Recently I emailed a gentleman who is highly regarded,
nationally and internationally, as one of the top strategic, military and
economic long-range thinkers of our times. He is the author of several
bestselling books about the way globalization is impacting the lives of the
Earth’s population.
In addition to having read his books and magazine articles,
I occasionally visit his blog to read what he is thinking about currently. I
noticed that he was casually referencing “global warming” in a post, so I
emailed to let him know that there is no scientific proof or basis for the
endless global warming claims. I cited all the usual data that disputes it and
I provided the URLs of several websites that could provide him with even more.
His response was quite
revealing. “It doesn’t matter one way or the other. All the same fixes are
required for sheer pollution reasons on a global scale given population
increase and consumption increase. You’re arguing the past.”He would
later post that, so far asthe data debunking global warming, he was“beyond
caring.”
As I interpret this, no matter how utterly false the
justifications are for the global warming hoax given by Al Gore, the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others, leading to
efforts to replace, slow or deter the use of energy sources such as coal,
natural gas and oil, this particular influential intellectual was beyond caring
because the world’s population was responsible for pollution and consuming too
much of everything.
At this point global warming has made Al Gore a famous and
wealthy man. He and the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize and Hollywood
conferred an Oscar on the “documentary” that advances global warming lies. He
now enjoys the lifestyle of the ultra-rich.
The “solutions” offered to stop a non-existent global
warming include a Gore suggestion that “pollution” be taxed; that there must be
a mandated reduction of all carbon dioxide emissions; the instituting of a bogus
cap-and-trade credit system for all utilities, manufacturing, transportation,
and other activities; biofuels, greater use of energy alternatives such as wind
and solar; and ultimately, limits on how much energy people are permitted to
use who drive cars, own homes, or run businesses of all kinds.
In California, for example, proposals and legislation has
been put forth to eliminate the inclusion of fireplaces in the construction of
new homes and that heat or cooling should be controlled by a central command
that will monitor individual energy use and, without concern for the welfare of
the individual user, determine the temperature of their living space. This is
Big Brother writ large.
The federal government long ago imposed standards on how
much mileage a car or truck must have for each gallon of gas consumed and has
since mandated that each gallon must include the engine-destroying, energy-poor
addition of ethanol. The ethanol mandate has created higher prices for food as
corn and wheat supplies diminish.
This is the same government that has already banned the sale
of incandescent light bulbs in the coming years. In time, it proposes to
eliminate the use of all light bulbs except fluorescent ones that both consume
less energy and give less light.
It is the same government contemplating declaring the
thriving polar bear population “endangered” for the sole purpose of putting
areas off limits that are believed to be rich in new oil reserves, not unlike
the prohibition on extracting oil from ANWR.
It is the same government that has declared 85% of the
nation’s continental shelf off-limits to any exploration, discovery, and
extraction of our own oil and natural gas reserves.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
When the movers and shakers, the rich and powerful of our
time get together in their meetings in Davos or wherever, have they secretly
concluded that “pollution” and “consumption” by the Earth’s six billion people
can only be reduced by reducing the world’s population? Do they see great profits
in forcing us to only drive electric cars and the mandatory adoption of similar
“green” technologies?
Serendipitously, the International Herald Tribune published
an article by Andrew Ross Sorkin on March 20 titled, “At island retreat,
Branson and friends seek to save a world ‘on fire’.” It was an astonishing
revelation as it described a retreat hosted by Richard Branson, “the British
magnate” among whose guests was Larry Page of Google, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia,
and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who is now a senior advisor
to J.P. Morgan Chase.
Richard Stromback, the chief executive of Ecology Coatings,
“joked that a gathering like this might seem nefarious to some people.”The reporter noted that, “Many executives and
financiers, including some in attendance at the retreat, have a lot of money
riding on global warming.”
Look nefarious? Yes, it does. Some of the ultra-rich have a
stake in the global warming hoax as a means to further enrich themselves.
If that means cloaking their opinion that the world’s
population needs to be reduced by appearing concerned for the fate of the
planet, than there is no better way of doing that than advancing the goals of
the environmental movement.
This is why “strategic thinkers” looked away when the use of
DDT was banned worldwide and millions, particularly in Africa,
continue to needlessly die from malaria.
This is why “strategic thinkers” looked away when one of the
world’s most extraordinary and affordable refrigerants and fire suppression chemicals,
Freon, was banned from use worldwide with a bogus claim that “ozone holes” were
destroying the atmosphere.
Note, too, that these bans, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate
Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are instrumentalities
of the United Nations.These fraudulent
environmental issues benefit the ultra-rich whose financial interests transcend
national borders.
Presently China,
India, nor any
of the nations around the world whose economies are responding to the growth in
global trade and the improvement of living standards for their people are going
to voluntarily accept such limitations.
China
has apparently concluded that, if the tradeoff is air and water pollution, that
is acceptable until they reach a point where costly technology can be installed
to reduce the pollution. This is already an option that a wealthy nation like
the United States
has adopted.
Another case in point has been the utter failure of the
signatories to the original Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions and
subsequent negotiations to achieve an impossible reduction of carbon dioxide, a
gas that constitutes a mere 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
I am still trying to understand why our government and
others around the world are subsidizing “alternative energies” to the tune of
billions for wind and solar power when neither is a reliable source of energy
and, together, they produce such miniscule amounts of electricity as to be
essentially worthless.
But my strategic thinker guru says, “You’re arguing the
past.” No. I am arguing the future.
I am arguing about issues such as private property and the
right to use it for personal gain and profit, the bedrock foundation of our
economy, guaranteed in our Constitution. It is becoming a scare commodity as the
U.S. government continues to declare vast areas as U.N. heritage sites,
wildlife refuges, national parks, and other excuses to deny their use as
sources of timber, coal, natural gas or oil.
I am arguing about the Green Revolution of genetically
modified crops that can feed the vast population of the Earth without using
more forested land. Despite this, supplies of corn and soy are being depleted
for the purpose of burning these food sources as fuel. The nation’s
supply of wheat has been depleted as acreage is diverted to grow these crops
and the cheaper dollar underwrites increased exports.
What better way to reduce the world’s population than a
manmade famine?
I am arguing against plans to merge the United
States, Canada
and Mexico into
a North American Union to facilitate exports from China
and Asia.
Meanwhile, the great engine of the world’s economy and the
beacon of liberty to the world is being undermined by a fifth column of
environmentalists and those who expect to benefit from their agenda.
