Friday, 4 December 2015

The Great Climate Change debate


Climate Change - Biggest scam in History?

 Part 1

An Inconvenient Truth

2006 - This whole controversy about Climate Change and global warming began when we were all told about this very important film which we should all go and see. 

so we did. . .

In this film we saw presidential candidate and vice president AL Gore explain to us that earth was on the precipice of a major environmental disaster. The world was warming up rapidly, the polar ice caps were melting glaciers retreating and Polar bears were dying. 

All of this was directly related to carbon emissions and CFCs

 (Just for myself I needed to check exactly what do we mean by CFCs)

Here's the official view: 

(Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a family of chemical compounds developed back in the 1930's as safe, non-toxic, non-flammable alternative to dangerous substances like ammonia for purposes of refrigeration and spray can propellants. Their usage grew enormously over the years. One of the elements that make up CFCs is chlorine. Very little chlorine exists naturally in the atmosphere. But it turns out that CFCs are an excellent way of introducing chlorine into the ozone layer. The ultraviolet radiation at this altitude breaks down CFCs, freeing the chlorine. Under the proper conditions, this chlorine has the potential to destroy large amounts of ozone. This has indeed been observed, especially over Antarctica. As a consequence, levels of genetically harmful ultraviolet radiation have increased.)




These are being spewed out and polluting the atmosphere creating a 'greenhouse' effect which put simply traps the suns rays in the atmosphere and causes temperatures to rise. 

http://www.livescience.com/37743-greenhouse-effect.html
Left: Naturally occurring greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) — normally trap some of the sun’s heat, keeping the planet from freezing. Right: Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, are increasing greenhouse gas levels, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect. The result is global warming and unprecedented rates of climate change.


As we can clearly see the cause of this was . . . US! 

We drive too many cars which pump toxic fumes into the air, our  factories pour out more pollutants into the air and water. And unless we do something extremely quickly and radically, this could be the end of the world as we know it. 



On August 27, 2010, Sean Hannity aired a special program called “The Green Swindle”   
The 42-minute program explains the history of global warming and who stands to profit from all the hype.

Everyone's going green! Controlling your carbon footprint has become a global fad, but is it all just a con job? And, how much "green" is it costing you? Sean investigates the truth behind this billion dollar industry and how concern about the environment turned into global warming hysteria. 

 KSFO morning host Brian Sussman is one of the featured guest. Suss is author of the book, “Climategate” which tied together all the years of evidence of climate change fraud, and the very costly legislation being proposed world-wide due to this fake science. 

 A veteran meteorologist, Sussman expose the Global Warming scam on the special edition of Hannity. "This is the television program that will pound the final nail into global warming’s coffin," says Sussman. "Sean and his team at Fox News approached me earlier this summer, asking me to play a significant role in the show. Sean knows that my book reveals the Marxist foundation of fraud upon which the climate-change movement is built. He also knows that in Climategate I call out the perpetrators of this con by name—and that’s exactly what Sean will do tonight on national television."

Bogus Hockey Stick graph 
Along with Sussman, the hour-long special, entitled "The Green Swindle," include a rare interview with the two brilliant researchers who broke the crafty code used to fabricate the bogus hockey stick temperature graph used by Gore, the United Nations, and the U.S. Federal government to scare Americans into believing that they’re experiencing the hottest weather ever. 

Climategate
The program also details the damning emails leaked from the infamous Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. The emails revealed that influential climate scientists were involved in a manipulation scheme to alter the world’s temperature record. 

 Sussman contends a CRU insider purposefully leaked the emails. "Clearly someone inside CRU was sick of the scam being conducted from within the hallowed halls of this once prestigious research institution. 

Socialist Policies
They blew the whistle to alert the world that political activists with Ph.D.s were using their academic cover to manipulate data and professionally blackball scientists with opposing points of view." In Climategate Sussman shows how unscrupulous climate scientists are supplying policy makers with the tools needed to usher in a wave of socialist policies designed to de-develop the United States and redistribute American wealth. 

Follow the Money
He also reveals the billions of dollars Al Gore and others stand to make off of the so-called green revolution and cap-and-trade schemes. "Hats off to Hannity and Fox News for having the courage to produce this very special program," contends Sussman. "They should win a Nobel Prize for telling the scientific truth. Tonight will mark the end of the global warming hustle."

Video one:

The video introduces the issue with a word from the major politicians of the day Obama and Gore agreeing that the planet is very ill and is literary dying from overheating caused by carbon emissions and this is all your fault. 


