Will a New Global Agreement Avert Climate Catastrophe, or are We Losing our Freedoms to a Huge Hoax?
By Rick Brinegar
In the months leading up to an historic international climate change conference in Paris, many man-made climate change proponents have been emphatically advancing their cause and denigrating skeptics so vigorously that it has taken on a tone, which borders on religious fervor.
Deny Man-Made Climate Catastrophe–Go to Jail
Even though “the science is settled,”1 and “there is no debate,”2 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and a group of 20 professors have come up with a solution for what to do with those pesky skeptics who continue to question the theory of human-caused global climate change: put them all in jail. “Warmers” want the Obama administration to prosecute global warming “deniers” under the anti-mobster Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),3 as if the skeptics are members of an organized-crime syndicate. In other words, if skeptics can’t be persuaded with facts and logic, the man-made global warming advocates propose that the only alternative is to threaten “deniers” with criminal prosecution. Also, to head off further debate, a leading lawyer has called for the International Court of Justice to decide that man is causing climate change.4
Climate Concern or Global Agenda?
Why all the pressure and bullying? Could it be that the compulsion to conform is taking precedence over scientific debate? Or, could it be even more deceptive than that? Could it be that pushing a globalist political agenda is more important than actually understanding the extent to which human activity influences climate change?
Climate Change Blamed for Epic Destruction and Human Extinction
Climate change has been blamed for receding glaciers, melting the polar ice caps, drowning polar bears, increased hurricane activity, dooming coral reefs, rising sea levels, increasing food shortages, the disappearance of bumblebees and butterflies, mass extinctions and threatening national security. California Governor Jerry Brown dramatically declared at a conference at the Vatican that “the world may have reached a tipping point on global warming, and that humanity must reverse course or face extinction. We have to respond, and if we don’t the world will suffer, we will all suffer,” he continued, “In fact, many people, millions are suffering already.”5
Paris COP21, November 30-December 11, 2015
To forestall this global climate catastrophe, representatives of the governments of 190 nations will gather at the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in November to discuss the creation of an international agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and keep global warming below 2°C.6
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) facilitates the creation of international agreements in response to global warming. The Conference of Parties (COP) is the highest decision-making body of the UNFCC. Hence, the 21st meeting of the body, in Paris, in November, is abbreviated COP21. The UNFCC recognizes anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change and challenges the industrialized countries to bear the major responsibility for combatting it.7
The UNFCC had previously hosted the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, which President Obama has called “a disorganized mess”.8 The 2009 Conference had failed to pass any binding emissions standards but did approve the Copenhagen Accord, a voluntary “political agreement”. It may have been bad timing for the conference, as a blizzard dumped snow on the Copenhagen leaders who were battling warming.9 The Copenhagen conference, however, did take a step closer toward global governance when the content of the failed “consensus draft treaty” revealed the additional goals of a framework for a new world government. Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, characterized the draft 2009 Copenhagen Treaty, the one which failed to pass, as “global government, global wealth redistribution and global enforcement, all without any democratic process whatsoever:”10
UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2015
On August 2, 2015 the 193 member states of the United Nations agreed on 17 new sustainable goals designed to end poverty, promote prosperity and people’s well-being while protecting the environment by 2030. These goals were on the schedule to be formally adopted at the Sustainable Development Summit at the UN headquarters in New York from September 25 – 27, 2015. According to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 website, these new goals are broader than the 2000 Millennium Development Goals which expire at the end of 2015. In fact, the actual title of the 29-page text begins with the phrase, “Transforming Our World…” It had been agreed that the new goals would be “global in nature and universally applicable to all countries…”11 President Obama has said that he is “cautiously optimistic” that leaders will finally reach a formal agreement.12
New Universal Agenda, Blueprint for Global Governance
Michael Snyder notes that, within the body of the first paragraph of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations is planning to launch a “new universal agenda” for humanity. Snyder believes that the 2030 Agenda “truly is a blueprint for global governance,” which encompasses “virtually all areas of human activity.”13
The Man-Made Global Warming Theory “Consensus”
The impact mankind has had on the temperature trends of the planet is known as the “anthropogenic” cause of climate change. The view that man’s combustion of fossil fuels significantly warms the earth’s atmosphere is called the “enhanced greenhouse effect”.14 The anthropogenic or man-made global warming theory has been defined as “…the idea that the earth naturally keeps a stable atmospheric temperature over time, and that human activity, primarily in the form of CO2 emissions from industrial activity is primarily responsible for the unhealthy warming of the earth’s atmosphere.”15 Supporters of this man-made climate change theory frequently assert the existence of a “scientific consensus” favoring their viewpoint. The science of global warming, they say, is “settled”.
