“In the end, all corruption will come about as a consequence of the natural sciences.”
– Søren Kierkegaard
As Blaise Pascal once noted, once science is divorced from ethics, scientists will use their skills to pursue power, not truth. The issue of global warming is, as I will demonstrate below, a direct case study of this exact issue. But what, exactly, is behind the frantic, daily global warming warnings, trumpeted daily by everyone from the president to the easily influenced mainstream media reporter?
Actually, what lurks underneath the global warming mantra is the very same thing – the theories of Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) – that was behind the global cooling scare of the 1970s, as illustrated by this Malthusian inspired statement from a 1974 Club of Rome report titled, Mankind at the Turning Point: “The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Their solution was simple – engineer a massive reduction in population and utterly change the socio-economic system through centralized planning via total government control.(See http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20782 for the full story). This “man is the enemy” was reiterated by the Club of Rome in 1993, as well, when they stated in their The First Global Revolution, downloadable at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2297152/Alexander-King-Bertrand-Schneider-The-First-Global-Revolution-Club-of-Rome-1993-Edition that “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.”
“We came up with the idea” the document says? In other words, a conclusion had already been reached, and now they needed to create a “reason” to support their unsupported – and as Julian Simon demonstrated with his famed wager with uber-greenie Paul Ehrlich (detailed below) – false a priori assumption of increasing scarcity. Do not try this technique in any school paper you may attempt, or you will – or at least should be – failed!
As Robert Zubrin observed, to the warmers, “… each new life is unwelcome, each unregulated thought or act is menace, every person is fundamentally the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation.” Exaggeration? The World Wildlife Fund Living Plant Report of 2012, which Lewis Page summarizes in the May 16, 2012 edition of the Register states that “economic growth should be abandoned, (and) citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty.” The rich, of course, are especially bad, as the Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit, by Rosalyn McKeown, found at http://www.esdtoolkit.org/ tells us: “Generally, more highly educated people who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.” Presumably, as in every other single socialist experiment, the cronies and connected – along with the Learjet leftists of Hollywood and no doubt Ms. McKeown – will be exempted (Orwell captured this succinctly when he noted, in the socialist workers’ paradise, we’ll all be equal, only some of us will be “more equal” than the others). Incidentally, the Malthusians might want to get a clue, as between 30 and 50 percent of all food produced globally, equivalent to two billion tons, is thrown away each year according to a recent report written by the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME), titled ‘Global Food; Waste Not, Want Not’, found at http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Reports/IMechE_Global_Food_Report.sflb.ashx.
Of course, individual rights will also verboten, given the Malthusian threat to the earth. As Harvey Ruvin, Vice-chair of International Committee for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI), a group that wants to impose the green agenda/Agenda 21 on everyone has noted, “Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective.” Pol Pot, move over. But not only are the Malthusians wrong about food and climate, they done even have the population part of the equation correct. Even the reliably politically correct Time Magazine noted “…it turns out the world’s population isn’t growing nearly as fast as it once did. In fact, experts say the rate of population growth will continue to slow and that the total population will eventually — likely within our lifetimes — fall.” http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/11/overcrowding-nah-the-worlds-population-may-actually-be-declining/ Evidence for this? In 2013, it was just reported Japan’s population dropped a quarter million, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/01/japans-population-drop_n_4526816.html, and by 2060, over 40% of Japan’s population will be 60 or older. Europe, China and other regions are not far behind.
Perhaps some of the more radical global warmers would not be appalled by the iconic picture, below, taken by Kevin Carter in 1993 in South Sudan (note: Carter chased the vulture away after taking this picture – but really, if you are a Malthusian, you logically might rejoice over this child dying, as there are supposedly already too many on the lifeboat and we must start “culling”):
But none of the above beats Finnish writer Pentti Linkola, an uber-greenie, who wants to reduce Earth’s population to 500 mm and abandon modern technology (presumably he is getting his message out via smoke signals). Writes Linkola: What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.” And of course, America is the core of the problem: “The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom.” Linkola concludes by writing: “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 coutries 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.” (Cited from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-face-genocidal-eco-fascism) Linkola has also publicly called for climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite (yes, this will mean Obama can continue his golf outing to Hawaii on Air Force One!), Another Finnish environmentalist writer, Martin Kreiggeist, hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags and oppression as “a solution,” calling for people to “take up the axes” in pursuit of killing off the third world. Kreiggeist wants fellow eco-fascists to “act on” Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.
