Global Warming - A Global Distraction
... by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.
by Denis G. Rancourt,
professor of physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. His scientific research has been concentrated in the areas of spectroscopic and diffraction measurement methods, magnetism, reactive environmental nanoparticles, aquatic sediments and nutrients, and boreal forest lakes.
First published on Activist Teacher
Global warming is often presented as the greatest potential threat to humankind and as the greatest environmental and ecological threat on the planet. It is also presented as a problem that could be solved or contained by determined international collaboration - by political will if it were present.
I argue: (1) that global warming (climate change, climate chaos, etc.) will not become humankind’s greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more (in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around), (2) that global warming is presently nowhere near being the planet’s most deadly environmental scourge, and (3) that government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world.
I also advance that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat (global warming myth, for short). I describe these motivations in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows.
I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.
ERODING THE VENEER
Since the global warming myth is presently the dominant environmental paradigm in the First World middleclass mainstream, let us put it into the relevant perspective of planetary warming mechanisms.
One should first recognise that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is a well known natural phenomenon, mostly caused by atmospheric water vapour, that keeps our planet warm and habitable whereas (anthropogenic = human-made) global warming refers to a small extra greenhouse warming (0.5-1 C/33 C; 1-5 %) allegedly arising from an increase in atmospheric concentration of the minority greenhouse effect gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) – the later increase in turn possibly arising from fossil fuel burning (see below).
This means that the global greenhouse effect gives earthlings a needed and much appreciated base warming of 33 C (degrees Celsius), whereas the alleged “global warming” would contribute an extra 0.5 to 1 C of warming (a 1 to 5 % increase), on a planet that has seen a dozen or so ice ages since human kind has appeared.
The most often cited reconstructed global average temperature curves (themselves somewhat tenuous, see below) show increases in global mean temperature of approximately 0.5-1 C in the last 100 years. Let us compare this to the extremes of temperature to which humans routinely adapt. Humans have thrived in every possible ecological niche on the planet, from deserts to tropical forests to the North Polar Regions, since well before present technological advances. These environments show mean temperature differences of as much as 50 C or more. Many of these environments also show day to night and seasonal differences of as much as 20-50 C. A sudden 0.5-1 C increase in mean annual temperature (not spread over 100 years) would be imperceptible to any human and indeed could barely be detected using all of the methods of the modern scientific enterprise.
In addition, whereas there is evidence of negative consequences to populations from sustained regional cooling (e.g., Europe’s Little Ice Age, 1300-1850 AD) and whereas global ice ages (occurring every 40-100 thousand years or so) clearly have significantly affected human populations, there is no known case of a sustained warming alone having negatively impacted an entire population. If it where not for the global greenhouse effect, the planet would on average be 33 C colder and inhabitable. As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it’s hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator.
Humans have already adapted to dramatically different regional climates occurring in every corner of the planet and the alleged future global changes are very small compared to these existing variations. There are more displaced refugees from wars and from economic aggression than there will ever be displaced inhabitants from rapid climate-induced habitat transformations. In both cases, the solution is to accommodate those loosing their homes and communities, not to attempt to control planetary processes and unpredictable events.
Read the whole article with supporting references
if true, how do the financial elites benefit?
Does this not cause pressure to find alternative sources of energy and to develop new arrangements in society?
Even if the world really is getting warmer AS A RESULT OF SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONTROL, then it still is not humanity's most urgent problem because the people who got us into this mess cannot be relied upon to get us out of it.
Moreover, they are currently - AS WE SPEAK - waging war against the majority of humanity using a myriad of other, more immediately destructive ways.
--------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
If it's an important story, they are lying.
It is very long, but also seems scientifically very sound, considering the fact that the author is himself a scientist of climatology and knows what he is talking about.
How does the global elite profit from the "global warming" myth?
You have to realize that "the rich" are not an uniform group.
Some are deeply invested into a real economy, or the oil-industry.
The richest part of the elite however is mostly invested in the finance sector.
They do not care about any industry except maybe the military-industrial complex. Everything else is seen as temporary investment and can be changed at the spur of a moment.
