It’s Time to Confront the Climate Racket Head-On

Send to Kindle

By Vinay Kolhatkar

February 22, 2019



“It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of the global warming dogma has become one of the main, most costly and most undemocratic public policy mistakes in generations. The previous one was communism.”

Vaclav Klaus, October 19, 2010

Klaus was the president of the Czech Republic from March 2003 to March 2013. This was an astonishing statement, in that a head of a major state, while in power, was openly defying a creed that has so dominated the Deep State and world politics that virtually all presidents and prime ministers have never been able to confront it head on—to call it openly a racket, a scam, a global scientific fraud, a worldwide criminal network that needs to be fought with all available arsenal including anti-racketeering laws.

What’s this creed? How did their scam become this powerful that even presidents do not dare name it, let alone fight it?

What’s this creed? How did their scam become this powerful that even presidents do not dare name it, let alone fight it?

The global warming creed (now known as “climate change”) is the creed that claims that:

(1) There is global warming (measured in surface temperatures of our planet) underway that will have catastrophic aftereffects such as rising sea-levels that will submerge seaside towns and cities.
(2) Warming as little as two degrees centigrade is dangerous for humanity and some other species.
(3) Contrary to all evidence, this warming is mostly caused by human, particularly industrial, activity.
(4) The catastrophe is near-term, a mark that can be set permanently to about 10 years in the future no matter which year we are in (e.g., Al Gore’s 10-year catastrophe forecast was first set in 2006).
(5) It can be reversed by replacing fossil fuels in their entirety with solar and wind energy sources.
(6) Such a comprehensive replacement is feasible.
(7) To boot, such reversal is an expense that an economy can bear.
(8) Such fuel replacement is the only avenue left, since geo-engineering solutions are destined to fail, because they are manmade as against a nature-worshiping withdrawal from fossil fuels (Editorial note: Geo-engineering solutions such as those devised from using the findings that volcanic eruptions create a cooling effect, are highly theoretical and experimental, may carry unintended negative consequences, and are unnecessary, since there isn’t an actual problem to solve. But the soul of the climate racketeer lies exposed by his reaction to human ingenuity).

And further, that …

(9) Virtually any hurricane, flood, volcanic eruption, deaths of bats, excess rain, lack of rainfall, ice cap melting, drought, excess snow, high temperatures, low temperatures, even increases in violence such as sexual assaults in any part of the globe, are offered as “concrete evidence” of climate change as if the planet never used to have any of those before WWII (note the switch of name to climate “change,” a tactic that allows the creed to conveniently ignore decades of “pauses” in global warming and to include any weather event. Among other myths, James Taylor notes that heat waves did not cause deaths of bats as alleged, but in fact, it’s wind power that kills half a million bats and millions of birds every year. Indeed, “extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earth’s recent modest warming,” says Taylor.

Warmer weather also means less influenza and other infectious diseases.

Warmer weather also means less influenza and other infectious diseases.

But the climate creed even claims that the amazingly precise two degrees of ambient temperature will cause humans to commit more rapes and murders in tropical areas, based on statistical correlations found in Finland, where the average temperature is 5 degrees Celsius. Oh well, let’s just turn on the air conditioning. It will cool tempers down, too.

What Candace de Russy of NAS called climate scientology in 2009, now implicitly claims that unless we worship the Gaia gods by sacrificing fossil-fuel enabled civilization, the gods will wreak havoc on not just the planet but on our minds, too.

And further …

(10) Only academics who comply with the creed are to be given research funds for projects manufactured for furthering the same inferences, and

(11) Politicians, academics, bloggers, or public intellectuals who dare challenge the creed are immediately to be harassed by any means, including web-robot and media-driven multiple insults, denigration of their work, social and career ostracization, and disruption of their speaking events including by violent means. This will not cease until the outcast is exiled from the intellectual sphere.

Just how did this creed become so intensely antihuman? And this powerful?


How Such Mammoth Scams Are Created

The greatest hoaxes are those that are given a scientific flavor and are carried out by governments on a global scale.

The greatest hoaxes are those that are given a scientific flavor and are carried out by governments on a global scale. E.g., there is no inherent defect in the system of laissez-faire capitalism that can cause economic cycles. Every economic cycle or downturn has been caused by government intervention or extreme external threats, such as war or an epidemic. But even before Communism collapsed, neo-Marxist economists went to work by assuming the non-existent “intrinsic cycle” to be an axiom.

