Dark Green XI: Climate Change: Divide and Conquer all over again…(1)

By M.K. Styllinski

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”

– H.L. Mencken


dyingearth© infrakshun

The centralisation of power in the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire is the objective. It always was. And as long as psychopaths remain at the helm of the decision-making process in our societies across the globe, securing resources and depopulating the mass of ordinary people will remain a key resolution of the 0.001 %. The Global Pathocrats want it all and they really believe that the husbandry of their quaint human-chattel is the only destiny available, as it was in past empire civilisations of antiquity, so shall it be again. It is in this context that the history of environmentalism becomes an evolution of eco-Fascism.

For the ponerisation of core values and the rise of mass pathology to be implanted you need a cogent form of high level, well-funded propaganda that must gain sufficient momentum and popularity to succeed. It must also have many factions appropriating it for their beliefs. It must be normalised to the extent that it can be in plain sight and held aloft as principles to which we must all aspire.

This brings us to global warming and climate change.

One of the biggest scams of the century is the global warming hoax. True or false?

With that statement alone I’ve immediately placed myself in a category that is either:

  • a right-wing Obama-hater
  • American patriot and gun-toting conspiracy theorist
  • Corporate agent for the oil, coal and nuclear power industry
  • Liberal-leftie who’s lost his way in a heartless world of disinformation.
  • All the above. (Anything is possible).

It’s very easy to become lost in the friction created between all these warring beliefs and where an objective rendering of the facts becomes almost impossible. And this is where we find ourselves. Most people know that there seems to be something odd happening to our weather systems and most people believe that some sort of climate change is afoot, the most likely culprit being human influenced (anthropocentric) global warming.

However, alternative reasons for climate change are not only being marginalised or ignored but actively covered up. Instead of good science and open rigorous public discussion, we have a global warming industry with an army of thought police monitoring its academic and media brethren as a dictator would his people. When anyone questions the gospel of anthropocentric global warming (AGW) they are immediately seen as a heretic and working for the other side. Labels of “climate deniers” with the obvious associations with holocaust deniers have been attached to those brave enough to question the science of AGW.

Lauded institutions such as the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) remain the source of much of the global warming theory and its place in academia and MSM as the theory, despite the facts which show that academic corruption is common place. This is not surprising since global warming – care of the Club of Rome – is a useful adjunct to the whole UN Agenda 21/SMART growth ideology.

The majority of ecologists and environmentalists agree with the Establishment in their support for AGW whereas others support the evidence for a natural cycle of climate change. Then you have various shades of grey between both camps which neither tend to appreciate. It’s either black or white – evil heretic in the pay of corporatism or or angelic Percevals forging a scientific path to climate science glory. As is ever the case, when you find yourself going against the Establishment line (money, power and faulty science) and find consistent scientific evidence that contradicts the consensus, you are setting yourself up to be that heretic, an especially harrowing experience in science circles where could lose your job and your reputation. This is the reality today if you are an advocate of the natural cycle despite the hard data available.

When science merges with activism of any hue it ceases to become objective and instead allows belief to subtly or crudely alter experimentation and research. Climate change, carbon credits are in the same boat as UN Agenda 21. It is a huge industry with the fossil fuel and oil lobby playing the part of evil oppressor of the greener-than-green AGW crowd. It’s a tried and tested formula. Real science doesn’t get a look in, before  it is corporatised and politicised. As a result, corruption and greed further erode science, the toxicity of which has entered both education and academia without most people really being aware of its presence, thus playing a part in its propagation. If you side with the consensus however, and suppress your misgivings whilst signing on to the AGW gravy-train, you can rest easy and continue to preach the gospel, safe in the knowledge that your pay-cheque is safe and your students won’t hate you for being a closet corporatist.

Digging for the truth on this subject is a quagmire of impenetrable cross-conceptualisations, moneyed interests, poor science and aggressive beliefs straining at their leashes, gagging to take a chunk out of your open-mind. The problem is, if you talk to the AGW advocate he will list all kinds of evidence supporting his theory. He will talk of “consensus” and what most people believe. He will passionately poo-poo other theories and generally tear strips off their so called “science” leaving without any doubt that others are on the wrong track and sadly deluded.

CO2, green-house gases, sea-levels rising, humans as detritus – How could it be wrong? The data is there in black and white! Look around the world – what do you see?  Look at the melting ice-caps, rain-forest destruction and desertification! Are you crazy??

