Global Warming Politics
Anatomy of a takeover
The global warming agenda developed from a plan to control the resources and the people of the United States of America. The plan began in 1972 and has been carried out by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with significant help from American media.
The IPCC invites input from scientists. Then they change the words of the scientists to support the IPCC agenda. Then they publish a Summary Report for politicians and media. The politicians and media broadcast the IPCC position and claim the Summary Report represents a "consensus" of scientists. It does not.
Here is
a breaking news report:
A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be
distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a
huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of
dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new
taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and
complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon
taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.
Global warming is not about science or saving the planet. It is about taking away our wealth and our freedom.
The "world body" wants to take us over. If we accept the global
warming fiction then we are letting the world body take over
America.
Their
science is fictitious and they know it. But they continue to
brainwash us with it because they need brainwashed dummies to help
them accomplish their ultimate goal.
Recently, all government websites, even JPL, parrot the same global
warming hoax. These webpage promotions did not come from the
scientists. I believe they are the result of orders from the White
House. Don't believe government websites.
The Politics
of Global Warming
Remarks delivered at the 2009
International Conference on Climate Change
Written By: John H. Sununu
Publication date: 03/10/2009
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
We have gathered here to bring some reality and sound science into
the ongoing global debate on climate change and global warming. I
certainly am pleased to join this very distinguished assembly of
experts who have come here to confirm that the “debate on the
science is not over.”
Another Rush to Judgment
This is a very significant event because it will give focus to the
false underpinnings of the current international “rush to judgment”
and the calls for implementation of drastic policies to deal with
this rashly proclaimed “crisis.” My message today is to make sure we
recognize that no matter how effectively we deal with exposing the
errors and games behind that agenda, we need to know the battle will
never end, because it’s not really about global warming.
The global warming crisis is just the latest surrogate for an
over-arching agenda of anti-growth and anti-development. This agenda
grew and gathered support in the years following World War II.
One of the first issues to be celebrated as a crisis by these
reformers was over-population. That fad peaked in the ‘60s and early
‘70s. The bible of that cult, “The Population Bomb,” argued that
“... the battle to feed all of humanity is over” and claimed we had
lost the battle, claiming “ ... in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death.”
This clearly phony crisis was followed by warnings about global
climate change: Global cooling was going to lead to a new ice age.
But the best parallel to the current crusade, the real precursor to
the current “panic du jour,” was the computer model-based alarmism
of the “Club of Rome.” The Club of Rome’s claim that global economic
collapse was imminent because the world would soon “run out” of some
critical resources was a very appropriate precursor to the current
dire warnings. It too based its alarms not on any scientific
analysis of specific issues, but on a computer model. And like the
current call to action, their model was pre-destined to give the
result they wanted.
The criticism of the “Club of Rome” models by Resources For the
Future clearly applies to the Global Climate Models’ predictions of
doom. RFF pointed out that parameters with a negative impact were
programmed to grow non-linearly (exponentially in fact) and
parameters that mitigated negative effects were programmed to grow,
if at all, “only in discrete increments.”
In each of these false alarms, nature and technology spiked their
prophecies. The natural cooling period of the ‘50s and ‘60s turned
into the warming period of the ‘80s and ‘90s, and with the help of
increased C02, a plant nutrient, instead of mass starvation, we had
no problem growing enough food for the rapidly increasing world
population, and we continue to find and make more efficient use of
our other critical resources.
But the anti-growth, anti-development crowd are a hardy bunch. They
won’t give up. As nature switched from global cooling to global
warming, so did they.
It is quite easy to link virtually all of the principal proponents
of this overall agenda through a two- or three-generation
mentor-apprentice-mentor professional family tree. I don’t want to
go through a specific list of names. That has all been well
researched and reported by many of you here. But it is important to
understand that without this process of resonating self-acclamation,
such bad science and ludicrous predictions would long ago have
relegated them all to obscurity.
Make no mistake, their cast of characters may have expanded a bit,
but at the core, there is an unbroken lineage back to those
unbelievably wrong, unscientific prognosticators.
Their basic method of attack may be the same, but they have
certainly refilled their operations. They learned from the “Club of
Rome” episode. Since basic hard science is more difficult to bias,
they would resort again to modeling. And since critics will take the
time to examine their assumptions, they make the models big,
obscure, and full of complex feedback structures much too abstract
to debate in a public forum.
That all brings us to what has happened in the last 20 years, and
where we are today. It is worthwhile reviewing what has gone on over
the past two decades to give perspective and context to what is
taking place today.
Some Basic Facts
Let’s begin by summarizing what we did know then and what we do know
now. In fact, we don’t know as much as the media and the public have
been led to think we know.
Here is what we could include in an absolute fact base:
-
Over long periods of time climate changes
-
Over short periods of time weather changes
-
There have been relatively long periods of time when the world has been colder than it is now
-
There have been relatively long periods of time when the world has been warmer than it is now
-
C02 is a trace gas whose presence in the atmosphere can contribute to an increase in the absorption of thermal radiation
-
The increased use of carbon-based fuels has produced significant increases in the amount of C02 released to the atmosphere, though still dwarfed by natural sources
Also, there have been a number of identifiable periods of
temperature variability over the past century:
1.
Cooling in the ‘20s
2.
Heating in the ‘30s and ‘40s
3.
Cooling in the ‘50s and ‘60s and ‘70s
4.
Warming in the ‘80s and ‘90s
and cooling for the past decade
It was the warming period of the late ‘80s and ‘90s that provided
the context and the opportunity for the alarmists to argue that once
again we faced a serious calamity.
Climate Change and Public Policy
My own involvement with global climate change began in 1989 when I
was serving as Chief of Staff in the White House for the first
President Bush. The year before had seen the staged testimony before
the Congressional Committee that launched into the public
consciousness a fear of global warming.
In 1989 the pressure for drastic policy changes to respond to the
crisis began. Since some of those changes had a budget impact, Dick
Darman, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, came to
my office to discuss the issues. We both met with Allan Bromley, the
President’s Science Advisor, and we agreed to let some of the
leading advocates come in and discuss the science and the models
behind their concern.
