An Age of Insanity When an Ex-Barmaid Has a National Voice

 It is a disturbing experience to listen to the rambling comments of 30-year old ex-barmaid, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). As you listen to the ignorance, inaccuracies, and naïve views, you understand why the Founding Fathers limited the age of eligibility for President to 35. The question is why do her views receive so much attention?

The answer is because a group of technocrats saw an opportunity to push non-issues onto the stage without the danger of association. It is a technique seen as essential for control in today’s insane world. It is called plausible deniability and Obama was probably as good a practitioner as any to date.

If you lack the abilities required to wangle your way to the top or prefer to control from the shadows, then a public figure is an alternative. Obama started as such, a person chosen by George Soros and created by Valerie Jarrett. He was only supposed to serve one term but became enamored of the power and privilege of the job. In Obama’s third year Soros announced he would not support him for a second term. By that point, Obama decided to run and only succeeded because three million Republicans refused to vote for Romney.

The Democrats have no clear political leader or even a potential leader on the horizon. The ones who are apparently considering the position are so far left that they guarantee a loss at the next election. A large number of Democrats will not vote or even vote for Trump. A report said that some 30% of attendees at his recent rally in Grand Rapids Michigan are registered Democrats. They also have no policies because Trump usurped their traditional sectors of American society and their issues.

AOC is one of hundreds of thousands of people with web sites on which they regularly post commentaries. Her comments are not extraordinary or outside of the ordinary, whatever that is on the internet. The first thing that took her above the mob was an election to Congress, but that raises the same questions. What made her stand out above the large number of Democrats in her New York district? The level of ignorance in all aspects of politics, history, and economics was on display after her election. It was undoubtedly worse before she was elected, which makes the question of how she ran for office more pressing.

AOC introduced the Green New Deal (GND), but it is not new because it is a retread of the climate actions set out in Agenda 21. It is equally obvious that AOC had no part in its production and didn’t understand it. So, why is she talking about it and displaying her ignorance? Simple, she is a puppet of technocrats who want the issues on the front page because it is about using the environment as a global threat that they claim needs total government control. They know from polls that the public is not interested. They know Trump trumped all their traditional issues. Enter, AOC with shallowness and blind ambition which is so ignorant as not even to realize she is ignorant. The perfect dupe as one article reported.

More interestingly, the Democrats have shoved AOC out in front as the spokes-maven for all of their most ambitious and hare-brained socialist ideas. The latest is a so-called “Green New Deal.” The plan would have the US completely dependent on non-fossil fuel by the year 2030.

 

These people know that in the age of political correctness that they created it is very difficult to challenge a woman from a minority presented as epitomizing the American dream. A woman whom the publicity said fought her way out of impossible situations and did it in the face of white male supremacy. AOC is the modern equivalent of Joan of Arc (1412-1431). Nobody ever asks why Joan, an 18-year-old woman, ended up in uniform fighting against the English. Joan was a pawn of the French King, Charles VII, who was losing to the English and wanted a negotiated peace without loss of status. He apparently used her as a person more likely to negotiate peace with the English than a man.

As we see with all these AOC type stories, people, but especially women, are picked out for a cynical political purpose. This exploitation was on full display during the Justice Kavanaugh debacle. They trotted on to the stage a steady stream of women to play a part like Joan, with what they genuinely believed was an important nation saving function. Now, only a year later, they are on the rubbish heap of history. It is unlikely they will receive the forgiveness of an inquiry, like Joan did, and achieve the honored position as a savior of their country. All they got was their Warhol 15 minutes of fame, which consisted of deer blinking in the headlights of cynicism.




Tim Ball: Technocrats On The World Stage With Your Money

Foreign aid has always been questionable, but with the advance of technology, Technocrats are manipulating the system for their own ends of scientific social engineering.

There is a debate about who said foreign aid is when you take money from the poor people of the rich country and give it to the rich people of the poor country.  Regardless, it is an astute and accurate observation. However, let’s take it one step further and examine what is actually happening. In fact, it is technocrats taking other people’s money to buy influence and power while appearing to take the moral high ground for which they take the glory. Now the real reason is exposed, it is important to discover what happens with this money and its real effect.

Why would any country give foreign aid to a country that is buying millions of dollars of weaponry and maintaining large standing armies? Why do citizens give donations to countries that claim their children are starving when that country is buying weapons? Isn’t there an obligation to look after the children first? Of course, but the children are just the pawns in power struggles, and the technocrats use your money to control those struggles without resolving them.

I had a friend who seemed to be out of control all the time. Everybody around him was constantly captivated by what he was going to do next. His actions were always gaining attention, yet that attention never resolved anything. What I finally realized was that by appearing out of control he was controlling everybody else, but they were unaware and thereby not angry.

Think of the insanity of giving foreign aid to a country that can't or won’t feed or protect its children. Here is a promotion from one such organization.

Help the Children (“HTC”) is a nonprofit humanitarian relief organization founded in 1998. In just 20 years – the organization has grown to one of the most efficient charities and has become a respected child hunger solution dedicated to provide food, supplies, clothing and hope!

The first question you should ask, but they know you won’t, is “where the hell are the parents or citizens or leaders of the country in which these children reside?” Why do those who provide government foreign aid spend so much time and money telling you that it is a small amount and provides great dividends? It may be a small percentage of the US budget, but it is a large amount of money and larger than the total GDP of 100 countries in the world. This is the clever way the technocrats downplay the significance of the spending. Figure 1 shows a diagram produced by the Obama administration to downplay the amount.

Figure 1

You can pick any agency operating to save the children you want. Not one of them talks about what they are doing to make the leaders and parents in any country to do their job.  For example, “Save the Children” explains their goal.

Save the Children believes every child deserves a future. Around the world, we give children a healthy start in life, the opportunity to learn and protection from harm.

This means they decide which nation is not trying to achieve those goals for their children. Just this one agency had a budget of $2.2 billion to buy off the leaders of these poor countries. What they are doing is either working through the bureaucrats in the Federal government who want to impose themselves and control the people and their children. If that is limited, then they work through these private agencies which, under the guise of saving the children, are dictating to the parents and creating citizens who will operate in their socialist image.

The UN climate controls parallels this. They created the world plan, Agenda 21, but knew it was cheaper and easier to introduce it at the smallest political level possible. They created the Climate Action Plan and worked to implement it at the municipal level, so far, with frightening success.

