My thanks to Patrick Michaels for bringing my attention to the following paragraphs taken from Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address. Like most people, I was aware of his warning about the “military-industrial complex,” long-since realized. But these paragraphs carry a different warning, one also realized:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Two public hoaxes come to mind as I read these words, each brought our way by the power of government money to be the funder and arbiter of what is studied and promoted as “science”: AIDS, and human-caused climate change.
I ran across Michaels in an unusual fashion. YouTube is a heavily censored environment, but there are still useful videos there if we know exactly what we are looking for. I searched in vain for talks promoting climate change as a hoax, and was only taken to sites like PBS, CNN and the like, compromised, and actually used to “debunk” climate change “deniers.”
So I took a different tack: I used a search engine to find a list of climate change deniers. They are ridiculed, of course, but all I wanted was names. Patrick Michaels was the first I found. He is a climatologist and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Is it not interesting how my views have shifted over time, at one time thinking Cato to be nothing but a group of right-wing hacks. Listening to Michaels, as I urge the reader to do, teaches me that he is a very smart man with a speaking voice that reminds me of Tom Brokaw … with a brain.
Form your own judgements. You will find him at YouTube by searching, as he will not otherwise turn up.
Here are some other names that came up in my search, most of whom I am unfamiliar with:
The late Michael Crichton belongs on this list.
In addition, we are already familiar with Steve Goreman, another very polished speaker, featured in this post. Readers, please add to this list and please link us to useful websites, books, news articles and videos on this subject. The area of climate change is crawling with mis-informers, even outright liars (Al Gore).
I fear as I become more and more familiar with it that I am beginning to grasp the real agenda hidden behind a 50% reduction in output of CO2 by the year 2050: Population control. Less CO2 means less food, means fewer people. AIDS too, in my view, was aimed at population control. Of course I have mixed emotions, as I wonder how many of us our planet can safely carry. But disingenuous hoaxes are not the way to proceed.
Some suggest that the agenda behind the climate change hoax is money, carbon trading and all of that … possibly, but remember, behind this hoax are people who already have more than enough money.
8 thoughts on “Unmasking the climate change agenda”
Piers Corbyn is a leading UK expert on the climate hoax. He keeps it simple too. Piers is the brother of Jeremy Corbyn the so called “socialist” who leads the UK so called “Labour” Party in Parliament.
I always find that a strange, and amusing, juxtaposition. An expert who is censored by total silence by the usual suspects and his brother who is as Establishment as it gets.
I would expect that the large majority of Brits have never even heard of Piers. Any voice raised against the hoax is immediately vilified or, as in the case of Piers, when too smart for that, then they are simply ignored.
Money is a factor I think Mark, he numbers are astronomical. I’m no expert that’s for sure but I agree with you that the main reason is population control. The blogosphere was once hot with stuff about Agenda 21 and its follow on Agenda 2030: “Sustainable Development Goals” = “New World Order”. Certainly if you read between the lines of the globalists 2030 guff then it all reads as very totalitarian
It is never just one agenda like money or carbon taxes or eugenics, it’s all kinds of agendas, payouts and perspectives. I’d have to dig up the link but this shouldn’t be too hard to find just going through a list of podcasts or videos on YouTube, but James Corbett interviewed a fellow a number of years ago who was on the IPCC regional working group in Canada who basically realized what they were doing and got out.
He started giving interviews to whomever would listen and hs perspective on it was it was all about control and power and how it was a reasoning to put in front of policy changes to restructure society in a socialistic way (which I attend you agree with). So in classic constructed Hagelian dialectic or Delphi technique, what they did was they would get these working group guys and have them filter out the information that was not relevant to support the conclusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someone you might wanna watch out for is Kora Rose. I know she took a lot of her work from Nikki Rappana and her daughter who wrote a book about communitarianism and a 2020 genda that involves a lot more than just climate change and what not. This She’s an outright plagiarist and was a regular on shows like Glenn Beck’s network and Info Wars which pretty much should explain most of it. I think she might have been more focused on common core but I’m pretty sure she touched on climate change and the agenda 2020 stuff.
Thanks Craig – James Corbett is a familiar name though I don’t remember why. And yes, my list above probably has one or more controlled opposition on it. I would be surprised if not.
What’s a poor forest activist to do? Plans are underway to log, thin, “restore,” and slash and burn our way to “healthy forests.” As recently as yesterday, the Custer-Gallatin National Forest Supervisor told a group of conservationists that climate change is “speculative.” This means that over 40% of the 3 million acre forest will be targeted for logging and the rest of the “tools” to achieve “sustainability” and “resilience” in the next planning cycle.
The “man-made” climate debate is blocking out any thoughtful consideration of the obvious increase in heat, drought, and wildfire, often driven by high, low-humidity wind. The metadata does not lie. It’s getting hotter due to increased climate risk. That’s the trend. Fires and insect infestations generate lots of publicity and fear, but are real effects — but more like a symptom of a (hotter, drier) climate trend.
Is it worth trying to sort out the parts that are real from the BS? Or is it our destiny to poison every well in order to get at the “truth.” Are we being led into yet another invented category of dualism? Like we need one more. I’m thinking about some potentially major “collateral damage” here, there, and everywhere. Co-option and hoax seem to me to be part of a larger, much more complex problem that may affect us all — if it isn’t already.
Everything I read and watch indicates that we are coming off a period of heat, perhaps peaking in 1976, but lasting through 1998, and then falling back in the normal range. It is easy during such a time to imagine that the trend is permanent and that the direction of the graph is upward. But as of late we have seen a cooling trend, colder winters, and some polar vortexes coming down to devastate insect populations, just as in the past. The plans to ” … to log, thin, “restore,” and slash and burn our way to “healthy forests”” are political, and not based on any science. It has been that way from the beginning, the forests overseen by the Forest Service which is overseen by logging corporations. They lie about everything, and it is only people who take them to court that keep them from winning the whole table. Forest Service is, like everything around us, corrupt.
Always difficult to predict the future, but there’s no love from the USFS managers of the predictions expressed in the maps. I’m not a scientist, so cannot judge the methodology, analysis or conclusions. Just something worth considering, IMO.
What if there are reasonable alternatives to the rut (dualism) we seem to find ourselves in so often while contemplating long-lasting adventures down a “wrong road?” If insect infestations and wildfire are symptoms of climate change, it could also be true that ecological collapse and climate change are symptoms of the combination of neo-liberal economics (debt slavery) and neo-conservative military aggression (colonialism). I offer this piece in evidence that more than 2 alternatives exist, quietly awaiting our consideration. http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/04/18/an-indigenous-critique-of-the-green-new-deal/