IPCC

Official Culture Reprise VI: Moving Away From the Psychopath’s Dream (3)

 “No science is immune from the infection of politics and the corruption of power.”

Jacob Bronowski, English scientist


The reader might be tempted to think that I’ve invested in my own belief system by placing the all the world’s problems at the door of the essential psychopath. While it is true that I think the majority of our struggles have at their root a great psychological component it could also be said that beyond this “nuts and bolts” cause is the more profound conundrum of how we perceive reality and the human constructs we have erected around it. One might say, at heart, all of our problems are ultimately of a spiritual nature.

The very word “Spirituality” – rather like “conspiracy”- will have loaded connotations for all of us. For some it means all that is outside science and therefore, to be distrusted. For others it has religious or New Age connotations. Still more cite indifference or become uncomfortable at the mere mention of the word. Most people however, while not necessarily believing in a religious God, do place value on the idea of our existence having purpose where getting along with others is a prerequisite for the betterment of one’s life. Some would say this has more to do with reflecting insecurity and fear of death rather than any true belief in a Universal purpose, but this misses the point.

The key principle enshrined in the notion of spirituality is one of establishing growth which moves toward harmony in oneself and thus as a natural consequence, those we meet in our daily lives. It need be as simple as that, although in practice is anything but. But when things begin to slowly – usually very slowly – change, then so does the external world. But Or as the ancient Taoist mystic Lao Tzu succinctly put it: “When you accept yourself, the whole world accepts you.” Self-acceptance only comes when we have divested ourselves of the majority of conditioning however, and that is something that the controllers of our world definitely do not want to see.

(more…)

Advertisements

Dark Green XVIII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye2 © infrakshun


To reiterate, tearing strips off the IPCC is not some exercise in criticising for its own sake but to highlight where science has been politicised and corrupted. Similarly, there is obviously a huge need to care for our environment and everything else in this precious biosphere. We cannot do this until we have climate science firmly outside activism and where ecological conservation has been innoculated against corporatism and Establishment influence.

If we go back to the Climategate 2.0 scandal, we can see that some of the emails relating to the IPCC are quite illuminating on these points. For example, Professor Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences deciding what shouldn’t go into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change.”

Commenting on another section of an IPCC report he states:

“Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?” [1]

Or Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University searching for a suitable hurricane paper that dovetails into his beliefs and thus the IPCC AR4 report:

“Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [Tropical Cyclone] activity.” [2]

Each of the climate reports (CRs) are weighty, no more so than the 2007 report at 3,000 pages. No one is going to wade through all of that, least of all the sound-bite media. What is more concerning and goes straight to the heart of why science plays so little part in climate change policy, is the IPCC executive summaries which it prepares for the smaller reports that make up the CRs as a whole. Not more than 35 pages in length, this is called “Summary for Policymakers” which gives you an idea how the IPCC wants these summaries to be used, even though the depth of understanding and contextual analysis may be missing.

Scientists are tasked with drafting these documents which are then passed on to those who meticulously pore over each line so that a cleansed and white-washed copy can be presented for inspection by a clueless media and public. So, these will not be scientific documents at all. These “cleansing” meetings are not open to anyone but IPCC staff and suitably vetted observers from environmental groups or organisations. The media are not permitted entry. A core group of IPCC bureaucrats decide what goes into the reports.

A Climategate 2.0 email by Tim Carter of the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and Climate Change Programme, writing to IPCC authors seems to confirm this fact even within the AGW brethren:

“Regarding the phrase ‘IPCC position’? Would it be wise to check that McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.”

And the reply:

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” [3]

Governments and organisations like the IPCC are complicit in the cover up and manipulation of scientific facts. Scientists who contribute to the CRs are being played and used for a political agenda and the short-term greed and the MSM has cheer-led this subterfuge from the beginning. A summary document given out as a press release to the world’s media and public has been put through the politician, bureaucrat and diplomat’s PR machine, vetted to make sure that it conforms to the AGW paradigm in secret and without oversight.

Devoid of facts but replete with conjecture, the media simply parrots the information and goes back to sleep. Indeed, regarding the draft reports the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri openly stated that they are altered, stating: “we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.” [4]This means regardless of the validity (or not) of expert science, the authors are side-lined and what they have written is tweaked to give unanimous support to the political agenda, an agenda that has been crystallized within the IPCC for more than twenty years.

vendetta3IPCC as authoritarian climate science?

Scientists within the IPCC also have misgivings, such as Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. Commenting in a Climategate 2.0 email, he states: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in – and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.” [5]

There’s an understatement to beat them all.

One of the holy grails of climate change science is computer modelling which has been responsible for much of the perceived advances in recent years. As we saw with the Club of Rome, the nature of computer modelling is fraught with assumption yet fully embraced as if the world operated on perfectly plotted principles. Evolution of any system is defined by its creative unpredictability a mathematical complexity of non-linear and often chaotic events far from equilibrium. In climate modelling a virtual world is set up that seems to be insulated from the “flies-in-the ointment” that may appear in long-term predicative analysis. The opinions of modellers then become a new science divorced from the observational inquiry. As LaFramboise asserts, the climate modelling science of opinion: “… is a recipe for tunnel-vision. It is group think waiting to happen,” and yet another example of the “group mind” steamrolling the creative sparks of objective thought which are not only needed in science but are essential to its healthy functioning so that it remains free from a political and belief-driven consensus.

No rigorous evaluation of climate modelling by independent parties has taken place. (This is presumably due to the love affair our culture is undergoing in relation to technology in general). Instead, the IPCC asks the same modellers to evaluate their own work. This is hardly scientific. Lead author roles for modellers is not the way forward, as there is little chance of them coming to the conclusion that climate modelling may be barking up the wrong tree. Since no true cold-blooded analysis of these models has taken place there is no way to know if they are even useful.

LaFramboise has also discovered that sections in the attribution chapter of the IPCC CRs are also written by climate modellers, the most crucial part of the report which decides the direction of global warming and if it is a man-made or natural cycle. Christopher Monckton and Garth W. Paltridge discovered that is wasn’t just the unreliability of climate modelling that is cause for concern but a strange coded bureaucracy that goes with it. The authors point out:

The big danger is that, with the increasing model complexity and cost, the number of truly independent climate models around the world is decreasing. This is because great slabs of the computer code of a model are often exchanged between research groups so as to avoid writing the stuff from scratch. This sort of exchange satisfies a general bureaucratic tendency to abhor what seems to be a duplication of effort. The net result must surely be a natural decrease in the spread of total feedback over the various remaining models and a consequent joy at the apparent tightening of the range of forecast temperature rise – a tightening that may have nothing at all to do with an improvement in the representation of the physics. [6]

Climate modelling does not ensure the validity of human-influenced global warming claims but rather fits neatly into circumscribed beliefs waiting in the wings. That does not mean to say that global warming is not a reality in some form, but to leave it to climate modelling to define all the parameters by which we can make informed decisions is dangerous because the solutions will lean hugely towards the overarching agenda explored previously. After all, even a minor tweak in feedback representations covering temperature rises can drastically alter a given a picture which can stretch from 1 degree celsius to infinity and beyond. That means that only thing we can be sure of is the fact that the much trumpeted “consensus” on global warming remains a myth.

Global_Climate_Model

“Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To ‘run’ a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.” (wikipedia)

Climate modelling also fails an important test when it comes to CO2 and temperature increase. In the 2007 IPCC report it even admits that the models do not seem to show the extra heat that should be there if we are to believe the theory. But they believe that the models are still correct and somehow the data out there in the real world is at fault. [7]

And here we come to a few important points relating to climate modelling and the temperature rise hysteria that the media and most academic establishments take for granted. Firstly, and very simply: Positive feedback = the reinforcement or magnification of disturbance. Secondly, Negative feedback = disturb the balance – a counteraction occurs. Thirdly, we have the greenhouse gas theory and the doubling of CO2 which might cause some warming of one degree celsius over a century. But there is the assumption that the climate responds to minute changes resulting in amplification of these changes by hundreds of percent. Positive feedback. But negative feedback is the dominant factor in almost every process in nature yet in climate science positive feedback is assumed to the culprit. Law professor Jason Johnston found in his study that: “climate catastrophe is not an “output of climate analysis but an input.” [8] In other words, the science is based on an assumption with no mention of the positive-negative feedback dichotomy anywhere in the reports.

LaFramboise points out the inevitable conclusion that:

“… the only reason climate models tell us we are at risk of eco apocalypse is because the climate modellers believe our climate system behaves in a manner that is opposite to the way most natural systems behave. If the modellers had split themselves into two groups, half programming-in negative feedback and half programming-in positive feedback, the first group of models would predict nothing alarming.” [9]

Yet, when we add this to protective bureaucracy, conflict of interest in both journals, media and activist-scientists in educational institutions and further include those IPCC personnel who “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties,” in IPCC reports, it is a clarion call for major change. [10]

And major change is the selling point at UN conferences. But rather than practical and preventative solutions emerging from such meetings, there is a lot of talk and a lot of political posturing with non-elected representatives of civil society pushing a consensus that doesn’t exist, except for those with a political agenda. What does happen is the organisation and allocation of mountains of CASH. The UN conferences in this respect are like a vast auction of clamouring NGOs and eco-activist groups seeking a top-up or first time injection for the cause, but it is the green of the dollar bill that informs the climate industry more than anything else.

dollarbillClimate Change is a multi-billion dollar industry

As we have seen, the United Nations and the UNEP are green-dipped in the New Age tank so that the various beliefs stick like parasites to the decision-making process. Not to mention the corruption and sexual abuse scandals which have dogged the UN for years. When you have a vast bureaucracy and a constant stream of money flowing into and out of the body sitting on top a system which has virtually no accountability any issue – no matter how noble – is going to be contaminated by politics, power and greed. It is about as basic a human fable as it gets. Add ponerology to the mix and you have a UN with its charters and declarations which work on paper only.

Like the perpetual rubber-stamping of the IPCC and other agencies, it is a symbiotic relationship of collusion rather than transparency. If you are not the most morally responsible individual and the rules do not apply to you by virtue of your status and you know you can get away with all kinds of back-handers and bribes, the system actively encourages you to maintain that trajectory. This is so often the nexus point for international decisions that determine the fate of nations. If there is no accountability, why should it be any different for UN bureaucrats who juggle the money flow?

***

We have barely touched the surface regarding the problems within the IPCC. What should be clear by now is that it is not a scientific body but a political one fused with the beliefs of scientist-activists. This was illustrated by a Climategate 2.0 email from Professor Heinz Wanner of the University of Bern. On reporting his National Academy of Sciences panel critique of Michael Mann to the media: “I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.” [11]
In the same way, politicians and environmental activists determine the form, content and outcome of IPCC reports that have been seen as the gospel truth for decades. Political discourse from more than 100 countries determines the direction. After all, it is worth potentially billions with a lot of academic posts, consultancies and companies riding on the AGW slipstream. Sounding the global warming bells in a variety of alarmist ways feeds into multiple agendas which have nothing to do with the truth. Consequently, to speak ill of AGW is to commit the outrageous sin of attacking the religious zeal of green militancy that has had a long and dark history.

wfarmsbirdsBirds flying into a wind turbines. Symbolic of IPCC climate science?

Is there any possibility that the IPCC can promote the same “radical shift” and “New value system” within its own ranks and which it insists society should adopt? Can it clean its own house to become the body of open-minded science that is so desperately needed?

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer believes thinks the organisation can never be fixed for the simple reason:

“… that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.” [12]

The organisation has embraced the same constructs that every co-opted movement has done in the past, whilst avoiding the opportunity to lead by example and follow the principles it continually demands from society. [13]The inherent danger of science and political ecology is what historian Anna Bramwell calls “a value-saturated creed” which acts like an open door for the movement to become fully ponerised. [14] Science is infused not with objectivity and a quest for truth but with subjective desires peculiar to a historical mind-set of authoritarianism, regardless of the root values present at its inception. This is the story of ponerology.

The legion of World State rulers in waiting would be very happy that a scientific elite is redefining human values for us. The myth that governments respond to the will of the people has never been clearer. The real choices and thus the potential solutions have been denied to us all.  As the Under-Secretary to one time UN Chief Kurt Waldheim, Brian Urquhart declared: “The worst way to make an argument is by reason and good information. You must appeal to emotions and to their fears of being made to appear ridiculous.” [15]Irony aside, so it is with the IPCC and so many other connected bodies inhabited by the same men and women willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

The IPCC plays an extremely important role in the disseminating information on the science of climate change. If we cannot place our trust and faith in institutions who set themselves up to discover new solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time then it means precious resources of creative energy is being wasted and re-directed into collective gutters of non-action and short-term gain. It becomes yet another example of pathological infection striking at the heart of what we consider to be our mentors, protectors and pioneers; expert minds dedicated to improving humanities lot. That means acknowledging the danger that ecology, environmental activism and any scientific discipline exposed to ponerological influences, must come under the same scrutiny.

If a deep love of Nature and the environment can historically sit side by side with the most virulent form of fascism then it behooves us all to guard against its all too easy re-appearance.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian dictator was responsible for the deaths of 21% of his country’s people.  He was also a former geography teacher.


Notes

[1] Email #4755 and email #1922 Jonathan Overpeck http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[2] Email #0170 Phil Jones http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[3] email #3066 Tim Carter. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[4] ‘Food, Water Security threatened by Warming UN Panel says’ by Alex Morales,Bloomberg, February 16, 2011.
[5] email #0419 Mike Hulme. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[6] p.28; The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming by Garth W. Paltridge. Published by Taylor Trade Publishing, 2010. ISBN-10: 1589795482
[7] op. cit. LaFramboise (p.69)
[8] ‘Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’ by Jason S. Johnston, Law University of Pennsylvania Law School | “Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming. The only criticism that legal scholars have had of the story told by this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment – is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases.”
“This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.
Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.”
[9] op.cit La Framboise (p.70)
[10] op. cit. Johnston.
[11] Email #1104 Heinz Wanner http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[12] ‘Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research’ November 23rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
[13] ‘Western Lifestyle unsustainable says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri’ The Guardian, June 20, 2011.
[14] The Fading of the Greens, by Anna Bramwell, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994.(p.28)
[15] ‘The UN and Its Discontents’: An Exchange April 26, 1990 Shirley Hazzard, reply by Brian Urquhart The New Yorker March 15, 1990 issue.

Dark Green XVII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye© infrakshun


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave its full blessing to the Al Gore power-point revival as he made his merry way to a carbon trading pot of gold. However, before kneeling down at the altar of the IPCC we must have a peek behind the doors of an institution that has presided over a fiefdom of green belief.

The IPCC has been lauded for over twenty years as the guardian and protector of the planet, a scientific beacon in a dark age of industry and corporate irresponsibility. It has served as the primary reference for ecologists and environmentalists buttressing the religion of anthropocentric climate change. But does this organisation truly merit the global mantle of scientific authority it now enjoys? Or is it a pretender to the throne of open-minded science? A closer examination of the facts shows that the latter is closer to the truth, with serious consequences for climate science and environmental studies worldwide.

Maurice Strong’s United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) set up the IPCC in 1988 with a later endorsement from the United Nations General Assemblythrough Resolution 43/53. With 195 members worldwide, the intergovernmental body is currently chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauriwho steers the mission: “… to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.” The IPCC describes itself as a scientific body which “… reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.” [1] Scientists voluntarily contribute to the work of the body where an “objective” and “complete assessment of current information” takes place. In the IPCC’s view, due to its scientific and intergovernmental status, it embodies: “… a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.” [2]

As a consequence of this so called objectivity and impartial information presented to policy makers, an international acceptance of its claims is now in place and supported by an overall “consensus” (there’s that word again…) from leading climates scientists and participating governments. Further, in recognition of its work, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared between the IPCC and Al Gorethe IPCC acting as the source for most of the information found in An Inconvenient Truth. This fact is enough to plant a question in any informed person’s mind about the nature of the science the IPCC advocates. So, let’s see if the self-penned, glowing descriptions of the organisation stand up to scrutiny.

The IPCC reports also known as “The Climate Bible” – which we will call the “CRs” – are produced every year and represent an unassailable doctrine of climate science which cannot be challenged and to do so amounts to a form of heresy. The CRs have had an enormous effect on government policy around the world and are routinely cited as the most authoritative source on Climate change. CO2 emissions as the greatest evil known to man and the reason carbon taxes exist are all down to these reports. It is a climate science lovingly fawned over by the world’s media, much of university and think-tank academia, the same people who believe unquestioningly in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. The problem is, they believe that all those reports have been toiled over by thousands of experts who are holding hands in a sacred communion of consensus across the world; they believe that the science is water-tight and anyone but a fool would think otherwise.

Rajendra Pachauri has chaired the IPCC since 2002 and in one sense, is the personification of the IPCC in much the same way that Prince Philip was for the WWF. He has fuelled the belief that the IPCC and their CRs are full to the brim with thousands of the best scientists, the finest quality expertise at the cutting edge of climate science which is all parroted ad nauseum by the world’s media. [3] Unfortunately, many scientists and their papers have been ignored. Whether it is hurricane research, tropical diseases or oceanography, unless the scientists tow the official party line of anthropocentric global warming (AGW) then they can expect a cold response indeed to submitted papers.

Pachauri has since been accused of “inappropriate” sexual behaviour by several women who worked at the IPCC and TERI a non-profit, scientific and policy research organisation which Pachauri is Director-General. According to one alleged victim as part of her testimony from 2005: “A sexual harasser 10 years back, a sexual harasser today. He did it to me and others then. He has done it to her and possibly others now … His physical advances and sexual innuendos and acts, often reduced to as ‘inappropriate behaviour’, have been common knowledge and corridor gossip.” [4]

As a result, Pachuari finally stepped down in March 2015.

This appears appropriately symbolic of the IPCC’s place in climate science.

Rajendra-Pachauri_ipccstructureRajendra Pachauri, still going strong as Chairman of the IPCC

With 40 years of experience in tropical diseases Paul Reiter thinks the papers on his specialist subject found in the CRs are full of inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions, made worse by the fact that none of the lead authors had actually penned a research paper. Much of the information in the CRs are not written by experts at all and gave testimony to that fact to the UK House of Lords. [5]

One would think that the IPCC would have been keen to recruit the best experts they could find but it appears they prefer students and the inexperienced rather than the world class scientists spoken of in the mainstream media. The UN seems quite happy that its organisation continues to promulgate lies on this point while peddling unsubstantiated and very biased beliefs instead.

