Redux – comments. Climate change and the quote “ searching for a common enemy to unite us…”

[ed. This is a provisional post, needing further editing and development. There are errors in grammar and fact – but the general effect should be gained, I’ll get around to whittling this down later..]

Per my earlier posting a couple of quotes, from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four [Amazon link] and the Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome [Amazon link], here are further comments on a couple of provocative ideas.

I will discuss these ideas logically and soberly, I will not refer to wild conspiracy theories, just simple facts as they are known, and obvious logical implications from these facts.

First: 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. The idea of sustainability is pushed forward largely by bodies and individuals responsible for the grossly unsustainable mold of our society, but even the devil utters a truth now and then.. when it’s in his interests, in furthering a larger scam..

Second: Agreeing with the need for greater environmental stewardship, I see the entire climate change discourse, as a discourse, is a hoax. It is one largely believed in, by the mass of both sides – those believing in anthropogenic climate change and those rejecting it. But it is a hoax, notice my wording. This hoax remains a hoax even if, especially if, the facts spoken of, regarding increases in average global temperature due to human activities, are true.

And I’m increasingly convinced that there is something significant to it.

A good deal of the evidence supports the general idea of Global Warming at first glance, and one can make inferences from this data to support the idea that the drivers of Global Warming are anthropogenic – human caused. There are immense problems with the data, increasing evidence that much of the data has been all but deliberately fudged, in some cases falsified, or otherwise skewed by certain biases in the collection methods. And there are immense problems with the interpretation of such problematic data.

But even with the all but fraudulent abuses of the data I still think that Global Warming can be demonstrated in the data – and therein lies a deeper issue, one outside of this little blog post.

Even with this, however, the whole matter is still a hoax. Both Global Warming advocates, and Global Warming Skeptics, are to some degree victims of a hoax. A provocative and, to some, silly claim, but lets jump to something else for a moment.

Conspiracy theories – an amusing thing is that in all Western societies, only Americans display a constant allergy to making political speculations that verge away from the standard media discourse in suggesting willful collusion by multiple people, outside of the law and in secret, to commit large scale crimes. The legal definition of conspiracy is dragged out in small scale conspiratorial crimes, a couple of mobsters shaking down shopkeepers, a few Rabbis acting out some ghoulish X-files like plot. And other fiends

Everywhere in Europe, either on the Right or the Left, it’s a given that what’s discussed in the media is likely incomplete and purposefully fraudulent, of course the left blames the right for fraud, and vice versa, but the plain fact of fraud isn’t disputed. Corruption and the use of power to skew the terms of a discourse are a given – the only thing debated are the ultimate beneficiaries and their motivations. To get around this silly allergy here, I’m stating from the start that none of this is conspiracy theory fare, where I speculate it’s on the basis of logical deductions, or inductions, from known facts.

The quote previously mentioned.

From Page 75, of ‘The First Global Revolution.’ 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.”

Now, many implications of this quote should be obvious to anyone who passed the 11th grade. That an implication exists does not mean, necessarily, that a writer or speaker intended the implication. But it does remain latent within the text. So we have some obvious implications.

And we have some less obvious implications, ones more subtle.

The authors explicitly state that theirs was a specific idea, within their circle of influence, an international set of stakeholders – various policy makers, business executives and investors, private persons of influence, essentially constituting what’s often called the global super-elite.

This idea of theirs was this – articulating a discourse in which the collective enemy of humanity is humanity itself. An enemy in a conflict used to harmonize and unify our human efforts and activities towards specific ends. That in order to unite humanity, or at least – one imagines – the leadership of humanity, it is necessary to present to humanity a project that is a conflict, and the enemy to oppose in that conflict is humanity itself.

The assumptions are that there is a need to unify humanity, that the only way to unify humanity is to give it an external enemy, and that the best enemy to give it is itself. This is, I think, a somewhat cannibalistic idea. There is the idea that the world, however defined, faces immense threats based on human action.

This can be debated, but I’m inclined to support it. Human activities often demonstrably impact ecosystems in a negative way, alter the balance of life, and often are wantonly destructive beyond any possible pay off.

I do not dispute this in itself. The Club of Rome believes that material over-consumption and growth produce certain phenomena, such as water or food shortages, that is famines, they also mention Global Warming. I think that it is closer to the truth that the genesis of these problems lie less with humanity itself, and more with specific segments of humanity, essentially a managerial class, to which the authors of this report actually belong.

Frankly none of you out there, readers and commentariat, nor myself, are capable of marshalling the resources to dam an entire river and build a hydroelectric project. Our individual impacts on the environment are small. In totality, as an aggregate mass, yes our collective impacts matter greatly.

However do we hold primarily responsible a crew of sailors on an ill fated voyage, or the Captain and command staff? Responsibility is firstly directed at the top of the chain of command, not firstly at the base of schmucks largely carrying out Command’s commands.

In other words “blame yourself schmucks, point your finger at me and I’ll poke your eye out with it.”

Now it is, I admit, far more complex than this. The broad mass of humanity, when human nature is allowed its course, will, and do, consume in excess of its actual true needs. Some over consumption is no vice, after all humanity has never sought just mere survival, but rather some degree

The problem is gross excess and stupidity.

There is a more elitist and egotistical way of seeing things, and a less elitist and egotistical way of seeing things.

