Wright from Washington City
December 13, 2009


The biggest swindle ever



If you find this article of value, please send a donation of $3 to TLD. More information appears below.


A year or so ago I was with a small group of casual friends when the subject of "Global Warming" came up. As most of the others seemed to hold conventional views nourished by the "mainstream" news media, otherwise known as our informal Ministry of Truth, I held back from the discussion; but somebody finally asked me point-blank what my opinion was.

"I think it's the biggest scam ever foisted on the human race," I said.

Shocked silence ensued, as if I'd just declared a fondness for eating babies. Then someone tactfully changed the subject.

Respectable people in Trantor just don't question environmental orthodoxy. To do so is to immediately label oneself as a nutcase, or worse: a right-wing, pro-corporate, gun-toting, tobacco-loving, clod-hopping, know-nothing Limbaugh type. All correctly thinking people know that man-caused Global Warming, now referred to as "climate change," is real and a huge threat to polar bears, Manhattanites, Andean condors, coral atolls, seaside vacation cottages, and every living thing that crawls, runs, flies, slithers, swims, climbs, clings, or shimmies. After all, Al Gore won two Oscars and the Nobel Prize for "An Inconvenient Truth," right? That proves it.

Until now.

The recent publication of a huge batch of computer files liberated from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of Britain's University of East Anglia has blown the whole climate-change con job wide open. The files reveal that the top scientists of the CRU and their allies elsewhere, who produced most of the data and analysis upon which the Global Warming scare was based, systematically distorted and falsified global weather and temperature information to support their thesis that carbon dioxide gas produced by human activity is causing catastrophically higher global temperatures.

As if that weren't enough, the CRU leadership and their buddies at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Penn State, and other tax-sucking institutions conspired to suppress and discredit the research of scientists who challenged their conclusions, and even to ruin their careers. And on top of that, they conspired to destroy publicly owned computer records to prevent any investigation of their shenanigans under Britain's Freedom of Information Act. That's a felony under British law.

Meanwhile, here in the United State, NASA is being sued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute because, like the CRU, it won't allow access to the data it used for its calculations in support of the Global Warming theory, raising the strong suspicion that it, too, has been playing games.

In fact, the most reliable data seem to indicate that the world's climate has not warmed at all for the past 15 years, and has actually been cooling slightly for the past seven. [1]

The implications are astounding. The threat of catastrophic climate change caused by human economic activity is being used as a rhetorical battering ram to crush all opposition to the most draconian economic sanctions ever inflicted outside of total war — and even then only by states against people not their own. If fully implemented, those measures will cripple production and utterly destroy our standard of living. The costs of energy, upon which any economy depends, and thus the costs of everything we buy, especially food, will skyrocket. And the result will be widespread poverty and a resulting huge drop in life expectancy. It is a prescription for regressing to a Third World economy, with all the squalor and suffering that entails. [2]

And it's all based on lies. It makes Watergate look like a sexton's sneaking a few quarters out of the collection plate. The exposure of this outrage gives us all a golden opportunity to study the workings of Polite Totalitarianism, promulgated by the Red Guard faction of the Permanent Regime.

So where is the huge scandal? Where are the headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times, the breathless leading stories on the network news shows?

Nowhere, that's where. The mainstream media, with the exception of Fox News and other Neo-Trot outlets such as the Washington Times (America's Völkischer Beobachter) and the New York Post (America's Der Stürmer), have been deathly quiet. Rush Limbaugh has hammered the story in his inimitable reductionist style, but even his fellow know-nothings Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have failed to pick up the club.

Where the story has gained traction is apparently on the Web, once again confirming the worst suspicions of the Establishment news "gate-keepers." And that seems to have resulted in the need on the part of the Regime to address the incipient scandal. So the Presidential Palace's "science advisor," in answer to an acceptably softball question at a recent news conference, condescended to say a few words:

"I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate ... on the science is kind of silly."

So there. Of course, as is the way of Palace news conferences, nobody bothered to follow up and hold official feet to the fire. Nor did PBS Newshour interviewer Gwen Ifill when EPA head Lisa Jackson lied through her teeth on the occasion of her announcement that carbon dioxide will be treated as pollution by that agency:

GWEN IFILL: We have seen this debate this week about these e-mails which surfaced which seem to cast questions about whether data was being manipulated to make the case for global warming, for the argument that you are attempting to make. How do you say — how do you speak to people who look at this and still question the essential science behind it?

