The question that is inevitably asked of us these days is, “Do you believe in global warming?”
Now for most of us this is indeed a question of faith because very few of us have sufficiently interrogated the science on the matter as to be sufficiently informed to be able to objectively make a rational decision on the matter. And indeed some scientists without an axe to grind will readily confess that the complexity of climate change is such only a fool could possibly declare “the science is settled”.
(Prominent scientist Steven Koonin whose resume includes being chief scientist at BP and then Barack Obama’s undersecretary for science, has titled his recent book Unsettled.)
Unfortunately the Western world has been brainwashed to believe that global warming is a cataclysmic phenomenon which will inevitably destroy civilisation as we know it resulting in unprecedented human death and misery. This is taught in our schools and propagated in our popular media. Yet the prognostications of doom so fervently promoted in the last thirty years or so have never eventuated. If temperatures have changed the differences are hardly discernible. If sea levels have risen hardly anyone has noticed.
Teaching our youth such nonsense which cultivates existential fear is paramount to child abuse.
But of course this is not the first time in recent history that doomsayers have predicted cataclysmic outcomes. In the 1960’s the Club of Rome warned that many of our critical resources would be exhausted by the year 2000, Then Paul Erlich in his Malthusian diatribe warned that our growing population would overwhelm us with famine and starvation. Then it was the hole in the ozone layer. And after that we were told that “peak oil” would arrive and with it energy deficits that would render modern economies impotent.
Hence, just like religion, becoming a climate change disciple requires a leap of faith because the science which supposedly supports the premise is far from convincing.
One of the problems with the global warming hypothesis is that the protagonists tend to rely on weather observations. Such observations have only been common for the last three hundred years or so.
The Greenland Ice Core project has yielded some interesting results that help explain why the global warming hypothesis has been wrongly but enthusiastically propagated. According to the analysis by the scientists running this project, 8,000 years ago the temperature in Greenland was some 2.5 degrees centigrade warmer than today. There was then a marked decrease in temperature until about 2000 years ago (the Roman Period). Temperatures then increased again to the medieval warming period around 1000 years ago. It was during this time the Vikings ventured north to settle Greenland. After that there were recorded various temperature fluctuations ending with the Little Ice Age where temperatures bottomed around 1875.
Interestingly, this was about the time that temperatures were beginning to be consistently recorded. So our reasonably reliable measurements of temperature began when our temperatures were the lowest that they had been for thousands of years. It is not surprising therefore that, without a proper understanding of the prehistory of the world’s temperatures that observers might have rushed to the conclusion that the earth was warming. Indeed it was warming but not in any alarming way if the long term trends were understood.
Now there are many problematic issues associated with climate change. In this short essay I will just raise a few of these.
To begin with if man made emissions are the problem (and I suspect they’re not) the solutions posited by the climate alarmists are unlikely to solve it. If we eliminate carbon emissions the predictions are that global temperatures will only reduce minimally. According to research by the Climate Depot the Paris Agreement would theoretically postpone global warming by a mere four years but cost $100 trillion
Now, worryingly, if we look at the proscribed measures that are being promoted to reduce global warming they seem little different to the measures suggested in the 1970’s to counter the fear of global cooling.
The fear of global cooling in that era created the same existential angst that global warming now elicits.
In his book Green Fraud Marc Morano recalls that:
A 1975 Newsweek article titled “The Cooling World” warned that the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. The magazine explained that scientists “are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climate change is as profound as some pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climate change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences.
Now it is quite obvious that the climate change religion (whether it is forecasting global warming or global cooling relies on the same subterfuge as fundamentalist religions – existential fear. If we don’t toe the line to conform with the dogma our future is seriously in doubt. And the dogma is spread and shared through conferences and demonstrations rather than church sevices.
But there is a far more insidious side to global warming. The high priests are driven by an ideology that is seldom articulated. It is comparable to the so-called “Mystery Religions” of the past where an inner sanctum had access to the “mysteries” denied to the rank and file adherents.
What might the mystery ideology underpinning the Global Warming Religion be? I can’t be sure, not being a high priest (in fact I have on occasions been identified as an infidel and labelled a “denier”), but an analysis of their intended actions to ward off global warming makes it relatively easy to identify a few common themes.
In summary I would suggest the mystery ideology is:
- In favour of centralised control.
- Consequently, pro-socialism.
- Anti-pathetical to wealth creation.
- Consequently, supportive of wealth redistribution.
- Pro-environmentalism even at the expense of human quality of life issues.
- Consequently, happy to advance environmental causes ahead of human welfare.
- Consequently, under the guise of dealing with climate change prepared to advance socially progressive ideas.
Typical of the progeny spawned by such an ethos is Joe Biden’s Green New Deal. Newspaper reports declare that
The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.
The Washington Post was critical of the Green New Deal. It wrote:
We can’t afford bad ideas.
We favour a Green New Deal to save the planet.
They should not muddle this aspiration with other social policy such as creating federal jobs guarantee, no matter how desirable that policy might be……There are lots of bad ideas out there. The Green New Deal that some democrats have embraced is a case in point.
It went on to suggest that the Green New Deal was a political tool to help shift the Democrats further to the left.
Now the climate warriors have been emboldened. They have seen in the wake of the COVID19 crisis convincing evidence that Western democracies no longer hold their essential freedoms dear but are easily convinced to relinquish them when the population is fearful enough. Their challenge now is to ramp up their rhetoric about the disastrous consequences of global warming so that they can convince governments to impose on their citizenry mandates and restrictions to further their ideological cause. If they get their way our freedoms will be further under threat.
And if this is not enough there is a new threat which unapologetically is opposed to capitalism and our Western way of life. It is called the Great Reset. It was initiated by the chairman and founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schaub. Schaub maintains that a Great Reset of capitalism is needed to fight COVID and climate change. Schaub believes that the coronavirus has given us an opportunity to pursue equality and sustainability. The approach is supported by that intellectual giant, Prince Charles!
Whilst we have had our freedoms curtailed by COVID we must concede that our governments were acting to ameliorate the dire consequences of a dreadful disease. I don’t see the evidence to suggest that climate change is effecting us anywhere near as direly as COVID. However you can rest assured that the climate change catastrophists will continue to assail us with their own visions of Armageddon to help promote their own fundamentalist religious doctrine.