Journalist Donna LaFramboise’s searing indictment of the IPCC highlighted the fact that “the world’s finest scientific minds” have been culled from a reservoir of young and inexperienced students and activists such as 25 year-old Richard Klein, a Master Degree student and Greenpeace campaigner drafted in to serve as IPCC lead author on what was eventually to be six reports, six years prior to the completion of his PhD. [6] Laurens Bouwer served as an IPCC lead author before he had completed his Masters in 2001. To compound the confusion still further, the chapter to which he was given responsibility dealt with financial services whilst his “expertise” was in climate change and water resources. [7] In 2008, Lisa Alexander was a research assistant at Monesh University, Australia and went on to earn her PhD in 2009. Yet from 2001 and 2007 she had been plucked from obscurity by the IPCC to author two reports, one as lead author and the other in a contributory role – all ten years before she had claimed her doctorate. [8] Sari Kovats hadn’t earned her PhD until 2010 yet 16 years previously before any academics papers had been written: “Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health.” Lead author twice and contributing author once, all before the completion of her PhD. [9]Nor are these exceptions to the rule. This has been normal practice for the body since the early 1990s.

So, what’s going on?

LaFramboise describes how the analyses of IPCC policies and procedures were to come under the microscope, but perhaps not in the way it would have liked. In 2010, an international science body called The Inter-Academy Council took the bold step in establishing the first committee to investigate the quality and structure of IPCC research which resulted in an extensive questionnaire on its website to which people were encouraged to respond. Over the last few years a wealth of interesting data totalling over 678 pages has accumulated for the dogged researcher to peruse.

Many recurrent gripes which surfaced amongst respondents’ answers was the lack of qualifications from lead authors; decisions being political rather than scientific and undue political correctness regarding gender and multiculturalism at the expense of science. Among these problems follows the deeper more intransigent factor of activism married with science. The IPCC tells the world it is a scientific body tasked with sifting conjecture and assumption to produce as much as is possible, scientific fact. Yet, the institution is infested with activists from top to bottom. How can this be an impartial and politically neutral body offering reputable science when beliefs are colouring the overall picture?

Environmental activist organisations cross-fertilise IPCC conclusions in the CRs and other publications citing each others papers to bolster predetermined results. Rajendra Pachauri routinely writes forewords and editorials for activist groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. As LaFramboise observes: “The IPCC’s role is similar to that of a trial judge. It examines the scientific evidence and decides whether or not human-produced carbon dioxide is guilty of triggering climate change. How much faith would you have in the impartiality of a murder trial if the judge was hearing evidence during the day and partying with the prosecution team during the evening?” [10]

A new breed of “activist scientist” is happiest hanging out in activist groups, universities and agenda-ridden institutions like the IPCC. Objectivity regarding scientific results is the first casualty. Scientific judgement is wide open to abuse from emotionally-driven views which consciously or unconsciously select the data that reinforces their beliefs. They often have access to a wide cross-section of interested parties from government to an annual influx of university students. Scientific credentials merely serve to reinforce beliefs and fit the data with a mind already made up. If it doesn’t fit, then it is made to fit through mental gymnastics and cherry-picking the data. Of course, this can work both ways. However, whereas many groups who do not follow the AGW line and do not have links to the fossil fuel agenda state their case with proven scientific data and expertise, the same cannot be said for the IPCC which sets itself up as an impartial arbiter when it is nothing of the kind. It is clearly AGW-biased, hiding behind the bogus claims of rigorous and objective research supported by “world class scientists.”

Michael Oppenheimer is one such example. A Director of Science, Tech. Environmental Policy, at Princeton University; Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Prior to the above posts and 20 years as Chief Scientist to Environmental Defence Fund (EDF). He is a lead author IPCC report 2007 and a Senior Author of the IPCC report in  2011. Remember his words when speaking on behalf of the EDF? “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement it is hardly the position required of a scientist let alone one who contributes regularly to the IPCC. He is an activist-scientist and thus seriously biased.

A sample of other activists working for the IPCC include:

  • Bill Hare – Greenpeace spokesperson 1992; Chief climate negotiator 2007 / Key member of Greenpeace International Climate team; Lead author IPCC reports 2007 Expert reviewer 2007.
  • Malte Meinhausen – Key member of Greenpeace International Climate team; Greenpeace spokesman 2002-2003; Co-author Kyoto Protocol Analysis; contributing author of IPCC reports 2007.
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – Marine Biologis, Reef expert Greenpeace funded reports on coral reefs and climate change 1994-2000 WWF funded reports; Contributing author 2007; Coordinating author 2011.
  • Richard Moss – One time WWF vice-president; IPCC senior personnel.
  • Jennifer Morgan – WWF chief spokesperson; WWF Kyoto Protocol Delegation; WWF Global Climate Change Program; Climate Action Network; Director of Climate program World Resources Institute. IPCC report 2010.

The process by which CR authors are selected – for an organisation who claims to be transparent and open – is highly secretive. No one seems to know how top decisions are actually made. The Inter-Academy Council questionnaire makes interesting reading in this respect, with some of the respondents giving answers such as: “Selection of lead authors in my view is the most important decision in the IPCC process, and it is not transparent,” or: “After being [a lead author or contributing author] several times, I still have no idea how I was selected. This is unacceptable.” Another participant states: “It has always been unclear how this has been undertaken.” [11]Not a huge crime for any other low-level institution but the IPCC isn’t just anybody. It has told us that it is open, transparent and scientifically credible and wields enormous influence because of it.

ippc-un

The United Nations, UNEP, WHO and the IPPC are all closely related, as are their worldviews.

The IPCC receives nominations from governments but does not make it public the names of the nominees; it does not explain the selection criteria and when successful nominees are announced only the country of origin is mentioned, qualifications and credentials are nowhere to be seen. Based on past evidence one can see why they would want the secrecy to remain in place. Apparently, we are meant to guess that the candidates are experts and trust the IPCC’s word.

What makes matters worse is the organisation’s history of refusing to help journalists, researchers and academics in their quests to scrutinize sources, reports and data. Moreover, when problems have been raised with the report content, such as out-of-date source papers, incorrect citations or quoting from papers yet to be published, the shutters came down with a the rigidity of a spoilt child folding its arms and pouting. If you begin to rock the boat too much then you are stone-walled or threatened with expulsion. [12]

Yet, according to John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s science advisor the IPCC is: “… an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” [13]Holdren has been told some porkies. In reality, the IPCC does none of the above and has no quality control procedures at all. Or, as one IPCC respondent states on page 384 of the public questionnaire: “Quality assurance and error identification is non-existent…” [14]  Which means when the body claims it uses peer-reviewed literature we find this is also incorrect. [15]The amount of peer-reviewed sources to support the findings in the IPCC reports is very low indeed; yet, people continue to believe it is true because it operates on the same belief as Al Gore. [16]IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: “… has a history of systematically misrepresenting the process by which his organization produces reports. His declaration that the IPCC does not settle for anything less than peer-reviewed sources is wrong. Nor is it wrong by a trivial amount. When 21 out of 44 chapters have so few peer-reviewed references they score an F, a serious disjuncture exists between the facts and the IPCC’s fiction.” [17]

Nor is peer-review a fail-safe mechanism for detecting research misconduct and malpractice. The only way to safe-guard such problems is fully independent, scientific review where an assumption of the reliability of research papers before they have even appeared in print is not seen as the norm. Peer-reviewed science is only as good as the structure upon which it sits. If that is rotten then you have nothing. If Al Gore published papers for peer-review it would matter little that his credibility is zero because his talents lie in the performance designed to create maximum emotional response. Facts are secondary.

When trusts, foundations and institutions presenting themselves as scientific bodies dedicated to objective scientific analysis merge with the beliefs of green activism, however laudable, it produces a dangerous politicisation. Organising communication between professions and the media then becomes an exercise in maintaining the demands of lobbying. When substantial amounts of money are involved then science is just another tool for exploitation. Just as high quality journalism should inform activism so too science must act as the primary foundation to issues with science at their core. Without objective knowledge of the highest quality charges of passion without reason and the effects they induce cannot be countered.

LaFramboise, with an enormous network of voluntary assistance, found that 30 percent of the IPCC 2007 report was non-peer-reviewed. The sources which were included comprised of “… newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished masters and doctoral theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents and yes, press releases.” The journalist highlights several points that should make us all think twice about the proclamations of unimpeachable sources and credentials when the media, UN and governments wax lyrical about the IPCC’s standing.

LaFramboise further observes:

Climate sceptics are frequently asked why they imagine their own judgment to be more reliable than the judgment of such esteemed bodies. The answer to that question is this: No science academy noticed that one in three references in the 2007 Climate Bible is actually to grey literature. [unpublished papers] If these academies are so well-informed why did it take a group of Internet-linked volunteers to bring this to the world’s attention? Why didn’t even one of these science academies subject chairman Pachauri’s rhetoric to rudimentary fact-checking? [18]

Could it be that IPCC personnel simply don’t care enough to have a hand in changing the direction of this behemoth and are quite comfortable with the way things are?

Not content with preaching to the rest of us on impeccable standards in climate research to which we must all adhere, the IPCC’s treatment of its voluntary army of expert reviewers falls very short of fair. The 2007 report invited reviewers to offer comments which were responded to by IPCC authors. Yet, unsurprisingly, they are at liberty to ignore most, if not all of the comments that don’t fit with their “group-think.” The body freely inserts new material in reports, rejects reviewer opinions and essentially undermines the whole review process which was designed to prove the rigorous and objective nature of the CR science.

Group think rises up through the ranks of academic journals which instead of being independent and thus offering valuable critiques, appear to be chosen for reviews, citations and source material because an IPCC insider is Editor-in-Chief. As LaFramboise comments on the late founding editor of Climatic Change Stephen Schneider and Club of Rome member: “The fact that Schneider, a senior figure at the IPCC, was routinely deciding what would – and would not – make it into the same scientific literature the IPCC would later cite as evidence doesn’t appear to have caused anyone concern.” [19]

Nor is this an isolated incident. In the next post, we’ll see why.

 


Notes

[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/
[2] Ibid.(organisation)
[3] ‘The Science is absolutely first rate’ June 5 2007, The Rediff Interview with Rajendra K. Pachauri http://www.rediff.com | ‘The Rajendra Pachauri Interview’ by Amitabh Pal, The Progressive, May 2009 issue.
[4] ‘Harasser’ who lifts staff like little girls’ The Telegraph, Calcutta, India, Ananya Sengupta and G.S. Mudur, February 22 , 2015.
[5] Select Committee on Economic Affairs Written Evidence – Memorandum by Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris THE IPCC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION. EXAMPLE: IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
[6] p.8; The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. Published by Createspace, 2011.
[7] Ibid. (p.9)
[8] Ibid. (p.10)
[9] Ibid. (p.11)
[10] Ibid. (p.18)
[11] Ibid. (pp. 185, 180 and p.28) | Review of the IPCC InterAcademy Council http://www.reviewippc.interacademycouncil.net
[12] Ibid Chapter 8: “Clear as mud” See example 1: Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org p.30-35 correspondance between Susan Solomon.
[13] Ibid. (p.34)
[14] http://www.reviewippc.interacademycouncil.net
[15] Ibid. (p.43) – Richard Tol found that in the Climate Bible (CRs) 2007 “IPCC authors had ignored the findings of peer-reviewed studies and had instead cited non-peer-reviewed material to make the opposite case.”
[16] Ibid. (pp.43 -50: “The Peer Review Fairy-Tale”)
[17] Ibid. (p.48)
[18] ‘Book excerpt: Conspiracy of silence Special to Financial Post, By Donna La Framboise, Oct 22, 2011.| http://www.opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/book-excerpt-conspiracy-of-silence/
[19] Ibid. (p.62)

Dark Green XVI: I’ve been Gored!

By M.K. Styllinski

“… the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.”

– Al Gore


Climate_Reality_Logo-Globe

Logo of The Climate Reality Project founded by Al Gore | Source (WP:NFCC#4) (wikipedia)

With hedge funds popping up like bad sores in readiness for the carbon credit bubble it is these financial marauders who will benefit most rather than the environment or third world nations’ climate change projects. What we can be sure of is a substantial hike in the cost of living generally with special attention to electricity and manufacturing. All the while the imposition of caps is guaranteed to contribute precious little to limit carbon emissions, should the science on CO2 even be true.

The Nobel prize-winning Al Gore has been very busy playing at eco-activism and evangelising the message of AGW for many years. He has become smoothly effective as the political vanguard of environmentalism. Gore’s legendary capitalism masquerading as left-leaning liberalism is never more clearly seen when it comes to green corporatism, his favourite plaything. Gore was one of the first to implement the corporate structure of “public-private partnerships,” where the decision-making process was quietly shifted away from the people and transferred to unelected international corporations. And what we are seeing now is how effective such structural conversions can be when married to distorted environmental fears. Al Gore has excelled at being the guru of green-back sensationalism. He is a master of the slight-of-hand. However, it is difficult to say whether he is a “useful idiot,” desperately naïve (doubtful) or an opportunist of the very worst kind. Perhaps it is a mix of all three.

The Climate Reality Project founded by Gore in 2011 is another attempt to launch a frontal attack against so-called climate deniers (when all it does is cover up good science). “Join reality” “effect change”. You can also sign on to become a “Climate Reality Leader” within the Climate Reality Leadership Corp. and bludgeon everyone into becoming like Al Gore. Gore is creating an army of the faithful to do what? To reach net zero carbon emissions” which is apparently “… the key to our collective prosperity and well-being for all.”

Unfortunately, that probably isn’t the key. Not even close.

This is all about objective reality it seems…  Yet, the “The facts” page reads like a catalogue of supposition assumption where blaming nasty old fossil fuel folks for it all appears to mask barely concealed zealotry. That’s not to say that corporatism isn’t having a ripe old time stirring the propaganda pot with equal vigour. And that is also not to say greenhouse gases aren’t causing havoc and yes, we must try to reduce our pollution. But the overall campaign and impetus is that human beings are responsible for the overall climate change which are very probably the result of complex natural cycles and even vast cosmic processes. As my hamster Ernie belts around his plastic wheel the sheer power of his little cardiac footprint is not liable to produce massive climatic weather patterns.  (I don’t have a hamster but you get the analogy).

The whole idea that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years appears erroneous. BUT that doesn’t mean greenhouse gases are benign. It doesn’t mean they do not pose a problem such as ozone depletion. The real problem is how AGW science has obfuscated the subtle connections going on between a whole host of complex factors which have been reduced down to the level of Al Gore and his slide show hotly followed by the IPCC. And that does not provide a good basis upon which to inform the public.

You CANNOT change a natural cycle. And no amount of hectoring, deception and phoney science it going to alter that fact.  It amounts to an enormous hijacking of energy that could be better used in prevention against cataclysmic change that will come regardless of whether we have paid our carbon-free credits.  But by now, if you have been reading the previous posts on this blog you either think I am a deluded devil incarnate or one of the many who are seeing behind all the noise. Perhaps I am teetering between the two.

That said, let’s continue and find out a bit more about our Al and whether he’s one arctic roll short of an ice-cap.

gorepromoAl Gore (left) and promotional material for the DVD launch for An Inconvenient Truth: “the most terrifying film you will ever see.”

Gore has written over a dozen books on society, politics and environmentalism, most notably Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose. (1992) The Assault on Reason. (2007) and An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. (2006) which accompanied a film of the same name which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. The film was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who stated that after the release of the film, “Everywhere I go with him, they treat him like a rock star.” It couldn’t have been more apropos for the likes of the Club of Rome who saw in Gore the popular appeal of their designs made manifest. The message is fear, catastrophe and guilt wrapped up in emergency environmental “education.” The science didn’t matter the message was all that counted.

Having already achieved humble martyrdom in running against the villainous Bush, he was as well placed to transfer this new found sainthood into the cause of climate change and make considerable amounts of money in the process. An Inconvenient Truth was designed to educate millions of citizens about the perils of global warming using Gore as messenger who would give an in-depth slide show presentation to a rapt audience interspersed with relevant footage. It premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, of the same year. It became a critical and box-office success, garnering two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song. It was also commercially successful earning $49 million internationally and becoming one of the highest grossing US documentary films of all time. [1]

Let’s turn our attention to two aspects of Gore’s journey, that of the science in the film and the financial aspects of Gore’s AGW platform. Firstly, the science.

In May 2007, a lawsuit was launched by a group of global warming sceptics over the UK government’s distribution of the film in UK schools. Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills heard the bid for an injunction preventing the screening of the film in English schools, on the premise that the film was imbalanced, impartial and political.

On 10 October 2007, High Court Judge Mr Justice Burton did not ban the film finding that it was largely drawn from scientific fact and research even though it was also politically motivated. He ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained “nine key scientific errors” and could only be shown in British schools with explanatory notes on the errors “to prevent political indoctrination.” The judge said that showing the film without the explanations of error would be a violation of education laws. Judge Burton also stated that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” driven by Gore’s belief in AGW. [2]

In the synopsis of the film given by Paramount studios, the distributor gives a flavour of the content of the film which the judge ruled amounted to an “apocalyptic vision.” In a breathless example of sensationalism it implored: “If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” [3] The judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth was “politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.” It was, he ruled: “a political film.” [4]

Marketed as “… the most terrifying film you will ever see,” by online trailers, with commentary claiming audiences have been “shocked everywhere,” the dramatic images of global environmental destruction bombard the viewer with terrifying storms and even a nuclear explosion. This sets the tone for a mass-dumping of fear and danger in the younger generations and creates the antithesis of reason and constructive dialogue. Politics, alarmism and “apocalyptic visions” do little to educate children, especially when Agenda 21 is overshadowing the proceedings. While they may compel a sense of urgency and activism in the cause of “saving the planet,” if it is sourced from bad science and emotional reflex then this will play straight into the politics and the social frameworks recently discussed. It will have very little effect on the real, preventative climate change issues which could be addressed given the correct guidance. Exaggeration and alarmism merely helps to create fear and insecurity in the minds of children who are already having great difficulty processing the future. Neuroses in the young anxious about climate change, is becoming increasingly common.

Climate science journalist Björn Lomborg reviewed some startling results on this issue where “… a new survey of 500 American pre-teens, … found that one in three children, aged between six and 11, feared that the earth would not exist when they reach adulthood because of global warming and other environmental threats. An unbelievable one-third of our children believe that they don’t have a future because of scary global warming stories.” The same pattern exists in the UK with “half of young children aged between seven and 11 [whom] are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern.” [5]

To draw out those fears and increase the likelihood of cash injection into the climate change industry we have Gore’s slick Hollywood production which uses emotive photos of cutsie animals and advanced animations taken out of context alongside endless replays of environmental destruction to illicit guilt and alarm. For example, smoke pouring forth from chimneys and cooling towers implying extreme CO2 production when in reality CO2 is invisible and benign. The message here is not scientific solutions but emotional manipulation.

Gore has yet to modify any of his statements made in film and print, the most obvious examples being the internationally discredited hockey stick temperature graph and his clinging to CO2 global temperature increases, despite the data that showed temperatures rose 400-800 years before CO2 and drove higher CO2 levels, a fact which had been confirmed for at least two years prior to Gore’s film. [6]But this was only the beginning. The following nine errors as outlined by Judge Burton include:

ERROR 1: Sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. [Judge] agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – ‘but only after, and over, millennia’. The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

ERROR 2: The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls ‘are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming’ but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

ERROR 3: The documentary speaks of global warming ‘shutting down the Ocean Conveyor’ – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was ‘very unlikely’ that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

ERROR 4: Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in CO2 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed ‘an exact fit’. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, ‘the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts’.