The same thing is true of foreign aid. As a nation accepts more and more foreign aid, it surrenders larger and larger pieces of fundamental parts of what makes them a nation. What appears like access to freedom and development always becomes a dependency. More frightening is the loss of the ability to become independent and maintain it. It is not frightening for the technocrat. It is precisely what they want, total control with very little commitment and paid for by the taxpayer. It is a technocrat’s dream.




Tim Ball: Technocracy Is A Data-Fed Frankenstein Monster

At its root, Technocracy is based on Scientism and Logical Posivitism that invalidates all knowledge except scientific knowledge. See Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation for a detailed examination of these errors. ⁃ TN Editor

The rise of technocracy is intertwined with data and data collection. These activities are the very heartbeat of our technocratic society. We are now members or rather slaves of the technocrat’s dream, a number. Everything and everyone is quantified, a number registered in a technocrats computer in which they are maneuvered and manipulated, usually without their knowledge. Think about a society in which a family who adopt a child end up knowing more about the child than natural parents. For those of you who think that is important, consider that people raised children of their own and those of others throughout history without that information. Being a parent and raising children has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with humanity and retaining your soul. So much literature is about the struggle people have with that retention. Increase in this type of literature reflects the growing battle and sadly indicates we are losing.

Application of numbers to society began with the introduction of statistics in the early 20th century. I will use climate as a good example of this development but link it across the wider society.

Many scientists deride the involvement of social scientists in climate studies. They claim it is a math and physics number problem, with no need for ill-informed social scientists. Despite that claim, the application of physics and numbers has not improved the accuracy of forecasts.

Ironically, science brought this on themselves when they used science to defeat religion. More narrowly, they used Darwin’s theory of evolution, although Darwin, as an atheist, likely would support the move. By replacing religion, in this case Christianity, they removed God and the reason for people being so remarkably different than all the other species. Academia filled the intellectual vacuum this created with an entirely new faculty called the Social Sciences. It joined the Humanities and the Natural Sciences but became a single focus faculty with detailed studies of people and their behavior. I call it human navel-gazing.

It was already the largest faculty on most campuses by the 1930s but suffered a justified inferiority complex as a shallow and unnecessary development in learning. For example, somebody said about sociology that they were trying to prove scientifically what your grandmother already knew. The title “Social Sciences” and the word “scientifically” underscores their problem. Scientists say it is not a science and Sociologists tried to make it a science by applying statistics. They were so inept they had to create a book of statistical tests titled Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. (SPSS). All you had to do was plug in the data without any knowledge of what was needed or what the results were telling you.

The big difference that really distinguishes the Social Sciences as unscientific is in the ability to predict. Science is easily and completely defined as the ability to predict.  If, your predictions are wrong your science is wrong. In Social Sciences a prediction invalidates itself. For example, if an economist does a study of a community and makes predictions on the findings, the leaders in the community will read it and make adjustments that invalidate the predictions. That cannot happen in science.

In climate, application of statistics began with averages. Climate is the average of the weather in a region or how it changes over time. and explains what it is in a region. That was the first application in society. Suddenly, we saw and heard about averages everywhere. People were identified as above or below average with glory or stigma applied. Bureaucracies and businesses began to group the people for planning purposes. Already, the individual was subsumed as just one component of the average. Consider the information that appeared at the time that there are, on average, 2.6 children per family. I am proud to be the 0.6 child in my family. Emotionally, it is better than being the ‘middle’ child.

The next development came from a need to make predictions for planning and social engineering as modern postwar societies evolved. It was the evolution of simple trend analysis, a pattern that still dominates as the recent assumption that house prices and stock markets would continue to trend upward, proves. What’s interesting is how this mentality persists despite recent evidence of downturns or upturns. The application of trends to climate data began in the 1970s with the prediction of a coming ice age as temperatures declined from 1940. When the temperature turned to warming in the mid-1980s we were told, again simplistically and incorrectly, it would continue unabated. In addition, they now knew human CO2 was the cause and since it would continue to increase because of human additions the upward trend was certain to continue. Like all previous trends it did not last as temperatures trended down starting in 2000. Instead of recognizing that this was a normal statistical trend they chose to change the name from global warming to climate change.

The most recent trend in climate change allowed them to accommodate the third variable of statistics, variation. In recent years, weather has become more variable particularly from month to month and year to year. Authorities exploit this pattern to say, incorrectly, it is evidence of their claim of human-caused global warming. No, it isn’t. It reflects that there is pattern of climate not seen for 60-years.

One of the objectives is to adjust the data so that it masks evidence or confirms or appear to confirm its political position. A good example is the practice of smoothing the graph. You see this practice in almost all graphs and a climate one illustrates the major problem.

The figure shows two measures of atmospheric CO2 for 2000 years between 7 and 9000 years ago. The one on the left is the record from bubbles in the ice. The other is the measure from fossilized tree leaves. They actually measure the size of the holes in the leaf called stomata. These are like your nostrils and their size varies with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even though they are a more precise measure they are made to look better because a 70-year moving average was applied to the ice core data. It removes all the variability and all the important and unique characteristics of the data.

The application of numbers and statistics to everything quickly reached a peak in the early 20th century with a philosophical movement called logical positivism. In simple terms, it implied that everything could and should be quantified and measured. It created a brief intellectual opposition with scientific philosophers like Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. The latter produced a quote that summarized their views.

“There is no more common error than to assume that because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

Russell’s observation is frighteningly applicable in today’s world.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

And so, we stand on the verge of having capsules with electronic identity numbers injected under our skins as if, out of sight out of mind, it will make us lose sight of the danger to our freedoms. Of course, there are benefits to the identifiers and to the collection of data. However, this is always the major argument to cover the removal of individual power.

Governments expand their voracious need for data and subjugation of the individual constantly. In Canada the fine for not completing the census is $500 and 3 months in jail. In the US the fine is $100 but a form of emotional blackmail was attached.

“Originally, the census was meant to be a way to count everyone so that the members of the House of Representatives could be allocated properly to the states. Every 10 years there would be a count, and states with more people got more members in the House.”

