The Truth about Climate Change: Part II 

“In matters of philosophy and science authority has ever been the great opponent of truth” – W.S. Jevons

This is the second and final part of a two-part series. The first part went over the “science” we are supposed to believe which amounts to nothing more than a bunch of hot air, figuratively. This part will cover the role of the media and the government in alarmism, who supports and profits from such legislation, and what this means for liberty. This is followed up by who the greens are and what they believe, in their own words.


It’s ok to lie if it supports our agenda

Let’s look at some of the claims greens and the media have made:

Claim: Ice caps are melting and polar bears can’t swim (Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth)

Claim: Dragonflies are showing up for the first time in memory in Eskimo villages, a sign of environmental shift (Andrew Revkin, The North Pole Was Here)

  • Truth: There are 31 species of dragonflies in Alaska. In fact, it became the state insect in 1995. This is not a new phenomenon.hurricanes_making_landfall_in_the_us_vs_decade1

Claims: Global warming is causing more severe AND more frequent hurricanes.

  • Truth: False on both accounts. The red line is category 3-5 hurricanes (more severe). The blue line is category 1-2 hurricanes (less severe). The frequency of hurricanes has not increased nor have hurricanes become more severe.

Claim: The ice cap at the North Pole has melted for the first time in over 50 millions years. (Front page of the New York Times in 2000)glacier

Claim: See, there was a glacier here in 1922, and now it’s gone (Greenpeace)

At some point this becomes redundant. The greens can’t stop chasing ghosts in the night. They believe, like Alex Jones, that if they shout it often enough and loud enough it will become true.

However, like natural changes in climate, the media has also naturally fluctuated back and forth between impending ice ages and global warming. Here’s the list of media-induced panics between an impending ice age and an impending global warming since 1895. The list of fluctuations would be far too long for this article, but it is available in the hyperlink if you’d like to see for yourself. The latest reversal was in the 1970s when there was global cooling instead of global warming. Here’s a list of articles written in the 1970s if you don’t believe me and here is the comparison of a January 31, 1977 cover of Time (left) with another from April 3, 2006 (right).times

Given the affinity of the greens to lie as long as it supports their agenda, you shouldn’t take anything they say at face value, or at the very least have a healthy skepticism of their “science”, which often turns out to be propaganda. Once you peel back the first layers of their doublespeak like an onion, it’s not difficult to see that relying on shock value and emotional responses rather than science represents the majority of their argument.


Government legislation, regulations, and the Kyoto Protocol

So now that greens and the government have you believing in global warming, the next step is to tell your government to do something to combat this menace. There’s no shortage of government agencies pushing the agenda, from the Pentagon (“immediate security risk”) to the NOAA. So what exactly are their plans to save us?

  1. Cap-and-trade scheme – This measure would grant government the power to ban all fuels and technologies that emit greenhouse gases. Instead, the government would ration the use all of these things. Companies and individuals would receive CO2 credits that will allow them to purchase a given quantity of greenhouse gas-emitting products.
  2. Carbon tax – The government levies a tax on all carbon-emitting processes, necessarily making them all more expensive to discourage their use. No one would be “rationed” in the strict sense but the cost of cheaper energy productions would skyrocket because they all emit large quantities of CO2 (a natural byproduct of combustion). Producers and consumers must pay more to compensate for the increased tax.
  3. Investing in alternative sources – This calls for utilizing sources of energy that emit less CO2 in order to reduce emissions. This would include solar, ethanol, or wind power, all of which are less efficient and more costly means of energy. The only way for this to occur would be to force energy users to invest in these sources by decree or subsidizing them in order to make their prices to the users cheaper than carbon-based energy sources.

Notice how all of their schemes involve sacrifices (financially and from standard of living) by the taxpayers? All 3 of these schemes require intentionally lowering our standard of living by paying more for energy. We must purchase carbon credits on top of the cost of purchasing energy. We must pay the additional tax on top of the cost of energy. We must pay more for less efficient alternative energy sources. If they are subsidized, we pay for the subsidy through higher taxes. And freedom of consumption? Forget about it.

