The Tyranny Of Global Warmists Is Worse Than You Think
“The more one has paid for a forgery, the more one defends it in the face of all the evidence to the contrary,” writes John Le Carré in his novel about espionage and deception, Smiley’s People.
This certainly seems to be the case with the four major weather-tracking agencies: the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, the Remote Sensing Systems Inc. in California, and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York (NASA GISS).
In a previous article for The Pipeline, I examined the malfeasance of the influential Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, where two major email dumps (aka “Climategate”) showed the outfit’s determined efforts to fudge the data, suppress unfavorable results and eliminate dissenting voices.
This should have put the “global warming” farce to bed once and for all, but the deception shows no sign of abating.
The reason seems obvious. The entire climate consortium has invested its resources into perpetuating the racket by whatever means it can come up with, slandering its opponents, merchandising outright lies that would make Pinocchio blush (“Right and wrong? But how will I know?”), and inflating temperature data.
To take one example from myriads, the Goddard Institute, which feeds the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, has no thermometers north of eighty degrees latitude and so extrapolated its readings from its more southerly apparatus to pump up the global average.
In fact, GISS Arctic anomalies are high by as much as 4 degrees.
As Larry Bell, author of the richly informative Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax, reports in Forbes that Goddard data is unreliable.
He quotes a certain Dr. Ruedy of GISS, who confessed in an email that data are not routinely kept up-to-date and that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis.
“NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have been correct,” Ruedy said. Plus ça change.
It seems the so-called scientists working at such institutes just pull their figures out of a hat. No wonder that the Goddard/NOAA bunch advertised for magicians—you read this right—to conduct seminars featuring “magic tricks, puzzles, brainteasers, word games… designed to demonstrate how to… practice needed skills and competencies.”
This is an outright invitation to scientific fraud.
Former American Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth has gone on record justifying scientific fraud. “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,” he said, “we will be doing the right thing.”
How doing the right thing by perpetuating the wrong thing is a conundrum only a climate advocate can propound.
Frank Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, has diagnosed the problem clearly.
“How did we ever come to this?” he asks, and answers: “Government financing of scientific research caused it.”
The political establishment, in its quest to gain ever-increasing control of public and economic life, has seen to it that AGW (“anthropogenic global warming”) scientists are “the only ones with federal grants,” and, moreover, that these malleable scientists “are much more likely to get university jobs since universities are now almost wholly dependent on federal money… Soon there are none but true believers in the field: a consensus has been reached!”
Many of the major scientific journals have also been adulterated as a result. William Gray, professor emeritus of the atmosphere department of Colorado State University, laments that “fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out.”
These scientists don’t seem to care that the climate hoax will cost the polity of the Western world a bundle, leading inevitably to economic catastrophe.
As Anthony O’Hear, editor of the journal Philosophy points out, global warming “will bankrupt the developed nations of the West by driving fuel costs up unsustainably, reduc[ing] the influence and prosperity of nation-states in the face of a ‘global’ threat.”
Millions of jobs will be lost in the developed world and the quality of life in the industrialized nations will sink to substandard levels.
Moreover, the Third World will be deprived of the minimal essentials, immunities, comforts, and amenities to which it aspires.
Fiona Kobusingye, the coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda, condemns in no uncertain terms the attempt to impose energy restrictions on African nations in the name of fighting global warming.
“These policies kill,” she writes. As for Warmist-in-Chief Al Gore, he “uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year.”
Her conclusion: “Telling Africans they can’t have electricity—except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels—is immoral. It is a crime against humanity.”
But too many people, corporations, and enterprises are raking in enormous profits from the climate boondoggle.
What Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism Green Power Black Death and co-author of Cracking Big Green, calls the Climate Industrial Complex is a $2 trillion per year business based on a “steady diet of false information and alarmism.”
Driessen shows how “the growing gap between computer model predictions and satellite temperature measurements, as well as questions about data manipulation by scientists advocating the dangerous man-made climate change narrative” are sufficient to scuttle the entire eco-globalist project.
The truth is that massive Green alternatives “are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable,” though they are obscenely lucrative for their proponents.
Climate alarmists will fight tooth and nail to keep the truth from getting out. Writing in Climate Realism, Anthony Watts advises “pushing against a group-think narrative and exposing the lies and real misinformation surrounding the climate scare.”
Climate alarmists retaliate against exposure by “using dirty tricks like labeling [their critics] as if they were radical enemies of the state, worthy of imprisonment in the gulag.”
Indeed, a gaggle of “University of Exeter professors, advocate[s] fines and imprisonment for people publishing ‘climate misinformation’…It gets worse. An ugly theatrical play, called Kill Climate Deniers, was even created in Australia about the issue.”
This is an old story by now. James Hansen at the Goddard Institute employed the same scary, autocratic sentiment, urging that CEOs of fossil energy companies “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Similarly, British lawyer Polly Higgins, author of Eradicating Ecocide, petitions the United Nations to define “ecocide” as a punishable crime and to prosecute “climate deniers” for “crimes against peace.”
Consider, too, the authoritarian looniness of Canada’s own David Suzuki who, addressing the McGill University Business Conference on Sustainability on January 31, 2008, stated:
“What I would challenge you to do is put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”
The hypocrisy is staggering. In Not for Greens, Ian Plimer uses the example of a stainless steel teaspoon to show that neither wind, solar nor biomass energy could have produced such an artifact.
This is the argument from extrapolation: none of the technological, industrial and agricultural infrastructures, the safety measures, the medical advances, the devices and appliances we casually and indiscriminately use and rely on every moment of our lives would have been possible under a Green dispensation.
