The Environmental Protection Agency, the last time I checked a regulatory body charged only with enforcing legislation, is “deliberating” on expanding its own powers through the Rio Conference scheduled to be held in June 2011. That’s right, a government agency filled with unelected bureaucrats is effectively deciding whether or not it wants to make law and expand its own powers, all in the name of promoting “sustainability.”
The environmentalist movement is growing madder by the day. Spurned by the majority of the public despite unrelenting waves of statist propaganda, the eco-fascist consorts at the Durban, South Africa climate conference have deemed themselves the Mad Ludwigs to take over the planet and enslave us all to a high envirowacko council.
It’s unclear how other people are going to react, but it’s one thing to be yoked by tyrants who won’t bullshit you, it’s quite another thing to be bridled by an openly brazen pack of international grifters. The truth has got its pants on regarding these totalitarian scam artists’ pack of lies, and it’s fast catching up. Let’s run.
DURBAN, South Africa — “No high hopes for Durban.” “Binding treaty unlikely.” “No deal this year.” Thus ran the headlines. The profiteering UN bureaucrats here think otherwise. Their plans to establish a world government paid for by the West on the pretext of dealing with the non-problem of “global warming” are now well in hand. As usual, the mainstream media have simply not reported what is in the draft text which the 194 states parties to the UN framework convention on climate change are being asked to approve.
Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process” have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document. Its catchy title is “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention — Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of [one imagines they mean ‘for’] a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” In plain English, these are the conclusions the bureaucracy wants.
The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.
- Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.
- Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
- Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.
- Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.
- Ø A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.
- Ø The new CO2 emissions target, for Western countries only, will be a reduction of up to 50% in emissions over the next eight years and of “more than 100%” [these words actually appear in the text] by 2050. So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills, solar panels and other “renewables” are the only alternatives suggested in the draft. There is no mention of the immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power worldwide to prevent near-total economic destruction.
- Ø The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.
- Ø The peak-greenhouse-gas target year – for the West only – will be this year. We will be obliged to cut our emissions from now on, regardless of the effect on our economies (and the lack of effect on the climate).
- Ø The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility” for causing “global warming”. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay anything. But it is the UN, not the third-world countries, that will get the money from the West, taking nearly all of it for itself as usual. There is no provision anywhere in the draft for the UN to publish accounts of how it has spent the $100 billion a year the draft demands that the West should stump up from now on.
The real lunacy comes in the small print – all of it in 8-point type, near-illegibly printed on grubby, recycled paper. Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.
Read the rest at Climate Depot.
According to environmental alarmists, man is increasingly in danger of being killed by manmade climate change due to increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, raining kittens, heatwaves, cold spells, zombie waves, droughts, floods, volcanoes, vampire bat scourges, plagues, locusts, pestilence, meteor strikes, super-ebola, giant racoons, the return of the dinosaurs, killer bees, pig flu, avian flu, platypus flu, unusually mild temperatures, and death itself.
A study released by the Reason Foundation, which obviously must be in the bag for the international petroleum conspiracy to sell people gas and other useful products, shows that according to public records, death due to “extreme weather” is down. Way down.
How far down is it?
The Reason Foundation report chronicles the number of worldwide deaths caused by extreme weather events between 1900 and 2010 and finds global deaths caused by extreme weather events peaked in the decade running from 1920 to 1929, when there were 241 deaths a year per million people in the world. From 1930 to 1939 there were 208 deaths a year per million people. But from 2000 to 2010 there were just 5.4 deaths a year per million people in the world. That’s a 98 percent decline in the weather-related death rate since the 1920s. Extreme weather events were responsible for just .07% of the world’s deaths between 2000 and 2010.
The extreme weather categories studied in the Reason Foundation report include droughts, floods, wildfires, storms (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, typhoons, etc.) and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.
Oh. But at least there’s still the danger of raining kittens.
Sometimes the holiday season does come early. For the Green Grinches intent on stealing our freedom, along with a whole lot of our dough, a bevy of swiped email gifts being dubbed Climategate II released near midnight the 21st promise a different kind of Cyber Monday for the multi-billion dollar climate fraud industry.