These people are also Malthusians, who in general hate humanity.
They want to cut down on population and see the earth as their own private Safari Park.
The IPCC, the guys from the UN global warming lobby, is telling us that the world needs to use 16 Trillion $ in a "multi-gas-approach" to counter the global warming.
They do not only blame the burning of carbohydrate fuels, but just about every human activity for the "global warming": industrial production, traffic, housing, agriculture and the raising of animals for food production. In short, the very existance of many human beings on this planet causes "global warming".
And this time they target the developing countries in their report.
Professor Rancourt explains it very well in the later article, how scientists are driven to consent, even while their findings contradict each other.
Professor Rancourt is not the only left-wing critical scientist. There is also Professor Bellamy, an enviromantalist who calls global warming a load of poppy-cock:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-28/load.htm
And then there are independent climatologists, the main-line press calls them criminal "deniers" and even asks to put them on a list.
Doesn´t this kind of denouncing "thought-crimes" remind us of something very familiar?
And what makes me especially suspicious is the fact, the the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel,supposedly conservative and pro-business, a fervent US and Israel-lover, endorses the Global Warming agenda whole-heartedly, trying to press the "reforms" down the throat of all European countries, according to the Spiegel.
In "Angela Merkel, a Neocon as President of the European Union" Thierry Meyssan summarizes her very suspicious and very steep carreer after the fall the Berlin wall.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article145409.html
One thing Meyssan does not mention is the fact that she was actually disliked be the majority of the German people, (according to many polls she cost the CDU party 10 percent points) and still there was some powerful pressure to keep her as the party´s front-runner.
The Prof is talking about the 'paradigm shifts' and the way scientists follow orthodoxy because it is easy and common sense. I understand that.
In the UK Car fuel taxes and road taxes were raised pretending that it would reduce car use and green house gases, when really it is just an excuse by the government to raise yet more revenue to pay off the interest on National Debt, they use "the environment' as a pretext to further tax people.
I can understand that maybe the elites linked to the oil industry may want to make it seem like there is a real danger and scarcity and oil price rises are natural so they can benefit. But I do not see how they benefit in actual fact from creation of a global warming 'myth'. It would be detrimental to their needs. If you look at most corporations including Oil Corps like Shell and BP they have sleek PR videos showing how 'good' they are, and how they 'care' for the natural environment and build and invest in natural wildlife habitats and human socioeconomic investment. In short 'we are good we care and we benefit'.
Also if all of this is a myth created by elites to further their own warped agenda, then not only should wars on behalf of a 'scarce resource' like Oil become unnecessary, but also very stupid. There is no need for it, apart from MIC profiteering.
My understanding is that there is a change in the natural environment and a 'tipping point' is fast approaching where whatever we do...it will be too late to change the catastrophe. Flooding, etc.
My Koranic understanding is that when men commit injustice and sin...there will be consequences. If a human being gorges on food all the time, it will lead to ill health and early death. Healthy food eaten in moderation is fine, when abused it becomes deadly. Similarly human beings need to live within the Divine boundaries, if they ignore them or over step them, there will be corruption, death and disease. USURY Banking is forbidden by Islam, the greed that it has unleashed has corrupted everything and will have consequences for all of us. Rivers, Oceans, Soils, Forests are being poisoned in order to extract as much 'profit' out of them as possible to pay off 'interest' on debts.
If the elites are doing this simply to kill us off, I cannot see why. Even if the Prof you cite is very distinguished and respected, he could be a paid up member of the 'Consumer Promotion' corporation, paid to increase consumption without 'guilt'.
One of the reasons that elites do not want to find alternative energy sources and research into new friendlier technologies is because such a society which shifted from fossil fuel dependency to a more renewable energy source or mix would entail a complete re-structuring, current centers of concentrations of political and economic power would lose. People could for example just use wind and solar power from their homes to charge their cars and use their homes...no need for armies, wars, oil wells to defend fossil fuel supply. The elites would lose their power.
I do not think it is a myth and have been aware of scientists who have rejected the thesis of global warming for decades, however I suspect it is they who are paid by the corporations to hide the truth so that they can continue.
