Chief Climate-Scam Salesman 'we're talking shit, and WHAT bitches!'

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has been under fire since a report from the charity the WWF was used to make claims about reductions in ice on mountains.

In particular it included the erroneous claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. It was said to be 300 years out and led to accusations that the organisation was cherry-picking evidence to justify its claims.

Comes as no surprise to those who haven't forgotten the 'we need to do whatever it takes to scare people into believing us' quotes from the IPCC.

In a hearing at the InterAcademy Council, an organisation of the world's science academies which is conducting an independent review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri described the inclusion of the glacier claim as "human failure" which should not have happened.

What is he saying, that humans can fuck things up! Like build dodgy computer models and cook books! Amazing, never knew that.

But the IPCC's chairman said there was a need to use information which was not from peer-reviewed scientific journals, because in some places that was the only research that had been done.

He said the media and other sections of society had misunderstood the role of such information, labelling it grey literature, "as if it was some form of grey muddied water flowing down the drains".

Well, I'm no scientist, but if data cannot be checked for objectivity, integrity, transparency etc, then it hardly qualifies as conclusive does it? I thought that was the whole point of the Scientific Method.

This 'man-evil-killing-gaia' scam has trillions of potential dollars (and the world's private property) attached to it. How's that for motive for talking shit.

European Commission wants powers to vet budgets of the 27 member states

This is rich.

The unelected suits of the ‘United Federal Europe’ project want the powers to check the budgets of member states to make sure they don’t cook the books for their own benefit (ahem Greece ahem).

This, coming from the organisation so rank with corruption that it’s own accounts haven’t been signed off for the past 15 years in a row.

Now there are rumours that Germany wants to move back to the Mark, and dump that shitty Euro monopoly money, their fury at having their wealth stolen from them to fund the lifestyles of others is continuing to grow. Good for them I say.

Ahh I love the smell of chaos in the morning.

WHO Moving Ahead on Billions in Internet and Other Global Taxes

Nobody asked you. This is global government.

The World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations' public health arm, is moving full speed ahead with a controversial plan to impose global consumer taxes on such things as Internet activity and everyday financial transactions like paying bills online — while its spending soars and its own financial house is in disarray.

The aim of its taxing plans is to raise "tens of billions" of dollars for WHO that would be used to radically reorganize the research, development, production and distribution of medicines around the world, with greater emphasis on drugs for communicable diseases in poor countries.

The irony is that the WHO push to take a huge bite out of global consumers comes as the organization is having a management crisis of its own, juggling finances, failing to use its current resources efficiently, or keep its costs under control — and it doesn't expect to show positive results in managing those challenges until a year from now, at the earliest.

Fox News initially reported last January on the "suite of proposals" for "new and innovative sources of funding," prepared by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats, when it was presented of a meeting of WHO's 34-member Executive Board in Geneva.

34 members eh. Proposals from 25 people eh. And they want this to trump the property rights of billions. This is what Rockefeller called ‘a global government of bankers and intellectual elites to rule the world’.

Now the proposals are headed for the four-day annual meeting of the 193-member World Health Assembly, WHO's chief legislative organ, which begins in Geneva on May 17.

The Health Assembly, a medical version of the United Nations General Assembly, will be invited to "take note" of the experts' report. It will then head back with that passive endorsement to another Executive Board meeting, which begins May 22, for further action. It is the Executive Board that will "give effect" to the Assembly's decisions.

What it all means is that a major lobbying effort could soon be underway to convince rich governments in particular to begin taxing citizens or industries to finance a drastic restructuring of medical research and development on behalf of poorer ones.

What rich governments? Everyone is in debt to the same global corporate bankers that set up the UN in the first place. Debts that shouldn’t exist because governments should be printing the money, not private banks, but it’s all part of the scam.

The scheme would leave WHO in the middle, helping to manage a "global health research and innovation coordination and funding mechanism," as the experts' report calls it.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

This is what I’ve been saying all along. The global government will intended on essentially abolishing private property rights for the entire human race, which is then claims it will ‘redistribute’ according to need.

What does that remind you of?

The European Union

Consent must be given, it is never assumed

So there I was, thinking about the logic of the title statement. If a door to a house is open, does that mean you have consent to enter it? If a car boot is open, does that automatically mean you can help yourself to whatever is in it?

Of course not. This is one of the foundational pillars of a private property based society (i.e, a free society). Consent must be given. Now it should come as no surprise that the ever growing state seems to think it is above this basic rule (although nobody gave them consent to it). This little fact on its own should convince any and everyone that a revolution is needed. In a democracy the consent of the majority can override that of the minority. The truth is, there is no majority or minority. These are collectivist conveniences. There are only individuals. Only in a totalitarian, Marxist-style system can anyone (or group) demand the stripping of private property from another. Perfect for the ‘abolish private property’ mantra of collectivist ideologies such as socialism, communism, feminism and environmentalism.

I am about to opt out of this NHS corporate data mining project, called Summary Care Records. I have to opt out, because apparently the state was already decided that I want to opt in. They didn’t ask me obviously. Just like they didn’t ask me about bailing out banks and charging me the bill (illegal), going to war in the Middle East (illegal) and so on.

Consent is important, so are ‘rights’. They, like sunlight from the sun, are consequences of ownership. Simply put, you only have rights (consent is one) over things you own (such as yourself). Things you don’t own you have no rights over.

Simple isn’t it.

I don’t have the legal right to give you consent to enter someone else’s home and start eating out their fridge, any more than I can’t give you consent to have sex with that girl over there.

This applies to absolutely everyone. No one is exempt. It is the Great Equaliser. Socialist constructs like The Human Rights Act are not only disruptive to this logic, it is illegal (I’ll deal with this in another post). We are all equal in our rights over our own property and equally powerless over anyone else’s. Society, (from the beggar all the way up to the government) is composed of individuals. ‘Government’ doesn’t exist as a real thing, it is a virtual object that describes a group of individuals, nothing more. As such, the government should have no rights to assume consent of your property (your medical data, your organs or whatever).

They can’t do this because they don’t own you, right? I mean, if they did then you would be a slave in every meaning of the word. If they owned you, they would be able take money directly out of your pay check before you even get it. They could fine you arbitrarily, stop you from gathering as free people and protesting, ignore you when you actively reject government proposals, sell your private data to corporations, shoot you in the head because you ‘don’t look right’, pass laws purely for the purpose of taking more of your money, call you all racists and bigots for asking questions about changes in your local area, they can even sign you up to legal contracts so foreigners can tell you how you live your life and charge you hundreds of billions while they do it and even give voting rights to people who aren’t British. They could take the currency you have to use as payment for the use of your property (body) for production (provision of goods and services) and deliberately devalue it. They could borrow money from private banks that charge interest and demand you pay it.

Wait a minute…