Mr. G. Edward Griffin does a very nice job of documenting the motivation of the self-interested politicians and the others that benefit from the global warming hoax, including providing the “Monthly Weather Review” article that discusses the warming and loss of ice in the Artic in 1922. It appears that NOAA conveniently doesn’t read their own archives.
What the article does not address is why do so many people continue to ignore or rationalize the fraud. Most environmentalist believe that the ends justifies the means, even if the ends will never be achieved. They believe that taxing carbon will reduce pollution, even though CO2 has little to do with land and water pollution.
There is no excuse for people not to know that man-made CO2 does not cause the climate to change. However, I don’t think they care about this inconvenient fact because they think that reducing economic output will reduce carbon-based energy output, which protects the environment. They believe that it’s okay if the poor nations extort the carbon tax revenue out of the rich nations, because they think the rich nations deserve it. It doesn’t even matter if the corrupt politicians skim off the majority of the tax and none of it gets to the people. This is the standard progressive MO. As long as there heart is in the right place, then math and science (reality) doesn’t matter. BTW, the war mongers and ‘sanctioners’ make the same justification when touting the benefits of nation building and imposing sanctions.
Ignoring the fact that we cannot stop China and other less developed countries from wanting to become more developed, which requires energy plants. A bigger fact that the environmentalist ignore or fail to consider is that increased wealth also enables people and countries to clean up their environment. It takes money to develop, manufacture, and implement environmental-friendly technologies, like smoke stack scrubbers or thorium reactors.
Unless people can afford to care and implement recycling and other methods of conservation, then garbage grows and you get people in poor countries simply defecating in the street, as is customary in India. As countries have become more prosperous, they have significantly cleaned up their environment. After all, who likes pollution? However, when one lives from hand to mouth, garbage and sh*t in the streets is perfectly acceptable. How high would the sh*t be pilled in NYC if we still got around on horses?
There is a pervasive problem of not considering the consequences of good intentions (or the historical and political precedents). One current example is unfolding in Europe right now before our eyes. The EU bureaucrats argued that a united Europe would improve their economy, and enable freedom of movement throughout the EU. The exact opposite has occurred.
Ignoring the reality of diverse cultures and languages, unelected officials rammed through the euro, ignoring the politically inconvenient little detail of consolidating the debt, which would have created a large enough debt market with diversified risk to compete with the US Treasury market. Instead, the EU has an interconnected house of cards, caused by every country buying each others excessive debts; so when a few weak links go bankrupt (i.e. Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.), then the other weak links get exposed (i.e., Italy, France, etc.). In the USA, if IL, NJ, or CA go bankrupt, it does not infect the entire country (immediately).
The Schengen Agreement was supposed to allow freedom of movement throughout the EU, but Angela Merkel’s refugee policy (like the open boarder believers in the US) is blowing the idea to pieces. Now that the unelected bureaucrats are entrenched in Brussels, just like all career politicians, the facts don’t matter anymore when they jeopardize their jobs, perks, and power.
These politically-correct politicians cannot accept the fact that people are different, and in Europe they will always be Germans, Italians, and Spaniards – not European Union’ers. Besides, no country can afford an influx of immigrants, especially when the intention of the majority is to tap into the free goodies being given away by govt. Why couldn’t they simply agree on free trade and be done with it? The answer is simple. It’s the same reason govt’s never reform. It requires them to look in the mirror and admit they made a mistake.
Economic prosperity is dependent on freedom, which is the antithesis of govt. Unconstrained govt consumes the rights of citizens in order to sustain themselves, which consumes economic rights and prosperity. More freedom produces more prosperity, and less freedom (more govt) results in less prosperity. It’s that simple. The economy can never be fixed unless govt is forced to reform, which will never happen unless the career politician is made extinct. Rand Paul is the only candidate that has term limits on his platform, which is why he has no chance.
My fear is that Rights will have to be earned once again the ole’ fashion way, through brute force. Unfortunately, I think the majority in the US have become to soft and compacent. Unless our patriotic military stands with the people instead of the corrupt govt, as they did in East Germany, we will have much less freedom and prosperity. Another big possibility is the succession movements gain momentum during the economic collapse. Hawaii is just the latest rumbling. I’m still holding out hope for Scotland, where the dream lives on.