Not to step on Jeff’s excellent post, but I saw this and thought it kind of forwards his points. The use of the Global Warming/Climate Change Scare to further a socialist/globalist political agenda has been going on almost as long as I have been alive.
It was in 1972 that the UN and World Bank, along with the Club of Rome decided to use CAGW (“catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”) as a whip to drive humanity back into serfdom.
Details in comments at the link. Including the CIA getting into the act in 1974, publishing a report claiming that “global cooling” and overpopulation would lead to catastrophic consequences by the mid-1980s.
In 1973, NASA made conscious political decision to preserve its funding by reinventing itself as an environmentalist organization:
“NASA realized that it needed to research environmental-atmospheric impacts of the shuttle to defend itself, if necessary, against possible opposition more positively, (NASA Chief James) Fletcher sought to align his agency with environmental values. In 1973, he told congress that NASA should be considered “an environmental agency.” he declared: “everything we do …helps in some practical way to improve the environment of our planet and helps us understand the forces that affect it. Perhaps that is our essential task, to study and understand the earth and its environment.”
Which resulted in NASA predicting, in 1988, that devastating consequences from Global Warming would begin to be felt in the mid-1990s.
Then, as now, there was only one set of solutions to avoid global catastrophe: A massive transfer of power and wealth from the private sector to the Government, and trans-national political authorities led by political elites to implement planet-wide environmental policies and resource allocation. Coincidentally, the people promoting the Climate Change Catastrophes would accumulate wealth and power under these policies; but this was necessary to save the planet.
Cool post. Busted link?
A fascinating article in Breitbart today: Armstrong and Green: What Does the March for Science Mean by ‘Science’?
Two points I picked out from the article:
This checklist lets you evaluate the Scientific Method used. If the Scientific Method is not used, then, by definition, it is not science. If it is used, it will comply with the checklist given. If it does not comply with the checklist given, it is not science.
The second point is this:
If science is objective and based on repeatable evidence, then it does not require a march to remind people of itself. There are no marches, for instance, against The Flat Earth Society. The evidence that the world is round speaks for itself and requires no advocate.
VtK,
THANK YOU!!! I needed that laugh!!
I would love for the “I believe in Scince; don’t you??” lefties to be placed on an island with the “There is NO objective truth, only your racist patriarchy!!1!” lefties, Lord of the Flies-style, and see which group wins.
Follow the money.
While the particular rackey may date back only to the 1970s, the alternate hyping of The New Ice Age versus The Coming Sweat-box goes back at least to the 1890s.
This is the same omniscient Club of Rome who proclaimed we’d be out of oil by the end of the 20th-century, and eating Soylent Green.