How to convert climate change scepticism into support for geoengineering:

point the finger at the Greens, (WH)

Green movement has been an abject failure

December 5, 2012

IF THE civil rights movement were as unsuccessful as the environmental movement has been, Rosa Parks' granddaughter would still be sitting in the back of a segregated bus.

She might be secure in the knowledge that a global consensus had formed against racial discrimination, but she would still be sitting there.

Like the civil rights movement, environmentalism has changed the way we think. It has engendered a new respect for the natural world, an understanding of the delicate balance of life in our biosphere and mass engagement on the most important issue of all, climate change.

Yet it has failed in a profound way.

As a movement ushering in solutions to halt or slow climate change, it has been catastrophically ineffective.

Worst of all, it appears it's now too late for environmentalists to win the fight.

The problem is simple: it's hard to see how we will reduce emissions at a rate fast enough to prevent runaway climate change.

Global emissions are rising (they were up 3 per cent in 2011), and will likely continue to do so. They need to be falling precipitously. India and China are growing their economies thanks mostly to fossil fuels, as are the economies of much of the rest of Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East.

Few if any of these countries will commit to substantial total emissions cuts, and most developed nations in Europe, as well as the US, Canada and New Zealand, are now reticent about the emissions targets required.

As reported by The Age on Monday, the world is on track to see an ''unrecognisable planet'' that is between 4 and 6 degrees hotter by the end of this century. And the latest forecast doesn't include the effects of thawing permafrost, a feedback loop the magnitude of which we're only just starting to understand.

Trying to reduce emissions is not pointless; any reductions will help to some extent, and should be pursued. But reductions on a scale that's now required? Almost no chance.

Environmental orthodoxy says that the world needs to lower emissions both by reducing consumption and by changing the energy mix. These need to be done simultaneously and immediately, via a global, government-led, co-ordinated system. This basic stance hasn't shifted at all in the past two decades. Through summit after failed summit, target after missed target, year upon year of emissions growth instead of reduction, the lack of success has produced a sort of grim, if understandable, stubbornness.

Environmentalism is not in any way responsible for climate change, any more than feminism is responsible for inequities that women still face. Climate change is a widely if unevenly shared disaster. But at some point, environmentalists might stop describing every horrific new piece of data that comes out as a wake-up call for the world, and instead take the inaction as a cue to rethink their approach.

Consider this: of all the coal, gas and oil fields that the world's corporations and nations have already quantified and have the legal right to exploit, 80 per cent now needs to stay in the ground if temperature rises are to be kept within 2 degrees.

But getting corporations to keep these resources in the ground for the greater good - pretty unlikely - is only one part of the task. We also need to build a whole new renewable energy infrastructure, more or less from scratch, even though this would be much more expensive than keeping the current one.

Australia's major political parties say they are planning to reduce our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, with bigger cuts to follow. Actually, on government forecasts, our emissions will rise by 12 per cent (above 2000 levels) by 2020, even with a carbon price. We will only achieve our 5 per cent ''cut'' by purchasing emissions reductions from other countries.

And, perhaps worse, our coal exports are exacerbating other countries' emissions addiction.

In developing economies around the world, burgeoning middle classes are buying televisions, computers, mobile phones, air conditioners and cars in unprecedented numbers. Hundreds of millions of people will be connecting to grid power for the first time in their lives.

There's no chance they're going to consume less power in coming years. And we in the developed world have no moral basis to expect this - not while our own emissions are sky-high.

The world's fossil-fuel companies (including our coal companies) are working furiously to provide developing economies with more power, and are infinitely better-placed than renewable energy outfits to do this, whether we like it or not.

To compound all of these issues, the world's population is set to grow by about 2 billion by mid-century.

The environmental movement clings to its orthodox approach out of habit, out of psychological comfort, perhaps also out of naivety. But it has become an obstacle - its own form of denialism. Unfortunately, a range of responses now needs to be considered, including some radical ones.

Until recently, geo-engineering - intentional, large-scale manipulation of the Earth's climate - was taboo. Environmentalists have long fought it, and for understandable reasons. It was being used as a distraction from the fight against rising emissions. Most scientists are also wary. Geo-engineering is absurdly risky, like playing God with a system we don't fully understand. But we need to start investigating it. This will include experimenting with carbon dioxide removal methods, and also looking at adaptation measures. The argument that humans shouldn't take it upon themselves to upset the natural environment is, plainly, now redundant.

We need to ask why a political and social movement has failed to convert scientific consensus into action.

Nick Feik

Here is some related discussion:

P.B.: Good. Say no to Greens in 2013

W. Hall: That won't achieve anything if the other parties are no better on this subject. And don't get mixed up with the climate change debate. That is a separate issue. Tell the Greens to shape up and follow the example of the Cypriot Greens and the Swedish Green Pernilla Hagberg.

P.B.: The Greens today want to suspend all human activity on earth. Except for the rich. They can go on getting richer. Global warming is a facade for geoengineering.

W. Hall: It's not as simple as that. Both sides of the "climate change debate" are in on the racket. Don't be misled by the fact that most chemtrails activists are climate change sceptics. That doesn't mean that most climate change sceptics are chemtrails activists.

P.B.: But man's activities such as driving a car etc don't have a large enough impact to cause the globe to warm as the warmists say it does. Global warming is a scam. I am a skeptic of global warming but not of climate change meaning the climate has always changed the weather is not affected by mankind's activities. The warmists deliberately leave the sun out of the equation so as to use their vehicle the UN to blame the middle and poor class for causing the extreme weather by our activities so that they can depopulate us for the natural resources for themselves to make themselves richer and the middle and poor poorer. W. Hall: If you study the writings of early advocates of geoengineering you will note that they are typically climate change sceptics. This applies not only to Teller but also to others:

The task of the "warmists" was to promote the "problem". But the sceptics had found their "solution" even before that. Geoengineering has been a bipolar game from the outset. It is a product of the nuclear weapons laboratories and of people who learnt their politics from the Cold War nuclear arms race. Up until Copenhagen and the immediately preceding discrediting of "warmists" via Climategate, geoengineering had been on the back burner and was mostly disapproved of by "warmists". It is only relatively recently that "warmist" organizations such as WWF have started to give a hesitant green light to geoengineering. To pin all the blame for what is happening on the "warmists" is like saying that the Soviet Union was primarily to blame for the Cold War nuclear arms race. The "warmists" can be accused of complicity but they have been dragged into a game that was dreamed up and initiated by the other side, which then proceeded to reverse the blame, as it always does.

This is not an exculpation of Greenpeace, WWF, Greens, etc. I share their views on climate change and I condemn them for their criminal ignoring and ridiculing of the whole chemtrails

phenomenon. Also we are trying to strengthen the position of the rare Greens such as the Cypriots who are an exception to the rule of complicity in the Greens. But you should be condemning the people on your side of the climate debate, the Lord Moncktons, etc. Monckton has been shouting that there has been no global warming for the last fifteen years, without saying a word about whether this might be attributable to "global dimming", AKA solar radiation management. If you don't do this, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. That is a grave charge, but it is true.

P.B.: The skeptics who are the real climate scientists are not the ones doing the geoengineering.

W. Hall: I am an activist against chemtrails and geoengineering and have been for the last ten years. Before that I was in the anti-nuclear movement, so I have had plenty of time to study what is publicly available of the activities of US weapons laboratories. You are deluded if you think that climate chance scepticism as such and in itself can be utilized by chemtrails activists without the climate change sceptics becoming mobilized against chemtrails. You must confront the climate change sceptics who ignore chemtrails and HAARP as we confront the Greenpeaces and Greens who are doing the same. If you don't you are just confused: you are arguing about climate when the subject is not climate but chemtrails and HAARP.

P.B.: I'm a global warming sceptic who acknowledges the existence of Chemtrails/geoengineering and know that they are modifying the climate and calling it man-made global warming while the richest people on earth via their UN are blaming us everyday men women and children for "hurting the environment". They need to use this to enslave humanity to keep themselves fat and happy. They are creating the climate extremes their computers say are supposed to be happening and blaming us for it. It's that simple.

W. Hall: We are currently confronting WWF over their disgraceful poster that is tolerant of solar radiation management: What are you doing about Monckton and his campaigns to tell the world that there has been no global warming in the last fifteen years, WITHOUT SAYING A WORD about solar radiation management and its possible role in that? Are you campaigning amongst the climate change sceptics for them to recognize the reality of chemtrails and HAARP? It seems to me that you are as much of minority among them as we are among the Greens.

P.B.: I am sure he knows about geoengineering. You just need to ask him about it. Send an e-mail.

W. Hall: This is what Patrick Lynch in Britain thought. He invited Monckton to his radio programme and said that he was going to talk to him about geoengineering. Monckton didn't show. You are the one who should be sending him e-mails and seeing what he says. I spend my time fighting WWF, Greenpeace and the Greens. Another climate change sceptic, John Christy, turns down an invitation to discuss geoengineering. See what he says: "I don't think geoengineering will happen. It is too expensive and too uncertain in its results (who would be liable when/if something goes wrong?)." P.B.: I know Lord Moncton supports CFACT.

This is all the powers that be blaming us the everyday man so they can get away with not just infanticide or genocide or gendercide but kill off a chunk of humanity because they just like Satan despise us and wish us non-rich were non-existent.

W. Hall: QED. Monckton supports CFACT as a "cheaper approach to global warming" although global warming is a myth of the Leftists and ecologists. You know the facts, then. I don't have to tell you anything. Why do you support irrationality? Is the stance of Greenpeace worse than this?

P.B.: Even the people behind the film what in the world are they spraying are not giving straight facts. Michael Murphy keeps saying this is this and that is that. But he never says why. He never gives evidence for his claims when asked on the spot. He is winding people up and scaring them with opinion. Global warming is false which we all know but then why does Moncton support geoengineering for a non-existent problem? I think Alex Jones of Infowars may be on on this global scare campaign too.

W. Hall: Why does Monckton support geoengineering for a non existent problem? This was part of the initial conception:

P.B.: Geoengineering being done over England is causing small children to have a lack of vitamin D which is causing them to get rickets. Edward Teller who wrote the article that you posted the link for also supports geoengineering for made global warming which does not exist.

W. Hall: Yes, he was a past master at that kind of trickiness. He was advisor to Ronald Reagan at the Reykjavik Summit where Reagan proposed to Gorbachev that all US and Soviet nuclear weapons could be destroyed if in exchange Gorbachev would accept Teller's Star Wars programme for shooting down the Soviet nuclear missiles whose destruction they were negotiating.

"Then Reagan suddenly took everything further than it had ever gone before. An incredible moment in the history of the Cold War arrived abruptly, without any warning, without preparation, without briefing papers or interagency process, without press conferences or speeches, in the small room overlooking the bay. "Let me ask this," Reagan inquired. "Do we have in mind - and I think it would be very good - that by the end of the two five-year periods all nuclear explosive devices would be eliminated, including bombs, battlefield systems, cruise missiles, submarine weapons, intermediate-range systems, and so on?" Gorbachev: "We could say that. List all those weapons." Shultz: "Then let's do it." Reagan's proposal was, by any measure, the most concrete, far-reaching disarmament initiative by a U.S. president ever to be formally submitted in a superpower summit negotiation. It was not a throwaway line. If earlier he had talked about eliminating ballistic missiles, or been imprecise or cloudy about what was under discussion, at this moment he swept away any doubts and clearly proposed total nuclear disarmament." (From p. 265-266 of David Hoffman's "The Dead Hand"). Of course the proviso for all this was that Gorbachev should accept the SDI (Star Wars) scheme for shooting down the Soviet missiles whose negotiated destruction Reagan (i.e. Teller) was proposing. This was an irrational proposal, and Gorbachev rejected it, so that he was as much to blame for the failure of Reagan's proposed universal nuclear disarmament as Greenpeace is today to blame for geoengineering.

Of course David Hoffman is not any franker about Reykjavik and what was involved in Reagan's proposal for universal nuclear disarmament than Lord Monckton is frank about the possible reasons for the lack of global warming in the last fifteen years. In both cases inquiry leads to Edward Teller and his tricks.

I think I am beginning to understand possible reasons for Lord Monckton's success. He reassures. There is no problem. Global warming is not a problem. It is a scam of money-hungry, corrupt and politically failed ecologists. Global warming is also not a problem because we have the solution: geoengineering. It is all very reassuring if one does not care about being fed internally contradictory - and so irrational - information. Not from different sources but from the same source.

P.B.: So Monckton also supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW)? How does all of this connect with the enslavement of humanity via the UN world government and agenda 21 and where does it all fit?

W. Hall: I think both Monkcton and the late Edward Teller are/were just playing games. You are probably better read than I am about the plans of the most extreme players and what they want to do. Sofia Smallstorm's scenario is scary enough for me: But basically I take my line from the more low-key strategies of outfits like the ETC group, though not tolerating or humouring their less-than-honest lip-service to mainstream denial of geoengineering as a reality. They have so far achieved some paper victories with their "realpolitik" approach. But there are certainly forces in operation that do indeed want to enslave us. You should dialogue with people in the sceptic milieu about geoengineering and HAARP, not with me, because I am operating in a different milieu whose blind spots are also different.

P.B.: I have come across some sceptics that try to label me a AGW supporter when I mention geoengineering.

W. Hall: Just as Greens will label you a global-warming denier if you talk about geoengineering, and certainly if you talk about chemtrails.

Home page