ERROR 5: Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

ERROR 6: The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that ‘it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.’

ERROR 7: Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.

ERROR 8: Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from ‘swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice’ The judge said: ‘The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.’ That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – ‘but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description’.

ERROR 9: Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. [7]

Rather than just nine errors the Judge mentioned, there are so many serious errors in AIT that becomes much more of a concern about the film-makers understanding of the issues involved and certainly where Al Gore’s true perceptions lie. Former British MP Christopher Monckton and founding member of the Science and Public Policy Institute based in the UK found plenty more. All of the following have proven to be grossly exaggerated or simply false:

  • Thermohaline circulation “stopping”
  • 100 ppmv of CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”
  • Hurricane Caterina “manmade”
  • Japanese typhoons “a new record”
  • Hurricanes “getting stronger”
  • Big storm insurances losses “increasing”
  • Mumbai “flooding”
  • Severe tornadoes “more frequent”
  • The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”
  • Arctic “warming fastest”
  • Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
  • Himalayan glacial melt waters “failing”
  • Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”
  • Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
  • Sahara desert “drying”
  • West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”
  • Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”
  • Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming’”
  • Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
  • Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming’”
  • West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming’”
  • Carbon dioxide is “pollution”
  • The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000”
  • Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage
  • The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”
  • “No fact…in dispute by anybody.” [8]

In A Sceptic’s Guide to Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (2007) senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Marlo Lewis PhD, provides a meticulous analysis of the Al Gore’s book version of the film. Lewis’ Congressional Working Paper contains 324 references with extensive links to web sites for fact checking, a practice Gore would do well to emulate. Lewis’ conclusions on the book revealed:

  • Wrong statements, false statements—19;
  • Misleading statements—17;
  • Exaggerated statements—10;
  • One sided statements—25; and
  • Speculative statements—28. [9]

Environmentalists have drawn our attention to the fact that Marlo Lewis is a friend of the fossil fuel lobby and is a corporate lackey with a clear agenda. Be that as it may, the facts he provides are correct. It is unfortunate that facts have to surface from two extremes rather than a simple quest for truth.

polarbearsonice

This photo was widely used to promote the idea that polar bears were stranded due to global warming induced ice melt. In actual fact, it was faked. See HERE for more details.

As an ex-senator, businessman, journalist, lawyer and highly articulate orator and raconteur it seems bizarre that Gore has not only chosen to ignore his “errors” but continue to perpetuate them. Even worse, he has also repeatedly refused to debate publicly on the issue and will not participate in conferences, interviews or public forums with those who take the opposing view on AGW. This is bad for science and bad for open, rational discourse which is so desperately needed.[10] Not least, it is bad for Gore’s credibility as he clearly prefers hyperbole and rhetoric rather than scientific rigour. If he is correct and he has spent most of his life genuinely seeking to redress the balance for the Earth’s ecology then one would think he would have at least a basic understanding of the principals involved, given his position and responsibility. Yet, while he may have a nose for communication he doesn’t seem to have the first clue about truth – inconvenient or otherwise. Gore’s research has been drawn primarily from the IPCC, which offers even more cause for concern, as we shall see presently.

What of Gore’s financial interests in climate change and carbon credits? He is a partner in two hedge funds, Generation Investment Management (GIM) and Capricorn Investment Group LLC, set up to trade carbon credits. Remember the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain? GIM exerts substantial influence over these firms in the following way: Having expended considerable amounts of cash to test the viability of carbon credits back in 2000, CCX has some of our well known players secreted within its membership. One begins to wonder if he has cloned himself to appear in all places and in all times but sure enough, Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors and has long since been considered as an Elder-guru to Gore. Other members who had undertaken to reduce their emissions by 2010 (some did some didn’t) are Amtrak, Ford Motor Company, Dow Corning, International Paper, Motorola, DuPont, American Electric Power and an assortment of other corporations and universities. Carbon-offset projects are also underway via “participant members.” ECX also has around 80 member companies, including Shell, Barclays, BP, Fortis, Calyon, Endesa, Morgan Stanley and … Goldman Sachs.

And here’s where come full circle back to the Goldman cartel once more.

GIM was founded by both Al Gore and Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs and financial criminal CEO, Hank Paulson. We already know that Goldman Sachs virtually owns the carbon credit markets including 10 percent of CCX shares and a stake in ECX. This is due, in part, to the fact that GIM is riddled with Goldmanites: Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Peter S. Knight, who is the designated president of GIM with strong ties to Al Gore and Bill Clinton serving under them respectively.

World Economic Forum in Davos

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speaks next to rapper Pharrell Williams during a panel session on the first day of the 45th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Jan. 21, 2015. | TIME magazine. |The World Economic Forum? Really? This is straight out of the Live Aid programming manual (It’s all right, just be happy…)

In 2008, Gore’s venture capital firm loaned $75m to Silver Spring Networks, a small Californian firm wishing to develop energy-saving technology. The company’s main production efforts go into hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. And in 2009, the US Energy Department announced a $3.4 billion boost in SMART grid grants more than $560 million going to utilities under contract to Silver Spring. [11]

To say that this would provide Gore with substantial profits would be an understatement. With an estimated $70 million he received for a 20 percent stake in the 2013 sale of the Current TV network, a slice of a $500 million pie paid out by Qatari-owned al-Jazeera Satellite Network, and a steady $1.2 million a year in salary and bonuses, he stands to make millions more in the long-term. Hence the media cry: “Will Gore be our first carbon billionaire?” Gore disputes this and is happy to be “putting his money where his mouth is.” A “one off investment” and “transformation of our energy infrastructure” towards energy that is free forever” is what’s needed according to Gore. He sees no hypocrisy radiating from his  green-messiah activism and Goldman Sachs plundering.

He goes on to say somewhat defensively: “Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” … “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.” [12]

Goldman Sachs would certainly agree.

 


Notes

[1] “Documentary 1982–present (film rankings by lifetime gross)”. Box Office Mojo.
[2] Stuart Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills”. England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions. 2007-10-10.
[3] ‘Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’ By Sally Peck, Telegraph, 11 Oct 2007.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Scared silly over climate change’ by Bjorn Lomborg, The Guardian, 15 June 2009.
[6] ‘Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming’ by Catherine Brahic and Michael Le Page. New Scientist, 16 May, 2007.
[7] op. cit. Peck.
[8] ‘35 Inconvenient Truths – The errors in Al Gore’s movie’ By Christopher Monckton, http://www.scienceandpublic policy.org PDF version: http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
[9] ‘Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Sceptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth’ Congressional Working Paper By Marlo Lewis. 01/22/07 — Competitive Enterprise Institute || http://www.cei.org.
[10] ‘Al Gore Refuses To Dignify Debate: “It’s Not A Matter Of Theory”’ Huffington Post, April 5 2009.
[11] ‘Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire’ Telegraph, November 3, 2009.
[12] Ibid.

Dark Green XII: Climate Change: Divide and Conquer all over again…(2)

By M.K. Styllinski

… the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS [American Physical Society] before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. … I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.”

– Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus UCSB


Jumping into the climate change debate is like voluntarily submerging yourself in the quicksand of dogma and propaganda. Once you are in, it can be difficult to find your way out; the more you struggle to maintain a grasp of current scientific principles the more easy it is to be sucked under. A helping hand can come from one camp or another, only to realise they’re actually trying to push you further down into the mire. Such is the murky world of climate science and commentary.

Despite all that, it is possible to extricate ourselves from all the obfuscation, politicisation and horrible academic egos on show. Not easy, but possible. What needs to be born in mind is Cui Bono? Who benefits from all this confusion and suppression of information? The global warming industry and the panic, urgency and fear promoted by outfits like the ICLEI serve to embolden UN Agenda 21 and its various tributaries. It doesn’t matter that some form of climate change is real, it is the overall engineering of the crisis to support and agenda that has nothing to do with climate science itself – that is the key point to remember.

Climate science is informed by the same principles of our official culture, which means it undoubtedly suffers from the exact same self-serving beliefs, and overarching agendas we found in UN Agenda 21 and politics in general. When human nature is immersed in such endemic pathology then we have to be extremely suspicious of any science which is given the wholesale support of the Establishment and their bull-horning lackeys. The same can be said of the fossil fuel industry, yet this is all part of the Divide and Rule formula.

Climate change science and the influences that contributed to the evolution of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) can be traced back to the early 1800’s and the First Industrial Revolution. This radical change resulted in a large increase in green-house gas emissions and a spike in population growth due to better agriculture and sanitation. The traditional view of a stable system, self-regulated by natural feedback dominated. By the end of the 19th Century a handful of scientists had suggested that a change in the level of carbon dioxide gas might cause an ice age or global warming, but most believed such theories were impossible.

By the 1930’s, enough data had been accumulated to suggest that the planet was undergoing a warming trend. As the 1960’s approached, meteorologists found the opposite: that this trend had now changed to a marked cooling in just a couple of decades. Climate change began to be seen as infinitely complicated with some scientists preferring the warming model and others predicting a continuance of the cooling model. Now, this is where it gets interesting …

During the early 1970s and all the environmental hullabaloo which arrived on the squeaky, donkey-driven cart of Club of Rome science, the green-house gas issue was enough to push most scientists over to the idea that continued warming would prevail. The larger natural cycle of cooling was displaced in favour of the apparent evidence in ice flows, tree rings and other natural phenomena to support that the world was indeed warming. In fact, the summary of warming-cooling oscillations appeared in 30 year trends dated as follows:

  • 1882 – 1910 Cooling
  • 1910 – 1944 Warming
  • 1944 – 1975 Cooling
  • 1975 – 2001 Warming.

And from around 2009-2010 indications are that the planet has started to cool again, and will probably continue to do so until about 2030. If these fluctuations are correct, then it merely confirms what has been happening for a long time. [1]

If we go back to what is known as the Medieval Warm Period beginning at AD 1000 – 1300 it was virtually a Mediterranean climate in Europe as well as other regions around the world which were experiencing a significant rise in temperature.[2]By the time we reached the beginning of the 1400s we were fighting freezing temperatures of what is called the “Little Ice Age” which lasted to the end of the 1700’s. Since then temperatures have been rising steadily at 0.5°C per century since about 1750, as a process of recovery from that mini ice age. [3]Once these effects have passed, the evidence suggests that the temperature will return to the Medieval Warm Period, continuing a natural cycle which had been repeated during what is called the Roman Optimum and in the Holocene optimum. [4]

The Maunder Minimum is the term used for the period beginning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became extremely rare. The period happened to land right in the middle and coldest part of the Little Ice Age giving plenty of evidence that there is a strong causal relationship between low sunspot activity and the rise of cold, hard winters. [5]Solar UV output is also much more variable over the duration of a solar cycle than was previously thought linking terrestrial climate effects such as cold or warm winters according to that data. The effects of that vast ball of unimaginably white-hot fire the sun, has been strangely overlooked in much of mainstream climate science. As the Sun’s core is so hot that a piece of it the size of a pinhead would give off enough heat to kill a person 160 kilometres away, one would think perhaps it plays a small if not highly significant part in climate change science and in ways which may not fit conveniently into the current paradigm. [6]There is still much to be learned about the influence of the sun on climate change along with a host of other factors including cosmic rays.

sun_jove_earth_size_compareSource: Ethan Siegal Remember How Tiny We All Are

You think, just maybe … the Sun has more to do with Climate Change than we think?

Since the spectre of acid rain didn’t cut the mustard in the 1980s, carbon dioxide emissions has taken over as the stimulant to AGW hysteria, though there is still no compelling evidence that an increase in human produced CO2 levels is the main culprit of global warming. But one example, in a sea of refutation, critique and counter-critique is the discovery of “spurious bias” in satellite and modelling evidence as a result of “exaggerated estimates” and “faulty assumptions,” where it was found that: “… the new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century cannot be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.” [7]

Another paper studied the IPCC’s projections for the mean global temperature anomaly and found the measurements to be incorrect, with global temperatures “even less than the projections with emission commitment held constant at year 2000”. As the Professor stated at the end of his findings: “It is crucial that public policy be based on facts. CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data.” [8] As we shall see later on, the IPCC is about as far away from facts and impartiality as it is possible to be. Yet, this is the temple to which most climate scientists bow down in unquestioning homage.

Human caused CO2 emission levels did appear on the scene before about 1850 and were entirely insignificant when compared to current levels until after 1945. So, why the insistence that humans have contributed to a significant degree in destabilising the world’s climate?

One of the biggest examples of climate science controversy was the temperature graph given the nickname of the ‘’hockey stick,’ apparently showing a stable temperature from the year 1000 AD until the 20th century after which it began climb dramatically. The flat part of the line reminded people of the handle of an ice-hockey, while the upstick resembled the blade. It was appropriated by the IPCC and liberally used in its 2001 reports. It also featured heavily in Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

hocketst1The ‘hockey stick.’ (IPCC)

The problem with the climate activist viewpoint is that the studies carried out to check the veracity of the hockey stick data were carried out by the same small clique of researchers, using similarly flawed statistical techniques, and/or relying on the same dubious sources of data, something which happens quite often. It is therefore not a surprise that data is sought to reinforce beliefs rather than to find the truth. [9] The Hockey Stick revelation was made by a young American geophysicist named Michael Mann who had just been granted his PhD. Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al. paper showing that the shape of the graph was determined mainly by faulty tree-ring data. Indeed, it was even discovered that the computer algorithm Mann used was so inaccurate and biased that hockey sticks could be produced from random noise! Their criticisms were upheld in 2006 by two expert committees: a US congressional panel headed by statistician Edward Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Both parties heavily criticised the science behind the Hockey stick data yet it was still being used in IPCC’s 2007 climate reports with carefully “cherry-picked” data all of which were produced by Mann’s colleagues. [10]

A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREE RING PROXIES

With 95% confidence intervals (in red) shows a non-tree-ring temperature reconstruction published by Craig Loehle and Hu McCulloch in 2008, show a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. The last point on the graph represents 1935. The temperature today is still below that during the MWP. (scienceandpublicpolicy.org)

Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Hans von Storch also offered substantial contribution to the critical storm, though the former authors have remained the more commonly quoted amongst climate sceptics. [11]

The way Michael Mann was given superstar status was bizarre to say the least. He was suddenly clasped to the bureaucratic bosom of the IPCC and the recipient of grants which fell like pennies from heaven. This was despite the fact that the institution never bothered to check the data, presumably because he fit so well into the preconceived beliefs rather than objective science the IPCC claimed to espouse. Consequently, Mann became  a new source of propaganda-fuelled cash injection.

Or in other words:

“If you look in GeoRef, which is the bibliography for publications in geology, you will find 485 papers on the Medieval Warm Period and you’ll find 1,413 on the Little Ice Age. So the total number of papers in the geologic literature is 1,900. And we’re expected to believe that one curve [based on] tree rings is going to overturn all of those 1,900 papers? I don’t think so.” [12]

So said Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Washington and who has studied global climate change for five decades. He has written many books, published more than 185 papers in professional journals, and presented 30 research papers at international meetings in 15 countries. He seems qualified to comment on the hockey stick temperature graph, which presented a totally new view of the temperature record, counter to the one long accepted by scholars. Not that this is necessarily indicative of skulduggery at this stage, nor should unorthodox contributions ever be dismissed, but it should give rise to caution at the very least. When coupled with the political interests within the climate change industry as a whole, it becomes highly suspicious. Indeed, as it stands, any departure from the Green Establishment line of AGW merits a tenacious orthodoxy which isn’t about to budge.

Former President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus describes the set of beliefs which make up the AGW, global warming “consensus” as “… an ideology, if not a religion.” He further states: “It lives independently on the science of climatology. Its disputes are not about temperature, but are part of the ‘conflict of ideologies’. Temperature is used and misused in these disputes. The politicians, the media and the public – misled by the very aggressive propaganda produced by the adherents of the global warming doctrine – do not see this. It is our task to help them to distinguish between what is science and what is ideology.” [13]

Which will be a tall order since science is about as far as it can be from being impartial and objective thanks to AGW supporters compromising much of the internet sources of information. Anyone perusing climate science articles on internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia would be forgiven for thinking that there is a scientific consensus on global warming.

Then there is the issue of “Climategate” which had climate activists scurrying around applying damage limitation editorials left, right and centre. It’s not difficult to see why.  In November 2009 The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) server was hacked at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by persons unknown. Possibly looking for maximum media coverage just prior to the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, over 4,000 emails and computer files were copied and uploaded to various locations on the Internet. Over 5,000 emails were hacked again in 2011 by a possible whistleblower calling himself “FOIA” and posted on his website. This was called “Climategate 2.0,” apparently timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original Climategate leak and with the United Nations Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa.

The correspondence included a host of characters but most notably Professors Phil Jones and Dr. Mick Kelly. Jones happens to be a prominent contributor to the IPCC and has worked on temperature records of the last 1000 years with Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame. The unit has received research grants totalling £2,725,000.00 since 1990. Other emails included frequent appearances by Tom Wigley, a climate scientist for the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and a major contributor to climate and carbon-cycle models; Kevin E. Trenberth head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and lead author for IPCC reports for 1995, 2001 and 2007; Thomas R. Karl Director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Centre; James Hansen Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Gavin Schmidt founder of the RealClimate website and contributor to ocean and climate models. There were many other scientists also involved in the scandal.

It was a gift for climate sceptics and no doubt those in the fossil fuel lobby happy to ride on the confusion and noise created. Though this did not disprove the theory of AGW, for many climate sceptics this was cast-iron proof that there was indeed a conspiracy to manipulate and cover up data. This was a serious blow however, to the credibility of AGW research and a vindication from many other scientists that the field was compromised by politics. Unsurprisingly, the CRU rejected the accusations and tried desperately to cultivate a business-as-usual approach. Clinging to their academic life-jackets like survivors of the Titanic, the CRU and climate activists insisted that all the comments were taken out of context and “merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.” [14]Yet, within that honest exchange lay blatant dishonesty, if not downright fraud which can only harm science in general.

Lon Glazer, a Chicago blogger at “Commission Impossible” gave a fine summary of the behaviour of those involved in the scandal the implications of which were being brushed under the carpet. He reveals that:

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favourable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favourable online communities.

What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science. [15] [Emphasis mine]

The latter paragraph in italics is important to remember. This is about valuing good science and discarding politics of belief and large egos. The above is an example of the pervasive spectre of “group-think” rather than free thought which needs to be countered vigorously whenever it raises its ugly head – which is often.

To give the reader a taste of what Glazer has summarised let me offer some of the verbatim quotes from the scientists themselves.

>Phil Jones reveals how he made his data show warming:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University, on covering up recent cooling:

“Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Prof. Phil Jones’ view on the sharing of scientific data:

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

Dr. Mick Kelly confirms what we already knew:

Told Paul Horsman of Greenpeace “The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalization agenda driven by organizations like the WTO [World Trade Organization].”