The idea was they needed the information for planning and for the benefit of the people. It was taken a long way from that over the years to the point of almost total control of the people by the technocrats for the benefit of the government. I am not making a comparison about control with any present government, but we must never forget that the ultimate subjugation of people in history was symbolized by a tattooed number on the arm.




Tim Ball: How Too Many Lawyers Create Legal Chaos

Technocracy rolls on behind the scene while politicians are gridlocked in legislative and legal chaos, while selective deregulation turns over more power to Technocrats advancing Sustainable Development. ⁃ TN Editor

Voltaire said, If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” In this article, the required definitions are explained as follows.

Many people have heard laws and regulations being used in the same sentence. It is also assumed that they are related to each other in many ways. However, definitions of both the words often cause confusion between the two words making people believe that they are the same. These words are different from each other in distinct ways. Laws are rules that are enacted by a governing body, while regulation is the process of monitoring and enforcing the rules.

Donald Trump argues that his deregulations are freeing up and boosting the economy more than all the tax cuts he introduced. It is true, but just as people didn’t know how the addition of those regulations gradually strangled the economy, they are unaware of how they free it. His deregulation removed the “monitoring and enforcing,” but it did not remove the laws written by the enacting body, in this case, Congress.

Deregulation is rare as Trump pointed out. Removal of the laws that required the regulations is even rarer. It is almost impossible to imagine Congress agreeing even to consider removal of the laws that underpin the Trump deregulation examples. This means that throughout US history every law created to resolve an issue remains ‘on the books.’ Because of the legal practice of precedence, this means that an almost unlimited set of laws exist that any lawyer can use to argue a case.

The underlying point, experienced but rarely articulated, is that as soon as government becomes involved in an issue, it is a guarantee for no resolution of the issue. Worse, the resolution will become part of the larger growth of government, laws, and regulations that will eventually smother society. Continued growth of government is proof of my argument.

Because of this, you frequently hear people say, “There is too much government and too many laws.” Thirty minutes later you can hear the same person say about another issue, “Why doesn’t the government do something about this?” Many people claim that politicians don’t listen. What they mean is the politicians don’t seem to do what they want. The politicians do listen and respond but with knee-jerk, completely unnecessary reactions.

Every day new events occur that create a negative impact on at least one segment of society. Usually, there is an outcry and politicians feel obliged to respond. Today, the event and its implications for society, are amplified by the sensationalist media. The politicians respond by producing new legislation to deal with the event.

It is reasonable to assume that most new legislation or rules are not required. The Bible only needed ten rules. It is revealing to look at the original ten as set out in Exodus 20:2-17. There are only two (2) that are relevant in any society over time. 1. You shall not murder, and 2) You shall not steal. Of course, coveting thy neighbor’s wife works both ways and even other ways today.

Today there are so many laws that a lawyer can almost always find something to stretch and bend to overcome any charge. Sadly, it depends on whether you can afford a good lawyer and that in itself makes a mockery of the law and justice.

Lawyers are the largest professional group in politics.

According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the House and 60 Senators are lawyers. 

Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.

Somehow this doesn’t prevent them piling law on law. A new circumstance arises that seems to get people upset. Most of the issues that persist over a few months gather political momentum. These include public and private meetings, the creation of concerned citizens, and corporate-funded lobby groups. Meanwhile, the politician’s setup research groups and ultimately hold public and private hearings. The media confuse the situation by selecting and amplifying specific issues.   There are few days when Congress is in session that you can’t tune to one committee or another holding hearings and special hearings. It is easy to argue that this is their job, but what it does is allow them to perpetuate their job.

In almost every case the conclusion is a recommendation for more legislation, and that means more laws. Trump recommended that politicians eliminate two old regulations for every new regulation. It is an excellent first step, and initially, it is working better than expectations. However, that won’t continue, no matter the benefit to society. At some point, the bureaucrats and lawyers and lawyer/politicians will stop the bleeding because, ultimately, they are in control and will not allow elimination of their positions and power. Undoubtedly, they will use the vast array of laws on the books to make their case.

But this underscores the problem that laws, and the accompanying regulations are self-perpetuating. When a regulation is eliminated the laws stay on the books. It is like erasing a software program. When installed it places controls throughout your computer that remain unless specifically and individually removed, even if you erase the basic program.

The debris accumulates and eventually clogs the system. The laws accumulate in the same way, except that lawyers dig through them, and that is much easier now with computers until they find all or part of one that is close enough to their argument. Almost always this is not related in any way to the original intent of the law. That is why Justice Kavanaugh spoke about how he decides a case – he looks at the Constitution, then Precedent. He only looks at the intent if it is not clear. Is he saying that in every law or portion of the law, and it is always that, lawyers know the intent? Talented as they are, that is not credible.

It is time for a legislative spring cleaning. They should eliminate all deregulated laws. Do not allow any new law that did not get full vetting of overlap with existing law. Gradually eliminate all laws not challenged before the Supreme Court. This could begin by eliminating all other laws over 100 years old and to continue removal until all unnecessary laws are gone.

This will work because it is working in almost every other country in the world. It is not working in America, not just because of the complexity but the prohibitive cost. It alone explains but doesn’t justify why America has more lawyers per capita than any other country in the world – one lawyer per 265 Americans. It is a growth industry that guaranteed its continued existence by saying that America is a nation of laws. Yes, it is because they made it that way.

However, it is not a nation of justice because they made a system so complex and arcane that they retain complete control. Legal technocrats with total control because they defined and created the system, control the society by pretending to deal with social and economic issues when they are actually self-perpetuating. They are the only ones that can afford the law. They use the people’s money to pursue and prosecute those people. They can stretch out and delay at will until justice is denied to the people. It is why British Prime Minister William Gladstone said, justice delayed is justice denied.

It is also why Charles Dickens wrote Bleak House in which families are involved in legal disputes through a legal company called Jarndyce and Jarndyce.: The legal issues are resolved by the end of the book, but everybody involved is dead.




Tim Ball On Green New Deal: Not New, Not Green, Not A Deal

The Green New Deal exposes the ultra-radical nature of UN policies of Sustainable Development. The UN is sworn to overthrow Capitalism and Free Enterprise, and it using global warming as a battering ram. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Here is what to do when the title is a lie. Confirm it also lies within the text. Confirm the lies in a historical and political context. Expose the lies and the people responsible. Explain, in ways the people can understand, why they can safely ignore the hysteria and actions it recommends. Attack those people and politicians that demand you pay for the lies. Then, adopt the policy of not believing anything in the new, fake news world.