Among the Who-pudding and roast beast is a feast of political-scientific incest exposing the lucrative business of warm-mongering. The examples are many, but a sit down with a cup of coffee and an eye to examining the political assumptions behind the climate “science” can be revelatory for even the non-specialist (like all of those lawyers and rights activists who participated in the first IPCC).
This shouldn’t be much of a surprise, considering that even an esteemed organization like the Union of Concerned Scientists (remember “nuclear winter,” anyone?), while commenting on the significance of the IPCC, blatantly confesses that politics is involved in much of the climate “science” being produced:
Scorching new evidence of the environmental left’s scientific obstruction has surfaced in the squelching of reports of Japanese satellite data, which suggest that the underdeveloped world emits far more carbon dioxide than previously imagined, even more than many Western nations! If the claim is substantiated, it could turn the entire meme that industrialized civilization is endangering the planet on its head.
When John O’Sullivan, a climate non-dogmatist, discovered the data and published an article on Suite 101, he was immediately fired and his posts removed for the last two years. Of course, the enviroleft is going to say that is because his article was so absurd. But isn’t it the point of the scientific method that if one can falsify a theory, one does so using transparent, replicable methods and publishes the findings in open, apolitical, peer-reviewed journals? In other words, if his findings are so ridiculous, isn’t it the job of the climate dogmatists to point out why?
Simply disagreeing with the results of a study doesn’t make the data, or the questions, go away. If the underdeveloped world is emitting more CO2 than the Western world, then what need would there be for global redistribution of wealth based on the presumption that carbon emissions are “destroying the planet” and causing catastrophic “climate change”? What would the findings tell us about the unfounded hysteria surrounding the argument that man’s activities are warming the planet? And furthermore, wouldn’t they also suggest that the environmentalist movement has thus far been politics first, science second?
There is no place for censorship in the scientific community, or in Western civilization as a whole. When the “consensus” wants to shut somebody up, that’s because it has something to hide. Fortunately for us, there are ways to get around censorship, but expect it to get even more heavy-handed as the manmade global warming fraud gets increasingly exposed.
The most important conclusion one could take away from the data, if proved accurate, is that the West’s better health and living standards are no accident, and the industry that makes it possible is no danger to mankind as a whole. Industrial society would rightfully be restored as an overall benefit to human health, rather than a supposed global scourge.
Looks like the “shared reality” that manmade global warming is “bullshit!” is starting to get to the Chief Carbon Charlatan. Gore’s tirade reinforces my conclusion that destroying environmentalist myths is the single greatest thing we Americans can do to stop leftism.
While cultural marxists seek to destroy Judao-Christian culture and capitalism, they are betting that “greenism” will fill the evacuated void. But if radical environmentalism becomes endangered, the moral legitimacy of the left will largely go with it. This is because the crypto-commies have no readily available “secular religion” like Marxism or radical environmentalism to tap for the left’s braindead zombies to follow.
This gives me the occasion to share a passage written by social scientist John Harsanyi in 1960:
One of the reasons why explanation of social phenomena in terms of economic forces is often so fruitful lies in the fact that the economic system is one of the main channels through which the natural environment [emphasis mine] (in particular, the presence or absence of natural resources and of natural routes of communication) acts upon the social system.
Surely, some compact flourescent lightbulbs went off in the statists’ heads who read that passage.
Speaking of which, there was a comical anecdote about the House Republicans actually doing something productive for a change and rebuking Madame Pelosi’s new “greening the capital” initiative. The Wicked Witch of the West Coast was looking to spend hundreds of thousands more in tax payer dollars making Washington D.C. “greener,” which last year saved the emissions equivalent of taking one American car off the road.
So for $450,000 in savings, we could have just made some hapless bureaucrat car pool and attained the same results? Classic clueless leftism.
The manmade climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does.
But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions.
- How much does man contribute to the greenhouse effect?
- If the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset any rising temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions?
- Fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?
Let’s lay out the facts first. Then we’ll carve the watermelon.
1. According to figures taken from the Department of Energy, the following shows man’s contribution to global greenhouse gases.
- Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring.
- Carbon dioxide contributes 3.618% to the greenhouse effect.
- Man contributes about 3.207% to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- Man thus contributes .28% to the greenhouse effect. Put in terms of a ratio, man contributes 1/357.14 to the greenhouse effect.
This scientifically verifiable answer should be interpreted to mean that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, which is not even the only factor in global warming. Solar fluctuations also play a role.