Prof. Michael E. Mann on “cleaning up” code:

“I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”

Tom Wigley on global warming:

“We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming – and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”

Thomas R Karl on data requests:

“I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues.”

A CRU programming code for dealing with tree-ring data:

“Uses corrected MXD but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

Adam Markham to the CRU:

“… are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.”

Phil Jones’ true colours:

“I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

From Phil Jones to Australian Tom Wigley regarding the Medieval Warm Period:

“Bottom line – there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years … this is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and variability.”

More evidence of Phil Jones covering up and deleting data. He warns Michael Mann about Steve McIntyre and Prof Ross McKitrick, the first individuals to comprehensively debunk the “hockey stick”, and who wish to look at CRU data:

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Phil Jones to staff:

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

After FOI request from David Holland Phil Jones asks Michael Mann:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise … Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?”

Tom Wigley on ousting the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (which was achieved):

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann on two sceptics’ papers:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Michael Mann on removing the editor of Climate Science [This was achieved]:

“How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).”

From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John Daly:

“In an odd way this is cheering news!”

IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth privately tells colleagues that global warming is absent from the data and counter to climate model predictions:

“… where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. … The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” [16]

So, why so much emphasis on AGW? Is it just because the science says so?

When you read through the mountains of data you realise very quickly that underneath the teetering columns of graphs and pie-charts, references and citations there is still a whole lot of assumption and inconclusive data. No one really knows but so many want to know and are willing to jump to erroneous conclusions and blame humans for the whole kit and caboodle as a result. After all, it follows in a grand tradition does it not? And humans ARE destroying ecological systems and their wildlife at a terrific rate. Ergo…

PhilJones_1578026c

Professor Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia

‘University of East Anglia refused to share information on global warming’  |”The university at the centre of the ‘climategate’ scandal behaved in a “reprehensible” manner by refusing to release research behind the science of global warming, according to MPs.”

Roy Spencer, PhD was the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001; Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre; NASA U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is a scientist well qualified to comment on the nature of global warming. Awarded NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites with Dr. John Christy, he continues to provide congressional testimony on the subject of global warming. As he mentions on his website: “He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.” [16]

Dr. Spencer explains the logic which appeals to so many singing the AGW tune:

Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40 percent to 45 percent higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

Spencer explains that the well-worn word: “consensus” sees the Earth’s sensitivity as high (about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C) and warming every ten years as long as the use of fossil fuels continues as our main source of energy. The climate sensitivity is very high and thus the limiting of fossil fuels and CO2 production is the primary pillar of AGW beliefs. He thinks that knowledge on ‘climate sensitivity’ has been difficult to accrue and believes they are missing a vital point:

How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming are critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’sceptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate. Climate change — it happens, with or without our help. [17]

[Emphasis mine]

The climate change industry is hugely influenced by the idea that carbon dioxide emissions have been fingered as the evil villain of anything from freak tornadoes to flash floods and future sea-level rises where islands will cease to exist. Though human activity does indeed have a lot to answer for – certainly in terms of ozone depletion and rainforest destruction, to name but two examples – placing non-linear weather patterns and their effects at humanity’s door is both unrealistic and prescriptive, though it has provided a thriving industry of computer modelling and carbon credit companies. Without this much-touted “scientific consensus” climate change would be a very different beast indeed.

CFCs Climate Change

The graph shows the predicted path of global temperatures is set to continue their decline as a result of depletion of CFC’s in the atmosphere. Credit: Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo Source: http://www.Phys.org

One of the most recent studies from the University of Waterloo in Canada published in the International Journal of Modern Physics confirmed that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide. An “in-depth statistical analysis” shows that: “CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change.” Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science state”: “Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” he said. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.” [18]

A correlation perhaps, but one certainly a whole lot more watertight than the present evidence for CO2.

Indeed, in a recent article by Paul Driessen he highlights the problems with the AGW climate change which clearly seems to have been going on throughout history reiterating the fact that: “… it is costly policies imposed in the name of preventing change: policies that too often destroy jobs, perpetuate poverty and kill people.”

He states further:

“Those perceptions are reinforced by recent studies that found climate researchers have systematically revised actual measured temperatures upward to fit a global warming narrative for Australia, Paraguay, the Arctic and elsewhere. Another study, ‘Why models run hot: Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,’ concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be ‘no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections’ – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.” [19] 

It doesn’t stop there. Steven Goddard’s Real Science blog also provides some interesting information direct from the National Climate Data Center. His comments follow each graph reproduced here:

There is only one piece of US climate data which correlates with CO2 –  the amount of data tampering NCDC is applying to US temperature.

ScreenHunter_3233 Oct. 01 22.59

All of the other relevant metrics show either no correlation, or negative correlation vs. CO2.  The whole thing is a 100% scam – from top to bottom.

Hot days show no correlation vs. CO2

ScreenHunter_3341 Oct. 05 06.14Severe tornadoes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3337 Oct. 05 05.58

Measured (untampered) US temperatures show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3332 Oct. 05 05.19US hurricane strikes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3328 Oct. 05 04.41US heavy rainfall events show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3315 Oct. 04 14.20East Coast sea level rise shows no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3311 Oct. 04 11.20

Once again, if anything is going to have a drastic effect on temperature change and any possibility of warming trend it is the Sun, rather than CO2.

***

Clearly, there is much more to this subject than is possible to summarise, even in a whole book. The point to remember is that science is working for social engineering programs which incorporate both conscious and unconscious agents which are always determined by their psychological profile. This is true for all societal domains where psychopathy has a foothold and its psychological footprint has gained ground. The exact same indications of ponerisation appear in climate science as it does in all other spheres of official culture. The organising principle is one of confusion and disinformation which is propagated by large egos and beliefs. These latter attributes manage to create obstruction and stagnation quite nicely without any radical influence from agents on high. The ultimate agenda is to create so much hysteria, fear and co-opted scientific inquiry so that the real creative solutions are left by the wayside.

There is global warming but not of the type presented by most scientists and their media lackeys. Such a phenomenon may exist cyclically and precede global cooling, substantial earth changes ending with an Ice Age. If the World State ideologues knew very well about this epochal changes but wished to retain control when much of the population had been wiped out, do you think they would reveal such information to the public at large and risk the eventual dilution of their powerbase?  **

Blaming humans for what are very possibly complex cosmic processes far beyond the physical influences of humanity feeds into the same disinformation and ignorance we have been exploring in the last series of posts. What is more important, is that it once again distracts from the theories of cyclic catastrophes which have visited this planet over and over again, strangely enough, at the exact moment when Global Pathocracies are reaching their zenith.

Perhaps it is this knowledge that is really being concealed by the climate change debate?

 


* Reading Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion will bring the reader up-to-date on every aspect of the famous temperature graph and which reveals the same story of financial and ideological fraud running rampant in climate change science.

** I strongly urge readers to read Earth Changes and the Cosmic-Human Connection by Pierre Lascaudron which goes into the complex forces at work from the electric universe to cometary bombardment. From the book description:

“Jet Stream meanderings, Gulf Stream slow-downs, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteor fireballs, tornadoes, deluges, sinkholes, and noctilucent clouds have been on the rise since the turn of the century. Have proponents of man-made global warming been proven correct, or is something else, something much bigger, happening on our planet?

While mainstream science depicts these Earth changes as unrelated, Pierre Lescaudron applies findings from the Electric Universe paradigm and plasma physics to suggest that they might in fact be intimately related, and stem from a single common cause: the close approach of our Sun’s ‘twin’ and an accompanying cometary swarm.

Citing historical records, the author reveals a strong correlation between periods of authoritarian oppression with catastrophic and cosmically-induced natural disasters. Referencing metaphysical research and information theory, Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection is a ground-breaking attempt to re-connect modern science with the ancient understanding that the human mind and states of collective human experience can influence cosmic and earthly phenomena.”

 


Notes

[1] ‘Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism’ by Dr. David Evans, Science and Public Policy Institute, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, April 2, 2009. (PDF)
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.” (Wikipedia).
“Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over the latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia, because this contention helps support their claim that what they call the “unprecedented” temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced. Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. Likewise, they are equally loath to admit that temperatures of the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago may also have rivaled, or exceeded, those of the recent past, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that time were also much lower than they are today. As a result, climate alarmists rarely even mention the Roman Warm Period, as they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie. In addition, they refuse to acknowledge that these two prior warm periods were global in extent, claiming instead that they were local phenomenon restricted to lands surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. In another part of our Subject Index we explore these contentions as they apply to the Medieval Warm Period. In this Summary, we explore them as they pertain to the Roman Warm Period, beginning with Central Europe.” […] See: ‘Roman Warm Period (Europe – Central) – Summary’ http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropecentral.phpfor further discussion.
[5] ‘Regular Solar Cycle Could Be Going on Hiatus’ by Nancy Atkinson on June 14, 2011 Universe Today at http://www.universetoday.com/86643/regular-solar-cycle-could-be-going-on-hiatus/#ixzz2HnDWS1eq
[6] http://www.solarspace.co.uk/Sun.php
[7] ‘Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found? ‘ by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. updated 7:00 a.m. CDT, June 30, 2008 Including a simplified version of a paper entitled “Chaotic Radiative Forcing, Feedback Stripes, and the Overestimation of Climate Sensitivity” June 25, 2008 for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
[8] Ibid.
[9] The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by Andrew Montford. Published by Stacey International, 2010. ISBN-10: 1906768358.
[10] Climate Audit by Steve McKntyre at http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
[11] ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series’ published in Energy & Environment 2003.Mcintyre, S. and R. McKitrick | Also see: “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance”. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3): L03710. Bibcode 2005GeoRL..3203710M. 2005 | ‘The decay of the hockey stick’ by Hans Von Storch, May 3, 2007, http://www.nature.com
[12] ‘Don Easterbrook PhD, Mann Hockey Stick graph not supported by data’ audio=YouTube.com
[13] Václav Klaus, Magistral Lecture at the International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, organized by the World Federation of Scientists, Erice, Sicily, Italy, 20 August 2012. (For full transcript see Appendix 15, Vol. III).
[14] ‘Sceptics publish climate e-mails ‘stolen from East Anglia University’ by Ben Webster, The Times (London). November 21, 2009.
[15] ‘Commission Impossible: ‘Men Behaving badly’ by Lon Glazer at http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2009/11/men-behaving-ba.html
[16] ‘Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues’ November 22, 2009. | All email data and individual emails can be found on www.http://di2.nu/foia/
[17] http://www.drroyspencer.com/
[18] Ibid. (‘Global Warming’)
[19] ‘Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, new study says’ http://www.Phys Org, May 31, 2013.

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.

Dark Green VII: The Club of Rome and “World Problematique” (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

Every man is a moon and has a dark side which is turned towards nobody- you have to slip around behind if you want to see it.”

Mark Twain


Eco-fascism and World State advocates incorporate a host of well-intentioned people. Such movements work, precisely because the genuine emotions behind the propaganda have been tapped. It does not mean every person involved is somehow part of a nefarious conspiracy – it’s cleverer than that. Knowledge of mass psychology ensures compliance; self-censorship and our adherence to comfortable belief and authority usually proves enough. It is also true that many of those doing their part under the Club of Rome and other organisations we have discussed may be subconsciously aware of these authoritarian principles and have the make up of an authoritarian follower. This doesn’t necessarily make them pathological but it does make them ignorant of the wider spheres of manipulation, thus easily swayed, whether academic or layman, politician or scientist. After all, we tend to jump on the band-wagon of belief that most readily conforms to our childhood programming and personality desires.

The Club of Rome is an outfit designed to appeal to the green arm of those romantic visions of one world unity and eco-authoritarian sensibilities. If World State principles are to have a chance they need to adapt quickly and conform to the Rockefeller ideal of a corporatist-collectivist hybridisation which can foster the needed economics, just as they did after World War II. The directive for institution building was “peace,” here, it is “environmental catastrophe” – regardless of the validity. The psychopath’s mind piggy-backs macro-social imperatives in order to extract the best possible outcome for its minority species. In this case, the survival and dominance of their genetic code, not that of normal people.

The CoR authors state:

“The period of absence of thought and a lack of common vision – not of the world of tomorrow will be, but of what we want it to be, so we can shape it – is a source of discouragement, even despair. […] It seem would that many men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together. In the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist – or have yet to be found.” [Emphasis mine]

This harks back to the stanza of “Remoulding it to the heart’s desire” and the allusions to commonality, consensus, communitarianism etc. (Remember Common Core and Common Purpose?) Nothing wrong with any of those things but just who is doing the “shaping” here on behalf of humanity? The same movers and shakers are still in control. It’s the difference between self-organised communities independent of State controls or inverted totalitarianism hijacking truth and so far, every indication seems to be it is the latter.

It seems the Club of Rome and its various offshoots have arrived at the idea that we need a “common motivation” being so disempowered and bereft of ideas of our own. Further, we need an “adversary” in order to act together and get organised just like we need an adversary in the shape of a terrorist threat or the nonsense of Vladimir Putin as a Hitlerian instigator of a new cold war. It’s exactly the same dynamic used to hoodwink the mass mind. The CoR is using in plain sight, the same technique to elicit a Pavlovian response from the populace to create the groundswell to “save the planet” and prevent an ecological catastrophe. In the “vacuums” created by power structures and with psychopaths at specific nodes of influence almost anything can be inserted into the mass mind with enough appeal to instinct (fear) and emotion (altruistic desire) to create a potent force upon which the Elite can ride to fruition. We find the same “scientific technique” so favoured by governments everywhere:

“The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself – when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose.”

No arguments there. Rather than moving away from such a manipulation they decide to employ the exact same tactics simply because it is “green” and the future of the planet is at stake. And here we come to the whole point underlying much of the global warming hysteria of the last twenty years:

Can we live without enemies? Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined and new weapons devised. The new enemies are different in their nature and location but they are no less real. They threaten the whole human race and they are and their names are pollution, water shortage, famine, malnutrition, illiteracy and unemployment.  [Emphasis mine]

Finally, the dénouement arrives:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” [1]

Transmute our need for bogeyman and graft them onto a sensible, ecological salvation. Notice how State and society are one in the authors’ minds. To combat the perceived threat to the human race deception is necessary for the good of the whole – i.e. The Elite. Similarly, true to eco-fascist principles, the Establishment are not the enemies but “humanity itself” who has been raised and inculcated along the very same lines of perception management that the CoR is proposing here.

Indeed, taking his cue from the propaganda was the late CoR member Prof. Stephen Schneider of Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change who claimed: “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination … So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” [2] However, in order to achieve this aim notions of democracy and freedom must be turned on their head for the greater good.

In the 1991 edition, (though carefully re-worked in the 1993 edition) we find:

But freedom alone cannot reorganise a state, write a constitution, create a market and establish economic growth, rebuild industry and agriculture and or build a new social structure. It is a necessary and noble, inspirational force but it is far from being an operating manual for a new government. This is why the concept of human rights simply initiates but cannot implement the process of democratization […] The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation. The slowness of decision-making in a democratic system is particularly damaging at the international level. […]

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” [3]

They are right: “Democracy is not a Panacea.” Yet, these proffered “Global Revolutions” – as every managed and co-opted revolution in the past – are not offering progressive change that lies with the people but the exact same notions of change residing in global governance and a New Renaissance of World State dreams percolating in the minds of leaders. They are advocating tighter centralisation grafted onto and through the ideological medium of regionalism and Communitarianism. As the “wise man” of new age environmentalism Maurice Strong mentioned in a recent essay for the World Policy Journal: “… our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions.” [4]

Once again, you see that it is governments, the state where the answer lies rather than the people. When you place this in context you see a pattern and you slowly realise that this is ditching democracy in order to replace it with a re-packaging of the 4C’s with the exact same management team presiding over a new Social Contract using ecological catastrophe as the “enemy”. This is a ruse to seemingly “unite us” but it is a unity that serves the few. The same is happening with economics (manipulated collapse) and society as a whole (SMART growth/sustainable development).

In similar fashion, the UN as a policing body which is, in principle at least, concerned with the enforcement of world disarmament as an achievable goal. Now, think about this from a minority psychopath’s point of view. What would the psychopath do if he wanted to ride normal humanity’s back without the possibility of being discovered? Further, when he was revealed, you could no longer cause him harm? He would feed humanity an array of enticing “foods”  and cultivate distractions that would make make it progressively docile and asleep to psycho-spiritual danger; a mass condition of Stockholm Syndrome would arrive, effectively disabling humanity’s ability to SEE evil in its midst. While it slept the psychopath caused us to to gorge on empty mental, emotional and physical “nourishment” while eventually removing our teeth under cover of night. When and if we finally awoke our will and ability to defend ourselves from psychic infection would be gone.

Whilst violence is not the answer, disarming the population is a standard, historical tactic of the Establishment and ensures compliance to a World Order with the minimum of resistance, both in terms of the mind and regarding the possibility of civil unrest. A future armed resistance from those who would rather have the choice as to whether they are embedded in a pathocratic “SMART society” is an understandable reaction. Yet, even here the fostering of “revolution” in the minds of the masses is also a part of social engineering and a veritable smoke and mirrors of conflicting desires, since every revolution is designed to break down Official culture so that the Establishment can introduce their own “solutions.”

If you think the CoR is doing its level best to defer to those with conscience and use language that would buffer the true meaning – then you would be correct. The real intention is stated far more bluntly by Fred G. Thompson in his article for the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome:

[W]e have temporarily acquired the means to defy Nature, it is only for a short time. If we do not design policies to halt, and then reverse population growth, Nature by default will soon exact a most punishing solution. […] The reduction of human population by default means in plain language the reduction of human numbers by war, disease and famine. […]

Over-consumption is, of course, the basic cause of polluting the atmosphere and global warming. So it must be dealt with.

One possible scenario would be the imposition of birth control by a world government which possesses the capacity to enforce it globally. Not a pretty scene, but an alternative to global war, disease and starvation. [5]
[Emphasis mine]

And yet, global war, disease and starvation are exactly the methods and effects which have been used by the Elite for centuries. Talk about a contradiction! Despite the insistence that: “ ‘Global ‘governance’ in our vocabulary does not imply a global ‘government’ but rather the institutions set up for cooperation, coordination, and common action between durable sovereign states” it is one of many disingenuous statements which amount to semantics.  How likely is such a global scenario to play out when those same players that coordinated past disasters are still residing at the top of these institutions which are attempting to become supra-global and when democracy is deemed inefficient and out-dated?

How likely is any notion of success to be realised when deception, bad science and blatant determinism is used as the arbiters of a perceived truth?