.It is not “new,” it is not “green” other than in name, and it is not a “deal.” In other words, it is a technocrat’s delight because it revisits and resuscitates their goal of total government control without appearing to do so. Proponents of the original idea that humans were causing global warming are losing the war one battle at a time. They did what they always do. Ignore the evidence and move the goalposts. That is what they are doing with the New Green Deal. It is the same use of false or deliberately created science to convince people that they can save them from the sky falling. Chicken Little reappears as Big Turkey.

The last major example occurred in 2004. From 1998 onward CO2 levels continued to increase, but temperatures stopped increasing. This completely contradicted their major assumption and brought them face-to-face with Thomas Huxley’s (1825 – 1895) observation that,

The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

The emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that instead of revisiting the science they changed the name from global warming to climate change. This clever but deceitful move allowed them to avoid any evidence that contradicted their hypothesis by removing the hypothesis. It also allowed them to identify any weather event as support for their claims of human interference.

From its emergence onto the world stage in 1988 the claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) was a front for the need for not only local government control, but an over-arching one-world government. Elaine Dewar summarized the goal of Maurice Strong, the architect of Agenda 21 and its subsidiary the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as follows.

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda. 

A major piece in the platform was the creation of a global threat. It must be global to transcend national boundaries, so they could argue that no one nation could cope. They produced the major piece through the artificial construct of global warming.

It began at the 1988 US Joint Congressional Hearing when James Hansen falsely testified that he was 99% certain that humans were the cause. That was not true then, and it is not true now, but it continues as a justification for the New Green Deal. The person who organized that Hearing was former Senator Timothy Wirth. I say, former Senator because after one term he resigned and took an appointment as President of the United Nations Foundation. This organization was created from a 1998 $1 billion gift from media mogul Ted Turner. He is listed as a member of the Club of Rome along with George Soros and Wirth.

I will not dissect the New Green Deal here because it so wrong it requires a book, but it is sufficient to show the scientific inaccuracies underlying just one portion. The plan is to eliminate North American cattle because they produce methane, a greenhouse gas. Methane is 0.36% of all the greenhouse gases and only 0.000179% of total atmospheric gases. There are approximately 85 million cows in North America, but if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is serious why not eliminate the 200 million cows roaming the streets of India? Why not stop the re-introduction of Bison in North America? 150 years ago, there were an estimated 65 million producing methane. If you want to use science, then deal with variables on both sides of the formula, not just the ones that fit your political agenda.

The insanity of the New Green Deal is in the persistent attempts to do what consistently fails. Every country that tried a “green agenda” failed miserably and abandoned or is in the process of abandoning it.

The insanity includes crippling at best or destroying at worst your economy because of those countries that are forging ahead with development using fossil fuels. It is reasonable to assume that AOC and her supporters are concerned about the poor and politically handcuffed citizens. Look at any country that tried a green agenda and you see that the rich got richer and the poor became poorer. It is a classic Communist Manifesto that appears good on paper but creates exactly the opposite results. In Britain, for example, the government subsidies of alternative green energy resulted in a transfer of wealth from poor to rich. It also resulted, as one report showed, that Consumers ”Grossly Overpaying” for Electricity.

 

Here is what to do when the title is a lie. Confirm it also lies within the text. Confirm the lies in a historical and political context. Expose the lies and the people responsible. Explain, in ways the people can understand, why they can safely ignore the hysteria and actions it recommends. Attack those people and politicians that demand you pay for the lies. Then, adopt the policy of not believing anything in the new, fake news world.

 

 




Dr. Tim Ball: Seven Ways To Spot Climate Change Propaganda

Climate change propaganda is designed by the United Nations for one thing only: to stampede the world into Sustainable Development and its green agenda. It masquerades as benevolence saving the world, but is harmful to the world and anti-human. ⁃ TN Editor

This is an update of an earlier effort to counter the propaganda war that is going on to promote the falsehoods about the environment and climate. An update is required because skills improved with practice and as they lose the war desperation demands greater deceptions. Technocrats are at the center of this development.

They achieve control in various ways, so it is invaluable to read the signs and avoid the deception.  The most reliable tool is simple skepticism. Ironically, fake news is now so pervasive that it is much easier to assume everything is fake. The global warming deception is the oldest deeply entrenched fake news story because it is the product of government and deep state bureaucrats. Maurice Strong established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This is a UN agency run by bureaucrats in Geneva but made up of bureaucrats from the national weather offices of every UN member nation. They work every day using your tax dollars to deceive you.

Here’s what will cause alarm bells to ring on a properly tuned global warming detector:

One. Everything that is going on with weather and climate is normal and not outside historic records as they constantly claim. Therefore, every claim or story about weather or climate is a deception. One way they do this is what climatologists call cherry-picking. You can pick any part of a record to show the trend to support your story. The WMO claims a 30-year long record is statistically significant. They call it the 30-year Normal when it is anything but normal. It was adopted because statisticians claim a sample size (n) of 30 is representative of any size population (N). The problem is that climate cycles are anywhere from 2 years to 100,000 years.

For example, a 2017 BBC headline said “Hottest June day since summer of 1976 in heatwave.” That is 41 years, which is statistically significant but not climatologically significant. A Youtube story reports “Sydney has wettest November day since 1984.” CBS Pittsburgh reported “NWS: 2018 is the 2nd Wettest Year on Record in Pittsburgh.” The record began in 1871 or 147 years ago, but even that is not climatologically significant. The ones I like are this one from North Carolina, that says, “A Look Back at the Coldest day Ever in North Carolina.” “Ever” even in North Carolina is approximately 4.5 billion years.

Other stories focus on a pattern or change in a pattern again with the idea that it is new or abnormal. Headlines like this one from 2012, “Why have there been more tornadoes than usual this year?” Often, they are suggestive such as this 2017 New York Times story. “The 2017 Hurricane Season Really Is More Intense Than Normal.” When you read the story, you find, as is usually the case, that the caveats at the end indicate it is not unusual at all. This is irrelevant to the authors who know the only thing the reader will remember is the headline. Notice that headlines are always in the Active Voice unlike the Conditional Voice words like “could,” “maybe,” or “possibly” in the body of the story.

