How The Human Induced Climate Change Fraud Began and Why Some People are Easily Manipulated to Believe That There is a “Climate Crisis”.
The belief that the Earth faces an unprecedented and imminent catastrophic threat from human induced climate change has been one of the most extraordinary episodes in the entire history of either science or politics.
It has led scientists and politicians to contemplate nothing less than a complete revolution in the way mankind sources energy required to keep modern industrial civilisation functioning by phasing out the fossil fuels on which that civilisation was built.
The global warming/climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “saving the planet.” Its roots lie in an environmental movement of the 1970’s. This movement realised that doing something about claimed man-made global warming would play to quite a number of the left’s social agenda. The Club of Rome (environmental consultants to the UN), made up mainly of scientists and academics, used computer modelling to warn that the earth would run out of finite resources if population growth was left unchecked. They came up with the following statement:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that... the threat of global warming.... would fit the bill.”
The Club of Rome produced “The limits of growth” in 1972. It predicted a dire future for mankind unless...... “We act now.”
Margaret Mead, anthropologist, organised a 1975 North Carolina conference. The conference concluded that anthropogenic (human produced) Carbon Dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made global warming to force cutbacks in industrial activity, and halt third world development.
Then we had Maurice Strong, founding member of UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) , and then the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, under the premise of studying ONLY human CO2 driven causes of global warming. Here are two statements he made:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about.” (UNEP)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. (Rio Earth Summit)
Ingrid Newkirk, a co-founder for the ethical treatment of animals, states:
“Mankind is a cancer. We are the biggest blight on the face of the Earth. If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions of Earth dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental.”
Well, what a load of rubbish. Every animal species would breed like rabbits. Each species would exhaust their food supply. Then we have survival of the fittest. Stronger species would kill off weaker species and with no curb on the stronger species they would also eventually exhaust their food supply and so on.
We even had the Pope chiming in with his Laudate Si. “A very solid scientific CONSENSUS indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.”
He goes on to mention a constant rise in sea level, melting of the polar ice caps (both of them), Carbon Dioxide pollution, and acidification of the oceans.
Current sea level rise is about 1.5 mm per year. The polar ice caps are still there. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. The ocean has been alkaline for many millions of years and still is. There’s that word “consensus.” Consensus isn’t science and science isn’t consensus. It’s like me standing in front of a group of people and saying: “put up your hand if you think humans are causing global warming.” So they all put up their hands. So you have a consensus. Is that proof? NO of course not.
So we have a totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of saving the planet. The motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical eco-zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, growth and freedom with the misguided fear of over-population a principal driver. Their solution is to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic, and political structures across the globe.
Note what the caption under the photo says:
UN CLIMATE CHIEF SAYS “COMMUNISM IS BEST TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING.” It also says: THE UN’S REAL AGENDA IS A NEW WORLD ORDER UNDER ITS CONTROL
Dr Ottmar Endenhoffer, a member of the IPCC said this at an interview in 2010:
“We, the UN/IPCC redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more.”
SO WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE GET SUCKED IN BY THIS FRAUD?
About forty years ago, an eminent Professor of psychology at Yale University, Irving Janis, produced a book called GROUPTHINK. Janis defined scientifically just how what he called GROUPTHINK operates, according to three basic rules. What this narrative tries to show is the astonishing degree to which they explain so much that many have long found puzzling about the global warming story.
Rule 1: The first rule is that a group of people come to share a particular way of looking at the world which may seem hugely important to them but which turns out not to have been based on looking properly at all the evidence. It is therefore just a shared, untested and totally unscientific belief.
So remember, we had the Club of Rome which decided that the world’s population was too great and could not be sustained. They relied on the Malthusian idea that population increased exponentially and that food supplies increased in a linear fashion.
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64...... etc is exponential, while 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...... etc is linear.
Malthus did not think that much more efficient ways of producing food would evolve and we also had birth control if necessary.
Rule 2: Because they have shut out their minds to ANY evidence which might contradict their belief, they like to insist that it is supported by a “consensus”. The one thing those caught up in Groupthink cannot tolerate is that anyone should even question it.
We remember National MP Maureen Pugh who said she was yet to see the evidence for human caused climate change. The Groupthink National party, led by Luxon, a good mate of James Shaw, tore her to bits over that comment, and like Galileo she was forced to retract.
Rule 3: Because their belief is ultimately subjective, resting on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying an irrational dismissive hostility towards anyone daring to question it. Anyone holding a contrary view must simply be ignored, ridiculed, and dismissed as not worth listening to.
Here is an example that reflects Rule 3. The consensus was that polar bear numbers were declining due to lack of ice. (The global warming scam). In fact, Susan Crockford, highly qualified, and with many years studying polar bears, declared that their numbers were actually increasing. She was victimised and lost her job. She is one of probably many thousands.
So we had in the late 1980’s the false and manufactured belief that the rise in Carbon Dioxide levels was causing the Earth to warm.
At the Rio Earth summit in 1992 global warming became the international scientific and political “consensus”.
The consensus continued right through till 1998, helped by the fraudulent Mann Hockey stick and Al Gore’s Book; An Inconvenient Truth. Cracks started to appear in 1998 because the Earth entered a hiatus period when the temperature did not rise with increasing Carbon Dioxide levels. Slowly, highly qualified scientists who were outside Groupthink, started to speak out. Between 2009 and 2010 the consensus suffered three serious blows.
· The release of the climategate E-mails
· A series of scandals that showed claims in the 2007 IPCC report were not based on science at all, but on claims made in press reports and false reports by climate activists.
· Despite supporters of the consensus such as the BBC and the UK Met office trying to keep the alarm going, it became clear it was no longer possible to keep the hysteria going.
But various individuals such as NZ’s James Renwick, a member of the IPCC, who comes on TV periodically, and tells us global warming is still continuing, along of course with Green party leader James Shaw, try to keep the global warming scam going.