The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor

After reading as many state climate change documents as I have there's one conclusion that can definitely be drawn:  these people want us poor.  I realize that this sounds dramatic but you kind of understand their position.  I don't agree with it, but it makes sense, if you think like them.  If you truly believe that pretty much all of human technological progress (cars, airplanes, air conditioners, farming equipment, etc.) is causing irreversible damage to the planet, then it would make sense that policies should be pursued and enforced that ensure humans are using less of these innovations.  Policies that discourage the use of technological innovations, though, have a direct effect in lowering our standard of living.

The fact that these climate change policies have a negative effect on our overall standard of living is not lost on the social engineers designing this system. The document titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000" published in 2003 details how the United States did not agree to an international plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, "citing concerns about the economic impact of reducing GHG emissions on the time scale required under the agreement."  This is a clear indication that there's an understanding among government officials that these Greenhouse Gas Emission reducing policies can have negative effects on the economy, and yet many of these policies are still pursued.

One easy way to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions is to charge people more money for things like gas and electricity, so that they use less.  In a 2007 state progress report on Climate Change the topic of gasoline consuming motor vehicles causing greenhouse gas emission is discussed and it's stated that "elevated consumer gasoline prices of mid-2006 indicate that increased fuel prices may act to restrain consumption".  They also attribute a 3.7% increase in bus ridership to this increase in gas prices.  See high gas prices are good for their agenda because high gas prices will reduce the amount of gas used,even causing some people to give up their car and use the bus.  Actually, increasing the cost of driving in general is good for their agenda.  As documented in part three of this series The War On Cars, they want us out of our cars and onto public transportation.

Even our ability to keep our house cool is under attack by the social engineers of this system.  A 2006 report bemoans the fact that "[t]oday, most homes are air-conditioned", saying "[t]he increased use of residential air conditioning adds considerable demand during daytime peak periods" and that "[t]hese peak periods coincide with unhealthy air quality days in the summer."  Suggested solutions to this problem include having your air conditioner connected to a "smart grid" that allows an outside grid operator to control your output.  The topic of the smart grid and smart meters deserves, and will receive, its own analysis in the near future.

The way that we heat our home is also being manipulated, creating an extra financial burden.  In a 2013 document put out by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) it discusses the topic of people who use oil or propane to heat their home, and laments the fact that oil and propane home delivery services are not regulated by the state.  The DEEP recommends that policymakers consider a "dedicated fund supported by fuel oil and propane customers to provide robust efficiency programs" and that "oil and propane heating customers will need to be assessed higher co-pays for use of the State‘s electric efficiency programs."   In other words, tax you more money under the guise of "efficiency".

Being poor is also good for reducing solid waste generation.  In a 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health"  it is stated that "Connecticut currently is at or has surpassed the capacity to manage its own solid waste ".  It follows with the statement that "while the economic downturn has been positive for solid waste generation because people produce less solid waste per capita when the economy is poor, the eventual economic improvements will continue to strain capacity in future years."  Therefore, when people don't have money, they don't produce as much trash, and this is good for the environment, but if the economy improves, and people have more money, they will produce more trash, and this is bad.

Knowing that poor people are good for the climate change agenda, it makes sense that in 2014 when the state celebrated meeting their initial green house gas reduction goal, they credited "the economic downturn" as one of the instrumental factors in reaching that goal.

If we follow the path that these policy makers are creating to its logical conclusion, the majority of the world will be living in destitute conditions, with little to no technological innovations, similar to what we are told is the living conditions of the average citizen of North Korea.  Surely not everyone involved with propagating these climate change policies understands the disastrous consequences of such policies however that doesn't make the disastrous consequences any less likely to occur.  As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut

 

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) (Click here for .mp3 download of this analysis.)

President-Elect Donald Trump has apparently picked Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.  In a previous video I discussed how Trump had Myron Ebell, a well known "climate change skeptic", lead the EPA transition team, and speculated how this might reverse some of the disastrous climate change policies that have been propagated by the federal government.  Trump's pick of Pruitt is another good sign that there might actually be some change in the EPA's overreaching policies.  Pruitt hasn't fallen for the global warming scam saying that the climate debate is "far from settled", and even joined a coalition of state attorneys general that sued the EPA over their restrictive policies.    