Let’s look at countries that did agree to curb greenhouse gas emissions, by international treaty. I am talking of course about the 55 countries that ratified the first Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For this initial protocol, 55 countries ratified the treaty, and it expired in 2012. An extension was drafted to extend the protocol to 2020. If curbing emissions was a good idea, then we should expect the same if not more countries to ratify the extension. But how many people have ratified the extension so far? A grand total of 3.

The Clinton administration came out with a report in 1998 about the protocol. In it, the report claimed that if the U.S. had to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, it would cost the U.S. 900,000 jobs by 2005. This figure would have risen to 1.1 million by 2012. GDP would also shrink by an estimated $397 billion by 2010. Furthermore, even by reducing our energy use by 2100, electricity rates would still increase between 20%-80%. Another research report from CONSAD is more dramatic on unemployment and a little less dramatic on GDP. Bjorn Lomborg of The Skeptical Environmentalist adds that complying with the Kyoto Protocol would cost the world as much as $274 trillion by the year 2100.

All of this is done in the name of what? According to Lomborg, a dedicated green, a 0.15° decrease in global temperatures by 2100 or a 1.2° C decrease by 2300. These are the figures from the greens themselves. As I mentioned before, you should take nothing they say at face value. The actual numbers would require higher costs than led to believe for less consequential effects than predicted.

How can we be sure that greens aren’t just fear mongering? Let’s just ask green guru and internet creator Al Gore, in an interview with Grist magazine:

“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is”.

This is not a new theme for greens. In 1968, greenie Paul R. Ehrlich wrote a Malthusian book titled The Population Bomb. In it, he argues that we will experience mass starvation due to overpopulation in the 1970s and 1980s, and advocated for immediate measures to be taken. Of course, none of his predictions came true, so you would think he would admit his alarmist faults. Yet, he still claims (as of 2008) that too many people consuming too much per capita will result in “global heating” and the “degradation of the natural systems”.


Who supports and profits from the alarmism

Who is against the green agenda? Al Gore would have you believe that it’s the rich, the right, and the energy industries, like those dirty oil companies. This is reiterated time and time again by leftists and greens in both news reports and social media. Of course, like most of the claims by greens, this isn’t quite the truth.

The reality is that large corporations are some of the biggest advocates of green policies. The irony is rich coming from Al Gore as he denounces big businesses and energy companies, even though lobbyists from Enron, an energy company that famously imploded, held several meetings with the Clinton/Gore team, including meetings on shaping climate change policy like Kyoto that will “be good for Enron stock!” as per Enron emissary John Palmisano.

Duke Energy called for a carbon tax in 2005. CEO Anderson explains:

“I believe U.S. public policy on global climate change should encourage a transition to a lower-carbon-intensive economy through a broad-based, mandatory approach”

This can’t possibly be due to the fact that Duke Energy has legal monopolies on energy production for certain areas and consumers have no choice but to pay a higher rate due to a carbon tax. Also note the operative word “mandatory”.

BP started their “Beyond Petroleum” campaign in 2001, trying to rebrand themselves as a greener oil company. The translation of this is that BP invested heavily in renewables and they were not profitable. Much like other “Corporate Social Responsibility” schemes, they work the soft angle of business relations to give people a feel-good, much like people “feel good” about recycling. So what does any good company do when it is not profitable? It lobbies the government for subsidies. In fact, it is several energy companies that lobby government for wind subsidies. Included in this is, would you guess, BP, along with GE and other smaller energy companies that diversified heavily into wind energy.

In all fairness, some oil companies lobby against wind subsidies and other green technologies (primarily because they didn’t invested in the unprofitable technology), but saying that all oil companies are against green energy legislation is simply not true. Those oil companies that have diversified investments into green energy sectors do lobby for them. BP is the prime example. All of these companies are not lobbying for or against environmental issues, they are all lobbying to restrict competition.

