Questioning the Truth behind ‘Climate Catastrophe’

Every day on TV, the radio, or in the pages of the Alameda Sun, we are confronted with warnings of looming armageddon. With few exceptions, the speaker or writer assumes that we all “know” as a matter of established fact, that human activity is causing the warming of the planet and that reducing our carbon footprint is the moral thing to do. But is this actually true?

Children are getting this message in ever-louder doses in schools. This is going to escalate with the hoopla around the U.N. Climate Action Summit. Students are being organized to go on strike in protests across the country. Similar strikes in Europe have already led to the blocking of traffic and the defacing of statues of Bach and Beethoven by the Extinction Rebellion. 

It’s a time to pause and reflect. I certainly do not believe that most people advocating reducing our carbon footprint intend to cause economic misery and premature deaths by the millions in Africa, or the turning of American youth into zombies who hate humanity, but we must soberly look at the real world consequences of the growing frenzy.

According to an Energy Access Database study in 2017, more than 1 billion have no access to electricity at all. This impacts food production, sanitation, health care — virtually everything. We need to produce a lot more power over the coming few decades. We simply cannot do it with windmills and solar panels. 

Even nuclear power, a very reliable source, does not produce carbon dioxide but can only make a modest contribution in the near future, as the entire world cannot build enough power plants fast enough. 

I believe we’ll need to add something like 8,000 gigawatts over the next couple of decades to bring the world’s population up to a reasonable standard. That’s triple our current capacity! I believe that without a large increase of electric power from fossil fuels, millions of people will die and die young. 

The undercurrent of the “environmentalist” message given to young people today is that there are just too many people on the planet using up a shrinking supply of resources and polluting pristine nature. This has been the theme since the early days of the environmentalist movement. 

Senator Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day, was a big advocate of population limitation. Julian Huxley, a founder of the World Wildlife Fund, was a leader of the British Eugenics Society; his co-founder Prince Bernhard of Holland had been a member of the Nazi Party. There are many other unsavory cases. 

With this message being drummed into our children, is it a wonder that some go bonkers?  Patrick Crusius, the El Paso killer, who in the manifesto he allegedly posted before his killing spree, titled, “The Inconvenient Truth About Me,” he not only railed against Hispanics, but also against human beings in general and consumer culture, saying, “If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.” 

I won’t detail the massive funding of the climate-change campaign by well-known billionaires, but will point out what’s more significant. 

The big central banks, at the Paris Climate Summit of 2015 and the follow-up One Planet Summit in 2017, established the Network for Greening the Financial System. This is where the real muscle lies to nudge the economy away from fossil fuels into “green investments.” Public celebrities, like Greta Thunberg of Sweden, are merely media-created show-pieces.

But what about the science? Despite the hype, there are thousands of expert scientists who disagree with the alarmists. Many argue that 400 or even 600 ppm of CO2 is nothing to worry about — it’s even helping to green the planet. Others point to the many other factors governing temperature and climate, besides greenhouse gases. 

Unfortunately, these scientists have been heavily intimidated and their research suppressed. Who has heard of Nir Shaviv, the Israeli scientist doing groundbreaking work correlating cosmic rays and cloud formation with global ocean temperatures over millions of years? A recent interview with him in Forbes got 40,000 views in a few hours, and then was pulled. Just an example.

The late economist Lyndon LaRouche made enemies by pointing out the connection between environmentalism and fascism, as the cutting of consumption would necessarily require use of force at some point. Now one of the early environmental doomsayers, Dennis Meadows, co-author of The Limits to Growth, admits it, stating in a recent edition of the French newspaper Liberation, that, “The rise of authoritarianism is unavoidable.”

Maybe it’s time to rethink the entire paradigm. Why not work with China and India, etc., and build all those power plants we need to uplift humanity? Haven’t we been sold a bill of goods all these years?