. . . by a tight-knit group of climate scientists internationally that have so polarized scientific discourse that they label fellow scientists who try to argue as not mere global warming skeptics, but rather as “Climate Change deniers.” What does that bit of neuro-linguistic programming suggest? Holocaust deniers? Talk about how to kill legitimate scientific debate, the essence of true science. Recently the head of the UN IPCC proclaimed, ‘The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.’
“What the UN panel chose to ignore was the fact the debate was anything but ‘over.’ The Global Warming Petition Project, signed by over 31,000 American scientists states:
So very grateful that William Engdahl has now weighed in on the global warming propaganda. Not that the earth is not warming; it may well be, this year, or over the past few years, or decades; it’s also cooling, once in a while, or for a long time. Let’s face it, our Mother Earth breathes, pulses, shifts, according to her own mysterious rhythms, not just seasonally —
— but in myriads of ways that we cannot ever hope to fully comprehend.
On the other hand, of course humans are polluting the Earth, often without remorse, or even noticing. And I’m happy to say that the recognition that actions have consequences does seem to be a new idea, as regards the large biological nest within which we are all settled and nourished. Certainly, when I was a kid, back in the ’50s, this thought, regarding the environment, had not yet arisen in the collective.
But: as Engdahl says, when central bankers get hold of an idea, and run with it, we are all in trouble.
At the root of the problem, it seems to me, is scientism, our latest religion, its dogmatic assumption that we humans can actually know, even Prove, that what we think is true, via projections, maps, algorithms, and whatever else we conjure up to justify our “position” in regards to an ever-renewing, ever-changing planet in its relationship to the entire solar system and beyond.
No number of “variables” can be identified as complete and exhaustive, when setting up our maps designed to simulate “reality” so thoroughly that, if “accurate,” a map would be indistinguishable from the territory it pretends to cover! Let’s face it: Nature always has tricks up her sleeve; a tiny bug somewhere burrowed deep into the soil might be “responsible” for cloud formations elsewhere. Who knows? I’m sure scientists could “figure out” (invent) some kind of causal chain, using “empirical data” that would lead us from one to the other and then, whoopee, “proof”! Proof? Ha. Proof is but another left-brain linguistic form designed to capture the ever-changing currents that swirl in and through air and water and soil and psyche.