Friday, February 26, 2010

Ch 1: Prognosis 2012

The elite agenda for social transformation


Richard K. Moore
Last update: 10 October 2010

Table of Contents: 2012: Crossroads for Humanity

Whatever the exact date, all the threads will come together, geopolitically and domestically, and the world will change. It will be a new era, just as capitalism was a new era after aristocracy, and the Dark Ages followed the era of the Roman Empire. Each era has its own structure, its own economics, its own social forms, and its own mythology. These things must relate to one another coherently, and their nature follows from the fundamental power relationships and economic circumstances of the system.

The accuracy of the prognosis, as prediction, is of course impossible to know in advance. However each part of the prognosis has been based on precedents that have been set, modus operandi that has been observed, trends that have been initiated, sentiments that have been expressed, signals that have been given, and actions that have been taken whose consequences can be confidently predicted

Historical background — the establishment of capitalist supremacy
When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late 1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills, by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials. The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in Britain but more in Holland. Holland had been the leading Western power in the 1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit, Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the rise of Britain, who subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and geopolitically.

In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and import-export policies were gradually changed to favor investors over landowners.

It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive use. Victorian dramas are filled with stories of aristocratic families who fall on hard times, and are forced to sell off their properties. For dramatic purposes, this decline is typically attributed to a failure in some character, a weak eldest son perhaps. But in fact the decline of aristocracy was part of a larger social transformation brought on by the rise of capitalism.

The business of the capitalist is the management of capital, and this management is generally handled through the mediation of banks and brokerage houses. It should not be surprising that investment bankers came to occupy the top of the hierarchy of capitalist wealth and power. And in fact, there are a handful of banking families, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who have come to dominate economic and political affairs in the Western world.

Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile — it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. Just as a copper mine might be exploited and then abandoned, so under capitalism a whole nation can be exploited and then abandoned, as we see in the rusting industrial areas of America and Britain.

This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can ‘explain’ the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandizement of monarchs and nations.

A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time ‘explaining’ World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives.

In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house — the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests.

Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments.

From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the banking elites is both absolute and subtle...
Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
— President Woodrow Wilson

The end of growth — capitalists vs. capitalism
It was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialization has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally we have reached the point where the paradigm of perpetual growth can no longer be maintained.

Indeed, that point was actually reached by about 1970. Since then capital has not so much sought growth through increased production, but rather by extracting greater returns from relatively flat production levels. Hence globalization, which moved production to low-waged areas, providing greater profit margins. Hence privatization, which transfers revenue streams to investors that formerly went to national treasuries. Hence derivative and currency markets, which create the electronic illusion of economic growth, without actually producing anything in the real world.

If one studies the collapse of civilizations, one learns that failure-to-adapt is fatal. Continuing on the path of pursuing growth would be such a failure to adapt. And if one reads the financial pages these days, one finds that it is full of doomsayers. We read that the Eurozone is doomed, and Greece is just the first casualty. We read that stimulus packages are not working, unemployment is increasing, the dollar is in deep trouble, growth continues to stagnate, business real estate will be the next bubble to burst, etc. It is easy to get the impression that capitalism is failing to adapt, and that our societies are in danger of collapsing into chaos.

Such an impression would be partly right and partly wrong. In order to understand the real situation we need to make a clear distinction between the capitalist elite and capitalism itself. Capitalism is an economic system driven by growth; the capitalist elite are the folks who have managed to gain control of the Western world while capitalism has operated over the past two centuries. The capitalist system is past its sell-by date, the banking elite are well aware of that fact — and they are adapting.

Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the bankers to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone else. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared.

Thus, capitalism has not been allowed to die a natural death. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalization, privatization, derivative markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of toxic derivatives. And when the planned collapse occurred, rather than industrial capitalism being bailed out, the elite bankers were bailed out. It’s not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the bankers were too powerful to fail. They made governments an offer they couldn’t refuse.

The outcome of the trillion-dollar bailouts was easily predictable, although you wouldn’t know that from reading the financial pages. National budgets were already stretched, and they certainly did not have reserves available to service the bailouts. Thus the bailouts amounted to nothing more than the taking on of immense new debts by governments. In order to fulfill the bailout commitments, the money would need to be borrowed from the same financial institutions that were being bailed out.

With the bailouts, Western governments delivered their nations in hock to the bankers. The governments are now in perpetual debt bondage to the bankers. Rather than the banks going into receivership, governments are now in receivership. Obama’s cabinet and advisors are nearly all from Wall Street; they are in the White House so they can keep close watch over their new acquisition, the once sovereign USA. Perhaps they will soon be presiding over its liquidation.

The bankers are now in control of national budgets. They say what can be funded and what can’t. When it comes to financing their wars and weapons production, no limits are set. When it comes to public services, then we are told deficits must be held in check. The situation was expressed very well by Brian Cowan, Ireland’s government chief. In the very same week that Ireland pledged 200 billion Euro to bailout the banks, he was asked why he was cutting a few million Euro off of critical service budgets. He replied, "I’m sorry, but the funds just aren’t there". Of course they’re not there! The treasury was given away. The cupboard is bare.

As we might expect, the highest priority for budgets is servicing the debt to the banks. Just as most of the third world is in debt slavery to the IMF, so the whole West is now in debt slavery to its own central banks. Greece is the harbinger of what is to happen everywhere.

The carbon economy — controlling consumption
In a non-growth economy, the mechanisms of production will become relatively static. Instead of corporations competing to innovate, we’ll have production bureaucracies. They’ll be semi-state, semi-private bureaucracies, concerned about budgets and quotas rather than growth, somewhat along the lines of the Soviet model. Such an environment is not driven by a need for growth capital, and it does not enable a profitable game of Monopoly.

We can already see steps being taken to shift the corporate model towards the bureaucratic model, through increased government intervention in economic affairs. With the Wall Street bailouts, the forced restructuring of General Motors, the call for centralized micromanagement of banking and industry, and the mandating of health insurance coverage, the government is saying that the market is to be superseded by government directives. Not that we should bemoan the demise of exploitive capitalism, but before celebrating we need to understand what it is being replaced with.

