By Andrew MCKILLOP
Life Magazine's 14 May 1945 issue, selling at 10 cents a copy wrote that mass suicide had spread across Germany like a plague: "In the last days of the war the overwhelming realization of utter defeat was too much for many Germans. They found the quickest and surest escape (was) what Germans call selbstmord, self-murder."
In the 16 January 2006 edition of the UK newspaper The Independent, selling at 180 cents a copy, the renowned "climate scientist", in interview firstly said: "My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease. Gaia has made me a planetary physician and I take my profession seriously".
The master propagandist then added: "...now I, too, have to bring bad news".
And of course the news was suicidally bad: "We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics." "We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."
For many normal persons this could be taken as an invitation to commit mass suicide, or at least to give up work, abandon one's home and family, and take to the road like a vagabond, spinning out the last days before the Apocalypse. If the so-called "scientific nature" of this doomster talk was entirely false, the promoter of this talk is far more than simply antisocial - and is a criminal.
GUILT, CRIME AND MURDER
Hitler was a master propagandist. His propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels was an expert at inventing and applying The Big Lie, always with the objective of making the German people feel guilty - of betraying the nation, of weakness, of personal ego - for anything short of total support to the Nazi's insane plans for world domination. As German chancellor in 1933, before becoming Fuhrer in 1934 and suppressing all forms of democracy, Hitler himself said: "“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.
It was therefore entirely natural that as many as 100 000 Germans committed suicide in May 1945, in the face of the certain and total defeat of Nazism.
With the impending collapse of the "warmist hypothesis", peddled with almost manic zeal by "climate scientists" such as James Lovelock, James Hansen, Rajendra Pachauri and a quite easily identified number of acolytes, associates and fellow travellers we are of course unlikely to witness mass suicides, but the criminal intention to create intense fear of the future, and guilt at our personal behavior was always a hallmark of their so-called movement. Its criminal intention must be recognized for what it is, and appropriate punishment should apply to these wrongdoers, like any others.
The creation of mass guilt feelings in the target population of western consumer middle class society of course needed constant and tireless repetition of the Big Lie, but asalso said in one of his one-liner slogans: “It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.” The role of conventional religion - even New Age fantasy in the case of James Lovelock - was therefore critical to the propaganda machine promoting the existence of "anthropogenic global warming".
While the support of organized religion, itself feeding on the most basic fear that is possible - no person is eternal and can escape death - was initially strong, the promoters of global warming hysteria, through their constant exaggeration and lying had broken all their bridges to the Catholic church by 2011. In a 13 June 2011 statement in Sydney, Australia, Pope Benedict XVI said that climate change prophets of doom were peddling scaremonger stories, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious and unscientific ideology. The then 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment "but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.”
This came on the heels of western and Australian "climate crazy" environmentalists saying it was now necessary to forego children, or even “sacrifice” them through abortion, in order to save the climate, but as the Catholic psychiatrist Erich Menninger-Lerchenthal has noted: "Organised mass suicide on a large scale... are suicides which do not have anything to do with mental illness.... but predominantly with the continuity of heavy political defeat and the fear of being held responsible". The rather open invitation to mass suicide launched by "climate scientists" of the James Lovelock type had therefore seriously backfired with relation to the Catholic power hierarchy - and the rising certainty of massive political opposition to the "warmist theory' was dramatically clear by mid-2011.
As another slogan of Hitler said: "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth", but for the defeated architects of global warming theory, The Losers who so richly profited from their global warming scam, the future is now troubled. We can hope they will shortly be brought to justice and made to explain why they sought to create and maintain mass fear and guilt.
THE FALSE RELIGION
More than three decades before's "Inconvenient Truth", the Austrian former Nazi, Guenther Schwab had sold over one million copies of his 1958 book 'Dance with the Devil' where Schwab frets over the fragile relationship between oxygen and CO2 in the atmosphere. Rising levels of this gas, due to industry, he said: “will absorb and hold fast the warmth given out by the earth. This will cause the climate to become milder and the Polar ice will begin to thaw. As a result, there will be a rise in the level of the ocean and whole continents will be flooded.”
From the late 1950s side-plot of a former Nazi, to a full-blown media blitz by all western media, and a near obsessional theme of the 4 major OECD politicians Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown, until December 2009, we have to ask how this theme became presented as so critical that drastic political action must be taken in order to avoid the inevitable catastrophe.
