Oxfam assessed NFC with puzzlement: “It has economic power, professional expertise, and close political support. It has a hands-on chief executive with local knowledge and ethical credentials. The company and its investors have clear environmental and social standards they commit to uphold, and corporate social responsibility and accountability principles are embedded at the heart of its operations.

“Given all this, how is it possible that thousands of people in affected communities have alleged that land clearances, which have taken place to make way for NFC’s operations in Uganda, have been accompanied by distress and violence, and have left many in a state of poverty?”

The objective, according to the authors, is that these engineered “norms” must work their way into existing ones so finally environmental policies will be accepted without reserve. A sustained campaign, in other words, with government and scientists working together as to gradually create changes in behavior so environmental policies will be more easily accepted over the course of some time.

A recent report out of England is a perfect illustration of the thesis that a major component of the modern environmentalist movement consists of religious worshipers of a decidedly peculiar pagan proclivity, to wit, worshipers of Thanatos, the god of death.

Taken together, these campaigns to deny billions of people the means to a decent existence have racked up a death toll exceeding that achieved by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any of the other tyrants whose crimes fill the sordid pages of human history. It is ironic that the perpetrators of this holocaust have chosen to affix the term “deniers” to those who refuse to endorse their proposal to radically expand it via a global program of mass human sacrifice for the purpose of weather control. In fact it is they, who call upon us to harden our hearts to “the inconvenient truth” that allegedly requires such suffering, who are the real new deniers; deniers not just of a past holocaust that rightfully commands our grief, but a present one, whose desperate victims still plead for our action.

Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

Anyone who expects me to pay attention to these current dire predictions needs to explain why things are different this time. After the long list of faux ‘last chances’ that have come and gone why would I imagine that, suddenly, green activists know what they’re talking about?

Why would I imagine that my chain isn’t being jerked once again by a gaggle of self-aggrandizing, childish minds?

That’s what you call a busted flush. The cost of fixing the damage is $500,000 and the school will install 200 traditional, water-efficient urinals instead.

It’s not easy being green.

So you see, by their own measure these apparent green warriors are actually the worst sort of climate criminals -- why, the very breath puffing from their mouths, visible and vaporous, was bursting with poisonous CO2, even as it carried honeyed words of environmental concern. Imagine!

It just goes to prove what I have said all along -- environmentalists are terrible for the environment. For another example just look at the green movement's desperate effort to kill TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

This is the crowd that brought the massive waste of debt forgiveness, Make Poverty History and the Clean Development Mechanism. Brown has suggested a global tax to raise even more money for aid and the environment. Tell that to the Greeks and the Irish.

This is the crowd plotting the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (or Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro where even more promises will be made with money that does not exist. They want to "mobilise investment at scale by the banking and investment sectors into the clean energy sector, renewable energy, green buildings and retrofitting, clean vehicles and fuels". You will pay for this.

The farce is that even on its own terms, the combination of green activists, corporate capitulation and UN mischief-making moves the world further from the possibility of coping with issues such as climate change and poverty.

If they can so easily switch from climate change to public health, you have to wonder if climate change was ever the issue and if public health is the real concern now. Why is it that the powers that be are so set on raising the cost of energy—through whatever means seems publicly viable?

The obvious answer is something not palatable to most Americans. Which brings up the next question: What can we do to stop them?

Convincing the CWMs [Conservative White Males – Ed.]is impossible, their sense of freedom is too strong to delude them into our vision. The only way to implement the necessary changes to halt the Anthropogenic Climate Destabilization Crisis and end the free market is by more aggressive means. We have to dismantle the system that enables them to destroy the environment from the very ground up. That means doing away with the archaic, inefficient, and exasperating constitution. That means re-educating the children with the state as their surrogate parent, barring the family from swaying them away from our cause. That means prohibiting the rabid Christians from polluting society with their climate denying, racist, homophobic poison and doing away with Judeo-Christian values in lieu of moral relativity. This will allow us to justify any means to save our planet from the deniers and corporate robber barons.

For Heidegger, what needs to be done is to destroy western philosophy and its Judeo-Christian handmaid. Even after the war, Heidegger's philosophy was aimed point blank at the overthrow of traditional western philosophy/religion in order to save the planet. With its transcendental emphasis upon mind, thinking and thought, both western philosophy and the Judeo-Christian worldview elevate 'rootless' rationalism and/or faith over the reality of natural existence. As far as Heidegger was concerned, this has led modern, western man into an inauthentic lifestyle contrary to the natural world grounded in what Heidegger calls 'being.'

If California is to work again for those outside the yammering classes, some sort of realignment with economic reality needs to take place. Unlike Iran, California does not need a regime change, just a shift in mindset that would jibe with the realities of global competition and the needs of the middle class. But at least with California we won’t have to worry too much about national security: Given the greens anti-nuke proclivities, it’s unlucky the state will be developing a bomb in the near future.

Wowsers (We Only Want Social Evils Remedied) are traditionally as Australian as meat pies and Holden cars.

They were responsible for Australian institutions such as the six o'clock closing and the shutting of shops on Sundays.

One would have thought that they had receded into the annals of history as Australians became more liberal on these sorts of issues. Shopping is now very much a Sunday experience and Australians are used to the idea of civilised drinking.

But wowserism has never really gone away and, like any great tradition, has bided its time waiting for new opportunities. It has simply changed its spots. Once it had a strong religious colouring; now it is taking on an increasingly secular tone.

