The purpose of this work is to provide an investigation into the ideology of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.
It has been written with the confidence that
further research within the public, as well as the academic realm is
required. Furthermore, the investigative strategy incorporated in this
paper serves to provide a starting place for additional investigation.
Therefore, the foundational reason for this work is to empower the
understanding of the readership.
“We decided long ago that the
dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts
far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it…And there is
very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be
seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits
of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit
to the extent that it is in my control.” John F. Kennedy
To initiate an evidentiary inquiry into
geopolitical decision making, one must first understand the causal
relations that frame how a scientific issue is presented, addressed and
subsequently dismissed. Of importance, is the distinction between sound
science and methods motivated by political self interest. In the case of
the former, the observer maintains a qualitative standard founded upon
the premise that such an investigation will enhance the comprehensive
intelligence within their respective discipline. In the case of the
latter, the observer upholds a personal standard founded upon the
ideology that this method will satisfy their self-interest and
accelerate their ascendance to academic prominence. Thus, to value the
integrity of the former method, the current directive must be to inspire
a holistic understanding within the readership, as well as to identify
the inconsistencies that arise within the discourse pertaining to
anthropogenic climate change.
To further clarify, the guiding principals and
intent of this work is to transform power. Since the prevailing dominant
discourse derives its influence through maintaining ignorance, a praxis
grounded upon intellectual empowerment is the most effective use of
this knowledge. This investigation begins with an analysis of
inconsistencies documented by official sources.
First to be examined is the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. It is the prerogative of NASA to research and
identify causal forces within Earth’s solar system. NASA identifies
multivariate concerns over uncertainties pertaining to potential causal
forces influencing climate change. “There’s a great deal that we don’t
know about the future of Earth’s climate and how climate change will
affect humans”, including the impacts of solar irradiance,
aerosols/dust/smoke, clouds, the carbon cycle, ocean circulation,
precipitation and sea level rise (NASA 2013). As illustrated by
researcher Victor Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the National
Autonomous University of Mexico, this statement by NASA is critical for
“the models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they
only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios
that do not include, for example, solar activity” (Morano 2008, pg 4).
To omit such an influential contributor to climate change as the sun
would inherently bias statistical models in favour of anthropogenic
theorizing. NASA’s admission is important for it sets the groundwork
for a genuine understanding on climate change.
A secondary piece of pertinent evidence is a
report issued in 2012 by the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service.
In this report, Colin Morice et al. state: “this model cannot take into
account structural uncertainties arising from data set construction
methodologies. It is clear that a full description of uncertainties in
near-surface temperature, including those uncertainties arising from
differing methodologies, requires that independent studies of
near-surface temperatures should be maintained” (Morice, 2012, pg 5).
This is important for the scientists involved clearly state the
limitations of their chosen methodology, ie the HADCRUT4 data set, and
recommend that independent research be conducted to affirm their
findings.
David Rose, reporting for the UK’s Daily Mail,
incorporated the graphs from this study into an article he wrote
entitled Global Warming Stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report.
Rose also interviews a number of climate scientists who express
uncertainty regarding the accuracy of climate modeling.
These interviews include “Professor Phil Jones,
[former] director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia…[who] admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the
impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean
temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun” (Rose 2012).
Professor Phil Jones is the same individual “who found himself the
centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails..” (Rose 2012).
In these emails, Jones, in association with
Michael Mann and other collaborators, communicate their intention to
censor academic papers via intervening in the IPCC peer review process,
as well as manipulate statistical data to conform to inaccurate climate
forecast models. In a 2009 email correspondence between Kevin Trenberth
and Michael Mann, Trenberth states: “the fact is that we can’t account
for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we
can’t… Our observing system is inadequate” (Global Research 2009). As
identified in the introduction, the actions of Jones and Mann perfectly
illustrate the ideal of scientists working for academic self interest
and not for the benefit of scientific understanding.
Arising from this case of intellectual
manipulation is collateral damage. The scientific discipline of climate
change and the severe ways upon which human beings are impacted by it,
are dismissed in favour of the expert management of human populations.
In the dominant discourse, additional issues such as globalization,
corporatism, effective waste management, public health impacts, fresh
water scarcity and natural resource privatization are often conveniently
omitted. This practice of academic self interest attempts to discredit
legitimate science while effectively empowering an environment of
division, disinformation and subsequently, ignorance. It is within such
an environment that opportunists thrive, pseudo-scientists whose
rhetorical machinations frame the discourse of public opinion.
