Help to save our global habitat from becoming a bigger nightmare. From there, we can restore the planet to some semblance of balance.
Human carbon burning has and continues to destabilize the ecosystem for humanity. If we continue without rapidly curbing the burning by a worldwide, coordinated, crash-program to switch to non-carbon-burning sources for our energy, we will reap the whirlwind of gigantic climate instability. We, and our posterity, will not easily be able to count on the natural system to provide.
We often hear the capitalist remark how investor confidence is poor because investors can't depend upon a stable investing-climate. Well, farming and all other sectors of society will continue running into the exact same concept concerning weather. Humanity will either change and do it soon to the easier fixes, the least expensive fixes, such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc., or it will be gambling as never before that radical, as yet unproven, highly invasive technologies with myriad so-called, negative side-effects, or what the capitalists euphemistically term "externalities" (as if humanity can ruin the great outdoors globally and simply insulate itself in an artificial bubble any time soon or even soon enough to avoid at least near extinction), will solve the problems — come to the rescue. What kind of Hell are we bringing forth? Let's not roast our progeny in the Hell of our own making.
In order to swing the pendulum back to a sane trajectory concerning Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), which warming is the reality, Al Gore, the man the AGW-deniers, especially professional AGW-deniers, love to demonize, has spearheaded The Climate Reality Project. It is my understanding that for 24 hours, The Climate Reality Project will feature every timezone on the planet one at a time and for one hour each, circling the planet in one day. Each timezone will hold a panel discussion and more, and the contents will be live-cast around the world. Perhaps though the panels will last longer than an hour, and the program will go back-and-forth from panel to panel and presentation to presentation. We shall see.
To heighten awareness, to gain as much exposure to the unfolding reality of Hell on Earth if we don't act and act soon, The Climate Reality Project is requesting people to authorize The Climate Reality Project Applications on their Twitter and Facebook accounts. People familiar with Facebook apps, such as all the games on Facebook, will be familiar with the authorization process. They trust Facebook apps (within reason), and The Climate Reality Project Facebook app functions under the exact same rules as those other apps. The same hold for Twitter. Many Twitter users have authorized applications to access their Twitter information for a whole host of reasons. I can think of few that are better than allowing The Climate Reality Project to post a few tweets every hour or so from September 13th to the 15th, 2011. After the 15th, those apps can be disabled via Facebook and Twitter account settings. It's not difficult.
Read the appeal below, and allow The Climate Reality Project apps.
The Climate Reality Project
You are our voice — and we need you now more than ever. On September 14, starting at 7 p.m. Central Time, we will broadcast the reality of the climate crisis from around the globe for 24 hours straight. And to make sure this event gets the attention of the world, we need you to lend your voice to the cause.
Specifically, we would like to share your Twitter and Facebook influence. We have created an innovative tool that allows you to donate your accounts to the cause. If you choose to donate, we'll be able to access your account to help you post information about the event to your friends and followers. Your donation starts on Sept. 13 and ends on Sept. 15 when the event is over.
Click below and authorize us to share our updates through your accounts.
Don't worry — we won't have access to any of your personal information. Your accounts will still work normally, and we will only post updates and important details a few times each hour. And if this whole thing doesn't work for you, you can revoke our access at anytime.
What you're doing is important. You're lending your voice to ours and amplifying our message. If we want to share the truth about the climate crisis, we need your help.
Donate here: http://climaterealityproject.org/#donate-network
If you don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, don't fret. Anything you can do to help spread the word is immensely appreciated.
Thanks for your help,
As for Al Gore, let me say that all sorts of lies and distortions have been circulated about him by the pro-carbon-burning crowd. Let me at least set the record straight that neither Al Gore nor his family ever had a controlling interest in Occidental Petroleum. Also, Al Gore's house's have been steadily upgraded to reduce Al's carbon footprint.
It is true that Al is spending carbon to reach the widest possible audience to help in reducing carbon burning and other methods of releasing into the atmosphere. It sounds hypocritical until you consider that those who seek to silence Al Gore are mostly interested in avoiding exactly what it needed, which is coordination in curtailing carbon releases by switching to non-carbon-based energy sources.
Consider it this way, if Al Gore gets his way, he won't have to be stuck in a carbon-burning world in order to travel the world or to reach people on the Internet. Travel and the Internet will be completely powered by sources the use of which will not increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
Look, we will all be thrilled if new technological advancements come fast and furiously enough to head off disaster, but why are we being asked to believe that that is the sole place where we should place our faith? We are being asked to believe that it is fine, if not good, to continue increasing the CO2 in the air and to just believe that technology to control that CO2 will be simultaneously used in time to avert catastrophe.
How many times have human beings cause their own catastrophes? How many wars have we waged upon ourselves? How many growing issues are facing us already where technological developments are being outpaced? When did prevention become a worse choice then toxic cures?
I don't profess completely to understand the mindset that believes that environmentalism is a gigantic hoax being perpetrated by the New World Order. There are evil-minded plutocrats in the world. Of that, have no doubt; however, the huge carbon fuel industries are controlled by many of those same plutocrats.
They want the "freedom" to ruin the planet while the getting for them is "good," and to Hell with posterity. They spend whatever it takes to get minds to come up with false narratives to dupe the masses while wrongly convincing those masses into imagining that it is the other side that is the greedier, more selfish side. It's amazing. They spin people into foolishness.
The Koch brothers have seen a great deal of coverage from the Environmental Movement. I started harping on the Kochs back when there were about three sites on the entire Internet pointing out their machine for manufacturing dupes for pollution, and yes, CO2 is a pollutant when it is put into the atmosphere in too-great quantities. CO2 is fine for humanity and the rest of nature when at the proper balance. Given too much though, it kills human beings and if released globally, will kill off huge swaths of nature.
There are anarcho-capitalists who have it in mind to let the Koch brothers do whatever the Koch brothers want vis-a-vis the environment. If we had continued down that path we were on before the revelation of Love Canal, if we had just allowed all the super-toxic sites to continue growing and growing, if we had just allowed all the dumping into Lake Erie (which was mostly dead and too dangerous to swim in), if we had not instituted the Clean Air Act, if we had not done all those things and much, much more, where would we be now? Would the world be cleaner because the capitalist marketplace would properly have discovered the right price for everything and the consumers of the world would have purchased all the right things such that everything would be better now, or would the Exxons of the world have gone right on ahead only much more unrestrained so that the world might already have become a choking, toxic soup where the extinction tipping-point is in the past?
Look, I'm not some mindless conformist to a duping ideology. I don't score 100% on the leftist score card (whatever that is). I agree with plenty of the points raise by a good number of capitalists. There have also been "leftist" mega-polluters, although I believe they were mostly lefties in name only and that under the surface, they were nothing more than selfish, greedy opportunists, but I will be severely digressing here if I go into that in this post.
My point is simply that it is a fools errand to be in bed with the anarcho-capitalist ideology, lock, stock, and barrel, just as it was, and remains, a fools errand to be in bed with Bolshevism. I happen to be a Christian, which can be neither a capitalist nor Bolshevik. Again, though, I'll be digressing if I go into that right now. I do, however, hope you will be interested in that enough to delve into this site and to help with the Commons.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)