Another good sign of this Pruitt pick is the group of people in Connecticut that this upsets.  All of the people and groups that for one reason or the other have been pushing this concept of smart growth, sustainable development, the anti-car agenda, etc., are all outraged over the new head of the EPA.

Governor Malloy put out a press release calling the Pruit pick "deeply unsettling", saying the pick raises many questions about whether the EPA will continue to support the climate change policies that Malloy has been instrumental in implementing in the state.

Even the Rockefeller-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that push the anti-car agenda in the state like the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) are worried, putting Pruitt in the "losers" section of their blog saying that he is "someone who has spent his career fighting environmental regulations for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry".

Another Rockefeller connected NGO pushing similar policies, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, called for the Senate to firmly reject Pruitt's nomination saying "[t]his isn’t just letting the fox into the henhouse, it’s handing the fox the architectural blueprints and a stick of dynamite."

The founder of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment is Fred Krupp.  Krupp is a very interesting character that deserves his own analysis, as he was actually on President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which was conceived in order to formulate recommendations for the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 in the United States.  Krupp is still very much active in the environmental movement as the President of the highly influential Environmental Defense Fund, and called Trump's pick of Pruitt to head the EPA "deeply troubling".

As I said in the previous video on this topic, while all of this seems promising, we have to wait and see.  The Trump presidency could just be getting rid of the whole climate change , green energy scam, and replacing it with a new scam.  I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open, and documenting as much as I can.  Thanks for watching, subscribe to the channel, and watch the related videos for more information.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

(download .mp3 here)

An important point that needs to be made when discussing Connecticut climate change policy is that it was not some grass roots movement that began pushing for climate change legislation in Connecticut but instead the push comes from the international level at the United Nations.  This fact can be easily documented by reading through the various Connecticut climate change papers and viewing the numerous citations to the United Nations and related organizations.

One early example of th e United Nations direction into Connecticut climate change policy can be seen in the agreement made in 2001 between the Governors of New England and the Premiers of Eastern Canada known as the "2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan".  In the action plan it is stated that "The ultimate goal [of greenhouse gas emission] mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  The UNFCCC would then go on to be cited multiple times in the Connecticut climate change papers .

Signatories of the 1992 UNFCCC have agreed to adopt policies that help fight "climate change", encourage the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere", and "promote sustainable development." (To get a better understanding of the UNFCCC read A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).) 

It should also be noted that at the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio where the UNFCCC was presented , another important UN document, Agenda 21, was also presented and accepted by President George Bush on behalf of the United States.  Even though, to my knowledge, Agenda 21 is not directly referenced in Connecticut Climate change documents, it is important to note because being a much larger and more detailed plan than the UNFCCC, it lays out a more specific agenda on how "sustainab le development" is to be carried out.  It is highly recommended to any interested reader on this subject to read A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action.

 The 2001 New England Governors agreement would go on to form the foundation of Connecticut climate change policy, and as just explained, its goal mirrored that of the United Nations.

The following year, 2002, the Connecticut Governor's Steering Committee met to further discuss the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as agreed to in the 2001 New England Governors meeting.  Important to note about this 2002 meeting is that it was held at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.  The Rockefellers have multiple connections to the United Nations, including donating the money for the land on which the U.N. stands today.  (For a more comprehensive analysis of the United Nations - Rockefeller connection check out the 4th part in this series titled The Rockefeller Connection, as well as the presentation titled The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection.)

In the paper which derived from that 2002 meeting, and several times after that, the organization ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Enviornmental Initiatives, is cited as a group working in Connecticut to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, several cities across the state have become members of ICLEI at one time or another.  ICLEI, today known as Local Governments for Sustainability, is a major non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been highly influential in spreading the concept of "sustainable development", and other United Nations programs, across the world.  ICLEI was founded at the United Nations and is cited in the United Nations program of action, Agenda 21, as one of three non-governmental organizations active in the field of propagating sustainable development policy.

Finally, we get to the "scientific" body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  State officials rely heavily on information put out by the IPCC to justify their "climate change" programs, citing their reports throughout the Connecticut Climate Change papers.  And of course, the IPCC was established by the United Nations.