Two. In 2004 the perpetrators and perpetuators of the Global Warming deception at the University of East Anglia realized the CO2 level continued to rise, but temperatures stopped increasing. It was what Thomas Huxley described as the great tragedy of science the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact. The climate deceivers didn’t skip a beat, they changed the issue from global warming to climate change. This gave them a greater range and made the problem more threatening. Now you see headlines identifying that it was, variably the warmest, coldest, wettest, driest, calmest, and windiest, in the official record, which for most of the world is less than 50 years. In reality, the issue is still only about warming because that is the only part of the weather affected by CO2.

Three. Exploitation of natural fear is central to any attempt to control people. It is no coincidence that the original fear story was Chicken Little and the sky is falling. As H. L. Mencken said, 

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Science writer Michael Crichton wrote about the entire sequence as it relates to the climate in his book State of Fear. It is fiction. Here is the comment in Wikipedia

State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton, in which eco-terrorists plot mass murder to publicize the danger of global warming.

However, the science is accurate because Crichton was a roommate at Harvard with Richard Lindzen, a top climate scientist. Crichton was a medical doctor with post-graduate degrees from Oxford.

Four. Mistrust a story the minute it attempts to play on your guilt or emotions. Invariably, it makes you guilty because the children are going to die, some element of the planetary system is collapsing, animals are going extinct, forests are in decline, and coral reefs are dying. Of course, they always distort the animal extinction issue. I would explain to audiences that many animals are thriving because of human activity, pigeons, snakes, coyotes, rats. I then pause and ask if I have mentioned any they like yet? The bias is to furry, round-eyed, creatures like polar bears and koala bears. More new species are found every day than go extinct in 50 years.

Five. Originators of environmental and climate change propaganda stories know the public is ill-informed about science. They take advantage of this by using terms that people don’t understand or mislabeling things to make them more menacing.  For example, they interchangeably and incorrectly call CO2, which is a gas, Carbon, which is a solid. They incorrectly label carbon dioxide, a pollutant. They make meaningless assertions like “Climate change is real,” or “The science is settled.” One way to put the last comment in perspective is to challenge. Say, “fine, then we should cancel all funding for climate research.”

Six. A change of keywords is a sure sign that at least one aspect of their deception was exposed. The classic change discussed earlier was from global warming to climate change. Another change is underway because people are starting to say, hang on a minute, climate changes all the time. There are three contenders for replacement now, “climate chaos,” “climate catastrophe,” and “climate disruptions.” The term “Polar Vortex” was the invention of John Holdren when he was Obama‘s science advisor. It is not a scientific term, but its appearance implied that it was new and due to human activity. In fact, it was popularly referred to as an outbreak of cold air from Canada called an “Alberta Clipper.”

Seven. Another sign of propaganda is a constant raising of the threat. Here is a good example.

And humankind does not have long to act, according to a study in the journal Nature Geoscience. British and Australian scientists report that they calculated the pattern of temperature rises if immediate action is not taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The propaganda war was made necessary from the start because there was no scientific evidence for the claims of environmental collapse and human-caused global warming. Start with a lie, and you admit it when evidence exposes it, or continue the lie with ever increasing deceptions. As Sir Walter Scott said, “What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”




Dr. Tim Ball: Tyranny Of The Technocrat Minority

Technocrats generally don’t believe in voting at all, but rather following the ‘rule of science’ where the last word (final vote) is based on their scientific declarations. Thus, if they declare it, it must be correct… and all else is swept away ⁃ TN Editor

Thank goodness the technocrats are usually in the minority. However, because of this, they constantly work to counteract and overcome this limitation. They do this in many ways, but one of the most effective is to undermine the decree at the heart of democracy that a majority is 50 +1. They convinced people that this resulted in a tyranny of the majority. They replaced it with the current situation that we now realize is a bigger disaster, the tyranny of the minority.

Consider the current situation in the US Senate where the Republicans have a majority with 53 seats to the Democrats 47. Under any fair democratic system that is a majority, but the technocrats forced through a requirement that requires 60 votes for approval on most issues. The argument was that these are so serious that a significant majority must approve. It sounds very reasonable, especially with something of great consequence, but all it does is give power and control to the minority.

I was President of a condominium or Strata that involved 96 private owners. Most issues only required a 50%+1 approval at the Annual General Meetings but any vote involving the expenditure of money required 75% approval. Again, it sounds reasonable adding a further control on careless or wasteful spending. What it did was put control of all expenditures in the hands of 25% of the owners. In most groups, it is always possible to find 25% who will not spend any money if they can. It meant that necessary structural repairs to our property were constantly defeated. It ended up in court where the judge appointed an administrator and effectively took all power away from the Council.

In a rewrite of the legislation governing Stratas, the politicians (technocrats) changed it but didn’t really change it. The 75% was still required, but after several attempts to get that vote, the Strata could go to the court for an adjudicated dispensation.

The level of political game playing with the Senate vote only underscores the problem with a 60% vote. It means that 40% can dictate to the 60% and that is undemocratic and constitutes the tyranny of the minority. Because the Democrats changed the list of what issues required a 60% vote to include Supreme Court Justices they approved, the Republicans were able to appoint Justice Bret Kavanaugh. Now the Republicans are confronted with another 60% vote. It is unlikely they can get it changed because of the tyranny of the minority. Besides, technocrats, including Republicans, warn them off by saying you might want to block something with a 60% vote in the future. This is what is wrong with politics today. They take an apparently reasonable idea and pervert it to achieve control. It is a reason for the growing public anger with politics that they justify a position by saying we will act stupidly because they acted stupidly.

Democracy is the rule of the majority and must be 50 + 1. It is an absolute, like free speech. Either you have it, or you don’t. The minute there is anything else a minority take control to decide which words are allowed. So it is, that if you move away from 50+1. This does not guarantee the rights of minorities, and that is the challenge. It is why Churchill made his famous comment in 1947,

 “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

The Founding Fathers confronted the problem of democracy and created a republic in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. As one author explained,

Our Constitution created a limited representative republic.  A republic is different from a democracy.  In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws.  Basically, in a pure democracy, the majority has unlimited power, whereas in a republic, a written constitution limits the majority and provides safeguards for the individual and minorities.