“[Thus it has become the case that]
our government’s science and technology policy is now guided by
uniformed and emotion-driven public opinion rather than by sound
scientific advice. Unfortunately, this public opinion is controlled by
the media, a group of scientific illiterates drunk with power,
heavily influenced by irrelevant political ideologies, and so misguided
as to believe that they are more capable than the scientific community
of making scientific decisions” (Cohen 1984, pg 59).
A classic example, is Nobel Peace Prize recipient
and former United States vice president Al Gore. A significant
proponent of anthropogenic climate change, Gore also happens to be a
major benefactor (The Telegraph). According to the Capital Research
Centre’s publication Foundation Watch, “along with Gore, the co-founder
of GIM [Generation Investment Management] is former Goldman Sachs CEO
Hank Paulson…[In September 2006] Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX
[Chicago Climate Exchange] shares for $23 million. CCX owns half of the
European Climate Exchange (ECX), Europe’s largest carbon trading
company…” (Barnes 2007, pg 4). This sale occurred the same year Al Gore
released the film An Inconvenient Truth, which claims both a scientific
consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as well as pushing the need
to offset carbon emissions via green investments. (Freeman 2007, pg
29). In fact, the Executive Intelligence Review reports that “Al Gore
spoke at the May 2005 INCR [Investors Network on Climate Risk] Investors
Summit at the United Nations, in his capacity as Chairman of his
Generation Investment Management. He called for following the model of
the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which started up in 2005.
Monetize emissions; trade them; reduce them, was Gore’s mantra” (Freeman
2007, pg 29).
Upon further analysis, Foundation Watch affirms
that “like CCX, the European Climate Exchange has about 80 member
companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, E.ON UK, Endesa, Fortis,
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the
European Union to further develop a future market in carbon trading”
(Barnes 2007, pg 4). It is apparent that several significant benefactors
are among the most powerful captains of banking, business and industry.
The benefits they incur via the successful management of government
policy and mainstream environmental activism is enormous and therein is
the real inconvenient truth.
Therefore it is evident that the intentional
manipulation of a scientific subject, can be designed to both generate a
public reaction, as well as to benefit private interests. However, the
real danger is when rhetorical mechanisms infiltrate the common sense of
a particular population and influences that populations’ moral
consciousness. When rhetoric, and those who employ it, can establish a
jurisdiction of unquestionable authority, then it becomes a god, which
through its own machinations, is capable of empowering its skillful
technicians and silencing logical inquiry. The population, unaware of an
intellectual coup d’etat, become willful participants in their own
subjugation. Through their acquiescence to a society that abandons
formative critical analysis and evidentiary investigation, the
population voluntarily reinforces this invisible intellectual prison.
What develops next, is a form of group mentality.
When robbed of the proper utilization of the reasoning faculty, a
person surrenders to a set of prevailing assumptions, which in this case
are reinforced by the rhetorical mechanisms operating in that society.
“In fact, people can be so attached to ‘consensus reality’ that its
assumptions and predictions override contradictory evidence. When
speakers encounter a situation in which people or events do not fit the
categories provided by their model of reality, they are more likely to
describe those people or event to make them “fit” the model rather than
change or revise the model itself” (Penelope 1990, pg 37). What this
means is that even when a circumstance arises which exposes that person
to an alternative perspective on reality, no matter how grounded in
evidentiary logic, that individual will instinctively re-frame or reject
that knowledge.
Knowledge, and its effective application, is
power. Thus, the willful ignorance of the public creates the opportunity
for technocratic domination, i.e., those with superior knowledge make
unquestionable decisions that affirm their own superiority (Carson 2002,
pg 12-13). This form of expert management arises and is attributed to
the demand for it. This is a causal relationship. First, the public
generates an expressed need for governance. Second, this need
influences the nature and direction of the outcome. Without the demand,
governance would not be delivered. Consequently, an important inquiry to
raise at this juncture would be: is the current public’s expressed
need also managed to support the prevailing political/economic status
quo? In pursuit of this answer, the following analysis is offered.
It would seem that men and women need a common
motivation, namely a common adversary against whom they can organize
themselves and act together…[to] bring the divided nation together to
face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the
purpose (Schneider 1991, pg 70).
In searching for a common enemy against whom we
can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of
global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the
bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural
processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that
they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself (Schneider
1991, pg 75).
This report entitled The First Global Revolution,
was published by the Club of Rome in 1991. According to their website,
“the Club of Rome is a non-profit organisation, independent of any
political, ideological or religious interests. Its essential mission is
to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and
analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication
of such problems to the most important public and private decision
makers as well as to the general public” (Club of Rome). It appears,
that one of these most important private decision makers, is none other
than Al Gore, who holds a membership with the Club of Rome (ABC News
2007).
Throughout this evidentiary inquiry into anthropogenic climate change, the following connections have been witnessed:
1) the statistical manipulation and censorship of data by leading anthropogenic climate scientists [Phil Jones, Michael Mann],
2) the intrinsic bias
towards anthropogenic causal forces inherent in Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change forecast models [Herrera, detailing omission of solar
activity],
3) the admission of systemic uncertainties inherent in climate forecast methodologies [UK National Weather Service],
4) the widespread
unknown variables identified by NASA [solar irradiance,
aerosols/dust/smoke, clouds, the carbon cycle, ocean circulation,
precipitation and sea level rise], 5) the corporate, industrial and
banking interests behind major proponents of anthropogenic climate
change [Barclays, BP, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley et
al], and
6) the calculated
ideological premise that human beings are the source of all
environmental problems and thus an enemy to humanity itself [Club of
Rome]. Subsequently, the consequences of this prevailing worldview must
be addressed.
In doing so, it is important to understand that
this prevailing discourse arises primarily from a position of advanced
financial capital and influence. Hence, its intentional dissemination by
public, private and corporate actors serve to further promulgate its
sphere of influence (Schneider 1991, pg 157). The major tenets of this
worldview propose limitations on human energy consumption, as well as
restrictions on activities that generate carbon output. The expressed
bias inherent in how anthropogenic climate change is presented to the
public is that of a blaming the victim modality, i.e., that the public
must bear the responsibility of the corporate/military/industrial
sector.
According to Professor Delgado Domingos of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, “creating an ideology pegged to carbon
dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is
an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and
political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning” (Morano
2012, pg 5). Thus, when driving at the heart of this manipulation, it
becomes clear that its overarching purpose is not to manifest a global
environmental equilibrium, but in fact to re-enforce the predominant
political/economic status quo.
This is further illustrated by the aforementioned
report by the Club of Rome. Authors Alexander King and Bertrand
Schneider state: “the global nature as well as the seriousness of the
environmental crisis, especially that of earth-warming, indicates the
need for a coherent and comprehensive attack at the international level
and at the level of the United Nations” (Schneider 1991, pg 99). They
continue: “in addition, we propose the organization, possibly under the
auspices of the Environmental Security Council, of regular meetings of
industrial leaders, bankers and government officials from the five
continents. These Global Development Rounds, envisaged as being somewhat
similar to the Tariff Rounds of GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade; a precursor to the World Trade Organization], would discuss the
need to harmonize competition and cooperation in the light of
environmental constraints” (Schneider 1991, pg 100).
Essentially, the authors are calling for an
agreement among prominent political, economic and financial
institutions, to facilitate the centralization of collaborative decision
making. This citation is also an example of the discourse
“administrative rationalism [which] may be defined as the
problem-solving discourse which emphasizes the role of the expert rather
than the citizen or producer/consumer in social problem solving, and
which stresses social relationships of hierarchy rather than equality or
competition” (Dryzek 2005, pg 75). Hence, the prevailing dominion of
international economic powers is strengthened via this form of
environmentalism, and anthropogenic climatology, in the manner it has
been presented to the public, inculcates an environment of oppression.
A major mechanism by which this form of expert
management is being implemented around the world is the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, also known as ICLEI: Local
Governments for Sustainability. As previously identified, there is a
causal relationship between the public’s demand for governance and its
delivery. Subsequently, an important question to consider is: can an
international secretariat that identifies itself as “…a powerful
movement of 12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities and urban regions, 450
large cities as well as 450 medium-sized cities and towns in 84
countries…[that] have built a global sustainability network of more than
1,000 local governments…”, influence the public’s demand for this form
of governance (ICLEI 2013)?
According to the Capital Research Centre report
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, the answer is an
affirmative. The author David Libardoni states: “…the group [ICLEI] is
the product of a United Nations conference: the U.N. World Congress of
Local Governments for a Sustainable Future…[Bolstered by ICLEI's
delivery system,] ambitious local politicians around the world are using
ICLEI as an international platform that allows them to build their
careers and quickly network with one another on environmental issues”
(Libardoni 2008, pg 2).
It appears that politicians willing to become
proponents of anthropogenic climate change, as well as ICLEI itself,
stand to benefit both financially and politically through the
collaborative success of this ideology. For in addition to the
sliding-scale membership fees charged to local municipalities
(calculated by population size), “over the past 11 years [2008
statistic], ICLEI has received between $250,000 and $1,500,000 annually
in EPA grants to fund its CCP [Cities for Climate Protection] Campaign
and emissions analysis software. In 2006, it reported $904,000 in
governmental grants (out of $3.3 million in total revenue) on its IRS
990 tax form…” (Libardoni 2008, pg 3). In addition to these grants, “in
1997, the Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its
Local Agenda 21 Project, also sometimes known as Communities 21…More
recently, ICLEI has received major contributions from the left-leaning
Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($650,000 in March 2008, $525,000 in 2006),
the Surdna Foundation ($200,000 in 2006), the Kendall Foundation
($150,000 in 2007) and the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation
($100,000 in 2007)” (Libardoni 2008, pg 3). Thus, in light of this
evidence gathered concerning the European Climate Exchange, as well as
the financial benefits accrued by ICLEI, it becomes readily apparent
that the discipline of anthropogenic climatology in concert with private
self-interest can in praxis become an ideology of corporatism, advanced
financial capital and multinational industry.
It is precisely this ideology that is demonstrated
by the New Brunswick provincial government and in particular, the
Department of Environment and Local Government. By way of illustration,
the following select objectives from the chapter Action Plan Milestones
derived from the department’s publication Action Plan for a New Local
Governance System in New Brunswick, are identified:
“Transfer the cost of service
administration for Local Service Districts to those who receive the
service, effective January 2012, by introducing amendments to the
Municipalities Act” [Fall 2011] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 16).
“Create a new community funding arrangement,
replacing the Unconditional Grant, by introducing amendments to the
Municipal Assistance Act” [Fall 2012] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 17).
“Engage stakeholders in the development of
community sustainability criteria and a self- assessment tool” [Spring
2013] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 18).
“Implement community and municipal sustainability
targets for the establishment and restructuring of Municipalities and
Rural Communities” [Fall 2013] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 18).
“Seek input from stakeholders on a framework for a
new Local Governance Act as part of the policy development process”
[Summer 2013] (New Brunswick 2011, pg 18).
Regardless of the purpose, direction or intended
result of the above provisions, the action plan milestones that the New
Brunswick government is committing to are consistent with the discourse
of administrative rationalism, as well as the designed sustainability
criteria of ICLEI. To ground this proposition in evidentiary logic, the
following comparison is provided by way of a citation from ICLEI
Canada’s publication Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and
Workbook for Municipal Climate Adaptation (ICLEI Canada, pg 8):
To further clarify this evident
congruence between ICLEI’s Milestone Framework and New Brunswick’s
Action Plan Milestones, “as outlined earlier, Canadian local governments
should be familiar with the Milestone process, as it is also central to
the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program offered in
partnership by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and ICLEI”
(ICLEI Canada, pg 6). Remarkably, this corresponds to the objectives
outlined in the previously cited Club of Rome publication, The First
Global Revolution: “it would be appropriate that the scheme [energy
efficiency] be launched by the United Nations in association with the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Meterological
Organization and Unesco [United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization].
A corollary would be the setting up in each
country of an Energy Efficiency Council to supervise the operation on
the national scale” (Schneider 1991, pg 99). In accord with this
proposal ICLEI’s World Secretariat recently announced, “ICLEI and the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are joining efforts in
conducting a global survey on resource efficiency in cities with an
objective to get a wide range of city level perspectives and
understandings of local needs on resource efficiency.
The global survey will run between March and May
2013 and will result in a final report planned for August 2013. The
survey is conducted by a team of experts led by ICLEI’s World
Secretariat in close collaboration with UNEP’s Built Environment Unit.
The results will inform the Global Initiative for Resource Efficient
Cities (GI-REC)” (ICLEI World Secretariat 2013). Indeed, it is evident,
that in the dominions of finance, politics and industry, multivariate
international powers have aligned their objectives. This method of
harmonization between international powers, by which prominence is
consolidated and agreements are constituted, is known as globalization.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
globalization is defined as “the process by which businesses or other
organizations develop international influence or start operating on an
international scale [e.g. ICLEI]” (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2013).
The concept of sustainability, disseminated and
affirmed by previously identified proponents and benefactors of
anthropogenic climate change, is “[a subject or practice being] able to
be maintained at a certain rate or level: sustainable economic growth,
[as well as] conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of
natural resources (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2013). These goals are
consistent with the operational capacities of corporations active in the
natural resource extraction industry, with several currently accruing a
substantial profit via the European Climate Exchange [BP, Endesa,
Shell, Goldman Sachs, Barclays] (Barnes 2007, pg 4).