Empirical evidence of such cyclicality was provided by the cycles caused by governments. Laissez-faire capitalism was framed for a defect that was never its own.

The solution was to have government officials brazenly monopolizing money and bastardizing interest rates at will, and/or spending on infrastructure by borrowing, euphemistically called monetary or fiscal policy respectively. This racket has brainwashed almost the whole of educated humanity, and continues unabated … the detractors and truth tellers so few today that they don’t even need to be silenced anymore.

But greedy neo-Marxist postmodernists, posing as environmentalists, dug around for more such insane ideas to constrain free enterprise. Earth had been warming and cooling for millennia, unaffected by anything mankind did. Besides a correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and surface temperatures for a brief period (very brief, relative to the time periods required to understand warming cycles over millennia), the postmodernists had nothing. No theory of how to blame industrialization. But when one obscure paper conjured a hypothesis that perhaps rising CO2 could be a cause of global warming, the “axiom” to be worshipped was discovered.

But that speculative hypothesis, expanded to assert that burning fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming, has not stood the test of time, econometrics, atmospheric science theory, or sanity.

But that speculative hypothesis, expanded to assert that burning fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming, has not stood the test of time, econometrics, atmospheric science theory, or sanity. Many alternate explanations that don’t blame humans fit the data better and are stronger theoretically, however, atmospheric science is still nascent. Nevertheless, those alternate explanations needed to be silenced, and shut down they were. Data needed to be manipulated to worship the axiom, and it was.

Here are a few facts, summarized well by Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson:

  1. Earth emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, thus we are now in a warming cycle.
  2. History indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones.
  3. The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.
  4. The planet was warmer than it is now in 7,000 of the last 10,000 years.
  5. Most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as being less than 1%.
  6. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries.

But cause must precede effect in time, it cannot appear centuries or decades after its supposed effect. It appears very much that the theoretical premise at the base of the climate alarm is downright wrong, not just incomplete. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today may be the result, not the cause, of global warming. Water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is five to ten times higher than that of CO2. “Even if all CO2 were removed from the earth’s atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler,” says solar physicist Vladimir Bashkirtsev.

Here are a few pristine quotes from the U.S. Senate Minority Report on global warming:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

Even the oft-repeated 97% number (or the “not many skeptics remain now” falsehood) is fraudulently derived, as explained here. So how does the racket prosper?


The Racket Receives the Sanction of the Victims

We are all affected citizens. We can see quite plainly that any opposition to the climate faith, even a minor doubt, is subjected to an unstated blasphemy law.

The insanity we have now reached is that it’s rare to find even a head of state who is a skeptic and will call it a racket, and take civilized steps to end this fraud—these would include civil class actions, and, where warranted, criminal prosecutions.

Instead, heads of state (including those who are skeptics) have sanctioned this monstrosity by inadvertently playing by their rules. Donald Trump first incredulously called it a Chinese-created hoax, then was reported to have backed down from “climate denial” in general. Someone only has to concede the blindingly obvious—that the climate changes, and the carbon racketeers use it as a concession.

“Climate change is not a hoax,” “I’m not denying climate change” Trump told interviewer Lesley Stahl of CBS, accepting the terminology of the racketeers and falling into their trap. The correct answer is: “Climate change is a meaninglessly empty phrase designed to trap earnest people of science and reason. It’s a racket, which, if unchecked, will destroy our economy. Now let me explain why I think this is so.” You take control of the dialogue. If CBS won’t let you, use the State of the Union Address to go direct to the people about your findings.

Former Australian PM, Tony Abbott, a skeptic, has openly conceded in writing that his administration deceived citizens in order to earn brownie points: “To a party audience in country Victoria in October 2009, I observed that the so-called settled science of climate change was ‘absolute crap,’” he says. So why did Abbott keep in place a Renewable Energy Target in 2015 when he was the PM? Why give in to “absolute crap”? Why not use the words “absolute crap” in front of the media? And the people? Now he tells us what he said inside the party room.

“Prime Minister Tony Abbott is not very in favor of a very ambitious fight against global warming,” said the official within the French presidency at the time of the Paris summit. It seems that Abbott’s former weak knees have given way to a bit more courage now that he is only an MP, and soliciting international conservative audiences.