Backtracking to the start of systematic, government approved, mass media supported global warming hysteria - by or before 2005 - the two critical supports to what in retrospect was an incredible programme of state and institutional lying, comparable only to Soviet era "agit-prop", are easy to identify. And at least as easy to certify, promising sure and certain change - including the removal of both legal and media immunity from its profiteers and prophets - they have now disappeared.
The first was the rise of oil prices, making for urgency in the quest to reduce oil consumption growth and develop alternate energy. The second was the scientifically well-documented and well-described period of slight but certain growth of global average temperatures (as they are called) in the period of about 1988-2003, using the most generous timespan for this slight rise of temperatures measured in the most widely accepted meaning of the terms ('global' and 'average').
These were the sole factual bases on which the global warming mass hysteria programme was launched: although the role of oil prices was permanently denied, it was copiously utilised in the capaign operated by Al Gore and the finance sector, for their personal and corporate profit. The passionate, humanistic, concerned and sincere appeals to ordinary white middle class citizens to purchase a new car, carbon fiber bicycle, recycle their bottles and plastic, use less energy, use less water, eat locally produced food, invest in windfarms, purchase solar collectors - or whatever - were launched on the back of climate change fear. Instead of oil price fear, new "ikons of climate concern" were invented: especially polar bears, penguins, crashing ice cliffs, menaced low lying island states, bad weather, hurricanes and tsunamis, and others.
It is not only possible, but urgent to know who selected and paid for these ikons to be developed, for possible criminal proceedings against them, when their House of Lies collapses.
GOVERNMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS
As we know, governments are now coming under pressure to abandon their existing attempts to control CO2 emissions, and supposedly related activities many of which are in fact dramatically unrelated to global warming, CO2, or any other 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Canada has formally abandoned the Kyoto Treaty and its proposed successor conventions. Russia and Japan have also firmly opposed any second and successive commitment period for the 1997 treaty.
In a sure sign of crisis among the state and institutional supporters of climate change business, the present drift of this now rudderless ship is towards outright financial engineering and the creation of worthless but tradable assets, and of course the attempt at obtaining total legal immunity for the most exposed purveyors of false and lying information. These are among the clearest indicators of rapidly declining political commitment to "mitigating climate change" which at the foundation of the IPCC in June 1988, in its earliest published documents, was defined as follows:
Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in (human) land use.
This highly cautious and pseudo scientific definition was radically changed by the time that the UNFCCC (framework convention on climate change) was signed in May 1992 and ratified by 195 UN member states - but quite interestingly not by the European Union. The UNFCCC's first published documents attest to the new institutional confidence, that is arrogance in promoting anthropogenic global warming as a crisis theme.
Its preamble said: "In the period since the early 1800s, the world's average temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees celsius. In the period from today to 2100, we expect that the temperature will continue to rise, by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees celsius. This is a rapid and profound change. Even if only the minimal forecast happened, this would be more than any other global heating in a one-century period that has occurred in the last 10 000 years".
Therefore, between at latest 1988, and 1992, the complete and total confusion of "climate change" and "global warming" occcurred in the self-elected entities (IPCC and UNFCCC) created in and by the UN system, to address this so-called problem. The link with CO2 was then formalized, creating the easily memorized simple equation that is: climate change = global warming = CO2. The role of this gas, we can note, was institutionally promoted as critical to global warming at the 1985 joint conference of UNEP (UN Environment Programme), the WMO (World Meteorological Organization), and the ICSU (a tiny science-oriented NGO recognized by the UN, with a total staff of 12 persons as of 2012).
The conference held in Villach (Austria) was by-lined: “Assessment of the Role of Carbon Dioxide and of Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variations and Associated Impacts".
We can therefore identify the UN system and particularly UNEP and the WMO, and the period of 1988-1992 as the critical organizations and the time period during which decision was made to promote the fear of "climate change and global warming" as a global mass propaganda theme.
PURSUIT OF THE WRONGDOERS
The good news is that climate change charlatans, hiding behind the magical status of "scientists" and "UN accredited entities" may soon be exposed to what they need - criminal proceedings. Fox News (12 June 2012) was the first to report that the UNFCCC and UN IPCC want immunity against criminal proceedings for: conflict of interest, exceeding their mandates, supplying false or distorted information, and a wide range of other possible criminal charges.
Basically and immediately this concerns the cash grubbing spinoff from distorting, exaggerating and simply inventing data and forecasts of global warming and climate change, in particular for "facilitating" the UNFCCC's role in managing the projected worldwide CDM cap-and-trade system worth billions of dollars for carbon emissions projects. Even more specifically, this concerns the Green Climate Fund which is supposed to help mobilize and supervise the disbursement and utilisation of as much as $100 billion a year to lower greenhouse gas emissions in lower income countries.
The promoters of this fund are seeking broad blanket U.N.-style immunity to shield themselves from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in any country where the fund operates.
The most simple problem for the wrongdoers, here, is that the IPCC and UNFCCC are UN-accredited and "recognized" but are not a formal part of the United Nations system. They are also very unlikely to become so - which may help explain the IPCC's continuing, deliberate and extreme exaggeration of "possible or probable" temperature rises, to maintain its image of "commitment to saving the planet", and therefore worthy of full UN style legal immunity. As we can note, since 2009, the IPCC's attempts at further exaggerating - that is lying about - global temperature increases have become more strident, projecting what are always increasing increases of what it calls "global average temperatures" within an always decreasing number of decades in advance - for example 2025, 2035, 2045 or 2055.
Organizations and agencies of the broadly defined "international system", notably the OECD's energy agency the IEA, have shamelessly drawn on IPCC forecasts, to pursue their own agendas. The IEA's most recent high level conference "Clean Energy Progress" (26 April 2012) was one major example: its deputy director Richard H. Jones, at that conference, announced: "Under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020 and almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6 degrees Celsius [10.8 degrees Fahrenheit] higher"
The keywords "at least" need to be underlined in any possible or potential criminal proceedings that, on prima facie grounds, are completely rational in this stark case of basic untruth. Unbiased climate scientists and earth scientists, atmospheric physicists and others would be called to give testimony as to what conceivable conditions - terrestrial, atmospheric, astronomic, solar or other - would permit the Earth's temperature to rise by "at least 6 degrees Celsius" within 38 years.
They would especially be asked to give their considered scientific advice as to whether this increase in temperature would be possible only through rising emissions of CO2 and other anthropogenically emitted gases.
The threat, now, is that the "fear and guilt" house of cards will irremediably fall apart, making it certain that in coming weeks and months from today (early July 2012) the level of almost pure propaganda distributed by government-friendly media, acrrediting the doomster thesis of climate change charlatans will most likely be 'kickstarted' back into operation again, and rise to a new crescendo. This exactly conforms with Hitler's advice concerning propaganda victories: the Big Lie must be intensified, at any moment when it is threatened.
THE LOW CARBON / HIGH MONEY TRAIL
Like the ikon image of countless primtetime TV news shows and crisis documentaries - the immaculately professional helicopter-mounted aerial photoshots of collapsing icecliffs - the global warming House of Cards is set to collapse. Highly significantly, in an April 2012 MSNBC interview, James Lovelock has already abandoned the sinking ship without explicitly acknowledging that his "science based" warnings that billions of persons will die from global warming this century were in no way science based, but conversely were immensely profitable to himself.
In a completely transparent way, the low and now declining turnover and profits on mandatory carbon emissions trading and related-and-derived financial products, and mandatory commitments to reducing emissions in the EU27, Australia and New Zealand (and nowhere else), drove the creation of bigger and ever more fantasist proposals for profit making. The Green Climate Fund, which has been proposed since 2009, and was formally created at the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011, was and is the latest attempt to keep the always small number of bankers, brokers, traders and climate-and-carbon credit shufflers on board in the process of "monetizing carbon". Without their support, the institutional promoters of global warming fear, like the charlatan "scientists and experts" who have fed from the same trough, will rapidly lose all remaining credibility.
Due to the rapidly dissolving linkage between and dependence on climate change hysteria for maintaining the growth of "green energy", which in the case of several leading technologies (windpower, solar power, geothermal energy, wave energy, ocean thermal energy) operates on completely and totally free "fuel", endgame strategy of the Climate Change Charlatan Community is logical. It has shifted to playing on energy sector financial assets, directly rather than indirectly, in a now starkly open way.
Showing their pathetically slender grasp of reality, the CCC Community's attempt at promoting the Green Climate Fund underlines why they are now at the point of collapse. The Green Climate Fund is almost certain to not get the money it wants to spend, being the last word in useless spending in an era of rapid and synchronized global economic slowdown, debt and deficit crisis in the OECD countries and stark austerity in many of them, and increasing global energy supplies of all kinds. Its spending goal of $100 billion a year, we can note, comes atop of about $30 billion in “fast start-up” money that has been verbally pledged by western UN member states and some non-OECD G20 countries. This so-called pledge is however comparable to the claim (by Hillary Clinton) at the Rio + 20 conference (June 2012) that "over $500 billion has been pledged" for the unsure and controversial, never formally described aims and goals of this conference, at which global warming and climate change crisis were the focus of hundreds of position papers.
The stark and open intent to profit from energy sector asset manipulation (including the creation of entirely new assets) is shown by another statement by the IEA's deputy director, Richard Jones, at the Clean Energy Progress conference. He said: "But clean energy technology is falling short of where it needs to be. Some mature technologies are making progress ... but in many areas, the great potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are progressing far too slowly," he said. "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) remains trapped in its commercial infancy."
CCS, we can say, is the ultimate in fantasy tech, comparable with the mandatory wearing of face masks capturing human CO2 in all public places and at all times. Others might (and do) include calls for the genetic modification of the stomachs and enzyme systems of all ruminant and plant-eating animals, from kangaroos to cows, sheep and goats, to reduce their CO2 and CH4 (methane) emissions. Industrial scale CCS, however, is bigger ticket: capturing the CO2 from fixed installations, mainly fossil power plants and cement works, which account for a princely total of about 17% of human emissions of CO2 (which themselves account for around 1.5% of total natural + human CO2 emissions), would literally cost trillions of dollar, if it was technically feasible to capture the CO2, transport for distances of perhaps several hundred kilometres, and store it in suitably deep impervious underground reservoirs, such as abandoned mines and oil or gas wells.
Unabashed to the extreme, the IEA used the April conference to launch what it calls the 'Sustainability Indicator'. This complex and bizarre meal ticket for its 30-nation government sponsors, and their corporate and business friends and partners, comes to $5 trillion by 2020. In what is an overblown, almost hysterical quest for supposed "energy and climate security" the IEA says this spending on CCS, new sources of fossil fuels (including shale oil and gas), renewable energy (of all kinds) and energy efficiency raising through reducing the amount of energy needed by the economy, will be obligatory in the period from now to 2020, about 7 years and 7 months from today. This works out at about $650 billion per year - to which we can add the Green Climate Fund's $100 billion per year. One thing is totally sure: it won't happen
THE NEAR TERM FUTURE
Both at the upstream of the founding institutions, entities and persons responsible for concocting, developing and launching global warming hysteria, and downstream in the finance sector's eager exploitation of a new charlatanesque support for creating tradable paper enabling the maximum possible amount of fraud and theft, we can identify specific wrondoers. Simply giving interviews and saying "Gee I was wrong", as Sir James Lovelock has done, is in no way sufficient defence for criminal manipulation of scientific data and the invention, or use of purposefully falsified data with the objective of personal gain, through creating or intensifying human uncertainty and fear.
The identification of wrongdoers will become much clearer in coming weeks and months, due to other wrongdoers probably following in the footsteps of Lovelock, and identifying themselves as they try to "bow out" by utilising their media friends to present their admissions of lying as honorable, and their previous lying as due to their "concern for the planet".
In a 24 June 1988 interview with the New York Times, Dr James Hansen, then director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York said that major fossil fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature". At the time, he claimed he had returned to operate in the USA to speak out about "global warming emergency" . Today, the tables could be changed on this formerly untouchable promoter of fear, confusion and the misspending of scarce national resources. To be sure the 'disinformation' of which Hansen spoke in 1988 was any form or kind of opposition to the false formula that climate change = global warming = CO2, and to the claim that global warming is intensifying at crisis rates.
At the time (June 1988), Hansen could claim before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee that it was: " 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere".
This claim is easy to examine and scientifically debate, with the retrospect of more than 20 years of additional CO2 (both 'artificial" and natural) building up in the atmosphere - and scientifically unambiguous trace of linked, direct and dependent, automatic and continuing rise of global average temperatures, as they are called. If this is proven, Dr James Hansen is a simple liar and should be liable to prosecution.
Exactly the same applies to all other promoters and profiteers from global warming hysteria. The most exposed to legal prosecutions we can now expect will identify themselves - through their so-called "apologies and regrets" in selected media - as the two key institutions IPCC and UNFCCC intensify their attemps to obtain total legal immunity . Public action against these criminals is coming.