LISA JACKSON: I hope they will look at our action today as being a thoughtful one, in light of all the questions we have heard, not just in the last weeks about some e-mails, but, frankly, over years, about what the science really says and what consensus we should draw as policy-makers from it. One thing I like to remind people is that the e-mails talk about one set of data and how it is interpreted out of dozens of sets of data. And those sets of data have been used by hundreds, maybe thousands, of scientists around the world to reach all kinds of conclusions. So, there's nothing in that — those particular e-mails that change the underlying data. That was the essential question that we constantly asked ourselves during the development of this finding, and not just about these e-mails, but all along.

IFILL: Are you saying that, even if this particular body of work was manipulated, or if things were left out that could have been said about this case, that there is other information which is broader which counteracts that?

JACKSON: That's exactly what I'm saying, Gwen. I'm saying that the, you know, knowledge out there, the data that is out there is vast. And these e-mails deal with a very small sliver of it. And the other thing I think the American people should know is that we are talking about U.S. scientists as well. These aren't — you know, if you read some of the press on the e-mails, you might think that most of the data that's out there is foreign data. There are U.S. scientists and U.S. organizations that have been collecting data as well, separate and apart. And all of that has been analyzed by scientists the world over. ("EPA: Greenhouse gases pose danger to humans")

There you have it. The data is (sic) vast, and the CRU revelations apply only to a "small sliver" — even though that "sliver" is the foundation upon which the entire "climate change" edifice was built. As for the "broader data," the NASA suit and allegations of climate-data manipulation by New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research hint that the rot is even more widespread than originally apparent. In any case, some of the most damning evidence of the e-mails is how "proxy data" from tree rings and other sources were falsified by U.S. scientists to support the Global Warming scam. Neither that nor the apparent conspiracies to suppress and discredit uncooperative scientists were deemed worthy of mention by either Jackson or her interviewer.

The Regime and its running dogs are bent on covering up, or at least drowning out, Climategate. As the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009 (its official name) gets under way with the stated goal of establishing a treaty to strangle CO2 emissions, the mainstream media are cranking up the scare volume. On December 7 (appropriately enough), NBC Nightly News opened its broadcast from Copenhagen with its reporter stating flatly that the fight against "climate change" is a "matter of life and death," and that "climate change" threatens the very existence of some countries. Minitrue's customers are being bombarded with breathless warnings of disaster and weepy human-interest stories about Third World denizens who are said to face extinction from inevitably rising oceans, changing weather, and other horrors.

A typical news story in the New York Times, which sets the tone and agenda for the rest of Minitrue, was headlined "In Face of Skeptics, Experts Affirm Climate Peril" (December 7). About the only "experts" it mentioned, however, were various government and UN ministers and Britain's left-wing Guardian newspaper, all of which give short shrift to the e-mail revelations.

The headline has since been changed; perhaps the editors realized how weak it made the story seem.

Other stories in the Times and elsewhere either ignore Climategate altogether or quote declarations by Global Warming believers that do not address the questions raised by it: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. When the scandal is mentioned, the discrediting word "stolen" is almost always used to describe the computer files — which by law are supposed to belong to the British public and should be available on request.

And here's an interesting thing. In researching this article, I made a note about just such a story on the Times's website attacking Climategate head on. The story attempted to discredit the scandal using numerous quotes from warming-theory advocates, usually not "scientists." Its arguments were weak, its tone was arrogant and dismissive, and it left itself open to attack by the "climate skeptics" it criticized. When I looked for the story again a few days later, I couldn't find it. It had disappeared from the Times website without a trace.

What I did find was a story headlined "Stolen E-Mail, Stoking the Climate Debate," defending the Times's coverage of Climategate, in the face of a wave of criticism in the readers' comments section of the website. So it would seem that the battle isn't over yet.

If the scandal really breaks out, it will be a stunning defeat for the Red Guards. Global Warming is the latest, and by far the most effective, boogeyman in the never-ceasing work of the Guards to gain utter and complete control over us.

The various subfactions of the Guards — the feminists, the consumerists, the child advocates, the educationists, etc. — all share a dislike, inherited from their Progressive forebears, not just of human freedom, but of prosperity as well. Prosperity gives us peasants the scope and free time to contemplate dangerous ideas, and resources for the pursuit of all kinds of annoying activities, including driving big ugly masculine vehicles, watching big-screen TVs, and surfing and blogging on the Internet. Even worse, it makes us less dependent on our betters and thus less deferential to them. Prosperity has its place, of course — as long as it's limited to well-educated people from proper backgrounds who dedicate their lives to "public service." But for hoi polloi — well ... [3]

