(113)Blaming Capitalism

One of the objectives of communism is to overthrow capitalism. Environmentalism treats capitalism as the natural enemy of the environment, so it shares a common foe with communism. When communism suffered setbacks in the workers’ movements in developed Western countries, it shifted gears and hijacked the environmentalist cause. Normal activism for environmental protection morphed into activism aimed at vanquishing capitalism.

Communist doctrine originally described a utopia, a “heaven on earth,” in order to incite poor people to revolt and overthrow the existing social system. Under the cover of environmentalism, communism adopted a similar approach, but the vision it described is the exact opposite: In place of the wonderful workers’ utopia is instead a frightening dystopia, a vision of a “hell on earth.” According to this scenario, in a hundred years time, humanity’s very survival will be at risk due to global warming, landslides, tsunamis, droughts, floods, and heat waves.

The target recruits of this movement are not the poor, but rather the wealthy, who are expected to abandon their current lifestyles. But government intervention is required to force people to give up their lives of comfort and convenience. One government is obviously not enough, so an empowered United Nations, or some other global government is in order. If the movement is unable to take off, the vision of an imminent ecological crisis could be played up further, whipping up the panic and fear necessary to influence the public and governments to accept the forceful implementation of environmental policies, and in so doing, achieve the goal of destroying capitalism and imposing communism.

By the original doctrines of communism, after acquiring power, the first step is to strip the affluent of their wealth with the supposed purpose of redistributing it to the poor. In reality, the poor remain poor while all the wealth ends up in hands of the corrupt officialdom. The second step entails the establishment of a state-controlled economy and the abolition of private property. This destroys the national economy and reduces everyone to a life of hardship.

Let’s look at the objectives of environmentalism. First, it calls for wealthy countries to give aid to poorer countries, that is, to redistribute wealth on a global scale. In reality, poor countries remain poor, as the money that was intended for their development usually ends up in the hands of the corrupt officials of those countries.

Second, environmentalism advocates expanding government and replacing market mechanisms with command economics, using all sorts of draconian environmental policies to obstruct the normal functioning of capitalism, forcing businesses to close down or relocate overseas, thus tanking the country’s economy. Through these market-focused methods, the environmentalist movement seeks to cripple capitalism. In this sense, environmentalism shares a distinct similarity with the doctrines of classical communism. To put it plainly, environmentalism is but communism by another name and would wreak havoc in the world.

The focus of environmentalism is to spread the fear of future disaster, and to hold the public and governments hostage to this fear. But among those who actively promote this doomsday panic, many live luxurious lifestyles, using lots of energy and leaving a big carbon footprint. Clearly, they don’t think disaster is imminent.

In order to make use of a crisis mentality, especially using the “common enemy” of “global warming” to unite different forces to oppose capitalism, it has become imperative for environmentalists to emphasize and exaggerate the nature of the alleged crisis.

The simplest way is to create a huge, mass fear of using the cheapest sources of energy, that is, fossil fuels — coal, oil, natural gas — and also nuclear energy. Environmentalists succeeded in making people fearful of nuclear energy decades ago, and now, they are trying to make people afraid of using fossil fuels by claiming that fossil fuels lead to catastrophic global warming.

Draconian environmental regulations have become important tools of combating capitalism, especially capitalist economies, and have become known as job killers. Green stimulus programs, clean energy programs, new power-plant regulations, stricter vehicle regulations, the Paris Agreement, and so on, all are promoted under the name of preventing global warming.

However, in reality, climate science hasn’t concluded that global warming is caused by human activity, or that global warming will definitely lead to disaster. If natural causes are behind climate change, then all these government policies only serve to impede economic development while bringing no benefit to humanity.

Under the influence of environmentalism, people blindly raise the bars of emission standards for cars and ban various substances and chemicals without any scientific basis. This naturally means higher manufacturing costs and less profit, followed by greater unemployment and outsourcing industry to developing countries where costs are lower. Even the supporters of environmental protection have to admit that increasing the fuel efficiency of all cars to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 would at most cut the magnitude of global warming by 0.02 C by 2100. This would do virtually nothing to help reduce global warming. Various restrictions of dubious effectiveness have cost millions of workers their jobs and dealt a heavy blow to the manufacturing industries, research faculties, innovative energy, and international competitiveness in Western countries.

Industries that stem from the needs of environmental protection are basically driven by government subsidies and do not follow market demand. To bring products into mass production before making real research breakthroughs is very impractical. These “green” companies can barely stay in business, let alone stimulate the job market. With globalization, many companies move abroad, causing losses for their countries of origin.