We are told 99% of Scientists agree and the vast majority of peer reviewed literature backs up the assertion with scientific facts.

The aim of this video is to demonstrate how the the global warming hypothesis is a multibillion dollar industry with a huge vested interest in perpetuating the idea


But firstly a bit of background 

Brief history of the Environmentalism movement. 

Definition: Environmentalists advocate the sustainable management of resources and stewardship of the environment through changes in public policy and individual behaviour. This has also encompassed the Climate Movement.

The U.S environmentalist movement did not really take off until after World War II as people began to recognise the costs of environmental negligence, disease, and widespread air and water pollution through the occurrence of several environmental disasters that occurred post-World War II. 

1940’s Aldo Leopold wrote "A Sand County Almanac”

He believed in a land ethic that recognised that maintaining the "beauty, integrity, and health" of natural systems" as a moral and ethical imperative.

He is a descendant. . . philosophically speaking, of the Romantic movement in early 1900's England. 

This was the time when William Wordsworth and Charles Ruskin among others were advocating a 'return to nature', and an anti-city, anti - industrial view as a thoroughly unnatural and disagreeable state of being for humankind. 

This in turn was a spin off from the french enlightenment when philosopher's like Rousseau were busy removing Catholic orthodoxy as the repository of truth and replacing it with a kind of worship of nature - a Pantheistic idea that subsequently caught on in England.

1960’s Rachel Carson 

But in America the literary Romantics were to evolve into a modern equivalent of back to nature enthusiasts, we remember nowadays as Hippies.

Their book of Holy writ was written by a marine biologist who was to have enormous impact on the next generation. 
Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) was an American marine biologist and conservationist whose book Silent Spring and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement. 

 "Silent Spring" was about declining bird populations due to DDT, an insecticide, pollution and man's attempts to control nature through use of synthetic substances. 
Both of these books helped bring the issues into the public eye Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" sold over two million copies.

This video makes the point that the book was seized upon with a kind of revolutionary fervour expressing the disaffection o the youth during the time of the Vietnam war. 




What is quite ironic is this is the generation that is largely concerned with the issue today is having to deal with the next generation of dissenters has that expresses a similar distrust of the government. . .  we don't have Vietnam but we do have Afghanistan and the whole middle East debacle. 

This distrust is apparently at an all time high, 

so what went wrong with all those idealistic hippies and their environmental concerns? 



1994  - an edition of Silent Spring was published with an introduction written by Vice President Al Gore.

1970 Earth Day 


Oil Spill of the coast of Santa Barbara 
This disaster inspired Wisconsin Senator, Gaylord Nelson to set up a day of environmental awareness and education called Earth day

 Gaylord Nelson, was able to win support from the youth by using the highly successful 'teach-in' concept on the environment to be observed by every university campus in the U.S., this was modeled after the highly effective Vietnam War teach-ins of the time. 

Socialist leanings?

The video points out that Earth day was launched on April 22 1970 which is the birthday of Lenin. They point out that this was not a coincidence and the sense of 'being part of a cause' which many disaffected young Americans felt after the solidarity of protesting agains the Vietnam war and when that finally wound down, another crusade was needed for them to join.

 The big cause was really building on a rebellious youth flushed with success after the Vietnam demonstrations only too eager to join the bandwagon against the 'greedy capitalist overlords'. . . 

Global Cooling?

The movement kicked off with dire predictions of a Global freeze

 . . . Scuse me?. . 



This has sparked off some strenuous rebuttals from the Climate Orthodoxy - Always a telling sign. 

 The rebuttals admit they didn't have it right back then, but Climate science was in its infancy and they didn't know what they know today. 

They say the reports were from journalists who didn't have the full story from the science of the day. 

 They claim that the covers of Time magazine predicting a big chill were talking about an energy crisis and not a Climate crisis. 

 But the reports are not hard to find. . . hers a telling clipping 
taken from: http://www.populartechnology.net/

The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970
Video Documentary: 1978 Leonard Nimoy (Star Trek) narrates a doom and gloom forecast from the scientific community about the imminent next ice age.


Greenpeace was created in 1971 


as an organisation that believed that political advocacy and legislation were ineffective or inefficient solutions and supported non-violent action. 

Well surely Greenpeace would be right up there cheering on Al Gore and the carbon emission hypothesis. 