The WBGU compares the decarbonization of the global economy to the Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution. It is wrong to claim that such a deliberately planned and radical transformation of economic and social systems is without precedent.

At least partial models of such transformations are the industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s, or the "Great Leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution” in Mao's China.

The sentence handed to us by our judges is a series of emergency and longer-term measures that humanity must observe if we are to survive. Many of these demands are familiar noises about ‘avoiding dangerous climate change’, meeting Millennium Development Goals, and increasing the efficiency of productive activity. But more telling is the demand for the ‘strengthening of Earth system governance’, which calls for a range of institutions to be created or given greater power to ‘integrate the climate, biodiversity and development agendas’ and ‘address the legitimate interests of future generations’. There’s also the call to enact a ‘new contract between science and society’, which will launch a ‘research initiative on the Earth system and global sustainability’, and ‘increase scientific literacy’.

One of the bodies we targeted was the wasteful and inscrutable Carbon Trust. Now the Guardian has reported that the organisation is losing its core funding, it will have to try and win competitive bids for specific projects like any other business or charity.

Justice Paul Heath turned down an appeal last Friday that Greenpeace could register with the Charities Commission after the body rejected its 2010 application.

Justice Heath said Greenpeace’s political activities can’t be regarded as “merely ancillary” to its charitable purposes and that the commission was correct in disqualifying it for registration over the potentially illegal activities.

Science appears to play a major role in environmentalism, but actually its role is distinctly secondary: Science is used subjectively, not objectively. After a set of beliefs has been established, various fields of science (and scholarly studies within those fields), are carefully sifted to select facts that support those beliefs. Facts and scientific fields that contravene or fail to support core beliefs are rejected or ignored.

That’s not the way science is supposed to work. However, it happens every day in environmentalism, as reflected in movies, magazines, blogs, television programs, newspapers – and legislative and regulatory initiatives.

Actually, I don't think the Greenie Zone economy will last five years, let alone twenty-five. An economy composed of politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and other politicized no-goods won't be very dynamic or productive, will it? The only things most of them are any good at - apart, of course, from emitting hot air - are lying, deceiving, thieving, victimizing people and evading responsibility for their actions.

Monbiot is not a racist. He is not even a neo-Malthusian. But in his eagerness to impose austerity on everyone, he gets taken in by the arguments of those who are. It’s why he earnestly believed the patently ludicrous claim that it took 100,000 litres of water to make 1 kilogram of beef, a risible claim that anyone not ideologically blinded would instantly dismiss as nonsense, as he himself was forced to do as 2012 approached.

It is the anti-immigrant and anti-human agenda of the people who warn of “scarce resources” and “too many people” that is the real danger, not the idle bravado and loose chatter of a bunch of guys on an internet chat-room.

Three blonde eco-zealous atmospheric scientists were walking through the forest when they came upon a set of tracks.

As with most criticism of environmentalism, it is often the reaction to it that reveals more than the criticism itself. What environmentalists lack in terms of a sense of proportion, they make up for with a sense of persecution. Monbiot, for example, claims that the movement was unsuccessful, not because it failed to capture the minds of the public, but because “we are massively out-spent by corporate-funded movements which have had hundreds of millions poured into them telling government and the media there isn’t a problem”, a claim which surely ignores the UK and EU governments’ environmental policies. He complains that Channel 4 has “broadcast a series of polemics about the environment … over the last 20 years”. He’s talking about three programs – “Against Nature,” “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and “What the Green Movement Got Wrong” – which occupied no more than six hours out of the two decades of near-continuous pro-environmental broadcasting – or brainwashing lying propaganda as some would see it.

What Lynas has realised, and Monbiot has not, is that sceptics didn’t undermine the environmentalists’ cause. Environmentalists were their own worst enemy. They have alienated the rest of society by their own uncompromising and human-hating outlook. Without “the precautionary principle,” alarm-ism, doom and catastrophe, and fraudulent claims to scientific certainty, what is environmentalism? The challenge for “environmentalists” is to emerge from this crisis of their own making into an era of growing scepticism, while keeping an eye on the consequences of their arguments.

Editor’s Note: Here’s one from our enemies.

“What Futerra’s been doing for over eight years is hot”.
So you’re the ones responsible for “global warming”? Heh, heh.

"Who is actually going to believe that environmental management is going to be better in Indonesia or Malaysia," Lennon says. The campaign "exposes the real agenda of Greens". "The Greens believe in shrinking the economy. We've found in Tasmania [that] they always find a way to oppose projects - they always try to slow down growth."

So you pay for campaigners to tell the Government that economic growth, rising prosperity for you and other Britons, is a bad thing.

There is nothing normal, balanced or reasonable about a programme – made at licence payers’ expense by Britain’s state broadcaster – to argue the case for replacing democracy with fascist tyranny. Let alone to present it in such a grotesquely biased way.

It’s no better than picking up on a remark by some fringe racist that “black people should be sent back to where they came from” and then inviting a panel including Nick Griffin and five other Neo-Nazis, plus a token Yasmin Alibhai Brown, to discuss whether this argument makes sense.

It’s true. The Warmists really are a malign and spleen-filled bunch. As of course you would be if the science was against you, the public were growing increasingly sceptical, and all you really had left to defend your cause was bullying and bluster.