Friday, September 19, 2014

The Pied Piper On The Road To Hell

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I won't be attending the up-coming AGW (anthropogenic global warming), protest march in my area. (I also refuse to accept the Orwellian substitution of the phrase, "climate change" for AGW.) It's not because I don't care about the environment, or because I'm fiscally conservative (LOL), or because I'm convinced that Jesus is coming back any day now to make the whole thing a non-issue. Although I'm of the opinion that the AGW scare is a total fraud, that's not entirely why either. Nevertheless, I will share my reasons for not believing in AGW, before moving on to my additional motivations for refusing to support the AGW cause.

Why I'm Not a Believer

1. As outlined above, I don't reject the the theory of AGW because of any ideological conflict of interest. I have never, and will never, accept funding or any other benefit from the fossil fuel industry or any of its advocates. My personal "carbon footprint " is miniscule; I've never even owned a car. I can think of no vested interest on my part, that would be threatened by my acceptance of AGW's reality. On the contrary, AGW would only strengthen the case for a change to gift economy. I could even feel smug about my current life-style, if I wanted to. I am willing to be convinced. I've spent many hours looking for convincing evidence in support of the theory, and I remain open to receiving such evidence. I am unconvinced. Correlation does not prove causation. Yes, carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere appears to be linked to surface temperature. It is not clear that one causes the other. If one does cause the other, there is, presently, dispute as to which is the cause, and which the effect. It may be that both are effects of another cause; the Sun, for instance. AGW theory assumes that rising atmospheric CO2 causes surface warming. This is not proven, and is disputed by some dissenting scientists. It further assumes that human activities are the primary cause of an observed rise in atmospheric CO2. Also unproven, and disputed by dissenting scientists. If AGW theory holds water, then is it not reasonable to expect the models, based on that theory, to have some predictive value? I think so, and given the fact that, almost two decades later, the model-based predictions were wildly wrong, is it not rational to conclude that those models (at the very least) failed to account for important influences? Yes, it is. In addition to the above-mentioned, I have to wonder why, if the evidence is so strong, the AGW lobby finds it necessary to engage in data tampering, misrepresentation, bullying/professional blackmail, overt and thinly disguised threats,and other assorted dirty tricks, to advance their cause.

2. I am justifiably suspicious of AGW theory, due to the fact that it is far too convenient and profitable for powerful vested interests. AGW believers frequently claim that fossil fuel purveyors would be harmed by legislation allegedly aimed at curbing global warming. They further claim that AGW "denial" is primarily funded, and otherwise encouraged, by the fossil fuel industry. Like the AGW models, this theory fails to take important factors into account. Namely:
     a) The fossil fuel industry would not actually see a loss of profits because any costs incurred would be passed on to their customers.
     b) Those industries have a captive customer base. Transportation, for example, will be dependent on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. People will continue to need light and heat, and in most cases, their options for energy supply are limited and beyond their control. (More on this later.)
     c) The major share-holders in the fossil fuel industry also have investments in other areas. They are, in fact, so mind-bogglingly rich and powerful that there's just no possibility that governments or popular opinion could oppose their actual wishes in any effective way. If the mainstream media are pushing the AGW narrative, (and they are), we can safely assume that it is with their consent and blessing. Any funding of AGW "deniers", on their part, is therefore, purely for show and intended to discredit legitimate objections. In any case, such funding is utterly dwarfed by the amounts at the disposal of the AGW lobby.
     d) Powerful fossil fuel industry players, are officially and financially supportive of AGW theory and currently proposed initiatives.
3. The "solutions" being proposed to fight AGW are either ineffective (see 2.b) above), or supportive of some other, more plausible, agenda, such as global government, increased taxation, conditioning people to feel ashamed of wanting to exist at all, etc.
4. Actions speak louder than words. The same groups and individuals who are pushing hardest for action on AGW are not acting as though they actually believe in it.