Proponents of environmental protection enthusiastically promote green energy and jump-started solar energy and wind-power generation. Unfortunately the pollution that comes with the generation of green energy is either underestimated or simply hidden from view. In the process of producing solar panels, the deadly poison silicon tetrachloride is created as a byproduct. A report by the Washington Post quotes Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University: “The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. … It is like dynamite — it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it.”

The production of solar panels consumes enormous amount of conventional energy, including coal and petroleum. It’s fair to say that green energy in such cases leaves the earth not green but polluted.

According to the Paris Agreement, by 2025, the developed countries have to provide US$100 billion each year to help the developing countries improve their energy structure and industrial technology. The United States alone has to come up with 75 percent of the funding among the one hundred-plus signatory countries. At the same time, by the year 2025, the United States is required to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to between 26 and 28 percent less than the 2005 levels. This means that every year, the United States should cut 1.6 billion tons of emissions.

As for China, the country that has surpassed the United States to become the world’s biggest polluter, the Paris Agreement allows it to reach a peak in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.

In a statement on the Paris Climate Accord, President Trump said: Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. …

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal … down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

With the rise of the environmentalist movement, communist countries caught a break in their struggle against the West. Unreasonable regulations and agreements choke industries, economies, and technology in the Western capitalist countries. This hampered America in its roles as world police and the bastion of the West in the fight against communism.

We do not deny that the environment needs protection. However the goal of environmental protection should serve mankind, the highest form of life. The need to protect the environment should be balanced with the needs of mankind. Environmental protection for its own sake is excessive and makes a sacrifice of humanity, while being co-opted by communism. Today’s environmentalism doesn’t care about balance and has become an extremist ideology. Doubtless, many environmentalists harbor good intentions. But in their quest to mobilize and concentrate the resources of the state for the sake of their cause, they are aligning themselves with communism.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(112)Political Infiltration: Building a World Government

One important method communism uses to establish control is to use government to deprive people of their property and freedom and infinitely expand state power. It is very hard to put such a method into practice in the democratic Western world. Environmentalism, however, offers communism a magic weapon. People are deprived of their rights in the name of “environmental protection.”

First, environmentalist ideologies are used for redistribution of wealth. Traditionally, communist states reallocated wealth through revolution. Over the years, however, this approach became increasingly difficult. Therefore, environmentalists adopted indirect strategies, forcing people to quietly give up their freedom and property in the name of preventing environmental tragedy. The group Friends of the Earth states, “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” Mayer Hillman, a leading green thinker, said that “rationing is the only way to prevent runaway climate change,” and “carbon rationing has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not,” because “democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it.”

In the “battle” against climate change, Great Britain was the first to float the concept of individual carbon-ration coupons. One British scientist regarded this as “the introduction of a second currency with everyone having the same allowance — wealth redistribution by having to buy carbon credits from someone less well off.”

Those who have lived in the Soviet Union or communist China can easily see this kind of carbon rationing as another method to construct a totalitarian system. In China, food coupons were once used for buying essentials such as cooking oil, grain, and cloth. Through food rationing, on the one hand, wealth was redistributed; on the other, the central government was given supreme control over wealth and freedom.

Environmentalist ideologies are also used to curtail individual freedom. In the countries of the West, which pride themselves on a tradition of personal liberty, it is extremely hard to have people automatically give up their rights and accept numerous limitations in private life. To force people to give up their freedom and rights, an imaginary environmental catastrophe became a convenient means. “Global warming’’ and “last days on Earth” became the best slogans for environmentalists. The Australia-based Carbon Sense Coalition offered the following compilation of proposals to force people to modify their behavior in the name of solving global warming:

Ban incandescent light bulbs
Ban bottled water
Ban private cars from some areas
Ban plasma TVs
Ban new airports
Ban extensions to existing airports
Ban standby mode on appliances
Ban coal-fired power generation
Ban electric hot water systems
Ban vacationing by car
Ban three-day weekends
Tax babies
Tax big cars
Tax supermarket parking areas
Tax rubbish
Tax second homes
Tax second cars
Tax holiday plane flights
Tax electricity to subsidize solar power
Tax showrooms for big cars
Eco-tax cars entering cities
Require permits to drive your car beyond your city limits
Limit choices in appliances
Issue carbon credits to every person
Dictate fuel efficiency standards
Investigate how to reduce production of methane by Norway’s moose
Remove white lines on roads to make motorists drive more carefully

Third, environmentalism can be used and is used to expand the size and authority of big government. Various Western countries not only have huge environmental protection agencies, but also use the environment as an excuse to establish new government agencies and expand the authority of existing agencies. All agencies have the bureaucratic tendency for self-preservation and expansion, and environmental agencies are no exception. They abuse the power in their hands to spread the narrative of environmental catastrophe to the general public in order to obtain more funding and to secure their positions within the government structure. Eventually it is taxpayers who foot the bill.

