I had an exchange with a climate alarmist the other day, an exchange for which I felt the need to apologize. I sent him an email today. The subject line read: “Apology”.
Yesterday, we had exchanged opinions and facts about climate change and couldn’t agree about any of it. Today, the day after our exchange, I found myself bothered by it. I wondered why we couldn’t get along? He is a damn good researcher; how could he be so wrong. Maybe he thought the same of me.
I was going through an article I had recently written, looking at a graph which showed temperature and CO2 levels over the past several hundred million years. I saw that both CO2 levels and global temperatures had very rarely ever been this low, and I thought that surely this would lead to desertification. After all, the tundra is a desert, despite its low temperature. How could he think that this natural uptrend after near-record cold was anything but normal, anything to be worried about, anything unexpected? It had since leveled-off, so no problem, right? Why did he look at it as record highs when it was clearly (near) record lows?
My short answer was that he must only have been looking at the local US surface temperature record over a very short time span, and I was looking at satellite data as well as long term data covering more of the history of the earth, and this is what led to his distorted view. If the charts start in the sixties, it’s been getting warmer. If the charts start six-hundred million years ago, brrr. On a planetary level, however, no big deal. This seemed to explain away the problem as well as all the sub-problems like sea-level rise, Arctic ice extent, storm activity, etc. etc. etc. He was the American alarmist who took the ‘nothing outside our borders matters’ and the ‘we have the best equipment so everyone else is wrong’ view, and I was the voice of reason with a view to the world. Typical US-Canada relations.
I went for a walk to clear my head. Why was this still bothering me? I had figured out the problem; I had my answer. But there was more to it than that. There was something missing. As I walked around my neighbourhood, I thought about power structures and relationships, I thought about hegemony and what it can do to one’s perspective, I thought about the philosophy behind the situation when it hit me: Hegel – Mondrian – binary code. What if we were both right?
The US, more than any other country, has been subject to massive amounts of geo-engineering (read: chem-trails.) The excuse for this is that chem-trails reduce the albedo of the earth and cause cooling in order to combat global warming. But since when have we ever been told the truth, especially about such secretive projects as this? Why was one of the best researchers in the US claiming that geo-engineering was making the earth hotter? Maybe it is, or more accurately, maybe it’s just making the US hotter. Why is exactly half of the US really hot while the other half is cooler? A sub dialectic? There has been some new research which raises the question of whether or not this atmospheric spraying even works; whether or not this might have a reverse effect because of excessive warming at night etc. Maybe he wasn’t just an alarmist. Maybe he was calling it as he saw it, as was I.
The classic Hegelian dialectic can be described as problem / reaction / solution. In other words, create a problem, foment conflict, and have the solution ready, waiting for the opportune moment to bring it out and save the world. This would play right into the elite’s wheelhouse, wouldn’t it? It’s not like they’ve never used that tactic before. What if they’re just trying to play us against each other? What if they’re just using that Jungian duality, that right / left, red / blue, conservative / liberal, two-party system paradigm on us once again? Have they gotten us to fight over the details while they slip in the legislation which will dominate us all?
So what if that’s really what’s going on? What if the earth is cooling and the US isn’t? What if AGW is true, just not in the way we think it is? What if the forest fires and the droughts and the flooding are all being foisted upon the Americans to make it look like they’re a bunch of kooks in the eyes of the doubters and the rest of the world (and the other half of their own country?) Why are the Americans always being brought up as unreasonable opponents to the rest of the world? Why does Nazerbayev want the US out of currency reserve status, out of the IMF, out of controlling the UN, stripped of its guns and nukes, and out of Asia, all the while taking their money? Why is Russia taking over the middle-east? Why have the un-elected bodies of the UN put specific language into climate treaties and trade agreements limiting national sovereignty and preventing any escape (47:11) once signed?
Kissinger had something to say on this subject:
America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.
Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! {N.B. He said “will” not ‘would’.}
…individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.
It’s because we weren’t looking, that’s why. It’s because we let them. I am so sorry.
We should all apologize to each other and come together before COP 21 in Paris (Nov 30 – Dec 11) in order to stop these thugs, these conquerors, these thieves, from accomplishing what Alexander, William, Napoleon, and others wanted to accomplish all along… before it really is too late.
Update – TPP Intellectual Rights Chapter disclosed by WikiLeaks via Global Research
Update – Leading Nowhere, The Futility and Farce of Global Climate Negotiations by Oren Cass
- The conclusion he makes is that no agreement will be reached, but with so many failures, eventually EM countries will be coerced. Either way, every time they negotiate, the rules get stricter and the language gets tighter. This is a question of national sovereignty, and in a hegemonic state, the globe will come before all else.
atokenman blog 