GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Just How Long Has This Racket Been In Business?

by

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.

Comments

  2. 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:

    Fortunately for those who care, there is a remarkable level of agreement in the writings of scientific pioneers such as Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Benjamin Franklin on the nature of the scientific method. That agreement is also reflected in the definition provided by the Oxford English Dictionary.

    We have expanded on the established definition and identified eight necessary criteria for a work to be considered useful science. The criteria include objectivity and full disclosure. We expect that most scientists would agree with these criteria as obviously true and important.

    The pioneers of science charted the way by describing how to comply with the criteria. To be objective, according to Newton, the study should compare all reasonable hypotheses by using a fair and balanced experimental design.

    We have summarized the eight criteria on a one-page checklist (<a href="http://guidelinesforscience.com/"available at guidelinesforscience.com). You can easily refer to it to assess whether something you are looking at is a work of science. By using the checklist, you do not have to depend on an authority to tell you “this is what the science says.” Knowing and agreeing with the criteria in the checklist does not help. To be useful, the checklist must be used.

    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:

    The March for Science should not simply be another way for us to express our opinions. It should not be an effort to pressure scientists and voters to agree with us. The scientific method is the best way we have of engaging in factual disputes.

    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.

  4. 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.

  6. 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.