Since I'm all for erring on the side of caution, if warranted, I was curious about what the "worst case scenario" predicted by the AGW proponents, would look like. Turns out, nobody, NOBODY, not one of the models, is predicting a runaway greenhouse effect. In other words, there is no "point of no return". If a clean, efficient and renewable energy technology is discovered any time in the next 50 years or so, the problem of AGW (assuming it's real) would be solved. Conversely, if such an energy technology is not found, all the taxes and laws in the world aren't going to make a significant difference in the long term. This is another reason I'm deeply suspicious of the motivations and truthfulness of the AGW alarmists. If they were truly concerned about the alleged threat, they would be demanding massive funding for scientific research to focus itself urgently on finding that new energy technology. That would get easily as much public support as putting a man on the Moon did. Top researchers in those fields would be worshiped like pop stars in the media. Public charities would be set up; benefit concerts and telethons would be arranged. That's what would happen if they really believed what they're warning us about. But they don't talk about that. No, they discuss carbon-credit trading schemes, and sweeping new taxes, not to fund research into new energy tech, but to drive down demand. Did you think all that money was ear-marked for fighting AGW? It's not. It's going straight into the general revenue streams of the taxing authorities. A tiny fraction of that gets invested in smart meters, and windmills, and solar panel arrays.Worthless, expensive shit. (You don't hear much about geothermal; probably because it's not stupid.) They fly to "climate change" conferences in private jets. They talk about depopulation. Global government, with total control. (Haven't they been saying they wanted those things for a hundred years at least?) The entities who claim to believe in AGW can't possibly know that a new energy technology can't be found. So why are they behaving as though it can't? It is at least possible; likely, even. It should, therefore, be pursued as a top priority, because anything short of that (assuming a continuation of the market-based economy) can only push the alleged problem further down the road. Depopulation/austerity will "have" to be resorted to. And a new energy tech will still need to be found.
If AGW is real, the "solutions", favoured so far, are futile in the long term and make no sense.
If AGW is a fabrication, intended to advance other agendas, I would expect the situation to look exactly as it does.
It's not as though the powers-that-be have never manufactured a "problem", steered the public reaction, and then reaped the result (intended from the beginning), which is always more power/money/control. It's been done loads of times. Why not? It works really well. The following are red flags, indicating that this maneuver is being used:
1. Multiple, obvious, ulterior motives on the part of powerful interests.
2. Heavy media saturation on the issue.
(Media ownership is very concentrated today and always promotes the wishes of the power elite. Many crucially important subjects are given little or no exposure, because having people thinking about those topics is not in the interest of the power elite.)
3. Within the mainstream "debate", if any, one "side" will either be censored out-right, or made to appear ridiculous or evil.
4. The "solution" never solves the problem. It will be officially aimed at managing it. It often makes the problem even worse. True solutions, when available, are not seriously considered. This is intentional, because as long as the problem persists, additional power/money/control can be extracted to fight/manage it.

When all of the above red flags are in evidence, I assume this is what's happening. All of the above red flags are in evidence with AGW.

 Now that I've got all that out of the way, I can explain why, even if AGW were real, the present hysteria over it would remain an unwarranted and dangerous distraction.
As previously mentioned, the worst case scenario (which even the most alarmist sources consider unlikely) is a 4.5 degree average temperature increase over the next 50 years. That would be disruptive, but it could not result in the extinction of humanity or destruction of Earth. Keep in mind that, so far, even the most conservative predictions have proven to be too high. Other concerns, that are being largely ignored in favour of AGW, will, if not addressed, make a few degrees rise in temperature, the least of our worries. Carbon dioxide is not a toxic pollutant; it's what plants need to grow. But nuclear radiation is, and so is spilled crude oil + chemical dispersant, pesticides, industrial waste, chemical spills, depleted uranium, etc. If recent, preventable disasters like Deep Water Horizon and Fukushima continue to occur, and there's no reason to think they won't, will enough of us still be around to fret about AGW? If market forces continue to generate mountains of toxic waste, due to technological or planned obsolescence and other perversities, will a slightly warmer climate still be our most pressing concern a few decades from now? If the unintended (or maybe not so unintended) consequences of GMOs result in a mass die-off of humans and/or bees, will you still lose sleep over global warming? How about WWIII? Obsessing over AGW, at this time, is like sweeping the kitchen floor while the house burns down around you.

And there's one more thing I'd like to point out to believers and non-believers alike. If the market-based society were abandoned in favour of a voluntary gift economy, the alleged threat of AGW would very quickly cease to be an issue. What's more, all the other serious problems I've listed would also be eliminated. I would march in support of that. Yet, I strongly suspect that most of the people freaking out over AGW would never back that solution. Why? Because too many of them are pampered, upper middle class, university indoctrinated, hypocrites. They can easily afford to assuage their guilty consciences with "green taxes" that will crush the less privileged (without solving the problem), but their concern for the planet is, ultimately, no match for their self-interested support for the economic status quo.


  1. Another well written and informative piece. Personally I am a non believer in global warming or anything else we do. No matter how much damage we do to our planet it is going to do what it has always done. And that is to shift its poles and continue to have volcanic eruptions and earthquakes and the like no matter how much we like to think we can control Mother Earth. If we do manage to not destroy our planet eventually the sun will cease to be the star it is and who knows, maybe life here on earth will start over some time after that. I think money is the biggest reason any of this media crap is put out there. Case in point---Al Gore--he made millions writing about global warming but if you go down to Tennessee and check out his mansion I believe you will find out he isn't very concerned about what he wrote as the "truth". It did manage to increase his net worth though. Just my opinion. Hope you and yours have a terrific weekend!

    1. Thanks, Ron.
      I suspect the large-scale protests taking place this weekend are designed to produce a "people's mandate", so that when the truth comes out, and somebody has to take responsibility for all the harm done in the name of AGW, the powers that be will be able to say, "But you made us do it." Because they always have to do what "the people" want, right? I hope I'm wrong about that. In any case, I expect extensive, gushingly positive media coverage of the event, and not an agent provocateur in sight.
      Al Gore would seem to be a terrible choice for an AGW figure-head, but then again, like all true believers, his followers are very good at not seeing what they don't want to see.
      All the best to you and yours as well.

  2. > If they were truly concerned about the alleged threat, they would be demanding massive funding for scientific research to focus itself urgently on finding that new energy technology.

    I think that's the kernel of the whole thing.

    1. Hi speedbird.
      Actions always do speak louder than words.
      As I was writing the post, I kept seeing parallels with the 911 false flag. It's like the same script with only minor changes. The four red flags were present in both, for a start. Another similarity is the over-abundance of contradictory evidence; some strong, some weak. That always struck me as odd, but it could be purposeful. Too much evidence can be as bad as too little. Including a lot of weak evidence seems like grasping. It casts doubt on, and dilutes the effect of, the strong evidence, while giving ample ammunition to debunkers. For example, Jon Stewart recently lampooned some US congressmen's objections to AGW theory, and well he might, because their arguments were silly. But, having read this document:
      I suspect their buffoonery was intentional. Even the linked document falls into that trap to some extent. It didn't need to be as long as it is. There was no need to include any statements from people with dubious qualifications (like economists). They're a tiny minority, but still. Their opinions are no more relevant to the subject than those of all the biologists and medical doctors who endorsed the IPCC reports. Why do people think that being a "scientist" makes one an expert on everything remotely science-related? It's getting really hard to tell the difference between "scientists" and priests these days.
      To say that "the science is settled" is ridiculous. The whole theory of AGW depends on being able to accurately model Earth's climate. which is an enormous, complex, open system. The factors influencing it are not entirely known, let alone the relative importance of those that are known. For me, the failure to acknowledge that, is the "building 7" of AGW.

  3. A bit of inside knowledge about scientists: to exist, we are required to lie about what we do. What I mean is, to get funding we must frame our work to fit whatever is the current agenda of investors. When I was at University, everything had to be about enabling smaller, faster computers. Or gene therapy. Whatever you were really working on! I joked with a friend that we would write an article sure to be accepted by Nature, entitled 'Web-based dark matter gene therapy'. And all proposals, in whatever field of endeavour, were required to have the words 'cost reduction' in them somewhere. In my current field, there's a tendency to frame everything in terms of mobile communications. Or alternatively, automation under the guise of safety. Whatever we're really working on! It's strange, but that's how it is.

    1. Doesn't surprise me at all to hear that science is steered in that way, or that new energy technology apparently isn't one of the favoured directions. Money rules politics, and politics has replaced religion in the role of suppressing scientific freedom. I guess if you know what sort of research is wanted by TPTB, you could deduce something of their future plans. I am happy to hear that some scientists are finding ways to pursue their real interests in spite of it. :-)

  4. Perhaps AGW is a distraction from something else:
    Check out that pie chart!