Monday , 28 July 2014

Global Warming: The ‘Anthropocentric’ Crisis (Part 4: Conclusion)

The global climate warming fuss is not principally an environmental issue but, rather, it is a manufactured crisis supported by copious amounts of manipulated science, reinforced by opinion leaders and promulgated by the cheerleading of the mass media.

Global warming has become the mother of all politically correct issues. Words: 1551

So says Arnold Bock at FinancialArticleSummariesToday.com in an article edited by Lorimer Wilson, editor of munKNEE.com  (It’s all about Money!), for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. Please note that this paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.  

Bock goes on to say:

Various components of the warming cause, which are only tangentially related to the environment, have been outlined at some length in Part 1 (Global Warming: The Man-Made Crisis), Part 2 (U.S. and Canada Are Global Warming Scapegoats) and Part 3 (Why Should WE Make Sacrifices to Offset Global Warming?) of this series. However, it is important to comment on what has been regularly presented as scientific justification for sounding alarm bells over climate change, if for no other reason than to set the record straight.

Global Warming is Not a Proven Fact
Simply put, climate change – originally an emerging new ice age, then global warming and now climate change – is not a proven fact. To sarcastically mimic the affected gravitas of certain warming experts, we might call it an “anthropocentrically manufactured” issue. As mentioned in Part 2, in the late 1960’s the United Nations assigned Canadian Maurice Strong, a man possessed of a strong belief in the merits of global governance and the need to establish transnational governmental institutions, to head up what subsequently came to be known as the global climate change initiative.

Mr. Strong, aptly named in spite of possessing the forgettable demeanour of a faceless bureaucrat, has had a successful career as an entrepreneur, businessman and government executive building impressive business and political connections throughout the world. His skills and contacts have made him personally wealthy. He has been able to knit together an extremely effective network of the world’s decision makers in both government and business. While ideologically anchored, he is a master pragmatist in the pursuit of his objectives.

Who in the world is currently reading this article along with you? Click here to find out. 

Because of his attributes he was the perfect person to place in charge of an issue designed to further advance his goals and those of other believers in global governance. He moves with ease between and within the world’s governments and business sectors. He isn’t threatening…merely effective. In fact, he is so effective that few people even know his name. People in the know such as Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, published an open letter carried on Mr. Strong’s personal website lauding the man’s Homeric attributes. Not least is that he says Mr. Strong is among the world’s leading environmentalists. Google goes even further to designate him “the world’s leading environmentalist.”

Among Mr. Strong’s first tasks was to obtain and distribute funding to the scientific community for climate change research. Credibility provided by science experts, coupled with their academic credentials and computer models, was critical to the success of presenting and portraying global warming as a factual crisis. He made himself its champion. In other words, global warming was presented as a certitude casting about for the scientific imprint to endorse it as fact.

Needless to say, scientific process is corrupted if it isn’t free to explore where the data takes it. Moreover, the data and processes must be freely available and fully open to challenge if its results and conclusions are to be validated. Because scientific research into global warming became a veritable gusher of ever more and larger government and UN funding, the process became corrupted at record speed.

Individual scientists exhibiting normal human frailties frequently tilted their findings to what was expected. Many succumbed to the lure of ever more research funding and professional status. Those at the climate research apex became celebrities whose status and research findings were cited as unassailable proof for the urgent claims of global warming doomsayers. Scientists who wouldn’t pitch to the predetermined conclusions of the warming playbook were elbowed to the fringe only to witness their research funding evaporate as quickly rain water in a desert.

Climate change as an issue was well managed and effectively lubricated with ample funding. Its central operatives were able to turn it into a crisis of truly global scope and proportions publicized by opinion elites everywhere. Anyone exhibiting the temerity to challenge its received wisdom was cut from the climate warming corral. No debate of consequence was welcomed or countenanced regarding the scientific merits of global warming. Everyone was repeatedly assured that the “science proves” that global warming is indeed a fact.

If or when pushed, questioners were informed that “peer review” by scientists had confirmed the conclusions and settled the issue. There was no debate because there was no need for one. Case closed.

Carbon emissions targets had to be set and assigned, and trading in carbon credits needed to begin immediately if the globe’s population was to avert pending climate calamity. The recent Copenhagen, Denmark UN climate conference held in December 2009 was intended to have national governments sign off on their assigned CO2 emissions targets as presented and endorsed in the Kyoto, Japan Protocol of 1997. Full implementation would begin virtually immediately.

Global Warming Science Deception Revealed
Unfortunately, from the perspective of climate change believers and advocates, the equivalent of an atomic bomb blew up in their faces in late November 2009 just prior to the Copenhagen confab. It seems a disgruntled insider at the Climate Change Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England hacked their computer and released some 3,000 documents involving data, research findings and email communications among climate research insiders. What makes this treasure trove so damning is that these particular researchers are among the inner guard of the climate change cause. They are some of the leading figures comprising the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Email communications among these climate expert insiders discusses how to prevent sceptics from publishing their contrary findings in peer reviewed journals. They plotted to destroy and suppress the raw data supporting their findings and conclusions and discussed methods to manipulate inconvenient data to be more supportive of their perspective. These scientists also attempted to hide or delete temperature data when that data didn’t show rapid warming.

IPCC scientists had become super sensitive following conclusions reached independently in 2003 by two Canadian researchers, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Their analyses debunked the infamous “hockey stick” graph, popularized by the research and computer models of Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, which purported to prove that the mean temperatures in the northern hemisphere over the past millennium remained flat until 1900, after which temperatures showed a sharp and continuing rise.

After that scientific and public relations debacle, climate research insiders became increasingly paranoid causing them to quietly suppress and replace numbers and undertake whatever measures necessary to prevent the publication of studies which arrived at conclusions different from those deemed to support the warming consensus.

More troubling yet are quotes like these from the East Anglia University papers. “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t….” “We will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is….” “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

Global Warming’s Climategate is a Slippery Slope
Fallout from the East Anglia University papers continues, with the moniker “Climategate” now usually attached. It has been adopted as the handy abbreviation for this most unfortunate chapter in the corrupt use of the scientific process. Climategate may ultimately prove to be a watershed in the battle for public opinion simply because, until now climate warming advocates had the distinct advantage of claiming most scientific opinion was on their side. That badge of pride seems now to be eroding faster than air escaping from a tire punctured by a sharp spike.

Rapidly rising ocean levels caused by shrivelling polar ice caps had science on its side, until recently. As this piece was being written, the crumbling cascade of scientific certainty has been dealt another lethal blow. Two years ago the UN’s IPCC claimed with great fanfare that climate change would melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That high profile prediction by the climate science establishment was taken as fact emanating as it did from the citadel of so many august climatologists.

What happened to this prediction? Graham Cogley, a Canadian geographer, initiated a process which ultimately revealed that this dramatic prediction was nothing more than a decade old speculative opinion by little known Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain, eight years earlier while responding to a query by the New Scientist magazine. There was no research of any kind behind the opinion.

So why and how is so much conventional scientific wisdom being so thoroughly discredited? Clearly, the scientific process is being shown to have been corrupted, hence the faulty methodology and conclusions but why errors on such a grand scale?

Lord Acton once said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Could it be that access to seemingly unlimited quantities of research money, shielded by the consensus of a cause, might also have the same effect as monopoly power? Perhaps Lord Acton’s words should be updated to read that “power and money corrupts, and a manufactured crisis of global proportions is guaranteed to be corrupt.”

Editor’s Note:

  • Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given as per paragraph 2 above

6 comments

  1. Joel Greer Says:

    May 12th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
    Of all the occupations in the world, I used to value and respect Science most of all.

    Science has always been….until recently…………the ONE occupation on Earth that DID NOT EVER speculate on issues…did not publish opinions about subjects.

    Science has previously DEMANDED EMPIRACLE TRUTH to validate beyond a “shadow of a doubt” any issue before speaking/publishing a scientific “truth”

    Science used to be the most skeptical discipline……and never, ever adopted the attitude of using the “can’t prove a negative” argument………….which is the arena FOOLS have always performed in.

    !st a definition of the word “GLOBAL”: Global means the “entire” Earth….ALL parts of our GLOBE we have named Earth.

    Any idiot can see that some parts the Arctic has gotten warmer.
    The Arctic is NOT our GLOBE…..it is a PART of our globe.

    If the ENTIRE EARTH-GLOBE was warming the sea levels around the ENTIRE globe would be rising. The amount of water on our GLOBE is a finite amount…..and sea levels are not rising.

    The reason that there has not been the rise in sea levels….as “proven science” predicted is very simple:

    The ice cap on Antartica has been INCREASING in size over the last decade. The Antartic ice increase balances out the Artic and northern latitudes ice melting.

    We can not GLOBALLY have Global Warming in the Arctic and Global Cooling in the Antarctic simultaneously. A complete impossibility that can not happen.

    All of the Earth’s “climate” is created by proximity or distance from our heat source….The Sun

    I am referring to climate and not single weather events, or single factor causes.

    There are 4 categories of movement in which our ENTIRE EARTH-GLOBE participates: All 4 are relative to our heat-source SUN.

    Our EARTH GLOBE ;
    - Completes 1 spin every 24 hours
    - Tilts toward and then tilts back every 12 months……creates seasons. The fact that our EARTH GLOBE does not have a rod through the Poles then attached to a stable, unmoving base, and floats in space, means that when our GLOBE tilts forward and then tilts back to it’s original position it never tilts forward to the EXACT same angle and likewise when our GLOBE tilts back, it is impossible to return to EXACTLY the same point the tilt began………….it’s why our weather is never exactly the same every year.
    - Our GLOBE orbits the Sun every 365.25 days
    - Our GLOBE has a 26,000 year cycle of a “wobble” called the Precession.

    In summary: Our EARTH-GLOBE spins, rotates, orbits and wobbles.All of these actions are concerned with proximity to or distance from our heat source…the SUN
    ALL OF THESE FACTORS CAUSE OUR CLIMATE.

    For humans to “change” our CLIMATE would require us to change our EARTH-Globes Spin, Rotation, Orbit, and Wobble.

    Changing any or all of our GLOBES’ actions shouldn’t be hard…should it.

  2. david Says:

    March 10th, 2010 at 12:43 am
    Jennifer,you poor girl.Its unfortunate that mainstream media has fooled you into believing the manipulated data they call global warming.

    You are the one to call someone a nincompoop. The information is anywhwere you want to look if you choose. Instead your one of the passive happies that ultimately allow the gradual loss of what we think are our freedoms.

    Wake up lady,this shit is for real.

  3. Jennifer Hawkings Says:

    February 24th, 2010 at 3:37 am
    Idiot global warming has to be proven??? you can’t see it for yourself??? no wonder this place is a mess with nincompoops like you.

    • Ross Says:

      February 26th, 2010 at 3:18 am
      Yeah Jennifer, believe it or not, that’s how it is if one wants to make drastic, far-reaching changes to political, economic and industrial structures on a super-national level, one hast to have proof.

      I know that’s a really unreasonable demand and that the opinions of celebrities should be enough but some unfair jerks actually insist such claims should be backed up by facts.

      I must admit though, I’m actually having trouble seeing any evidence myself after freezing temperatures destroyed this year’s orange crop in Florida, after an unprecedented blanket of snow recently covered such places as England, continental Europe (even as far south as Spain), Texas and America’s north western sea board, after chief climate scientist have been caught manipulating data, all this during the height of the Copenhagen conference, which itself was snowed out.

      I don’t disbelieve in any of the other forms of harmful industrial pollution nor do I work for big oil or have anything to gain from big oil’s success (in fact it has been some of the most powerful people in big oil who have supported the global warming agenda) so please believe me when I say anthropogenic global warming is bunk made up to hammer through a political agenda of the world’s wealthiest elite.

      Carbon cab and trade effectively pays industrialists if they close factories in Western nations and move their operations to poorer countries, where emission standards are much lower. This serves several ends:
      1.) A third world operation means industrialist can save money by cutting corners and paying employees much less.
      2.) The West can be industrialized, reducing its middle class to the economic level of the third world, making it easier for the ultra-rich to dominate us.
      3.) Possession of carbon credits gives a company leverage over it’s competitors.
      4.) Manufactured resource scarcity justifies what would otherwise be totally unnecessary price hikes, thereby making owners more money for nothing and further contributing to point 2.
      5.) They get to look like heroes to an environmentally conscious public despite the fact that they’re screwing them.

      • Vince Says:

        March 2nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
        @Jennifer Hawkings

        Open your eyes, do some reading – the Earth is actually cooling in the past few years

        • Paul Says:

          March 7th, 2010 at 2:07 am
          Hold on to your hats, folks. If there’s anything I have learned about weather, it is that if it can swing to one extreme, it can also swing to the other.

          Global warming naysayers, like myself have giggled over the extreme winter weather that seemed to begin with an early winter snowstorm in Copenhagen during the summit, and has persisted throughout other high profile locations such as Washington D.C. However, a single season does not a climate make.

          There had to have been warm years during the ice age, or we would still be in it. There will surely be hotter than average, and maybe record warm years on the horizon for both Copenhagen and Washington D.C. which will be used to try to swing public opinion back toward the sentiments about climate change that have been so carefully cultivated over the last generation. A lot of money has been invested in this idea, and the investors are not going to walk away quietly to take their losses.