This is a guest article by anonymous author – it was from an email just don’t know if the person wants attribution for it or not. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind my posting it either way. In spirit it follows directly on from the concluding statements of my last post. This is one of the most insightful things you will ever read on this issue:
I sense your frustration in the apparent widespread abandonment of the scientific method when it comes to the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. The fact is, we are not actually dealing with science here because science does not have a political agenda. The Ptolemaic model of the universe was simply an example of scientists being trapped within a false paradigm; I doubt that Aristotle was promoting any particular political agenda when he developed his model.
What is the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a political agenda? Someone might falsely believe and improperly assert:
“Carbon dioxide ‘traps heat’ in the atmosphere.”
That statement by itself is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis that can be tested empirically and discussed. It can actually be refuted just by the fact alone that “heat” cannot be “trapped” since heat is energy in transit and to trap it would be to stop its movement thus causing it to disappear. Thus even though that statement is false, even nonsensical, taken in isolation it merely demonstrates ignorance – a simple lack of knowledge, but has no political agenda attached to it. No harm; no foul.
On the other hand though if someone says:
“Carbon dioxide ‘traps heat’ in the atmosphere therefore we must stop burning hydrocarbons as an energy source regardless of what consequences might ensue.”
then what we are actually dealing with is a political agenda and not science. It is not the ignorance contained within the rather nonsensical statement “Carbon dioxide ‘traps heat’ in the atmosphere,” that is troubling, but rather the political agenda that is attached to it, i.e., “we must stop burning hydrocarbons as an energy source regardless of what consequences might ensue.”
In many ways the success of any political agenda depends upon the effectiveness of the propaganda campaign that promotes it. In today’s world propaganda is officially referred to as “psychological operations” or “strategic perception management”. The academic expertise of Prof. Philip Zelikow (the executive director of the 9-11 Commission), for example, was the creation and maintenance of “public myths and public presumptions”. (“Thinking about Political History”, Miller Center Report, Winter 1999, pp. 5-7)
“Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management. “ US Department of Defense
Let’s pause for a moment and just look at some of the language that is being used in the global PSYOP called “climate change” that is at its core a propaganda campaign because it seeks to manage the perception of the world’s generally unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate population in the promotion of a political agenda.
Is there such thing as a “heat trap“ in thermodynamics? I don’t know, but there is a “heat sink” but a heat sink draws heat away from something else. The atmosphere is in fact a “heat sink” in that it draws heat away from the surface, but that is opposite from what the hypothetical “greenhouse effect” supposedly does, so one never hears the atmosphere being referred to as a “heat sink”. I am fairly certain that within radiation thermodynamics there isn’t a notion that radiation “escapes“ from its source, yet both “heat trap” and “escape” are emotive words that you will see present within IPCC reports. They claim that carbon dioxide “traps heat“ within the lower atmosphere and only after a considerable struggle does IR radiation work its way up to high altitudes where it “escapes“ into space.
This type of rhetoric is drawn from liberation theology and not from thermodynamic texts. [JP: Exactly. See the Religion of Climate Change series.]
They might just as well have written:
“We are the champions of freedom; it is therefore our objective to liberate IR radiation-to help it ‘escape’ from the evil clutches of carbon dioxide which would otherwise ‘entrap’ and ‘enslave’ it.”
Is such language not itself a dead give away that we are dealing with a propaganda campaign and not science?
The fact is, the success of their global energy deprivation program depends in large part on their ability to successfully corrupt language. For example, beyond the notion that carbon dioxide “traps“ heat so that it cannot “escape“ the atmosphere thus causing “irreversible” damage to the environment, under the moniker “green energy” we observe the madness of turning perfectly good food into bio-fuels thus exacerbating world hunger. We have elementary schools teaching our children and grandchildren to fret about the size of their “carbon footprints” as though they are trampling the Earth underfoot, while the most vehement anti-carbon dioxide rhetoric is being spewed by those who produce more of it than anyone else (even if that were a bad thing.) We have people being accused of being “addicts” simply because their lifestyle depends upon the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and we hear people being labeled “immoral” because the better lifestyle that they desire requires a plentiful supply of relatively inexpensive energy. We hear natural gas being called a “dirty” fuel simply because it releases when burned an odorless, tasteless, invisible gas called carbon dioxide. At the same time wind turbines are called “clean energy” even though their manufacture produces toxic lakes of death in China.
“On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn. . . Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most stricking of green energy producers, wind turbines.”
Doesn’t the double-speak that is present within the “climate change” PSYOP remind you of the “double think” in Orwell’s 1984, “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength?” If you take anything that they say and just reverse it you are likely to find the truth, which is:
1) Carbon dioxide does not “trap” heat.
2) Carbon dioxide does not prevent the “escape” of heat into space.
3) Carbon dioxide is a boon to the biosphere rather than causing “irreversible” environmental damage.
4) Biofuels do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions even if that is something you want to do.
5) The concept of a “carbon footprint” is upside down. One’s “carbon footprint” is how much you give back to the environment since the flora thrives on carbon dioxide.
6) Wanting inexpensive plentiful energy is no more an “addiction” than is wanting air to breathe or food to eat. An addiction is the habitual use of something that is bad for you. Having inexpensive, plentiful energy is good for you. Just ask any environmentalist who refuses leave home without it.
7) There is nothing “immoral” about wanting to raise up out of squalor via the use of energy. What is immoral is seeking to deprive one’s fellow man of the benefits of relatively inexpensive, plentiful energy while you yourself live under and enjoy its benefits. Hypocrisy is immoral.
8) Natural gas is actually very “clean” energy as well as being “green” since the carbon dioxide that it releases when burned is not only invisible, it is plant food as well.
9) Wind energy is very “dirty” when you take into consideration the pollution that is created when you build a wind turbine. Plus they are bird choppers. It just so happens that the best place to put wind turbines is where the wind is the strongest, which also just so happens to be the flight paths of migratory birds.
The most effective way to thwart a PSYOP is simply to recognize that you are under one. When the “mark” realizes that he is being “conned” the “con game” is over. “Con” is short for “confidence game”. Didn’t the IPCC even tell us that that they are running a “confidence game” when in their AR5 report they chose to create and place their scientific assertions on a “confidence scale”? They didn’t even bother to call it something other than what it is – a “confidence game“! There is no such thing as a “confidence scale” in science. In science how much “confidence” a scientist has in the accuracy of his own hypothesis is meaningless, but projecting confidence is all important if you are running a “con game”.