My recent foray into the matter of climate change had many surprising features, one of which was how easy it was to grasp the underlying science behind the matter. Climate study is, for the most part, mere collection of data in search of trends. Below the fold, for example, is a graph showing precipitation trends in California over the last 100 years.
It is compiled by Bob Tisdale. Do you see what I see? On the high side, measuring the highest precipitation monthly trends, there is an uptick. But the rolling average of precipitation per decade is almost a flat line. Nothing much unusual going on there.
It is only a little different with temperatures, a slight warming trend, nothing to worry about. High temperatures are basically flat, low temperatures increasing.
What does this tell us? When compared to other data from other states, we learn that the planet is gradually getting wetter. This is a good thing. We are suffering fewer and less severe droughts and forest fires, more food production advanced by wetter soils. Coupled with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, a good thing, our planet is greening, as seen below.
Here is the accompanying text, courtesy of NASA:
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
This is NASA with its Jekyll and Hyde, at once giving us straight and optimistic truth while at the same time will offering up scurrilous lies to advance the climate change agenda. The whole of the “global warming” movement began in 1988 with staged hearings wherein James Hansen, then head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned Congress that the planet was warming, and that Armageddon was around the corner.
The planet is warming, slightly, but that’s not a problem. Hansen surely knows this, as does Michael Mann and Al Gore. Yet we are continually confronted with a scare-a-thon, warned that we only got a few years before the coasts are inundated by rising oceans, forests are turning to deserts, species are going extinct. In the year 2000, climate “scientist” David Viner said snowfall would soon be a thing of the past. He still employed at East Anglia, no shame attached to his stupid remark regarding snow. In July, 2009, my favorite Royal Clown, Prince Charles, said we had but 96 months to stave off “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” I can do math. 96 months from 7/09 was July of 2017. We’re still here. More importantly, that jackass is still in line to be king, not that we need kings.
But the larger point is that every prediction that climate alarmists have made has been shown by scientific evidence to be not just wrong, but wildly off the mark, and it does not matter. They merely go on to new predictions of doom. Being a climate scientist means never having to say “Oops! Got that one wrong.”
I did not mean to write all of that, as I sat down with a different person in mind, a man who wrote a little red book that had a profound impact on me. It was not Chairman Mao, but rather Jacques Ellul, and the book was not one of sayings, but a discussion of “Propaganda.”
I read the book, I think, in or around the year 2000. I remember picking it up in the Tattered Cover book store on a trip to Denver around that time. I immediately dove into it, absorbing as much as I could, and wondering why the man was allowed to divulge so many trade secrets. He spoke openly about methods and means of indoctrination and brainwashing.
It’s not hard to understand how the naked unvarnished truth can stand right out in the open in a culture like ours, one in which reading is reserved to a few, and most of that being a process of self-indoctrination, or advancement of more propaganda. So Ellul’s book does no harm to the state of the state. It’s inside knowledge that no one fears divulging, as so few are capable of reading and ingesting it.
But to finally get to my point, I was wondering why the climate alarmists are so shameless in promotion of lies that are easily seen to be lies. They have no fear of being shown to be wrong. It does not matter. They can make any outrageous statement they feel like making, as David Viner and Prince Charles did, as Al Gore and Michael Mann routinely do, without any blowback. They live in a no-fear all-lies-all-the-time environment. What’s up with that?
Ellul was forthright in his exposition of the nature of propaganda, elucidating the various types and purposes. I won’t go into it other than page 70 … “The … great distinction within the general phenomenon of propaganda is the distinction between propaganda of agitation and propaganda of integration.” Agitation propaganda (agitprop) is led by parties seeking to destroy the established order. All revolutionary movements have been nourished by agitptop.
The climate change agenda is extremely effective on governments, but hardly felt by the bulk of humankind, as we can all look out our window and see little or no change. Yet the topic is pursued with relentless zeal, one lie after another masquerading as science in banner headlines. This is a matter of great concern. The climatic change agenda is serious business meant to do great harm, and its promoters, while not zealots in private, are in public lying and meaning for the lies to have a large and immediate impact. It is a large and well-coordinated agitprop campaign. As such it must have an underlying agenda that seeks real change.
“We do not talk to say something, but to obtain a certain effect,” said Goebbels. All of the lies about climate are hitting home with an agenda taking shape, cap and trade, reduction of the use of fossil fuels, boondoggle technologies like solar panels and windmills, the latter a real thing and not just something to tilt at.
But it is interesting in this regard in that it is a massive failure. There is no reduction in the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere. That is not a danger, and the alarmists must know this. The U.S., because we are switching from coal to natural gas, actually leads the way in reduction of CO2 emissions, but we could reduce those emissions to zero and it would not counter what China and India are doing. So reduction of emissions of CO2 is not on the agenda, and no one cares about that anyway, at least no one in the climate alarmist movement.
So what are they up to, these revolutionary zealots? We can only guess.
I’ve been researching their various hoaxes for years now, and they all seem, in various ways, to have a common objective. Erlich’s Population Bomb proved to be wrong, as did Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Both sought fundamental changes in public policy regarding humans and our tendency to reproduce when food is abundant. Other hoaxes, such as AIDS, are more matter of fact – wanting us to stop having so much sex, or at least limit it to recreation and away from reproduction. The movement to get women out of their nurturing role and into the rat race with the rest of us can be seen as anti-reproduction. The ridiculous cost of higher education has the same effect as well – it is frightfully expensive to have kids!
Is that what climate change is about? Too many people? Too much food? If so, then it can only be aimed in a couple of places, the ones still largely undeveloped, Africa and large parts of South America. (India and China will go their own way, no matter any treaties or “accords” they sign onto.) They want our black and brown friends to be tripping over solar panels and building big ugly unreliable windmills. That way they, unlike us, will not enjoy the prosperity that fossil fuels bring to our lives.
The essence of climate change alarmism is, then, if I am anywhere close to being right, a movement to limit the development of our darker-skinned neighbors to the south. Maybe it is just coincidence that it affects people of color the most, but it is also not hard to impugn racism on the movement as a whole.