In an era of capitalism and growth, the focus of the game has been on the production side of the economy. The game was aimed at controlling the means of growth: access to capital. The growth-engine of capitalism created the demand for capital; the bankers controlled the supply. Taxes were mostly based on income, again related to the production side of the economy.

In an era of non-growth, the focus of the game will be on the consumption side of the economy. The game will be aimed at controlling the necessities of life: access to food and energy. Population creates the demand for the necessities of life; the bankers intend to control the supply. Taxes will be mostly based on consumption, particularly of energy. That’s why they’re pushing for carbon taxes and carbon credits.

Already in Britain there is talk of carbon quotas, like gasoline rationing in wartime. It’s not just that you’ll pay taxes on energy, but the amount of energy you can consume will be determined by government directive. Carbon credits will be issued to you, which you can use for driving, for heating, or on rare occasions for air travel. Also in Britain, the highways are being wired so that they can track how many miles you drive, tax you accordingly, and penalize you if you travel over your limit. We can expect these kinds of things to spread throughout the West, as it’s the same international bankers who are in charge everywhere.

In terms of propaganda, this carbon-credit regime is being sold as a solution to global warming and peak oil. The propaganda campaign has been very successful, and the whole environmental movement has been captured by it. In Copenhagen, demonstrators confronted the police, carrying signs in support of carbon taxes and carbon credits. But in fact the carbon regime has nothing to do with climate or with sustainability. It is all about micromanaging every aspect of our lives, as well as every aspect of the economy.

If the folks who are running things actually cared about sustainability, they’d be investing in efficient mass transit, and they’d be shifting agriculture from petroleum-intensive, water-intensive methods to sustainable methods. Instead they are mandating biofuels and selling us electric cars, which are no more sustainable than standard cars.

With food prices linked to energy prices, and agriculture land being converted from food production to fuel production, the result can only be a massive increase in third-world starvation. Depopulation has long been a stated goal in elite circles, and the Rockefeller dynasty has frequently been involved in eugenics projects of various kinds. Genocide through imposed poverty is already a model being pursued successfully in Africa, and biofuels are systematically expanding that program.

Just as taxes on tobacco don’t stop smoking, cap-and-trade markets will not stop oil consumption. There will be an illusion of carbon reduction, based on phony accounting, where replacing a rainforest with a plantation is counted as a positive, when it should be counted as a negative. No one is talking about replacing highways or cars, and new oil fields are still being opened up.

The fact is that elites are not concerned about global warming. They know it’s not really a problem. Even I was able to figure that out, simply by looking at the publicly available temperature data: Climate science: observations vs. models.

‘The War on Terrorism’ — preparing the way for the transition
The so-called War on Terrorism has two parts. The first part is a pretext for arbitrary abuse of citizen’s rights, whenever Homeland Security claims the action is necessary for security reasons. The second part is a pretext for US military aggression anywhere in the world, whenever the White House claims that Al Qaeda is active there.

I emphasized the word ‘claims’ above, because the terrorism pretext is being used to justify arbitrary powers, both domestically and globally. No hard evidence need be presented to Congress, the UN, or anyone else, before some nation is invaded, someone is kidnapped and tortured as a ‘;terrorist suspect’, or some new invasive security measure is implemented. When powers are arbitrary, then we are no longer living under the rule of law, neither domestically nor internationally. We are living under the rule of men, as you would expect in a dictatorship, or in an old-fashioned kingdom or empire.

Part 1: Preparing the way for a new social order
In a very real sense, the terrorism pretext is being used to undo everything that The Enlightenment and the republican revolutions achieved two centuries ago. The very heart of the Bill of Rights — due process — has been abandoned. The gulag, the concentration camp, and the secret arrest in the night — these we have always associated with fascist and communist dictatorships — and now they are not only functioning under US jurisdiction, but being justified publicly by the President himself.

Is there really a terrorist threat to the homeland, and would these measures be a sensible response to such a threat? People are strongly divided in their answers to these questions. Quite a bit of hard forensic evidence has come to light, including links to intelligence agencies, and my own view is that most of the dramatic ‘terrorist’ events in the US, UK, and Europe have been covert false-flag operations, providing the pretext needed by elites to pursue their agenda.

From an historical perspective this would not be at all surprising. Such operations have been standard practice — modus operandi — in many nations, though we usually don’t get proof until years later. For example, every war the US has been involved in has had its own phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or its Weapons of Mass Destruction scam, in one form or another. It’s a formula that works. Instant mobilization of public opinion, prompt passage without debate of enabling resolutions and legislation. Why would the War on Terrorism be any different?

As regards motive: while Muslims have only suffered as a result of these dramatic events, our elite bankers have been able to create a police-state infrastructure that can be used to deal with any foreseeable popular resistance or civic chaos that might emerge as they prepare the way for their post-capitalist future.

With the collapse, the bailouts, and the total failure to pursue any kind of effective recovery program, the signals are very clear: the system will be allowed to collapse totally, thus clearing the ground for a pre-architected ‘solution’. Ground Zero is the metaphor, with the capitalist economy as the Twin Towers. And the toxic derivatives show us that the collapse is a controlled demolition.

By ‘total collapse’ I mean things like major disruptions in essentials, such as food, water, electricity, or fuel. If there’s a war with Iran, for instance, the gulf shipping lanes would be blocked, and global oil supplies would be seriously curtailed. If the war escalates, there would be much more serious disruption. Or there could be a collapse of the currency, so no one is able to buy food. A ‘terrorist attack’ could take out key hubs, and bring down electrical power and communications. A total collapse means there’s a collapse of civil order, requiring the implementation of martial law.

Maintaining order in a time of collapse, when for example there might not be enough food to go around, will be a nasty business. People may get quite unruly if their families are starving. Harsh measures may be required. In order to deal with a collapse scenario, Washington has come up with a new disaster-response protocol, that we saw tested in New Orleans and in Haiti.

The protocol begins with the assumption that there will always be civil disorder, and that establishment of robust martial-law control is the first priority. Thus the first-responders are battle-hardened troops or mercenaries, trained and equipped for insurgencies, rather than doctors and rescue teams, bringing food and water and medical supplies.