When the catastrophe comes, I think the elites are preparing for it. They will have full control of food, and energy supplies, and will weld power, those who 'die off' will not be missed by the elites. Katrina and New Orleans was possibly 'a test'. These elites will still need slaves they can lord it over, so they probably believe that they will halve or greatly reduce the population of the world rather than destroy it all together.
Well you've got good company when you believe it's a scam: Bush, Exxon, Fox and a range of "scientists" who also "did research" for Big Tobacco back in the 90s (I guess they're that smart and multidisciplined). They tried to convince judges and juries nicotine isn't addictive and smoking doesn't cause cancer. Now some PR company hired them to convince Americans and Canadians the scientific debate is 50-50. "The Denial Machine" from cbc's Fifth Estate illustrates that really well.
I totally agree with Leftfield, (except from the fact that i'm not religious).
“One of the reasons that elites do not want to find alternative energy sources and research into new friendlier technologies is because such a society which shifted from fossil fuel dependency to a more renewable energy source or mix would entail a complete re-structuring, current centers of concentrations of political and economic power would lose.” Hear hear, I say: no more power for them, more power for us, CLEAN power that is.
And when (some of) our so-called leaders are preparing for disaster whilst saying the other thing (and I think they do) they’re gonna make sure there’s exactly enough of us to do the slave labour. Maybe that's why we’d better be Malthusians ourselves; and accept the fact that there are limits to what we can take and give to the earth and that this has (and will have!) huge ethical consequences. I thought I said it before: if you think Malthus’ core message was a prescribing one, I think you’re wrong: it’s DEscribing. The way someone wants to handle what it describes, is not how it SHOULD be handled. A classic is/ought fallacy.
The way we've been handling our surroundings in the past and the way we do now is an inseparable and fundamental part of the big social and economic problems of our time, I think. And it will only get bigger.
Better not let the Malthusianism to those “crazies” in charge. But I think everybody agrees on that.
regarding the need for sustainable energy sources.
But, the fact that the media gives 'Global Warming' a lot of attention, plus the fact that the evidence for and against the theory is incredibly nebulous, allows it to be a colossally divisive issue with no immediate solution at hand - as long as we continue to suffer our monetary problems.
Oil companies and bankers can continue to claim that they are 'doing the best they can' and that when and if there is ever a consensus on the issue of global warming - then and only then will they act AND they will not do it without plenty of MONETARY INCENTIVE from Congress.
The main goal for Americans today, and the only goal that will solve most if not all of our problems is to NATIONALIZE the monetary system.
Everything and anything else that cannot be solved without throwing money at it is an unproductive distraction.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
That's a good way to start, not just for Americans, but also other countries:
"The main goal for Americans today, and the only goal that will solve most if not all of our problems is to NATIONALIZE the monetary system"
And, maybe a bit farfetched but let me dream about this one, we could base it instead on the amount of natural resources we have worldwide, renewable or not, the capacity of this planet and it's atmosphere to regenerate (and absorb our waste) and the amount of people there are. Divide this and we all have an equal share of resources to consume etc. Like a personal, non-tradable emission right, or better consumption right. We could base our economies on something like that. But before utopia enters the picture, I'm afraid we have a long way to go.
There are many facts on both sides to consider.I have a scientist Brother who has shown how the interaction between the planets and the Sun has been consistant for 100s of thousands of years and his prediction is that due to Sun spot activity switching off in 2012/13 the Earth will cool down and stay that way until 2050 when Solar activity will recommence. But even he thinks there is something to the Global Warming argument. Yes there is propaganda on both sides and many stick to there short term interests and shaky power bases. I like to think that the Global warming issue could be used for a great change in society. To have locally based renewable energy would give many countries stronger economic independence and would take the heat out of any energy wars. It would also help to clean up our breathable air lessening the number of cancers/asthmas and other effects of living in urban areas. The only reason Big Business and Politicans have jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon is that it has become a hugely popular issue with the masses and if we succeed in creating renewable DECENTRALISED power plants there ability to control us becomes limited. They hate decentralisation with avengance. That is why they are preaching Nuclear Energy as the greatest solution. They are also touting Hydrogen(very expensive) to replace petrol as it keeps us tied to their distribution systems. They will back alternative energys as long as its kept as a large power plant and its distributed by their centralised vampire economic machine. The People and sympathetic Power Players have an opportunity to use the Global warming debate to implement a decentralised renewable energy society giving us Cleaner Air, less waste disposal and power over our own Power Sources. And less WARS over carbon/nuclear resources.
global warming is an anti-establishment topic. (Leftfield although you might be British you seem to think just like an American)
In Europe it is endorsed by most enviromentalists AND by the strongest neo-con fraction.
From the very beginning the sponsors of "global warming" theories were ultra-rich Zionists.
Remember, that the first rich Zionist were the Rothschilds and their business circle.
"Peak Oil" is endorsed by the oil-companies´main-shareholders to boost their profits, "global warming" is endorsed by the banking elite, people who hate humanity and believe that the more human beings we are, the less they will in the end be able to control us.
So once again we have the division between the Anglo-Saxon and the Zionist fraction of the capitalist elite.
These people have already more material means than they could ever use up for luxuries. The ultimate goal of the financial elite in accumulation of even more is control, "full spectrum dominance".
The global warming myth is another lever of control.New laws are being made, to hinder the economic emancipation of developing countries and cut down the the living standard of the lower classes in the industrial countries.
There are real environmental problems of polution of water and air, especially in developing countries which could be remedied by using the same standards of environmentally safe production forms as now are law in industrial countries.
But instead of concerning themselves with the real problems, problems which can be solved, the UN and the mainline media is siphoning off everything into the "global warming" myth.
You really should read the Professor´s article Leftfield, the man is an expert in measuring methods and describes in detail, why the computer models for the "global warming" theory are so very flawed.
And as a religious person, you should know that God will punish us for the real sins, like greed, endorsing wars and oppression, polluting water and air with poisons, and not for some imagined sins of releasing the totally harmeless gases of CO2 and methan.
GLOBAL WARMING OR COOLING IS A NATURAL PROCESS WHICH HAPPENED CONSTANTLY IN EARTH´S HISTORY, HUMAN BEINGS DO NOT CAUSE IT OR CAN DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE IT-
HOWEVER, WARS, OPPRESSION AND PREDATOR ECONOMIES ARE CREATED BY HUMAN BEINGS AND CAN BE STOPPED BY HUMAN BEINGS.
And as becoming Malthusians ourselves, I´d rather die than become like them.
They are the real misanthopes, the real haters of humanity.
You see, there is something, that´s more important than survival and that´s human integrity.
The issue which causes global warming is not too many people. It is the lifestyle promoted by USURY Capitalism and consumerism which causes it.
I am not very scientific so will not understand the Prof anyway.
If we look at the world around us there are clearly man made environmental disasters in the making. De-forestation of major forests, degradation of soil, water and air, extensive industrialised farming and agriculture...all these have consequences, and when the system 'tips' there will be long term social and political problems. Clearly the way that we are all being made to live and follow a particular 'materialistic' lifestyle, organized along Centralised and highly structured/hierarchical lines is destructive. The only people benefiting from this are the elites and Zionists.
The way round this is the dismantling of corporate and monetry power, by using Gold and Silver currencies and dissallowing by law and contracts the creation of stock markets which give power/ownership and control to the few (majority share holders).
We need de-centralised, societies with government without State (meaning no taxation, National Debt and Fractional Reserve Centralized Banking ).
"In Europe it is endorsed by most enviromentalists AND by the strongest neo-con fraction." Only recently the right understood the populistic potential of the subject, but ok. They're jumping on the bandwagon only now oil and gassupplies are running dry and because global dimming is starting to lift its blanket overhere. It's only a desperate attempt to save the system which benefits them so much. But I agree other (environmental) problems, which do not target Europeans, Americans and others (yet), are being neglected and that's really wrong.
And I still think Malthus' message is one of objectivity and common sense. Who is to blame or how the problems are solved is another issue.