Global Warming: The Good, the Gullible and the Greedy


"Question Everything"

A lot of good people are alarmed by the prospect of a warming planet and want to act quickly to stop it. It is quite possible that the greedy, once again, have manipulated the good.

Humans Can Be Gullible

Acccording to the AlphaDictionary “Today’s word, gull, began as a noun referring to what we swallow with, a throat or gullet, then moved on to become a verb meaning “to swallow”. The noun came to mean a person who “swallows” (believes) everything they hear, then this sense became a verb meaning “to convince someone to “swallow” (believe) something”.

Humans Are Not Often Rational

Human beings are not stupid and are capable of using critical thinking; it just seems that they often do not choose to do so. Examples abound, but an interesting example is the fact that while Americans usually say they vote for Presidential candidates “on the issues” they almost never vote for a short or bald candidate. Short or bald candidates do not seem to fit the image of the warrior king we unconsciously want-as if our leaders will be called upon to defend the nation in single combat with an enemy leader.

On Authority

Human beings believe things for many reasons, and one of the reasons is that the information comes from an authority. In our era, scientific authority is almost sacred. The famous Milgram experiment demonstrated the powerful influence of scientific authorities on human behavior.

Obedience to Authority

In the experiment, test subjects were “teachers” who would help “learners” by administering an electrical shock when learners (who were actors) made a mistake. The level of shocks ranged from “slight” to the horrifying “XXX.” The actor could be heard responding verbally as he was shocked and Milgram expected most test subject-teachers to refuse to continue shocking the learner at some point. If a teacher protested the shocking, the authority said, “The experiment requires that you continue.” To Milgram’s surprise, 65 percent of the teachers administered shocks to the lethal level.

Emotional Reasoning

Global warming, which has been re-christened climate change, is promoted on the authority of scientists (and emotionally on the basis of a movie.) The evidence is “incontrovertible” according to Al Gore. While some scientists do challenge this, they are in the minority and are shouted down. If a regular citizen questions the climate change scenario as outlined, they are accused of being stupid, regressive and a “flat-earther.” The level of emotion as opposed to open debate should raise a red flag and engage some critical thinking, but it shows little sign of doing so at this time.

What is the Climate Change Scenario?

First the climate change scenario should be defined, since many interminable arguments rage on due to faulty definitions. The climate change scenario is made up of several parts.

  1. The climate is getting warmer.
  2. It is getting warmer very quickly.
  3. This is due to the influence of human’s carbon emissions.
  4. Carbon emissions should be limited through government policy.

Should this be swallowed whole? Or should this be chewed piece by piece and the good parts ingested and the bad parts spit back out? 1). Is the climate warming? Very probably, since the climate is always warming or cooling if viewed over a long enough time-frame. We have had ice ages; glaciers once covered quite a bit of North America and they are gone now. So obviously climate changes. In the past 100,000 years 25 significant changes in temperature have occurred, resulting in the extinction of some species and the spread of others. Absolutely-climate changes-and it always will.

2). It is getting warmer very quickly. Maybe-we’ve all seen the hockey stick graph. The climate has also changed in the past very quickly (100 years or even decades is “very quickly” in geologic terms.)

3). The climate is changing because of human being’s carbon emissions. This requires some chewing. There are an awful lot of human beings right now and if nothing else they all breathe out carbon dioxide, as well as produce carbon emissions with their various activities. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is actually beneficial to plant life which very conveniently “breathes in” CO2 and “breathes out” O2. Neat little arrangement, that. This raises the question “Then what caused climate to change in the past?’ This question is not answered very definitively because no one really knows.

4). Can government policies reduce carbon emissions? Maybe; a little bit. Will the carbon emissions they reduce stop global warming? Unlikely. But even if it did, will they then need new government policies to reduce global cooling when the whole cycle swings around later on? Humans have survived major climate events (the desertification of the Sahara, the Ice Ages) by adapting to changing conditions. Now we seem to think we can control the whole world with a carbon tax.

Follow the Money on Climate Change

Finally, I would be much less suspicious of swallowing the climate change enchilada whole if Al Gore did not have himself in a position to get very, very rich(er) from new carbon policies. Al Gore owns Generation Investment Management, backed by Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers, huge venture capitalists who aim to build “category defining companies” that will become leaders in the field. Gore’s Generation Investment Management states, “”There is a significant gap between the capital needed and the capital currently deployed to create enduring solutions to the climate crisis. To address this financing gap will require the efforts of many players, including entrepreneurial ventures, multinational businesses, governments, multilaterals and investors.” Follow the money.

Would Scientists Lie?

Would scientists lie about something like this? Sure they would, they depend on government/industry grants to keep their research departments going. Just because they wear a lab coat doesn’t make them Marcus Welby, MD. We may forget that along with the military-industrial complex, President Eisenhower, in his Farewell Speech,  warned that, “the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research… The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

The Power of Money

The power of money is to be gravely regarded, Eisenhower warned. The Club of Rome consists of about 300 of the richest men in the world, including Al Gore. They meet to discuss world developments and issue reports, one of which, The First Global Revolution (1993) shows that global warming was on their mind. On page 115 (first edition, page 75 PDF) it says, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, 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 and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Humanity the Enemy

It is unlikely that these 300 men include themselves in the great mass of human beings who are the enemy, however. One of the threats that would “fit the bill” to unite the rest of us is global warming. Is it a real issue and is the proposed solution something that the Club of Rome members truly believe in? Apparently not, because in a footnote on page 25 of The First Global Revolution they state, “Although the “greenhouse effect” is still a controversial subject and absolute certainty about its existence will not be possible for another ten years, if it is confirmed by that time, which is very likely, it will too late to do anything about it.”

If it is confirmed by that time, it will be too late to do anything about it, they say. Philosopher Karl Popper states that a scientific theory that isn’t falsifiable isn’t valid. Every twinge in the weather, every hurricane or blizzard, is trotted out to “prove” that global warming is soon going to kill us all, and those statements can’t be falsified, they are “incontrovertible.” This sounds more like a fundamentalist religion than science. Remember that Einstein was a pretty smart guy and he said, “Question everything.”

Karl Popper, “Conjectures and Refutations,” Science: A Personal Report, British Philosophy in the Mid-Century, 1957

Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome, 1993




8 responses to “Global Warming: The Good, the Gullible and the Greedy

  1. Great summary of the insanity currently sweeping the world.

    Do you have any analysis of the current “Wall St Protestors” and their kin around the world? or does the summary I left at sum it up sufficiently?



    • Hey Roger,

      I have several articles on the subject of income inequality and the Occupy movement here>

      Thanks for the comment and have a great day,

      • Je,

        I had a look at the sites you suggested. The plight of the protesters does indeed seem grim and it is distressing.

        However I do have a degree in economics and I would like to share with you how most of these peoples plights have come about, from the economists point of view.

        Most economists, unless they are outright Marxists, would agree that the situation at least in western countries:- (I think that the arab countries have a different situation on their hands), is caused by excessive government spending.

        To hear this may be somewhat of a shock to you, but before you consign me and all western economists to the loony bin, let me explain further.

        First of all, contrary to many people’s beliefs, governments cannot print money or establish credit out of thin air. Of course they do do a bit of this, as much as they can get away with, but it does no-one any good and the result of it is known as inflation, which is no ones friend. The fact is, in the medium and long term, the only money a government really has is what it can appropriate from it’s citizens. This is known as taxation.

        So you may ask, why does the government not tax more and use that money to relieve the suffering of such people as the protesters at Wall street?
        Well as you know, governments around the world have been doing exactly that for many years and strangely enough the suffering that the governments have sought to relieve has steadily grown worse.

        Well the catch is that every time a government taxes its citizens for the money to put one person on welfare, it destroys more than one job in the private sector.
        Here is a recent paper which talks about the problems in Spain.

        Why dosen’t the government “create jobs” for all these people?
        Well to make things even more difficult, to “Create a job” requires a capital investment in a project, an administration and a fund to not only pay the employees but to make ends meet when the project makes an overall loss. (If it was profitable, the private sector would already be doing it). In the study above, the cost to establish each job runs in the many hundreds of thousands. These dollars represent lost jobs for someone in the private sector.

        Therefore it would be fair to say that governments cannot “create” jobs.

        The best thing that a government can do to “create” jobs is to quit spending tax payers money on welfare projects, get rid of unessential quangos, avoid expensive wars and keep out of any attempts to manipulate the market in any way whatsoever and tax the citizen for bare essentials only, (Like politicians salaries).