The city of San Francisco established a City Climate Chief position with an annual salary of $160,000. The poorest borough in London (Tower Hamlets) has fifty-eight official positions related to climate change. The logic is the same as universities and companies having mandatory “diversity” officers.

Environmentalism can be used to suggest that democracy is outdated and push for the establishment of multinational or even global totalitarian government. Environmentalists claim that democracy cannot handle the coming environmental crisis. Instead, to overcome the challenges ahead, we must adopt totalitarian or authoritarian forms of government, or at least some aspects thereof.

Author Janet Biehl accurately summarized this type of mentality by saying that “an ‘ecodictatorship’ is needed,” with the obvious reason being that no free society would do to itself what the green agenda requires.

Paul Ehrlich, one of the founders of environmentalism, wrote in the book How to Be a Survivor: A Plan to Save Spaceship Earth: “1. Population control must be introduced to both overdeveloped countries as well as underdeveloped countries; 2. The overdeveloped countries must be de-developed; 3. The underdeveloped countries must be semi-developed; 4. Procedures must be established to monitor and regulate the world system in a continuous effort to maintain an optimum balance between the population, resources, and the environment.”

In practice, except for a global totalitarian government, no government or organization could possibly accumulate this much authority. In effect, this amounts to using environmentalism to advocate a global totalitarian government.

Ultimately, the environmentalist program suggests that the communist system is superior and glorifies communist totalitarianism. Since population growth leads to more resource consumption, more carbon emissions, and more waste products, environmentalists advocate for population control or even population reduction. This has led many Western environmentalists to promote the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) population control.

Reuters estimated in one report that because of the one-child policy implemented in the 1980s, the CCP regime was able to cap its population at 1.3 billion; without the cap, the Chinese population would have reached 1.6 billion. The author of the report noted that the CCP’s policy had the side effect of contributing to a reduction of global carbon emissions. What it ignored was the erasure of the hundreds of millions of young lives and the great suffering visited upon the affected families.

One of the biggest issues affecting the environment is pollution, including that of the air and water. The CCP’s economic model consumes energy at a prodigious rate, making China the world’s biggest polluter, with the worst big-city air pollution and severe water pollution. The majority of rivers in China are no longer safe to drink. Dust storms from China blow across the sea to Korea and Japan, even crossing the Pacific Ocean to reach the American West Coast.

Logically, genuine environmentalists should make communist China the main target of their criticisms, but curiously, many environmentalists praise the CCP, even viewing it as the hope for environmental protection. The Communist Party USA news website, People’s World, has reported extensively on environmental news. The main theme of its reports is the claim that the Trump administration’s environmental policies will destroy the country and even the world, while the CCP is the force for its salvation.

Former president of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus, an economist, wrote in the book Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?: “Environmentalism is a movement that intends to radically change the world regardless of the consequences (at the cost of human lives and severe restrictions on individual freedom). It intends to change humankind, human behavior, the structure of society, the system of values — simply everything!”

Klaus believes the environmentalists’ attitude toward nature is analogous to the Marxist approach to economics: “The aim in both cases is to replace the free, spontaneous evolution of the world (and humankind) by the would-be optimal, central, or — using today’s fashionable adjective — global planning of world development. Much as in the case of communism, this approach is utopian and would lead to results completely different from the intended ones. Like other utopias, this one can never materialize, and efforts to make it materialize can only be carried out through restrictions of freedom, through the dictates of a small, elitist minority over the overwhelming majority.”

“This ideology preaches Earth and nature, and under the slogans of their protection — similarly to the old Marxists — wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.”

For these reasons, Klaus strongly opposes attempts to use the cause of environmental protection in order to build a national or a global government to subjugate the general public.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(111)Why Environmentalist Scientists Push Catastrophe Scenarios

A principal scientist at the IPCC once said: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.” Though he later explained that he wasn’t advocating the fabrication of data, his message was clear: Disaster is the main driver of action and policymaking.

Linking global warming to instances of extreme weather has become a popular method to exaggerate the severity of climate problems. Scientific hypotheses that agree with the popular trend have also been appearing continuously. In early 2014, North America experienced an extremely cold winter.

One theory about the causes of the harsh winter is that global warming resulted in melting in the North Pole, which in turn altered the route of the jet stream. As a result, the extreme cold air mass from the North Pole was moved south, creating more frequent cold weather toward the south. Such a counter-intuitive hypothesis was supported by the media and environmentalists: Even extreme coldness is caused by global warming, they claimed. In fact, meteorological records over the long term show that the occurrences of extreme cold weather in North America have been decreasing rather than the other way around.

In 2014, five prominent meteorologists published a joint letter in Science magazine to illustrate this fact. They stated that in the early 1960s, late 1970s (especially 1977), and 1983, when the ice layer in the North Pole was much thicker and wider than it is now, there was much more severe cold weather than in 2014. Within the last fifty to one hundred years, what is certain is that occurrences of extremely cold weather have decreased.