Web author Enzi Ferreri does not believe in “scientific consensus” as a method of acquiring knowledge. She believes that, in particular, we should be wary of people who defend the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming by saying that the science on the matter is “settled”. She writes, “Nothing in science is ever ‘settled’. Science thrives on debate and controversy, and is not a democratic process, scientific disputes and disagreements cannot be resolved by opinion polls among the scientists.”16
There is another good reason to not depend upon a “scientific consensus” about climate change. In many instances there really is no consensus. For example, as recently as late September 2015, scientists were unable to agree about whether or not there has been a 15-year abatement in the current warming trend. The Met Office, which is the United Kingdom’s national weather service, reported that “the rate of warming has slowed over the most recent 15 years or so.” This is exactly the opposite of statements from Stanford and NOAA scientists who claimed that the hiatus in warming has never even existed.17
The Climate has Always Changed
There has been a small warming trend of about 1.5 degrees F from 1860 to 1977, and this is only one of the many changes in temperature trends and weather patterns the earth has experienced over time. In his book, The Global Warming Deception: How a Secret Elite Plans to Bankrupt America and Steal Your Freedom, Grant Jeffrey points out that this small increase in temperature happened naturally as the planet recovered from the cooling of the Little Ice Age. “The gradual temperature increase over nearly 150 years,” says Jeffrey, “provided ample time for humanity to adapt to a slightly warmer environment without causing significant problems.”18
The expression “climate change” is redundant and, by implication, misleading. There has never been a period in earth’s history when the climate has not changed. The misleading implication is that climate has ever been stable. The climate has always changed and will always change. According to Harold Ambler, since the end of the last ice age, which scientist say ended about 12,000 years ago, there have been several sub-periods of change. For example, the warm Holocene Optimum (9,000 BC to 3,000 BC), marks the period in which the human race began to flourish. After that was the warm Roman Optimum (200 BC to 400 AD, the cold Dark Ages (400 AD to 900 AD), the Medieval Warm Period (900 AD to 1300 AD), and the Little Ice Age (1300 AD to 1850 AD), followed by our current relatively warm period. (1850 AD to the present)19
Long-Term Variations and Forecast Models Failures
Climate change research deals with very long-term measurements and forecasts, and generally covers the “Holocene” epoch, which began 11,500 years ago. If we want to investigate the impact that mankind has on climate variations, we would have to identify the differences between natural variations and man-made variations over time. There is one big problem with that; we only have accurate global thermometer measurements going back 135 years. Robert Tracinski points to the failure of climate forecasting noting that current temperatures are at, or below, the low range of all of the climate models, and that global climate forecasts have failed to predict the current 18-year-long temperature plateau, an unaccounted for lack of warming. In general, there has been no warming over the past 18 years despite models that predicted otherwise. “Given the abysmal record of climate forecasting,” Tracinski says, “we should tell the warmists to go back and make a new set of predictions, then come back to us in 20 or 30 years and tell us how these predictions panned out.”20
CO2, Dangerous or Harmless?
According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, carbon dioxide is a “naturally occurring, non-toxic and beneficial gas, and it poses no direct threat to public health.” In a 2014 attack on greenhouse gas rules being drafted by the EPA, the ALEC claimed “the EPA is relying on an uncertain assumption that increased carbon dioxide emissions by humans are causing an unprecedented global temperature increase, and an uncertain assumption that the temperature increase will result in worldwide catastrophe in 50 to 100 years.”21
Unproven “Feedback” Mechanisms
Carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot produce “catastrophic” changes by itself. Man-made global warming depends on assumed and unproven “feedback” mechanisms that amplify the effect of carbon dioxide. Human contribution of carbon dioxide is so small (3% annually) that it is virtually impossible that our use of fossil fuels is the major cause of a claimed increase of global temperature.22
Natural or Man-Made Causes?
The man-made global warming position depends on the assumption that nothing like the current phase of warming, which started in the late 19th century, had ever happened before. If the same kind of warming phase had occurred in the recent past, before human activity had caused CO2 levels to rise, then it must have happened naturally. Thus, any similar current warming could also be explained by natural instead of man-made forces.
“Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph
Scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues claimed to show, by the “Hockey Stick” graph, that temperature in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable for 900 years (the shaft of the hockey stick), then abruptly turned upward in the 20th century (the blade of the hockey stick) because of the influence of human activity, thus “proving” that CO2 is currently forcing up global temperatures.
In his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore explained how the famous “Mann Hockey Stick” graph showed that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, conveniently leaving out the truth of such historical variations as the Medieval Warm Period. Then, when he compared the hockey stick graph of temperatures against reconstructed CO2 levels, he noted the two have an obvious correlation. He concluded, “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” However, he made the error of not taking into account that there is an 800-year lag between surface temperature measurements and the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.
A 2006 U.S. senate committee of inquiry, the Wegman Report, concluded, “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [the technical name of the original Hockey Stick paper].”23
Human-Produced CO2 Not a Primary Driver of Climate Change
So then, which happens first, the rise in carbon dioxide or the rise in temperature? The answer is temperature, according to Harold Ambler. “In every case,” says Ambler, “the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years.”24 Carbon dioxide levels always increased after an increase in temperature and not before. Thus, CO2 produced by human activity is not a primary driver of climate change. There are several other variables, however, which can dramatically influence climate change, such as solar irradiance, which could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature.25 Other major natural influences on climate change being investigated include atmospheric aerosol particles and the ocean currents.26
The Greatest Hoax Ever
The man-made climate change theory has been described as a hoax,
a scam and a fraud:
“With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is.” Senate Environmental Chair James Inhofe (R-OK)27
“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.” Weather Channel Founder John Coleman28
“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on…global warming.” Ron Paul, Fox Business, November 4, 200929
“…the greatest fraud in the history of science,”…“The international effort to ‘save’ humanity from the proclaimed threat of an unbearably warm climate is built on lies, manipulated research, the destruction of historical temperature data, and the intimidation and silencing of climate-change critics.” Grant Jeffrey The Global Warming Deception: How a Secret Elite Plans to Bankrupt America and Steal Your Freedom30
The Green Agenda
There is a big difference between caring for the environment, as responsible stewards, and promoting an agenda of fear and control. The “green revolution” has invaded almost every area of human activity to exploit international anxiety over global warming in order to create emotional, political and media support. Consider this selection of statements by fervently dedicated supporters of the man-made global warming theory:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution: the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Club of Rome
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…so we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Professor Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment “Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” Barack Obama, U.S. President “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” David Brower, Founder of Friends of the Earth “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.” Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech31
The Green Religion and Skeptics’ Heresy
Senate Environmental Chair James Inhofe (R-OK), author of The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, has taken his assessment that the man-made global warming theory is a hoax, to another level. In May 2015, Inhofe declared that global warming alarmists are promoting a new religious sect. “Global warming alarmism has evolved into a religion where one is either an alarmist or a skeptic,” he said. “Some people are not aware of those two terms. Someone who has bought into this ‘the world is coming to an end’–they are the alarmists. People who do not believe that, as myself, are skeptics. And being a skeptic is akin to heresy of the highest order. Good policy has to be based on good science, not on religion, and that requires science free from bias, whatever its conclusions may be.”32 He has also remarked on the Senate floor, “… for the alarmists, global warming has nothing to do with science or scientific inquiry. Science is not about the inquiry to discover truth, but a mask to achieve an ideological agenda. For some, this issue has become a secular religion, pure and simple.”33
Suppressing Dissenting Opinions
In 2007, Walter E. Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University, made this alarming accusation about what happens to those who don’t subscribe to the eco-fundamentalist doctrines of human-induced climate change:
There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That’s the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”34
Exaggeration or Unsettling Invention
The threat of man-made global warming may be, at best, exaggerated or, at worst, a complete invention. Perhaps the science that is “settled” has become unsettling. H.L. Mencken wrote, “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”35 Emma Brindal of “Friends of the Earth” wrote, “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”36 The real threat to America and the world may not be so much a climate catastrophe as it is an exploitation of the climate change scare as an excuse for increases in taxation and regulation. Man-made climate change/global warming is a huge fraud designed to ultimately lead to a system of global control.