Take Mark Steyn telling Fox News that “[ISIS leader] al-Baghdadi will be sawing’ head off, and he’ll be saying as his neck is being sliced, ‘If only we’d had an emissions trading scheme.'”
Worse than that, though, these claims are fraudulent. They represent a deliberate conspiracy by our political class (and their amen corner in the media) to mislead us about the relative urgency and risks of the threats facing us in the coming years.
To anyone with even half an eye on world events, it’s perfectly obvious that there are many more desperate problems – fundamentalist Islam, say – than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. So why do our political class persist in pretending to us, in defiance of all the evidence, that “climate change” represents the only global issue serious enough to justify the convening of a conference like the recent one in Paris attended by 40,000 delegates and the leaders of over 150 nation states?
The answer to this is too complicated for one sentence – for the full story read this book – but the consequences can be summed up in two words: global governance.
This was always the masterplan of the sinister Marxist billionaire who invented the global warming scare – Maurice Strong. (You can read more about him here and here). Environmentalism, he understood early on, was the perfect excuse to override the democratic process: after all, when the future of the world is at stake, it only makes sense to ignore the little people and concentrate power in the hands of enlightened technocrats like Maurice Strong and his eco-fascistic control freak pals….
Here’s how he once put it:
The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental co-operation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of global environmental security.
There’s the plan: One World Government in the name of “global environmental security”. And it’s happening across the world right now. Never mind the facts that COP21 was a bit of a flop and that the Pope’s encyclical on the environment was widely ridiculed. The great global governance caravan is trundling on regardless: it’s now a business, remember, worth $1.5 trillion a year. There are an awful lot of snouts stuck in that trough and they’re not about to leave it any time soon.
Yet it’s something that is almost never mentioned in the mainstream media. How many times have you read or heard, anywhere in the MSM, about Agenda 21? It has been the guiding force behind most environmental policy across the world since it was born at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (established by Maurice Strong) which in turn spawned all the big eco conferences we’ve had since, such as the recent COP21 in Paris. But no one ever talks about it. It just sounds like too much of a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory.
And that, I’m afraid, is also part of The Plan. Anyone who dares question the “consensus” on global warming – see Media Matters above – is dismissed as a fruitcake: journalists are marginalised, scientists lose tenure or funding, politicians are denied preferment, businesses lose contracts. Speaking out against climate change is the modern equivalent of being Galileo before the Inquisition…
So that’s going to be one of my jobs in 2016 – telling it like it is,
I consider it both a pleasure and privilege.
The Associated Press struggles mightily to avoid admitting that the Paris “climate conference” was a very expensive dystopian fantasy, in which world leaders soaked their taxpayers and also spewed vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere with their luxury jets, just to hold the world’s largest “Mad Max” live-action role-playing game:
If governments are serious about the global warming targets they adopted in Paris, scientists say they have two options: eliminating fossil fuels immediately or finding ways to undo their damage to the climate system in the future.
The first is politically impossible — the world is still hooked on using oil, coal and natural gas — which leaves the option of a major cleanup of the atmosphere later this century.
Yet the landmark Paris Agreement, adopted by 195 countries on Dec. 12, makes no reference to that, which has left some observers wondering whether politicians understand the implications of the goals they signed up for.
It’s great to be a left-wing movement with 100 percent support from the mainstream media, isn’t it?
Climate alarmists set goals that would require the immediate halt of all human industry as we know it, and the AP thinks it’s just “politically impossible” because the stupid, greedy, selfish proles of the word are still “hooked on using oil, coal, and natural gas.” The alarmists admit their true agenda would involve the primitivization of the industrialized world—but we’re the problem, because we’re too short-sighted to go along with it.
These political hacks wasted vast amounts of money to hold a meeting that established literally impossible goals to solve a “problem” no one can prove is happening, but the press refuses to smother them with the ridicule they richly deserve.
The taxpaying citizens of every nation involved in the Paris conference should be absolutely livid about this extravagant waste of their resources—at least, those fortunate enough to live in nations where it’s still legal to express anger at the government and its weird climate-change state religion.
Those taxpaying citizens should also compare the impossible goals of Paris to the extravagant tribute that will be extracted from them by the Church of Global Warming and understand that all the sacrifices they’re expected to make, all the costs they’ll be forced to shoulder, are insignificant compared to what climate alarmists really think their crackpot computer models are telling them. The Little People are being bullied, cajoled, and often compelled to reduce their quality of life for what amounts to symbolic efforts against global warming.
Actual scientists have little use for symbolic effort, but climate change is about politics, not science.
Of course the politicians of Paris and their pet pseudo-scientists know their citizens would react with derision and horror if their actual goals were made public. Because this is a political process, those zero- and negative-emission targets are viewed as an opening bid, a cudgel of fear that can be used to beat skeptics into silence. The politicians will take whatever they can actually get and then demand more, time and again, because no matter what we give the Church of Global Warming, it will always be able to say we have not given enough to stave off the apocalypse.
Such a game plan is irrational to actual scientists, who see little point in demanding 1 percent of what is actually needed today and another 1 percent next year, ad infinitum. But it makes perfect sense to politicians! In fact, it’s just about the perfect model of creeping statism: A demand that can always be portrayed as breathlessly urgent, demanding immediate thoughtless compliance, but can never be completely fulfilled.
What they truly want would do a lot more than merely “conflict” with priorities such as “eradicating hunger.” It would end human industry as we know it, given the current state of technology. Cars and airplanes would become impossible luxuries, reserved for the very rich and powerful, as would reliable electric power. The mass production of many items would be halted. Advanced economies would collapse into chaos. Feeding our own populations would become very expensive without carbon-emitting industrial agriculture, nevermind “eradicating hunger.”
Our media does us an enormous disservice by helping these climate lunatics pretend to be reasonable people with difficult demands. They want the end of the world as we know it, to prevent the end of the world as they imagine it. In fact, the AP concedes their goal is “so ambitious — some would say far-fetched, that there’s been very little research devoted to it. In Paris, politicians asked scientists to start studying how it can be done.”
We should resolutely insist that climate alarmists be completely honest with the public about how much their expensive boondoggles would actually do to alleviate the Armageddon they are predicting. And, if the public makes a rational decision that the cost of such measures far outweighs their insignificant benefits, their judgment should be respected.
Of course, climate alarmists have no intention of giving the public a chance to exercise such judgment.
Post a Comment