John Wallace, a professor of atmospheric science, said: “Establishing a linkage between extreme weather events and climate change is not as easy as it might seem. The power of statistical inference is limited by sample size. … Even when the linkage is statistically significant, as in the case of heat waves, the more extreme the event, the smaller the relative contribution of global warming to the observed anomaly. … The limitations imposed by sample size would not be such a serious issue if the mechanisms that link extreme weather events to climate change were well understood, but unfortunately, they are not.”

In November 2017, Steve Koonin, the former U.S. Department of Energy’s second Senate-confirmed under secretary for science, published an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal titled “A Deceptive New Report on Climate.” He criticized the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report for reinforcing the disaster mentality with its misrepresentation of rising sea levels.

The Climate Science Special Report stated that since 1993, the sea level has been rising at a rate twice what was recorded throughout the rest of the twentieth century. But the report ignored the fact that the recent speed of rising was comparable to that of the early twentieth century, when human activity had little impact on the environment. This is misleading by omission. The executive summary of the report said that since the middle of the 1960s, heat waves in the United States had become more frequent. However, data buried in the report showed that the frequency of the current heat waves was no more than that in the 1900s.

Similar scare tactics also appeared in the U.S. government’s 2014 National Climate Assessment report, which emphasized the increased intensity of hurricanes after 1980, but ignored records kept over longer periods of time. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently stated that it could not find evidence for any impact on the severity of hurricanes resulting from human activity.

In fact, the heat waves occurred most frequently in the 1930s, not in the twenty-first century. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s heat wave index shows that four years in the 1930s had an annual heat wave index of 0.45, while the hottest year in the twenty-first century so far has an index of around 0.3. Greenhouse gas emissions in the 1930s were only 10 percent that of the twenty-first century.

Professor Mike Hulme, director of the United Kingdom’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said: “Over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country — the phenomenon of ‘catastrophic’ climate change. It seems that mere ‘climate change’ was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. … Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science’s predictions?”

The late Stephen H. Schneider was an advocate of climate theory “consensus” and the coordinating lead author in Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. In addressing Hulme’s concerns, he admitted: “We need to get some broad-based support to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” He believed that scientists must choose between “being effective and being honest,” though he added that he wished to have both.

The climate crisis has received much hype. Behind it are sinister forces that intend not only to pave the way for a global government, but also to destroy research ethics in the scientific community. Climatology is a young subject with only a few decades of history. Yet the hypotheses surrounding global warming have been prematurely taken as fact. The media has been keeping global warming in the headlines to cover up the inaccuracies in the underlying science. Governments pour funds into researching the global warming hypothesis while marginalizing other findings. In the process of establishing and reinforcing the “consensus” and strengthening it, communism’s nature of struggle and hatred are exposed.

While scientists are building “consensus,” the media and politicians label the “consensus” of catastrophic climate change as “scientifically proven” and spread it worldwide as unassailable doctrine. Thinking on the matter has been largely unified and has planted convoluted notions of good and bad in people’s minds.

The aforementioned dismissal of eco-terrorism crimes committed by Greenpeace in Britain was based exactly on the supposed consensus that greenhouse gases are causing a climate catastrophe. The multitude of regulations and policies based on this doctrine stand to throw the world into chaos. Destroying the old world by any means is a basic strategy of communism. These measures are all to pave the road to a false solution — a global government — to a fabricated crisis for the ostensible purpose of saving the earth and mankind.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(110)Establishing Dogma in the Scientific Community

The establishment and consolidation of the alleged consensus on climate change is a main step in the use of environmentalism to manipulate the public, amplify the sense of disaster, and distort human values. If carried to its conclusion, the natural trajectory is the establishment of a global super-government — that is, communism. While this has mainly played out in the scientific community, it has been helped along with the joint strength of the media, government, and academic institutions.

No matter the academic reputation of a scientist, once he publicly expresses doubts about the consensus dogma, he immediately faces tremendous pressure from his peers and academic institutions, forcing him to submit. People who have lived in a communist totalitarian society have had similar experiences, the only difference being that they have questioned communist party dogma.

David Bellamy is a well-known British environmental activist and chairman of the The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. But when he publicly stated that he did not believe in the consensus dogma of global warming theory, the agency issued a statement expressing dissatisfaction. He then ceased to serve as the chairman, and environmentalists who previously respected him began to suspect he’d lost his senses or was taking money from Big Oil.

Henk Tennekes, former director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society, was dismissed because he did not support the consensus dogma on climate change. Similarly, World Meteorological Organization official Aksel Winn-Nielsen was slandered by IPCC officials as “an industry tool.” After Italian researchers Alfonso Sutera and Antonios questioned the theory of anthropogenic climate warming, they were no longer able to obtain research funding.