In 1989/1990 the Global Climate Models were being run on computers
very much less powerful than those now available. Models were
relatively primitive. They had virtually no inclusion of
ocean/atmospheric interactions. When the alarmists came to see Allan
Bromley and me, I asked how they could believe results if they were
modeling climate without including, in any effective way, the
ocean/air heat and mass transfer. That shortcoming was required of
the models because of time step limitations imposed by the model
elements and characteristics.
They tried to argue the ocean wasn’t that significant because the
culprit was airborne CO2. I pointed out that the top couple of
meters of the ocean had a thermal capacity greater than the entire
atmosphere, and that the top 100 meters of ocean were generally well
mixed and that the heat and mass transfer coupling at the interface
was truly significant. All this meant the air/ocean interactions
were a major driver of reality. When I suggested they could confirm
the critical significance of the ocean in a one-dimensional model,
they suggested we didn’t understand how complex the issue was. They
were still determined to use their faulty models to influence
policy. Only in recent years have they been able to begin to model
the significant ocean contributions within the models. But they are
still far from being able to handle the reality of nature.
Our response to their call for policy change in 1989 was to point
out that their models should be supported by good science, and that
in order to get good science, we would provide a very substantial
increase in funding for global climate research. I believe we raised
it from a couple of hundred million dollars to what was then
considered a huge level of funding: $1.5 billion. We believed that
level would support some serious research to clarify all
perspectives of climate change.
Over the years, the anti-growth lobby has used the global warming
issue very effectively. They have received even more significant
levels of funding. One estimate puts the U.S. contribution to
climate research today at $10 billion per year and climbing.
Unfortunately, the alarmists have effectively captured the funding
allocation process.
An important question to ask now is: What have we gotten for that
investment? In my opinion, surprisingly little. Of course, the
computing capacity has been increased, and the models have become
bigger and more complex, and they have been able to include better
detail in some of the air-ocean interactions, but they still are a
long way from modeling detailed phenomena very well. And of course,
many of the most critical phenomena are still represented in the
computer models by an assumed interaction or feedback process.
And thus, the models are
still susceptible to the same predestination of results as was the
“Club of Rome” model.
Some Elements of the Science
This presentation is not intended to go into any of the technical
details of modeling, or of the science of climate. However, there
are a couple of aspects of those technical details which should, in
broad general terms, be understood by those responsible for policy.
These issues, in fact, are where we must be diligent in clarifying the
science and separating fact from myth.
One of these issues is feedback.
Feedback in climate systems is a regulating mechanism within the
climate system that dampens or enhances fluctuations, most
particularly fluctuations in temperature. If, for example, a climate
change that is produced by a slight increase in temperature will
itself further increase the temperature, that is positive feedback.
But if that temperature-increase-induced change will tend to reduce
the increase, that is negative feedback.
One visualization of the difference between positive and negative
feedback is to consider what happens to us when we take a shower. If
the water temperature is exactly what we want and doesn’t change,
feedback has no impact. But suppose the temperature drifts up a bit,
gets hotter. We reach over, and either turn the cold up a bit, or
the hot down a bit until we return to our ideal temperature. That is
how negative feedback stabilizes a system.
However, consider our shower with the faucets incorrectly marked,
the cold faucet marked hot and the hot marked cold. When the
temperature drifts hot, we may turn higher the faucet marked cold.
But this is really the hot faucet, and so the flow gets ever hotter.
If we try to correct temperature by turning down the faucet marked
hot (when actually this is the cold line) the water again gets
hotter. The more feedback response there is, the hotter and hotter
the flow gets. This is positive feedback.
If computer models represent critical phenomena in such a way that
the feedback is always positive, it is inevitable that with
increasing CO2 the result will be excessive heating.
There is just now beginning to be some closer examination of a
number of the feedback phenomena critical to the model results such
as cloud-climate feedbacks. Furthermore, we are beginning to
recognize that some possibly significant phenomena with strong
stabilizing negative feedback have been left out of the models. One
potentially extremely important such effect is the iris effect being
studied by Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT.
Another critical issue which deserves more serious, dispassionate
study is the basic carbon exchange cycle, which determines how much
C02 remains in the atmosphere.
We need better science to determine which phenomena actually
establish C02 concentration at any given time. It is virtually
accepted as given that a fixed fraction of anthropogenic C02 remains
in the air, even though the initial emissions and remaining C02 are
both extremely small fractions of much larger natural C02 fluxes.
This basic assumption makes inevitable the conclusion that C02
produced by man-made processes is responsible for the “great
disaster of global warming.”
Paradoxically, and very important to this concept of C02 driving
temperature, there is also a well-accepted data-set of global
temperature and C02 concentrations for the past 400,000 years which
shows it is temperature driving an increase in C02 and not C02
driving temperature. It is interesting to note how this contrasting
set of data is finessed in the alarmist rationalization of the
world. In essence, they
dismiss it with a self-serving phrase: “While carbon dioxide may
have acted as a feedback in the past, it is acting as a forcing in
the current climate.” No science, just rhetoric.
I have dwelt a bit on these two technical details because I feel
that they are among the least effectively understood issues that
deserve better scientific study and a better share of the climate
research budget for real, unbiased scientific examination, analysis,
and data collection. They are important because they are the
critical assumptions which virtually predestine the doom and gloom.
Return to Policy
But let me get back to the policy debate. In one of the only times
he has ever said anything that was right, Al Gore recently told the
American Association for the Advancement of Science “we have a
full-blown political struggle to communicate the truth.” His only
problem is that his version of science is more political than true.
As noted earlier, the alarmists have learned well from the past.
They saw what motivates policy makers is not necessarily just hard
science, but a well-orchestrated symphony of effort. Their approach
is calculated and deliberate. Remember the quote from one of the
most outspoken alarmists, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of the
doubts we have.”
They have used that strategy to execute an orchestrated agenda over
the last two decades:
-
Announce a disaster
-
Cherry pick some results
-
Back it up with computer modeling
-
Proclaim a consensus
-
Stifle the opposition
-
Take over the process and control the funding
-
Roll the policy makers
In the past, when they tried some of this on population explosion
and global starvation, or global cooling, or their Malthusian vision
of a world running out of resources, they were thwarted by nature
and technology. Over time, we are confident that nature will thwart
them again. Their computer model-generated output may give them the
result they want for press releases, but nature is not impressed.
Nature will eventually do what nature has always done. It will
respond in a self-stabilizing manner over the long term with
moderate variability over multi-decade periods and with occasional
significant variability over the short term.
But waiting for “eventually” to prove the alarmists wrong is not the
wisest course of action.
Unfullfillable ambitions to stifle growth will devastate a world trying
to deal with the complexities of economics, stability, and the
environment. Quality of life depends on access to energy. Noble
intentions about “C02-free” sources of energy are not sufficient, if
their agenda of eliminating coal as a source, and turning their back
on nuclear, are allowed to be part of our near-term policies.
The Challenge Ahead
So what is our challenge? What agenda do we define for ourselves if
we are to avert a policy disaster?
We need to recognize that for at least most of the next decade the
real battle will be to win over public opinion and influence the
policy makers.
Unfortunately, standing between us and the public most of the time
is the media. And the press seems to have bought the alarmist line,
hook and sinker. They thrive on reinforcing the alarms.
I am often asked about the press. The question is usually something
like “is the press biased or ignorant?” My answer is: Yes they are.
We have to try to deal with a long-term education process and a
long-term lobbying process.
And we have to keep working to make the science right and restore
integrity to the data-gathering process. This concern about data is
very significant. It is critical that there be real consistency and
validity in the observed data which define the state of climate, and
changes in the state of climate.
We are all aware of the games played with the data producing the
infamous “hockey stick” plot of temperatures.
We also know how many of you here worked hard with good, persistent
forensics and analysis to force the correction of the
misrepresentation that had been a showpiece in the early IPCC
reports. That kind of diligent effort and good science is a good
example of how we must continue to deal with specific issues.
The world-wide data collection network is also far from world-class.
There has been a lot written about the far-from-ideal locations here
in the U.S., and how the large loss of stations in recent years
makes comparisons across time questionable.
The best approach to assure honest consideration of reality in
developing policy alternatives would be to establish standards for
siting, and establish equipment and procedural standards for
collection, processing, and dissemination. This is the only way to
affirm data quality and reliability.
But most critically, in order for the science to be right there has
to be broader, less-restrictive distribution of research funds. In a
sense there has to be a “Fairness Doctrine” applied to the funding
of research and to the journal review and publishing of papers. We
have all seen and heard of the success the alarmists have had in
taking control of who gets funding, who gets published, who gets
acclaimed, and who gets demonized. We have started to address this
perversion of process, and have begun to overcome some of the
obstacles. And with nature affirming our belief, and confirming our
science, we will continue to make headway.
And, most important, we must work hard to communicate on these
issues in terms that can be understood by non-technical individuals.
We must remember we are trying to educate the public and policy
makers.
It won’t be easy. Nothing worthwhile is ever
easy. But it is certainly worthwhile to restore honest science,
valid science, and good data as the basis for good public policy.
Climate changes, but good science can explain it. That is our
mission.
John H. Sununu is president of JHS Associates, Ltd. and a former
partner in Trinity International Partners, a private financial firm.
He was commissioned chief of staff to the president of the United
States on January 21, 1989 and served in the White House until March
1, 1992. He became New Hampshire’s 75th chief executive on January
6, 1983 and served three consecutive terms prior to joining the
White House staff. In 2004 he co-chaired the Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board, Nuclear Energy Task Force. He has taught at the
Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Tufts University; served
Tufts as associate dean of the College of Engineering; served on the
Advisory Board of the Technology and Policy Program at MIT;
co-hosted CNN’s nightly “Crossfire” program; and helped establish
and served as chief engineer for Astro Dynamics Inc. He is a member
of the National Academy of Engineering.
Global Warning - by Václav Klaus
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/global-warning-by-vaclav-klaus/
Yes, Warning. Václav Klaus is president
(now in his second term) and former prime minister of the Czech
Republic. Born in 1941, he grew up under communist totalitarianism,
and well knows the methods used to curtail liberty and freedom of
speech. He has written over 20 books, including one on the dangers
of ‘environmentalism’, Blue Planet in Green Shackles.
In this
long post we let Klaus speak for himself with extracts from the
speeches he has given, including at climate change conferences,
where he sounds the warning about environmentalism, the new
eco-religion. Klaus is one of the few heads of state courageous
enough to blow the whistle openly on the environmentalist ideology.
He says
I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading
politicians who privately express similar views to my own, are
publicly silent.
As an
economist, he knows the huge danger that this ideology will bring to
our economies. It is interesting to note that until a few years ago,
whenever the G7 or G8 heads of state met there were huge protests by
anarchists, Marxists, and anti-capitalists, who wanted the
destruction of our society. Now that mainstream politicians have
adopted their agenda, there is no need any more for the protests,
because environmentalism will achieve their objectives of wrecking
our economies.
Klaus
warns
Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has
absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or the climate
itself. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with social sciences
either.
Environmentalism, not preservation of nature (and of environment),
is a leftist ideology…Environmentalism is indeed a vehicle for
bringing us socialist government at the global level. Again, my life
in communism makes me oversensitive in this respect.
Environmentalism is a movement that intends to change the world
radically regardless of the consequences (at the cost of human lives
and severe restrictions on individual freedom). It intends to change
humankind, human behavior, the structure of society, the system of
values — simply everything.
Environmentalism has become a quasi-religion…It is an ideology that
shares much in common with Marxism. Climate change is the new
recruiting strategy for the anti-capitalist, socialist, communist
army. They are both monolithic belief systems designed to suppress
human freedom…Propaganda on the false impact of global warming is
now being taught by so-called environmentalists to high school
students — just as virtues and correct thinking was taught under
communism decades ago.
They invoke the image of apocalyptic imminent danger in order to
trigger the need in others to have a savior — a messiah…The
constraints of political correctness are tougher than ever. They are
being enforced and only one permitted truth is — yet again — imposed
on us. Everything else is being denounced.
The following
remarks were delivered at the 2008 International Conference on
Climate Change, New York, March 4, 2008:
Each one of us has his or her experiences, prejudices and
preferences. The ones that I have are — quite inevitably — connected
with the fact that I have spent most of my life under the communist
regime. A week ago, I gave a speech at an official gathering at the
Prague Castle commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1948
communist putsch in the former Czechoslovakia. One of the arguments
of my speech there, quoted in all the leading newspapers in the
country the next morning, went as follows: “Future dangers will not
come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its
essence will, nevertheless, be identical — the attractive, pathetic,
at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name
of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of
its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his
freedom in order to make this idea reality.” What I had in mind was,
of course, environmentalism and its currently strongest version,
climate alarmism.
The insurmountable problem as I see it lies in the political
populism of its exponents and in their unwillingness to listen to
arguments. They — in spite of their public roles — maximize their
own private utility function where utility is not any public good
but their own private good — power, prestige, carrier, income, etc.
I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth,
the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the
ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology
for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of
the developing countries.
I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian
tenets and in their own megalomaniac ambitions, want to regulate and
constrain the demographic development, which is something only the
totalitarian regimes have until now dared to think about or
experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the
slippery “road to serfdom.” The freedom to have children without
regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights and
we have to say very loudly that we do respect it and will do so in
the future as well.
What I see in Europe (and in the U.S. and other countries as well)
is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking,
of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of cynical
approach of those who themselves are sufficiently well-off, together
with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic
nature of things through a radical political project.
This brings me to politics. As a politician who personally
experienced communist central planning of all kinds of human
activities, I feel obliged to bring back the already almost
forgotten arguments used in the famous plan-versus-market debate in
the 1930s in economic theory (between Mises and Hayek on the one
side and Lange and Lerner on the other), the arguments we had been
using for decades — till the moment of the fall of communism. Then
they were quickly forgotten. The innocence with which climate
alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media now
present and justify their ambitions to mastermind human society
belongs to the same “fatal conceit.” To my great despair, this is
not sufficiently challenged neither in the field of social sciences,
nor in the field of climatology. Especially the social sciences are
suspiciously silent.
UN Climate
Change Conference,
United Nations, New York, September 24, 2007:
Let me raise several points to bring the issue
into its proper context:
1. Contrary to the artificially and unjustifiably created world-wide
perception, the increase in global temperatures has been –
in the last years, decades and centuries – very small in
historical comparisons and practically negligible in its actual
impact upon human beings and their activities.
2. The hypothetical threat connected with future global warming depends
exclusively upon very speculative forecasts, not upon undeniable
past experience and its eventual trends and tendencies.
These forecasts are based on relatively short time series of
relevant variables and on forecasting models that have not been
proved very reliable when attempting to explain past developments.
3. Contrary to many self-assured and self-serving proclamations, there
is no scientific consensus about the causes of recent
climate changes. An impartial observer must accept the fact that
both sides of the dispute – the believers in man’s dominant role in
recent climate changes, as well as the supporters of the hypothesis
about their mostly natural origin – offer arguments strong enough to
be listened to carefully by the non-scientific community. To
prematurely proclaim the victory of one group over another would be
a tragic mistake and I am afraid we are making it.
4. As a result of this scientific dispute, there are those who call for
an imminent action and those who warn against it. Rational
behavior depends – as always – on the size and probability of the
risk and on the magnitude of the costs of its avoidance. As a
responsible politician, as an economist, as an author of a book
about the economics of climate change, with all available data and
arguments in mind, I have to conclude that the risk is too small,
the costs of eliminating it too high and the application of a
fundamentalistically interpreted “precautionary principle” a wrong
strategy.
5. The politicians – and I am not among them – who believe in the
existence of a significant global warming and especially those who
believe in its anthropogenic origin remain divided: some of them are
in favor of mitigation, which means of controlling global climate
changes (and are ready to put enormous amounts of resources into
it), while others rely on adaptation to it, on modernization and
technical progress, and especially on favorable impact of the future
increase in wealth and welfare (and prefer spending public money
there). The second option is less ambitious and promises much
more than the first one.
6. The whole problem does not only have its time dimension, but a more
than important spatial (or regional) aspect as well. This is highly
relevant especially here, in the UN. Different levels of
development, income and wealth in different places of the world
make world-wide, overall, universal solutions costly, unfair and
to a great extent discriminatory. The already developed
countries do not have the right to impose any additional burden on
the less developed countries. Dictating ambitious and for them
entirely inappropriate environmental standards is wrong and should
be excluded from the menu of recommended policy measures.
The
Competitive Enterprise Institute,
May 28, 2008, Washington D.C.
Klaus
discusses a theory of Josef Schumpeter (1883-1950), an economist,
who was born in what is now the Czech Republic. Schumpeter’s theory
is that capitalism will collapse and be replaced by socialism, but
not by way of revolution as taught by Marx. He believed that that
the very success of capitalism would lead to a fostering of values
hostile to capitalism, suffocating the intellectual and social
climate necessary for entrepreneurship to thrive. Capitalism would
give ground to forms of socialism by trends in parliaments to elect
social democratic parties of one stripe or another. He argued that
capitalism’s collapse will ensue as democratic majorities vote for
the creation of a welfare state, and place restrictions upon
entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist
structure. Schumpeter disputed the idea that the electorate could
really identify the common good. He argued that people’s ignorance
and superficiality meant that they were largely manipulated by
politicians, who set the agenda.
It should be made clear that we used Schumpeter’s theory of the end
of capitalism as an argument in our discussions with the exponents
of Marxist political economy and Communist ideology. For that
specific purpose – and I am sorry to say that – we did not have the
ambition to subject it to any serious criticism. We had,
nevertheless, some doubts about it already at that time.
Nowadays, we should pay attention to other factors and processes, by
means of which capitalism could be brought to an end, such as the
traditional, but in the current “brave new world” of postdemocracy
enormously expanding and growing disbelief in the ingenuity of man
and in the advantages of the market process. It is, of course, not
new because there have always been radical attacks on the market
system, but I see a difference now. In the past, the market was
attacked mostly by means of the socialist arguments and with the
slogan about “the immiseration of the masses”. Now, it’s been
replaced by a more dangerous slogan: the immiseration (or perhaps
destruction) of the Planet.
It has many similarities but one important thing is different. The
evidence that the people are better and better off (not worse off)
could have been amassed in a shorter time, in a time – to turn the
famous Keynes’s dictum upside down – when we all are not yet dead.
Now, it will take centuries to come up with a convincing proof that
the Planet has not been destroyed or does not find itself on the
brink of destruction.
The free riding this new horse is therefore much easier. The
ambitious politicians who try to mastermind the world and their
fellow-citizens have been dreaming for decades to find such a
marvelous, from reality immunized doctrine. Years or decades of cold
weather will not disprove it – to my great regret. It is almost
religious. My certainty that this ideology becomes the main vehicle
for the destruction of the free market was the main reason for
writing the book which was introduced here yesterday.
Schumpeter was, hopefully, wrong in his predictions. And, in
addition to it, he has been dead now for almost six decades. Al Gore
is, however, very much alive.
Hilton
Hotel, Portland, Oregon,
September 30, 2008:
During my visits
in the U.S. in the last 19 years, I made speeches on a wide range of
topics. There has, however, always been a connection between them.
They were all about freedom and about threats endangering it.
My today’s speech will not be different. I will try to argue and to
convince you that even the global warming issue is about freedom. It
is not about temperature or CO2. It is, therefore, not necessary to
discuss either climatology, or any other related natural science but
the implications of the global warming panic upon us, upon our
freedom, our prosperity, our institutions and our legislation. It is
part of a bigger story.
To be correctly understood, I am not against my country’s EU
membership (by the way, it was me who handed in the formal
application to enter the EU in 1996 when I was prime minister of the
Czech Republic), because regretfully there is no other way to go in
Europe these days. The recent developments in the EU are, however,
very problematic: we see and feel less freedom, less democracy, less
sovereignty, more of regulation, and more of extensive government
intervention than we had expected when communism collapsed.
As if this
wasn’t enough, in the recent years we came to witness yet another
major attack on freedom and free markets, an attack based on
environmentalism and – in particular – its global warming variant.
The explicitly stated intentions of global warming activists are
frightening. They want to change us, to change the whole mankind, to
change human behavior, to change the structure and functioning of
society, to change the whole system of values which has been
gradually established during centuries. These intentions are
dangerous and their consequences far-reaching. These people want
to restrict our freedom. It is our duty to say NO.
I know that its propagandists have been using all possible
obstructions to avoid exposure to rational arguments and I know that
the substance of their arguments is not science. It represents,
on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely
authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of
environmentalism.
It is important
to demonstrate that the global warming story is not an issue
belonging to the field of natural sciences only or mostly, even
though Al Gore and his fellow-travelers pretend it is the case.
It is again, as always in the past, the old, for many of us
well-known debate: freedom and free markets vs. dirigism, political
control and expansive and unstoppable government regulation of human
behavior. In the past, the market was undermined mostly by means
of socialist arguments with slogans like: “stop the immiseration of
the masses”. Now, the attack is led under the slogan: stop the
immiseration (or perhaps destruction) of the Planet.
This shift seems
to me dangerous. The new ambitions look more noble, more attractive
and more appealing. They are also very shrewdly shifted towards the
future and thus practically “immunized” from reality, from existing
evidence, from available observations, and from standard testing of
scientific hypotheses. That is the reason why they are loved by the
politicians, the media and all their friends among public
intellectuals. For the same reason I consider environmentalism to be
the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for
advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented
suppression of human freedom at this very moment.
The global
warming alarmists succeeded also in creating incentives which led to
the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking group. These
rent-seekers profit
·
from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide;
·
from constructing unproductive wind, sun and other equipments able
to produce only highly subsidized electric energy;
·
from growing non-food crops which produce non-carbon fuels at the
expense of producing food (with well-known side effects);
·
from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.
These people represent a strong voice in the
global warming debate. They are not interested in CO2, freedom or
markets, they are interested in their businesses and their profits –
“produced” with the help of politicians.
As I said many times before: the current world-wide dispute is
not about environment, it is about freedom. And I would add
“about prosperity and living conditions of billions of people.” To
avoid a disaster, “we should trust in the rationality of man and in
the outcome of spontaneous evolution of human society, not in the
virtues of political activism.”
Climate
Forum, Kongresshotel Seepark, Thun, Switzerland,
October 9, 2008:
Current
priorities do not fall from the sky. They reflect our way of looking
at things, “die Weltanschauung”, which characterizes our era. Its
formation started decades ago. I see it in the culture, philosophy
and ideology of the 1960s and 1970s which in many respects opposed
the traditional way of looking around and which brought to the fore
– among many other things – the idea that the world is a single
entity, one gigantic global system which deserves to be globally
governed. This “system-engineering” viewpoint was, more or
less, generally accepted. Everyone suddenly discovered
interdependencies, interconnections, externalities,
interdisciplinarity, general systems theory, metasciences, etc.
It became politically correct, progressive, for me only
progressivistic, to think in terms of global issues, global
governance, and global solutions. It was – not surprisingly –
also the birth of environmentalism. The man as a free and dominant
individual entity disappeared. The world, the earth, and the planet
replaced him as the relevant frame of reference. That led to a
radical switch of priorities.
It became the
excellent starting point for those who wanted to mastermind the
whole world and all of us. Their approaches – based on the one hand
on the misunderstanding (and misinterpretation) of interdependence
and globalization and on the other on the outdated belief in
government’s omnipotence –are conceptually wrong, unavoidably
undemocratic and discriminatory, and – above all – condemned to
fail.
[An] example is the ambition to combat the so called global warming.
This ambition is also based on the pretence of understanding global
issues and on the belief in the possibility to control them
centrally. It is not necessary to repeat the already well-known more
or less technical and scientific counter-arguments here this
morning. They are available to anyone who wants to listen to them.
The problem is that the propagandists of the global warming
alarmism do not listen and that the majority of rational people do
not pay attention.
The current global warming debate is not a scientific dispute inside
climatology. As the famous British historian Paul Johnson put it
recently, “global warming, as Marxism, is a political theory of
actions demanding compliance with its rules.”[3] We should not mix
it with science. Science is O.K. We have sufficient evidence that a
normal, serious, healthy and productive discourse among scientists,
believers in the greenhouse hypothesis and those who disagree with
it goes on and will be going on. The science is definitely not
settled.
The global warming debate is about something else. It is not about
temperature or CO2 levels. It is about the people, their
behavior, their values, their habits, their life.
It is a clash between environmentalists, non-liberal politicians,
international bureaucrats, irresponsible journalists, some
economists and other scientists who attempt to change us (not
climate) and those who believe in freedom, markets, human ingenuity
and technical progress.
Warsaw
School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland,
October 13, 2008. Klaus was commenting on the translation into
Polish of his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles, which is
subtitled ‘What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?’
What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?
My answer to this question is very clear and straightforward:
“Endangered is freedom. Climate is O.K.”
After spending
several years studying this issue I came to the conclusion that we
were deceived. The Great Global Warming Debate is not about
temperature or CO2 levels. It is not a scientific dispute
inside climatology. It is a dispute about us, about people, about
human society, about our values, our habits, our life. It is a clash
between those who want to change us (not climate) and those who
believe in freedom, markets, human ingenuity, and technical
progress.
The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria
Man-made
orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science
Paul Joseph
Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being
foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is
manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose
agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change
hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further
centralize global power.
In an
interview with a Czech newspaper,
Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip
of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and
statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global
warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre
vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the
establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash
reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their
argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is
somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.
The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a
far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate
change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak
and vulnerable.
In an article we published in November about global warming being
primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek
that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be
compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed
cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion
style beliefs about climate change.
Here's
what we wrote:
The assertion that global warming is manmade is so oppressively
enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing
a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such
is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television,
newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are
forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their
doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be
cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who
righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a
wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.
It's not longer a joke.
The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman
wrote an op-ed
last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like
authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is
impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are
now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and
the other denies the present and future.
This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming
agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the
overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural
cycles are responsible for climate change
and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks
to sway the court of public opinion.
During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's
appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and
consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with
boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted
down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force
fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has
been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken
record.
"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the
end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the
stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.
But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for
themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout
the decades. In the late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria
about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we
know it revolved around the concept of global cooling. Again,
this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature
fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle
of the
Little Ice Age.
Writer
John Bender
has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from environmental
"authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was falling
yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire
proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater"
regurgitate the brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated
with by the establishment.
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord
with the increase in global air pollution associated with
industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding
population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a
rational strategy for Man", (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will
undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve
to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The
Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000
-- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the
stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in
which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing
depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the
rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun
to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic
decline in food production - with serious political implications for
just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could
begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has
now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are
hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If
it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world
famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about
before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees
colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees
colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to
put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and
global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization,
therefore its proclamation is purely intended at achieving a
political agenda. The document they released on February 2 that was
devotedly afforded days of intense coverage by the compliant
establishment media was a political manifesto based on a scientific
undertaking that has not even been completed. How empirical is a
"scientific experiment" whose conclusions are announced before tests
have even been completed? The document immediately states that the
"scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already
released political summary.
“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made
after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those
necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or
the Overview Chapter,” states the brief.
The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global
warming because they are editing their own uncompleted report to
mirror their pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?
The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations
stunts that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global
warming but were enough to leave an impression in the mind of the
casual viewer that the man-made explanation was a global consensus.
These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5
minutes and a
ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall
imitated the wild call
of a tropical chimpanzee.
Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and
every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer
to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a
political body, a sort of non-government organization of green
flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced
group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who
arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."
Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that
transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of
dollars for reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this
taints any opposing viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore
the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made
devotee and advocate of drastic population reduction to save the
planet,
who gifted the organization $1 Billion
which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that
not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce
evidence that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a
carbon tax fueled by fear of climate change that will go directly to
assorted U.N. agencies itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on
hyping man-made global warming?
In addition,
Greenpeace are recruiting
"global warming field organizer's" whose job it is to lobby members
of Congress to push the agenda for man-made global warming. So if
you thought your donation was going to help save whales or protect
the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly funding a PR
assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the form of
a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent
global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and
the U.N.
Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to
be in on the scam. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his
own words because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to
contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by
pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists
and others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point
out that man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered
scientific trickery to make their case.
Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg,
recently
penned an outstanding piece
in which he detailed how the illusion is being played out and how
skeptics of the farce are increasingly being made pariahs simply for
having an opposing view. Ball puts it better than I ever could so I
make no apologies for quoting his article at length.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not
the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the
truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first
Canadian PhDs. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in
climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the
impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.
Few listen, even though I have a PhD, (Doctor of Science) from the
University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the
University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the
World is not listening. Here is why.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution
of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in
the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of
dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an
issue with no scientific justification.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but
if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a
society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence
that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And,
recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations
sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed
this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something
is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global
cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold
fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important
social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with
for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make
concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves,
our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling
engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me
stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has
warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice
Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate
changes are well within natural variability and explained quite
easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of
London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two
climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the
early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that
consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures
appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus.
It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major
mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal
attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in
my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most
people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals.
Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing
wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring,
but to discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant
flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without
being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.
How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar
system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile
weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a
natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and
other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?
Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and numerous other nooks and
crannies throughout the solar system
are experiencing warming trends and volatile weather patterns. How
many SUV's are there on Jupiter?
The earth and its celestial counterparts are getting hotter because
the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time in the past 1,000
years,
according to a study undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for
Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany.
In addition, cosmic rays from exploding stars have now been found to
contribute substantially to cloud formation and the greenhouse
effect as the
London Times
reported yesterday.
The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung
wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy
one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we
are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering
that our rugged planet has taken in the past.
This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers,
who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it
is man-made or not.
Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting
very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking
place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the
contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust
fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to
Triton?
Countless other heroes of science have put their reputation and
careers on the line in the name of truth to expose the man-made
fraud and challenge the creeping fascism being engendered by means
of using political correctness to hijack the debate. They have
bucked the orthodoxy and risked being stripped of their credentials,
as the
Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist
would have it. Here are several insightful statements from these
brave individuals.
I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens
and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big
job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public
weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single
TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I
know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Billions
of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on
the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming,
the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it.
Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at
“The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time
show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no
salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money
becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a
problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of
this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will
always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much
difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades.
And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice
covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
ABC-TV Meteorologist James Spann.
"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in
that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in
conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several
times a year for several years to write it and the summary for
policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but
ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of
environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists,
and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the
IPCC report.
"Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact is that climate
change is not in itself a threat."
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Atmospheric Physicist at George Mason
University.
Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant
self-importance in thinking that it has become the master and
therefore the decider of the earth's destiny. On an individual
level, it also helps a person stroke their ego and feel good about
themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine bottles in the
belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the
excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do
likewise.
Fear mongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news
coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad
scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of
corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.
Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control
and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans,
GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global
tax at the gas pump.
The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized
by people like
Dr. Erik Pianka,
advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state
sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the
disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures
and the environmental establishment have always held a close
alliance.
The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass
deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the
fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control
freaks at the United Nations and their intellectually spayed
cheerleaders, whose goal it is to use the hysteria of climate change
to impose draconian control measures on society and centralize world
power, have declared "case closed" on the man-made origins of global
warming. However, their foolish attempts to zealously mute mere
expression of an opposing view betray the inherent flaws of their
own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/february2007/
Global governance here we come!
By Henry Lamb (slightly simplified for quicker reading by EXB)
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article
which follows.
To view this item online, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=83452
Sunday, December 14, 2008
With a new, expanded Democrat majority to support Obama's aggressive
global governance aspirations, national sovereignty is on the brink
of extinction.
For more than 20 years, the politically correct liberal elitists
have ridiculed the "black helicopter crowd" whenever the words
"world government" were uttered. Global governance, however, is a
perfectly acceptable term the U.N. says is somehow
different from world government.
According to the U.N. (UNDP Human Development Report, 1999, page
34), "Governance is not government – it is the framework of rules,
institutions and practices that sets limits on the behavior of
individuals, organizations and companies".
Any institution that has the power to issue rules and that limits
the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies is a
government. When those rules apply worldwide, it is world
government.
If there ever were any doubt about President-elect
Obama's propensity toward global governance,
it has been removed by his Cabinet choices.
Hillary Clinton
praised Walter Cronkite's attainment of the World Federalist
Association's "Global Governance" award.
As secretary of state, she
will lead the U.S. into the global village under the U.N.'s
governance.
U.N. Ambassador-designate
Susan Rice,
who worked with
Strobe Talbot
at the Brookings Institution, will be the point person to see that
the U.S. supports the global governance agenda.
Paramount among the rules required to make global governance an
enforceable reality is the power to control each nation's use of
energy.
The Kyoto Protocol, promoted by Bill Clinton and Al Gore, was
supposed to be that rule. To his credit, President Bush refused to
subject the United Sates to this U.N. treaty. Obama has promised to
change the U.S. position to one of submission to a new U.N.
Climate-Change Treaty, now under construction in Poland.
Obama's representative at the climate change negotiations in Poland
is
John Kerry,
sent there to reassure the delegates from around the world that the
new administration will fully support whatever energy limitations
the U.N. decides to impose.
Make no mistake; the new climate change treaty will severely limit
the supply of fossil fuel energy available in the United States by
limiting the quantity of carbon emissions that can be released. The
enforcement tool will be costly.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner told an audience at the meeting in Poland
that the new treaty could drive the price of gasoline to $10 per
gallon. In addition, a global cap-and-trade system will arbitrarily
limit the quantity of carbon emissions allowed by virtually all
energy users, and releases beyond the limit will require a fee.
Both the limit and the fee will be determined by the U.N., thereby
giving the U.N. control over energy use in every nation.
The Kyoto Protocol already established the principle of "common but
differentiated" responsibilities, which means developed nations must
meet legally binding limitations – while more than 150 nations have
no binding limitations.
Through this mechanism, the U.N. can effectively redistribute the
world's wealth to ensure that all people share equally the benefits
of the earth's resources. This goal is expressed in a host of U.N.
treaties and policy documents.
There is a parade of other U.N. treaties and
policy objectives lined up for approval by the new administration.
Here are a few:
·
Convention on the Law of the Sea,
·
Convention on the Rights of the Child and
·
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women.
Obama has already embraced the U.N.'s Millennium Goals, which
include a three-fold increase in the U.S. contribution to the U.N.'s
international aid programs.
Obama is also expected to submit the United States to the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which George Bush
refused to do.
Global governance advocates made great strides during the Clinton
years, but were temporarily sidetracked by George Bush and
Republicans in Congress.
The global economic downturn creates the perfect environment for a
global response. The G-20 meeting held in Washington last month
launched the final round of negotiations to create a new global
financial mechanism to control the flow of money around the world.
While global governance advocates ridiculed and laughed at "black
helicopter" watchers, they steadily advanced their agenda.
Nowhere in the U.N. Global-governance agenda is there any room for,
or reference to, the fundamental principle that government is
empowered by the consent of the people, expressed at the ballot box.
The global governance agenda says:
·
land use must be controlled by government;
·
speech must be regulated by law;
·
trade must be regulated by government;
·
education and child-rearing is the
responsibility of government;
·
only the U.N. has the authority to regulate the manufacture, use and
distribution of all firearms.
This is
global governance.
This is the "change" that Obama promised; this is the change he will
deliver.
"Wind Farms" are NOT the Answer.
July 24, 2008 10:00 AM EST
On July 22nd, Paul Driessen wrote the following:
"It's increasingly obvious why Gore, Hansen and Reid are becoming
more shrill and hysterical by the day. The hot air they are trying
to blow up our shorts is no basis for economy-killing cap-and-trade
rules or ecology-killing forests of wind turbines."
He's dead-bang right. Mr. Driessen correctly points out that it
takes vastly more steel and concrete per kilowatt hour generated to
build a wind farm than to build a relatively simple, clean-burning,
coal-fired or gas-fired power generation facility. Add that to the
fact that wind farms are unsightly and noisy and a distinct danger
to migrating birds and it's plain to see that they are NOT the
answer to our energy needs for the future. Just to replace the
electricity we get from coal-fired plants alone with a wind farm
would require that one be built that would take up the same space as
the entire State of North Carolina!!! Does anyone imagine citizens
agreeing to such a thing? Add to all that the fact that wind speeds
are only adequate about 1/3rd of the time, where does the needed
power come from when the wind is too low--as it usually is during
the peak-use times of the year?
You can be certain that the eco-nuts will NOT sit still while we
build more steel mills or cement plants to accommodate the demands
placed on the current stocks by wind farming. We learned from sad
experience that these bug-witted fools will spend any amount
necessary to delay or hopefully STOP the construction of something
with which they disapprove ... like the Telico Dam or almost ANY
nuclear power facility. The fact that their stated "concerns" are
almost invariably without merit makes no difference whatsoever. As
long as they can keep construction tied up in dozens of lawsuits or
regulatory litigation, they are happy. Remember Telico? It was
stopped because some environmental whackos said the hydroelectric
dam construction would harm the "endangered" snail darter--a small,
perch-like fish. Once the dam was delayed to the point of
cancellation as being too expensive, lo and behold it was found that
the snail darter is found in DOZENS of other streams and wouldn't
have been threatened in the slightest. Anyway, how can you
"endanger" a FISH without removing the water in which it lives? What
difference does it make whether the water is one foot deep or 100?
The answer is, of course, no difference at all.
Then we come to "Three Mile Island," touted by the mainstream media
as the "worst nuclear disaster in U.S. History." Some "disaster!" No
one was killed, no one was injured and the worst exposure to
radiation was about the equivalent of three chest x-rays! What Three
Mile Island DID show was that, even with stupid human error, the
safety systems built into EVERY U.S.-made nuclear power plant worked
to perfection and no one was harmed. Yet even today, Three Mile
Island is held up as the principle reason why we haven't built
another one in decades--even while the rest of the world is
switching to nuclear power generation as fast as possible. Even
Iran, which is afloat on a virtual sea of oil, is trying to move to
nuclear power. Yet the "experts" in the eco-movement have succeeded
in stopping all such construction in the U.S.
These so-called "environmentalists" have been proven to be almost
blithering idiots and their predictions to be utter nonsense on
occasion after occasion, yet Congress LISTENS to them still. One
thinks that what those in Congress are actually listening to is the
jingle of gold coins in the pockets of those that would either
finance THEIR next campaign for re-election or fund the candidacy of
an opponent.
The longest-lasting solution to our energy problems is going to be
exploration and drilling for oil domestically. I would suggest that
OUR production should be restricted from the world markets and
earmarked for domestic use only as soon as our production volumes
equal our consumption. Then, except for the strategic reserve, any
excess production can be sold on the world market. That way, we can
thumb our noses at OPEC and do THEM some economic damage for a
change by driving down the world market price. We know that we have
enough oil available in the form of shale oil and as recoverable
crude in the outer continental shelf, in AMWR and even close-in off
both the western and eastern seaboards and in the Gulf of Mexico off
Florida. Estimates are that there's enough untapped oil in those
places to supply all our oil needs for a couple of centuries! Not
only that, but the U.S. has 24% of the world's supply of coal and
the WW II Germans proved that coal CAN be made into "synthetic crude
oil" at a cost that's MORE than competitive when "natural" crude oil
markets for anything above $30 per barrel. That would increase our
oil supply good for another 200 years. Certainly in the next 400
years, an economic substitute can be found and put into common use!
If it can't, we're doomed as a species anyway because we'd be too
stupid to survive.
Lomborg Global Warming
Policies
Hurricanes: A policy of reducing CO2 emissions would have had zero consequence on Katrina’s devastating impact on New Orleans, where such a disaster was long expected. Over the next half-century, even large reductions in CO2 emissions would have only a negligible impact.
Instead, direct policies to address New Orleans’s vulnerabilities could have avoided the huge and unnecessary cost in human misery and economic loss.
World hunger: Global agricultural/economic models indicate that even under the most pessimistic assumptions, global warming would reduce agricultural production by just 1.4 percent by the end of the century, but agricultural output will more than double over this period.
|
Action |
Annual Cost |
Annual Number of People Fed |
Annual Cost per person fed |
|
Kyoto Protocol |
$180 billion |
2 million |
$90,000 |
|
Direct Food Aid |
$10 billion |
229 million |
$44 |
Sea levels: Have been rising since the early 1800s. The U.N. expects about a 30-centimeter sea-level rise over this century — about what we saw over the past 150 years.
In that period, many coastlines increased, most obviously in Holland, and Bangladesh, because river sedimentation wins out over rising sea levels.
Droughts: the United States and the globe has in all academic estimates been getting wetter over the century. There is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture.
Famine has rapidly declined over the past half-century except for the effects of government policy. The World Bank estimates that our ethanol policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger.
Storms: They have not been growing stronger every hurricane season. The Atlantic hurricane energy has declined by two-thirds since the record was set, in 2005. For the world, maximum hurricane energy was reached in 1994, and has plummeted for the past three years.