Companies aren’t the only ones profiting. We must not forget the money that greens make selling books, movies, or other technologies about or relating to climate change alarmism. Nor should we forget the usual suspects of politicians and the over $6 billion of funding (as of 2010) the U.S. spends for “climate research”.


The only way to save the planet is to concede your liberty

“The government is always only a minority and can govern the majority only because the latter either is convinced of the legitimacy of the rulers or considers their rule desirable in its own interests” – L. Mises

Alas, we can finally get down to what this means for liberty. The argument for green legislation rests on what John Locke would call the prerogative of government. He gives the example of a private house in a neighborhood. If a house catches on fire and runs the risk of spreading to other houses in the neighborhood, it would be government prerogative to implode the house in order to prevent the fire from spreading, protecting the properties of other homeowners.

The problem is that government can only exercise this prerogative if the majority is convinced of the legitimacy of the rulers or considers their rule desirable. The majority of the green propaganda is to attain these ends. It is to convince the majority that the concerns of the government are legitimate and that their legislation is desirable to our own interests. “This is for your own good; trust us”.

Given the magnitude of dishonesty and overwhelming evidence contrary to the popular narrative, this line of reasoning remains untenable. There is no concrete evidence proving humans are causing any warming outside the scope of natural warming and cooling cycles of the Earth. There is no concrete evidence linking CO2 or any other greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. We can’t even prove that global temperatures are even at their highest levels, nor do we see increasingly severe weather or fluctuations.

Lowering our standard of living by adhering to green regulations in order to combat global warming is as futile as King Canute commanding the waves. It will do nothing to alter in any way the natural fluctuations of Earth’s climate. The legislation is nothing more than handing what liberties remain over to the government under the ruse of the latest alarmism. Private property and consumption must be relegated by government decree. We must voluntarily lower our standard of living and give up what gains of economic progress we have made. The individual is destroyed and only the state remains.


The greens unmasked

So what are the greens really about? What are they really pushing for? Well, let’s look at what they are or aren’t pushing for, in their own words. I purposely give several examples so that we can get a clear and full picture.

Paul R. Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb:

Amory Lovins, environmentalist:

Matt Lauer, MSNBC host:

Lamont Cole:

Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund:

Louis Proyect, programmer at Columbia University and unrepentant Marxist:

David Foreman, eco-warrior of Earth First!:

John Shuttleworth, founder of Mother Earth News:

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment:

Jacques Chirac, former President of France:

Club of Rome, global think tank and consultants to the United Nations:

Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator and President of the UN Foundation:

These are all real quotes, from real greens, in their own words. They are all legitimate. Click the links and see for yourself.

So what can we deduce of the green agenda?

The greens are against capitalism, industrial and economic growth, technological advances, and clean/cheap energy. They think that the Earth is overpopulated and that we are consuming too much per capita. They believe that the price of energy should be more expensive in order to reduce consumption and discourage further population increases by raising the cost of living, if not by more nefarious means. They despise the rich, and American wealth, and wish to use the means of centralized power, global governance if possible, to force justice and equality on the population. In order to attain their ends, the means are justified under the ruse of combating global warming and other environmental threats, even if all the science is phony.

The green agenda is really nothing more than another reanimated form of socialism on the way to communism. In short, the greens are watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.


A call to ideological arms

We as a people must come together to defend Western civilization. We must not be afraid to defend it. It’s not enough to denounce alarmism on scientific grounds, because it’s not about science. That is the price we must pay if we wish to maintain our individual liberties. It’s liberty vs. tyranny, capitalism vs. socialism. They are mutually exclusive. As Mises said, freedom is indivisible. Private property was the foundation of unprecedented economic growth. To maintain economic progress and further increase our standard of living, we must defend capitalism and the market economy, the only safeguard to preserving the bonds of social cooperation.

“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing” – A. Jackson

 

 

If you learned from or felt inspired by this article, feel free to show your appreciation.