The Greenies were born with a stainless steel teaspoon in their mouths, which a moment of honest reflection would tell them they could not do without.
Rupert Darwall in Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, reveals how in pursuing its repressive agenda, “the Red-Green coalition upped its institutional firepower” by recruiting some of the world’s most influential energy agencies, banks, insurance groups, foundations, and even the Catholic Church under Pope Francis via the Pontifical Academy of Science.
He continues: “The effect of wall-to-wall government-and-foundation-funded green propaganda is not so much to silence dissenting voices as to asphyxiate them.”
The complicity of high finance, as potently influential as it is entirely misguided, is well illustrated by the CEO of the $7 trillion BlackRock asset manager firm David Fink, who said, as The New York Times reports, “BlackRock would begin to exit certain investments that ‘present a high sustainability-related risk’… [thus encouraging] every company, not just energy firms, to rethink their carbon footprints.”
Fink went on to say, as if in emulation of Tim Wirth, that “even if only a fraction of the science is right today, this is a much more structural, long-term crisis.”
The issue, however, has nothing to do with fractions; the problem is that nearly all of the accepted science is wrong today. People like Fink are not solving a crisis, they are helping to create it.
One is sometimes hard put to decide whether our Global Warmists are shrewdly calculating or vastly ignorant.
The kindling of environmental fright has given these radical enthusiasts, corporate plutocrats, statist visionaries, Davos elitists, power-seekers, and global technocrats the “green light” to legislative domination of Western electorates and the projected reorganization of society along synodic or absolutist lines.
Writing for the Mises Institute, economics professor Antony P. Mueller warns that
Under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF)), global policymakers are advocating for a ‘Great Reset’ with the intent of creating a global technocracy [whose] agenda says that the completion of the current industrial revolution requires a thorough overhaul of the economy, politics, and society.
The new social contract instructs us, among other things, that “climate change requires us ‘to decarbonize the economy’ and to bring human thinking and behavior ‘into harmony with nature.’”
Mueller points out that the ideology of the Great Reset “includes many elements of earlier collectivist ideologies.”
And it does. As founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab writes, we are in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, “blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”
This will affect “our identity and all the issues associated with it… leading to a “quantified” self [and assuring that] “governments will gain new technological powers to increase their control over populations, based on pervasive surveillance systems and the ability to control digital infrastructure.”
This is one of the main planks in the Democratic Party platform to reduce the United States to a command and control economy—in Joe Biden’s words, to “create millions of good-paying union jobs”—nota bene, union jobs—by financing a slew of projects and “to meet the climate crisis.”
This is cartoon thinking. As Heartland Institute editor Chris Talgo writes, Biden’s $2 trillion energy plan “will implement social justice via a convoluted and nonsensical attack on the energy industry,” resulting in monumental debt, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and an unaffordable as well as an unreliable power grid.
Canada, of course, is wholly and officially on board with the climate hysteria syndrome wreaking havoc on an energy industry that accounts for a fifth of Canada’s exports and further intensifying the country’s economic miseries.
Bill C-69, known as the pipeline killer, looks set to drive investment out of the country. Pipeline construction to tidewater is a dead letter.
Pipeline builders like TC Energy Corp., Kinder Morgan Inc., Keystone XL, and Enbridge Inc. are being put to sleep, energy companies like Encana and others are moving away to more hospitable climes, the Alberta oil sands, in Trudeau’s own words, will be gradually “phased out” of operation, and Trudeau has signed on to the crippling Paris Climate Agreement from that the U.S., under Donald Trump, has wisely withdrawn.
Indeed, major energy producers like China and India have also opted out.
As Rex Murphy writes of our feckless prime minister, “you can choose Paris, or you can choose Calgary. And up to now, it’s been Paris all the way.”
Conrad Black also points to a PM who “wages war on Alberta and the oil and gas industries for spurious climatic reasons,” who leads “the derelict hulk of contemporary liberal (and Liberal) pseudo-virtuous tokenism,” and who ensures that we continue “failing to make our way in a Darwinian world.”
Not only is the price tag for these policies and developments prohibitive, but they also consort with the Liberal agenda to bring the country’s economic sector under increased government sway in accord with the socialist project to place competitive and prosperous free-market societies under hegemonic state control.
“Global warming” is a totalitarian’s dream come true, eventuating in a renewed primitivism for the majority of the population.
The masters will prosper but the servants, those who elect them, have forgotten the old joke: What did the socialists use before candles? Electricity.
Eco-fanatics and their Warmist brethren accuse skeptics and so-called “deniers” of being oblivious to the health of the environment, but once again they are egregiously wrong.
No one opposes reduced impact-logging and sustainable forest management, measures for reducing air pollution, or the practice of cleaning up our rivers, all agreed-upon initiatives that have nothing to do with “climate change.”
Rich Trzupek justly points to the “distinctions that separate healthy environmental protection from irrational ecological puritanism.” The confusion between environment and climate, whether ignorant or deliberate, is but another arrow in the Warmist quiver.
The three defining characteristics of the “climate change” movement should by this time have become obvious:
- Data falsification
- Ostracism of dissenting voices
“Cancel culture” was a staple of the Climate-Industrial Complex long before it became a Leftist issue of the day.
One might add a fourth feature: fantasticality. A serious conviction has been largely replaced by earnest frivolity. The eco-celebrants are a fervid congregation of believers, do-gooders, talking heads, Leftist apparatchiks, academic elitists, cynical exploiters, eco-fascists, petty despots and saints-in-the-making, all chanting the holy mantra of climate warming.
Read rest at The Pipeline
Trackback from your site.