dialog re/ climate change

Bcc: FYI

Greetings,
I shared a temperature graph with my friend William Bowles, along with the claim that the past 200 years of warming has been entirely natural. He sent the following impassioned reply:

Richard, your graph may or may not be correct but it completely misses the point that us socialists posit, namely environmental destruction caused by capitalism. Species death, water degradation, pesticides,acid oceans,  the list is endless and you can’t deny ANY of it. As a communist, I don’t think I’ll be around in 100,000 years or whatever, to see if your graph is correct or not as it’s completely irrelevant, the real issue is capitalism’s destruction of our once viable biosphere. Your graph doesn’t address this at all.

Here is how I replied to William…

Hi William,

I appreciate your taking the time to reply. You are clearly a busy man, publishing your very informative series of articles. I look at all of them and post many of them to AltPolitics or to my own fb page. I like the way you reformat them for readability and also include the original link.

I have no disagreement with you regarding the destructiveness of capitalism. At the top of the food chain – and decision-making pyramid – of the capitalist system (I think you would agree) are the central-banking dynasties. Consider economics from their perspective. They know that capitalism has been the vehicle that enabled them to accumulate their wealth and power. And they know that capitalism has been a very effective economic paradigm during the past few centuries of rapid economic growth. They also know that growth cannot go on forever on a finite planet. They are not dummies and with all their think tanks they have a better perspective on the state of the world than anyone else. That’s why they launched the Club of Rome and came up with Limits to Growth.

The dynasties who rode to wealth on the vehicle of capitalism have now become the owners of that vehicle. It has become a tool of theirs, and they know the tool is losing its edge. In a post-growth world, capitalism is no longer an appropriate economic paradigm. What makes sense instead is a managed economy based on resource allocations and production quotas, reminiscent of the Soviet system. Not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of the same familiar dynasties. That’s what Agenda 21, Agenda 30, and the ‘climate crisis’ are all about. Resource allocations are to be denominated in carbon credits. The scarcity of those credits will be ‘understood’ by the population, as humanity must be ‘saved from warming’. The climate warriors are begging for the installation of this global austerity-based tyranny.

You are right that the climate itself is not of central concern to us, from a political-change perspective. However the widespread belief in CO2 causation is absolutely central to elite plans for social/economic engineering. That’s why I can’t help trying to expose the scam by presenting real facts about climate change, even though this feels like trying to stop an ocean tide, the tide of 24-7 propaganda.

From this perspective, I think it is a mistake to identify capitalism as ‘the’ enemy. Instead I suggest we need to identify elite rule as ‘the’ enemy – the one we must overcome if we are to have a sane world. It’s not about economics, it’s about governance. If real democracy can be established, we can choose our economic paradigms. We need not be constrained to the extremes of either capitalism or communism.

keep up the good work,

richard
——
Here is a presentation well worth viewing, by a very well-qualified scientist:
And here’s my own climate analysis. The first half discusses the history of climate change, and the second half presents my own theory regarding the cause of that change. You might want to look at the first half and ignore the second. Two red pills in one day may not be good for digestion:
rkm
____
Share:
fuck google fuck google fuck google fuck google