The protocol continues with the premise that every disaster should be seen as a Shock Doctrine opportunity...
What can we gain out of this disaster? What can we get by with, under cover of disaster, that we normally couldn’t get by with? Do we want to clear out the riff-raff and redevelop the place? Do we want to reduce the size the local population?
When the Shock Doctrine potential is identified in the situation, then that becomes the order of business. Providing assistance to the victims may or may not be part of the business, as we saw in New Orleans and in Haiti.

In New Orleans the objective was to clear out the ‘riff-raff’, and in Haiti it was population reduction. When people are pinned under rubble in an earthquake, the first 48 hours, and 72 hours, are absolutely critical points, as regards survival rates. When the US military systematically blocked incoming aid for those critical hours, turning back doctors and emergency teams, they systematically sealed the fate of many thousands who could have been saved.

The remainder of the protocol has to do with media coverage. The problem is to show the disaster on TV as it happens, without people noticing how grossly it’s being mishandled, from a humanitarian perspective. This is the most difficult part of the operation — the psy-ops part — and in both New Orleans and Haiti the media coverage accomplished what it was intended to accomplish.

Total collapse, plus the Shock Doctrine, is an ideal formula for re-engineering society. Consider how Japan and Germany were socially and politically transformed by the postwar reconstruction process. Those were exercises in social engineering, as were the preceding transformations under Mussolini and Hitler. Although the outcomes were quite different, in each case a total collapse / defeat was the preamble to reconstruction.

A total collapse of the capitalist economy is simply the application of a proven formula, but on a global scale. The second part of the formula will be some new social order, or perhaps some old social order, or some mixture. Something appropriate to a non-growth, command economy.

That’s Part 1 of the War on Terrorism: it has enabled the creation of the police-state infrastructures required to deal with the collapse of society, and to provide security for the reconstruction process.

Part 2: Preparing the way for global domination
So far we’ve been looking mainly at the West, and the plans of Western elites regarding a post-capitalist regime. We now need to bring Russia and China into the picture. Both nations have resisted being tamed by the Western banking elite. They still make their decisions on the basis of their perceived national interests. They are also working very closely together, economically and militarily.

If the world goes on, business as usual, it is only a matter of time before China eclipses the West economically, and Russia and China together dominate geopolitics. Strategic thinkers have long talked about the ‘Grand Chessboard’, about how Eurasia, with its land mass, population, and resources, is the natural power center of the world. In a very real sense, their time has come.

However, for obvious reasons, this business-as-usual scenario is not to the liking of our Western banking elites. They intend to intervene in the natural course of events, as they have so often in the past, as they did with the two world wars. They do not intend for their power base to be eclipsed by Russia and China.

The US has surrounded Russia and China with military bases, and it is setting up a ring of anti-missile systems around their borders. Meanwhile the Pentagon is spending trillions developing a first-strike capability, with space-based weapons systems, control-of-theater capability, forward-based ‘tactical’ nukes, etc. The anti-missile systems are an important part of a first-strike strategy, reducing the ability of Russia or China to retaliate.

These elaborate military preparations are not in response to any threat from Russia or China. Those two would be quite happy to see a stable, multi-polar world. They’d be quite happy to support substantial nuclear disarmament globally. The Pentagon’s war preparations mean only one thing: the Western elites are not going to give up their position of global dominance.

The War on Terrorism has been essential in justifying the astronomical military budgets required for these massive military deployments. Besides, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are themselves part of the encirclement strategy, as well as serving to control oil sources and pipeline routes.

There may or may not be a World War 3, but all of these preparations make it clear that our banking elite intend to preside over a global system, by hook or by crook. If they wanted a peaceful arrangement, a splitting of the third-world pie, so to speak, it could have been easily arranged at any time. It is only our elite bankers who are obsessed with world domination.

It is possible that nuclear war is a ‘desired outcome’, accomplishing depopulation, and making the collapse even more total. Or perhaps China and Russia will be given an offer they can’t refuse: Surrender your economic sovereignty to our global system, or face the consequences.

One way or another, the elite bankers, the masters of the universe, intend to preside over a micromanaged global system. The collapse project is now well underway, and the ‘surround your enemy’ project seems to be more or less completed. From a strategic perspective, there will be some trigger point, some stage in the economic collapse scenario, when geopolitical confrontation is judged to be most advantageous. It’s a multi-dimensional chess board, and with the stakes so high, you can rest assured that the timing of the various moves will be carefully coordinated. And from the overall shape of the board, we seem to be nearing the endgame.

Prognosis 2012 — a Neo Dark Age
2012 might not be the exact year, but it’s difficult to see the endgame lasting much beyond that, and the masters of the universe love symbolism, as with 911 (both in Chile and in Manhattan), KLA 007, and others. 2012 is loaded with symbolism, eg. the Mayan Calendar, and the Internet is buzzing with various 2012-related prophecies, survival strategies, anticipated alien interventions, alignments with galactic radiation fields, etc. And then there is the Hollywood film, 2012, which explicitly portrays the demise of most of humanity, and the pre-planned salvation of a select few. One never knows with Hollywood productions, what is escapist fantasy, and what is aimed at preparing the public mind symbolically for what is to come.

Whatever the exact date, all the threads will come together, geopolitically and domestically, and the world will change. It will be a new era, just as capitalism was a new era after aristocracy, and the Dark Ages followed the era of the Roman Empire. Each era has its own structure, its own economics, its own social forms, and its own mythology. These things must relate to one another coherently, and their nature follows from the fundamental power relationships and economic circumstances of the system.

In our post-2012 world, we have for the first time one centralized global government, and one ruling elite clique, a kind of extended royal family, the lords of finance. As we can see with the IMF, WHO, and the WTO, and the other pieces of the embryonic world government, the institutions of governance will make no pretensions about popular representation or democratic responsiveness. Rule will be by means of autocratic global bureaucracies, who take their marching orders from the royal family. This model has already been operating for some time, within its various spheres of influence, as with the restructuring programs forced on the third world, as a condition for getting financing.

