By Jeremy Beck, BE, (Hons)
Political Analyst
1st August 1999
The Australian public, indeed many of the world’s citizens may be forgiven for believing predictions of cataclysmic global warming. Our tightly controlled media has simply keep most people in the dark despite the overwhelming scientific evidence revealing the hoax of the global warming scaremongers.
Few people know that more than 16,000 scientists signed a petition led by Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. This petition states:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. (1)
Yes you read it right – increased levels of carbon dioxide will actually be beneficial for our environment.
In addition to these scientists, one hundred of the world’s leading climatologists signed what is known as the Leipzig Declaration, which states "…that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever." and, "Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called "scientific consensus" that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions." (2)
In April 1992, forty-six prominent scientists and intellectuals in the United States, including twenty-seven Nobel Prize winners, joined 218 scientists in other countries to protest against "green" pseudoscience leading up to the Rio de Janeiro 1992 Earth Summit. This protest, known as the Heidelberg Appeal affirms that "stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions" (3)
Scientists predicting a global warming cataclysm are using flawed computer models. The 1996 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report predicted a warming between 1º C and 3.5º C over 110 years. This was much more moderate than the previous 1990 and 1992 reports, predicting 1.5º C to 4.5º C over only 50 years. (4) Computer models cannot take into account the many variables and chaotic effects that make up our climate. We are very familiar with the fallibility of four-day weather forecasts. Similar principals apply for long term climatic predictions.
The mainstream media and global warming scaremongers rarely if ever admit the following points:
The quote below from Dr. Robert Balling, Director of Climatology, University of Arizona, sums up the situation:
Some individuals are absolutely convinced from their very limited reading that we are headed for disaster via global warming. Strangely, no amount of evidence seems to shake this crowd. They appear to have a religious attachment to the issue.... They are not going to accept anything but the threat of disaster.... Any suggestion that some greenhouse effects will be beneficial is absolutely forbidden. They care about their [own version of the] environment more than they care about science. (15)
Having digested all of this, readers may be feeling a little bewildered – this appears to contradict nearly everything the mainstream media has advocated. Yes, advocated is the word - the media have access to the facts, but choose the path of advocacy journalism. One may only speculate as to why the media has taken this line of action. However, it is the view of many that the media bias can be attributed to three main factors:
Let us consider the third point above in more detail. One might ask, what culture would be conducive to the world’s political powerbrokers? Firstly, we must define these powerbrokers and their goals. These political powerbrokers have highly influential positions owing their allegiance to global governance; they may be in the United Nations, such as Maurice Strong or other institutions of global governance. In fact, they may even hold positions within national governments such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore. However, none owe allegiance to national governance.
Quite simply, their goal is the third way - an agreement in which monopoly socialists work together with monopoly capitalists on a global scale. To enact this goal of central control, the public must be persuaded to give up their freedoms to "save the Earth". These political powerbrokers believe the Earth would be better run under an elite central rule as the "ordinary people" do not know what is good for them. Now, this is not fantasy. Elites in a round about way openly admit their contempt for the "ordinary people". The willingness of our Government to sign treaties such as the FSIA, MAI and Fifth Protocol of GATS, with next to no public debate is evidence enough for their contempt of democracy. History has shown repeatedly, the failures of elite rule and big government, the Soviet Union and China under Mao Tse-tung being just two examples this century. Nobel Prize winner, the late Friedrich Hayek certainly noted the evils of governments with unrestrained power in his book The Road to Serfdom. Moreover, as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." (16)
Elites such as Maurice Strong believe it is their role to bring about industrial collapse to "save the Earth". Preposterous? Sadly not. Strong has openly admitted his dream for industrialized civilizations to collapse. He outlined a plan for economic collapse in the British Columbia Report 18th May 1992, following an interview with Jim Johnston. (17) In an earlier interview with Daniel Wood from Canada’s West magazine, Strong also expressed this same dream for industrial collapse. (18) At the 1992 Earth Summit, Strong said: "Is it the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?" (19)
Strong’s comments should not be taken lightly. He is in a position of immense power. He co-chairs the very powerful World Economic Forum and wields tremendous power within the United Nations. Among his closest friends are David Rockefeller, Lord Rothschild and Pope John Paul II. (20)
Sadly, along with the media, the philosophy of "green" pseudoscience has tainted many of our political institutions such as the CSIRO and the Institution of Engineers, Australia. This is not a result of grassroots community concern for our environment, but rather elite financial support to further political objectives.
No one is seriously suggesting we do not have environmental problems. However, governments must address our environmental concerns with sound science. Even if the Earth were in danger of cataclysmic global warming, a call for economic collapse would be counterproductive. The resulting social unrest would lead to untold further damage to the environment. However, Strong’s belief is not based on rational thinking or science, but rather, theosophy, Eastern mysticism, occult worship and pseudoscience. In essence, the power wielded by these globalists has gone to their heads. Strong is by no means the only one. In fact, our world is largely at the mercy of leaders as amoral as Roman Emperor, Caligula.
As Hayek warned us of the evils of socialism (monopoly socialists), others such as Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, Michel Chossudovsky, warn us of the amoral actions of the monopoly capitalists. The power of these two elite groups merging under the banner of globalism, if unchecked will move the entire world into a feudal dictatorship. In fact, the process is already in progress with Spanish Marxist – NATO Secretary General Javier Solana declaring war on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 23rd March 1999. (21) Will these elites use the Y2K bug to further their agenda?
Whether our society undergoes an industrial collapse largely depends on the number of people informed in the coming months before the turn of the millennium. It is high time to call: fire! fire!
References:
Discuss this issue with Jeremy Beck on the Greenhouse Hoax Bulletin Board