In addition, the previously cited ICLEI Canada
publication, Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook
for Municipal Climate Adaptation, “..was made possible with the generous
support of Natural Resources Canada: Climate Change Impacts and
Adaptation Division (ICLEI Canada, pg 3). Now that ICLEI’s employed
methodology (i.e. globalization) has been established, the next question
of this evidentiary inquiry is the following: in relation to the
intentional manipulation of the scientific discipline of anthropogenic
climate change, are there additional methods that further the personal
and/or private interests of another organization? To be addressed is the
military industrial complex.
A high-risk, high-reward endeavor,
weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the
atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine
controversial issues such as weather-modification, the tremendous
military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at
our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those
of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to
complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control,
weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible
options to defeat or coerce an adversary (Celentano 1996, pg vi).
In this 1996 United States Department of Defense
research paper, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in
2025, authors Major Ronald J. Celentano et al. promulgate the
importance, as well as (in their view) the opportunities intrinsic to
the integration of weather modification technologies into conventional
warfare. As noted in this report’s Executive Summary, “in 2025, US
aerospace forces can ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging
technologies and focusing development of those technologies to
war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter
tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It
provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of
conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures” (Celentano 1996, pg
vi).
To accurately illustrate these proposed
capabilities, Celentano et al chronologically incorporate Table 1:
Operational Capabilities Matrix on the next page of their research
paper. The following citation is this identical table, copied verbatim
from this publication (SEE Celentano 1996, pg vii).
Subsequently it becomes readily apparent that the
United States Air Force, as well as the US Department of Defense, have
an expressed interest in anthropogenic climate change. Their interest,
is largely dependent on their ability to strategically profit from it.
To affirm this analysis, Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization states, “rarely acknowledged in the
debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be
modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic
weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to
manipulate the climate for military use” (Chossudovsky 2004).
This ideology of self-interest is consistent among
all of the exclusive proponents of anthropogenic climate change
identified in this investigation. Evident, within the operating
methodology of each proponent, is a calculated benefit directly
attributed to the successful dissemination of this incomplete and
‘debate settled’ ideology of anthropogenic climate change. Several of
the prominent organizations cited are actively involved in the
indoctrination of citizens, as well as strategically influencing
government policy. Therefore, any remedy offered via this evidentiary
inquiry must maintain, as its foundation, a qualitative standard pursued
for the purpose of empowering public consciousness. It is integrity,
not manipulation, deception, or disinformation that will achieve both an
accurate understanding of climate causal forces as well as create an
inclusive participatory process for affecting positive environmental
change.
Fortunately, there is a growing opposition to the
claimed consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change as well as
considerable numbers of scientists seeking to accurately understand
climate causal forces. Reported by the United States Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, in 2008 over six hundred fifty scientists
expressed opposition to the claimed scientific consensus on
anthropogenic climate change (Morano 2008, pg 1).
[According to this report:] “the
following developments further secured 2008 as the year the ‘consensus’
collapsed. Russian scientists ‘rejected the very idea that carbon
dioxide may be responsible for global warming’. An American
Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of
scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists
countered the UN IPCC, declaring: ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the
Climate’. India issued a report challenging global warming fears.
International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC ‘be called to account and
cease its deceptive practices,’ and a canvass of more than 51, 000
Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming
science is ‘settled’” (Morano 2008, pg 2).
Upon evaluation of this Senate Committee’s report,
in additional to the aforementioned statements by scientific sources,
it can be surmised that any entity, scientific or otherwise, claiming a
global consensus on anthropogenic climate change is doing so: a)
falsely, and b) to further their own ideological agenda. The following
lecture citation, by Dr. Taylor Gray, concurs with this open minded
analysis of anthropogenic climate change: “the occurrence of ecosystems
maintaining a state of dynamic equilibrium stipulates that the phenomena
of climate change is a naturally occurring process. To identify climate
change as a problem is exclusively the prerogative of human beings and
their unwillingness to accept environmental factors that are beyond
their control” (Gray 2013). With this understanding, morality when taken
from a practical standpoint, is largely founded upon the availability
of the essential ingredients required for life. According to Dr. Gray,
“as a naturally occurring biogeochemical cycle, as well as playing the
role of an important atmospheric component, carbon is essential for the
fats, proteins, and carbohydrates that constitute life. Thus, limiting
carbon would place a limiting factor upon the potential for life” (Gray
2013).
What is within the power of human beings, are the
ways upon which we build an authentic global community; one founded upon
compassion and awareness of the growing needs of environmentally
disadvantaged peoples. For example, liberating immigration restrictions
to Canada, would allow this country’s comparatively minor
population-to-landmass representation (approximately thirty five
million, out of a global population of over seven billion) to become
proportional through the vitalization by peoples in need of a more
hospitable environment. International solidarity based upon localized
commodity/agricultural markets would decrease the privatization of
arable land in developing countries, which in turn would advance
international food security. The creation of empowered generations
skilled in home-building, permaculture, holistic medicine and
environmental science would limit international economic dependency and
encourage healthy, inclusive and self-sufficient communities. However,
before this can happen, the prevailing untruths within society must be
addressed.
The effective application of knowledge is
powerful. And to provide a remedy to a public that willfully embraces
convenient untruths is two-fold. To begin, the inculcation and
transmission of ignorance must be replaced with a social/economic
paradigm that supports continuous learning. To be clear, this would take
the form of encouraging independent thought, critical analysis and
informed opinion. This instrument of social advancement must have one
and only one primary objective. That being the cooperative evolution of
human consciousness.
To achieve such a social mechanism the first
remedy must be manifested in concert with the second, i.e., the systemic
replacement of the conditions upon which material benefit is derived
from intellectual manipulation. Effectively, this would mean organizing
around a political/economic paradigm that did not foster an environment
of exploitation. Conversely, the praxis of this new paradigm would be
the encouragement of an informed and intellectually adept body politic.
The success of this naturopathic remedy would
arise organically from a psychologically healthy population. Upon this
foundation intellectual creative power could create a holistic and
inclusive political/economic paradigm. A public effectively
self-immunized against ignorance brings with it the opportunity for
unheralded philosophical and scientific evolution. In relation to
governance and geopolitical decision making, the expressed public demand
for it would end making psychological domination effectively
irrelevant. Thus, when the conditions for freedom surround the human
family, the only problem that remains is choice.
On some positions, cowardice asks
the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and
asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it
popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right? There comes a time
when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor
popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. Martin Luther King Jr.
References
Baker,
Marcia Merry. A Genocidal Hoax: A Chronology of the Global Warming
Swindle in LaRouche Lyndon’s Executive Intelligence Review. March 30,
2007. Vol. 34, No. 13, p. 51-55.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. United States: Houghton Mifflin Company, First Mariner Books Edition, 2002.
Celentano,
Maj Ronald J et al. Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather
in 2025. Air Force 2025: United States Department of Defense,1996.
Cohen,
Bernard L. Statement of Dissent in Ed. Julian Simon and Herman Khan’s
The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000. United States: Basil
Blackwell Incorporate, 1984.
Dryzek, John, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Freeman,
Richard & Marcia Merry Baker. Carbon Tax Swindle Behind Gore Hoax
in LaRouche Lyndon’s Executive Intelligence Review. March 30, 2007. Vol.
34, No. 13, p. 29-34.
Gray, Taylor, Ph.D. Lecture on Anthropogenic Climate Change, St. Thomas University, 27 March 2013.
Kennedy,
John F. Address: The President and the Press, Before The American
Newspaper Publishers Association. New York City: 27 April 1961.
Transcript contributors: Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The
American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8093.
King
Jr., Martin Luther. Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution.
Washington D.C.: 31 March 1968. Transcript contribution: Martin Luther
King, Jr. Research And Education Institute, Standford University. http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/ documentsentry/doc_remaining_awake_through _a_great_revolution/
Libardoni,
David. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability: Taxpayer Dollars
and Foundation Grants Help A U.N. Inspired Group Show U.S. Cities How to
Enact Climate Change Policies. Capital Research Centre: Organizational
Trends. Published November 2008. http://capitalresearch.org/pubs/ pdf/v 1225578943.pdf
New
Brunswick. Department of Environment and Local Government. Action Plan
for a New Local Governance System in New Brunswick. December 2011. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/ Departments/lg-gl/pdf/ActionPlanLocalGovernance.pdf
Penelope, Julia. Speaking Freely: Unlearning The Lies of The Father’s Tongues. United States: Pergamon Press, 1990.
Schneider,
Bertrand and Alexander King. The First Global Revolution: A Report By
The Council Of The Club Of Rome. Orient Longman, 1991.