However, the environmentalist subfaction carries this dislike of human action to a level of psychosis exceeded only by the animal-rights crazies. Under the public environmentalist ethic — the support of recycling even when it wastes more resources than it saves, the pathological disdain of internal combustion, the neurotic hatred of any modification of the world no matter how helpful to people and other creatures alike, and on and on — there lies a profoundly anti-human attitude. The elites who set the agenda for the environmental movement, who project their Weltanschauung through it, see the human race as a cancer. [4] They regard buildings, highways, farms, cars, airplanes, and all the other artifacts of our civilization as blemishes and scars marring the once-pristine Earth. And they long for human economic activity to be scaled back drastically, if not destroyed completely. (It goes without saying that they seem to have a slight blind spot about the resulting impact on their own lives.) [5]

Naturally, you can't push an agenda of drastically reducing everybody's standard of living and hope to get anywhere. So until recently the environmentalists had to content themselves with nibbling ceaselessly around the edges, said nibbles including:

• Regulations and laws that make it impossible for businesses to operate profitably [6];
• Requirements that force state and local governments to raise taxes for the construction of unneeded water treatment and other facilities;
• Air-emissions laws that add to the cost of electric power stations, and prevent the building of coal-fired facilities, which are the most economical;
• Emissions and fuel-usage laws and taxes that drive up the costs of vehicles and the fuels on which they run;
• Recycling requirements;
• The demonization of nuclear power;
• The exalting of every organism whose welfare can be used as an excuse to block the building of a pipeline, power-line, highway, refinery, factory, or whatever; and
• The banning of useful pesticides — to the immense detriment of the health and prosperity of the poor in Africa and elsewhere.

But, stifling as those measures are, human ingenuity and the relentless march of technology have always managed to fuel economic growth in spite of them. Until now.

The rise of the anthropogenic Global Warming theory changed everything. Here was the environmentalist equivalent of a unified-field theory. Carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by the burning of fossil fuels, was causing a "greenhouse effect," trapping solar heat that would otherwise be radiated into outer space, much as the glass in a greenhouse traps solar heat.

The Red Guards — let us now color them a a foul, excremental Green — had discovered the perfect weapon against humanity: almost everything that we do produces CO2. Most (and the cheapest) electric power is produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas — which makes CO2. Cars, trains, airplanes, trucks — all burn fuel containing carbon, and so produce CO2. Even breathing exhausts CO2 into the atmosphere. Reducing its production will have profoundly deleterious effects on the world economy, thus fulfilling a cherished dream of the Green Guards.

Clearly, then, it was necessary to declare CO2 a pollutant, and tightly regulate its production, so as to prevent climate catastrophe. The EPA's recent action to do so is a huge victory for the environmental Guards.

Far from a pollutant, CO2 is in fact vital to the survival of life on earth. It is one of the chemical building blocks used by plants in photosynthesis. If CO2 were to disappear from the atmosphere, all green plants would die. And then so would we.

But the Green Guards and their allies will fight tooth and nail to keep the CO2 scare alive. It has already proven a bonanza for them, for the climate "scientists" who were willing to compromise their integrity to support it, and for various other parasitic interest groups. Careers and fortunes have been made from it. Al Gore's resurrection as a public figure is only one example.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and fellowships have gone for the "study" of "climate change," and the CRU and its collaborators here in the United State and elsewhere are among the recipients. Green Guard non-profits use the scare not only to raise funds from gullible individuals but also to justify grants from foundations and even the State. And then there are the numerous state subsidies and tax incentives available for "green energy" sources such as biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, wind and solar power — none of which are capable of competing in a free market, and all of which have their associated interest groups, including farmers and manufacturers. And let's not forget our old friend Goldman Sachs, which is looking forward to making more billions trading carbon credits under Obama's "Cap and Trade" scheme. Together, they are a growing political force for keeping the Global Warming scare going, whatever the cost.

Opinion polls already show that a growing majority of Americans are skeptical of the Global Warming scam, despite the increasingly frantic keening of Minitrue in its support. The question, then, is this: Will the scandal manage come to life through Web and other non-mainstream outlets, forcing Minitrue to treat it as a real story? If it does, there's no telling what will happen, but there's no question that the Green movement will suffer substantial damage.