2. But, if man should shrug off these facts and decide to stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, what effect would it have?
- In raw terms, man contributes yearly about 2 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
- There is currently about 380ppm total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- According to scientific projections, man could stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, including by going into extinction, and this would drop global temperatures by .1 degree Celsius.
- In fifty years.
3. Finally, if man should decide to go ahead anyway and do everything short of complete extinction to prevent climate cataclysm, what effect would it have? This answer is a bit more prosaic.
Civilization rose along with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is self-defeating.
Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world would not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century? Wouldn’t our actions taken in the name of climate justice have been self-defeating?
A closing question. Should the sheer fact that man contributes in some miniscule fashion to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of human life? Is such control justified by some vague appeal to a “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat would this be the case, and neither tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
So you green grifters thought you were going to be ushered into power on the BIG LIE that man is responsible for catastrophic climate change? Think again. Hundreds of millions of people are catching on to the environmentalist myths, and the truth-sayers are gaining ground on the professional liars every day.
Hell hounds on your trail, boys. Hell hounds on your trail.
After an ideological slumber of nearly half a century, an international fascist alliance has formed under the green banner of environmentalism and like a swarm of locusts threatens to devour everything in sight. Professional looters of all stripes have suddenly and miraculously appeared upon the scene unveiling an objectively pointless carbon tax, as well as mendicants for the swelling coffers taken up for the new religion of manmade global warming.
Like nature, history can be cyclical.
All religions have their prophets, and the environmentalist left surely has theirs. But unlike prophets of non-secular religions, these charlatans preach asceticism while luxuriating in the bounties of capitalist-industrial society. When you are the latest Jesus Christ Superstar on the scene, words and deeds are besides the point.
These state-sponsored televangelists are not adherents to their own dogma. They mouth the words at the public pulpits, but their actions are best predicted by the old homage, “follow the money.”
Just like scheming street magicians, these pontificating prestidigitators are gifted at making cash evaporate from our wallets, like the carbon gas they claim is the contaminant of our earthly paradise. As we fork over the cash, all the while we are supposed to believe that although carbon dioxide supposedly fed the lush vegetation of Eden, apparently it is now Eden’s destroyer?
But let us not be fooled by these grifters’ rhetorical sleight of hand, as clumsy as it may appear to the well-trained eye: these people are deadly serious. It is not just money these moneychangers are after, as adept as they are at changing our money into thin air. No, these new fools are all about power. To borrow from the old canonical language, their motives can be found by asking the simple question, “Cui bono?”
So far, the millenarians have been content to ask politely for our contribution to the cause, and embarrassed, we have dug into our pockets for a few spare nickels while drinking our styrofoam container of Dunkin Donuts coffee on the way to the factory. And at least they have had the common courtesy of hiding their taxes in fuel prices, so as not to bother us with the Jehovah’s witness-like persistence of their shakedowns.
But with a proposed global carbon tax of upwards of $76 trillion on the table (always a good rule of thumb to presume the elites are lowballing us), we must be feeling a bit like the homeowner who has let the pest controller in to ‘bomb the house’ while we’re away at the beach for the weekend, only to realize that the terminator actually bombed the house.
Excuse me sir, the total comes to $420,000. Would you like us to acquaint you with our budget billing?
But we shouldn’t really be shaking our heads in disbelief at the left’s absurd clamoring for ever more. Once one can read the philosophical subtext of the left’s arguments, it is quite easy to grasp the implications. Once we understand that leftists are by their nature crusaders, we are not caught unguarded when they steadily push their views to the extreme.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and the lack of a principled moral defense of free market capitalism is an ideological vacuum that invites left-wing extremism. If we do not push back on the right terrain, the philosophical terrain, then the millenarianism of the left will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We must ask ourselves, what good are arguments with leftists about climate data, when they view our current politico-economic system as fundamentally immoral?
The problem presents itself, how do you argue with the indoctrinated green zombie when he considers capitalist-industrial society to be immoral, and does so because that is what statists have taught him to believe through massive propaganda campaigns propagated throughout our schools and universities?
The complicating matter is that the leftist views his ideological associations in social terms. The universities he associates with intellectual elites, and he implicitly places himself in that social caste. Arguing with a leftist entails forcing him to forgo his tacit inclusion in the club of the intellectual elites, which he paid for with hard-earned government grants and loans, and to join the ranks of the unwashed lumpenproletariat.