In his book Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know, Patrick J. Michaels, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a climatologist at the University of Virginia, listed numerous examples of environmentalists suppressing scientific dissidents in order to reach their alleged consensus. Because he insisted that the climate would not lead to disaster, this optimistic stance was inconsistent with the consensus dogma, and one day he was told by the governor that he could not speak on global warming as a state climatologist. He ultimately chose to resign.

Another state climatologist, George Taylor of Oregon State University, encountered the same trouble, and Taylor was eventually forced to resign. Dr. David Legates, former director of the Center for Climate Studies at the University of Delaware, is a state climatologist in Delaware. He was also told by the governor that he could not speak as a state climatologist on the issue of global warming. Washington State climatologist assistant Mark Albright was fired because he emailed an inquiring journalist and citizens of the state about the entire snowfall record for the Cascade Mountains, instead of selecting partial records (which appear to show warming), despite having been warned by his boss.

The focus of debate here is on the climatologists’ area of ​​expertise — climate science issues rather than state-policy issues. In communist countries, crude political interference in science is common. In Western countries, environmentalist politics are being used to interfere with academic freedom.

Academic research that casts doubt about the consensus dogma is rarely seen in academic journals, a phenomenon that began in the 1990s. Michaels said in the Channel 4 (U.K.) 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy that if a person’s point of view is politically unacceptable, then there will be trouble. His paper was rejected by more than one academic journal. When he asked a journal editor why, the answer was that his paper must pass a higher evaluation standard than others.

According to the 1990 IPCC report, the understanding at the time was that the extent of global warming was equivalent to natural changes in climate. Therefore, although Michaels’s point of view was different from that of many others, it could not be regarded as particularly heretical. However, the goal of establishing a false consensus had already been set, and everyone had to get on board.

The tilt of government funding has greatly contributed to the formation and consolidation of the alleged consensus. The hypothesis that humans caused global warming and brought disasters has pushed climate-change research to the position of advising on policymaking. Therefore, research supporting this hypothesis will naturally receive a large amount of research funding, and a large number of academic articles will be published. Conversely, enforced consensus hinders scientists from exploring and researching in other possible directions.

Dr. William Gray, a renowned professor, was a pioneer of American hurricane research. Because he criticized the consensus dogma in climate theory, he suddenly found that his applications for research funding were repeatedly rejected. The reason was that his proposed research was not the focus.

In March 2008, many scientists who doubted the consensus dogma on climate issues held a private academic event in New York. These scientists said that they encountered various obstacles when trying to publish their research results in academic journals. Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, said that some of his colleagues did not dare to attend the meeting because of fear of being fired. He believed that there was “very likely a silent majority” of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and related sciences who did not support the “consensus” position.

Professor Judith Curry, former dean of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, stated in a Senate testimony in 2015 that a scientist employed by NASA said to her: “I was at a small meeting of NASA-affiliated scientists and was told by our top manager that he was told by his NASA boss that we should not try to publish papers contrary to the current global warming claims, because he (the NASA boss) would then have a headache countering the ‘undesirable’ publicity.”

Curry further said in her testimony: A climate scientist making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt in the climate debate is categorized as a denier or a ‘merchant of doubt,’ whose motives are assumed to be ideological or motivated by funding from the fossil fuel industry. My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has resulted in my being labeled as a ‘climate heretic’ that has turned against my colleagues. … There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

Dr. Curry is a member of the American Meteorological Society and a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. Despite her academic success, she chose to retire early because she was unwilling to continue to live under such pressure. Because she has challenged the IPCC’s “consensus” in recent years, she has been stigmatized as “anti-science,” a “denier,” and so on, both by media, other scientists, and a senator. A member of Congress even sent a letter to the Dean of the Georgia Institute of Technology to question Curry’s motives. She said that another reason for early retirement was that she felt that she could not tell students and postdoctoral researchers how to “navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.”

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado, has worked with Curry on climate-change issues. He was originally at the university’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Although he agreed with most of the IPCC “consensus” conclusions, he was subjected to similar pressures because he pointed out that data does not support the idea that extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and droughts are influenced by climate change. He eventually moved to the University of Colorado’s Sports Governance Center.

Dr. Pielke pointed out that Curry’s experience shows that “having a tenured position isn’t a guarantee of academic freedom.” It is no wonder that Joanne Simpson, an academician of the American Academy of Engineering and an outstanding former NASA atmospheric scientist, declared her skepticism of the “consensus” after retirement: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” She said, “As a scientist, I remain skeptical.”