So, not wishing to be on the wrong side of the “consensus” so much touted by the media and the increasingly vociferous AGW-Greenpeace-activists, our belief begins to grow, displacing our open mind. We decide to avoid the natural cycle guy sitting forlornly on his own in the climate change canteen because we already know and AGW fits perfectly with our imagined assumptions about wicked humans and a return to Eden. The problem then becomes one of selective omission in our minds. We have chosen to hear one view from one climate camp and we don’t have the time, energy or inclination to find out what’s going on in the other camp. So, this is already falling way short of an informed decision. Perhaps he’s an agent of the fossil fuel lobby to obfuscate and muddy the waters? Besides, it’s comfortable. You like it. This is part of your worldview of scientist and activist. This is your identity.

Even if you’ve heard the dominant media-led AGW arguments and the opposite view – that there is no climate change (it’s all a hoax) – and you have heard the global cooling advocates …but you haven’t heard from all the other experts bringing other positions to the table. What about those who don’t believe in in human-influenced climate change but don’t jump aboard the global cooling train either? What about those who think the sun is the primary culprit or that cosmological influences need to be taken into account? Perhaps we have assimilated two dominant views in the media, with the Establishment busy enforcing the conflict so that the general public are never exposed to first rate science and their discoveries. Since science today is extremely corrupt and is inhabited by persons with truly enormous egos, the need for multidisciplinary research outside of the lure of money, power and stifling beliefs, has never been more urgent. Why should climate change be immune to ponerisation when so much money is involved?

Once you know this, you begin to see and sense very obvious indications right from the start; so, obvious that it becomes garish and crude in its manifestations. Divide and rule works both ways. The right-wing corporatist /fossil fuel lobby against the left-leaning AGW, scientist-activists fighting for Mother Earth. Neither have it right. That’s the general idea. Belief is a powerful lubricate in the never-ending circus of emotionally driven conclusions, whether scientist or layman.

Taking into account ALL the data from all domains in society and given what we know about official culture and psychopathic influences, my reasoning falls towards climate change as a natural cycle of warming and cooling with both meteorological, oceanic, geo-physical and cosmological elements all playing a part. Human influence can be attributed to ozone depletion, greenhouse gases and the obvious tangible physical destruction on the ground – but that is all.

It seems there is no longer sufficient exploration of theoretical constructs and rigorous observation but a lot of simulation and software as the driver of research. The politicisation of science has arrived with a vengeance and nowhere is the problem more acute than in the field of climate change. Think-tanks, foundations, trusts, and bureaucratic institutions like the United Nations and the IPCC have become political conduits provided with never-ending grant programs and support which is very far from scientific objectivity but big on ideology and greed. Already riding on the propaganda wave of UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, various lobbying groups, within Universities especially, are fostering more stealth deception rather than true understanding and informed debate. The IPCC is perhaps the worst example of an assumed scientific consensus hiding a bureaucracy of politicised methodology and often fraudulent research. A top down approach to science in Universities is similarly shackled by a competition for government funds that inevitably dilutes quality. When money becomes the deciding factor it doesn’t take an Einstein to see that this is a slippery road for all. Reputations and careers are at stake as never before depending on which side of the climate divide you stand. The challenge of experimenting with new theories and experiencing truly free debate at the multidisciplinary level is more difficult than ever.

When authoritarian principles begin to infiltrate scientific inquiry then science becomes just another tool for social control. Reasoned debate becomes point scoring whilst objective research slides evermore to results which are subjective, impartial and distorted. Since fear is always useful to those engaged in mass subterfuge, global warming sensationalism offers a powerful conduit for furthering Agenda 21. It matters little that there may indeed by some truth to an approaching environmental cataclysm for instance, but it is the manner in which such information is processed and how data can be used to railroad science into supporting issues which fall outside scientific inquiry that should be given attention.

Enter once again: our nondescript Canadian entrepreneur-New-age-eco-guru come bureaucrat: Mr. Maurice Strong. It was this man who was given the task of persuading movers and shakers that global warming was the primary tool for social engineering leaders and the public alike in “saving the planet.” Who cares if the science was missing? Limits to Growth computer modelling and its legacy would take up the slack. It was to be another coup d’état for Strong in the long-term when it was floated at the UN Swiss conference of 1971 and a later re-injection of passion at the UN sponsored Kyoto Conference in 1992. A gradual tidal wave of funding crashed on the shores of climate research and the IPCC emerged in 1988 to act as a pinnacle of academic resource on climate change science. AGW now had a benefactor and protector which would grow considerable teeth in the subsequent years.

To understand how the global warming hysteria is hindering true scientific understanding of our ecological future we must take a brief look at its origins.

Advertisements

8 comments

    1. Unfortunately, these are not my “grandiose conspiracy theories” but a complex interplay of science, greenwashing and societal ponerization, which you may at least come to understand if you were able to do proper research beyond your own beliefs. (At least you appear to see the issues of wind energy as the environmental desecration that it is, not forgetting that it is an economic hoax and health hazard due to infrasound).