Further connections could be presented, but the point is made.  Connecticut Climate Change policy is being influenced and ultimately directed by international organizations, specifically the United Nations.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Will President-Elect Donald Trump Put An End to Agenda 21?

(This is a video version of the following analysis.)

Under the guise of fighting man made climate change and reducing carbon emissions, the United Nations Agenda 21 program of sustainable development seeks to lower the standard of living of Americans.  These sustainable development policies have been, and are being, slowly enacted across the United States, including in the state of Connecticut, as documented by previous reports.  While the continuous march of this Agenda 21 program seemed to have no slow down in sight, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States may prove to be the ultimate hurdle for the success of Agenda 21.

Trump has been a big critic of the idea of man-made climate change saying he is not a "big believer", even calling it a "hoax" on multiple occasions.  This is huge as the whole Agenda 21 program revolves around the idea that the planet's climate is being severely affected by everyday human activity like driving cars or eating meat.

To further show that Trump is serious about putting a stop to the climate change hysteria, he reportedly appointed Myron Ebell to run the EPA transition team.  Ebell is a well known skeptic of the theory of man made climate change.  He has spoke in favor of Congress prohibiting any funding for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and once labeled the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an "organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response."

Even better than that, Trump has shown signs of shunning the UN altogether.  At a campaign speech at an AIPAC conference in 2016, Trump criticized the UN for its "weakness", "incompetenece", even saying that the UN is "not a friend of freedom".

While all of this seems promising, we can't start counting our chickens just yet.  Trump has a history of flip-flopping.  On the global warming issue, Trump and three of his children put their name to an advertisement in the New York Times in 2009 urging President Obama and Congress to take action on climate change.  Furthermore, contrary to his recent remarks about the United Nations, Trump testified in front of Congress in 2005 and said that he is a "big fan of the United Nations and what it stands for", though he then goes on to rebuke the United Nations for its incompetence.

Some would brush off Trump's past public positions as nothing more than a business man saying and doing what he has to in order to play the game.  While others would say that Trump is an opportunist with no real principles.  We are going to have to wait and see.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

In the first part of this series we discussed the question of whether man-made global warming was as factual as many of us are led to believe, and concluded that this was not the case.  In this second part, we are going to take a look at the different admissions made in the Connecticut climate change papers, as to the inaccuracies in their reporting and predictions.

Throughout the hundreds of pages of Connecticut climate change policy papers, the writers are forced to vaguely admit that the "scientific" information that they are presenting is not entirely accurate, and is subject to change.  In 2003, the state attempted to determine the level of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) produced in Connecticut from 1990-2000, and added the caveat to their findings that the process was "time and labor-intensive" and, as a result, "it was prohibitively difficult for states to produce inventories for more than one or two years."  In the same report it is stated that "[m]ethodologies for estimating GHG emissions are constantly evolving, and key conversion factors...change periodically in response to current scientific guidance."

Three years later, in 2006, they still did not have an accurate way to measure GHG levels, as they were forced to admit:

"The third barrier [to meeting 2010 GHG Reduction Goals] relates to the very tools and analytical methods used to assess current and future GHG emissions reductions. Some methods now in use are either not appropriate or very accurate when used to measure GHG emission reductions. This is due in part because the tools and methods developed to assess direct GHG emissions reductions either do not adequately account for indirect reductions (especially those for energy efficiency) or the assumptions used to verify the reductions are not as precise." [emphasis added]

Gathering accurate data continued to be a problem as exhibited in the 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health", put out by the Governor‘s Steering Committee (GSC) on Climate Change .  The GSC created an Adaptation Subcommittee, consisting of four working groups, to evaluate "the projected impact of Climate Change in the state."  The working groups stated that they could not make any specific conclusions using the data provided:

"All of the recommendations from the Adaptation Subcommittee workgroups centered on the need for additional research and monitoring programs to determine more precise risk, including the true financial risk of climate change. Many of the workgroups also found it difficult to completely account for all of the features in their assigned universe, prompting the need for further definition"

After making several specific predictions and scenarios of what may occur in the agricultural sector, as a result of climate change in the state, the report is forced to concede that "...it is difficult to accurately predict the many changes that will affect agricultural productivity in the next few decades."

Some of the statistics and predictions are presented in such a way that they can't be wrong regardless of the true income.  For example, they say that global warming will increase rainfall, but they also say that it will increase the frequency of droughts.