Democracy has indeed succumbed to the very same forces proposing global consciousness along eco-fascist principles. Democratic decision-making is seen as “damaging at the international level” because of its slow pace. It can also be argued that it can act as a safeguard to precipitous decisions and runaway policies based on reaction and reflex instead of careful thought and transparent arbitration.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sister organisations, the Club of Budapest which focuses on social and cultural issues and the Club of Madrid which has a more political emphasis. Both follow the same themes of sustainability and developing new socio-political and ecological frameworks which leave capitalism and democracy behind. The CoR has also established a network of over 35 National Associations. Although, as of writing, the “Ex Officio membership” at the CoR website is conveniently blank which would have otherwise given a snapshot of the kind of belief from which the CoR has traditionally drawn. A brief summary of current and past members from CoR and its sister organisations include:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner and Emmy winner. Gore led the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference and chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997. Stating in Grist Magazine in 2006: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…” He is most well-known for being opposition candidate to the Bush-Cheney Reich in 2004 and for producing the scientifically compromised but multi-award-winning global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Javier Solana – is a Spanish physicist and Socialist politician. Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy. He is a frequent speaker at the prestigious U.S. based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was also Secretary-General of NATO from 1995-1999 and gave the Clinton led go ahead for the bombing campaign of the former Yugoslavia as well as giving full support for the invasion of Iraq under the illusion of full European support: “Today’s message to Baghdad is very clear: the UN Security Council resolution expresses the unity and determination of the entire international community to assume its collective responsibility.” [6]

Mikhail Gorbachev – The big Daddy of New World Order change; a CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Maurice Strong) of the Earth Charter. Gorby has come out with some memorable statements: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”

Most recently the Russian elder statesman had this to say at Lafayette College commenting on the Occupy Wall St. Movement:

“Others, including myself, have spoken about a new world order, but we are still facing the problem of building such a world order…problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, food shortages…all because we do not have a system of global governance. We cannot leave things as they were before, when we are seeing that these protests are moving to even new countries, that almost all countries are now witnessing such protests, that the people want change. As we are addressing these challenges, these problems raised by these protest movements, we will gradually find our way towards a new world order.” [7]

Diego Hidalgo SchnurCutting his teeth at the World Bank from 1968 to 1977, he is the founder and president of FRIDE, (Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior), of the Club of Madrid. He is the Chairman of the Board for DARA (international organization) and Concordia 21. He is also a founding member and senior fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation of North America (GFNA).

Ervin Laszlo – Concert pianist, scientist and philosopher. Founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honour.

Sir Crispin Ticknell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner. Ticknell is a keen believer in Gaia theory stating that: “Gaia has no particular tenderness for humans. We are no more than a small, albeit immodest, part of her.” [8]

Maurice Strong – Described by the New York Times as the “Custodian of the Planet” Strong has been Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council. He is also a devout follower of the Baha’i religion and propagator of Gaian theology. Strong has also long been a Rockefeller agent of change, having been financially backed by the family since he was knee-high to an oil drum. Yes, Strong, had his beginnings in oil. It is for this reason that Strong has managed to create environmental organisations, think-tanks and foundations as well as being on the board of almost every other environmental initiative and enterprise. (For more on the eco-Intelpro background of Strong please watch James Corbett’s video series on Big Oil).

And Here’s what Mr. Strong said in his autobiography, in a section described as a report to the shareholders, Earth Inc, dated 2031: “And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.” [9]A “glimmer of hope” after death and destruction over which he is not only happy to preside,  but to encourage. This is key to understanding the impetus behind global warming and other forms of eco-Intelpro: it is eco-fascism of the highest order. Yet commenting on Strong’s legacy of environmentalism Kofi Anaan thought: “It would be a mistake to think of Maurice solely as one of the world’s leading environmentalists. His main cause has been people.” [10]It’s a “cause” all right, just one that ignores the true roots of the global crises while promoting Nature over humans.Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace. No surprise that we found the late Mr. Muller working his magic here and who observed:

“In my view, from all perspectives — scientific, political, social, economic and ideological — humanity finds itself in the pregnancy of an entirely new and promising age: the global, interdependent, universal age … the birth of the global brain, heart, senses and soul to humanity, of a holistic consciousness of our place in the universe and on this planet, and of our role and destiny in them.”

Which may well be, but such gushing statements are quite useful for those wish to build a global consciousness based on the opposite. Muller’s World Core Curriculum was based directly on the Alice Bailey teachings. His role seems to have been to plant the seeds of a New World Religion in the faithful: “We must, together, create an agency within the U.N. and perhaps an independent United Religions Secretariat. What an incredible challenge that would offer to the United Nations, and what untold good it would bring to humanity, which desperately needs a moral and spiritual Renaissance.” [11]

Which of course means supporting the CoR and all it stands for.

Other Club of Rome members include Kofi Anaan, Lionel Jospin, George Soros, Hassan bin Talal, Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Jose Maria Anzar, Bill Gates, The Dalai Lama, Garret Hardin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife Queen Sophia, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Prince Philippe of Belgium and many more. And of course, as ever, David Rockefeller, whom we know a little about …

Project partners and funding for the organisations comes from a variety of foundations and government bodies which by their mere presence is enough to conclude that such organizations cannot be trusted: Cisco Systems; International Economic Club of China; Turkish Future Researches Foundation (TUGAV) United Nations Foundation (UNF) Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Eurasian Economic Club of Scientists; Bertelsman Stiftung; Hunt Alternatives Fund; The Cousin’s Charitable Foundation; Institute for Security Studies (South Africa) Institute on Democracy in South Africa (IDASA) Brookings Institution; Centre for Concern Rethinking Bretton Woods Project. With annual conference sponsorship from the Rockefeller Foundation; Google; Samsung; Microsoft; McKinsey & Co and GDF Suez.

The Rockefeller funding is present in all three CoR organisations.

rio-earth-tio1Rio Earth Summit 1992

Blame it on Rio

The drive to protect the Earth and Nature under attack is obviously an admirable one. The destruction of the Rainforests is something that actually gives me a literal pain in my heart when I see it. But how is all this mass emotional energy actually being used? The last thing the pathocratic Establishment want is an informed and thinking public who are able to discern signposts to eco-social engineering. It seems we still have a long way to go when it comes to green issues and notions of just who is “healing the Earth”.

When the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit arrived in 1992 it was chaired under  the ubiquitous Maurice Strong. The Convention on Biological Diversity; The Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the UN Agenda 21 were all birthed there on a wave of green emotion and a sincere desire to take action. Psychological seeding was the intent rather than rapid change. Since then, in concert with SMART society initiatives and redevelopment cartels these policies have redrawn the framework of local and national government policy. Regardless of whether they understood the nature of the green mask, change agents were needed. What counted was their iconic presence.

In 1994, Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, formally introduced the Earth Charter as a civil society initiative as part of the declaration of Rio. The independent Earth Charter Commission, “… was convened by Strong and Gorbachev with the purpose of developing a global consensus on values and principles for a sustainable future. The Commission continues to serve as the steward of the Earth Charter text.” [12]Now, one of the principle creators of the Earth Charter was… (drum-roll) … Steven Clark Rockefeller! He was chairman of the Earth Charter international drafting committee and member of the Earth Charter Commission and Steering Committee. He also happens to be an advisory trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund while still finding time to act as professor emeritus of Religion at Middlebury College. The ideal person to create such a UN-driven declaration that: “we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny,” and that a “change of mind and heart” is needed for this global undertaking. Like Alice Bailey’s “New Group of World Servers,” – who and what exactly, are we ultimately following?

Towards the end of the Earth charter we are provided with more “choices” dressed up as no choices at all:

As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter. This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.”

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfil their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development. Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.” [13] [Emphasis mine]

When we come to talk about the UN Agenda 21 and its push for SMART growth redevelopment within urban centres and suburbia, you will see why the above is dangerous manipulation – a green mask, if you will.

By 2000, the Earth Charter text had been taken to activists, NGOs and governments hearts appealing to both romantic and ideological aspirations, with huge glut of conferences, seminars, neighbourhood meetings all attended by suitably paid “facilitators” and lobbyists. Sustainable development in the 1990s was only the first stage. Once SMART growth and society were not merely buzzwords but the technology was there to support it, SD and SMART fused into one. The Earth dialogues followed in 2002, launched by Strong and Gorby as an outgrowth of Green Cross International. These series of annual public forums sought to: “… bring together civil society and the private and public sectors in the search for solutions to resolve the most pressing and interconnected challenges of insecurity, poverty and environmental degradation.” [14]

Sounds inspiring doesn’t it? It’s a shame this is another lie. It seems the young have been sucked into yet another Strong/Gorby production: the Earth Charter Initiative where children are sought as “change agents” for the new “Global ethic.” According to the website description:

“The Earth Charter Initiative is the collective name for an extraordinarily diverse, global network of people, organizations, and institutions who participate in promoting the Earth Charter, and in implementing its principles in practice. The Initiative is a broad-based, voluntary, civil society effort, but participants include leading international institutions, national governments, university associations, NGOs, cities, faith groups, and many well-known leaders in sustainable development.” [15]

Its objectives regarding education is an example of a familiar dogma:

“The Earth Charter values and principles must be taught, contemplated, applied and internalized. To this end, the Earth Charter needs to be incorporated into both formal and non-formal education. This process must involve various communities, continue to integrate the Charter into the curriculum of schools and universities, and constitute an on-going process of life-long learning.” [16]

The best way to gain a commitment from the awakening mass mind is to appeal to their values and shared commonality. The Earth Charter text and initiative are worded in such a way that a form of entrainment occurs which fits seamlessly into grass roots aspirations. Social transformation of young minds can then fit into the Agenda 21 structures currently being implemented. After all, according to Strong: “The real goal of the Earth Charter, is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.” [17]

Once again, this isn’t about saving the planet or offering a new template that will empower people to find creative solutions outside of the Establishment. This is about the exact reverse: to homogenise thought and action related to green issues and ecological science by contouring focus into pre-designed, socially engineered parameters, where national parks, land allocation, land resource, the prohibition of private property and SMART ghettoization takes place by stealth. This society will be supremely green and highly efficient but lacking any freedom to choose. Indeed, the whole concept of sustainability and SMART is are already being sold as desirable – even inevitable – choices when in fact, it has all been based on another dialectical formula to herd the population.

The reader may remember the late former Assistant-Secretary of the UN Robert Muller, who was a highly influential spiritual guru within the institution and a follower of the Alice Bailey teachings explored in a previous post. The Earth Charter Initiative is overseen by the United Nations University of Peace founded by Muller (yes, Maurice Strong is the President) its governing council a veritable honey-pot of Club of Rome members, including the now retired Secretary-General Martin Lees. Like the Earth charter initiatives in education, Robert Muller schools continue to pop up all over the world “educating” children towards a singular perception of reality. Yet, the more we look into Muller’s background and what he is advocating the more troubling it becomes. The laudable sentiments for world peace and harmony on earth are undercut by the same spiritual fascism that we can find in the Bailey writings and militant environmentalists.  What is more, it presents a spiritual narcissism so extreme it defies belief that such a man until recently had such power over the decision-making process in UN circles. Yet it is this very genuine and highly devotional personality that is so often useful in promoting a fake agenda.

clip_image002_thumb.jpgThe ubiquitous Maurice Strong

clip_image004_thumb.jpg“global visionary” Robert Muller

On Muller’s website goodmorningworld.org a series of personal conversations with God ensue:

God: “Dear Robert, congratulations for having finished your 4000 ideas. May I ask you: which one do you consider the most important?”

I: Well, my most important idea and conclusion after all my adult life as a world civil servant is this: The United Nations must be vastly strengthened to resolve the major global problems henceforth increasingly confronting humanity and the Earth. It must be empowered to adopt and enforce world laws and regulations.

God: “Thank you, dear Robert, for what you are recommending. Perhaps after all, the greatest jewel of my Creation, the Earth, can be saved.” […]

Under these circumstances I cannot accept that you consider your 4000 ideas to be the end. You should, you must continue and work hard on implementation. I will help you from heaven, creating the right circumstances and ensuring that your ideas and efforts will be known at the right, highest world levels.”  [18] [Emphasis mine]

Notwithstanding the assumption that Muller has been hand-picked by God because of the quality of his ideas which will work at the “highest world levels,” he proceeds to enthusiastically trumpet his visions which include the United Nations mandating: “… urgency plans or conferences to halt the rapid decline of Plane Earth’s life giving capacities and wealth,” such as a: “… world emergency plan to stop for at least five years the human population explosion;” “… a world emergency plan for the more rapid reduction of carbon dioxide emissions;” and “… a world emergency plan to avoid further risks of climatic changes;” and many other “ideas” which are, by now, quite familiar. [19] All of this, with the enforcement of “world laws and regulations.

It seems Robert Muller’s delight at being a “world civil servant” is genuine… Is this global governance to be made up of an eco-technocratic elite of civil servants, traditional Iagos and Machiavellian snakes which inhabit all the quangos and corridors of political power, easing, oiling and subverting where necessary? It would seem so. This is not to say that Muller isn’t sincere. He may be a thoroughly decent man. But that isn’t the issue.

Good intentions never have been.

While there is much to praise in Muller’s stream of ideas, his ignorance of the nature of ecology and non-linear change – and more importantly geo-politics – is truly frightening considering the position he found himself. The level of spiritual egocentrism is profound. For exanmple, his comments on population:

“Perhaps the recent increase of terrorism is the beginning of that revolution. The attacks against the US World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were perhaps the opening of it. Among the measures, which can reduce this new world danger, the UN should urgently convene a World Emergency Population Conference. Another is a new, immediate World Marshall Plan, as recommended by the Club of Budapest.” [20]

And the Club of Budapest is Muller’s own bar-code of approval touting the same centralisation and homogenization of human creativity. To Muller, unless we get with the picture, it is not just a danger but a “New World danger!” Is there a New World toaster perhaps? Or a New World Supermarket with New World Baked Beans? Has Muller exhausted the call for a New World —– (fill in the blank) enough?

Urgently convening conferences based on Elite blessings and interminable calls for New World authorities and centralisations were Muller’s speciality and therefore, fairly meaningless, but no less fanatical.

Everything in Muller’s vision is sourced from Alice Bailey and molded into his own prolific worldview which is dangerously naïve, messianic, blind to the dangers inherent in the ideas he is proposing. His impression of humanity is that we: “… are still a very primitive, underdeveloped species” which needs the stewardship of folks like himself desperate for a singular type of New World. Muller further believes: “Communism has died. It is now the turn of capitalism to change or die. The new ideology should be Earthism, the proper management and conservation of our precious, life-nurturing and sustaining Earth. Capital should be used to save the Earth and become eco-capitalism.” Not a word on ponerology, not a word about the fact the very challenges we face are not sourced from the human species but a minority who soil the sandpit. The underdeveloped species of course, clearly doesn’t include Muller who sits on the right hand of God and is therefore his valuable conduit outside such nastiness. [21]

This isn’t education. It’s indoctrination.

“New” is prefixed in front of every possible discipline and domain, from a new political system to a new economics; a new education and a new media and new communications to a new democracy and a new global leadership; a new science and technology to a new anthropology, sociology and new ways of life; a new human biology and a new philosophy, cosmology and long term, view of evolution to a new world ethics and justice and a new world psychology all connected under “the art of planetary management” and group  consciousness. A vast homogenous mass – collectivism at the ground level of a clinical, urban wasteland with romantic, warm and fuzzy trigger words to engender conformity. Will you become one of the chosen few who will be living in the assigned zones of ecotopia; with their neighbourhood police and gated SMART-buildings with round the clock security?

The Earth Charter is a set of principles which enhances and streamlines Agenda 21 which is a framework by which a re-shaping of society according to sustainable principles can be implemented. They go hand in hand. The International Covenant on Environment and Development allows a smooth passage of laws in relation to Charter to go through unimpeded and is being prepared by the Commission on Environmental Law at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which is a monolithic agency straddling more than 700 other international agencies. (You will not be surprised to hear that Maurice Strong is giving the Rockefellers a run for their money by being on the board of the directors of the IUCN as well as everywhere else…)

Alongside corporations who are also patrons of the very same UN philosophies and providers of education materials with their logos stamped on every page, thousands of schools and educational organisations are currently promoting Earth Charter materials. Children are being exposed to entrainment that subtly conforms to the habitual group think and group consciousness hitherto discussed. Many of the themes and principles in the Earth Charter are sound and practical – even visionary – but they sourced from a purview of highly contested computer modelling techniques of the Club of Rome, UNEP and the IPCC who work together to fuel fear and alarm alongside the imperative for change via global governance. Underpinning New Age declarations for Global unity is bad science and cynical perception management that most assuredly does not have the best interests of humanity at heart.

Seat_of_the_House_of_Justice

Seat of the Universal House of Justice, governing body of the Bahá’ís, in Haifa, Israel

Of utmost importance is education towards the idea of a World State and the imposition of a New World Religion or “spirituality” depending on which agency you are involved in. As such, standard religion has to be side-lined or preferably done away with all together. After all, according to commongood.org a forum for Inter-Religious Groups and Spiritual Leaders “… it is clear that our religious institutions have barely begun to articulate the core values of sustainable development.” [22]

It seems the Bahá’í Faith is one of the models which is deemed an exception to the rule.

The New World Religion that is doing the rounds at the UN offices and heavily promoted by Strong and Gorby is the Bahá’í faith. Founded by Bahá’u’lláh in 19th century, it is a monotheistic religion with, of course, a strong emphasis on world government. This is why New Agers, collectivists and UN acolytes have been persuaded (mostly by Strong) to embed the Bahá’í religion within the UN.  Much like the Lucis Trust, it is permitted to have consultative status with the following organisations: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM); United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); World Health Organization (WHO).

The Bahá’í International Community is an agency under the direction of the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel. Drums, rituals and sacred messages at numerous conferences organised by Strong have featured a background of Bahá’í-inspired rituals in praise of Gaia and Mother Earth. Similar to the Lucis Trust and its “Great Invocation” the Bahá’í religion adds a further layer of institutionalised ritual to the UN.

Perhaps we could say that there’s nothing wrong with a bit of ritual and the rehashing of ancient wisdom. After all, don’t we want to live in a world of peace, harmony, tolerance and social justice? Don’t we want to preserve our emerald lands and provide a sustainable way of life which includes access to clean water and plentiful food for the planet’s inhabitants?

Even if it were based upon entirely authentic intentions, forcing it into being won’t work, and it will be especially hollow if we allow a monoculture of laws alongside a ritually-based platform for an authoritarian band of Word Civil Servants” to control the mass of humanity.

