The War on Choice A Global Climate Change: Part III

“Environmentalism is socialism revived; the Greens are the Reds incarnated,” writes columnist Ilana Mercer, who quotes economist George Reisman as explaining: “A global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat alleged global problems.”

All human actions and interactions are fundamentally political. In every age there are those who are poised to act, either by planning or by circumstance, in the name of “the greater good.”

Those few that see themselves as more intelligent, discerning, educated, or physically gifted often wish to make the critical decisions for the future of the majority. This is not necessarily evil by intention, although it can be. It is simply the end result of living in a fallen world.

The elite few that are in position to dictate the direction of our political future (for our personal good, of course) are actively involved in producing an environment where we will be “forced” to do what they determine is in our own best interests.

This struggle for control, between the “elite” few and the “less capable” majority has existed regionally since Adam and Eve exited the Garden. These end times are proving to be a pivotal time where it is technologically and politically possible to control the whole system.

With this control, the solutions to the world’s problems could be dictated to an “unruly and uneducated” population. Thus, this would ensure that the “right people” would be in the “right positions” without competition. Any contrary view could then be defined as unsupportive of “the greater good” and eliminated.

The problem has always been finding an issue in which the entire world’s population would relinquish individual choice in favor of their own self-preservation. With such a diversity of cultures and philosophical beliefs worldwide, only a threat to the very existence of life on Earth has given hope to the elitists that this might be the time and the issue.

There Can Be Only One

How do the few control the many? The many must be “trained” that when they act appropriately, their self interests will be supported. And, conversely, when their actions are considered negative, they are denied this support. To accomplish maximum control you must first control the resources of those needs. The most fundamental needs are food, water, and air.

The present nation-state system is not conducive to global controls, so national sovereignty must be eliminated. Because human group behavior is predominately built upon fulfilling self-interests, local and ethnic populations will always act in defense of locally and ethnically beneficial causes. This is also true for individuals.

Alliances (treaties) of self interests among the most powerful of the nation-states must be instituted by the local elite. Local and regional populations must be encouraged to agree that their interests are shared. This does not necessarily happen instantly. Several failed attempts may be needed before the local “many” are convinced of the benefits of agreement.

Then, regions must activate these same alliances and attained agreements until there is only one agreement. This does not have to include everyone. Those nation-states that control resources can dictate to the less advantaged.

By carefully balancing threat and supplies, populations can be kept controlled and quiet (fat and sassy). This isn’t a complicated or unknown process. It does, however, require the proper unifying threat. The latest attempt, and there have been many, is the War on Sudden Global Climate Change (Global Warming). We have been victims of the marketing blitz for the last couple of years. The cry of “The sky is warming! The sky is warming!” has reached an ever-increasing crescendo.

A History of Crises - Try, Try Again

In the last hundred years, many have attempted to produce the necessary hysteria to bring about a one-world government paradigm. In order to elicit an emotional response, these successive attempts at “social adjustments” have been labeled “wars.”

This succession of cultural “wars” has had many failures in attracting enough support to accomplish their intended purpose. Each attempt has had its shortfalls and has ultimately fallen short of producing the necessary global hysteria.

Appealing to the altruistic nature of man-and his guilt-one of the more prominent “wars” was the “War on Poverty.” The world’s population was asked to agree that, at the sacrifice of the wealthy few, the majority would be assured of their “right” to attain an equal level of material and economic lifestyle.

This obviously failed due to a misunderstanding of the nature of man. The church had always attempted to support the disadvantaged. The world aspired to it, but was soon distracted by other-less self-sacrificing-causes.

Since the elite realized the benefits of social agreement, there has been a steady succession of attempts at a globally agreed upon cause that would entice us to turn from our “petty” territorialities toward a more enlightened and controllable paradigm.

As a result of the War on Communism (early 1940s), the War on Poverty (early 1960s), the War on War (late 1960s), the War on Drugs (early1980s), the War on Terror (early 2000s) and many smaller “wars” in between, we have become so desensitized by this process of perceived threat/global solution that we are numb to the underlying consequences and risks of global agreement.

A Penny for Your Thoughts

Those in support of our current “war” are only pawns of the world-wide global warming industry. Global warming has become an industry of considerable scale. In just the last three years (from 2004-2006), the United States government spent over $15.7 billion on global warming issues.¹

Although a small portion of this has gone toward international support for climate change projects, the majority has been spent on the scientific study of the subject (or what could be construed to be related to global warming). This produces a culture within the scientific community that no longer seeks discovery but grant monies.

With such sums of money available, a seductive corruption occurs-the next grant is assured only if the research findings agree with the preordained conclusions. The borrower becomes the slave of the lender. To justify a weak scientific position, the scientist must abandon the very foundational principles of his discipline by ignoring any contrary voice or data.

Discussion is neither tolerated nor allowed. Those insisting on holding divergent views are vilified and isolated without fundamental examination.

In 1996, at the U.N. meeting that released the Second Assessment Report, Mohamed T. El-Ashry, CEO and chairman of the Global Environment Facility, released its quarterly report. He told the delegates that his agency had leveraged $462.3 million into $3.2 billion in climate change projects.

And that was just the beginning. In the last decade, billions and billions of dollars have been spent by governments and foundations on research and mitigation programs related to global warming. To these endless bureaucracies, recipients of grant awards from government and non-government organizations, it is imperative that the global warming hysteria continue-to prime the funding pump that provides their livelihood.

Ethical Failure in a “Me” World

Science-pure science-is defined by a search for the truth about the reality in which we live. Very strict standards of behavior were instituted to defend against polluted, subjective data mixing with what might provide a clearer understanding of the nature of our universe. The conclusions are only as good as the objective data that stands behind them.

Complicating matters is the fact that we live in a time of relativism. The very existence of truth itself is being challenged. These two paradigms are in direct opposition. Pure science requires investigation until the truth is found. Relativism requires only situational truth that changes according to the observer.

Rather than choosing one or the other, the majority of the population has been led to believe that you can have both at the same time. Whichever paradigm is convenient for self-interest at the moment is emphasized. This allows greater latitude in one’s accepted behavior, but at the same time it creates a fertile environment for both self and corporate deception.

These vast amounts of grant monies provide the temptation of becoming one of the elite few in payment for scientific compromise. Historically, scientific disagreement is not only expected but desired as a means of “peer” review. But when discussion and contrary data is vilified and excluded, this is an indication of becoming “the very thing that you hate.” True science is the victim and intellectual honesty and integrity is lost.

Desperate Opportunity

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.

H.L. Mencken

World government was an ideal thought-in an ideal world. We don’t live in an ideal world. Instituting and legislating “goodness and cooperation” to a population that is constantly torn between motives of survival, greed and self interest is, and was, doomed from the beginning.

Our curse is that in all our weaknesses we recognize what we “should be.” We attempt noble endeavors only to fall short again and again. One such noble endeavor was the United Nations. As soon as it became a large-budget bureaucracy, it took on a life of its own. This included a desire to survive at all costs. Its initial noble integrity was lost to power and money.

With a track record of international administrative failures and the rise of the E.U., the role of the U.N. as a major influence in world affairs has waned. It has, as an organization, been desperately seeking a “unifying” issue that will once more give it cause and direction.

In 1988 the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change² was established to evaluate the threat of global warming. In 1990 it released its First Assessment Report of the threat. Essentially, it concluded that atmospheric processes were so little understood that neither cloud formation, warming, or cooling could be predicted, much less their effects understood, whether human or natural. They simply said they didn’t know. This was after a two-year project to investigate relevant data and interrogate authorities.

After a five-year delay, in 1995 a Second Assessment Report³ was written by a highly regarded array of educators and climate scientists with the hope that technology had advanced enough to make a determination. The results were the same. Due to a continued lack of understanding, they simply didn’t know.

But wait! Two days before the release of the assessment, the U.N. administration completely rewrote the panel’s executive summary, now confirming a human cause to CO₂ buildup and consequent warming of the atmosphere. The lead author of the report, B. D. Santor, acting with the consent of the co-chairman of the Working Group, John Houghton, and with the consent of the executive secretary of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Michael Cutajar, changed the report significantly, without the approval of the scientists. Somewhere, a political decision was made.

When the signing scientists learned of this violation of scientific protocol, they protested quite publicly-but to no avail. Dr. Freidrich Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said:

I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. Nearly all the changes worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard global warming claims.⁴

On July 10, 1996, a hundred distinguished scientists, meeting in Leipzig, Germany, released a joint statement, which said:

There is still no scientific consensus on the subject of climate change. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever.⁵

Again, in 2001, the Third Assessment Report⁶ was published with similar inconclusive results.

Just recently a Fourth Assessment, with a new list of climate scientists, has been released. There are reports that again the scientific panel could not make an adequate determination and, again, the administration rewrote the conclusions to support the politically correct paradigm of a human cause.

Many on this latest list of scientists have requested that their names be removed from the report. To this date the U.N. has taken no action is this regard. A few of the scientists are ignoring threats of grant denial and evaluating legal remedies to remove their names from the tainted document.

It would seem that this issue is seen as a “best shot” at restoring the U.N.’s position as a world leader and its best hope of a world-unifying cause.

A Taxing Discussion - Searching for Funding Stability

The latest discussion taking place at the United Nations, and also in our own government, is the viability of a “Carbon Tax.” The larger your carbon “footprint” (usage) the more you would have to pay. Monies collected from this world-wide tax would be dedicated to a new bureaucracy to administrate climate change projects as they see fit. Once this is instituted, it will provide desperately needed funding for the U.N. and will forever break the paradigm of sovereign choice, both for the individual and the nation-state.

We are rapidly moving toward a trap that we have allowed by our inaction. It is a high probability that some form of this tax will be instituted. When that occurs, it is the “less capable” majority that will foot the bill. The “elite” few will mutter nonsense about being “carbon negative” while they fly in their jets, light their mansions and encourage everyone to keep up with them by watching their electric-consuming technological media. The world will become tiered-the elite and the less capable-with no border to cross and nowhere to escape.

Being Faithful in a Faithless World

But in the midst of this we are instructed to count it all joy,⁷ because we are never alone.⁸ And the One who defends us is greater than all of this.⁹ There is no better time to be alive. We are not called to cower in a corner, but to proclaim God’s Love boldly. We are called to be active and not passive. Be faithful to the call of which you were called.¹⁰ Today is the day of Salvation.¹¹ Don’t be deceived¹² or distracted by a world trying to live as if there is not an active and loving God.¹³ Let our hope be in Him.¹⁴