic donation to combat climate change.” The Sierra Club has been a primary beneficiary of Bloomberg’s giving. About two years ago, a Sierra Club employee told me that it is getting about $30 million per year from Bloomberg. On its website, the group touts its role in the Beyond Carbon initiative, calling it “the largest climate campaign in the U.S., with the goal of closing all domestic coal plants by 2030 and stopping the use of gas as a transition fuel.” (Emphasis added.)

Last August, the Sierra Club asked the Environmental Protection Agency to ban all natural gas appliances at the federal level. The group has had success in getting bans adopted in California. According to its website, 69 communities in the state have now “adopted gas-free buildings commitments or electrification building codes.” In September, the California Air Resources Board voted to ban the sale of all natural gas-fired space heaters and water-heating appliances in the state by 2030. In addition, New York City and Seattle have banned the use of gas in new construction. Massachusetts is also rolling out a new measure that will allow up to 10 communities to ban gas.

The money coming from Bezos, Bloomberg, Doerr, Jobs, and other deep-pocketed donors means that the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex can easily outspend the entities that are promoting nuclear energy.

For instance, the Nuclear Energy Institute, according to the latest Guidestar numbers, had gross receipts of about $143 million in its latest reporting period. Meanwhile, the top associations that support hydrocarbon producers and distributors — including the American Petroleum Association, American Gas Association, Western States Petroleum Association, and Society of Petroleum Engineers — had combined gross receipts of less than $400 million.

Two final points. The first is the hypocrisy of billionaires funding efforts to slash hydrocarbon use while they are consuming staggering amounts of hydrocarbons. According to a 2020 article in Vanity Fair, Michael Bloomberg owns eight houses in New York state alone, and “he also reportedly owns several properties in London, Florida, Colorado, and Bermuda.” Thus, Bloomberg may own a dozen houses. How many of those houses have gas stoves? I’ll make a wild guess and bet that it’s more than one. Oh, and according to Vanity Fair, while he was mayor of New York, Bloomberg “was known to spend weekends” at his house in Bermuda, “traveling back and forth on private jets.” And what is fueling those private jets? I’m guessing here, but it’s probably not organic quinoa.

Speaking of jets, Forbes recently reported that Jobs owns a Gulfstream G650 (list price about $66 million) that burns about 500 gallons of jet fuel per hour. When not zooming around on her jet, she also spends time on a $120 million yacht called the Venus. Bezos reportedly owns two Gulfstream G-650ERs. After Bezos flew to the 2021 climate meeting in Glasgow, a representative from the Bezos Earth Fund told Business Insiderthat all was well because the billionaire “uses sustainable aviation fuel, and offsets all carbon emissions from his flights.”

That line puts the hypocrisy of the billionaires funding anti-hydrocarbon initiatives in a nutshell: Bezos, Bloomberg, Jobs, and other uber-rich, hyper-mobile elites can purchase “offsets” for their private jets and mega-yachts, but the shlubs in the barrio can’t be allowed to use a gas stove to cook dinner because, in the words of RMI’s Talor Gruenwald, “Gas stove emissions are significant contributors to the climate crisis.” Never mind that, as the Breakthrough Institute’s Alex Trembath recently noted, that gas stoves account for just 0.4% of total U.S. gas use.

The final bit of hypocrisy at work here is the regressive nature of the gas bans. Indeed, it’s clear that banning natural gas will mean higher costs for consumers. Last March, in the Federal Register, the Department of Energy published its annual estimate for residential energy costs. It found that on a per-BTU basis, electricity costs about 3.5 times more than natural gas. It also found that gas was, by far, the cheapest form of in-home energy, costing less than half as much as fuels like kerosene, propane, and heating oil.

That means that efforts to ban natural gas are, in practice, an energy tax on the poor and the middle class. During a recent interview, Jennifer Hernandez, a California-based lawyer who represents The 200, a coalition of Latino groups that has sued the state over its climate policies, told me that “Natural gas is the last source of in-home affordable energy. And these climate extremists can’t stand it.”

Last October, the Department of Energy provided more evidence that natural gas is the cheapest form of energy for homeowners in its Winter Fuels Outlook. The DOE estimated that heating with electricity this winter will cost about 46% more than heating with natural gas. These numbers show that forced electrification will mean higher energy bills for consumers. Low- and middle-income Americans will bear the brunt of forced electrification because they will have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on energy than wealthy consumers.

The bottom line here is obvious: the effort to ban natural gas in homes and businesses is, at root, more about class than it is about climate change.

Over the past several months, I sent several emails to the leaders at Climate Imperative, Mary Anne Hitt and Bruce Nilles, asking about the foundation’s funders, their grantees, their stance on nuclear energy, and the potential cost impact of the electrify everything campaigns on low- and middle-income consumers. I followed up this week with an email to Hitt. She did not reply.

I sent similar questions to Panama Bartolomy, the director of the Building Decarbonization Coalition. His reply: “I will not be responding to your questions.”


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Laurene Powell Jobs, Michael Bloomberg, John Doerr, and Jeff Bezos (Source: Robert Bryce)


Keeping, or Losing, Our Faith in Climate Change

Does climate change? If so, why? Is there really a climate crisis? If there isn’t, then why do so many believe there is? Is climate change a religion?

In drafting this essay, I have drawn heavily on my own training and experience as a teacher of meteorology and my own research in the 1960s and 1970s, when the scientific community was seen to seek the truth without the bias of pushing specific agendas. With my background in these things, I offer you what I believe to be a balanced and factual argument that the concept of climate change, previously known as global warming, has become a religion.

Today, there is so much commentary on climate change, so much so that I think that the majority of us accept that climate change is an inconvenient truth, and trust that those in power are getting on with fixing it. Is that it? Surely, if that’s true, we don’t need another essay!

But I think we do! In this essay, I would like to shine a light on some corners of the subject usually glossed over.

Does climate change? If so, why?

I believe that climate does change over time. (Remember, we are talking about climate now, not weather.) Climate is a description of the average atmospheric conditions in a specific region, taken over at least 30 years. Weather simply changes every day. In the case of Melbourne, Australia, it is said that you can experience all four seasons in one day!

A century ago, Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch hypothesised that the long-term, collective effects of changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong driver of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering the beginning and ending of ice ages. Let me discuss his three cycles.

  1. Eccentricity of the Earth’s Orbit

Earth’s orbit around the Sun isn’t a perfect circle. Over time, the gravitational pull from the two largest planets, Jupiter and Saturn, cause the shape of Earth’s orbit to vary from nearly circular to slightly elliptical. Currently, Earth’s eccentricity is near its least elliptical (most circular) and is very slowly decreasing, in a cycle that spans about 100,000 years.

The total change in global annual insolation (energy received from the sun) due to the eccentricity cycle is very small and some will argue, insignificant; but before I go on, consider this.

The Earth’s atmospheric system is extremely complex and extraordinarily difficult to model. There are so many variables to consider. Let’s just consider one here.

The amount of ice on the Earth, on land or on oceans, correlates with the amount of insolation reflected back to space, known as the Earth’s albedo.

During ice ages, much of the Earth’s surface was covered with ice. This large coverage of white meant that the Earth’s albedo was high, with much of the incoming solar radiation received by Earth being reflected back into space without appreciably warming the atmosphere.

But if a change in the Earth’s orbit brings about a minute change in the insolation received — for example, just a little bit more heat, barely enough to measure — it could be enough to melt an ice cap or two just a little bit, barely enough to measure. The Earth’s albedo decreases, just a little bit. Then, more of the incoming insolation is retained as heating, melting a bit more ice, and before you know it, a positive feedback loop is set up and the ice age melts away.

As a result, a steady increase of real measurable temperatures; sea level rises from the melting ice; and plants and animals once again begin to colonise what had been the frozen rocky waste that underlay the ice.

  1. Obliquity of the Earth’s Spin

The angle of the Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted as it orbits around the Sun is known as obliquity and thus explains our seasons. Each hemisphere facing the sun has its summer and the hemisphere tilted away has its winter. As the year progresses, when the sun is directly over the equator, each hemisphere has its autumn and spring respectively.

Obliquity varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees with respect to Earth’s orbit. The greater the obliquity, the more extreme our seasons, as the hemisphere facing the sun receives more insolation during its summer, and less during winter when it is tilted away. It is believed that periods of greater obliquity can trigger deglaciation after an ice age, as the Earth’s albedo is reduced.

Obliquity is currently tilted at 23.4 degrees, or about halfway between its extremes, with a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,700 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 9,800 years from now.

  1. Precession of the Earth’s axial wobble

As Earth rotates about its axis, it wobbles slightly, much like an off-centred spinning top before it falls over. This wobble is believed to be due to tidal forces caused by the gravitational influences of the Sun and Moon that cause Earth to bulge at the equator, affecting its rotation. The cycle of precession spans about 25,770 years.

The passage of precession makes the seasons more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other. Currently, this makes Southern Hemisphere summers hotter and moderates Northern Hemisphere seasons. But in about 13,000 years, precession will cause these conditions to flip.

Other climate change drivers

So far in this essay, I have not mentioned the effects of volcanic ash from eruptions, that can be carried right around the globe by high-level jet streams. These clouds of ash reflect insolation and can have a cooling effect on our climates for many years.

[A word of caution here. If you are not aware, or perhaps have forgotten, the internet is far from ‘balanced’ in the articles and websites fed to you on a search. I have noticed (and it getting worse and worse in my view) that generally government websites (whatever the country), NASA, Wikipedia and National Geographic, to name but a few, all point their readers to the doctrine that climate change is an inconvenient truth. They have no room for discussion of alternative views.]

Another contributor to climate change is the sunspot cycle of 11 years. The comings and goings of sunspots have been shown to parallel changes in the Earth’s climates, and the occurrence of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820.

Then there is the theory that the burning of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas is creating climate change. Usually, this is described as anthropogenic warming, as it is a direct effect of man’s activity. It is focussed on the extra production of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is one of the greenhouse gases that trap insolation in our atmosphere as the radiation bounces off these molecules on their way back out to space, but as a result, are returned to Earth, creating the heating effect.

One thing to remember about the theory of anthropogenic warming due to CO2 is that CO2 only makes up an extremely small proportion of our atmosphere and this is not changing significantly due to our anthropogenic activity. Our atmosphere is 78 per cent nitrogen, 21 per cent oxygen, 0.9 per cent argon, and 0.1 per cent other gases (including CO2).

However, CO2 is the most important gas for plant growth, being the only source of carbon available to them. As Jordan B. Peterson has eloquently pointed out, the globe’s food production from plants has increased thanks to the extra CO2 produced by man and the deserts have begun to shrink! Great news for mankind!

There are still more climate change drivers. For example, the distribution of continental masses around the globe resulting from plate tectonics. Their distribution influences the Earth’s albedo, as land and oceans have different coefficients of reflectivity with respect to insolation.

Other examples are gaseous and particulate pollution, cutting insolation and stimulating rainfall, to say nothing of poisoning our environment. Deforestation has a devastating impact on soil quality, to say nothing of the reduction in water vapour in the atmosphere (a great contribution to the greenhouse effect). And the impact of commercial agriculture on the atmosphere.

Our atmosphere, the weather and the climate we experience are influenced by arguably the most complex, interconnected array of variables known to man. To simplify it to anthropogenic warming and to the excess of CO2, does a gross injustice to the science.

Is there really a climate crisis?

Most media commentary, most governments’ policies and most corporations, particularly the global ones, believe that there is. Anyone who is not a believer is ridiculed, sidelined, or ignored. But does that mean that there really is a climate crisis? Or does it demonstrate something completely different?

In the second half of this essay, I am leaning heavily on a one-and-a-quarter-hour-long discussion between Amir Tsarfati and Professor Yonatan Dubi published in November 2022 — Climate Change: A New World Religion? Amir is a Jew converted to Christianity, and Yonatan describes himself as a Jew by birth but now part atheist, part agnostic.

Yonatan is a physicist who specialises in mathematical modelling. He points out that the world’s average temperature has risen by 1.1o C over the last 100 years and that sea levels have risen by 30 cm in the last 100 years. This is an interesting observation, as we would expect sea levels to rise following the Little Ice Age of 1450 to 1820, and they have. Nothing unusual here!

Globally, sea level rise is extremely variable depending on local tectonic forces. For example, the sea level on Israel’s coastline has risen 7 cm over the last 100 years. Do these rates constitute a crisis? I don’t think so.

As Yonatan points out, rates like these will give man ample time to adjust to make any necessary changes to save himself and his livelihood. For Yonatan, this is not a crisis. He also points out that the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) own data shows that there has been no rise in catastrophic weather events over the last 100 years either. As we know, the mainstream media love to use each hurricane, flood, fire, or drought as evidence of climate change. They are simply stoking the fire of alarmism and fuelling the fears of climate change believers.

Is climate change a religion?

What is a religion? Extremely hard to define, I am sure you will agree, but for me, there are some core components. Belief is central, a belief in something that requires faith, without the evidence of fact. The second element for me is that the belief engenders, or creates, a unity within a community of believers. Those who don’t believe are outcasts, excluded from the community.

According to a classical sociologist, religion is a “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” (Durkheim, 1915)

Amir and Yonatan build their argument that climate change is a religion. They recognise the emergence of the ‘environmental movement’ in the 1960s with the publication of the classic work Silent Spring (Rachel Carson, 1962). The core of this book targeted the use of DDT against the curse of malaria in Africa. Afterward, the banning of DDT led to the excess deaths of millions from malaria, until the Africans started using DDT again!

Amir identified the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, 1972, as planting the seeds of the current preoccupation with limiting economic growth as a worthy environmental response to the climate crisis. Yonatan also identified the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 as the moment that saw increasing numbers flocking to the Greenpeace movement.

At the heart of all these initiatives was the underlying belief in the planet and in the fact that the planet needed saving. The enemy that needed to be fought against was mankind. Man was no longer the pinnacle of God’s creation, but rather a curse, responsible for so much pain, misery and degradation of the planet.

So, parallel with the demise of the Judeo-Christian heritage, starting in the liberated 1960s and continuing with the destruction of Communism, culminating in the breakup of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the people needed a new cause around which to unite. The environment, the planet, became their new god.

So, God said, in effect, “If that’s what you want, that’s what you get.” It wasn’t long before they were living in a pigpen, smeared with filth, filthy inside and out. And all this because they traded the true God for a fake god, and worshiped the god they made instead of the God who made them — the God we bless, the God who blesses us. Oh, yes!
~ Romans 1:25 (MSG)

It seems to me that climate change has all the hallmarks of a religion. For me, the most concerning aspect of this is that their adherents have ‘set aside’ their rational, enquiring, eager-to-learn minds, that naturally question and debate; for blind belief, faith, in what their leaders tell them. Their singular target is simply our individual carbon footprint, that is, the amount of CO2 that can be attributed to each one of us. So, believers simply must make the sacrifices necessary to bring this impact down. The more we save, individually, the more pious we are and the higher up the religious hierarchy we go!

Do not be deceived!

The climate change religion is very deceiving. It is so easy to become unwitting converts, as so much of it is obviously sensible. Let’s consider a few examples. Overfishing the oceans will swell our profits for today, but deplete the harvest for future generations — our children and grandchildren.

Clear-felling and burning our native forests send precious resources up in smoke, destroying the natural habitat for innumerable species of plants, animals and birds, to say nothing of the potential for cooling the planet due to increased smoke cover in the upper atmosphere.

Intensive commercial farming is over-reliant on artificial fertiliser. It degrades the soil, depleting the carbon content, and increases the risk of soil erosion by wind and or flood, not to mention the dangers of salinisation, as salt may be brought to the surface by evaporation, rendering the land unusable by future generations.

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives,
the disciples came to Him privately.
“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen,
and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you.
For many will come in My name,
claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.
You will hear of wars and rumours of wars,
but see to it that you are not alarmed.
Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
All these are the beginning of birth pains.”
~ Matthew 24:3-8 (my underlining).

I believe that the climate change religion can easily deceive us. Stage one, we believe the rhetoric, because we can’t see any alternative narrative as censorship has effectively outlawed alternative perspectives.

Stage two, we subconsciously accommodate the new religion into our current faith and moral practices. Finally, stage three, we can no longer recognise the new religion that has taken up residence within us and makes it normal for us to outcast any, including our family or community, who don’t share our beliefs. We take on the mores that preach the moral virtue of ‘for the greater good’, even though it flies in the face of the fact that each one of us, has been individually, fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:14).

More and more layers of red paint!

Yonatan described a wonderful analogy of more and more layers of red paint. He compares the impact of increasing the parts per million of CO2 in our atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels to adding layers of paint to a fence.

When we paint a fence with red paint, the first layer will look pretty anaemic as the original material or colour will be bound to show through. So, we put on another coat of paint, then another and perhaps a fourth.

By now each additional layer simply makes the paint layer thicker; it does not change the colour. Yonatan is saying that reducing the parts per million of CO2, as the climate change religion desires, will have as negligible an effect as taking off one layer of red paint from our fence. The fence will still look red!

So, imagine the destruction of all the economies right across the globe. Imagine the impact on the poorest people. Imagine the wealth gap widening even more as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And all for what? An immeasurable impact on the planet’s climates!

I can only see one benefit from all this. The rich elite, who have designed this new religion, do very well, thank you! The rest of us become the new feudal society of serfs, serving our new masters for their every pleasure.

Be nice to your neighbours

Let me conclude on a positive note.

15  Your hands are full of blood!

16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of My sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.

18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.”
~ Isaiah 1:15b-18

I commend the whole of this chapter to you, but what does the writer say here? To recognise that we might have been deceived into thinking and doing wrong. Then to do right, to seek justice, defend the oppressed, and take up the cause of the fatherless and plead the cause of the widow (v17).

I can think of no better analogy than that we should be:

… the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
~ Matthew 5:13

Let’s be nice to our neighbours. Let’s be responsible to the environment, while remembering that it is our decisions, our responsibility as citizens that counts, not the edicts and demands of external authorities. If there is no clearly argued good reason for doing something, there is no clearly argued good reason for doing something!


Photo by Markus Spiske.

Thank the Source

Climate Extremists’ Hideous Wind Farms Are Coming To Your Backyard

Climate Extremists’ Hideous Wind Farms Are Coming To Your Backyard

If all goes according to plan, Magic Valley Energy will soon be installing up to 400, 740-foot-tall wind turbines, 485 miles of new roads, miles and miles of transmission lines, and buildings filled with half-ton battery modules on upwards of 197,000 acres at Lava Ridge in southwestern Idaho.

The company is named after a beautiful valley that soon won’t be nearly so magical.

The acreage is equal to 15 percent of Delaware, and the turbines, at 740 feet tall, are larger than the Washington Monument — an appropriate comparison because the project is being advanced in cooperation with a climate-obsessed Biden administration determined to replace fossil fuels with “clean” energy.

For the administration, saving the planet from computer models of manmade climate disasters is far more important than saving land, scenery, habitats, wildlife, and ways of life from the ravages of wind and solar installations.

In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with other federal agencies, is preparing to expedite wind and solar permit approvals, no matter the effects on Mother Earth. They’ve even decreed that bald and golden eagles killed by wind turbines are merely “incidental takings” — unintentional losses due to otherwise lawful activities — and thus irrelevant in permitting decisions. Nor do they consider the incomprehensible amounts of mining (in faraway lands with lax environmental standards) required to produce the metals, minerals, and concrete those installations will need.

Disregarding those realities, President Joe Biden wants 25 gigawatts of onshore wind electricity by 2025 and 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030. (For comparison, one gigawatt is the same power as 1.3 million horses).

This notion of “25 by ’25” and “30 by ’30” is catchy. But it’s unlikely to be achieved. The electricity will be there only when the wind unpredictably blows — perhaps 40 hours a week, 2,200 hours a year, for a few hours or days at a stretch. Upwards of 5,000 windmills will be needed for that onshore nameplate capacity and 2,500 turbines more than 850 feet tall with 12 MW of power for the offshore scheme.

There will be opposition. Some 460 U.S. communities have “rejected or restricted” wind and solar projects since 2015, energy analyst Robert Bryce observes. However, it’s much harder to block projects like Lava Ridge because most of that land is federally owned and managed.

The locals are certainly not happy, as the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow’s Gabriella Hoffman and Fox News’ Jesse Watters learned. This huge Lava Ridge industrial wind facility would be barely two miles from Craters of the Moon National Monument. It would destroy majestic vistas, kill numerous raptors and bats, reduce surface water flow, and impair farming and ranching lifestyles.