We thus need to try to get through to the enviroleftist not only using reason and logic, but using psycho-analysis and social persuasion. If a lefty views himself as a crusader, we must necessarily frame our arguments to him as though he is a bully, and we are the oppressed.
The question I thus propose to such an environmentalist acolyte: Isn’t it a bit convenient when power-hungry millionaire politicians in government and their backers, who in no wise evidently take seriously their own propaganda, as clearly demonstrated by their personal actions, start advocating for a cause that will accrue to them vast new powers over the economy, and stands to make them all incredibly rich?
If those who stand opposed to the environmentalists on the left do not begin making principled, moral arguments that address the Marxian roots of their opponents’ views, couched in the social and economic terms they currently can comprehend, we may somehow win this battle against the enviroleftists, but we will not win the war against the left. Like thirteen year locusts, the looters will come back, in a new guise and with a new program to accomplish their ultimate agenda: to wrest control of the economy from the people and exploit us in the most brutally direct manner they can get away with.
Like nature, history can be a bitch.
Really? Including water vapor, which is 95% of the greenhouse effect on earth? Are we still allowed to die and decompose?
These braniacs can call on me to go belly up for the cause when we have anywhere near the hellish scenario seen on Venus, the poster child for Venetian-made global warming run amok.
Of that .039% concentration, or 388 ppm (was 7000 ppm in the Cambrian period. For clarification, that was about 550 million years ago, when we had an explosion of terrestrial-based life in the form of those pesky thunder lizards.), earthlings contribute about 3% to its yearly increase, which is about nil. We may knock it up a few notches annually, but for some perspective, the CO2 high over the last few million years
Most scientists believe that the dinosaurs died from a meteor strike so powerful it produced a cloud of particulate matter into the atmosphere so dense that it blotted out the sun. What happened to lead to mass extinctions, twice, was not dinosaur-made global warming but catastrophic global cooling.
As we can see from the graph above, the relation of carbon dioxide changes to global temperature fluctuations is very poor indeed. At numerous data points on the graph above, temperature changes precede carbon dioxide concentration changes, and at other data points, there is no discernible relation at all.
What is prehistoric about today’s global temperature fluctuations is man’s reaction to them. There seems to be no ability for some upper primates to separate their emotions from arguments. The conflation of science and values demonstrated in the debate on manmade global warming was advocated by the New Left doyen Max Horkheimer, whose legacy is a cultural marxist climate where social justice acolytes are impervious to facts and reason.
If governments are stupid and power-hungry enough to pursue the left’s Australopithecine proposals, so absurd not even a sun-worshiping caveman would believe them, we will destroy modern civilization all for a myth.
Australia is at the cutting edge of societal progress – towards human devolution, instituting primitive living conditions, and enshrining big lies like manmade climate change . It is “outback” where we can witness sides of the mad left that make us want to back out of their machinations.
Killing a camel to earn a carbon credit may seem a curious way to tackle climate change, but one country is poised to allow investors to do precisely that.The camel culling plan is one of the first to arise under the Australian government‘s new “carbon farming initiative”, a scheme that lets farmers or investors claim carbon credits if they can show they have cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Why, if it’s just animals in the way of a greener planet, by all means, let’s debauch those preciously delicate eco-systems! Cull away!
While they’re at it, maybe the enviroleftists should send an expedition to the North Pole to drown polar bears. After all, not only are those burly white devils notoriously carbon-rich, they’re also man-eaters. Or is that an endearing quality? Maybe they should be granted carbon credits for that unsavory pastime.
The Australian camel culling conundrum demonstrates an important lesson on the New Left: when it comes to acquiring unchecked power or billions of taxpayer bucks, that’s when the green movement’s janus face becomes unmasked.
Even though nearly all leftists claim to be animal rights supporters, if even one of those oh-so-precious animals gets in the way of turning a buck on the manmade climate change fraud, guess who’s got to go? The animal, along with any claim to principle the greenies might have had.
