Global warming: politics & ‘responses’


Richard Moore


For those who think the science of this matter is 
settled, and for those who don't as well, I 
recommend this article, sent to us by 
'Alchemike', whose message is at the end of this 

         Current PlanetoPhysical alterations of the Earth are
         becoming irreversible. Strong evidence exists that these
         transformations are being caused by highly charged material
         and energetic non-uniformity's in anisotropic interstellar
         space which have broken into the interplanetary area of our
         Solar System. This "donation" of energy is producing hybrid
         processes and excited energy states in all planets, as well
         as the Sun...
         8) What is the effect of media coverage re/global warming?
         9) What kinds of 'responses to the 
crisis' can we expect from Western leaders?
         10) What are the likely consequences of those responses?
         11) Who is likely to benefit from the orthodoxy and the responses?

Despite a scattering of dissenting material, much 
of which -- but not all -- may be oil-company 
propaganda, the primary message being given to us 
by the media (including Hollywood films) is that 
global warming is a serious threat, and that it 
is caused primarily by human-caused CO2 
emissions.  The US government lagged behind other 
nations in accepting this orthodoxy, but has now 
joined the bandwagon. Legislative measures are 
being introduced throughout the world, allegedly 
in response to the threat. Some percentage of the 
general population, symbolized by SUV owners, may 
scoff at this orthodoxy, but in general public 
support is strong for these 'response' measures. 
Governments have more or less a free hand, as far 
as public opinion is concerned, to implement 
stringent measures of their own choosing.

Personally, I don't think the science is at all 
settled. Furthermore, I think the science is 
largely irrelevant to the design of policies that 
will move us towards sustainable societies and a 
healed Earth. Even if there were no global 
warming, and no climate changes, our usage 
patterns of fossil fuels, automobiles, 
long-distance transport, pesticides and other 
pollutants, industrial agriculture, etc., are 
unsustainable, ecologically destructive, and 
highly wasteful of our natural resources. Drastic 
reduction of CO2 emissions would be an inevitable 
by-product of sustainable policies, if such were 
ever to be adopted.

But does anyone really believe that the 
'responses' being planned by our governments are 
going to make any real difference to climate 
change, or move us closer to sustainability? I 
certainly don't think so. Carbon taxes, for 
example, might slightly reduce the rate of 
increase of CO2 emissions, but CO2 effects are 
cumulative, and carbon taxes are like band-aids 
on a serious wound -- to the extent CO2 emissions 
are a problem.

And does anyone really believe that governments, 
in particular the UK and US, are moving toward 
'carbon punishment' because of public pressure? I 
certainly don't think so. If public opinion were 
so influential, why don't we see government 
opposition to GMO crops or the destruction or the 
rain forests? Why do we see continued escalation 
in Iraq and Afghanistan? We need to recognize 
which is the cart and which is the horse, as 
regards governments and public opinion. When an 
establishment crony like Al Gore fans the flames 
of public opinion re/global warming, then we can 
be sure that there is an agenda afoot, and that 
public opinion is being manipulated in support of 
that agenda. And whatever that agenda is, it is 
clear that it has nothing to do with moving 
toward sustainability or reducing climate change.

Let us now continue with representative message that you have sent in...


Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:53:24 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: Cameron McLaughlin <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: global warming science: dissenting views

Sorry, folks, but much of this content is 
cleverly planted disinformation by various front 
groups who have a vested interest in discrediting 
the overwhelming body of evidence about global 
warming. You've been had. The jury is in, and 
there is no legitimate refutation of the now huge 
body of data.

Cameron McLaughlin, PhD

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:12:46 -0700
From: •••@••.•••
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: global warming -- the science

Hi, Richard.

I'm looking forward to the other post that you 
mentioned. I tend toward believing that global 
warming is a hoax. I wouldn't have if I hadn't 
listened to and read Jeff Schmidt's book, 
"Disciplined Minds," that discusses the political 
nature of professionalism in all fields including 
the hard sciences. Jeff Schmidt's contact 
information follows.