See also:

Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome

Dark Green X: UN Agenda 21 and SMART Growth

Why Big Oil Conquered the World (Video)


Notes

[1] Ibid. (p.85)
[2] Schneider SH (August/September 1996). “Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial”. APS News (American Physical Society): 5.
[3] op. cit. King; Schneider, 1991 edition: (pp.82 and 159) Interestingly, the 1993 version is worded differently but says exactly the same thing.
[4] ‘Facing Down Armageddon: Our Environment at a Crossroads’ by Maurice Strong, World Policy Journal, May 2009.
[5] ‘Turning the Elephant Around’ By Fred G. Thompson Canadian Association for the Club of Rome, Proceedings: Analysis of the Human Predicament, VoSeries 3 / Number 10 May 2007. (p.17).
[6] Disarming Iraq by George Sedall, p.53.
[7] ‘Mikhail Gorbachev Says Uprisings Signal an Emerging New World Order’ October 20, 2011, Layfayette College, Philadelphia.
[8] p.224; Scientists Debate Gaia: The Next Century By Stephen Henry Schneider, Published by MIT Press 2004.| ISBN-0262-19498-8|
[9] Where on Earth are we Going? By Maurice Strong 2000. Published by Vintage Canada.
[10] http://www.mauricestrong.net
[11] Spring 1995 issue of The Temple of Understanding newsletter under the headline, ‘Preparing for the Next Millenium.’
[12] http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/
[13] Ibid.
[14] http://www.gcint.org/what-we-do/earth-dialogues
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Maurice Strong on “A People’s Earth Charter” Interview with Maurice Strong Chairman of the Earth Council and Co-Chair of the Earth Charter Commission. | www. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/
March 5, 1998
[18] ‘Paradise Earth Robert Muller’s Ideas & Dreams Nurturing Our Home’ http://www.paradiseearth.us/
[19] http://www.robertmuller.org/ideas/
[20] Idea 2055 http://www.robertmuller.org/ideas/
[21] Idea 6335 Robert Muller ‘s Good Morning World Today’s Idea Dream For A Better World From Robert & Barbara Muller, Friday, August 10, 2007. http://www.goodmorningworld.org/blog
[22] http://www.commongood.info/cooperation

Dark Green VI: The Club of Rome and “World Problematique” (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

 “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”

Edmund Burke


According to the Club of Rome’s (CoR) own website the global think-tank was founded in April 1968 by: “… a small international group of professionals from the fields of diplomacy, industry, academia and civil society met at a quiet villa in Rome.” This villa was none other than the Rockefeller brother’s estate in Bellagio, with brainstorming sessions at the neighbouring Accademia dei Lincei.

The CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” who aim:

“… to identify the most crucial problems which will determine the future of humanity through integrated and forward-looking analysis; to evaluate alternative scenarios for the future and to assess risks, choices and opportunities; to develop and propose practical solutions to the challenges identified; to communicate the new insights and knowledge derived from this analysis to decision-makers in the public and private sectors and also to the general public and to stimulate public debate and effective action to improve the prospects for the future.” [1]

From its website we can also read that they are now focusing on:

“…on the root causes of the systemic crisis by defining and communicating the need for, the vision and the elements of a new economy, which produces real wealth and wellbeing; which does not degrade our natural resources and provides meaningful jobs and sufficient income for all people. The new programme will also address underlying values, beliefs and paradigms.”

The above sounds wonderfully inspiring until you look at the background of the CoR.

logo_web_whiteAlthough claiming to be a non-governmental, non-partisan organisation, this is not the case. The organisation has numerous connections with both NATO and government-related bodies and think-tanks: the Bilderberg Group, the UN, Trilateral Commission, and the Royal Institute of International affairs all of whom feature heavily in its networking memberships. A cross-fertilisation takes place drawn from what is essentially the same mix of global government, population control and social engineering outfits. An imposition of a singular type of International order is their remit – this time through the hijacking of environmentalism and ecology.

It would have been illuminating to be a fly-on-the-wall on that idyllic spring day. Members sipping vino blanco and munching the odd olive or two, were Erich Jantsch, Hugo Thiemann, Lauro Gomes-Filho, Jean Saint-Geours and Max Kohnstamm. They were met by their hosts the Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish scientist Alexander King, who: “… came together to discuss the dilemma of prevailing short-term thinking in international affairs and, in particular, the concerns regarding unlimited resource consumption in an increasingly interdependent world.”  [2] They decided that each participant would do their best to influence world leaders and decision-makers with growing “global interdependence” and the application of “systems-thinking” to light the road ahead. The “originality of their approach” however, was not so much that it was innovative, rather it was bad science tailored to an agenda. Peccei was an ardent supporter of a one world government and it becomes clear that this was the primary reason for his creation of the Club.

One of the flagship books to be commissioned by the CoR is The Limits to Growth (LtG) written in 1972 by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. The book served up dire consequences for industrialised society and the world should the growth of the human population continue on its present course. The associated issues of economics and the demand for finite resources would ensure the inevitability of an ecological collapse within the next one-hundred years. Translated into more than forty languages with sales at more than 30 million the book certainly tapped into the genuine wish that lies within most responsible people that we must seek ways to reduce our ecological impact and not continue to despoil our own backyard. Their lies its success. Take a genuine truth and then apply a subtle bell curve towards the proposed model of your choosing.

Of course, can anyone really disagree with the logic that we do not live on a planet with infinite resources and that we must work with Nature instead of against her?

An extract from the book gives the overall design of its message:

“If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

“It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.”

“The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint. There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again.”

“The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the temporarily stable state degenerates.”

“Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society – one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the Human Will to achieve that goal.”

“Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.” [3]

Now come along…there’s a good population, nice and controlled and orderly please….

At first glance, it’s difficult to argue with the above. But did you catch the emphasis on global growth and global equilibrium? In this scenario population explosion is the cause rather than the multiplicity of factors that actually show that population growth is not as relevant as we imagine. As we saw in a previous post, while global population is slowly rising birth rates are falling across the globe. Today, women have only 2.7 children on average and sometimes as low as 1. In the 1970s women around the world had six children each. The United Nations has marked 1.5 as the crisis point for population growth. For the first time on record, birth rates in Southern and Eastern Europe have dropped below 1.3 – well below the 1.5 mark, which means that population there will be cut in half in around 45 years if things continue on their present course. In Italy, population growth has been steadily declining at 1.2 and 1 – the lowest birth rates in the world. Italy, Spain, Greece and Germany are all losing 100,000 people a year while Russia, Romania and Bulgaria’s populations are set to decrease by half. Japan too has seen fewer families due to a fertility rate that declined by nearly a third between 1975 and 2001, from 1.91 to 1.33.[4]East Asia’s birth rate has fallen with the fertility dropping from 2.4 in 1970 to 1.5 today. Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan and Burma are all around 1.5 with South Korea bring up the rear at only 1.1 children per couple. China’s rate is down from 6.06 to 1.8 and declining though with the past stringent one-child birth control policy it is not hard to see why. Now they have a desperate shortage of females.

The United Nations had predicted world population would reach 11.5 billion by 2050. Due to the population decline this has been revised to 9.5 billion. According Dr David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University global population will begin to decline at around 2070. [5]While overall, the rate is down, African countries still have significant population growth at 2.6 percent a year. India is set to overtake China by 2050 and the United States coming in at as the third biggest nation of people at 420 million. In the UK, France, the Netherlands and Scandinavia birth rates are all steadily increasing. Yet rarely do we hear about depopulation of these countries. Rather, the developing world is singled out as the over-breeding culprit. The incredible adaptability of humans and the waiting resource and technology alternatives which are literally waiting to be applied mean that the most serious demographic problem in the West is not a population explosion that competes for resources and produces waste but the plummeting fertility rate that is too low to sustain a healthy workforce.

Is it not ironic that the perpetrators of a system of cartel capitalism which has deformed an already exploitative system into a global beast which has reduced millions into poverty are still at the head of a population reduction drive targeting the third world? And this is being pushed through in order to continue this economic model at a higher rate of commercialisation, consolidation and centralisation? And when we realise the upper classes in Europe have more children than the lower classes, this increases the blatant hypocrisy still further.

“Twenty years ago fertility started to decline in Nepal and Bangladesh when they were still poor. Korea wasn’t rich when fertility declined. By contrast, the Gulf oil states continued with high birth-rates long after they got huge wealth.” So, said professor of Medical Demography at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, John Cleland, who thinks that falling population levels occur in richer families is: “… the biggest lie that’s ever been perpetrated.”[6]

Invasive methods to sterilise the world’s populations is a mix of faulty science, the well-intentioned and covert psychopathy. The macabre irony is that resource scarcity, economic disparity and crippling debt all contribute the unnatural rise in populations and short-termism of cartel capitalism. Thus the methods of population control implemented by neo-liberalist visions or the “globalist Elite” are a consequence of their own misunderstandings of the human and natural world; a result of their imposition of materialist agenda of the 4C’s and the inevitable effects it produced. Ultimately, for the psychopath this is about reducing the numbers of normal people in the global population.


(Note: If the reader is unconvinced please read Kevin Magur Galalae’s Killing us Softly: Causes and Consequences of the Global Depopulation Policy (2013). Prior to reading a warning must be attached to the book in that after a detailed analysis of the historical methods of GPC the author advocates much the same methods though with the caveat of transparency which does not automatically mean a correct path, as we are discovering. As such, he acts as a supporter of population control methods and buys into the myth. These problems will not be solved by adopting the same methods, however “transparent.” A whole new perception across all societal domains is necessary. The e-book can be found available online through any search engine.


The LtG’s credibility and its sequels twenty and thirty years later – is founded on computer modelling which is notorious for not describing the real world in which we live and bypassing a non-linear reality which offers a profusion of things we do not yet understand. Trying to predict the future or even offer worst case-scenarios by feeding mathematical formulas into computers and excluding a host of equally important variables, exacerbates bias and belief within the minds of the modellers and those who do the commissioning, presumably with their own waiting solutions in mind. [7]Yale economist Henry Wallich reviewed LtG and concluded: “… the quantitative content of the model comes from the authors’ imagination, although they never reveal the equations that they used.”

LtG forecasts were very carefully assessed by Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University William D. Nordhaus in his paper “World Dynamics: Measurement Without Data.” The LtG authors employed the “world dynamics” model developed by Jay Forrester, an MIT engineering professor who had employed systems dynamics or the use of differential equations which is standard in economic theory. The model he proposed and which underlay LtG suffered from a multitude of serious scientific flaws among which were the lack of: “… effort in ‘World Dynamics’ to identify any relation between his model and the real world.”
The professor continued:

There is no explicit or apparent reference to data or existing empirical studies. […]

“… the methodology of modelling in World Dynamics differs significantly from other studies of economic systems. World Dynamics constructs a world model using assumptions which are intuitively plausible to the author, but without reference to current knowledge. The behaviour of this world model is then examined by calculating the dynamic path of the variables. Whereas most scientists would require empirical validation of either the assumptions or the predictions of the model before declaring its truth content, Forrester is apparently content with subjective plausibility. This discrepancy in scientific standards of acceptability is probably what lies behind the dispute about the value of World Dynamics.

“… the predictions of the world’s future are highly sensitive to the specification of the model. Simulations given above indicate that if assumptions regarding population, technological change, or substitution are changed, Forrester’s model behaves in a dramatically different manner.” [8]

This same system of computer modelling has been used to promote the human-influenced global warming agenda under the all-seeing-eye of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and taken up exactly the same message as the Club of Rome.

Journalist Donna LaFramboise discusses these computers programmed with complex mathematical formulas which “confirm” the evil nature of more CO2 in the atmosphere and which constitute “hard evidence” that nevertheless: “… requires a rather large leap of faith.” LaFramboise points out: “If math and computing power were the only things necessary to predict the future, investors would already know the price at which gold will be trading five, ten, and twenty years hence. But the world is chaotic and unpredictable. It rarely unfolds in the manner that even the smartest people, aided by graphs, charts, and computers, think it will.” [9]

The problem is that extrapolation of the computer modelling data lends itself to a linear interpretation without accounting for unknown variables from a multitude of sources. The favourite example of the UN, UNICEF, UNESCO and the Club of Rome is population growth which, according to their computer modelling data, will mean a world population of around 12 billion by the year 2025 with over a 100 percent increase in resource demand which is obviously unsustainable. This is fallacious reasoning as the Earth and its people operate on unpredictable changes which take place in a system far removed from equilibrium. Not only is unpredictability not accounted for it is actively avoided by authoritarian personalities who demand control and certainty.  Such narrow, linear thinking amounts to denial that the world is in a constant state of flux and adaptation based on natural cycles of change. What is more, nothing that the Club of Rome offers in its double speak and carefully chosen words approaches anything like true alternatives: only a very Darwinist centralisation under cover of emotional appeal to world unity.

What we discover is that The Limits to Growth is the phase in a Malthusian agenda placing the blame on the poor, not as victims of cartel-capitalism but as perpetrators of environmental destruction while a Western Elite can defer land reform and bolster existing rural class structures. [10] The overemphasis on the environmental impact of over-population obscures the real cause and effect while eclipsing many and variable alternative solutions to deal with finite resources and the failure of the present economic model. This overarching desire to protect the environment, resources and “feed the world” has nothing to do with saving the earth and its environment but quite a lot to do with maintaining control of the mass mind and claiming global resources for the Establishment’s survival when the inevitable changes do arrive – as they surely will. (Yet, the current co-opted version of climate science may find itself blind-sided on that one too.)

From on an article on the CoR website we can read:

“Prophets of doom, nowadays, are not stoned to death, at least not usually. Demolishing ideas that we don’t like is done in a rather subtler manner. The success of the smear campaign against the LTG ideas shows the power of propaganda and of urban legends in shaping the public perception of the world, exploiting our innate tendency of rejecting bad news. Because of these tendencies, the world has chosen to ignore the warning of impending collapse that came from the LTG study. In so doing, we have lost more than 30 years. Now, there are signs that we may be starting to heed the warning, but it may be too late and we may still be doing too little. Cassandra’s curse may still be upon us.”

Well, there can certainly be “smear” campaigns based on fear and reflex and that may have been the case from conservative reactionaries. However, if “we have lost more than 30 years” in tackling the problem of climate change and innumerable other problems then it wasn’t due to LtG, it was due to a recurrent and persistent lack of understanding of psychopathy within our Establishment, the way our social systems reflect their values and how they work through institutions exactly like the Club of Rome; to hijack and enforce agendas through otherwise well-meaning folks.  Anything else is window dressing and distraction.

Climate modelling is only as good as the objective science behind it. And there were plenty criticising precisely this. Yet, the simplistic notions behind LtG remain in their updated versions. They appear to have no awareness that social trajectories are engineered, financial crises are manipulated and designed. The onus is placed firmly on the public and the natural flow of social science as though divorced completely from any notion of social control. It is not just that the LtG’s focus was wrong rather it is the absolute omission of the psycho-spiritual causes of our predicament which allows solutions to be so neatly streamlined into a pathocratic definition of ecological balance and sustainability. You can be sure that with resource scarcity and imminent collapse touted for so long, the promotion of specific solutions will be ONLY those that align themselves to Earth Summit, UN Agenda 21 and SMART protocols. One world themes still permeate CoR initiatives and without any reference or awareness of institutional psychopathy nor its eco-fascistic presence. Aside from purposeful obfuscation, we can only assume this is because it part of the agenda, unconsciously or otherwise. There is second component to this distraction we will come to presently.

This imminent collapse  termed the ‘World Problematique’ and their proposed solution the ‘World Resolutique’ was tailored towards their own carefully engineered alternative of a truly global society interdependent and “organic.” The Limits to Growth: The first Report to the Club of Rome represented the first phase in a comprehensive eco-social engineering exercise was which would alert humanity to the urgency of the problem. The second phase arrived with a book entitled Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to The Club of Rome (1974) culminating in a third phase: The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (1991).

In Mankind at the Turning Point gloves are removed and it is here that you see the Establishment agenda shining through. Remember the emphasis on global governance/world government,  global economics, a global religion and a global consciousness all presided over by the same Council of the Club of Rome and their various Elite members? Using the same flawed system of computer modelling, the infiltration of New Age terms and neo-pagan philosophies begins to make an appearance, unveiling and hijacking  ancient wisdom concerning a genuine “holism” and “organicism” that was also appropriated by fascists for their own aims.

The objective is to promote the idea of a Master Plan or blueprint which exists in Nature and to encourage the idea of interdependence and interrelatedness as key principles. Why? “Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system.” [11] Would that include The Plan and Great Invocation that Bailey proposed? Does that include the dissolving of sovereignty and nations as a perquisite of that Plan? It seems the usual euphemisms indicate precisely that because:

“Cooperation by definition connotes interdependence. Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence.” […] “…the statement acknowledged, even if unintentionally, the dawn of an era of limits to independence – even for the strongest and biggest nations of the world.” [12]

I wonder if this applies to the Elite and already formed, covert network of global governors? If there is a decrease in independence towards an increase in interdependence then where exactly is the cut-off point where interdependence becomes totalitarianism?

The only course of action open to us is away from a particular mindset that seeks control through the auspices of benign solutions. That means grassroots, creative community empowerment fully cognizant of the issues previously discussed. Before that happens, a collapse of the old order will be necessary. Who arises from the chaos to redesign society will either be those with the conscience and perspicacity to have truly learned from the recent past or those who will gladly turn over the reins of self-empowerment to those offering the exact same plans as they always have: to initiate change through a cycle of DIS-empowerment where collapse and rejuvenation redefine the “resolutique” actually permitting greater and greater consolidation and centralisation while ostensibly offering its exact opposite. This is how it has always been and characterises the rise of Empires or Pathocracies.

Limits to Growth? Yes, but limits to the rise of psychopaths in our midst and who turn cultures into the unsustainable and chaotic systems which must end in collapse.

The real waste of 30 years’ of research was not the modelling of population growth and the consumption of resources but the systematic withholding of knowledge concerning cyclic catastrophe borne from the alleviation of psychopaths in power. Once again, the ultimate focus of LtoG and Club of Rome mentality serves as a monumental distraction from the real issues, diverting attention to humanity as pariah rather than our pathocratic Establishment who remain locked into the same continuum, at both ends of the green and corporate wheel.

Though all of us have a responsibility to engage in ecological conscience and the promotion of holistic values, it is is not people who are the cause, most of whom are struggling to survive, it is sourced from the very institutions aligned to the CoR and which have likely the same seeds of ponerisation. The real collective error is not to see the Magician behind the curtain and who still manages both the World problematique and resolutique toward the same patterns of collapse at ever greater turns of the spiral. And this is the challenge: to recognise and seek solutions that take into account institutional pathology. Perhaps then, when global collapse has arrived we will all be in the position to truly initiate a New World – in the truest sense of the term.

Until we breakthrough this pattern of cyclic ignorance to which ancient history attests, all such re-inventions will move toward the same scenario with the usual suspects at the helm all over again. The problems highlighted in Limits to Growth thesis, whether a perceived overpopulation or resource depletion will not be solved by encouraging the exact same forces who perpetrated these social dynamics to appeal to the eco-conscience of the public at large. How can the latter truly tackle these problems when even activism is shackled by eoc-fascist visions about which they remain largely unaware and which the Club of Rome and the United Nations actively embrace?