        However democratic governments are attracted to spending tax payers money in this way. This is known as bribing the tax payer with his own money, or to put it more poeticaly, as George Bernard Shaw once said ” A government which robs Peter (Those working and paying taxes) to pay Paul (those who solicit government handouts in one capacity or another) can always depend on the support of Paul.”

        The ultimate effect of this could be illustrated by the P R China between 1953 and 1978.
        Taxation was 100% and everyone existed only on ration stamps which were redeemable for food, clothing and what ever else the government felt was fitting. In spite of this, deaths by starvation reached between 20 and 60 million between 1959 and 1961. ( I have inlaws who also remember these years).

        Well this comment has turned into quite an essay. If I was a protestor on Wall Street, I would be crying out for the abolishment of taxation, because this is the root cause of their problem, but of course they will be asking the government to shower wealth on them out of money collected from private citizens which will only serve to swell their ranks.

        No easy answers right? I thoroughly recommend the reading of Milton Friedman “Free to Choose” ISBN 0 14 022363 0



        ps Our government taxes the hell out of us too and wonders why we are suffering the same problems as the rest of the western world.

  2. Hi Je’

    I just wonder when you are going to publish the comment I left a few days ago (October 19, 2011 at 2:16 am ).
    Am of course very interested to hear your reply as well.



    • Hi Roger,

      Sorry I didn’t see your comment earlier and approve it sooner. I must add that I disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it. I think the whole “rational” economic model is caca, and I want to know why the Fed, a group of private bankers, is running the US economy. Does no one see a conflict of interest here?

      • Je’,
        Thanks for publishing the comment.

        It is true that it contains stuff that people would rather not have to hear, but exactly which part do you disagree with? There are certainly no lies there and I can justify all of my assertions.

        ” I want to know why the Fed, a group of private bankers, is running the US economy” I don’t know a whole lot in particular about the US Federal banking system, but although some of it appears to be run under a charter with private banks, from what I read, it is still controlled by your Congress.
        Actually I would say that the less the government has control of these things the better, but nevertheless the arrangement looks fairly standard to me. Therefore I can’t see any basis for your question:- ” Does no one see a conflict of interest here?”

        BTW, you may enjoy this book. Best $4.99 that I ever spent.

        it is well researched and documented.
        “The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert”

        I would like to give you a link for the entire pdf but the author does deserve her USD$4.99.
        I thoroughly recommend you download for yourself.



  3. We all view the world through our own private filter. It’s called confirmation bias. I recognize I have a bias in favor of “regular” people and tend to distrust the powers that be-either government or private.

    The Federal Reserve is definitely private bankers, with minimal government input.

    For 98 years they’ve operated without an audit-they have resisted an audit mightily. When a preliminary audit was done, corruption was found. See I would say there is a MASSIVE conflict of interest.

    If we adhered to a free market, the banks would have failed in 2008-that’s what happens when you screw up. It would have been bad, people might have gone to jail, citizens would have suffered and maybe we all would have learned something. Smaller banks would have taken up the slack. But we don’t adhere to a free market, we subsidize corporate monopolies, which is magically supposed to trickle down on regular people. Welfare for corporations, market discipline for everyone else.

    All over the world, people are saying “enough.” They will be ignored, ridiculed and billy clubbed. But the powers that be ignore and use force against the 99% at their own peril.

    Have a great day,


    • Je’,

      I have to say I largely agree with you there. I think businesses that fail, especially banks that do dumb things, do not deserve taxpayer support under any circumstances, although if government support is needed, possibly in some cases the victims of their folley may deserve some taxpayer largess.
      I also agree that both private interests as well as politicians should not have an influence on the money supply.
      In my country we have an act which requires the reserve bank to maintain a narrow range of inflation, (between 0 & 3%), by controlling the money supply. It is therefore out of the reach of politicians and requires a high majority of the house to repeal or change it. In otherwords it is fortunately beyond the reach of most governments.
      And it has worked well over the last 30- or so years as it effectively neutralises any excessive government spending. The idea is straight out of Milton Friedman’s work, its just a pity that he is ignored so much recently.

      However if you read some more of him (Friedman) you will see why government spending creates poverty. “Free to Choose” Milton & Rose Friedman ISBN 0 14 022363 0

      You still haven’t stated which parts of my previous comment that you disagreed with.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s