Jeff Schmidt
3003 Van Ness Street NW #W406
Washington, DC 20008

From: "M.A. "Omas" Schaefer" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Global Warming Leaders on Big Nukes payroll?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:58:11 -0400

If we all weren't going to die before this post, 
we certainly will now. We might make it through 
next week, but I doubt it.

The worst "offender" of all? The burning of 
hydrogen fuels! And look at all of the 
environmental groups lined up like ducks in a row 
promoting hydrogen. So now we see a very 
interesting contradiction. The environmentally 
conscious people who wanted to save the planet 
with clean-burning hydrogen (pure H2O vapor out 
the tailpipe)
have some explaining to do. How can they support 
human-induced global warming while also 
supporting the introduction of water vapor into 
the atmosphere? Oops!

I believe in equal opportunity bashing. If the 
global warming crowd is going to accuse every 
dissenting scientist of being on Big Oil's 
payroll, then it is only fair to accuse them of 
being on the Big Nukes payroll. The first wave of 
environmental leaders is already publicly 
floating the idea that we need a massive nuclear 
power plant construction program in order to save 
us from, you guessed it....certain doom! Frankly, 
and I don't say this jokingly, I think it is safe 
to assume that these key environmentalists have 
secret bank accounts in Lichtenstein. Does anyone 
care to ponder the untold TRILLIONS of dollars 
that will be spent on the construction of a new 
generation of nuclear plants? What better way to 
create a demand for these plants than to make the 
burning of carbon-based fuels a big no-no.

I've been a vegetarian for 31 years, so I walk 
the walk. If Al Gore and his cronies really 
wanted to cut down on greenhouse gases, they 
would be leading the way by becoming vegetarians, 
and promoting vegetarianism to everyone else 
after they (the elite) have done it themselves. 
Methane from grazing cattle far surpasses the 
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and power 


Hi Omas,

I don't know what the effect of grazing cattle 
is, but I do know that the British government is 
moving toward nuclear power as a 'solution' to 
global warming and peak oil. I'm sure that the US 
will soon follow. Nuclear power may in fact be 
the heart of the real 'response' agenda. We'll 
find out when they replace Bush with their 
Democratic-brand puppet. Hillary -- or whoever -- 
will need a 'grand new mission' to entrance us 
with, and that may be turn out to be nuclear 
power. She'll need public support, and as you 
say, the CO2 hysteria helps a lot.


From: "M.A. "Omas" Schaefer" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: My reply was Politically Incorrect
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:48:04 -0400

Judging from the responses you passed on 
(certainly not mine) I can now see that the left 
does not even pretend to engage in rational 
discussion. Your readers cannot be accused of 
having open minds, that is for sure. They are 
excellent Stalinists and when they get into 
power, will probably round up and execute global 
warming deniers.


Hi again,

Thanks for staying around, even though you may 
feel you're not among friends. There's more to be 
gained from dialog when everyone's not in the 
same choir.


From: "Jim Macgregor" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: global warming science: dissenting views
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:04:06 -0000

This is great dialogue you've generated, Richard 
and the very fact that Bill Engdahl is so 
skeptical and dismissive of the orthodox view is, 
for me, a strong indicator that it could all 
indeed be elite generated bullshit.


From: "Philip Snow" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Is global warming a hoax?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:56:42 -0000

I'm surprised you didn't mention the worst aspect 
of the film - lots of unscientific, fascist 
Greenies denying development to the so-called 
'Third World'!!

When the most deaths every yr [c4 mill kids, + 
many adults], & from one of the worst pollutions 
- indoor wood smoke - is caused by lack of 
electricity! And not the feeble, unreliable power 
from the solar panels & windmills we graciously 
allow them!

And of course the natives are forced to deforest 
very last bit of veg from the sub desert regions 
- which are growing annually.

Philip Snow, "The Design & Origin of Birds", DayOne Books, 2006.

"Light & Flight - Hebridean Wildlife & Landscape Sketchbook",
Brown & Whittaker, Mull, 12/06.



Hi Philip,

Thanks for bringing in the third-world angle. 
Along with nuclear power, this appears to be a 
major component of the real 'response' agenda. 
Preventing the colonies from developing has 
always been at the core of imperialism. The 
trading of carbon credits, for example, keeps the 
third world in poverty, while enabling rampant 
energy wastage to continue in the West - despite 
so-called CO2 reduction measures. And due to the 
CO2 hysteria orthodoxy, good-hearted NGOs 
cooperate in suppressing third-world development, 
falsely assuming they're doing something about 
global warming.


Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:46:30 -0500
Subject: Is climate change a hoax?
From: Mary Mackie <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••


While I and my family have always been concerned 
for the environment, I have felt suspicious of 
the SUDDEN realization of the imminent danger of 
climate change.

This suspicion hardened when I came upon the 
information -- while tracking the unpopular 
"sale" of B.C. Rail to U.S. interests -- that 
there is a plan in place for a so-called NAFTA 
SuperHighway. There's a North American 
SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), a North American 
Centre for Transborder Studies (NACTS).

It means a 10-lane superhighway running 
fast-tracked from Mexico to Alaska for heavy 
trucks, trains, pipelines.

It's clearly done with the knowledge of those who 
advocate for strict controls on personal 
activities ... and it's impossible to reconcile 
those two positions.

So on that basis, I am beginning to think that 
Climate Change is indeed another cynical ploy. 
WAR is one of the planet's worst polluters, yes? 
WAR makes the changing of my light bulbs a 
pitiful sham, by comparison.

M. Mackie

From: "Claudia Rice" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>
Cc: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: global warming science: dissenting views
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:38:42 -1000

Hi all- the one thing we know for sure is that 
desertification has been progressing right along 
with organized human activity.  Didn't see any 
mention of wholesale deforestation that continues 
along with pollution.

The other thing I've noticed is that "orthodoxy" 
for once seems to be on our side. I'm as 
suspicious of it, or more, than most. But it 
seems to be a strange time to bring up that 
argument, don't you think?


Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:25:04 +0100
To: •••@••.•••
From: Prospective Internationale <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Is global warming a hoax?

Dear Richard,

I have to say that I have been very concerned by climate change on two levels.

The first one was when I asked myself: "What have 
we done to our planet?" as many of first world 
citizens did...

Then, as a professional analyst of mass 
communication, I asked myself "Why is this sudden 
panic about climate change?"

Things turned from some few tenths parts of 
degrees and centimeters of sea level to several 
degrees and meters of water above all cities on 
sea shores...

As usual, I tried to figure out who can benefit from that panic.

And the answer is, once again, the big industry!


Because industry knows that they will face a 
shortage of "easy oil" extraction and need to 
shift, soon or later to new ways to power 
engines. This change, as any new industrial 
shift, requires huge investments to produce new 
engines and cars that will cost more than the 
ones already under production.

So what can push "responsible" citizens to invest 
in new engines better than feeling guilty because 
of the CO2 their own cars produce?

For wealthy people and public decision-makers, 
fighting a, so far, potential global warming, 
will lead them to invest on hybrid cars and push 
regulation laws against greenhouse gases.

Climate change might be a real threath for 
humanity, but it is used as a way to make 
citizens pay for research and development of new 
engines at their expenses instead of seeing 
corporations taking this charges at their 

Some days ago, a huge industrial meeting took 
place in Brussels, gathering the highest 
decision-makers of the bio-fuel market. Al Gore 
participated to it but made his speech 
exclusively for industry representatives, press 
was not allowed to assist. This clearly shows who 
are his real friends!

So, Al Gore is also a representative of the big 
transnational companies, particularly car and oil 
industries. One of his functions consists on 
pushing people to get scared of climate change 
and invest in new technologies that are much more 
expensive than the existing ones.