Worst of all, the electricity generated at Lava Ridge won’t stay in Lava Ridge or even Idaho. It will be exported — primarily to power-hungry California. The home of Hollywood celebrities and Gavin Newsom already imports more than one-fourth of the electricity it consumes — because leftist elites don’t want coal or gas, or even nuclear or hydroelectric power.

Absent from this controversy, oddly, are those in the green movement. Typically, energy projects such as oil and gas drilling are routinely opposed by environmentalist groups that purport to be “deeply concerned” about sage grouse, fish, snails, and plants. However, in the case of massive, obtrusive, destructive wind-solar-battery-transmission projects like Lava Ridge, all you hear is crickets.

To be fair, wind energy projects aren’t always given a pass by environmentalists. Occasionally it’s a different story, especially if they’re slated to be built in places such as Martha’s Vineyard. This is because their not-in-my-backyard sentiments apply only to their backyards — San Francisco, Sacramento, Chicago, New York City, Washington, D.C. — not to your backyard.

Climate-virtue-signaling, big-city politicians don’t have room for wind turbine and solar panel installations where they can junk up their neighborhoods. They have no desire to see them anywhere nearby. They certainly don’t want warehouses filled with backup battery modules that could burst into chemical-fueled infernos at any moment.

A better plan for them, it appears, is to let others pay the price of their energy fantasies. Urban elites know that those who live in what they derisively call “flyover country” don’t have the votes to stop them. But those who live in Midwestern states do possess the land needed to fulfill these “planet-saving” objectives. Environmental aristocrats view this as a plus and a sure way to earn themselves kudos at their next social gathering when the subject turns to climate change. 

It’s a sad situation, but rural folks must prepare for battle. While the odds are high that such projects as Lava Ridge can be stopped, the reliability of the grid and the state of the environment are hanging in the balance. Despite the undeniable detriments, the “green revolution” is coming to your backyard soon.

Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.


Labor nitwits blame Kimberley wet season on CO2

Labor nitwits blame Kimberley wet season on CO2

Statistical data analysis shows that worldwide weather events are not an increasing “crisis”. The reverse is true: there is almost no significant trend in severe weather events and deaths from them are at a record low.

Yet Emergency Services Minister Murray Watt has sensationally told flood victims in Fitzroy Crossing that the floods there are evidence of climate change happening before our eyes.

In every weather event, these spineless politicians prey on flood victims and tell them an odourless, tasteless, invisible non-toxic trace gas is the reason their home was washed away. It’s a blatant lie for their own political gain.

When we only go back over a short period, records are broken every day. For almost every ‘record’ flood there is evidence of a worse one in the early 1900’s or 1800’s or earlier.

Shame on Murray Watt for dishonestly preying on these victims of natural disasters to push his climate change ideology.

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen’s nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no ‘government’ of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.


Great Reset: Siemens Chairman Calls for ‘Billion People to Stop Eating Meat’ at World Economic Forum

Great Reset: Siemens Chairman Calls for ‘Billion People to Stop Eating Meat’ at World Economic Forum

One billion people should stop eating meat in order to save the climate, the chairman of the largest industrial manufacturing company in Europe told a panel at the World Economic Forum.

Danish businessman and chairman of the German manufacturing giant Siemens, Jim Hagemann Snabe pushed the Great Reset agenda of replacing meat with synthetic proteins at a “Mobilizing for Climate” panel at the annual globalist meeting in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday.

“If a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact. Not only does it have a big impact on the current food system, but it will also inspire innovation of food systems,” Snabe said, adding: “I predict we will have proteins not coming from meat in the future, they will probably taste even better.”

“They will be zero carbon and much healthier than the kind of food we eat today, that is the mission we need to get on,” the Siemens boss continued.

The German multinational conglomerate has been a central figure in the so-far disastrous green agenda in the economic heart of Europe, which has left Germany vulnerable to the machinations of global politics, namely Russia’s war in Ukraine. However, the push towards an allegedly greener future has seen Siemens criticised for its alleged ties to the forced labour system in the Communist Chinese concentration camp region of Xinjiang, which is a leading producer of solar panel components.

Despite Seimens’ own sordid history of using forced labour during the reign of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party, the current CEO of the company, Roland Busch, said last year that the EU should not pressure Beijing over forced labour as it might stall the progress of the green agenda.