All that is under attack as a small group of technocrats attempt to bypass the rule of the majority.




Tim Ball: The Amazing And Totally Ignorant Climate Legacy Of Gov. Jerry Brown

As ex-Governor of California, Jerry Brown is seeking to solidify his legacy as an ecology crusader, but every time he opens his mouth, more ignorance and foolishness pours forth. Dr. Tim Ball explains how. ⁃ TN Editor

Jerry Brown, the recently retired California Governor, is a new form of technocratic politician. His technocratic skill is as a professional politician. Like most in politics today, they seek office because they fail at everything else, but still, want to control everyone. They are masters at getting and staying elected. Fortunately, a portion of politics requires occasional public exposure to further their control. It means they must expose themselves with public statements. At this point the old French adage becomes appropriate. The higher up the tree the monkey climbs, the more he shows his backside.

They try to control the message and are aided and abetted by the mainstream media. At that point, they become vulnerable to Marshall McLuhan’s famous observation that “The medium is the message.” My own example involved a TV station wanting ideas for a program. I sent many, but they rejected most saying, they don’t lend themselves to television. This is why virtually the only way to ‘show’ pollution is with chimney stacks belching out something. I say something, because, in North America at least, it is now mostly steam.

Recently, Brown was forced to expose himself as he left one political office and prepared the ground for another. He tried to control it but exposed enough of himself to ask if a world leader could display more ignorance in a single interview. The good news is it resides on the Internet for the world to see and analyze. It explains why he was a disaster as Governor and people are rioting across the world against such leadership failures. Brown said,

“I would point to the fact that it took Roosevelt many, many years to get America willing to go into World War II and fight the Nazis. Well, we have an enemy, though different, but perhaps, very much devastating in a similar way. And we’ve got to fight climate change. And the president’s got to lead on that.”

His reference to the Nazis was very appropriate but not because of the delay in US commitment. Normally, as Kerry Jackson noted

Generally speaking, the first person in a debate who compares their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis at that moment loses the argument.

When the Third Reich is invoked, it’s usually clear evidence that that person’s position is so weak that they have had to resort to a gross misrepresentation of the other’s position.

Brown took the risk for political advantage for the reasons Jackson identified. He had to divert attention from his economic and social failures as Governor if he wants a political future. Ironically, he identified the forest fires in California as justification for his view of climate change. In fact, that is further proof of his failure. Fires are natural and necessary everywhere, including California. They were made worse because of his forest management policy that stopped controlled and managed fires. As a result, debris built up and the fires, which continued to occur naturally, were more intense and damaging.

However, first let’s look at the Roosevelt comment. It helps if a liberal can align himself with one of the most liberal Presidents in US history. There was a reason Roosevelt delayed entering World War II. Why would Americans commit to defending colonial powers in Europe who exploited them and many other parts of the world for centuries? It was a position similar to Obama’s anti-colonial foreign policy. There were also emotional scars. US total military deaths were 116,516 in World War I just 20 years earlier, and there was little evidence Europe learned its lesson. Roosevelt didn’t hesitate to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor because the attack was on America and Americans.

Brown’s view only sounds plausible because he now knows that when America did commit, they did so effectively and exposed the true nature of the Nazi regime. It is another case of 20/20 hindsight.

Why and what is Brown saying as he loses power? Sorry, I meant to say as he leaves office. Brown is attempting to determine his legacy, to make excuses for his economic and political failures. He is apparently laying the groundwork for a presidential bid in 2020 and what better basis, than the environment and its subset climate change. He is apparently trying to align himself with the millennials who have taken over the Democratic Party. His reference to failing to deal with climate change is like failing to deal with the Nazis, was already identified by a millennial socialist, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.  He admitted he failed to get Trump and others to do more, and he had not done enough on climate change.

No, not enough, not even close, and not close in California, and we’re doing more than anybody else, and not close in America or the rest of the world,” Brown said. “The technology, the investment, the lifestyle changes, the land use changes, this is a revolutionary threat. And we’ve got to get off this idea, it’s the economy, stupid. No, it’s the environment. It’s the ecology that we have to get on the side of. And we only do that with wisdom, with investment, and widespread collaboration and working together.”

Keep those ideas in mind. I became aware of the use of the environment by the Nazis when working with Sheila Zilinsky and writing a foreword for her book Green Gospel; The New World Religion. It led me to other books, especially the 2005 work, How Green were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich. This led me to a valuable website Nazi Germany and the Environment, with extensive explanation and direct quotations from the period.

 “Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself from their sway.”

Wow, a classic statement by a modern environmentalist. NO. It is a quote from Hitler’s infamous book Mein Kampf (My Struggle). Hitler wrote the book while in jail for social activism including a planned coup. He realized he went too far so became a model prisoner with special privileges, including the creation of the book. As the prison governor wrote,

Hitler has shown himself to be an orderly, disciplined prisoner, not only in his own person, but also with reference to his fellow prisoners, among whom he has preserved good discipline. He is amenable, unassuming, and modest. He has never made exceptional demands, conducts himself in a uniformly quiet and reasonable manner, and has put up with the deprivations and restrictions of imprisonment very well. He has no personal vanity, is content with the prison diet, neither smokes nor drinks, and has exercised a helpful authority over other prisoners.”

He was a professional politician. It didn’t take him long after his release to start fomenting riots and hatred such as the infamous Kristallnacht when Nazis stormed through the streets openly attacking Jews and Jewish businesses. He was behind the burning of the Reichstag, home of the German parliament. He blamed the communists, but many knew what was going on. These actions appealed to many Germany people, but many did not approve. As a child in England, my parents owned a small-holding. With the demands for food created by the war, the government ordered the land become productive. They didn’t have all the expertise or enough time. Early in the war, a German prisoner of war was brought every morning to help. We learned he was a 40-year old jeweler in Berlin who hated Hitler. Drafted into the German Army, he took the only escape possible. At the first opportunity, he surrendered to the British forces and gambled they would win. His gambled paid off. After the war, my parents visited him in his new jewelry store in Berlin.

Hitler realized he needed to step back as he had done in prison. He was scaring the population and resorted to a standard diversionary tactic of the left – the environment. As Jurriaan Maessen explained in 2009,

Once Hitler consolidated his position and that of his party, the true face of Nazism had to be masked somewhat to appease the people who generally desired an age of peace instead of another disastrous World War.

The Nazis created nature preserves, championed sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature.

The author of the 2005 book How Green were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich explained.

“The Nazis received a warm welcome by the existing environmental organisations as there was ‘an ideological overlap between Nazi ideas and conservationist agendas.’”

Once in full control, it didn’t take long for Hitler to abandon the charade.

The people of Germany understood, like the people today, that environmentalism is a necessary paradigm. It doesn’t make sense to soil your own nest. What they don’t like is when people exploit such necessary policy for political power. They also don’t like it when unnecessary policy, such as that to deal with climate change, is exploited. When you create a lie on which to create a career, as technocratic professional politicians must do because it is their only skill, you live and die with that lie.




Tim Ball: In Climate Propaganda, Normal Is Promoted As Abnormal

Almost every day there are stories in the media about weather or climate events that create the impression that they are new and outside of the normal pattern. None of them are. They are deceptions created and manipulated by technocrats. The objective is to sensationalize the story, by using a period of record that provides the desired result. It is in the practice of modern politics defined by H. L. Mencken a few years ago.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

A simple trick with a climate hobgoblin is to pick a period in which your claim is valid.

The first major and classic example occurred in Chapter 8 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1995 Report. They showed as evidence of human-caused warming a graph of the “Upper Atmosphere Temperature.”

However, the deception is exposed when plot the complete record.

This practice of cherry-picking the period of study is not exclusive to the media. It was a clear sign of corruption of climatology brought to a head with Roseanne D’Arrigo’s infamous comment to the 2006 National Academy of Science (NAS) panel that if you are going to make a cherry pie, you have to pick cherries.

That doesn’t condone the media use of the technique. All it does is illustrate why it was a convenient technique for creating a deception about what is normal.  For example, a 2017 BBC headline said “Hottest June day since summer of 1976 in heatwave.” That is 41 years, which is statistically significant but not climatologically significant. A Youtube story reports “Sydney has wettest November day since 1984.” CBS Pittsburgh reported “NWS: 2018 is the 2nd Wettest Year on Record in Pittsburgh.” The record began in 1871 or 147 years ago, but even that is not climatologically significant. The ones I like are this one from North Carolina, that says, “A Look Back at the Coldest day Ever in North Carolina.” “Ever” is approximately 4.5 billion years.

Other stories focus on a pattern or change in a pattern again with the idea that it is new or abnormal. Headlines like this one from 2012, “Why have there been more tornadoes than usual this year?” Often, they are suggestive such as this 2017 New York Times story. “The 2017 Hurricane Season Really Is More Intense Than Normal.” When you read the story, you find, as is usually the case, that the caveats at the end indicate it is not unusual. The problem is the headline already set the pattern in the public mind.

The headline says, “Forget El Nino, StormFest Is about To Hit The West Coast.” The author is talking about a series of storms tracking on to the west coast of North America. The story told us,

“Things often calm down after January 1 during El Nino years… but not this year… with the U.S. West Coast from central California to Washington State about to be pummeled by a series of storms.   Rain, snow, wind?  Plenty for everyone. A view of the latest infrared satellite imagery shows an amazing line-up of one storm after another stretching way into the Pacific.  A traffic jam of storms.”

The terms, “pummeled” and “traffic jam” are evocative and imply the pattern is unusual. In fact, the pattern is perfectly normal to the point that there is a descriptive term for it, the Pineapple Express.  This refers to the establishment of the Polar Front along the northwest coast of North America after it migrates south from its summer position off the coast of Alaska and northern British Columbia. Low pressure systems known as anti-cyclones develop along the Front all year round. The areas affected by these systems changes as the Front migrates between its more northerly summer position and more southerly winter position. The term Pineapple Express refers to the situation in the winter when these anti-cyclones generate in the region of Hawaii and track along the Front hitting the northwest coast in a series of storms. The pattern does not stop in an El Nino year but sometimes takes a different path.

These anti-cyclone systems are also the focus of exploitation of normal weather events as abnormal, in Europe. The southerly shift of the Polar Front in the Northern Hemisphere occurs around the globe. Two major factors influence the weather pattern, sea surface temperatures that fluctuate with ocean circulation, and the Rossby Wave pattern in the Circumpolar Vortex. This pattern of anti-cyclones hitting western Europe in the winter was added to the propaganda list when they started naming the storms. It linked them to hurricanes in the public mind, and it implied they were a recent phenomenon.

They are not recent, new, or of greater intensity.

A significant part of professor Hubert Lamb’s ground-breaking and monumental work on historical climatology was a long-term reconstruction of the pattern of these anti-cyclones. It fit with his claim about why he established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

“…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.”

Once he created a long-term record of these anti-cyclonic systems, there was a better chance of determining the underlying mechanisms. From this, he could achieve his final objective of better forecasting. The ability to forecast defines science. If that is not the final objective, the work is mostly irrelevant.

Consider the destructive and history-altering impact of storms like the one that hit the Spanish Armada that attempted to invade England in 1588. Ironically, Phil Jones, who ran the CRU reputation into the ground while under his direction, wrote a good synopsis of Lamb’s work. There is also the storm of 1703 reported in great detail in the book “The Storm” by the famous author Daniel Defoe.

Marcel Leroux was an early major skeptic of the claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). His 2005 book “Global Warming: Myth or Reality” was impactful because Leroux was well qualified. As one review of his book notes,

“In the global-warming debate, definitive answers to questions about ultimate causes and effects remain elusive. In Global Warming: Myth or Reality? Marcel Leroux seeks to separate fact from fiction in this critical debate from a climatological perspective. Beginning with a review of the dire hypotheses for climate trends, the author describes the history of the 1998 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many subsequent conferences. He discusses the main conclusions of the three IPCC reports and the predicted impact on global temperatures, rainfall, weather and climate, while highlighting the mounting confusion and sensationalism of reports in the media.”

The comment about sensationalism in the media is relevant to this article because Leroux, like Lamb, also worked on a reconstruction of the anti-cyclonic systems in the North Atlantic. Leroux also worked on another later exploitation of the normal by John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor, the so-called “Polar Vortex.” Leroux’s 1993 work on the impact of the The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes” showed how these outbreaks of cold Polar air are normal weather events that enter the climate record because of their regular but variable appearance and impact.

An unholy alliance confronts us. It is between the political use of science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the spin doctors or, as I prefer, the professional liars, and the mainstream media, that create fake news by making the normal appear abnormal. As the Yiddish proverb observes, “Truth never dies but lives a wretched existence,” especially under such a deliberate onslaught.




Tim Ball: Radical Environmentalism And Global Warming Fanaticism Are Patently Anti-Human

The radical animal rights group PETA states, “Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.”  It’s hard to imagine such blatantly illogical anti-human rhetoric delivered by other humans, and yet the whole radical environmental movement is in sync with this ideology that man is the cause of everything bad on earth. ⁃ TN Editor

Technocratic environmentalists converted and perverted environmentalism from a necessary and better way of living in the world to a destructive, controlling, political weapon. We needed environmentalism because it is illogical to soil our nest. Unfortunately, environmentalists seized the moral high ground by claiming that only they cared. They saw the overwhelming power the guilt trip that humans are destroying the planet gave them. They said everyone else lives dissolute, polluting, Earth-destroying lives and that can’t continue. They can save the Earth if we follow their directions.  The guilt trip message became the dominant view, despite the fact it defies logic and jeopardizes sensible actions. Sadly, it was not about the environment; it was about control of the number of people and how they behave.

A subset of the destruction of environmentalism was the diversion and perversion of climatology for population reduction and control. The simple theme behind the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that the sky is falling because of how you ignorant humans behaved. Give us total control through a UN government funded by a carbon tax, and we can set things right. If you don’t act immediately, there are only 12 years left. This was the message that emerged from the technocrats and bureaucrats at the recent climate Conference of the Parties (COP24) in Poland.

Central to these claims is that the quickest and easiest solution is to reduce the number of people dramatically. They succeeded in convincing sensible people that the biggest problem is overpopulation. They achieved this because they were the ones who claimed that overpopulation is the problem. They created the strawmen of overpopulation and human-caused global warming, identified the problems they claimed it created, then offered only their solutions. Even the Pope was prey to these threats, although his socialist views, indicated he would go along.

We witnessed the bizarre political bedfellows of a Roman Catholic Pope, working with Pantheist Hans Schellnhuber Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Naomi Klein, a world-level social activist, and critic of capitalism, to prepare his Encyclical “Laudato Si.”. This is undoubtedly one of the strangest documents in history. Here is a quote that is more likely to come from an extreme environmentalist manifesto than the head of the Catholic Church.

This sister (Mother Earth) now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22).

This blindly overlooks that God also put us here and determined our behavior. In a classic example of deferential blame, the document states,

It would hardly be helpful to describe symptoms without acknowledging the human origins of the ecological crisis. A certain way of understanding human life and activity has gone awry, to the serious detriment of the world around us. Should we not pause and consider this? At this stage, I propose that we focus on the dominant technocratic paradigm and the place of human beings and of human action in the world.

Remember, this is a document with claims from a person with the ridiculous claim that he alone is infallible. He cannot be wrong. It is those damn humans who are to blame. But there it is; the solution is the “dominant technocratic paradigm.”

The assumption that humans are a blight and to blame for every change that occurs is central to their position. The Club of Rome (COR) set the foundation to this false ideology when they wrote in The First Global Revolution,

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Do as we tell you and we will save you from self-destruction. The paradox is that they believe in Darwin’s views and yet their position as stated is in contradiction to them. If we are animals as Darwin claims, then everything we do is normal and natural. In the 1990 Greenpeace Report on global warming edited by Dr. Jeremy Leggett, it says, “Carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere naturally and unnaturally. The statement is meaningless unless you are saying that the unnatural portion is from humans. Then it becomes more meaningless unless you assume that humans are unnatural.

It is illogical to say, or even imply, that humans are natural but what we do is unnatural. Nonetheless, this is the absolute contradiction created by the use of environmentalism for a political agenda. Why isn’t everything humans do part of evolution? Why aren’t development, industry, economy, or anything else we do, part of the natural order? What does the COR mean when they say, “human intervention”? Why do they claim it is a danger? 

The answer effectively began in 1859 when Darwin published the first edition of On the Origin of Species. It went through several editions as he received feedback. Herbert Spencer made many comments, but one of them Darwin thought summarized his thesis so well that he included it in the 1869 Fifth Edition. The more extensive quote from Spencer says,

The law is the survival of the fittest…. The law is not the survival of the ‘better’ or the ‘stronger,’ if we give to those words anything like their ordinary meanings. It is the survival of those which are constitutionally fittest to thrive under the conditions in which they are placed; and very often that which, humanly speaking, is inferiority, causes the survival.

Darwin particularly liked the phrase “the survival of the fittest” as a summary of his overall views. Remember, Thomas Malthus greatly influenced Darwin who took a copy of his major work, “An Essay on the Principles of Population” on his trip to the Galapagos Islands.

Darwin’s inclusion of this phrase is also likely due to the influence of Alfred Russel Wallace. Before Darwin published in 1859, Wallace sent him an essay reporting and analyzing his work in Asia. It reached the same conclusions as Darwin. The difference was Darwin, as Wallace pointed out, made no mention of humans in his First edition. Wallace said any theory that omitted humans and did not explain how they were so markedly different than all the other species, failed.

The difference is so significant that science avoided the implications of the answer ever since. Ironically, Darwin created the situation that science and society avoided when his theory became the weapon used to eliminate religion and God. Removing God removed the explanation for the difference and made it a challenge to science.  Wallace tried, like many since, to offer a compromise. He didn’t use the phrase, ‘intelligent being’ but implied such an entity might provide an answer.

The ‘difference’ problem remains unanswered. Environmentalists don’t address it but create the paradox, that we are animals like all the rest, but not behaving appropriately like all the other unintelligent, obedient, animals. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), provides an excellent example of this thinking because it is extreme.

“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

Newkirk doesn’t realize that the Earth only exists because of human superiority. No other species is aware that the Earth exists. Newkirk’s ‘phase out’ suggestion implies a gradual elimination. I agree, as long as we begin with Newkirk and all technocratic environmentalists. Once we get rid of them, then, as free-thinking humans, we can reassess the situation and determine that the problem no longer exists, and we can get on with evolving. Part of that will include explaining how humans are so radically different and superior to all other species, with every right to exist.