A Pathway to Control
The one single reason so many in the climate science community oppose the theory of anthropogenic climate change is that it has never been proven to be true. That is a factual assessment and accurate statement.
In June of 1988, when the theory was first introduced into the record of the United S States Congress by James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, he may have truly believed in its veracity. However, in the decades that have ensued the theory has collapsed – all except for its persistent studies using climate change as a categorial absolute or given as well as an astounding amount of promotion and marketing.
During testimony, Hansen’s predictions for record high temperatures, drastic evaporation levels in the Great Lakes, and even lower Manhattan being underwater in 30 years due to rising ocean water levels have all been failures. His subsequent prediction of an ice-free Arctic and Greenland has certainly crumbled. As a point of Interest, the Arctic sea ice remains significantly higher this summer than at any time in the last 10 years. Sea ice is now accumulating and the CO2 coalition writes about the matter here along with corresponding graphs. Hansen is now more of an activist and protestor, even being arrested by US Park Police for unwarranted trespass. To err is human, but to admit being wrong must be, I suppose, superhuman.
Climate change is akin to the movie “Independence Day”. In the movie, humans joined together in a determined and concentrated effort to combat the evil of invaders from outer space. With alien aggressors highly unlikely, what could be used as a surrogate to fulfill the role of the diabolical worldwide villain?
Well, carbon dioxide of course. Most worthy is that humans contribute to its emissions, in many ways, albeit in minute values, but mainly through the global production, refining, and use of traditional fossil-fueled energies and had been doing so, up to the year 1988, for a century. Further, if these emissions can be certified as dangerous and harmful, the ruling class can put forward a human-contrived cure while profiting handsomely and most importantly achieving the ultimate dream of power and control as the rescuers of the world.
Climate advocates are infatuated with ‘consensus’ science declaring that the vast majority of those in the discipline of climatology believe in anthropogenic climate change. There never seems to be a definitive number of advocates, but they argue fervently on the validity of the Global Warming Petition Project or OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) Petition Project which shows quite an extensive number in the opposition.
The authenticity or certainty of the OISM should make no difference and not be a point of attack if global warming was so absolute, conclusive, and convincingly true, or should the requirement for a non-science like ‘consensus’ play such a considerable and significant role in the obsessive marketing of the theory to the public.
The other expression that advocates love is “settled science”, a hollow term meant more as a false authoritative rather than a factual certainty. There is nothing in science that is settled. Empirical falsification or once a single test that cannot replicate a theory or hypothesis immediately falsifies or disproves that theory or argument.
Activists love to invent words or expressions. The fabrication of consensus or settled science led to changing global warming to climate change to ensure applicability or relevancy of blame to all weather conditions and weather types. However, in the discipline of marketing and advocacy, they simply sounded too benign, so “climate crisis”, “climate emergency” and “environmental Armageddon” came to be. For greater force and efficacy of fear, carbon dioxide or CO2 was rebranded to carbon, greenhouse gas, or toxic greenhouse gas. Global warming is now global heating.
Even the word ‘existential which is now routinely put forth as the threat describing the end of times because of climate change became the 2019 word of the year in dictionary.com. Its use was so widespread it came to be employed in all manner of identity politics including racism, white supremacy, CRT, and all of the other anomalous social ills persuading vast division of society as well as fostering tribalism.
Again why did these terms need to be modified if global warming was factual, provable, and irrefutable?
No longer do we see research studies exploring and establishing the actuality or legitimacy of climate change. Instead what we constantly hear are natural disasters and adversities of weather that are continually put forth as sure signs of human-induced climate change. Yet, the fictitious screams of more storms of every type, floods, droughts, wildfires, and their intensities do not get any truer, just louder. The oceans have risen certainly, but at a minuscule pace ever since the end of the Little Ice Age of the mid-1800s and are not flood-capable as the climate campaigners would have you believe.
The advocate scientists then reach for their computer models – the good old reliable mock-ups and representations that show warming temperatures becoming more heated and balmy into the future and at exceptional rates. However, we find that the older computer models now reaching reality have not held suit as the advocates would like.
The manipulation and massaging of raw temperatures are suspect as are the urban heat islands coming ever closer to weather stations that record the temperatures. A recent survey in the United States showed that 96% of weather stations did not meet standards set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Almost all the studies now give us grave and grievous representations of life in the future where crops fail, mass migrations of people flood from the south, and diseases and illnesses spread and become uncontrollable. Life expectancies will falter and impoverishment will prevail. But despite the grim and gruesome forecast and repugnant outlook on us by climate change activists, people still want to believe in it as if science will magically and mystically come up with a remedy and save everyone.
Why do advocate scientists refuse to debate the opposition? They allege that giving climate change opponents a seat at the debate table gives the adversarial scientists credibility. What it does is remove any integrity and credibility of the timorous advocates. The number of times the opposition has asked for a debate is many – with rejections constantly arriving.
So here we are at a bit of a precipice in the battle and it seems despite the lack of proof, the deficiency of physical evidence, the shortcomings of truth, and the scarcity of rightful transparency, the eco-politicians are deciding to go full-speed with unworkable, inefficient and incompetent options. Honest economists worldwide have long said that going to a Net Zero program will have costs for governments (taxpayers) and individuals spiraling out of control.
The promotion of climate change has given us unaffordable petroleum prices and influenced soaring inflation and supply chain obstruction. It has provided unsightliness throughout the country with acres and acres, sometimes, miles and miles of bird-killing solar panels and windmills – intermittent, unreliable, and unstable. These cannot compete with traditional fuels and require the mass manufacture of gargantuan battery facilities. Mining for minerals for these batteries is an absolute necessity, yet environmentalists don’t approve of that either.
It has created significant unemployment, especially in rural areas where long-winded politicians assume workers want to sit at a desk and learn to churn out computer code. It has instigated war – Russia’s attack on Ukraine was made possible by the European reduction of fossil fuels making the reliance on Russian fuels necessary. Putin knew they had the potential foe, and their closest allies at their weakest and at their mercy.
Extracting supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not help everyday Americans instead it diminishes the stability and strength of national security. Producing more ethanol from corn simply raises the price of food - much of which is beginning to be in short supply. Quantities of fertilizers are dwindling to the point crop failures are becoming a reality.
We have governments insisting on exorbitant building codes, a transition to very expensive heat pumps, and suggesting single-family homes are now a thing of the past. Insects are being introduced as a substitute for beef and other proteins. The livelihoods of the rancher and those in rural communities matters not.
The entire nation is now expected to behave like California and have rolling blackouts or rotational load shedding continuously. Is this to happen in the winter when people in the northern climes will be in absolute peril? With politicians shuttering fossil-fueled energy plants there will be no backups when the renewable energies fail – and they will fail and falter and fail again.
Climate advocates do not have compassion or remorse for the impoverished and especially those living in destitute conditions in developing or third world countries. Globalist groupthink persistently deprives these people of reliable energy.
All of this and yet, China the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide gets very little attention from the eco-politicians and climate dissidents. Their ability to build coal plant after coal plant gets no criticism. Child labor in Chinese-controlled mines located in Africa is not chastised. Hollywood changes scenes in movies that may offend China and the NBA apologizes if someone condemns China for its flagrant slavery of Uyghurs.
As climate politicians continue to erode rights, freedoms, and traditional human privileges, using climate change as a deceptive conduit, we sit without challenge assuming they are righteous and true in this case and cause – climate change is simply a deceptive pathway to power and control.