BloggeRhythms

Climate change is frequently discussed here. Not because of the issue itself, but rather how this leftist fabrication is used as a tactical weapon to frighten ignorant lemmings into widespread variations of thoughtless submissiveness. And now on Friday January 28, one of the most well-prepared dissections of this farcical threat comes from Larry Bell @newsmax.com. It is well-worth reading carefully.

Titled: “Weaponized Climate and COVID Agendas Should Scare Us All” the “COVID Agenda” aspect of the piece is saved for discussion in the future.

Mr. Bell writes: “If devastating energy policies premised on a so-called "climate crisis" and draconian social control mandates purporting to "crush the virus" have taught us anything, it should be that weaponization of both pose grave transformational threats to our liberties.

“Here, "follow the science" and "follow the money" narratives converge regarding two of the most consequentially impactful agenda-driven science disasters of our time: global climate crisis-premised attacks on hydrocarbon energy and coordinated obfuscations of origins and accountabilities for the devastating COVID-19 pandemic.”

What follows is so well-researched and written, it is substantially left as composed by Mr. Bell who begins: “Who’s responsible for this politicized science?"

“A scientific orthodoxy that traffics on promulgating public alarm, realizing that when fear goes away, research funds evaporate. Powerful rent-seeking lobbies that the orthodoxy relies upon to finance and craft its messaging.

“A compliant and complicit cancel culture media that ensures contrary facts and perspectives are delegitimized and scorned as truth "deniers."

“The evidence?

“For starters, we need look no farther than to heed direct admissions.”

“Like, for example, wasn’t the Biden administration’s proposed "Green New Deal" supposed to be to address the world’s "greatest existential threat"…climate change?

“That wasn’t what the former chief of staff of the plan’s most prominent sponsor, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told climate director Sam Ricketts (appointed by Gov. Jay Inslee, D-Wash.) during a May 2019 meeting.

“Saikat Chakrabarti told Ricketts, ‘The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.’

Chakrabarti then asked, "Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

“Nevertheless, regardless whichever "thing" it was, on his first day in office, President Biden and his handlers capped off the Keystone XL pipeline at the Canadian border along with about 11,000 jobs and 830,000 barrels of oil per day it would have delivered. That same day, he placed moratoriums on oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters.

“After all, didn’t using the "climate thing" to change the “entire economy” really refer to achieving a transformational global Socialist movement?

“At least that’s what an official with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), purportedly created as the world's penultimate authority on all-things-climate, advised in November 2010.

And now we get into the realities of “Climate Change’s” true purpose: “As Ottmar Edenhofer, who served as co-chair of IPCC’s Working Group on "Mitigation of Climate Change" candidly explained, '' . . .  one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth . . . ''

Along the same lines: “The late Stephen Schneider, another former IPCC report lead author, explained to Discover magazine that getting the desired message out – “capturing the public’s imagination” – was more important than getting the science right.”

"That," Schneider said, "of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

“Incidentally, this is the same Stephen Schneider who authored "The Genesis Strategy," a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, before later changing later that view 180 degrees."

“Another coordinating IPCC lead author, Jonathan Overpeck, agreed that well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. He suggested in an email revealed in a Climate Gate scandal coverup, "The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out."

So, here we see what this writer’s contention has been for years and years coming to light. For these fear-mongering leftist promulgators “climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth," while " capturing the public’s imagination, was more important than getting the science right” as they admit they "have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Bringing us back to February 17, 2019, the day Rush maintained: ‘’Climate change is nothing but a bunch of computer models that attempt to tell us what's going to happen in 50 years or 30. Notice the predictions are never for next year or the next 10 years. They're always for way, way, way, way out there, when none of us are going to be around or alive to know whether or not they were true."

What’s truly a shame at present is that Rush isn’t here to see that he was not only absolutely correct in his belief that “Climate Change “is nothing but a “bunch of computer models’” predicting the distant future, they didn’t even bother to create the computer models to support their massive fabrication. They didn’t feel it necessary whereas “capturing the public’s imagination” was more important than getting the science right.

While far left leadership now openly admits that “[t]he interesting thing about the Green New Deal wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” along with party leadership, supportive constituents and numerous highly visible types in the business and entertainment worlds, none of them truly know a whit regarding the subject itself. Primarily because it doesn’t even exist.

Thus, what should be interesting in the near future is how these supporting dupes across the “Climate Change” scenario explain their fervid belief in an issue that from the very beginning was employed so that “one [could] free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth . . . ''

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

 PS:  The substance of today's posting should be remembered every time one pulls up to the gas pump, adjusts the thermostat at home or simply shops for food.  Because whether or not the doubling of the price of gasoline or 10 to 17% increases in prices for other needs is easily affordable or not, it is we the consumers that should determine how our funds are spent. We should not be having the value of our budgets shrunk simply because Joe Biden needed the votes of the lunatic left. MB