[ed. 6 August 2010 – commentary added]
Two quotes to consider, and then some references, and then my basic comments. Additional points are made at http://kali-yuga.org/?p=1273.
Quote 1. Source: -George Orwell, in 1984
“…The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, just to keep people frightened…”
Quote 2. Source: – The Club of Rome Report – The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Romeby Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. Page 75.
“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.”
(Note – the wording differs slightly between the 1991 and 1993 editions)
Quote 2 variant: Page 75, Chapter “The Vacuum”
The common enemy of humanity is Man.
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Those seeking more information on The Club of Rome, should find the following links helpful. There are many other resources, of varying degrees of objectivity (as if Wikipedia was an objective source) but the following should be helpful.
– Wikipedia’s entry on The Club of Rome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
-Alexander King, at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_King_(scientist)
-Aurelio_Peccei, at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelio_Peccei
The Club of Rome itself: http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/new_path/
And now, my comments – this is simple folks, distance yourself from the emotion of the matter to see clearly:
I agree in spirit with the need for greater environmental stewardship and sustainability – our civilization wastes an incredible amount of energy and materials. This will catch up with us.
However the entire climate change discourse, as a discourse, is a hoax, though one largely believed in by the mass of both sides – those believing in anthropogenic climate change and those rejecting it.
My basic point is this – the idea of a general trend, in anthropogenic Global Warming, as seen in the temperature data collected, could actually, possibly, be correct. It could also be incorrect, but either way it doesn’t matter, because either way we are still dealing with a hoax.
What’s more important to us is the rhetorical use of this theme, anthropogenic Global Warming, or Climate Change, used in the media, and by policy makers. This is actually more important to us than the actual facts. Climate Change discourse fits an Orwellian mold perfectly – it is essentially FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).
It matters not whether or not there has been an overall increase in measured average global temperatures – as caused by human actions – the anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change hypothesis.
And it matters not whether or not there has been – as some of the Climate Change skeptics, so-called “Global Warming Deniers” assert – an overall decline in average global temperatures, e.g. Global cooling.
It is the discourse itself, on Climate Change, on both the Left and Right, which is stilted in such a way as to be the perfect hoax.
Read that again with care, I said the discourse. A discourse is independent of the facts discoursed. The hoax lies in the discourse itself, there could also be a hoax in the factual situation as well, but let’s focus on one thing at a time.
It matters not whether either phenomenon exists, in the past or present, or has quickened, slowed down, or ceased. The rhetorical and propagandist use of the theme is alone what concerns us.
As my friend Khalid Bey likes to point out, there is one tell tale sign of a perfect hoax – not only non falsifiability, but non verifiability. If data verifying or denying a thesis is kept closed, selectively released, if private discussions are made public regarding proposals to alter such data, “fudging” for any reason whatsoever, this shows that the discourse is only secondarily about science, and primarily about political or ideological agendas, and hence enters into the realm of emotions and rhetoric.
The anthropogenic Global Warming thesis could be factually correct based on the data recovered and yet the whole discourse still simply be a fraud.
This is counter-intuitive, most people are accustomed to thinking of a fraud in either or categories, true or false. Things are not this simple, which no doubt facilitates fraud greatly.
I will explore this theme in more depth shortly, for now just mull over that possibility.