But in fact Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, is apparently quite disenchanted with the current views. Heres a lecture delivered by Moore totally against the current view. . . 

 In the video  Moore states that the idea of carbon emissions causing global warming is just a hypothesis rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. He states that CO2 Is a necessary building block for all life on earth and not the villainous poison it has been described as. 

He describes his idyllic upbringing on a river island in Canada and then his (impressive) education and his development into an environmentalist. 

Although he was a fully qualified scientist with a Phd by 1970 he was very much a radical long haired left wing liberal who spearheaded the development of Greenpeace. 

They named their ship 'the rainbow warrior' after an Indian legend about all nations banding together to save the world. 

He describes how, in 1985 under orders from french president François Mitterrand the rainbow warrior was sunk killing its photographer.

The rainbow warrior sinking in 1985.

He was there on the little rubber dinghies confronting the huge Soviet whalers preventing the harpoons from spearing the whales, which was broadcast all over the world. It is this effort that lead to the banning of whaling by 1985.
Save the whale







Next: Save the seal.



















This is not only a man who has the courage of his convictions but has the qualifications to go with them. . . .

 He then describes his reasons for leaving Greenpeace. The original intention was to object to the nuclear threat, but the movement began to replace some original intentions with an overall idea that humankind was the enemy of nature.

He describes the shift in greenpeace towards a ban against chlorine, he explained how chloride exists on the periodic table and is useful and good element. This caused his resignation.

He then explains how he decided to develop and environmental program that was based on "Science and Logic as opposed to sensationalism misinformation, anti humanism and fear"

He then goes on to deliver a hypothesis on the benefits of CO2 as opposed to the dismal forecasts from what he calls climate 'alarmists'.  


 So what is interesting here is another scientist who is not linked to a political payroll, he shows his disdain for the poor science in modern climatologists and because he does not need funding or pension pay he can use his training and logic to refute the current orthodoxy. 
what is so important about Moore's point of view is the following:
Its not a question of his findings being the ultimate truth in the debate, what is more important is that scientists with the same training and ability to collate and read data  . . . DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE

 The politics of any given issue make NO ALLOWANCE for this. It is simply not expedient to their cause to have scientists bickering over the data. 

It is very important to have a point of view that appears to be solid proof and to back up their point of view they use the idea of a 'Consensus' , The all powerful persuasive argument is . . . 99% of scientists agree on the Climate Change hypothesis.

 Now hold on a minute. . . the general public has no scientific training and it is clear that the scientists are revered by most people as the genius's of the world and their word is truth. This is powerful leverage against a gullible world, but in reality a bit of digging shows them to be ordinary people like you and me full of foibles and hangups, also very susceptible to fame and fortune, like most people are.  

 But this is the method by which this point of view is presented as indisputable, Its fine they say, that there are one or two mavericks out there, but it makes sense, we are told, to trust the viewpoint of the VAST MAJORITY of scientific consensus on this issue. 

 There are two problems with this: 

 Firstly: Just exactly how did they arrive at the 'vast consensus' statistic?  (and as we shall see it is hardly the consensus we were lead to believe).
Secondly: Consensus has historically nearly always been shown up to be false by one or two 'mavericks' who realised something that was only accepted much later (Galileo and Copernicus are the famous examples). 
It only takes one scientist to present proof to the contrary to make the consensus wrong.

1980 saw the creation of Earth First

Another group inspired by 'silent spring'.

They have an ecocentric view of the world --- believing in equality between the rights of humans to flourish, the rights of all other species to flourish and the rights of life-sustaining systems to flourish.


Paul Ehrlich Born 1932

American Biologist, known for his warnings against the consequences of population growth.

The Population Bomb 

Ehrlich wrote this with his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.

 It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience.

Back to the Garden or Evolutionary opportunity?


 Whatever the criticisms on this book, fears about the exponential growth of mankind remain. . . how many humans can this planet take before we humans like locusts level the fields and resources and are left with mass extinction?

 what's strange to me is the philosophy behind this thinking. . .

The Mythology of Environmentalism


 This concerted attempt to rouse support for the mankind to rise up and 'Save the Planet' has its own kind of mythology 

 Which goes something like this: 
Once was a time when the earth was like a garden of eden but then the humans came and multiplied and covered the face of a once pristine earth. 

 The 'original sin' in this mythology is human greed, our technological development that destroyed the beautiful earth and then overpopulation, there are just too many of us for the fragile planet to cope with. 

 Man is evil and the earth would be better off without him, so maybe just a few people is what we should strive for, which means something must be done to get rid of the unwanted millions. 'Redemption' in this context will be when the population is reduced to an acceptable number and the earth will return to its once beatific state. 
But this mythology is simply not in line with the evolutionary paradigm that has been the official view by the 'consensus' (there's that word again) of scientific thought today.

The Evolution Paradigm

If we look at this from a evolutionary perspective then we know that death is a means to new life right? If there is too much Carbon in the atmosphere then perhaps we should just evolve into a carbon loving organism? If we die out then . . . so what? 

 Lets have a blast and accept the fate of countless generations of species that already have disappeared. Like the dinosaur maybe we have had our time and out of the detritus of human civilisation a whole new life form can emerge - or not! 

 Isn't that evolution? Exactly how it works! This is the point made by comedian George Carlin .


George Carlin on Global Warming
This is a well known somewhat cynical materialist evolutionist comedian the late George Carlin giving his view on the misplaced responsibilities of the environmentalist movements.
If evolution is a correct hypothesis for man's existence then this is soooo true. 

But of course there will be some serious minded responsible type people will say . . .This is the wrong attitude and we should act now in order to save the planet for our children's children and prevent mankind's extinction. 

 Well thats all fine and all just remember, this is not the evolutionary process as we understand it.

 So then what is it? 

 just as so many critics say and rightly so - environmentalism is a new religion. . . 

Just to be obtuse 

There are some who say there is NO problem

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2717309/Life-open-road-Meet-Americas-new-nomads-broken-free-society-follow-ancient-paths-natural-fulfilling-life.html

 Mind you - there are many who say there is plenty of room on this earth for everybody. The crowded cities draw people in to use the resources available and job opportunities, and the over crowding of city centres give the idea that there is no space left on the earth. The reality is there are vast areas of earth that have not been utilised and are basically left wide open people just don't want to live there because life is apparently better in the cities.

  Here's a great example

But how can people just go off into the Wilderness and survive? Well yes it takes a co-ordinated collective effort and hard work. But it is certainly possible and has been achieved already. 

 Well without getting into the politics have a look at Israel. 

 The land itself is not great for growth and development but through technology initiative and hard work Israel has become a huge exporter of fruit - an amazing accomplishment. 
http://www.fromthegrapevine.com/photos/nature/sweetest-fruit-mountain/

 This is just one example, the photo is of a pomegranate plantation in southern Israel.

 Israeli pomegranates  ripen from late August through March, with October as the prime month for harvesting.

 Israel exports nearly half of its annual supply to countries throughout the world.

 This is one success story that could be repeated time and again -But POLITICS 

 Yes these politicians all keeping back wealth to use for war mongering and selfish power struggles, do not distribute wealth to uplift the economies of African countries who have far more natural recourses than small arid land in the desert of the middle east.

 And it is these types who control the Climate change agenda. 

Spiked has been consistently critical of environmentalism. 



It accuses environmentalism of misanthropy for supporting cuts in population and economic growth, rather than investment in technological improvements, particularly in response to climate change. 

James Heartfield, for instance, argues that the environmentalist concern with cutting back growth is linked to elitist prejudices:
The ecological outlook is an expression of middle-class rage at the masses ... Environmentalism, like all political discourses that take shortage as their starting point, will tend towards misanthropic solutions. 

Any movement that begins with the view that mankind must be curtailed to reduce the pressure on the environment will have to start thinking how it will select those who must make sacrifices.

Spiked has not denied that human carbon emissions are contributing to climate change. Spiked criticises what it sees as the political interpretation of this fact put forward by the environmentalist movement. For example, in 2007 James Woudhuysen and Joe Kaplinsky argued that "the IPCC's fairly sober summary of climate science has been spun [by environmentalists] to tell a story of Fate, Doom and human folly.” Josie Appleton argued that: "Today's 'global warming story' — where morality equates to carbon calculating – owes more to the anxious zeitgeist than scientific findings."
Spiked criticises environmentalists for preferring to reduce economic growth in response to climate change, rather than to expand it by finding improved alternative sources of energy. Furedi argues that "innovation is necessary, not only to deal with climate change, but also to produce a great deal more inexpensive energy in order that more people can enjoy the fruits of modern society.”Spiked  contributors have thus written in defence of hydroelectric  and nuclear power,often dismissed by environmentalist campaigners

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)