The World Economic Forum has also been at the forefront of the meat-free future movement, arguing that people should opt for more “climate beneficial foods” such as algae, seaweed and cacti.

The Klaus Schwab-founded organisation that pioneered the idea of a “Great Reset” of capitalism, has also promoted the idea of eating insect protein rather than meat to lessen the impact of supposedly man-made climate change.

It is questionable, however, how much impact a move away from meat would actually have on carbon emissions. Danish climate Bjørn Lomborg has previously noted that studies have shown that should the average person in the industrialised world cut out meat from their diet it would only result in an individual emissions reduction of 4.3 per cent.

Yet this is likely a generous estimate, Lomborg said, as other studies have shown that because vegetarian diets are cheaper, a “rebound effect” has been seen, meaning that vegetarian consumers use their cash savings on other products that also drive up carbon emissions, thereby mitigating most of the supposed benefits of a virtue-signalling vegetarian diet.

Nevertheless, the anti-meat push has continued to be a central theme of the radical climate agenda throughout the West. Some, including researchers in the Netherlands, have even suggested that the economic crisis befalling the world could end up being a positive for the climate as people will have less money to spend on meat, flights, and driving.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka


Biden Blames Climate Change for Storms While Visiting California, Experts Disagree

Biden Blames Climate Change for Storms While Visiting California, Experts Disagree

President Joe Biden blamed the latest storms in California on climate change while visiting the damaged Golden State on Thursday.

Though California has been through a series of droughts and wildfires in recent years, during which the left cited climate change as the catalyst, the left now charges that climate change helped cause the rainstorms in recent weeks that led to mudslides and flooding in certain areas. The president said as much during his visit to the Seacliff State Beach along the Santa Cruz coastline on Thursday.

“If anybody doubts that the climate is changing, then they must have been asleep during the last couple of years,” Biden said.

The president said this while traveling with Deanne Criswell, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after arriving south of San Francisco where he was greeted by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

The Associated Press

A helicopter drops water on the Fairview Fire burning on a hillside Thursday, Sept. 8, 2022, near Hemet, California. (AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, File)

“California has really experienced some unprecedented storms,” Criswell told reporters.

Per Reuters:

Biden then flew by helicopter over other storm-stricken locations in Santa Cruz County, where flash floods, pounding surf and runoff from local mountains had forced thousands of residents to evacuate from low-lying communities.

He also paid a personal visit with residents and business owners along the waterfront in Capitola, where the picturesque coastal enclave’s wharf lay in ruins, then stopped in nearby Seacliff for brief remarks promising that FEMA teams would stay “until it’s all fixed and done.”

As many as 20 deaths have been attributed to the storms.

Interestingly enough, the Los Angeles Times actually argued the opposite of President Biden on Thursday, charging that the storms were not the results of climate change despite their severity.

“As California emerges from a two-week bout of deadly atmospheric rivers, a number of climate researchers say the recent storms appear to be typical of the intense, periodic rains the state has experienced throughout its history and not the result of global warming,” noted the Times.

The Associated Press

Rocks and vegetation cover Highway 70 following a landslide in the Dixie Fire zone on Oct. 24, 2021, in Plumas County, California. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)

“Although scientists are still studying the size and severity of storms that killed 19 people and caused up to $1 billion in damage, initial assessments suggest the destruction had more to do with California’s historic drought-to-deluge cycles, mountainous topography and aging flood infrastructure than it did with climate-altering greenhouse gasses,” it added.

Alexander Gershunov, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told the Times that scientists have not yet made the connection between climate change and the latest storm.

“We know from climate models that global warming will boost California storms of the future, but we haven’t made that connection with the latest storm systems,” said Gershunov. “Assuming that these storms were driven by global warming would be like assuming an athlete who breaks a record was on steroids.”

Mike Anderson, California’s state climatologist, said the atmospheric rivers were a reminder that a dry state like California can turn to instant flooding in the right conditions.

“Each of the recent atmospheric rivers were within the historical distribution of sizes of atmospheric rivers,” Anderson said, “It will take further study to determine how warming temperatures influenced the sequence or the sudden transition from dry to wet and soon back to dry.”



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)