{"id":339636,"date":"2024-08-15T09:37:25","date_gmt":"2024-08-15T07:37:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339636"},"modified":"2024-08-15T09:37:27","modified_gmt":"2024-08-15T07:37:27","slug":"anthropogenic-global-warming-is-political-not-physical-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339636","title":{"rendered":"Anthropogenic Global Warming is Political, Not Physical, Science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arvid Pasto<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By now, almost everyone knows that \u201cthe world is warming\u201d, and has been told over and over by the mainstream media that it is due to man\u2019s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally but not limited to carbon dioxide (CO2<\/sub>). This claim is largely due to the efforts of the United Nations\u2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A history of this institution is very instructive, as its roots trace back to the Club of Rome (a MUST read is https:\/\/climatism.blog\/2018\/12\/19\/draconian-un-climate-agenda-exposed-global-warming-fears-are-a-tool-for-political-and-economic-change-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-actual-climate\/<\/a> Jamie W. Spry).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I quote extensively from this reference below, in brackets [\u2026]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[The Club of Rome was a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling<\/a> to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked. The Club of Rome\u2019s 1972 environmental best-seller \u201cThe Limits To Growth\u201d, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. They noted that \u201cIn searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that\u2026the threat of global warming\u2026would fit the bill\u2026the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not surprisingly, their study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we \u2018act now\u2019: \u201cWe are unanimously convinced that rapid, radical redressment of the present unbalanced and dangerously deteriorating world situation is the primary task facing mankind\u2026Concerted international measures and joint long-term planning will be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent\u2026This supreme effort is\u2026founded on a basic change of values and goals at individual, national, and world levels<\/em><\/strong>\u2026\u201d(Arvid\u2019s bold italics)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Around the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, \u201cThe Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering\u201d. Mead\u2019s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Obama\u2019s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them were disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of \u201cThe Population Bomb\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea was to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism, Maurice Strong, founded the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and its \u2018science\u2019 arm, the UN-IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strong\u2019s, and the UN\u2019s, \u2018Climate Change\u2019 agenda was clearly laid out before the \u2018science\u2019 of climate change was butchered and tortured to fit the Global Warming narrative\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIsn\u2019t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn\u2019t it our responsibility to bring that about?\u201d \u2013 Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program (UNEP)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCurrent lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class \u2013 involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing \u2013 are not sustainable.\u201d \u2013 Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u201cIt is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.\u201c \u2013 Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Did They Choose CO2 as the Villain?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen<\/a>, examined the politics and ideology behind the CO2<\/sub>-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why carbon dioxide<\/a> has become the center-piece of the \u2018global\u2019<\/a> climate debate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It\u2019s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It\u2019s essential to the production of energy, it\u2019s essential to breathing. If you demonize it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That\u2019s attractive to people. It\u2019s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North\/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? \u2013 it\u2019s not a pollutant, it\u2019s a product of every living creature\u2019s breathing, it\u2019s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it\u2019s a product of all industrial burning, it\u2019s a product of driving \u2013 I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to <\/em>bureaucratic mentality<\/em><\/a>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Energy rationing and the control of carbon dioxide<\/a>, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left\u2019s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialization. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of \u201cSaving the Planet\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

STANFORD University<\/a> and The Royal Society\u2019s<\/a> resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich<\/a> spelled out in 1976 the Left\u2019s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current \u2018climate change\u2019 scare:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cGiving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun<\/em>.\u201d
\u2013 Prof Paul Ehrlich<\/a>, Stanford University<\/a>\/Royal Society fellow<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(end of cited article by Spry)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This introduction to the IPCC ought to set the reader up to expect nothing but political polemic from them. However, to make their stand successful, they had to have some science behind the vilification of CO2<\/sub>. This \u201cscience\u201d had long been prophesied, from Joseph Fourier in France in 1824, with evidence provided by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall showed evidence in 1896. But the effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius<\/a> in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. [Names\/dates from Wikipedia, e.g.- https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/History_of_climate_change_science<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With this scientifically proposed mechanism as a means to vilify CO2<\/sub>, the IPCC was off to the races! The UN gave grants to study the topic, as did many national research institutions in various countries. As academic, and non-governmental organization (NGO), scientists realized how much money there was to be had, the topic ballooned. The UN constructed the UN-FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change), with almost all of the countries in the world as \u201cparties\u201d to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IPCC convened yearly meetings, where up to 30,000+ government, academic, NGO, media, and other interested people appeared. These were usually in very nice, expensive places, as their conferences were so large that only certain cities could host them. A few noteworthy were the Conference of the Parties (COPs) numbered 3 (Kyoto, Japan 1997), 15 (Copenhagen, Denmark 2009), 16 (Cancun, Mexico), 21 (Paris, France 2015), and 24 (Katowice, Poland 2018). I call these five out because I will describe some of their outcomes, and some telling, typically off-camera, commentary from the attendees as to the REAL purpose of these meetings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The COP official attendees (representatives of the governments, NOT the press or NGOs) developed plans, many of which became \u201ctreaties\u201d to be signed by the countries. For instance, at COP 3 in Kyoto, it was agreed that the world should reduce its GHG output. As WIKIPEDIA puts it [ https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Kyoto_Protocol<\/a> ]\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Kyoto Protocol implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to reduce the onset of global warming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to \u201ca level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system\u201d (Article 2). The Kyoto Protocol applies to the six greenhouse gases listed in Annex A: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it acknowledges that individual countries have different capabilities in combating climate change, owing to economic development<\/a>, and therefore puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, you see immediately that the push is to blame the \u201cdeveloped nations\u201d (read USA), and this mantra becomes the basis of later agreements on \u201cclimate reparations\u201d (the US and other developed nations put all of these horrible GHGs into the atmosphere, and thus they should pay those who need the money and DID NOT add significant CO2<\/sub> to the atmosphere).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bill Clinton was US President at this time, and he agreed to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, even though it had legally-binding requirements on the US, and would require Senate ratification. George Bush became president in 2001, and the Senate refused to ratify the Protocol, so, for all intents and purposes, it was dead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not to be defeated, the IPCC kept pushing each year to get everyone on board. And each time, they ratcheted up their demands on the developed world. The term \u201cLoss and Damage\u201d became the rallying call for the \u201cdeveloping\u201d countries, wherein they could claim that the developed world caused the climate problems they face(d), and they could then sue (us).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At COP15 in Copenhagen, the \u201cParties\u201d, emboldened by the election of Barack Obama to presidency of the US in 2008, agreed to an unbelievable (to me) wording. If we signed on to this, the United States would agree to become subservient to a \u201cgovernment\u201d consisting of over 100 other nations, including giving this \u201cgovernment\u201d the ability to tax the U.S. to pay \u201creparations\u201d for having burned fossil fuels; to give it permission to tax our GDP up to 2% annually; and other assorted insults!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I put the word government in quotations, because that is the word the proposed Copenhagen Treaty actually used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile at that COP, the press was able to capture some very candid commentary from the attendees:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Jacques Chirac, the (1997) Kyoto Treaty is \u201cthe first component of an authentic global government.\u201d In the words of Margaret Wallstrom, the EU\u2019s commissioner for the environment, \u201cThis is about creating a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world.\u201d Canada\u2019s environment minister Christine Stewart comments \u201cNo matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits\u201d to global warming policies\u2026 \u201cClimate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.\u201d [Leo Johnson, Understanding the Global Warming Hoax<\/u>, 2009, Red Anvil Press, Oakland, CA, Page 65<\/strong>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How damning is that? Now we know exactly, that what we thought was true\u2026the goal is NOT to \u201creduce global warming\u201d\u2026it is to control the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, at the later Cancun COP, in a candid interview with Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC\u2019s Working Group III, and Lead author of the IPCC\u2019s AR4 (Assessment Report #4), in 2007, he was quoted as saying\u201c\u2026climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c..the world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit, during which the distribution of the world\u2019s resources will be negotiated.\u201d [<\/em>http:\/\/www.cfact.org\/a\/1858\/Do-you-believe-in-magic\u2014-climate-numbers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfact+%28CFACT%29<\/em><\/a> ]<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it gets worse. At COP 21 in Paris in 2015, the UN Climate Chief stated \u201cThis is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to(sic) change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years\u2026since the industrial revolution\u201d. [https:\/\/citatis.com\/a34446\/077687\/ ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My question would be: the \u201ceconomic development model\u201d has worked for 150 years\u2026why change it now? It has been very successful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, at COP 24 in Poland in 2018, the UN doubled down, with the UN climate chief stating\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFailure to act will be catastrophic.\u201d \u201cWe require deep transformations of our economies and societies.\u201d \u201cThe impacts of climate change are increasingly hard to ignore.\u201d [ http:\/\/www.climatedepot.com\/2018\/12\/03\/un-climate-chief-has-solution-to-urgent-climate-threat-we-require-deep-transformations-of-our-economies-and-societies\/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While much of this international subterfuge was happening, the US was under President Obama\u2019s regime, which was fully bought into this socialist doctrine. He knew that there was NO CHANCE of getting any of these UN \u201ctreaties\u201d ratified by the Congress. He also had seen that there was no chance of getting any carbon tax, or carbon \u201ccap and trade\u201d agreement passed. So, he unleashed the EPA to do the dirty work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA managed to get a court ruling that CO2<\/sub> was \u201cpollution\u201d. Many lawsuits were brought against this \u201cfinding\u201d, resulting in its going before the Supreme Court. Without ANY scientific background, the SCOTUS allowed the finding against CO2<\/sub>. Now, under the Clean Air Act, EPA could wreak havoc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And they tried to, numerous times. For instance, in 2011, they promulgated new rules on carbon dioxide. \u201cUsing their own figures<\/a>: they said that the new regulations would cost the US $78 billion per year.\u201d [http:\/\/wattsupwiththat.com\/2011\/03\/13\/how-much-would-you-buy\/<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the EPA chief (Gina McCarthy) said that these regulations were estimated to lower global mean temperature by 0.006 to 0.015C by 2100. (ARVID\u2019s note\u2026this is ABSOLUTELY INSIGNIFICANT compared to the 3+\/- degrees of warming that the IPCC was claiming, by the year 2100.) These EPA costs represented $1900 TRILLION PER DEGREE!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the hell were they thinking? You will see later\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2015, EPA released new regulations, designed to bankrupt America. These new regulations were cheaper than the 2011 versions, and would only cost us about $2.5 TRILLION. That is $125 trillion per degree of saved warming. And then, under questioning, EPA\u2019s chief (Gina McCarthy) said thatthe global cooling effect would be less than 0.02F, but that it was important that we do it to set an example to the world<\/em>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Really\u2026the US will bankrupt itself to set an example to the world?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then, in 2016, again under Senate questioning, the truth comes out: \u201c\u2026<\/strong>she says the rule is about \u201cdriving investment in renewables\u2026,[and] advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution\u201d. McCarthy says, \u201cThat\u2019s what\u2026 reinventing a global economy looks like.\u201d <\/em><\/strong>https:\/\/www.climatedepot.com\/2016\/05\/12\/epa-chief-concedes-no-climate-impact-from-climate-rule-its-about-reinventing-a-global-economy\/<\/a> ]<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCarthy has to be some special kind of stupid, or a raging socialist, or both!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this point, I don\u2019t even need to get into the incredibly poor \u201cscience\u201d used by the IPCC and then totally swallowed by the lamestream media. I can talk about it until the world ends, but surely to no avail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many people with access to world-class computers have shown the ridiculousness of the IPCC\u2019s attempts to \u201ccontrol global warming\u201d. Some examples follow:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on President Obama\u2019s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year<\/u>.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100<\/a><\/blockquote>