Having scanned briefly the importance of organicism in Nazi, aristocracy and Establishment circles and the perennial attraction to fascist organisations, the theme of an “organic” global society is exactly what the Club of Rome is pushing. And what does an organic society under the auspices of Elite control usually mean? Let’s go back to Bertrand Russell whom we explored in a previous chapter:

“Totalitarianism has a theory as well as a practice. As a practice, it means that a certain group, having by one means or another seized the apparatus of power, especially armaments and police, proceed to exploit their advantageous position to the utmost, by regulating everything in the way that gives them the maximum of control over others. But as a theory it is something different: it is the doctrine that the State, or the nation, or the community is capable of a good different from that of individual and not consisting of anything that individuals think or feel. This doctrine was especially advocated by Hegel, who glorified the State, and thought that a community should be as organic as possible. In an organic community, he thought, excellence would reside in the whole. An individual is an organism, and we do not think that his separate parts have separate goods: if he has a pain in his great toe it is he that suffers, not specially the great toe. So, in an organic society, good and evil will belong to the whole rather than the parts. This is the theoretical form of totalitarianism. …In concrete fact, when it is pretended that the State has a good different from that of the citizens, what is really meant is that the good of the government or of the ruling class is more important than that of other people. Such a view can have no basis except in arbitrary power. … I do not believe that dictatorship Is a lasting form of scientific society – unless (but this proviso is important) it can become world-wide.” [Emphasis mine] [13]

Obviously this embracing of our benevolent “World State” of plenty depends on “Whether or not [humanity] … embark[s] on the path of organic growth” and “…a question of mankind’s very survival…” [14]This is the danger of having holistic concepts and ancient wisdom principles in the hands of pathocratic human beings – they become something entirely different, though masked by “double-speak.”

As with the Lebensräume of Nazi Germany and the Land ethic of American conservationists later imbued with deep ecology and holism, the “whole” is always in danger of subsuming the individual and notions of independence. Add together constant brainwashing of global consciousness and global governance you have a recipe for totalitarianism by the eco-friendly garden gate. In other words, ecologists, environmental activists – and particularly conservationists – praise the “meta-organismic” processes in nature, which, by the definition of ecology and systems thinking the individual component parts are lost in a “web of life.” While lip-service is given to honouring of local,  individual independence, in reality, holistic, macro-ecology takes precedence. And this is a theme we see over and over again from the members of the Club of Rome, the Sierra Club, as well as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF, many of whom do not have the slightest awareness of ponerology or even a basic understanding or knowledge of social engineering. Yet, they do exhibit a rather militant form of green awareness which makes it almost impossible to approach their cherished beliefs rationally since they are often completely identified with sanctity and sacredness of Mother Earth. Thus, any perceived move away from that trajectory is seen as an attack on the Goddess/eco-psychology/eco-science etc.

(Having been both a Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth member and activist I can assure you fanatical thinking most assuredly exists in these organisations).

The American philosopher John Baird Callicot, had this to say on the preference for a ‘biotic right’ to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community, a right which tends to “species, not to specimens.” Conservationists and ecologists: “… are professionally concerned about biological and ecological wholes – populations, species, communities and ecosystems – not their individual constituents. For example, the conservation of endangered plant species is often most directly and efficiently affected by the deliberate eradication of the feral animals that threaten them.” In response to Aldo Leopold’s vision he stated succinctly:

“If members of overpopulous species, such as deer, ought to be ‘culled’ or ‘harvested,’ in the name of preserving the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community, and if staggeringly over-populous Homo sapiens is also but “a plain member and citizen” of the biotic community, then why should culling and harvesting humans be any less obligatory?” Further, if “… preserving the integrity of a biotic community often requires reducing the population of some component species…” [15]

We may then ask: what would happen if humanity itself was seen as the greatest impediment to the survival of Planet Earth and where you saw yourself not only as a superior being granted a divine right to rule but your duty to cull the population by any means necessary to ensure that your survival is at the top of the pile?

Callicott believes that accusations toward notions of land ethic and deep ecology are weak because such eco-ideology lacks any notions of nationalism and militarism. He also believes that because such fine ecological movements do not seek to replace a code of ethics but add to the underlying ethical discourse already present. This is the same ignorance on display that somehow means such movements are immune from ponerisation. This becomes especially problematic when humanity is held in obvious contempt by so many in the ecological or environmental Establishment. Sacrificing human beings to the God of Nature is an inversion and just another expression of the “ends justify the means”. This fuses with pathocratic discourse creating the groundswell for manifestations of fascism inside an emerging “global consciousness”. After all, according to the authors of Mankind at the Turning Point: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” The CoR would no doubt agree with Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society who said: “Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.” [16]

Does that mean a form of chemotherapy is being enacted on the global populace?

Developing a “one world consciousness” and a global ethic where every individual realises his role as a member of the world community… and where such an ideology “… must become part of the consciousness of every individual” doesn’t sound something aligned to democratic freedoms. Especially as this can only happen if: “… the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level.” [17]Which means a linear and narrow move from the individual, which for the Club of Rome script is equated with selfishness rather than a healthy autonomy within the whole. Indeed, we all need to forget about all our petty concerns and give ourselves over to the “… necessity of a change in the man-nature relationship and the emergence of a new perception of mankind as a living global system.” Sure, but what will underlie this new global SYSTEM? Sustainable development programs and SMART growth, which as we will discover is very from an ideal template despite the effect of such buzzwords.

It seems we won’t have time to answer that question because doomsday is so urgent that: “… the use of human resources and the survival of the human species” will dominate this new apocalypse where “personality and social classes” will not feature. [18]These “one world” ideas are not about joining together in genuine unity but establishing a homogenous world order of bland mediocrity and sameness, where conformity replaces true unity. This prescriptive ideology has nothing to do with true community but an imposed form of communitarianism where centralisation and individual freedom are the causalities – by (SMART) design. These ideas are the soft, gradualist version of green militancy or eco-fascism that is particular to Liberal Establishment machinations.

The following declarations from Dave Forman, co-founder of Earth First! proves this point when he states:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Or in another fit of inspiration he proclaimed:

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.” [19]

What about Gaia theorist and biologist Sir James Lovelock who suggested:

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”

And our depopulationist friend Professor Paul Ehrlich:

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”

Whilst Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defence Fund chimes in with:

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Not leaving the eco-feminists outside in the cold, theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether also follows the humanity-as-amoeba approach and cheerfully uses a gardening metaphor to illustrate her point:

“We need to seek the most compassionate way of weeding out people … In place of the pro-life movement we need to develop the ‘spirituality of recycling’ … a spirituality that includes ourselves in the renewal of earth and self. We need to compost ourselves.” [20]

Not elucidating exactly how we must evaporate the population surplus to requirements, Ruether nevertheless breezily told the liberal Catholic organisation, “Call To Action” that “We must return to the population level of 1930.” [21]  Would this mean that roughly 2 billion people are stamped for termination and consigned to the big compost heap in the sky?

All of the above green advocates are happy to wipe away industrialisation – something I have some sympathy for – but when ideology meets reality on the ground the usual result is more chaos. Artificially restrict and interfere with the natural order in an attempt to reverse already pathological human constructs with more of the same will not work. Yet, returning power to people and their communities outside of elite designs may offer more hope. For now, however, the United Nations and most environmental movements are entirely ponerised and embedded in eco-intelpro, whether they are aware of it or not.

To illustrate a more classic example of modern-day eco-fascism, Deep Ecologist Pentti Linkola is a text book social dominator who just happens to be drawn to ecology as the belief, which might as well be as random as falling leaves. He has no problem in voicing his opinions, stripped down of the kind of euphemistic camouflage so typical of Club of Rome adherents. The Finnish ecologist advocates the enforced stoppage of immigration; downsizing the population; the killing of “defectives” and the halting of “rampant technology.” He also thinks in order to combat the encroachment of industrialisation cities they should be attacked with nuclear weapons.

As with so many eco-fascists, Linkola has interesting perspectives and genuine insights into the ecology of the Earth but they are crushed under the jackboot of his own delight in creating a tyranny to protect Nature. Sure enough, the same “humans-as-cancer” meme is dragged up as a reason to eliminate everyone who doesn’t tow the ecological line. Accordingly, when any act of genocide, war and natural disaster befalls humankind, you will find Linkola rubbing his hands together in glee. To say he is a cold rationalist would be the kindest of labels. For instance, in the context of the Madrid Bombing he stated in a televised interview that: “Every act which disrupts the progress of Earth’s life-destroying Western culture is positive.” [22] 

The following passage comes from his book Can life Prevail? Written in 2009:

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economic growth. We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves. A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her. Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen. [23]

Where have we heard that before? Nazi Germany perhaps? (Or Prince Philip?)

From “narcissism” to overt totalitarianism where the former is merely the results of a covert totalitarianism. And so the wheel goes around so fast that no sensible, creative solutions are allowed access. Indeed, it’s becoming difficult to see where some quarters of the Western Establishment begins and Nazi ethos ends. Perhaps because the mind-set and direction is the same, only differing by degree. While the above may appear as brutal example of eco-fascism as it is possible to find, it follows exactly the same beliefs and wishes of the Club of Rome, the only difference being that Linkola has dispensed with the buffering, from the use of euphemisms, jargon, double-speak, NLP, and Delphi methods – going straight for the jugular.

Now take the view of perhaps the most influential man in the UN-mandated environmentalist/New Age movement Mr. Maurice Strong, who essentially follows the same line of thought as Linkola, if we follow the implications of what he is saying. In a 1992 interview, the founder of the UNEP was discussing a possible plot-line of a book he would like to write:

“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” [24]

What he doesn’t mention is what will replace such a collapse brought about by manipulation and the possibility he is merely being used to consolidate and centralise control still further.

Though clearly passé for the likes of Linkola, a third phase of green hijacking called for the 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome.It was co-authored by one of the founders of The Club of Rome, Alexander King and euro economist Bernard Scheider.It had been decided that this book would up the ante on the fear and threat factor this time posing that environmental destruction was the new terrorist. Time is up and radical changes needed to be made. Failure to do so would be dire consequences for all. Just like the members of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Round Table and the Royal Institute for International Affairs – they deem democracy as outmoded and ineffective to deal with the global ‘Problematique’ – world government is the only solution. Before the foreword on the first page there is a reminder of where the CoR’s ideological allegiance lies with the following quotation from Edward Fitzgerald’s The Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam:

Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,

To grasp this sorry state of things entire,

Would not we shatter it to bits and then,

Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire?

Where have we seen this before?

In none other than the Fabian Society’s cherished stained-glass window created by George Bernard Shaw. The Earth is on an anvil being shattered into bits by Fabian leaders so that they may remould it into their heart’s desire – A New World Government or World State. It would be well to keep this in mind that when reading the Club of Rome literature – it sounds great on paper but needs a finely-tuned attention to “double-speak” in order to extract the underlying thinking from the euphemisms and mechanistic platitudes.

After the foreword we have a quotation included from our friend Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh who dispensed his usual wisdom in the following way: “No generation has ever liked its prophets, least of all those who point out the consequences of bad judgement and lack of foresight. The Club of Rome can take pride in the fact that it has been unpopular for the last twenty years. I hope it will continue for many years to come to spell out the unpalatable facts and to unsettle the conscience of the smug and the apathetic.” [25]Knowing what we know about the Duke of Edinburgh’s heritage and true beliefs it is a bit rich to consider that he is not, at the very least one of the “smug” and “apathetic” that characterises the very essence of the Establishment of which he is a part. Secondly, would you really want someone of this nature blessing a book unless you followed the exact same precepts yourself?

Let’s have a look at what Mr. King and Mr. Schneider are broadcasting to their fellow members and the environmental movement they wish to influence:

Order in society is determined by the cohesion of its members… Thus a vacuum has been created in which both the order and the objectives in society are being eroded. […] The opposition of two political ideologies no longer exists, leaving nothing but a crass materialism. Nothing within the governmental system and its decision-making process seems capable of opposing or modifying those trends which raises questions about our common future and indeed about the very survival of the race. […] The task is indeed formidable but if we show no sign of accepting its challenge it is likely that people may panic, lose faith in their leaders, give in to fear and offer support to extremists…[…] Capitalist and free-market economies have found it necessary to make adjustments so as to survive while socialist systems also made adjustments belatedly did not survive. […]  [26]

Unfortunately, the obsession with “order in society” is borne from their own technocratic beliefs and has little to do with reality. A natural order has to arrive naturally without such “cohesion” being imposed. Vacuums are created as a routine by-product of geo-political policy sourced from exactly the same Establishment circles that commissioned The First Global Revolution. What is being suggested here is that if we do not jettison the democratic process and all that goes with it then the only avenue is fear, panic and headless-chicken extremism. What a very dim view of people, a view no doubt that his viral-highness Prince Philip would endorse. Actually, faith in our leaders is exactly why we are in this predicament. The only realisation that needs attention is that people have the power rather than a minority of psychopaths who are the designated “leaders.”

 


Notes

[1] http://www.clubofrome.org/
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind by
D.H. Meadows. Published by Macmillan 1972 Revised Edition 1979.
[4] ‘Population Paradox: Europe’s Time-Bomb’ by Paul Vallely, The Independent, August 9, 2008.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘Lethal Model 2: The Limits to Growth Revisited’ by William Nordhaus, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Volume 23 Issue 2, 1992.
[8] ‘World Dynamics: Measurement Without Data’ William D. Nordhaus, The Economic Journal, Vol. 83, No. 332. (Dec., 1973), pp. 1182-1183.
[9] p.23; The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. Published by Createspace, 2011 | ISBN-10: 1466453486.
[10] The Malthus Factor: Poverty, Politics and Population in Capitalist Development by Eric B. Ross. Zed Books; First Edition edition, 1998 | ISBN-10: 1856495647.
[11] pp. 39, 144 ; Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to The Club of Rome, 1974. By Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel | ISBN 0-525-03945-7
[12] op. cit. Mesarovic; Pestel (p.7, p.21)
[13] op. cit. Russell
[14] Ibid. (p.70)
[15] “Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Ecofascism.” Pages 59-76 in J. Baird Callicott. p.60; Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany, N.Y., State University of New York Press. 1999| ISBN 0-7914-4084-2. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: by Tom Regan, University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-049047
[16] ‘The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth? There is a Biocentric Solution.’ Commentary by Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, May 4 2007.
[17] op. cit. Mesarovic; Pestel (p.146)
[18] Ibid.
[19] Earth First! Confessions of an Eco-Warrior By David Foreman, 1993. | Sourced also from: ‘This Land is OUR Land – Untamed nature & the removal of humans.’ By Tim Findley Range Magazine, http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/fall03/fall03_this_land.shtml
[20] Michael S. Rose, “Feminist Theologian Urges Religious To Find A Way To ‘Weed Out People’,” The Wanderer, June 11, 1998, (p.1)
[21] Ann Sheridan, “CTA Conference Presents The Reality of Unreality,” The Wanderer, November 12, 1998,( p.1)
[22] On Madrid bombing in “Persona non grata” –show, 2004.
[23] pp. 13 and 177; Can Life Prevail? By Pentti Linkola Published by Arktos Media Ltd; 2009. ISBN-10: 1907166009 | The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome: A Strategy for Surviving the World by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, 1993.
[24] p.95; Environmentalism: ideology and power By Donald Gibson. Nova Publishers, 2002 | ISBN1590331494.
[25] Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh’s Message to the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Club of Rome, Paris, 1988.
[26] p.79; The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome: A Strategy for Surviving the World By Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. Published by Orient Longman, 1993 edition| ISBN-10: 0679738258.

World State Policies V: Common Core

“Everything you have been told about Common Core is a lie. It is not a state initiative. It was not developed by educators. It is not going to better prepare students for college or real world applications. It is part of a century-long process of using the education system to mold students into more obedient workers and tax cattle. And it is promoted by billionaires with hidden agendas of their own.”

James Corbett, Eye-Opener Report, Boiling Frogs Post


publicschoolfactoryLet it be said that there is nothing inherently wrong with a little Marxism in the right context just as there is nothing wrong with communitarianism should the society be well-adjusted enough to make it work. But that’s not what we are talking about here. Any belief that is foisted on the public using disinformation, manipulation and deceit – however noble the intentions – deserves to be analysed and outed. Moreover, when those beliefs are channelled through people who are cynically used as chess pieces to achieve long-term objectives of control, the need to counter such moves cannot be over stated.

Other than the usual think-tanks and government agencies, there doesn’t seem to be an exact replica of Common Purpose in the United States but there are  signs of the same corporate-cultural Marxism appearing within the education system. With the rise of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and SMART Society, education is seen as a key foundational strategy that must give rise to the acceptance of all three movements.

Education and the programming of young, malleable minds has long been a major component of social engineering, the first experiments of which lay with the industrialists and now with a blend of cultural Marxism upon a SMART-communitarian template. Common Core is the latest curricula to roll off the Elite think-tank conveyer belt. As with so much of Obama-marketing, it sounds good on paper until you dig deeper and do the research only to see the same disingenuous manipulation through the back-door of good intentions. Universal standards for all children in preparation for college? The problems inherent with such a vision are buried under an avalanche of nebulous propaganda. President and founder of Ink think tank Vicki Cobb, made it plain what this nationwide project was about: “Policies, laws and now the Common Core State Standards are all sets of rules designed to guide and shape human behavior. These rules are implemented through institutions. How does an individual find one’s way through all these rules, regulations, and institutions to become an informed, self-reliant, productive citizen?” [1]

Common Core advocates appear to operate in much the same way as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has long been politically compromised. After analysing Common Core documents the American Principles Project released an analysis last year of Common Core, where it described itself as “internationally benchmarked,” “rigorous,” and “evidence-based.”

This is simply untrue. No such benchmarks or evidence exists. As we shall see, it adheres to the usual propaganda notwithstanding some sporadic positive applications which are unfortunately lost in the pendulum swing from one traditional extreme to a centralised blanket of standardised conformity and group think. As you’d expect, many Conservatives are running around shouting about a socialist or communist take-over while democrats and the Establishment-left are singing its progressive praises.

Putting aside the idea of an overarching agenda behind this re-structuring even the most myopic should see that any centralised, one-size-fits-all attempt to redefine education will never work. Yet, it appeals to those with left-liberal tendencies and the Marxist technocrats lost in ideas of World State Utopia and it doesn’t take much for them to buy into it. As usual, conservatives and authoritarians in general are clueless and are merely reacting to anyone who doesn’t happen to be part of their flock. Anything that has the slightest whiff of socialism will be left in a cloud of emotional dust. That is not to say that Obama wasn’t chosen precisely for his left-leaning sentiments, though that in itself is hardly cause for concern. As we have discussed previously, this is not an issue of left and right politics. Obama is just another slickly marketed puppet for psychopathic dominance. He takes his orders and plays his golf. Being at the helm of a New Order of Cartel-Capitalism on an icing of collectivist principles remain part of his valued role – whether he is fully conscious of this or not.

America’s Common Core education otherwise known as The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a product of standard-based education reform of the Obama Administration with close participation of the National Governors Association(NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) along with support from Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). (There’s that “SMART” wording again…we’ll return to this meme presently) As an obvious top-down standardisation of state and local education systems which has been almost universally panned by left and right alike – it is still being pushed through. Diversity of education is essential due to the basic truth that we are all made up of different intelligences and different experiences. So, at the outset it is no wonder that more control from the Federal government insisting on standardisation would not be gratefully embraced.

Before we delve deeper into the appearance of Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) at this time, let’s get some of the other concerns about the initiative out of the way. A wide range of organisations and civic bodies across the political spectrum have voiced opposition to these reforms on the grounds that:

  • The US education has been predicated on a one hundred year old problem of market economics being the driver of state learning. This will not be solved on National Standards being applied to all. This conclusion is supported by the absence of a relationship between the repeatedly low scoring score on these tests and its economic ranking.
  • Common Core assessments of these standards will obviously mean more testing, more administration and bureaucracy which is already at breaking point.
  • A “one-size-fits-all” curriculum ignores cultural differences among classrooms and students while diluting the need for initiative.
  • Corporate interests and policy-makers determined the standards rather than educators. Which is probably why it accentuates “learning by rote” and conformity rather than understanding and creativity despite protestations to the contrary. Thus innovation and the potential for State, cultural and individual tailoring will be further squeezed out.
  • Common Core removes local control over what is known as K-12 curriculum in maths and English. This will also apply to private schools and homeschoolers.
  • Critics have also said that the standards emphasize rote learning and uniformity over creativity, and fail to recognize differences in learning styles.
  • There will inevitably be an emphasis on non-fiction “informational texts” and manuals rather than literature and classics. When historical documents are included they are without context or sufficient analysis. Detractors have said that such non-fiction amounts to government propaganda.
  • Public consultation was not in evidence before or after Common Core Standards began rolling out across 46 States.

It seems that public input on CCSSI was not required and subsequent meetings on the implementation and adoption of these standards shows that the panel takes a very dim view of disagreement. This was graphically shown from a community video posted on the internet where one Robert Small, a Maryland Parent, had the temerity to reasonably question Common Core principles and was promptly ejected from the public meeting, arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer and disrupting a school function. The amateur video of the incident showed nothing but a member of the public exercising his right to free speech and being shoved out of the hall for doing so.

Small attempted to tell the assembled teachers, administrators and parents that he wanted to know: “… how many parents here are aware that the goal of Common Core standards isn’t to prepare our children for full-fledged universities, it’s to prepare them for community college,” While being strong-armed out of the meeting by an off-duty Baltimore police officer moonlighting as a security guard, he was applauded by the audience who were shocked by the overreaction and silence of the panel. On the video Small is heard shouting: “Parents, take control,” as the Policeman pulls out some handcuffs: “I’m not an activist, I’m a parent. I have a right to speak.” The obviously groundless charges of assault against the police officer were later dropped and we can see why. Since the debacle Small’s actions have placed Common Core further into the spotlight.

common core

Still from the The video Arkansas Mother Obliterates Common Core in 4 Minutes which sums up the serious concerns of parents across America. A teacher wipes the floor with an analysis of the curriculum. Source: www.arkansasagainstcommoncore.com


CCSSI supporters – such as they are – repeatedly assert that the Federal government wasn’t involved in the development of standards and refute the idea that it is a national curriculum. Rather, according to the “myths and facts” explained on corestandards.org they believe there is “… a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed.” Which manages to say very little. One might as well say “because the Bible says so.”

It is difficult to give one’s blessing to the CCSSI when so much of its agenda is underhand and just plain wrong as is so often the case with disingenuous think-tank “products.” For instance, advocates claim it is voluntary. This is true if we do not include the fact that the system is based on an educational grant program but only if State schools agree to adopt the Obama Administration’s policies – especially Common Core. If they do so the government will give those obedient States a gold star and higher scoring in the grant applications. As a result, a mish-mash of standards are currently vying for supremacy as teachers and educators grapple with what a vast untested, unpiloted National Standard policy really means.

Alongside this preferential treatment is the inadequacy of the grants themselves which are not stretching far enough. Mike Johnson, the superintendent of Bexley schools in Ohio stated in an article in The Christian Post that: “We were spending a disproportionate amount of time following all the requirements,” and where: “It was costing us far more than that to implement all of the mandates.” [2] He is not the only one concerned about cost on top of an actual dilution of standards. In a Washington Post article Valerie Strauss reports:

“The costs of the tests, which have multiple pieces throughout the year plus the computer platforms needed to administer and score them, will be enormous and will come at the expense of more important things. The plunging scores will be used as an excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color. If, as proposed, the Common Core’s ‘college and career ready’ performance level becomes the standard for high school graduation, it will push more kids out of high school than it will prepare for college.” [3]

There is money to be made from educating the young, where companies creating the school curriculum tests, the preparatory test materials, computer and software industries, and the federally-funded states which have been dutifully compliant will ensure an industry of dumbing down, where quality and politics will be the winner. So far the indications are only confirming what experienced teachers already told the D.C. policy-makers – that failure rate will rise exponentially.

Rachel Alexander, Attorney and editor of the Intellectual Conservative makes several important points on the curriculum stating in a recent article that if the curriculum replaces classics with “informational texts,’ government documents, court opinions, and technical manuals” where “Over half the reading materials in grades 6-12 are to consist of informational texts rather than classical literature” and context and sufficient explanatory criteria are lacking, it is little wonder children are bewildered. She draws our attention to Maths standards which have proven to be “equally dismal” Alexander continues:

Professor R. James Milgram of Stanford University, the only mathematician on the Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the math standards, because they would put many students two years behind those of many high-achieving countries. For example, Algebra 1 would be taught in 9th grade, not 8th grade for many students, making calculus inaccessible to them in high school. The quality of the standards is low and not internationally benchmarked. Common Core denies this on its website as a “myth,” but Professor Milgram’s opposition contradicts this. [4]

It would be wrong to think this is merely a conservative back-lash and lose sight of the core agenda in yet another “progressive” guise. And we come to the financial and ideological source of this initiative which has allowed Washington D.C. policy makers and the National Governors Association to set CCSSI in motion.

 Common-Core-States-Map-2014

Common Core has some supporters that by now will be familiar to those of us who have seen how often they seem to crop in relation to the same ideologies and perceptions. These are the non-profit organisation of inBloom created by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (a red flag right there) the Achieve Organisation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York and state school officials.

The sharp decline in the quality of education has continued since the war and even though it was based on a corporate agenda from its very inception, at least the pre-War standards allowed some form of quality and measurable performance to evolve. From billions of dollars of wasted money spent on Goals 2000, to School to Work, to No Child Left Behind now a Bill Gates financed experiment numbering millions, this has resulted in the Common Core Initiative. Let’s not forget that our Bill is part of the minority within the 000.0.1% who believe in eugenics, depopulation, corporate domination and the corporatist-collectivist ethic at the elite level. He is a globalist dedicated to Elite centralisation.

Unsurprisingly, in amongst the standardised modules are the usual “progressive” principles, human-influenced global warming theories and the logic of carbon taxes, cap and trade, group consciousness and One World ideology all of which is designed to be taught in every class, at every level, starting from Kindergarten to post graduate secondary education. Since every teacher will teach the same material most children will be under the same yoke of conformity. In fact, the CCSSI is a continuation of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and UN/UNESCO education principles which sound laudable and sensible at first hearing but when placed in context and with the idea of a pretext aligned to a particular mind-set, it takes on an entirely different hue.

Gates has donated millions to all three Elite-inspired organisations. It is not hard to understand why the Establishment is so keen to get America to adopt these uniform standards. A cardinal rule to remember: if the Establishment thinks it’s a good thing for our children you can be quite sure that it isn’t. Readers familiar with Bill Gates’ antics will also know that he is a frequent partner and supporter of Rockefeller social engineering in both agribusiness and social science. Therefore, educators should be concerned that he is one of the original founders of the Common Core movement and its copyright holders, NGA/CCSSO.

800px-Bill_Gates_June_2015

Bill Gates at the DFID – UK Department for International Development (wikipedia)

Although CCSSI claims to foster critical thinking, analysis and creativity it actually reinforces the opposite through group-think commonality to the exclusion of individual, unpredictable and non-linear, lateral thinking. Here’s how: At the root of the massively expensive Common Core is the education theory of Bloom’s Taxonomy developed by psychologist Benjamin Bloom in 1948. There are six levels of learning progressing from memorisation to analysing and creating. This, essentially, describes Common Core. If you take the time to compare the two, the difference is only in the modern syntax but the concepts are exactly the same. Hardly a revolutionary new platform for change. But who could argue that learning to think critically and creatively is not a good thing?

Therefore, what’s so bad about Bloom’s Taxonomy?

Absolutely nothing.

The difference here is: that the content and direction of this methodology is being carefully directed towards uniformity and away from a initiative that is a creative application truly rooted in community – thus divorced from monolithic, state control. More importantly, in the hands of a psychologically compromised government and its agencies it follows an entirely different agenda which disguises propaganda as progressive education. When a universally accepted education is applied then it becomes far easier to tailor the theory behind these national standards and begin a process of attrition starting in the very impressionable minds of the young. (So, much easier to keep the pesky population in line). Children can be taught perfectly well to think critically and creatively using Bloom’s Taxonomy and many other forms of education but when an agenda is lying in the background in order to prepare the new generation of children for World State policies then ANY standards and curricula will be suspect. Pretext and context is everything.

The re-orientation of the world’s young towards Agenda 21, One world, One government, group consciousness, social justice, sustainable development, global warming science and SMART society is channelled into the CCSSI which serves as a primary conduit for disseminating such propaganda whose only objective is to offer global totalitarianism – by the back door. Once adopted there will be very little chance to debate the veracity of the claims in such “standards” since they will underpin the whole framework of Common Core itself. Like the British Common Purpose, the edifice upon which they are created is immovable. It is unlikely that you will hear the other side of the global warming debate for example, or the downside of the emerging SMART society and its ubiquitous “efficiency.”

For instance, educator John W. Whitehead explains the role of InBloom and its educational software partner, Compass Learning who provide:

“Common Core participants data collection tools geared toward collecting enough information to provide each student a personalized learning experience, delivered through an online gateway. Compass Learning’s privacy page acknowledges collecting personal information and while pledging not to share data with third parties indiscriminately, it does admit exceptions, and it disclaims responsibility for how school hosts handle data security. The company’s terms of use page disclaims liability for damages caused by loss of data.” [5]

Perhaps more importantly, Common Core slides neatly into the US and European governments’ obsession with National Security and surveillance. It provides a vast upload of data collection which will inevitably intrude on citizens’ privacy and that of their children. Everything from students’ and parents’ voting habits, level of income, sex, age, ethnicity, health status, blood type, religious views, criminal records, is of a type of information far in advance of anything seen before in the collection of “education” data.

Previous whistle-blowers have been sounding the alarm at just how extensive and pervasive surveillance and snooping by the government agencies has become and Common Core simply plugs in to that surveillance and the unresolved presence of invasive data collection. The aforementioned Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) solicits the information, though it tells us that large demographics are obtained rather than individual data. But can we honestly trust that this is the case given the track record so far? Aside from the NSA accessing exactly what it wants, when it wants and who it wants, the outsourcing of data to States bypassing constitutional protections opens up another channel for abusing privacy rights and unwarranted Federal search and seizure deployments. In fact, there are no safeguards to prevent voluminous data from being passed on to Federal authorities and certainly not if you have deemed to have stepped out of line.

This brings us to why it is so important that teachers and educators get informed and stand up to these infiltrations by unelected entities. American youth are already some of the most dumbed down citizens on the planet. But it wasn’t always this way, as John Whitehead mentions:

“The purpose of a pre-university education in early America was not to prepare young people to be doctors or lawyers but, as Thomas Jefferson believed, to make citizens knowledgeable about ‘their rights, interests, and duties as men and citizens.” And Jefferson continued: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

And here we see where the real problem lies: a total lack of knowledge regarding the presence of psychopaths in positions of power which have been allowed to eviscerate basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This lack of knowledge has in turn, permitted education to become something other than a learning experience and more of an exercise in various forms of mind control so that a crucial understanding of the US constitution and civil rights is excluded.

According to Whitehead, numerous studies confirm this:

“… when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29% of respondents couldn’t name the current vice president of the United States. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why America fought the Cold War. More critically, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6% couldn’t even circle Independence Day (the Fourth of July) on a calendar.

A survey of American adults by the American Civic Literacy Program resulted in some equally disheartening findings. Seventy-one percent failed the test. Moreover, having a college education does very little to increase civic knowledge, as demonstrated by the abysmal 32% pass rate of people holding not just a bachelor’s degree but some sort of graduate-level degree.” [6]

If teachers and parents are going to accept that government and their think tanks know best and that they should have little or no say in how their children are educated then we will receive an education system that suits that chosen ignorance. And as we have seen it isn’t just the education system that is being re-shaped according to a minority mind-set. Which is why it may be that the only viable alternative is home-schooling, a movement that is increasing in popularity year by year. The advantages are clear in the present state of Official Culture theatrics.

940px-Homeschool_Legality-World.svg Map of the Legality of Homeschooling around the world. Green is legal, yellow is legal in most political subdivisions but not all or is practiced, but legality is disputed. Red is illegal or unlawful. Orange is generally considered illegal, but untested legally. (wikipedia)

To build real community it must start with family and friends outside state control. Admittedly, with so many toxic socio-economic factors pressing in from all sides, establishing community support has never been more important. Indeed, as economic and social conflict increase home-schooling may become the preferred option, by default. There are many advantages to making such a move, the most obvious of which is the natural alignment toward the same philosophy of autonomy and independence of mind that is such an anathema to the powers that be who require obedient, unthinking drones to inhabit its future. This is why home-schooling (along with refusal to accept vaccinations for your children) will likely become illegal in the not so distant future. Indeed, in some European countries this is already happening. The extraordinary case of the Wunderlich family from Darmstadt in Germany is worth noting.

In September 2013, they had the pleasure of surprise visit by armed police who arrived at their home to enforce a ban on home-schooling. Youngsters aged 7-14 were taken from their home under instruction from the presiding judge to use force “against the children” if necessary. Journalist Damian Gayle that: “A team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed the home of Dirk and Petra Wunderlich because they refused to send their children to state schools. The youngsters were taken to unknown locations after officials allegedly ominously promised the parents that they would not be seeing them again ‘any time soon’”. [7]

It was clear that the legal grounds for removing the children was purely due to the parents insistence on home-schooling their children. There were no allegations of abuse or neglect. Mr Wunderlich said:

“I looked through a window and saw many people, police, and special agents, all armed. ‘They told me they wanted to come in to speak with me. ‘I tried to ask questions, but within seconds, three police officers brought a battering ram and were about to break the door in, so I opened it.’

He went on: ‘The police shoved me into a chair and wouldn’t let me even make a phone call at first. ‘It was chaotic as they told me they had an order to take the children.At my slightest movement the agents would grab me, as if I were a terrorist.

‘You would never expect anything like this to happen in our calm, peaceful village. It was like a scene out of a science fiction movie. ‘Our neighbours and children have been traumatised by this invasion.”

The Wunderlichs have, over the past four years, moved from country to country in the European Union looking for a place to where they could freely homeschool their children. [8]

Nor are they the only family to become victims of Germany’s draconian laws on home-schooling.

The Romeikes fled the country in 2008 after uniformed police officers arrived at their home and took their children which resulted in their enforced attendance to state run schools. After years of resistance the Romeikes were forced to pay thousands as a result of their resistance. The family fled to America in 2008 in a bid to escape these laws only to face US authorities keen to deport them.

The Washington Times ran the story on April 2013 under: ‘A plea from abused home-schoolers – Parents seek asylum to keep family intact’ which described they plight in detail:

The Romeikes, who say German schools teach subjects that go against their evangelical Christian beliefs, are parents of three boys and three girls, ranging in age from 20 months to 15 years. They live now on a farm in eastern Tennessee’s Great Smoky Mountains. They sought and were granted political refuge in the United States in 2010, but the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals overturned the decision last year, contending that Germany’s ban on home-schooling doesn’t violate the Romeikes’ human rights. The administration essentially says parents have no fundamental right to educate their own children, hence no political asylum. Should the Romeikes be forcibly repatriated, fines are the least of their worries. They could face stiff prison sentences, and their children could be taken away from them. [9]

While it is likely that this is a preventative measure so that similar asylum claims do not become norm, according to Karla McKanders, an asylum and refugee law specialist at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville it should be a low priority with minimal resource expenditure for non-criminal immigration issues, yet, as a March 2013 ABC News report indicated entitled: ‘Home Schooling German Family Fights Deportation’ this is not the case as one official stated. “… they meet the standard.” After a public uproar and legal wrangling which lasted a year, in March 2014, the family were finally granted permission by Homeland Security to stay “indefinitely.”

It is almost a formality that we can expect exactly the same scenario in the United States as Common Core makes inroads into education. Indeed, if you are part of the opt-out of our Official Culture as it stands and do not wish to be absorbed into the Establishment’s version of a sustainable SMART society rather than the principles of individual freedom, minimal government interference, self-sufficiency, community organic farming and alternative modes of finance, trade and economical living, then you will be targeted as being a threat to the vast global social engineering program that is currently fanning out from America as the primary experimental model.

Refusing to participate in State Education whether for religious beliefs or because you do not wish for your child to be part of the state-mandated vaccination or even simply – horror of horrors – you feel you might know what is best for your children, this should be an absolute civil right. But there are numerous cases that the US government is coming down hard on such signs of freedom to choose. It isn’t just parental rights at issue here these are the first signs of the “scientific technique/method” merging with the Police State. Home-schoolers are another social grouping persecuted by a mentality that cannot abide independent thought which chooses to operate outside the group-think of Official Culture.

On the rise once more is an even stranger belief but one which never died, only changed its label. A bizarre mix of Social Darwinism and ecological determinism is presently spreading through many UK and American institutions and is one of the potent streams of pseudo-science so enamoured by the Establishment: Eugenics.

See also: Learning is Fun?

The extreme irrationality and insanity of Common Core

Creating a generation of Authoritarian Followers: Interview with 5th grade teacher reveals ideology behind Common Core 

Common Core idiocy triggers homeschooling surge in North Carolina 

New Hampshire Lawmaker Equates Homeschooling To “Child Abuse” – Nanny State To Be Pushed On Parents


Notes

[1] ‘Common Core State Standards, Rules and Art’ by Vicki Cobb, Huffington Post October 2013.
[2]’Common Core Curriculum: A Look Behind the Curtain of Hidden Language’ By Rachael Alexander, The Christian Post, March 2013.
[3] ‘‘The Common Core’s fundamental trouble’ Bu Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, June 18, 2013.
[4] op.cit Alexander.
[5] ‘Common Core: A Lesson Plan for Raising Up Compliant, Non-Thinking Citizens’ By John W. Whitehead, rutherford.org September 23, 2013.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘Armed police turn up at family home with a battering ram to seize their children after they defy Germany’s ban on home schooling’ By Damien Gayle, Daily Mail, 31 August 2013.
[8] Ibid.
[9] http://www.hslda.org/legal/cases/romeike/Romeike_CaseUpdates.asp