Both have some basis in truth, and are really just a matter of seeing the same things through different lenses.

First the snarky elitist view:
Walk through a shopping mall or on a busy street, and the conclusion that we live in some semblance to idiocracy cannot be avoided. When looked at narrowly, at first glance, there are a lot of folks alive who really seem to be little other than extras on the set. And bumbling, annoying, loud, uncouth, coarse, and frankly sheep like extras at that.

Now the less elitist and more sympathetic view:

Is it not possible that such matters are not accidental? That to some degree certain things may be by design?
That a populace is deliberately kept somewhat in the dark and given open access to the most base amusements and entertainments as distractions.

Isn’t it the case that, given the amount of string pulling that goes on today, it’s a miracle anyone keeps some degree of reflectiveness?

A more sympathetic, and less elitist view could see that, by in large, most people just pursue the ideals their culture and society gives them. A society’s leaders espouse certain ideals as molds, the broad mass subscribes to such molds. Such are taught to us as truths from an early age and reinforced constantly.

[I refer you to Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt ‘deliberate dumbing down of america’ or any of John Taylor Gatto’s writings. Muslim readers, in particular, may want to examine Hamza Yusuf Hanson’s talks on education and home schooling. He and Gatto did a nice joint symposium available from Zaytuna.]

I think that, in large, most people just want to survive, stay out of trouble, and follow their natural inclinations without interfering with others.

That, really, most people just want to get by and cause no trouble to others. Humans crave comforts and so will pursue comforts given to them. Most people are not given a broader context into which the small particular facts of our lives can be placed. Lacking such a matrix it is difficult to see where and how our actions affect the totality of society or the world.

Furthermore certain ideals of behavior and aspiration are given enormous emotive weight , from childhood on up. Romanticized, glamorized, when they intersect with our emotional makeup, especially in areas like sexuality or food consumption, our reasoning takes a back seat and our emotions take a front seat.

None of this is rocket science and is easily observable, go with your best friends to a mall, then to a night club, and then to a bikini beach, and watch the changes in their, and your, expressed personality. Pay attention to your own hopes, your own cravings, your own desires, and your behavior, and then watch the behavior of your mates.

So, all of that meandering and waffling crap out of the way, let’s jump forward.
Thesis: no matter what the observed facts are, in the Climate Change debate, the whole debate and its terms are a fraud, or more to the point, a hoax.

And now, my comments – this is simple folks, distance yourself from emotions to see the matter clearly:

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 Abu Abdullah 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.

The conclusions you are able to draw from the data, and the actual significance of the data in itself, may not match what the discourse is bearing. You can draw significant conclusions from meaningless or nonsense data, or data only relevant in a narrow domain.

The significance of conclusions drawn from a data acquired from a limited number of temperature readers and collection stations can be questioned. Heck, it’s actually all but meaningless. This is the scam, such conclusions are discussed outside of their proper domain without the full context of the situation being mentioned.

Here is a blindingly simple fact – the earth has a given landmass – around 510.000 million sq km – and each square km, each square meter, each square inch even, is subject to random temperature fluctuations between a few fractions of a degree or more even, due to a bewildering variety of reasons.

Temperature collecting stations are placed in certain specific areas, some rural, some urban, at varying distances from each other. Their output only has significance within a certain range – short of all sorts of monkey business involving certain types of statistical normalization, because I can assure you that the number of temperature readers, and where they are placed, comes nowhere near to covering enough area of the earth to give statistically meaningful data when applied to the earth at large. Huge temperature variations from an average norm exist everywhere. In fact the fluctuations experienced even in a small area, take 1 square KM, are significant enough to belie real trends occurring on a macro scale.

Mongolia is on the verge of utter poverty and economic collapse due to “the white death” an unusually horrible winter. Scotland, England, a good deal of the US east coast have all recently seen bizarre cold spells, though not as horrible as Mongolia.

And right now some areas are in veritable heat waves, yesterday many areas in California has temperate weather, in the 60’s, while more northern areas in the middle of Ohio has baking heat.

The models used to extract meaning from a statistically meaningless blizzard of numbers collected from a paucity of locations and hence entirely non-representative of the world at large, can only give us just so much information that’s useful.

The truth that everyone is afraid to admit is this – we have no bloody idea, we are effectively blind, honest scientists have admitted, and will admit, this when not faced with social opprobrium.

This is the hoax – we could be facing environmental catastrophe next year, and we have no way of knowing this, and we could simply be in a normal stable period of average temperature variation, and we have no way of knowing this, because as many thousands of temperature data collection stations as there are out there, they only give us a peephole, a small peephole, in what’s going on.

They are worse than misleading. Again everyone with a reasonable degree of scientific training and an IQ over 110 knows this, if pressed against the wall, they simply don’t like it and find it distasteful. Because we have an innate need for certitude, and we have none here.

That is the hoax. Consider yourself warned. You are the subject of a very bad and distasteful joke, you can either exercise some personal responsibility, learn more, and god forbid think for yourself, or you can choose not to. Your life, not mine.


1 Comment

  1. […] to consider, and then some references, and then my basic comments. Additional points are made at My basic theme is that anthropogenic Global Warming could be correct, or it could be incorrect, […]

Leave a Reply