What explains the New Left’s seemingly contradictory and hypocritical turns on its own ideology? Why do animal rights activists and environmentalists seemingly clash on policies such as the camel cull conundrum, yet remain silent when there appears from the outside to be controversy? Why do feminists and multi-culturalists who embrace Islam seemingly clash on women’s issues, yet rarely if ever come to verbal fisticuffs? Why do those who claim to be against racism engage in race-baiting against the white middle class?
The explanation is simple and elegant. Leftists hate America, capitalism, and indeed, mankind itself.
Surely, this is an overblown statement. How could those who love cuddly chinchillas and want to protect the trees be against mankind? The mind-muddled masses don’t hate mankind. They want to accrue easy credit for embracing supposedly noble causes. They are followers of fashion, not masterminds. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t masterminds, and it just so happens that a little bit of research, or a modern American college education, turns them up.
The rubric that the New Left hides behind is called Critical Theory. Pioneered by the Frankfurt School, it is a tactic used to diffuse the public’s threat perception. If the New Left were publicly unified as a movement and were to take over the nation’s institutions, people would eventually become threatened by the presence of an alien political force. The New Left thus needed to maintain a veneer of victimhood, ostensibly working on behalf of the working class, the oppressed, and the “little people,” in American terms, minorities, while it infiltrated and assumed control over institutions in the public sphere. Even when the leftists dominate the government, the culture, the economy, society – they are still speaking “truth to power.” Get it?
By the way, seen the anti-war left protesting against Obama lately?
While occasionally we see New Left organizations cross-fertilize hybrid movements inclusive of, for example, animal rights and climate change, these are tactical alliances conjoined for very specific purposes. An example might be a celebrity claiming that manmade climate change is affecting a particular endangered species’ habitat. But what is important to keep in mind is that all of these supposedly separate critical theory movements are united by the following themes: anti-humanism (in other words, against the idea that human beings are special in any way), and anti-individualism (against private property, private choices, free communication and opinion).
The New Left has been animated by the drive for hegemony, or domination, over the culture for decades. “Cultural marxists” claim they need complete power over everything – the government, economy, society, private life – to institute their perfect utopia. The inconvenient truth that this utopia has never been seen and never will be seen escapes them, as today’s environmentalist radicals are animated by what the great Russian mathematician Igor Shafarevich might call “a chiliastic vision.”
The environmental sages and prophets of doomare now sacrificing animals on the altar of the climate goddess Gaia. Climate lunacy has become a full-fledged secular religion.
The anthropogenic climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does. But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions: How much does man contributes to the greenhouse effect; if the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset the ostensible centennial trend of rising temperatures; and more fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?
To address the first debate, man contributes insignificantly to global greenhouse gases, particularly so in the case of carbon dioxide emissions. First of all, water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring. Secondly, carbon dioxide contributes .117% of the greenhouse effect. Thirdly, man contributes about 3.207% of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Thus, the scientific answer is that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, purported to be the cause of the centennial trend of global warming.
In regards to the question if man should attempt to halt global warming, there are two things to bear in mind. First of all, if mobilizing for action requires rendering control to a central economic body, which would determine the allocation and use of natural resources, not only have we established that its actions would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the climate, in all likelihood, it’s results compared to the status quo would be worse. Central command economies are notorious for their misuse of resources and their disregard for human health; this is a direct consequence of the inherently anti-humanistic philosophy that animates them and their inability to account for resource scarcity.
Secondly, markets are better at stewarding the environment because firms are interested in efficiency, long-term investment and profits, milking natural resource supplies, and replenishing stores of renewable resources. The price competitiveness of alternative goods, including alternative resources, virtually guarantees maximum economic efficiency; while the openness of the market system gives rise to new technologies; both make the adaptation of societies to external variables like climate change much more smooth, incremental, and stable over the long term.
Thirdly, in regards to the wisdom of acting to halt climate change, people tend to forget that civilization rose with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is possibly self-defeating.
Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world will not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century and we will be set that much further back in terms of advancing civilization?
Should the sheer fact that man contributes to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of the economy, by appeal to the “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat, neither of which tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market, is the answer an indisputable yes.
As Copenhagen descends into frosty Abaddon for the irrational climate crazies, a carnivalesque side show of bipedal polar bears and hemp-wearing harbingers of climatic doom, the veil is slowly being lifted on the ringmasters of the carbon-centric global warming charade: World communism.
At this worldwide festivus of colossal frauds, an unholy alliance of lab-coated scientists, eco-fanatics, globalist oligarchs, and political frontmen have congregated and are being chauffeured to quixotic colloquiums like, “The Coming Climate Apocalypse: How Windmills Can Save the World,” and “Polar Bears and Penguins – How Cuteness Can Overcome Rational Argument.” Yet such bon-bons of buffoonery should not lead us to commit the fatal error of complacency.
The multi-faceted nature of the coalition of freaks, creeps, and geeks gathered at their mecca of environmental madness has distracted attention away from the socialistic nature of their agenda. This is ostensibly because the spectacle of leftist moonbats demanding “environmental justice” for manmade global warming while huddling in a blizzard provides some weight to the “not evil, just wrong” (or more fittingly, “not evil, just stupid”) narrative. (As a side note, perhaps the mad geniuses intent on running the industrial economies of the world might want to re-schedule their pagan sacrifice until after the winter solstice.) We might therefore falsely conclude that the acolytes of the manmade religion of Al-truism may be gullible, but certainly they aren’t nefarious.
But then a tinpot dictator from the Third World was greeted with all the fanfare of a saviour, and as he spoke, the masque of the red death was lifted. Here is the cheeky chinchilla lookalike in all his kitschy glory:
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ – “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.
If that wasn’t enough to give suburban soda-pop recyclers pause, the cavalcade of communists was punctuated by a visit from the head honcho of hyper-inflation, the mass murdering madman from Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe:
“I have been reading some of the slogans painted in the streets [outside the conference venue]. One said, ‘Don’t change the climate, change the system.’ And I bring that on board for us – let’s not change the climate, let’s change the system. And as a consequence, we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.”
Thus it is apparent that behind the green door of environmentally friendly initiatives like carbon credits and “green jobs” is a red marxist plot of strangling capitalism and sowing the seeds of dictatorship. This comes as no revelation for those of us somehow able to retain the faculty of reason despite the pontification of professors and prophets intent on baptizing the uninitiated in whirlwinds of tempestuous fire. Miraculously, some of us have been able to escape the insanity relatively unscathed; most saliently by engaging our minds and asking the simple question, “Cui bono?” or “Who benefits?”
It can therefore on economic grounds be disputed that the cockamamie climate change hoax is perpetrated by idealistic communists, and instead is being pushed by fascistic oligarchs in the interest of forcing open a new “market” with government-induced theft. After all, this is a fair description of the current debacle of a healthcare “reform” bill in the U.S. senate, which makes it a crime not to purchase government-approved health insurance.
But the relationship of communism to fascism is symbiotic; communism is the window dressing for the unabashed power grab that results from the implementation of marxian principles. Since marxism is detached from reality, no “withering away of the state” ever ensues or can ensue from a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Politically, chaos is the midwife of dictatorship.
The particular manifestation of the doctrine of economic and political madness is therefore irrelevant to the left. An Inconvenient Truth can easily be renamed The Climatologic Manifesto. What is important to the myth-makers on the nihilistic left is that the narrative is believable. This is where the manmade global warming theory falls apart under scrutiny; and why Climategate deals an almost mortal blow to a peaceful eco-fascist movement.
The numerous examples of communism leading to fascism in practice (meaning the control of property by the state and the integration of all spheres of life, including the social, political, and the private) blows to pieces any plausible deniability that the warm-mongers in Copenhagen might make claim to, such as the cover that they are simply misguided miscreants. Wealth redistribution of the kind proposed in Denmark is just another way for the state (or world government as the case may be) to decree that we are going to control who gets what, when, where, why and how, and of course, we’re going to get ours.
We must be aware that neomarxism is the tacit rubric for dozens of fringe “critical theory” movements, including radical environmentalism. While we must take the lesson of eco-fascism deadly seriously, if Climategate and the actual climate data are somehow able to kill this totalitarian movement, we must certainly count that there will be another leftist movement that will take its place. We must be vigilant and armed with the knowledge that the neomarxist hydra has many heads, and at the heart is critical theory.
So while the communist chameleon will go to war wielding many chimeras, it is the job of real men of science and reason to be right there to expose each and every one. But until we get ideological in our reading of altruistic justifications for enhanced state power, ours will be a perpetual pitched battle with collectivist totalitarianism in various guises.
This was posted during the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference.