Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or climate change, then you need an explanation for how and why so many people appear to think they are. In two previous articles (Environmental Extremism and Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.) we examined the philosophical and historical context of climate change and specifically the focus on humans as the cause.
We explained the philosophical concept of uniformitarianism that dominates western science; the incorrect idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. We looked at how the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2 was causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed. Now we need to examine how politics took over climate science through exploitation of public fear and lack of knowledge.
Michael Crichton’s State of Fear is a first class exploration of how special interest environmental groups operate and use fear. Evidence of lack of knowledge is provided by the ability to say climate change is something new and more extreme than ever before when it isn’t.
Being called skeptics supposedly discredited those who had knowledge or understood the science and the theory. This failed after it was pointed out that all scientists are skeptics and the warming due to human CO2 theory was discredited because the earth cooled slightly from 2000 while CO2 increased. Rather than acknowledge the failure of the theory they moved the goalposts to claim humans were causing climate change so those who disagreed became climate change deniers. The silliness of this claim, apart from the obscenity of the holocaust connotation, is that most deniers are, like myself, anything but deniers. I have spent a career educating people about how much climate changes naturally.
Previously we touched on the political climate engendered by environmentalism and its exploitation by those who want a new world order and believe this is achieved by shutting down the industrialized nations. Chief among these is Maurice Strong who said in 1990 “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?...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 this about?” He told Maclean’s magazine in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” Presumably this explains the duplicity in making a great deal of money as an industrialist. He also warned that, “...if we don’t heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.” Unfortunately, the world listened and the chaos is being caused by policies that evolved from his actions.
But that aside for now, the question is how would you cause the collapse of the industrialized nations? An analogy is useful to understand how Strong and a few like-minded people did it. Compare the nation to a car and think about how you can stop the engine. You can squeeze the fuel line and starve the engine, however, if you did that in any country people would react quickly and negatively. Witness the public reaction to dramatic increases in gasoline costs. However, you can stop an engine by plugging the exhaust. Strong’s method is not a physical stop as you do with an engine, but a metaphorical stop. Show how one part of the industrial exhaust is causing catastrophic global warming putting the survival of the planet in jeopardy and you have your instrument.
Now you need a political vehicle to carry that instrument. It is almost impossible to convince all governments separately, as Kyoto and current climate negotiations prove. His experience told him the United Nations (UN) was his vehicle. Elaine Dewar, wrote about Strong in her book “Cloak of Green” and concluded that he liked the UN because, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”
Read more here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704