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(109)‘Consensus’ in Climate Science

In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established. One of its important missions was to evaluate the existing scientific research about every five years and release an authoritative statement on climate change. It was supposed to establish a scientific consensus on climate issues and provide the scientific basis for policymaking. The IPCC’s report often encloses a list of thousands of first authors, co-authors, and reviewers. Hence the conclusions in the IPCC reports are often described as the consensus of thousands of the world’s top scientists.

In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stated that its goal was to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. One must note that it was already assumed that climate change was caused by humans and was dangerous. Later on, the IPCC was tasked with identifying human influences on climate, dangerous environmental and socio-economic impacts of climate change.

When the UNFCCC assumes that people are the culprits of dangerous climate change, it has restricted the direction of what the IPCC should identify. Also, if climate change wasn’t dangerous or wasn’t caused solely by industry, then policymaking wouldn’t be needed, and there would be no reason for the IPCC to exist. Such conflicts of interest also restricted the focus of the IPCC’s inquiry.

IPCC Reports Removed Statements of Uncertainty

Right before the IPCC released its Second Assessment Report in 1995, Dr. Frederick Seitz, a world-renowned physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and president of New York’s Rockefeller University, obtained a copy of the report. Seitz later discovered that the content in the report was largely altered after it passed scientific review and before it was sent for print. All of the uncertainties of human activities about climate change were deleted.

Seitz’s article in The Wall Street Journal stated: “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, … I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

The deleted statements include the following:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to date to anthropogenic man-made causes.”
“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

Though later the IPCC claimed that all the modifications were approved by the authors, the alterations reveal how the IPCC’s reporting was influenced by politics. The evaluation report doesn’t contain any original research, but mostly summarizes existing research. Because the existing research contains so many different views, in order to “reach consensus,” as it set out to do, the IPCC simply got rid of the opposing views.

In April 2000, the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report said in its draft, “There has been a discernible human influence on global climate.” The version published in October that same year says: “It is likely that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to observed warming over the past 50 years.” In the final, official conclusion, the statement was even stronger: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

When the U.N. Environment Programme’s spokesman, Tim Higham, was asked about the scientific basis of the rhetorical changes, his answer was honest: “There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policymakers.”

Put another way, the UNFCCC gave a homework assignment to the IPCC, making the answer they wanted clear. The IPCC then delivered as required.

IPCC Report Overstated ‘Disaster Consensus’

Paul Reiter, a professor at the Pasteur Institute in France, is a leading expert on malaria and other insect-borne diseases. He disagreed with the IPCC report, and had to threaten to initiate a lawsuit against the IPCC in order to remove his name from the list of the top two thousand scientists who are said to have endorsed the report. He said that the IPCC “makes it seem that all the top scientists are agreed, but it’s not true.”

In his testimony to the United States Senate on April 25, 2006, Reiter said: “A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious ‘science’ is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of ‘experts.’ I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this U.N.-based organization publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. ”

Environmentalists have been promoting the notion that insect-borne diseases such as malaria will wreak havoc when climate warming continues, which is also the main argument of the IPCC. As Bloomberg stated on November 27, 2007, “Global warming will put millions more people at risk of malaria and dengue fever, according to a United Nations report that calls for an urgent review of the health dangers posed by climate change.” But Reiter does not acknowledge this simple correlation between climate warming and the spread of infectious diseases.

He pointed out that malaria is not confined to tropical areas. A massive outbreak of malaria occurred in the former Soviet Union in the 1920s, and another one in the city of Archangel (Arkhangelsk) near the Arctic Circle, where there were thirty thousand malaria cases causing ten thousand deaths. According to a 2011 report in Nature, scientists found that, contrary to the previous assumption, malaria transmission from mosquitoes slows with rising temperatures. This confirms Reiter’s opinion.

Another scientist’s withdrawal from the IPCC also shows that it has used alleged “disaster consensus” as part of its operational culture. Christopher Landsea, a hurricane researcher at the U.S. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the leading authors of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, withdrew from the IPCC in January 2005. In an open letter, he stated, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” He urged the IPCC to confirm that the report would adhere to science rather than sensationalism.

Landsea disagrees with the lead author of the IPCC report regarding the relationship between hurricanes and climate change. The IPCC lead author (who is not an expert in hurricane research) stressed that climate warming would cause more intense hurricanes, without solid factual data to support his claim. Landsea pointed out that past studies have shown that historical records could not verify such a correlation; theoretically, even if there is a correlation, it is insignificant and negligible.

David Deming, a geologist and geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, obtained the 150-year historical temperature data for North America by studying ice cores, and published a his research article in Science. Consensus advocates then regarded Deming as an exponent of consensus. In a U.S. Senate hearing, Deming said that an IPCC lead author sent him an email saying, “We have to get rid of the medieval warm period.” The medieval warm period refers to the climate warming of the North Atlantic region between around A.D. 950 and 1150. Erasing this period in the historical curve of climate change would strengthen the claim that today’s warming is unprecedented.

