DECEMBER 14, 2009. Many environmentalists don’t care whether manmade global warming is real. They see the Gore movement in a positive light because it fits their agenda.
Less heavy industry, low petroleum use, the potential return to “a better time,” in which simple living in nature triumphs over urban misery.
They don’t really care what the global warming science says, in its details, or how it says it or whether it is substantiated, fake, incompetent, or politically motivated.
What’s important is the overall vision, and whoever aids that vision, by any means, is invited to the party.
If Al Gore wants to live in his mansion and burn enough electricity to power a small town, if he and his cohorts fly to conferences in private jets that consume fuel like there is no tomorrow, who cares? Al is their friend. He’s on the right side of the overall issue.
If cap and trade, massive carbon taxes, wealth distribution among nations, new carbon billionaires are the means to the end, so be it.
All industry is evil, so suffering in that sector is perfectly acceptable.
IPCC, the UN agency pushing for a new global economy based on the notion of manmade warming, is a hero. It doesn’t matter whether the warming science is valid. It doesn’t matter how much political and economic control is placed in the hands of IPCC.
Toxic pesticides, looming water shortages, genetically modified food, giant agri-business rubbing out the small farmer, industrial pollution impacting health—these and other authentic problems stand a better chance of being resolved if manmade warming is accepted as fact.
If the sudden emergence of a new Nature religion, catching on like fire across the planet, could achieve the same results as manmade warming science and its political gunmen, then it would be all hail to the Goddess of Nature.
Agendas don’t care.
This is political realism.
This is the way the game works.
Holes in the ozone, a coming Ice Age, a sweltering planet, envisioned aerosol disasters, celebrities driving hybrid cars—there is no rhyme, reason, or logic to an agenda. There is only a pragmatic calculation about the result. What helps to bring about that result is good. What hinders it is evil.
If five or ten fake pandemics can place the fate of nations under the control of agencies that also promote, like the IPCC, coerced wealth distribution among nations, then these “pandemics” are good.
If medical researchers can badly assert that unstoppable epidemics are emerging out of rainforests, and therefore half the world’s industries must be heavily curtailed and air travel must be restricted on a more or less permanent basis, then these researchers are allies.
Of course, the environmental agenda, at its highest levels, has covert aspects. Oil producers see how restricting output can put far more money in their pockets. A few corporations that build nuclear power plants are licking their chops. They envision the day when most of the energy on the planet will stream from their reactors. (They still haven’t figured out how to get rid of the spent fuel rods safely, have they? Oh well.)
Personal and business taxes will rise to extraordinary levels. In fact, national economies will exist, eventually, under the umbrella of a global management system. “What is needed for all” will be determined by regulators. Production quotas and price controls will become as established feature of everyday life. The entrepreneurial spirit will become a dinosaur of a lost age.
Share-and-care collectivism will go global, and the masters of this system will, of course, care about nothing and share nothing, because, well, they are different.
For those who do care, the actual science behind manmade warming, which is the engine that is driving the next phase of this planetary collectivist revolution—what about the science?
Cracks and gaping holes emerged long before the recent release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. The emails confirmed these problems.
There was the pesky MWP, the Medieval Warming Period, which appeared to mirror today’s temperatures—in which case, industrial CO2 emissions couldn’t be blamed for modern warmth.
There were periods in which trend-spoiling temperature declines took place, and the watchword became: Hide the Decline. This admonition was echoed in the East Anglia emails.
Overall, charts showing a steady historical rise in Earth’s temperature were using a mixed cherry-picking strategy. Use raw temp data here, use averaged homogenized data there, use “proxy” data from tree rings there, etc. Eliminate annoying data. Lose data. Employ data in obviously invalid fashions. “Make a collage” that suits the objective.
The now-famous “Harry please read me” emails reveal the enormous frustration felt by a technician brought in to make sense of East Anglia temp data records. He found such a mess, he fell to his knees before the task. In other words, there was no way to reconstruct the data upon which the whole assertion of manmade warming was based.
The East Anglia emails revealed illegal efforts to thwart FOIA requests for temperature data, efforts to keep certain skeptics’ papers from being published in “top journals.” Eventually, Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia team, stated that reams of raw temp data had been destroyed. He claimed he could reconstruct this gigantic set, but the effort, he said, would be a waste of time, since the science was already clear.
Because vast numbers of separate temperature measurements had been made over many years, in many places, on land, sea, and air, there was no way to simply look at them and decide what story they told. Therefore, various models or systems had been applied to these measurements, in order to arrive at a coherent theory. But the models had never been subjected to real and free and independent peer review. A model is often just a complex structure built to spit out a predetermined result. Conclusion? The manmade warming models are not products of true science. They are methods favored by those who are already devoted to a claim of manmade warming.
In fact, how one actually chooses a valid model is a very thorny question, and to this day, the question is unsettled.
In any case, no model now in use is precise enough to make specific temperature predictions about next year, five years from now. Therefore, the basic test of any model—its capacity to make accurate projections which can be confirmed—is off the table.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com