"Precipitation may increase by 5 to 10% by the end of the century. ...Droughts may increase in frequency, duration and intensity."

Therefore, whether there is massive rainfall, or a drought, these planners can refer back to their "predictions" and claim they were right, and that the change in weather is a result of global warming.

Finally, in the ultimate hedge on their predictions, the adaptation subcommittee essentially says that their reporting and predictions could be way off, and in the future, change dramatically:

"Change is the most certain element of our future climate. The climate impacts used in this report are based on the best available information at this time, but these projections will certainly change, and possibly very dramatically, as we gain a better understanding of uncertainties in the climate system (e.g., timing of melting ice sheets, tipping points, feedback loops). Therefore adaptation strategies must continuously evolve and flexibility will be critical."

So far in this series we have determined that not only is man-made global warming not a fact, but the way governments are measuring its supposed impact is not accurate.  In the next part in this series we will take a look at one of the changes that the state of Connecticut would like to focus on in its efforts to fight "carbon", and that is to force people out of their private motor vehicles, and onto public transportation.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?

(click here to download an .mp3 audio of this analysis)

The issue of man made climate change is affecting everyone, in ways most people do not understand.  I am not speaking in terms of the changes in the weather that may or may not be occurring, but the actions being taken by governments in response to what they believe is happening with the climate.  The state of Connecticut has been planning for, and implementing changes in response to, "global warming" since the year 2000.  These planned changes have been slowly transforming most areas of society including transportation, construction, and agriculture.

This is the first part in a multi-part series examining the various reports, action plans, and other official documents from the state of Connecticut, in relation to "global warming", or "climate change".  The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has a list of "several significant documents" that chronicle the agency's efforts to take action on climate change.  These documents will be cited throughout this multi-part series examining Connecticut Climate Change policy.

The first aspect of this conversation that should be examined is the idea that humans are having an effect on the climate by engaging in activities that increase carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.  The state of Connecticut has taken the position that "Connecticut residents have accepted climate change as undebatable" and that "[d]ue to the overwhelming supporting evidence [of climate change]...we have chosen not to revisit the validity of climate change debate."  Therefore, even when there are multiple critics of climate change science in the state, as evidenced by the public comment section of this 2010 Connecticut Climate Change report, the state has chosen not to even entertain debate on the issue.

State officials rely heavily on information put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to justify their "climate change" programs.  The IPCC has come under heavy scrutiny in the past, as there have been many documented errors with information put out by the organization.  Furthermore, the IPCC information cited by the Connecticut Governors Steering Committee in 2007 indirectly states that man made climate change is not 100% conclusive.  Quoting from that document:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Fourth Assessment report, stating that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations.” [emphasis added]

If the topic of man made global warming is truly "undebatable" with "overwhelming supporting evidence", then why did the IPCC use the phrase "very likely", and not "definitely" or "factually"?

The truth is that man-made climate change is not as factual as many people, and organizations, purport it to be.  There are many scientists, including "climate scientists", who do not agree with the notion that human activity is causing warming.  A popular meme that goes around regarding this topic is that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is real and man made", but this number has been shown to be false by various independent researchers and organizations.  Even if the 97% number was real, should it really matter how many people agree on something?  Isn't science based on reproducible results, facts, and not on consensus?

While this analysis may seem logical, many people are hesitant to take the scientific opinion from someone who is not a scientist, such as myself.  Therefore, when it comes to the topic of man made global warming, people should not only listen to the scientists constantly cited by mainstream sources who are perpetuating the idea that global warming is caused by human activity, but also seek out, find, and listen to, the scientists that hold a different view.  One such scientist, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has been very public in his disbelief in the prevailing "climate science".  Coleman made a presentation titled "There Is No Significant Global Warming", which presents many convincing arguments in his favor, that should be watched by interested persons. (video below)

Now that we have established that man-made climate change is not a "fact", in the second part in this series we will analyze the different Connecticut climate change documents, and examine the various admissions made as to the lack of accuracy in their calculations.  Stay tuned!

Ten Documentaries about the Occult, Anarchy, Government Propaganda, Corruption, the New World Order, and more

This is a random collection of ten documentaries, with my description of each.  I post a different documentary, every time I watch a new one.  To prevent the documentary page from taking an extremely long time to load, I create separate pages for older documentaries.  This is page 7.

The Boer War (1899-1902) - A Documentary Film (added 04/03/14)

This film is a quick 26-minute documentary about The Boer War in South Africa.  This documentary can give someone a quick overview of the history of The Boers, the people who began leaving the English coastal settlements of Africa, and moving inland.  Once gold was discovered in their new settlement area, the Boer area began booming, which caused Britain to look to become involved.  Eventually the Boers and the British began fighting.  The British put the Boers into concentration camps, and burned Boer houses, and farms, and destroyed cattle.  The average person, unless highly interested in English history, will not find this documentary to be very entertaining.

Homeless, Shoe-less New York Man, From Viral Photo, Confirmed To Be A Con-Man

Two days ago, I reported how I believed the picture (above) of an NYPD cop buying a homeless man shoes, that went viral, to be a publicity stunt. (Was The Photo of an NYPD Officer Helping A Homeless Man A Publicity Stunt?)  I also noted how there were rumors that the homeless man in the picture, is a well known con artist in that area.  Today, the rumors of the homeless man were confirmed.

The New York Daily News is now reporting,

"sources unmasked the homeless man as 54-year-old Jeffery Hillman, a petty criminal who has been arrested nearly a dozen times since 1983. Most of his 11 collars are for drug possession, but others include criminal mischief and public lewdness.

A police source said Hillman is often seen strolling barefoot in the area and suspect it’s part of a scam to squeeze donations from tourists. Hillman, who last lived in a Harlem YMCA in April, could not be reached Friday for comment."

On Friday, I reported on the man:

How about the homeless man?  What is his story.  Well one website is claiming that this "bum" is a well known con man in that area, and claims "The guy sits around, as homeless people tend to do, only he's shoeless. All day long, unassuming good Samaritans and tourists buy him socks and fresh kicks. Then, after the do-gooder walks away—feeling like Johnny Philanthropist—the homeless dude takes the socks and shoes back off, stuffs them in his bag that's BRIMMING with other shoes, and begs for more. He then go on to tell me that this goes on EVERY DAY."  The website even posts a picture of a man with no shoes, who they claim is probably the same guy, shortly after this whole incident.  

Now we just have to sit back and wait for the rest of the story to be a confirmed hoax, because while The New York Daily News still reports the police officers act of kindness to be authentic, I believe otherwise.

(UPDATE: The New York Times found this man, still shoe-less, and he now says he wants "a piece of the pie" because the photo was posted online "without permission."  Also, The New York Daily News now finds that the homeless man is actually not homeless at all. For the past year, Jeffrey Hillman has had an apartment in the Bronx paid for through a combination of federal section eight rent vouchers and Social Security disability and veterans benefits)

Was The Photo of an NYPD Officer Helping A Homeless Man A Publicity Stunt?

This photo has gone viral, and has made front page news all over the country.  We are told this is a photo of an NYPD police officer who had just given a shoe-less, homeless man a new pair of boots.  We are also told that this photo was taken by a tourist from Arizona, visiting Times Square, who just happened to capture the apparent act of generosity on camera, and then sent the picture to the NYPD, who posted the picture on their Facebook page.

While watching the various news video interviews of Officer Larry Deprimo, the police officer in the picture, I noticed a few interesting things about this whole story.  First, in the different interviews conducted, Officer Deprimo always has a new part of the story, that makes this story seem more and more "movie-like".  In one interview Deprimo claims he heard people laughing at the homeless man with no shoes, and that prompted him to go into a shoe store and tell the clerk, "I don't care about the price, gimmie whatever it is, that you have the best of!"  In another interview Officer Deprimo talks about how he had two pairs of socks on, combat boots, and his feet were still freezing, which made him feel more sympathy for the shoe-less, homeless man.  Deprimo also claims to have, afterward, offered the homeless man to come and "grab a cup coffee" or get "something to eat", to which the homeless man supposedly declined, and replied with "I love the police."  Also, the lady who took the picture, claims that the officer didn't see her taking the picture, and she just snapped the flick and left.  She says she didn't say anything to the officer, but still managed to get the picture to the NYPD.  If you were writing a script, it couldn't come out much better than this. 

Now let's examine the facts.