There are many such incidents. In his book Red Hot Lies, How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Christopher C. Horner, a senior American researcher at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, listed many of the original IPCC authors who oppose the IPCC’s conclusions and its politicized operations. They have raised reasonable questions with supporting data and have challenged the IPCC’s so-called consensus. However, in the current academic and media environment, their voices have been marginalized.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(108)Climate Change

Climate change is a hot topic in today’s society. Public debate about this issue is unusually active, with different opinions from the media, among the general public, and in politics. The most frequently heard argument is that the emission of greenhouse gases by humans has caused global warming that will lead to dangerous climate disasters. Advocates claim that this conclusion is reached through scientific consensus or is already settled science. To some environmentalists, people who reject this conclusion are not only only considered anti-science, but also anti-humanity.

The aforementioned Greenpeace members who damaged the power plant were acquitted of their crime because a famous expert who was a proponent of this “consensus” testified for them, claiming that the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the power plant each day would lead to the extinction of up to four hundred species, and so on.

Has the scientific community really reached a consensus? Retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor Richard Lindzen wrote an article expressing his view that climate science isn’t, in fact, settled.

Steven Koonin, former U.S. Department of Energy Under Secretary for Science and current New York University professor, wrote in his article “Climate Science Is Not Settled”: “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy.” In another essay, Koonin reminded readers: “The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researchers challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances but fundamental aspects of our understanding of climate, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades.”

In general, the surface temperature of the earth has risen on the whole since 1880, and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by humans have a warming effect on the world. Regarding these basic questions, scientists do not differ in their opinions. However, the more important questions, which are questions that are hotly debated by scientists, are these: Is warming primarily caused by human activity or due to natural factors? How warm will the world be by the end of the twenty-first century? Does humanity have the ability to predict how climate will change in the future? Will warming cause a disaster?

From another perspective, however, the scientific community does appear to have achieved some sort of consensus or to have settled the science of climate change to a certain extent, for the voices of those who oppose the so-called consensus seldom appear in the media or academic journals.

Physicist Michael Griffin, a former NASA administrator, said in an interview with National Public Radio (NPR) in 2007:

I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.

First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Although Griffin was trying to express the humility that people should have regarding science, he immediately encountered severe criticism by the media and some climate scientists, who even called his remarks ignorant. The next day, under immense pressure, he was forced to apologize.

A few months later, in another interview, Griffin commented: “I personally think people have gone overboard in the discussion of climate change, to the point where it has become almost not legitimate to view it as a technical subject. It has almost acquired religious status, which I find deplorable.” From Griffin’s view regarding “scientific consensus,” we see that the so-called consensus regarding climate change wasn’t in fact part of the scientific process. He felt scientific progress is the result of debate: “You develop your theories, publish your data, advance your concept, and others shoot it down, or try to. Scientific consensus evolves in that way.” The use of all manner and means to stifle scientific debate itself violates the spirit of science.

Due to his stellar reputation and standing in his field, professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Fellow of the British Royal Meteorological Society and former director of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF, a think-tank that challenges global warming theories). As a result, he faced intense scrutiny and pressure from his peers around the world. Two weeks later, he was forced to resign.

In his letter of resignation, Bengtsson wrote: “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. … Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship, etc. … I would never have expected anything similar to the time of Sen. McCarthy in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”

Bengtsson’s observation was correct: This “transformation in recent years” was the result of communist ideology and struggle tactics hijacking the field of meteorology.

In reality, the alleged scientific consensus regarding climate change has transformed climate-change theory into dogma. Climate change is also a crucial tenet of today’s environmentalism — sacrosanct and inviolable. The scientists, media, and environmental activists who accept this tenet work together in spreading fear of imminent disaster. This doctrine is an important tool used by the environmentalist movement to frighten the public into obeying a political agenda. Through the process of establishing and solidifying this dogma, the techniques of communist-style political struggle, including deception, mobbing, public shaming, call-outs, and open conflict are all apparent.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(107)Greenpeace: Not a Peaceful Story

Greenpeace was established in 1971 and is the largest environmental organization in the world, with offices in forty countries and income of over $350 million dollars. Greenpeace is also one of the most radical environmental organizations.

Greenpeace co-founder, Paul Watson, who left the organization in 1977, said: “The secret to David McTaggart’s the former chairman’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true… You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.”

Patrick Moore, another co-founder of Greenpeace, was committed to environmental protection. He later quit his position because he found that the organization “took a sharp turn to the political left.” It developed into an extremist organization with a political agenda, such as including hostility toward all industrial production and reflecting an agenda based more on politics than sound science.

The strategy employed by radical environmental organizations such as Greenpeace is to use any means necessary to achieve their goals. On this one point, radical environmentalism is highly consistent with communism. In 2007, six Greenpeace members broke into a British coal power plant to cause disruption. They were sued for causing around 30,000 British pounds of property damage. They admitted their attempt to shut down the power plant, but claimed that they were doing this to prevent even larger damage (an environmental crisis due to greenhouse gases). The court eventually agreed that their actions were innocent.

Before this, Greenpeace already had many such records of court wins, including damaging nuclear power plants, automotive companies, and fighter-jet manufacturing facilities. The boundary between legitimate and illegitimate tactics is simply erased with such logic.

Traditional Marxism-Leninism uses the promise of an eventual utopia to legitimize killing, arson, and robbery. Similarly, under the banner of environmentalism, communists warn of environmental crises in order to legitimize violent and illegal tactics.

In the above example, Greenpeace members successfully persuaded the jury to accept their criminal motives as legitimate, demonstrating that a large group of people in society can be misled into accepting specious and groundless arguments. All of this is part of the abandonment of universal values, and is a sign of the moral downslide of society.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(106)Eco-Terrorism

Due to its leftist influences, environmentalism has been relatively radical from the start. There are many radical branches, including Deep Ecology, Ecofeminism, Social Ecology, Bioregionalism, and the like. Some of these branches are extremely radical. The most well-known include groups like Earth First! and Earth Liberation Front. They utilize direct action (like use of explosives and arson) — known as Eco-Terrorism — to stop activities they consider damaging to the environment.

The Earth First! group was started in 1979, and its slogan is “No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth!” The group utilizes direct actions against main targets like logging, dam construction, and other projects. One of the group’s well-known tactics is called “tree sit,” where they sit under or climb up trees to prevent logging. These operations of Earth First! have attracted many new members, including leftists, anarchists, and others seeking to rebel against mainstream society.

In 1992, some of the more radical members started a branch called Earth Liberation Front and adopted arson as their tactic. Around the end of 2000, nine luxury mansions on Long Island were burned to ashes overnight. The main justification was that these mansions were built on a natural forest. After committing the arson, the Earth Liberation Front put out the slogan “If you build it, we’ll burn it!”

In 2005, the FBI announced that the Earth Liberation Front was the largest terrorist threat in the United States, was suspected of involvement in over 1,200 criminal incidents causing tens of millions of dollars in property damage. Their actions have long since exceeded the limits of normal political protest or differences in views. Communist ideology has exploited hatred to turn some environmentalists into eco-terrorists, no different from any other terrorists.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(105)Green Politics: Green Is the New Red

When environmentalism enters politics, green politics, or ecopolitics, is born. The Green Party established in many countries around the world is a result of green politics, which typically extends beyond environmental protection to social justice, feminism, anti-war activism, and pacifism. Global Greens, for instance, is an international organization associated with the Green Party, and its 2001 charter is heavily inflected with Marxist ideology, including a heavy emphasis on a supposed equality between man and animals.

Environmentalism is usually propelled by socialism and communism. After the fall of communist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe, many former communist party members and remaining communist forces joined or established green parties, resulting in the leftist ideology of the Green Party, hence the term Green Left.

After the fall of Soviet Communist Party, former Soviet Union leader Gorbachev tried and failed to re-enter politics. He then became an environmentalist and established the Green Cross International. Obviously, Gorbachev would be likely to introduce communist factors into his environmental pursuits, and he often promoted the establishment of a world government in order to stop environmental crisis.

Many communist parties in the West are directly involved in environmental-protection movements. Jack Mundey, one of the founders of Australia’s Green Ban movement, is a member of the Australian Communist Party. His wife is the national chairwoman of the Australian Communist Party.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us:

(104)Ecological Socialism

As its name suggests, ecological socialism is an ideology combining ecology and socialism. Critics have called it a “watermelon” — green on the outside and red on the inside — for adding typical socialist demands, such as “social justice,” to ecological concerns in an apparent attempt to advance socialist ideology by new means.

A good illustration of ecological socialism is An Ecosocialist Manifesto, published by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy in 2001. Kovel was unsuccessful in his campaign to become the U.S. presidential candidate from the Green Party. Lowy is a member of the Trotskyist Fourth International. The Manifesto states that capitalism cannot resolve the ecological crisis and will be replaced by ecological socialism. They do not view ecological socialism as a branch of socialism, but rather as the new name of socialism in the new era.

In 2002, Kovel published a book titled The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? The book detailed the theory of ecological socialism, harshly criticized capitalism, and suggested a change to the current situation with radical new directions.

From Chapter 16: The Communism Behind Environmentalism

Please follow and like us: