A great author with his video interview perspective on the Global Warming debate. The most rational and succinct perspective I’ve seen. “We don’t have another planet to conduct the experiment on.”
One of the most interesting topics around global climate change is the controversy it spawns. It is strangely provocative to me that something so rudimentary to our existence – our environment – is used so subversively and to manipulate the population of the earth.
On one hand, the politicians are clearly using a common concern over the changes that seem evident, to anyone with only a small portion of working cerebrum, to manipulate trade policies, exert greater control over population, and, of course, tax the hell out of the middle class. (This will be left to another posting…)
On the other hand – let’s call this the fanatical right hand just for fun – proponents of this line of thinking appear to believe that global climate change is a façade, a fake cause, a little make believe to manipulate the masses.
What interests me more is the fanatical right hand, although both of the aforementioned should concern us all, since it seems so ridiculous in its out of context line of thinking.
Case in point: I was sent a link from a friend that adamantly asserts (even though the title with the question mark would suggest a real question), “Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government?” . I read through this article with its clever links to sound bytes and video, its poorly formatted page, and its controversial political images – all taking it with a grain of salt, but trying to understand the points the article and the reference materials were making.
First off, the author writes, “Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Jerome Corsi states”, as if to give some sort of credibility to both the blog site and the writer Jerome Corsi, which are simply this: a blog site and a writer with a Ph.D. in political science who has had recent success only with a number of controversial books. (That’s where the author of the first site gets his right to add “Dr.” to Jerome Corsi’s title, even though the blog site where Mr. C writes doesn’t even bother with this title.) Prior to that, his recent history has him working as a “financial services marketing specialist” – by which I’m not really sure how that gives him any true wisdom in the area of global climate change research; however, it is true that he sticks mostly to what he presumably knows – marketing by hype. ( I mean, c’mon… a poli-sci doctorate working as a financial service marketer – an educated con-man?)
I continued to read from both of the sites – the first link sent by my friend, and the blog site where Corsi authoritatively asserts his position – and both sites simply quoted another interesting figure, “Lord Christopher Monckton”, who has been an opponent to the idea of climate change (or at least man-induced climate change) for quite some time. Of course, Corsi writes and the first blog quotes “A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher..” in the first sentence of both articles. From this, the first article can suggest, if questioned about its accuracy, that it only quoted this statement (plausible deniability?), while Corsi doesn’t have that luxury. If there is any foundation to this statement, I haven’t found it. Wikipedia.org displays a reference to: “James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that Monckton has “no training whatsoever in science”, and criticize his asserted credentials as “unfounded self-promotion. The Daily Telegraph has described him as “a former economic adviser”.
Hmm.. so far, it would seem that this chain of wisdom, from one blog or outspoken personality to the next seems to all link together under the common denominator of “politics and finance” – certainly the largest opponent to any sort of regulation to preserve our environment over the last… oh… lets say 200 years.
Of course, I couldn’t just stop on the first sentence of each article with the knowledge that everything so far (in the first sentence!) was deceptive manipulation by means of either quoting another article and author (who I would hazard a guess, is quite intimately connected to the makers of the jonesreport.com), or simply lying outright. No. I had to tread on.
In the second sentence of – well, again, BOTH sites – the collective authors (although I did start to think that they were in fact the same author) point out a speech made under the “Minnesota Free Market Institute” banner by Monckton.
(A side note: The Minnesota Free Market Institute states on their website, that they are “dedicated to preservation of and education about free markets. We do so not because we have a partisan political ax to grind, but because, quite simply, history has proven free market capitalism, with all its flaws, is undeniably the most effective form of organization for providing the greatest good for the greatest number. ”. Now, upon review of their site, I see nothing but the fanatical right hand; however, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that this is a partisan view – just that it really isn’t fair to say that they do not have “a partisan political ax to grind”. I thought ax was spelled “axe”, but who am I to judge?)
So, I was taken to a youtube video of Monckton’s speech on the Minnesota Free Market Institute, which appeared to be highlighting this video along with other videos of the same sort. The same tactics on presentation appeared to be used in this upscale blog site.
To recap just on the first couple sentences, we have one blog article referencing another blog article, referencing another blog with a video of a well-known sceptic. By this time, the average sheep of a human being has now been convinced that there is such an abundance of information out there that supports this theory that there is no global climate change induced by man and that it must be true. Of course, the sheep I am referring to probably has some belief structure in place already that would easily lead him or her astray. The scientific minded would take it all with a grain of salt and investigate the issue fully. But, we all have little time for that so we choose to follow those who appear to have done the work for us. We are encouraged by even Monkton in his speech to look into the research for ourselves and find the truth, while he knows very well that the vast majority will not do this and simply acquiesce out of pure laziness or the reality that life is far to busy to take a lifetime to investigate an issue like this.
The people that are not comfortable in simply agreeing with something that they can not prove to themselves without a doubt must then weigh the data they do have and use their rational minds to come up with a belief structure that seems most plausible. To me, it is most plausible that man is affecting our environment in disastrous ways. Everything I have seen leads to this most plausible conclusion and it is up to human beings everywhere to take some action. Am I positive that the planet’s climate is changing exclusively because of man? No. Is it plausible that we are contributing to global climate change? Yes. Should we do something about it? Of course! Should we simply lie down and let taxes grow exponentially among the middle class in order to fix a problem quite obviously created (directly or indirectly) by the elite and anonymous corporations? I’m sure you can answer that for yourself.
Of course, this is not even the topic of the first two articles. They simply point out that global warming is being used as an excuse to create a one-world government, by tying the sheep psychologically to the idea that one, there is a preponderance of data that supports this “lie” about global warming, and two, that a global governance of any kind is a bad thing. Why? Because those that believe that globally people are all pretty much the same and could use a global governance of some kind are diametrically opposed to those who believe that people are all different and should stay separated in every conceivable way. The great thing for politicians is that both groups are encouraged to exist in diametric opposition. Have you heard the saying, “divide and conquer”? It is a very old method for controlling the masses (the sheep) while giving them the idea that they actually have a clue.
It seems more plausible to me that a one-world government wouldn’t make any sense to the people that are supposedly controlling the world (as all of these blog writers and speakers would attest in other documentation they spew). The elite that tug on the strings of puppet countries would have no incentive to merge the world into a global one-world government. History shows that when you have too many people controlled by one group, there is inevitably a revolution and everything falls apart into smaller components.
These articles use deceptive tactics to anchor their ideas to a current global concern, thereby facilitating exactly what they assert they are revealing – mass manipulation. They become part of the problem, despite some of their ideas that may just be dead-on. Ironic, isn’t it?
The following is an article posted to a web blog at: http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=162
My comments are in bold green , to represent the ummm.. “green” perspective a little bit… 😉
The Great Shaman Shamboozle
Steve McIntyre appears to have caught NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in a slight problem with the backup data for the outfit’s 2008 was the hottest October on record globaloney. (See www.climateaudit.org/?p=4318.)
The GISS computerized maps seemed to show readings 10 degrees higher than normal all across Russia for the month in question, which seemed a bit odd, given that snow fell that month in an area of the United Arab Emirates where the people’s don’t even have a word for snow in their language, and that from the Dakotas to China, from the Alps to New Zealand, 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperature records were set in the month of October, 2008, according to Christopher Brooker, London Telegraph, Nov. 16, 2008.
It should be pointed out that global warming’s eventual result is believed to be global cooling, thus the onset and regression of ice ages thousands of times over millions of years. It really doesn’t come as a shock that given the warming trend that has been documented by scientists (especially those not supported fully by the political community until recent years) that there would be a cooling effect, possibly rushing us into the next ice age. This is a documented possibility and end result of global warming, so to throw away the global warming argument of danger with this kind of retort is exactly the kind of isolated argument used notoriously by politicians to manipulate the masses using a central idea, vs a reasonable, multi-faceted argument. That being said, global climate change is the biggest concern, not the term global warming. The idea is simply that our unsustainable practices are contributing to global climate change, and since we have the power to change our practice to sustainable systems, it makes sense to do so.
In fact, although Russia cools rapidly throughout the fall (as both Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way) McIntyre discovered upon closer inspection that the GISS October readings were PRECISELY THE SAME for each Russian reporting station as their September readings, a statistically impossible coincidence.
And since GISS uses a complex algorithm to convert actual temperature readings into its reported output, the error also affected previously published readings for other months, according to the Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, January 2009.
The discovery followed McIntyre’s demonstration in 2007 that NASA had been unjustifiably adding a significant 0.15 degrees Celsius to its U.S. temperature reports since 2000, the Heartland folks report.
Wow, they made a small error! That’s cause for throwing out a well documented idea! (sarcasm intended). Mistakes are made all the time in all facets of science, economics and government. Pointing out small errors may point to a growing government resolution to manipulate the public on the guise of “global warming”, “climate change”, “the war on terror” or whatever the current catchphrase is. The concern should be rooted in the manipulation of the popular opinion, not the small mistakes. Issues should be looked at more globally, rather than at the macro level — pun intended. As for the large mistake noted and corrected above, it is the responsibility of people everywhere to challenge the data provided, as this fellow did. Good for him.
GISS did not respond to McIntyre’s e-mail pointing out their massive and obvious error, but had pulled the erroneous data off its Web site an hour later, blaming the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the London Daily Telegraph reported.
Then GISS claimed to have discovered a new hot spot in the Arctic, although satellite images show Arctic sea ice to be 30 percent more extensive than last year.
The London Daily Telegraph calls this ‘a surreal blunder (that) raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming, wrote Wesley Pruden in The Washington Times of Nov. 21, 2008.
These kind of “accidents,” which keep generating “global warming” data even as mankind faces its worst winter in decades, tend to show an increasing level of desperation. Why would that be?
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents the world from progressing to a sustainable state. I would agree that these “mistakes” could be part of a mass manipulation of data in order to exact the kind of worldwide fear that leads to a consolidation of power, higher taxes, etc. However, the problem with making a case against a well documented and studied phenomenon with a “dumbed down” retort like “mankind faces its worst winder in decades”, is that the issue isn’t captured — and the weak minded simply find it easier to follow dramatic statements rather than study scientific data.
Because those who seek to grab political and economic control of the West’s free-market economies, herding huge masses of people out of our cars and free-standing homes and into “mass transit” boondoggles and urbanized concentration ghettos where we’re more easily watched and disarmed, clearly need the hysterical ululating to continue for a few more years, at least. Only hysteria and a quasi-religious jihad can get the job done. Look what they face:
I find it funny that this the same argument purported by any of the political engines that exist in the west. To “grab political and economic control” is one of the most used fear mongering statements used over the last 60 years and has been said of communism, Islamic nations and now “environmentalists”. That’s quite a leap. There’s no question that mass transit is more efficient – -that’s just pure logic, as I’m certain the author of this article has little of, based on the arguments below. His used of keywords like “herding”, “concentration” and “ghettos” are ingeniously placed to breed fear of more efficient methods; however, it is clear that as our population continues to grow, new methods for transporting masses of people are required. That is not to say that we should take away individuality, but to provide more efficient methods. Individuality is already being eliminated by mass media propaganda and fear mongering — that should be the concern.
1) Global warming may well be over.
That’s quite the leap, but interesting that one would have to admit to a belief in something before stating that it is over. This writer doesn’t appear to believe in the “globaloney” of global warming, so it would seem contradictory to state that it “may well be over”.
2) Even if the globe continued to warm at the rate of 1 degree per century, this would be a net minor improvement, allowing us to grow wheat a bit further north. It’s the next ice age that holds the real threat.
One degree a century is not the concern as far as I’m aware. Rapid climate change is more dramatic and is the concern. Although, I do agree that the next ice age (possibly as a result of climate change induced partially by human practices) could be the next big threat to human development.
3) Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, but is natural and necessary for plant life. “Cleaning the air” of carbon dioxide is like “cleaning the earth” of topsoil.
A ridiculous statement. Here are some facts: Carbon dioxide is a toxin, but so is oxygen. The problem is in the quantity of the gas, not the makeup. Too much oxygen, along with too much carbon dioxide is toxic to human beings. It is the balance of gases that keep us alive and well. Carbon Dioxide is utilized by plant life and produces oxygen as a by-product. If we have a natural balance between plant life and human life (along with many carbon dioxide producing systems), there is no problem. But, our systems that produce carbon dioxide are growing exponentially at the same time we are reducing the plant life on the planet. It’s a pretty simple equation and if global climate change doesn’t kill us, then I’m sure throwing the ecological system on its head will! ‘ “Cleaning the air” of carbon dioxide is like “cleaning the earth” of topsoil ‘ is one of the most inane comments this author makes. No environmentalist wants to eradicate carbon dioxide — they simply want to put the balance back in place for a healthier environment.
4) If global warming were to continue and even if it were a bad thing, carbon dioxide is such a tiny part of the atmosphere — and such a minor component among the “greenhouse gases,” which also include water vapor — that no change in climate trends would result even from shutting down man’s industrial civilization entirely, overnight. Which can’t be done, since most of the world only goes along with this baloney as long as we pay them to mouth the proper magic phrases.
Again, this is a statement full of vapidity. There is no logic or morsel of truth in the paragraph above and only demonstrates again the author’s ability to mix words in order to make nothing out of something and something out of nothing.
The big rush to get all their onerous new rules and laws in place right away are part of what Andrew Thomas at The Week That Was (www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2009/Jan_24_2009.htm — scroll down near the bottom) calls the great “Shaman Shamboozle.”
Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “and his fellow witch doctors must act fast,” Mr. Thomas explains. “Using the principle of the Shaman Shamboozle, the evil global warming spirits must be chased away before it is obvious to the tribal masses that the climate is actually getting cooler. In doing so, the shaman ecologists can claim that President Obama’s ‘green initiatives,’ i.e., taxing anything that emits carbon dioxide, were successful. At that point, their political power over the tribe will be complete and irreversible.”
There is no question that politicians use many methods to accomplish their goals, including the foremost use of issue isolation — that of taking a simple, but highlighted issue and wrapping other more complex manipulations into it without the public’s knowledge. This issue is somewhat irrelevant in this problem, whether it is the “war on terror” or “global climate change”.
It would all be a bit amusing if there weren’t real world consequences. Thanks in part to the absurdity of turning corn into motor fuel — a process which uses more petroleum than it saves — “Foreign Affairs” reports world food prices have risen 83 percent since 2005, leading to food riots in 30 countries. Things would have gotten even worse if the EPA hadn’t backed off its proposed “belching and cow-fart tax” late last year — a rule which would have cost cattle, dairy and hog producers $11 billion per year, driving many out of business.
Another supposed fact on turning corn into motor fuel is again, incorrect. There are processes that have shown that biofuels have limitations today and the net energy gain from them are low compared to the net energy gain in drilling for oil. The author is confusing his issues though. Burning biofuels will ultimately have the same effect when it comes to carbon dioxiode emissions. There are benefits in cleaner burning fuels though, and certainly electric vehicles are making inroads to the mainstream.
Global food prices have risen as a direct result of rising oil prices, that have been manipulated up until the recent past to all time highs. It has nothing to do with environmentalists or actions against global warming. To the author: Nice way to manipulate the facts in your favour though!
Buying into the Globaloney (unless the government there is smarter and more cynical than it appears, instead harboring ulterior motives), the desperately poor African nation of Chad banned the burning of charcoal — the nation’s main fuel — last month. Soldiers and police have been beating up demonstrators, who can’t scrounge enough cow dung and tree branches to make up the difference.
I don’t know anything about Chad and this policy, but I think the author points to his own flawed argument with his statement, “instead harboring ulterior motives” — Knowing everything we know today about political corruption, especially, and I hate the generalize, but AFRICA!! C’mon. Do you really believe the country of Chad banned charcoal to save the planet!? I mean, really? This would be something to certainly investigate more fully…
“Chadians must find other ways to cook and forget about charcoal and wood as fuel,” explains Environment Minister Ali Souleyman Dabye to the U.N. “Cooking is of course a fundamental necessity for every household. On the other hand … with climate change every citizen must protect his environment.” (www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=82436.)
“Better to die swiftly and en masse than to continue dying slowly as we are now,” responds one protester, quoted in the January, 2009 newsletter of the Arizona-based Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.
Meantime, Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming. “I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect,” said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Dr. Schmitt (geology) contends scientists “are being intimidated” if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels. “They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming,” Schmitt explains. See http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2809
Fair enough, Dr. Schmitt. You have as much right to your opinion on something that you have never studied in-depth, as I do. I’m not sure if humans are having a significant effect on global warming or not, but wouldn’t it make sense to look for solutions that ensure we aren’t having an effect, or even if we’re not, how we can prevent it? By the way, the statements by the astronaut don’t agree with the author of this article, since he is not saying that global warming does not exist, just that he doesn’t believe that humans are causing it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem. By positioning these statements at the end of this article, the author simply tries to use an “educated” source to hold up his argument, while those with half a brain can discern that his arguments are flawed and manipulative.
The little boy points at the naked emperor. The little boy opens his mouth to speak. What was that? What did he say?
This site was setup to promote and discuss ideas behind eco responsibility — a responsibility to the ecosystem in which we all live.