One of the most striking symbols of the new political order stands on 17th Street Northwest in Washington City, just a few blocks north of the Presidential Palace. Across the street from the National Geographic Society's headquarters is a truncated skyscraper faced in black granite. Originally called the Coal Building, it used to house the Washington lobby promoting the use of that now-despised mineral. Sometime in the past decade, however, the building changed hands, apparently as the fortunes of the coal lobby waned. Today it's the headquarters of an organization called Defenders of Wildlife, an enthusiastic promoter of the Global Warming scam. The people who pass through its doors must revel daily in the exquisite irony. The building's once-drab façade has been dressed up with a showy, expensive new bronze portico, landscaping, and bronze sculptures of wolves — who are, I've no doubt, properly grateful for the efforts of the organization in their behalf.

No, they're not going to give up easily. They just have too much to lose.

December 13, 2009

© 2009 WTM Enterprises. All rights reserved.

To the sidebar.

If you found this article to be interesting, please donate at least $3 to our cause. You should make your check or money order payable in U.S. dollars to WTM Enterprises and send it to:

WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783

Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD!

Notice to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. Please check out our home page and table of contents.


















1. "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered," by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, American Physical Society, July 2008. See Figure 1.

[Back to the text.]










2. It seems as if every week somebody comes up with a study that shows the number of people who will die from exposure to second-hand smoke, or from some obscure chemical present in vanishingly small amounts in the air or water, or from who knows what, unless the government imposes some tiresome measure they've dreamed up. I've often wondered how they manage to make those calculations and where their information comes from.

However, I don't have any problem at all believing that lower income causes you to die sooner. Numerous studies have shown that life span and mortality rates are directly correlated with average income levels. The higher the income, the longer people live, and vice versa. So it follows that any measure taken by the state that lowers income will shorten life spans and kill an undetermined number of people.

These days you have to file an environmental impact statement for just about any kind of project that involves breaking ground, estimating the environmental damage it will cause. Why not require the state to file an economic impact statement estimating the number of Americans a new tax or regulation will kill?

It's just an idea ...

[Back to the text.]







3. I once got into a discussion with a nice liberal lady about taxation and the damage to society caused by the burden of the state. "The government sucks up more than half of everything Americans produce," I said. "Think what people could accomplish if they were able to keep even half of that money!"

To which she replied: "If we let them have more money, they'll just spend it on SUVs."

[Back to the text.]







4. Guard subfactions tend to have public agendas camouflaging the motivations of their core elites, who hold views far too radical for public consumption. The feminist movement is the classic example. Its public face is advocacy of equality in the workplace, abortion, etc. But its motivating impulse, its "meta-agenda," if you will, is something else entirely: a hatred of maleness itself, expressed by such geniuses as Andrea Dworkin, who sees all heterosexual intercourse as rape.

The environmental movement is led by a committed core that embraces a profoundly misanthropic meta-agenda, which must be camouflaged for fear of alienating the public and the movement's more moderate members and fellow travelers. Such groups as Earth First!, which openly espouses the "humans as cancer" idea, are not really extremists, then, but only eschew the tactic of posing as moderate.

An interesting window into the humans-as-cancer attitude is the "Gaia Hypothesis" of British scientist James Lovelock, which has become very popular among the Green Guards. Lovelock says the Earth itself is a giant super-organism, and that human activity as making it sick: "Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm." (Gaia, the Practical Science of Planetary Medicine," 1991, p. 153) Elsewhere, he equates Global Warming to a planetary fever, an immune reaction by the Earth to its human pathogens. Interestingly, Lovelock is a maverick among the Guards because he advocates nuclear power.

[Back to the text.]







5. Only the Green Guards' hatred of humanity can explain their tacit support for war, which must be one of the most environmentally destructive human activities ever. Aside from the damage to wildlife and other random destructive effects of explosives and firearms, war machines consume prodigious quantities of fuel, spew enormous amounts of carbon and pollutants into the air, and waste huge quantities of industrial products.

One of the biggest long-term health risks faced by U.S. legionaries in combat zones is prolonged exposure to the filthy smoke from huge open "burn pits" used to incinerate everything from empty containers to amputated body parts. Residual radioactivity from depleted-uranium projectiles fired by U.S. guns is another genuine problem. If they're so concerned about pollution and damage to wildlife, why aren't the Greens lobbying with everything they've got against U.S. adventures in the Third World?

[Back to the text.]







6. Here's just one example. Commercial electroplating uses various toxic salts and acids in fairly large quantities, as well as lots of water. EPA regulations now require that their wastewater meet a cleanliness standard higher than that of tap water. In other words, any water going out has to be cleaner than the water we are told is more than safe to drink. This and other requirements have almost killed off electroplating in the United State. Just about anything you can buy these days that is plated comes from outside the country. Those operations that still exist cater to specialty markets such as people restoring old cars and motorcycles, and the prices they charge are stunning.

[Back to the text.]