Whenever there is a change of era, the previous era is always demonized in mythology. In the Garden of Eden story the serpent is demonized — a revered symbol in paganism, the predecessor to Christianity. With the rise of European nation states, the Catholic Church was demonized, and Protestantism introduced. When republics came along, the demonization of monarchs was an important part of the process. In the post-2012 world, democracy and national sovereignty will be demonized. This will be very important, in getting people to accept totalitarian rule...
In those terrible dark days, before the blessed unification of humanity, anarchy reigned in the world. One nation would attack another, no better than predators in the wild. Nations had no coherent policies; voters would swing from one party to another, keeping governments always in transition and confusion. How did they ever think that masses of semi-educated people could govern themselves, and run a complex society? Democracy was an ill-conceived experiment that led only to corruption and chaotic governance. How lucky we are to be in this well-ordered world, where humanity has finally grown up, and those with the best expertise make the decisions.
The economics of non-growth are radically different than capitalist economics. The unit of exchange is likely to be a carbon credit, entitling you to consume the equivalent of one kilogram of fuel. Everything will have a carbon value, allegedly based on how much energy it took to produce it and transport it to market. ‘Green consciousness’ will be a primary ethic, conditioned early into children...
Getting by with less is a virtue; using energy is anti-social; austerity is a responsible and necessary condition.
As with every currency, the bankers will want to manage the scarcity of carbon credits, and that’s where global warming alarmism becomes important. Regardless of the availability of resources, carbon credits can be kept arbitrarily scarce simply by setting carbon budgets, based on directives from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), another of our emerging units of global bureaucratic governance. Such IPCC directives will be the equivalent of the Federal Reserve announcing a change in interest rates. Those budgets set the scale of economic activity.

Presumably nations will continue to exist, as official units of governance. However security and policing will be largely centralized and privatized. Like the Roman Legions, the security apparatus will be loyal to the center of empire, not to the place where someone happens to be stationed. We have seen this trend already in the US, as mercenaries have become big business, and police forces are increasingly federalized, militarized, and alienated from the general public.

Just as airports have now been federalized, all transport systems will be under the jurisdiction of the security apparatus. Terrorism will continue as an ongoing bogey-man, justifying whatever security procedures are deemed desirable for social-control purposes. The whole security apparatus will have a monolithic quality to it, a similarity of character regardless of the specific security tasks or location. Everyone dressed in the same Evil Empire black outfits, with big florescent letters on the back of their flack jackets. In essence, the security apparatus will be an occupying army, the emperor’s garrison in the provinces.

On a daily basis, you will need to go through checkpoints of various kinds, with varying levels of security requirements. This is where biometrics becomes important. If people can be implanted with chips, then much of the security can be automated, and everyone can be tracked at all times, and their past activity retrieved. The chip links into your credit balance, so you’ve got all your currency always with you, along with your medical records and lots else that you don’t know about.

There is very little left as regards national sovereignty. Nothing much in the way of foreign policy will have any meaning. With security marching to its own law and its distant drummer, the main role of so-called ‘government’ will be to allocate and administer the carbon-credit budget that it receives from the IPCC. The IPCC decides how much wealth a nation will receive in a given year, and the government then decides how to distribute that wealth in the form of public services and entitlements. Wealth being measured by the entitlement to expend energy.

In a fundamental sense, this is how things already are, following the collapse and the bailouts. Because governments are so deeply in debt, the bankers are able to dictate the terms of national budgets, as a condition of keeping credit lines open. The carbon economy, with its centrally determined budgets, provides a much simpler and more direct way of micromanaging economic activity and resource distribution throughout the globe.

In order to clear the way for the carbon-credit economy, it will be necessary for Western currencies to collapse, to become worthless, as nations become increasingly insolvent, and the global financial system continues to be systematically dismantled. The carbon currency will be introduced as an enlightened, progressive ‘solution’ to the crisis, a currency linked to something real, and to sustainability. The old monetary system will be demonized, and again the mythology will contain much that is true...
The pursuit of money is the root of all evil, and the capitalist system was inherently evil. It encouraged greed, and consumption, and it cared nothing about wasting resources. People thought the more money they had, the better off they were. How much wiser we are now, to live within our means, and to understand that a credit is a token of stewardship.
Culturally, the post-capitalist era will be a bit like the medieval era, with aristocrats and lords on top, and the rest peasants and serfs. A definite upper class and lower class. Just as only the old upper class had horses and carriages, only the new upper class will be entitled to access substantial carbon credits. Wealth will be measured by entitlements, more than by acquisitions or earnings. Those outside the bureaucratic hierarchies are the serfs, with subsistence entitlements. Within the bureaucracies, entitlements are related to rank in the hierarchy. Those who operate in the central global institutions are lords of empire, with unlimited access to credits.

But there is no sequestering of wealth, or building of economic empires, outside the structures of the designated bureaucracies. Entitlements are about access to resources and facilities, to be used or not used, but not to be saved and used as capital. The flow of entitlements comes downward, micromanaged from the top. It’s a dole economy, at all levels, for people and governments alike — the global regimentation of consumption. As regards regimentation, the post-capitalist culture will also be a bit like the Soviet system... Here’s your entitlement card, here’s your job assignment, and here’s where you’ll be living.

With the pervasive security apparatus, and the micromanagement of economic activity, the scenario is clearly about fine-grained social control, according to centralized guidelines and directives. Presumably media will be carefully programmed, with escapist trivia, and a sophisticated version of 1984-style groupthink propaganda pseudo-news, which is pretty much what we already have today. The non-commercial Internet, if there is one, will be limited to monitored, officially-designated chat sites, and other kinds of sanitized forums.

With such a focus on social micromanagement, and because of various indicators, I do not expect the family unit to survive in the new era, and I expect child-abuse alarmism will be the lever used to destabilize the family. The stage has been set with all the revelations about church and institutional child sexual abuse.

Such revelations could have been uncovered any time in the past century, but the media spotlight turned on them at a certain time, just as all these other transitional things have been happening. People are now aware that widespread child abuse happens, and they have been conditioned to support strong measures to prevent it.

More indicators... Whenever I turn on the TV, I see at least one public-service ad, with shocking images, about children who are physically or sexually abused, or criminally neglected, in their own homes.

And there’s a TV series about social workers, where they dramatize the conflicts between parental powers and the powers of the state, as regards children. There is a sense in which the series seems ’balanced’, in that social services sometimes makes mistakes. But the main message of the series is that social workers have ’good hearts’ and ’integrity’, and ’know about children’, whereas parents are a mixed bag, and are in some cases really bad.

It is easy to see how the category of abuse can be expanded, to include parents who don’t follow vaccination schedules, whose purchase records don’t indicate healthy diets, who have dubious psychological profiles, etc. The state of poverty could be deemed abusive neglect.

With the right media campaign, abuse alarmism would be easy to stir up. Ultimately, a ‘child rights’ movement becomes an anti-family movement. The state must directly protect the child from birth. The family is demonized...
How scary were the old days, when unlicensed, untrained couples had total control over vulnerable children, behind closed doors, with whatever neuroses, addictions, or perversions the parents happened to possess. How did this vestige of patriarchal slavery, this safe-house den of abuse, continue so long to exist, and not be recognized for what it was? How much better off we are now, with children being raised scientifically, by trained staff, where they are taught healthy values.
Ever since public education was introduced, the state and the family have competed to control childhood conditioning. In religious families, the church has made its own contribution to conditioning. In the micromanaged post-capitalist future, with its Shock Doctrine birth scenario, it would make good sense to take that opportunity to implement the ‘final solution’ of social control, which is for the state to monopolize child raising. This would eliminate from society the parent-child bond, and hence family-related bonds in general. No longer is there a concept of relatives. There’s just worker bees, security bees, and queen bees, who dole out the honey.

This has been an extensive and somewhat detailed prognosis, regarding the architecture of the post-capitalist regime, and the transition process required to bring it about. The term ‘new world order’ is too weak a term to characterize the radical nature of the social transformation anticipated in the prognosis.

A more apt characterization would be a ’quantum leap in the domestication of the human species’. Micromanaged lives and microprogrammed beliefs and thoughts. A once wild primate species transformed into something resembling more a bee or ant culture. Needless to say, regular use of psychotropic drugs would be mandated, so that people could cope emotionally with such a sterile, inhuman environment.

For such a profound transformation to be possible, it is easy to see that a very great shock is required, on the scale of collapse and social chaos, and possibly on the scale of a nuclear exchange. There needs to be an implicit mandate to ‘do whatever is necessary to get society running again’. The shock needs to leave people in a condition of total helplessness comparable to the survivors in the bombed-out rubble of Germany and Japan after World War 2. Nothing less will do.

The accuracy of the prognosis, as prediction, is of course impossible to know in advance. However each part of the prognosis has been based on precedents that have been set, modus operandi that has been observed, trends that have been initiated, sentiments that have been expressed, signals that have been given, and actions that have been taken whose consequences can be confidently predicted.

In addition, in looking at all of these indicators together, one sees a certain mindset, an absolutist determination to implement the ‘ideal solution’, without compromise, using extreme means, and with unbridled audacity. World wars have been rehearsals for this historic moment. The police state infrastructure is in place and has been tested. The economy is in the process of collapse. The enemy is surrounded with missiles. Arbitrary powers have been assumed. If not now, the ultimate prize, then when will there be a better opportunity?

Our elite planners are backed up by competent think tanks, and they know that the new society must have coherence of various kinds. They’ve had quite a bit of experience with social engineering, nurturing the rise of fascism, and then engineering the postwar regimes. They understand the importance of mythology.

For example there is the mythology of the holocaust, where the story is all about extermination per se, and the story is not told of the primary mission of the concentration camps, which was to provide slave labor for war production. And some of the companies using the slave labor were American owned, and were supplying the German war machine. Thus does mythology, though containing truth, succeed in hiding the tracks and the crimes of elite perps, leaving others to carry the whole burden of historical demonization.

So I think there is a sound basis for anticipating the kinds of mythology that would be designed for leaving behind and rejecting the old ways, and seeing the new as a salvation. There is a long historical precedent of era changes linked with mythology changes, often expressed in religious terms. There will be a familiar ring to the new mythology, a remixing and re-prioritizing of familiar values and assumptions, so as to resonate with the dynamics of the new regime, and demonize the old.

The nature of the carbon economy has been somewhat clearly signaled. Carbon budgets, and carbon credits, are clearly destined to become primary components of the economy. As we’ve seen with the elite and grassroots supported global warming movement, the arbitrary scarcity of carbon credits can be easily regulated on the pretext of environmentalism. And peak oil alarmism is always available as a backup. As elite spokespeople have often expressed, when the time comes, the masses will demand the new world order.

The focus on control over consumption, resources, and distribution is implicit in the emphasis on energy limits, is latent in the geopolitical situation, as regards depletion of global resources, and is indicated by the need for a new unifying paradigm, as the growth paradigm is no longer viable.

The nature of the security apparatus has been clearly signaled by the responses to demonstrations ever since 1998 in Seattle, by the increased use of hardened-killer mercenaries at home and abroad, by excessive and abusive police behavior, by airport security procedures, by Guantanamo and renditions, by the creation of a domestic branch of the army, dedicated to responding to civil emergencies, and by the way Katrina and Haiti have been handled.

The limited role of national governments, being primarily allocators of mandated budgets, has been clearly signaled by long-standing IMF policies in the third world, and by the way the bankers have been dictating to governments, in the wake of the over-extended bailout commitments. The carbon entitlement budgeting paradigm accomplishes the same micromanagement in a much more direct way, and is the natural outcome of the push toward hard carbon limits.

on to Chapter 2


Sunday, February 21, 2010

Climate science: observations vs. models

the global-warming illusion

Richard K. Moore

This document continues to evolve, based on continuing research. The latest version is always maintained at this URL:

You can click on any graphic in this document to see a larger image.

Global temperatures in perspective

Let’s look at the historical temperature record, beginning with the long-term view. For long-term temperatures, ice-cores provide the most reliable data. Let’s look first at the very long-term record, using ice cores from Vostok, in the Antarctic. Temperatures are shown relative to 1900, which is shown as zero.

    Data source:

Vostok Temperatures: 450,000 BC — 1900

Here we see a very regular pattern of long-term temperature cycles. Most of the time the Earth is in an ice age, and about every 125,000 years there is a brief period of warm tempertures, called an interglacial period. Our current interglacial period has lasted a bit longer than most, indicating that the next ice age is somewhat overdue.

These long-term cycles are probably related to changes in the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, which follows a cycle of about 100,000 years. We also see other cycles of more closely-spaced peaks, and these are probably related to other cycles in the Earth’s orbit. There is an obliquity cycle of about 41,000 years, and a precession cycle, of about 20,000 years, and all of these cycles interfere with one another in complex ways. Here’s a tutorial from NASA that discusses the Earth’s orbital variations:

Next let’s zoom-in on the current interglacial period, as seen in Vostok and Greenland, again using ice-core data.

Vostok Temperatures: 10,000 BC — 1900

    Data source:

Greenland Temperatures: 9,000 BC — 1900

Here we see that the Antarctic emerged from the last ice age about 1,000 years earlier than the Arctic. While the Antarctic has oscillated up and down throughout the interglacial period, the Arctic has been on a steady decline towards the next ice age for the past 3,000 years.

As of 1900, in comparison to the whole interglacial period, the temperature was 2°C below the maximum in Vostok, and 3°C below the maximum in Greenland. Thus, as of 1900, temperatures were rather cool for the period in both hemispheres, and in Greenland temperatures were close to a minimum.

During this recent interglacial period, temperatures in both Vostok and Greenland have oscillated through a range of about 4°C, although the patterns of oscillation are quite different in each case. In order to see just how different the patterns are, let’s look at Greenland and Vostok together for the interglacial period. Vostok is shown with a dashed line.

Greenland & Vostok Temperatures: 8,500 BC — 1900

The patterns are very different indeed. While Greenland has been almost always above the 1900 base line, Vostok has been almost always below. And in the period 1500-1900, while Greenland temperatures were relatively stable, within a range of 0.5°C, Vostok went through a radical oscillation of 3°C, from an extreme high to an extreme low.

These dramatic differences between the two arctic regions might be related to the Earth’s orbital variations (See NASA tutorial). On the other hand, we may be seeing a regulatory mechanism, based on the fact that the Southern Hemisphere is dominated by oceans, while most of the land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere. Perhaps incoming heat, though retained by the northern continents, leads to evaporation from the oceans and increased snowfall in the Antarctic. Whatever the reasons, the differences between the two arctic regions are striking.

Let’s now look at the average of Greenland and Vostok temperatures over the interglacial period:

Average of Greenland & Vostok Temperatures
8,500 BC — 1900

Here we see that the average temperature has followed a more stable pattern, with more constrained oscillations, than either of the hemispheres. The graph shows a relatively smooth arc, rising from the last ice age, and descending steadily over the past 4,000 years toward the next ice age. Here’s the average again, together with Vostok and Greenland:

Vostok, Greenland, and Average Temperatures
8,500 BC — 1900

Notice how the average is nearly always nestled between the Arctic and Antarctic temperatures, with the Arctic above and the Anatarctic below. It does seem that the Antarctic is acting as a regulatory mechanism, keeping the average temperature always moderate, even when the Arctic is experiencing high temperatures. I don’t offer this as a theory, but simply as an observation of a possibility.

We can see that the average temperature tells us very little about what is happening in either arctic region. We cannot tell from the average that Arctic temperatures were 3°C higher in 1500 BC, and that glacier melting might have been a danger then. And the average does not tell us that the Antarctic has almost always been cool, with very little danger of ice-cap melting at any time. In general, the average is a very poor indicator of conditions in either arctic region.

If we want to understand warming-related issues, such as tundra-melting and glacier-melting, we must consider the two polar regions separately. If glaciers melt, they do so either because of high Arctic temperatures, or high Antarctic temperatures. Whether or not glaciers are likely to melt cannot be determined by global averages.

Next let’s take a closer look at Vostok and Greenland since 500 BC:

Greenland & Vostok Temperatures
500 BC — 1900

Again we see how the Antarctic temperatures balance the Arctic, showing almost a mirror image over much of this period. From 1500 to 1800, while the Arctic was experiencing the Little Ice Age, it seems almost as if the Antarctic was getting frantic, going into radical oscillations in an effort to keep the average up near the base line.

Beginning about 1800 we have an unusual situation, where both arctic regions begin warming rapidly at the same time, as each follows its own distinct pattern. This of course means that the average will also be rising. Keep in mind that everything we’ve been looking at so far has been before human-caused CO2 emissions were at all significant.

Thus, just as human-caused emissions began to increase, around 1900, average temperatures were already rising sharply, from natural causes. There has been a strong correlation between rising average temperature and CO2 levels since 1900, arising from a coincidental alignment of three distinct trends. Whether or not rising CO2 levels have accelerated the natural increase in average temperature remains to be seen.

We’ll return to this question of CO2 causation, but first let’s look at some other records from the Northern Hemisphere, to find out how typical the Greenland record is of its hemisphere. This first record is from Spain, based on the mercury content in a peat bog, as published in Science, 1999, vol. 284. Note that this graph is backwards, with present day on the left.

Spanish Peat-Bog Temperatures
Present day — 2,000 BC

This next record is from the Central Alps, based on stalagmite isotopes, as published in Earth and Planteary Science Letters, 2005, vol. 235.

Central Alps Temperatures
0 AD — Present Day

And for comparison, here’s the Greenland record for the most recent 4,000 years:

Greenland Temperatures
2,000 BC — 1900

While the three records are clearly different, they do share certain important characteristics. In each case we see a staggered rise, followed by a staggered decline — a long-term up-and-down cycle over the period. In each case we see that during the past few thousand years, temperatures have been 3°C higher than 1900 temperatures. And in each case we see a steady descent towards the overdue next ice age. The Antarctic, on the other hand, shares none of these characteristics.

In the Northern Hemisphere, based on the shared characteristics we have observed, temperatures would need to rise at least 3°C above 1900 levels before we would need to worry about things like the extinction of polar bears, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or runaway methane release. We know this because none of these things have happened in the past 4,000 years, and temperatures have been 3°C higher during that period.

However such a 3°C rise seems very unlikely to happen, given that all three of our Nothern Hemisphere samples show a gradual but definite decline toward the overdue next ice age. Let’s now zoom-in on the temperature record since 1900, and see what kind of rise has actually occurred. Let’s turn to Jim Hansen’s latest article, published on, 2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen. The article includes the following two graphs.

Jim Hansen is of course one of the primary spokespersons for the human-caused-CO2-dangerous-warming theory, and there is some reason to believe these graphs show an exaggerated picture as regards to warming. Here is one article relevant to that point, and it is typical of other reports I’ve seen:
    Son of Climategate! Scientist says feds manipulated data

Nonetheless, let’s accept these graphs as a valid representation of recent average temperature changes, so as to be as fair as possible to the warming alarmists. We’ll be using the red line, which is from GISS, and which does not use the various extrapolations that are included in the green line. We’ll return to this topic later, but for now suffice it to say that these extrapolations make little sense from a scientific perspective.

The red line shows a temperature rise of .7°C from 1900 to the 1998 maximum, a leveling off beginning in 2001, and then a brief but sharp decline starting in 2005. Let’s enter that data into our charting program, using values for each 5-year period that represent the center of the oscillations for that period. Here’s what we get for 1900-2008:

Changes in Average Global Temperature
1900 — 2008

In order to estimate how these average changes would be reflected in each of the polar regions, let’s look at Greenland and Vostok together, from 1000 AD to 1900.

Greenland & Vostok Temperatures
1000 — 1900
Vostok shown with dashed line

Here we can see that in 1900 the Antarctic was warming much faster the Arctic. As usual, the Antarctic was exhibiting the more extreme oscillations. In the most recent warming shown, from 1850 to 1900, the Arctic increased by only 0.5°C while the Antarctic increased by 0.75°C. As regards the average of these two inreases, the Antarctic contributed 60%, while the Arctic contributed 40%. If we assume these trends continue, and changes in global average are reflected in the polar regions, then we get the following estimate for temperature changes in the two polar regions:

Greenland & Vostok Temperatures
1900 — 2008
(based on apportioning GISS changes,
60% to Vostok, 40% to Greenland)
Vostok shown with dashed line

This is only approximate, of course, but it is probably closer to the truth than apportioning the changes equally to the two polar regions. Let’s now look again at Greenland and Vostok together, for the past 4,000 years, with these apportioned GISS changes appended.

Greenland & Vostok Temperatures
2,000 BC — 2008
Extended by GISS data
Vostok shown with feint line

We see here that both polar regions have remained below their maximum for this period. The Arctic has been nearly 2.5°C warmer, and the Antarctic about 0.5°C warmer. Perhaps CO2 is accelerating Antarctic warming, or perhaps Antarctica is simply continuing its erratic oscillations. In the Arctic however, temperatures are definitely following their long-term pattern, with no apparent influence from increased CO2 levels.

The recent warming period has given us a new peak in the Greenland record, one in a series of declining peaks. If you hold a ruler up to the screen, you’ll see that the four peaks shown, occuring about every 1,000 years, fall in a straight line. If the natural pattern continues, then the recent warming has reached its maximum in the Northern Hemisphere, and we will soon experience about two centuries of rapid cooling, as we continue our descent to the overdue next ice age. The downturn shown in the GISS data beginning in 2005 fits perfectly with this pattern.

Next let’s look at the Greenland-Vostok average temperature for the past 4,000 years, extended by the GISS data.

Average of Greenland & Vostok Temperatures
2,000 BC — 2008
Extended by GISS data

Here we see a polar-region subset of the famous hockey stick, on the right end of the graph — and we can see how misleading that is as regards the likelihood of dangerous warming. From the average polar temperature, we get the illusion that temperatures are warmer now at the poles than they’ve been any time since year 0. But as our previous graph shows, the Arctic has been about 1.5°C warmer during that period, and the Antarctic has been about 0.5°C warmer. And even the average has been nearly 0.5°C warmer, if we look back to 2,000 BC. So in fact we have not been experiencing alarmingly high temperatures recently in either hemisphere.

Dr. Hansen tells us the recent downturn, starting in 2005, is very temporary, and that temperatures will soon start rising again. Perhaps he is right. However, as we shall see, his arguments for this prediction are seriously flawed. What we know for sure is that a downward trend has begun. How far that trend will continue is not yet known.

So everything depends on the next few years. If temperatures turn sharply upwards again, then the IPCC may be right, and human-caused CO2 emissions may have taken control of climate. However, if temperatures continue downward, then climate has been following natural patterns all along in the Northern Hemisphere. The record-setting cold spells and snows in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere this winter seem to be a fairly clear signal that the trend is continuing downwards.

If so, then there has been no evidence of any noticeable influence on northern climate from human-caused CO2, and we are now facing an era of rapid cooling. Within two centuries we could expect temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere to be considerably lower than they were in the recent Little Ice Age.

We don’t know for sure which way temperatures will go, rapidly up or rapidly down. But I can make this statement:
As of this moment, based on the long-term temperature patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, there is no evidence that human-caused CO2 has had any effect on climate. The rise since 1800, as well as the downward dip starting in 2005, are entirely in line with the natural long-term pattern. If temperatures turn sharply upwards in the next few years, that will be the first-ever evidence for human-caused warming in the Northern Hemisphere.

The illusion of dangerous warming arises from a failure to recognize that global averages are a very poor indicator of actual conditions in either hemisphere.

If the downward trend continues in the Northern Hemisphere, as the long-term pattern suggests, we are likely to experience about two centuries of rapid cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, as we continue our descent toward the overdue next ice age.