China’s autocrat Xi Jinping capitulated to the Paris international accord to undermine the world economy. He said to French president Macron that they should “continue to safeguard global governance outcomes including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”

Russian “strongman” Vladimir Putin does not buy into the fraud. The reasons for warming, he says correctly, are obscure, and he sees no role in it for humans. Why then, for such an unsettled science, did Russia submit a climate action plan at all? The strongman is brownnosing, afraid to call it, and still discussing it as though this scientology has any legitimacy at all.

Indian PM Narendra Modi, after winning a historic landslide majority, was still unable to stop Greenpeace’s eco-terrorism in his county, and offered a weak acquiescence—a “greatest threat to the survival of human civilization as we know it” platitude to calm the great masters in green.

Only minor party leaders speak their convictions. Most major parties only dog-whistle to their constituencies, afraid of the electoral backlash.

In Europe, even many conservatives have been fully brainwashed or have decided to be wimps. Only minor party leaders speak their convictions.

Most major parties only dog-whistle to their constituencies, afraid of the electoral backlash. According to Pew Research, only 18% of baby boomers who are Republicans buy into the climate racket, but 36% of millennials who are Republicans do. Unless we, the citizens, awaken our representatives to our anger and our knowledge of the facts, they will continue to give in to the climate-change industry, which, by some estimates is now worth $1.5 trillion (including consulting fees etc.)

But the stakes are awfully high. Heartland Institute estimates that “reducing greenhouse gases to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 would require a 96% reduction in world GDP, reducing per-capita GDP to $1,200 from $30,600 now forecast. Per-capita income would be at about the level it was in the United States and Western Europe in about 1820 or 1830, before the Industrial Revolution.” And some politicians who propose to keep robbing the fossil fuel bank, know this, so their version of virtue-signaling is to keep robbing a little bit each year rather than bankrupt the bank in one hit.


The Climate Racket’s Domination of the Deep State

Government-owned agencies and other entities are not typically dismantled and rebuilt in one term, and sometimes they work with the media covertly (and/or overtly) against the elected government. Heartland Institute’s partial audit of the U.S. Deep State shows that NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Department of Defense, and the National Institutes for Health are all working as propaganda machines for the climate fantasy.

E.g., NASA’s Climate Kids website (seemingly aimed at 7-10-year-olds) also includes a narrative titled “The King Who Banned Coal,” which states, “King Edward I of England tried to ban coal in 1306. The air was dark and polluted. The smoke from coal was too much. It was poisoning the city. The king banned coal. It may have been the first environmental law ever. … Things got worse after the steam engine was invented. The Industrial Revolution was happening. There was now lots of pollution. It caused acid rain, sickness, and even death.” NASA is trying to brainwash children into believing that the Industrial Revolution made people’s lives worse.

President Trump is reportedly assembling a White House committee to scrutinize wild claims being presented by government agencies. But Trump’s prior request for “a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the U.N. within the last five years” was refused by the Department of Energy. Even the president is being undermined in every manner possible.

So what can we do?


Become Howard Beale

Those of us in favor of industrial civilization made possible by fossil fuels will need to embolden our elected skeptics.

Those of us in favor of industrial civilization made possible by fossil fuels will need to embolden our elected skeptics with strongly worded letters (or meet them if possible) indicating that they have our support to identify the climate racket and confront it head-on.

We must tell our elected representatives and senators that we expect elected administrations to fire, where possible, the Deep State and government-owned media leaders who are working against science, to litigate against those who victimized scientists who retained their integrity, commence class action against wind power, create a for-profit litigation fund to assist industries such as fracking attacked by the eco-terrorists, to remove all subsidies to any and every energy source, and to use anti-racketeering laws to commence legal action against the carbon racketeers.

Tell them never to pay lip service in cowardice to the green machine. With every turn, the machine will encroach on more territory. The climate racket prospers by the sanction of the victims. Above all, that sanction must be withdrawn.

Be as aroused and provocative as Howard Beale when you interact with them—“I’m as mad as hell. And I’m not going to take it anymore.”

The author thanks Edward Hudgins, Research Director at the Heartland Institute for offering links to relevant research, and Stephanie Bond for her meticulous proofreading.


(Visited 1,544 times, 1 visits today)