I'm not pretending that climate change will not 
happen, I'm just saying that some clever 
money-makers are already surfing the wave of 

Yours friendly,

Georges Drouet

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:21:25 EDT
Subject: Re: global warming science: dissenting views
To: •••@••.•••

global warming is a misnomer and a 
super-oversimplification...planetary climate 
change is a better representation...planetary 
change is better yet...

the truth of the matter is that NO ONE knows what 
the hell is happening on this planet...and the 
furious modeling attempts of scientists and the 
babblings of know-nothing politicians like al 
gore (how much did he make from occidental 
petroleum last year, by the way???) and talking 
head spooks like tom brokaw are nothing more than 
whistling past the graveyard...

it's all the same old story...arrogant monkeys 
who think they've got it all figured out, what's 
wrong, and just what to do to make things right...

the earth is changing...simple as that...the 
details of which will not be televised...

there are many forces at work...and the synergies 
beyween those forces are absolute 
may 'seem' imperative to reduce greenhouse 
emissions, even if we actually could...but that 
doesn't mean it IS imperative...

what about methane??? the release of methane from 
decomposing matter under the ocean floor, not to 
mention a tremendous increase from termite 
populations is a fully natural phenomenon...what 
about it's contribution to climate change...what 
about it's combined synergistic relationship to 
increased co2???

what about all these other forces at work and the synergies between them???

what about the SUN??? this is the occams razor 
answer...increased activity from the sun has been 
big talk in astrophysics for over 10 years 
now...and the straight men and women in that 
field tell you the same thing...that they have no 
idea what is going on...only loose theory and 
more modeling...

there is a similar phenomenon occurring 
throughout the entire solar system...the amazing 
russian physiscist, dr. alexey dmitriev stunned 
the world with his work, THE PLANETOPHYSICAL 
1997...unfortunately, it never made it into 
western intellectual circles because it doesn't 
fit with their own model...regardless, it is 
astonishing and should be digested by any who 
attempt to debate this topic...i'll include the 
link and the introduction below... [see beginning 
of this posting - rkm]

of course i agree that it would be wise to move 
into clean, renewable energy sources and i 
applaud those who are working in those fields...

but for we as a species to be 'responsible for 
our actions' we must first have clarity before we 
act...right now the global warming/climate change 
issue is as clear as mud and we are completely 
incapable of knowing the outcomes of further 
actions which may be meant to 'help' 
attitude is not one of 'what me worry?'...i just 
worry about the things i have clarity on...and 
global climate change ain't one of 'em...

some who claim we must do 'something' use the 
'precautionary principle' in their argumentŠ

they're right, they just don't understand their 
own language...not ONE of the proposed solutions 
to climate change has ANY chance of proving that 
it is safe...further, technology is NEVER is the wisdom of the people and 
cultures which employ the tech that are safe or 
unsafe...two way streets on all sides...

certainly we all use energy and i agree fully 
that we as individuals should do whatever we can 
to live in a sustainable and respectable 
manner...and recognize our impacts...that is a 
far cry, however from blaming the whole of 
humanity for a disastrous situation and 
shouldering everyone with the fate of the world...

because we don't know...the situation may not 
even be a disastrous why look for the 
sky to fall???

what if the co2 levels increased to a point where 
there was a spontaneous activation of 'junk' dna 
which was designed to catapult our species to the 
next evolutionary level??? preposterous??? 
maybe...maybe not...

who could know??? the scientists and their models???

the butterfly effect is REAL...and NO ONE knows 
what the outcomes of all of this stuff might for me, it's just as easy to envision a 
miracle as it is to envision an i 
opt for the former vision...

i see the earth as a LIVING SELF REGULATING 
ORGANISM...ALIVE...she has HER OWN WAY...and 
humans just like to think they control what 
happens on her...

as my friend dennis mckenna says, 'the monkeys 
just THINK they're running things...'

when gaia is ready for her next step, the human 
monkeys will either be brought along or not...but 
it is, in my opinion, only a participatory role 
that we play...and we are privileged to play it...

we just need to let it down and stop thinking 
we're so all important to everything...

as always, just my thoughts...




Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website     
Community Democracy Framework:
subscribe cyberjournal list        mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives