When despots seek ultimate power, they use a theme to attract support from the population. For Hitler, it was elimination of Jews. Stalin claimed to be seeking justice for the working man. The Ottoman empire was dedicated to Islamic dominance. In each of these examples, the theme was window dressing for the real motive—a raw lust for power.
In George Orwell’s “1984,” some vague, distant war was the cause celeb. Today’s power seekers are using a science-fiction theme called global warming or man-made climate change as their life and death proposition.
Anatomy of a Hoax
So much of what is written on the subject of man-made climate change is opinion based upon the political persuasion of the writer.
With a degree in civil engineering, I spent 40 years in the environmental markets of the U.S. and Europe. When I say I have studied the proposition, you may assume that I understand the physics behind the material I read.
Ice core samples, which disclose much about the environment as they were accumulating through the centuries, show an elevated concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) during warm periods. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seized on that as proof of the association between CO2 and global warming. The problem is that the higher concentrations occurred at the end of the warming period which means that the event is an effect, not a cause.
What really occurred was that some other source started the warming cycle, causing oceans to give up a portion of their CO2 to the atmosphere. That’s basic physics. The warming source is sun-spot activity which correlates perfectly with global temperatures.
Molecular Myth
We are told that four hundred parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere is “close” to the point of no return. How close is not specified. And “no return” from what? 400 ppm is the math equivalent of one part in 2500. CO2 uniquely combines with infrared waves to give it the property of a “greenhouse gas” but it only reacts with eleven percent of the infrared wave. Specific heat is a physical property relating the amount of heat in btu’s or calories needed to raise the temperature one degree fahrenheit or centigrade, and carbon dioxide has a specific heat only about twice the other air constituents. For one molecule of CO2 to impart measurable heat to the other 2499 molecules in the air sample would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord.
At What Cost?
The economic debacle of 2008-09 was due to the rapid rise in energy costs to the consumer when crude oil reached $147/barrel because new crude exploration was minimized by regulations designed to fight global warming. From the EIFA, we learn that a family of four spent $642/month more for energy during the last four years of Bush 43 compared to the last four years of Clinton.
For the U.N., it was a method of extracting dollars from developed economies for the benefit of members of the general assembly. Individual governments use it as a way to exert day-to-day control over lives of its citizens. (See “1984” by Orwell.)
Why?
It begins with an innocence of ignorance by the well-meaning to do the right thing up to reasons that Machiavelli would envy. Only mega-wealthy Tom Steyer knows his true motive behind the funding of political campaigns for candidates who advocated against climate change in their election efforts. While ignorance cannot be ruled out, a person of his means and accomplishments would be expected to find out where his money is going and why.
In 1983, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used it as a negotiating tactic with the powerful coal miners union.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, with the stated objective to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.” It subsequently negotiated treaties requiring developed economies to pay a “carbon tax” which accrued to the benefit of members of the general assembly. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from participation soon after his inauguration.
Embrace of the human link to climate by government is a means to exert total control over the way we live, beginning with control of our energy sources and entailing new bureaucracies and more bureaucrats. This is very appealing to people of liberal persuasion who are convinced that they have the right and obligation to tell the rest of us how to live because of their superior intellect and learning.
What’s Next?
They are led by a group of liberal-elites who by virtue of their wealth, celebrity status or profession presume to dictate our speech and how we should think without regard to the archaic notion of individual rights. Most of these folks are simply delusional and merely annoying, but in the hands of someone driven by a power lust, global warming a.k.a. climate change would be an effective theme to develop popular support and ultimately be used as an instrument of control.
When will we know the real motive of one of these climate clamorers? After it’s too late to do anything about it.
What Should We Do?
- Research the climate question on your own. Climate Depot is a good place to start.
- Look askance at anyone who says it’s “settled science.” Science evolves and is never settled.
- Anyone who calls non-believers “deniers” is simply casting them in the same, unsympathetic light as Holocaust deniers because of their own ignorance.
- Beware of thought control like politically correct speech.
- Make sure you know what political candidates stand for before going into the voting booth.
- Pay attention to events in France after Prime Minister Macron levied an exorbitant tax on gasoline to fight climate change.
Ignorance is self-inflicted and is never an excuse.