All this misses, of course, the simple dictum of Univ. of Maryland’s late Julian Simon: “The most important benefit of population size and growth is the increase it brings to the stock of useful knowledge. Minds matter economically as much as, or more than, hands or mouths.” This is the same Julian Simon that bet global coolers Paul Ehrlich and current-warmer-then-global cooler John Holdren that the price of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten would go down, not up, by Sept. 29, 1990. In fact, all five commodities – which Ehrlich selected – went down by the targeted date. In Oct. 1990, Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a cheque for $576.07 to settle the wager. No word if current unelected Obama science czar Holdren – who formerly was a very strong Cassandra about global cooling in the 1970s – chipped in any dough or not. But – as the last refuge of scientific (or economic) scoundrels – of course, “this time will be different.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager for the Wikipedia summary of this wager.
But, the failure of the Malthusian wager – or even a thousand failures, much like the communist “it’s never really been tried the correct way” argument – deters no one who refuses to examine his presuppositions, and the Malthusian drumbeat continues. To wit: In April, 2012, mimicking the Club of Rome earlier, the Royal Society published People and the Planet (online at http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/people-planet/2012-04-25-PeoplePlanet.pdf) – calling for the West to be de-industrialized, as well as for a drastic reduction in population based on their demonstrably preposterous “modeling” analyses. The indefatigable Ehrlich states here: “They (population and resources) multiply together. You have to deal with them together. We have too much consumption among the rich and too little among the poor. That implies that terrible thing that we are going to have to do which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away from the rich to the poor…you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.” And $100 to first person who guesses who will be in charge of that redistribution process, as well as who will be exempted because they are “special” (and you can start with Nancy Pelosi and her exemption of herself, her district, and her union cronies from Obamacare, or ask Michelle Obama on her next uber-luxe vacation). Long story short, the Guardian reports that the Royal Society basically would like to sequester everyone on megacities to reduce material and energy consumption, as well as “systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.” In sum, Agenda 21. See the Planet Under Pressure article at http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/pr_27_03_12_options_opportunities.pdf for the full, gory details. Or as the chief scientist behind Planet Under Pressure, Michail Fragkias states, “the answer (to population growth) is denser cities.” Of course, the question presents itself to certain of us as to whether these cities are meant to be Nazi-like ghettoes, to allow better control of the sheeple. And of course this is all needed,, for as AD Barnosky, et al, in Nature, June 17, 2012, warns, by 2050, we will have at minimum 9.5 billion people, with distinct possibility of there being 27 billion people. The UN also cited a figure of 9.5 billion by 2050 in Science (July 29, 2011), with the omnipresent Ehrlich letting us know in Nature that “in biophysical terms, humanity has never been moving faster or further from sustainability than it is now.”
But these people are not alone. Nutrition professor Anthony Costello of the Institute of Global Health (yes, nutrition) stated in a January 25 2011 lecture titled Stabilising the global population: Where next for the Millennium Development Goals that “climate denialism” in the US is “a major problem”, both culturally and politically, “that’s got to be addressed” and the phrase “climate skeptics” needs to be removed from the vocabulary when describing those not willing to go along with the disproved and debunked “climate change” hoax. Rather, Costello argues, the phrase should be replaced by “climate denialists.” Here is Costello in his own words on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kG_xr2J4Pms#t=5s. And Costello then sets the stage as skeptics being the next terrorists by stating in 2010 during a 2010 Policy Symposium on the Connection between Population Dynamics, Reproductive Health and Rights and Climate Change (page 5), that “climate skepticism kills.” I’m sure Mr. Costello “forgot” that various flavours of socialism killed between 100 to 160 million last century, but no worries there!
But as they say in the Ronco commercials, Wait! There’s More! At a UNESCO conference in September of 2009 on how to best “communicate” the IPCC conclusions, 20-year BBC veteran environment reporter Alex Kirby compared climate-skeptics to Apartheid proponents (Session 1, 01:36:35): “I’ve never thought it is part of the journalists’ job to try to inject an artificial and spurious balance into an unbalanced reality. If I have been sent to do a story on Apartheid or poverty or starvation, I hope to God I would not have tried to do a balanced story. And I think the same applies to climate change.” http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29082&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Of course, this comment was omitted from the official transcript. Yep. Scientists simply trying to apply the scientific method to the question of the validity of global warming are “killing people” and worse than apartheid supporters, while the socialists and warmers, who have the blood of tens of millions on their hands are lauded at humanitarians. It has even gotten so insane that sociologist Kari Norgaard has written that “cultural resistance” to the concept of man-made climate change has to be “recognized and treated” as abnormal behavior (See http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/3/simultaneous-action-needed-break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons or http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor.html. And yes, you are correct – homosexuality is good according to the APA, and using the scientific method to arrive at truth about climate is now “abberant, with” scientists asking real questions needing to be “treated.” Meanwhile, University of Amsterdam philosopher Marc Davidson who in 2007 wrote that those who are skeptic about global warming equal those who defended slavery (see http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5021x4506k0r622/fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP) and Andrew J. Hofman of the University of Michigan, wrote in Climate change as a cultural and behavioral issue: Addressing barriers and implementing solutions that “(…) the magnitude of the cultural and moral shift around climate change is as large as that which accompanied the abolition of slavery.” In his paper Hofman also stressed that “humankind has grown to such numbers and our technologies have grown to such a capacity that we can, and do, alter the Earth’s ecological systems on a planetary scale. It is a fundamental shift in the physical order – one never before seen, and one that alters the ethics and morals by which we judge our behavior as it relates to the environment around us and to the rest of humanity that depends on that environment.” http://www.erb.umich.edu/Research/Faculty-Research/AJHclimateChangeCulturalBehavior.pdf
It gets worse. Dr. Eric R. Pianka, at University of Texas lecture to fellow scientists, students and professors in 2006, invoking peak oil stated that 90% of the world’s population needed to be killed using a weaponized form of the Ebola virus. He stated that an airborne version of Ebola would be more effective than the HIV/AIDS virus has been because of the speed in which the victim dies. Pianka also spoke positively of the death the bird flu could bring, and spoke of the need to “Sterilize everyone on earth” at this lecture. (This is the same Mengele-like Pianka who has also stated “We’re no better than bacteria!” at one of his lectures.) Meanwhile, Simon Ross, head of Population Matters, has stated “population shrinkage is the cheapest and surest contribution to sustainability that we know of” (D Normile, The Upside of Downsizing, Science, July 29, 2012), with fellow misanthrope Rob Hengeveld, in his book How Our Consumption Challenges the Planet, proposes reducing world population to 1 billion.
As the Daily Sheeple noted, “Altering our ethics, altering our morals – that’s exactly what Agenda 21 is all about- specifically and altering these ethics and morals to more “environmentally friendly” ones.” And don’t expect this to be done openly or democratically, as the need is “too urgent” (though not urgent enough for the elite to have to change their lifestyles).
It may even be as bad – though examining conspiracy theories are not the goal of this paper – as noted in the anonymously authored document Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars that there is a conscious effort of control through knowledge suppression and selective dissemination is reiterated in the book, where it states: “… the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control.”
And this brings us back to where we started – the philosophy which lies underneath the global warming iceberg, or what is the ocean of presuppositions supporting it. Unfortunately for the warmers, facts are a stubborn thing, and those darned global warming deniers keep presenting facts so simple even a grade-schooler can understand (broken hockey stick, anyone?), and even the general population is increasingly rejecting the global warming scam. It may be, as Alduous Huxley noted, that “Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.” Then again, the Nazis and Soviets had pretty good scientists, too. As Arthur Koestler noted, there is, in fact, a ghost in the machine, and man can never be reduced to mere cogs in a scientist’s machine, no matter how complex.
In the next article, we will examine the actual facts, figures and science behind the global warming legerdemain.