      Now you’ve the chance to apply the same perspicacity to the nature of politicised climate science which is tossed like a tennis ball between the fossil fuel lobby and the human-influenced global warming nonsense carefully promoted by the Establishment.

      On the question of C02 you might want to review the paper published by Dr. James Hansen and the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis team (GISTEMP) in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). In the 2000 paper – unsurprisingly buried for years – they make some interesting conclusions:

      “…we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..

      If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change.

      Read the original paper here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long

      And this is just one of many counter arguments by those who are NOT part of the Fossil fuel lobby. Try to understand that the psycho-social factor is dominant here and that there are those with a “green” agenda that includes obfuscation and corruption, the reasons for which I have outlined in other posts.

      Man is not above the laws of nature but the devil is in the details as to how and precisely where this occurs…

      Like

      1. I Googled that section and if you read the whole paper it’s clear that he’s not minimizing the importance of CO2, rather saying that other GHGs might be more pragmatically/easily reduced since cutting CO2 is a monumental task. He was just offering an alternative scenario which was subject to revision as more info was known. You can’t grab a few paragraphs from 16 years ago and ignore the preponderance of evidence from all other sources.

        Below is some context you (and other right-leaning sources) left out, but the whole paper needs to be read and it’s not layman’s material:

        “This interpretation does not alter the desirability of limiting CO2 emissions, because the future balance of forcings is likely to shift toward dominance of CO2 over aerosols, However, we suggest that it is more practical to slow global warming than is sometimes assumed.”

        Source: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010056903.pdf

        The problem with most climate “skeptics” is that they are against environmental regulations in general and have a confirmation bias whenever they find some cherry-picked item that questions the need for regulations. They are the same types who necessitated the creation of the EPA by their inaction, and they still pretend the “market” cared about pollution on its own.

        Also, it makes no sense to burn more fossil fuels than absolutely necessary, as they are critical (esp. oil) for so many things. Climate deniers behave like gluttons who want to burn the whole stash as fast as possible. What sane society would do that? The economy as we know it could crash without oil for transport, industry, agriculture and thousands of other uses, yet right-leaning people seem glad to waste it. Wise oil companies would scale down their operations and stretch supplies as long as possible. Of course, too much is invested in fossil fuel dependent industries for that to happen without great resistance.

        That’s the real economic & political conspiracy to focus on. If you conclude that global warming is no big deal, it just encourages a bunch of shortsighted waste and nobody wins down the road. There is no scenario where fossil fuels are infinite and business as usual could continue indefinitely.

        Like

        1. I Googled that section and if you read the whole paper it’s clear that he’s not minimizing the importance of CO2, rather saying that other GHGs might be more pragmatically/easily reduced since cutting CO2 is a monumental task. He was just offering an alternative scenario which was subject to revision as more info was known. You can’t grab a few paragraphs from 16 years ago and ignore the preponderance of evidence from all other sources.

          This was merely to illustrate a point: C02 is not necessarily the primary culprit and is very likely a red herring. There are similar articles addressing C02 which are far more forthright and uncompromising but this is the one I pulled from my files. This is, after all, a comments section and I don’t know about you but my time is precious therefore having written about all this before I’m not going to repeat the things you choose to ignore all over again. You may not agree with my standpoints but please don’t suggest that “grabbing a few paragraphs” from an older article is somehow indicative of apathy, laziness on my part. I’ve done the research and continue to do so – and it doesn’t stack up. But you prefer to believe that its as easy as right-wing = wrong and left-green = right. No wonder you don’t get it.

          Below is some context you (and other right-leaning sources) left out, but the whole paper needs to be read and it’s not layman’s material:

          And here again your own filter is revealed by suggesting I am a “right-wing” source which I consider laughable. There are good points and bad points in both capitalism and socialism and many other political ideologies, but I do not consider myself right wing, left wing or following any party line. Can we say the same about you and your beliefs? Are you aware how they may distort what you consider to be “evidence”? You appear to be heavily invested in bashing conservatism which I can understand to a degree, but it’s also your blind-spot.

          No indeed, it is not layman’s material which is why I chose it for you. Otherwise you would have castigated me for pulling out something from the Daily Mail, which according to your binary line of thinking would probably be my rag of choice.

          The problem with most climate “skeptics” is that they are against environmental regulations in general and have a confirmation bias whenever they find some cherry-picked item that questions the need for regulations. They are the same types who necessitated the creation of the EPA by their inaction, and they still pretend the “market” cared about pollution on its own.

          I completely agree with you. Which is why it is so hard to find the balance between someone who looks at the evidence carefully without filters and beliefs and the confirmation bias you speak of, (although I think the blind-spot bias is more dangerous). Again, if you stop bandying about media-grown labels like “Climate skeptics” and “climate deniers” with the allusion to holocaust deniers (pathetic but effective) you simply show how malleable your perceptions can be and how you are defined by belief rather than science.

          Also, it makes no sense to burn more fossil fuels than absolutely necessary, as they are critical (esp. oil) for so many things. Climate deniers behave like gluttons who want to burn the whole stash as fast as possible. What sane society would do that? The economy as we know it could crash without oil for transport, industry, agriculture and thousands of other uses, yet right-leaning people seem glad to waste it. Wise oil companies would scale down their operations and stretch supplies as long as possible. Of course, too much is invested in fossil fuel dependent industries for that to happen without great resistance.

          I also agree. But again, you are speaking about those who do not agree with the left-liberal-green version of climate science (to use your categorisation system) as being in the pocket of the corporate fossil fuel lobby and with a conservative axe to grind. Well, that may be so in a great number of cases. Yet, it is also true that many are not conservative/agents but simply following the science and who refuse to be cowed by bad science and corruption on BOTH sides of the camp. Just because I am not at all convinced on the evidence of C02 as villain and anthropocentric global warming doesn’t mean to say I am an advocate or agent of the fossil fuel lobby. Reducing reliance on such fuel is a good thing but not at any cost and not through flawed science and propaganda aligned to a specific agenda which transcends party politics (the latter of which you might understand if you did some research on social engineering and ponerology).

          I agree once again, that fossil fuel production cannot be infinite. I am an advocate for renewable energy (Except wind farms) and believe in all the precepts and principles of sustainable growth and community as long as these principles have not been hijacked and subverted, which is often the case. If you continue to see things through the lens of “right and left” when there is a middle ground to be had (though very hard to forge) then you will be drawing on a very limited field of perceptions and thereby information – precisely the confirmation bias you mention. It works both ways.

          I can see that you have your beliefs invested in the idea that the “real economic and political conspiracy” is fossil fuels and oil corporatism as I did when I was a student. In fact, the problem lies in institutional psychopathy which manifests the very negative dynamics under discussion and which appear in ALL societal domains, which is why it is so important for a multi-disciplinary approach to these issues. In the same way, human-influenced global warming may be MUCH more complex but it requires leaving the media led-categorisations and binary thinking behind and embracing a much bigger picture.

          Further reading for those interested about the complexities of C02 rather than drawing from the juvenile dictionary of the establishment line: How much will the doubling of CO2 in the air warm the global temperature? How do scientists take an accurate measurement of the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere? Why can scientists better measure atmospheric temperatures from satellites than surface temperatures from ground thermometers?

          Please also read Dark Green XII: Climate Change: Divide and Conquer all over again…(2) for more explorations on C02.

          Like

  1. Author: What part of CO2 traps heat (and it has nothing to do with politics) don’t you understand? This physical fact of nature was already known in the mid 1800s (John Tyndall). It only became fodder for Libertarian conspiracy theories when the evidence showed we needed to act on it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Suffice to say, it’s easy to include what is considered scientific fact and then assume that this is the primary mover, when a host of complex variables are also at play. I am personally not convinced, that carbon dioxide – an important and beneficial gas ( a climate fertilizer) – is the key culprit for climate change. I think that it is much more probable that solar activity is ONE of the main climate change drivers and certainly not the risible 0.1 % of C02 attributed to human activity.

      Planets in our solar system are heating up generally and exhibit the same effects as anthropocentric global warming..No human beings there…A little clue I think…

      Saving the rainforests, acting on the hole in the ozone layer and all manner of doable environmentalism is commendable. But trying to act on reducing C02 emissions is truly a waste of time both in terms of flawed science and the hope of practical effects should it even prove to be a significant driver. And here is the key point and how politics and agendas play a huge part: Even if we could ban fossil fuel output over night and achieve significant cuts in C02 globally it wouldn’t make the slightest difference because I think we are dealing with a natural and multi-faceted cycle of global warming and global cooling, where in my view, C02 plays a minimal part in its evolution.

      And if you think that politics doesn’t play a part in climate science (including the science of C02 issues) and you believe this is about “Libertarian conspiracy theory” (Really?) then it shows the level of your understanding on these issues is extremely poor and you have chosen to miss the point. When large sums of money are involved facts become pliable since corruption and persuasion professionals intersect ALL avenues of science. But I’m sure that salient fact is too “conspiratorial” for you….

      Like

  2. “Planets in our solar system are heating up generally and exhibit the same effects as anthropocentric global warming”

    Whoa!! Not only are we destroying our planet with global warming, but the entire SOLAR SYSTEM!! This is a disaster, the government must do something before it’s too late!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s