As regards the the recent downturn, here are two other records, both of which show an even more dramatic downturn than the one shown in the GISS data:

University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH)
Dr. John Christy
UAH Monthly Means of Lower Troposphere LT5-2
2004 - 2008

Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA (RSS)
RSS MSU Monthly Anomaly - 70S to 82.5N (essentially Global)
2004 - 2008

Why haven’t unsually high levels of CO2 significantly affected temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere?

One place to look for answers to this question is in the long-term patterns that we see in the temperature record of the past few thousand years, such as the peaks separated by about 1,000 years in the Greenland data, and other more closely-spaced patterns that are also visible. Some forces are causing those patterns, and whatever those forces are, they have nothing to do with human-caused CO2 emissions.

Perhaps the forces have to do with cycles in solar radiation and solar magnetism, or cosmic radiation, or something we haven’t yet identified. Until we understand what those forces are, how they intefere with one another, and how they effect climate, we can’t build useful climate models, except on very short time scales.

We can also look for answers in the regulatory mechanisms that exist within the Earth’s own climate system. If an increment of warming happens on the surface, for example, then there is more evaporation from the oceans, which cools the ocean and leads to increased precipitation. While an increment of warming may melt glaciers, it may also cause increased snowfall in the arctic regions. To what extent do these balance one another? Do such mechanisms explain why Antarctic temperatures seem to always be balancing the Arctic, as we have seen in the data?

It is important to keep in mind that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are tiny compared to water-vapor concentrations. A small reduction in cloud formation can more than compensate for a large increase in CO2 concentration, as regards the total greenhouse effect. If there is a precipitation response to CO2-warming, that could be very significant, and we would need to understand it quantitatively, by observing it — not by making assumptions and putting them in our models.

Vegetation also acts as a regulatory system. Plants and trees gobble up CO2; that is where their substance comes from. Greater CO2 concentration leads to faster growth, taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Until we understand quantitively how these various regulatory systems function and interact, we can’t even build useful models on a short time scale.

In fact a lot of research is going on, investigating both lines of inquiry — extraterrestrial forces as well as terrestrial regulation mechanisms. However, in the current public-opinion and media climate, any research not related to CO2 causation is dismissed as the activity of contrarians, deniers, and oil-company hacks. Just as the Bishop refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, so today we have a whole society that refuses to look at many of the climate studies that are available.

From observation of the patterns in climate history, the evidence indicates that regulatory mechanisms of some kind are operating. It’s not so much the lack of a CO2-effect that provides evidence, but rather the constrained, oscillatory pattern in the average polar temperatures over the whole interglacial period. Whenever you see contrained oscillations in a system, that is evidence of a regulatory mechanism — some kind of thermostat at work.

Direct evidence for climate-regulation mechanisms

I’d like to draw attention to one example of a scientist who has been looking at one aspect of the Earth’s regulatory system. Roy Spencer has been conducting research using the satellite systems that are in place for climate studies. Here are his relevant qualifications:
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He describes his research in a presentation available on YouTube:

In the talk he gives a lot of details, which are quite interesting, but one does need to concentrate and listen carefully to keep up with the pace and depth of the presentation. He certainly sounds like someone who knows what he’s talking about. Permit me to summarize the main points of his research:
When greenhouse gases cause surface warming, a response occurs, a ‘feedback response’, in the form of changes in cloud and precipitation patterns. The CRU-related climate models all assume the feedback response is a positive one: any increment of greenhouse warming will be amplified by knock-on effects in the weather system. This assumption then leads to the predictions of ‘runaway global warming’.

Spencer set out to see what the feedback response actually is, by observing what happens in the cloud-precipitation system when surface warming is occurring. What he found, by targeting satellite sensors appropriately, is that the feedback response is negative rather than positive. In particular, he found that the formation of storm-related cirrus clouds is inhibited when surface temperatures are high. Cirrus clouds are themselves a powerful greenhouse gas, and this reduction in cirrus cloud formation compensates for the increase in the CO2 greenhouse effect.
This is the kind of research we need to look at if we want to build useful climate models. Certainly Spencer’s results need to be confirmed by other researchers before we accept them as fact, but to simply dismiss his work out of hand is very bad for the progress of climate science. Consider what the popular website SourceWatch says about Spencer.

We don’t find there any reference to rebuttals to his research, but we are told that Spencer is a “global warming skeptic” who writes columns for a free-market website funded by Exxon. They also mention that he spoke at conference organized by the Heartland Institute, that promotes lots of reactionary, free-market principles. They are trying to discredit Spencer’s work on irrelevant grounds, what the Greeks referred to as an ad hominem argument. Sort of like, “If he beats his wife, his science must be faulty”.

And it’s true about ‘beating his wife’ — Spencer does seem to have a pro-industry philosophy that shows little concern for sustainability. That might even be part of his motivation for undertaking his recent research, hoping to give ammunition to pro-industry lobbyists. But that doesn’t prove his research is flawed or that his conclusions are invalid. His work should be challenged scientifically, by carrying out independent studies of the feedback process. If the challenges are restricted to irrelevant attacks, that becomes almost an admission that his results, which are threatening to the climate establishment, cannot be refuted. He does not hide his data, or his code, or his sentiments. The same cannot be said for the warming-alarmist camp.

What are we to make of Jim Hansen’s prediction that rapid warming will soon resume?

Once again, I refer you to Dr. Hansen’s recent article, 2009 temperatures by Jim Hansen. Jim explains his prediction methodlolgy in this paragraph, emphasis added:
The global record warm year, in the period of near-global instrumental measurements (since the late 1800s), was 2005. Sometimes it is asserted that 1998 was the warmest year. The origin of this confusion is discussed below. There is a high degree of interannual (year‐to‐ year) and decadal variability in both global and hemispheric temperatures. Underlying this variability, however, is a long‐term warming trend that has become strong and persistent over the past three decades. The long‐term trends are more apparent when temperature is averaged over several years. The 60‐month (5‐year) and 132 month (11‐year) running mean temperatures are shown in Figure 2 for the globe and the hemispheres. The 5‐year mean is sufficient to reduce the effect of the El Niño — La Niña cycles of tropical climate. The 11‐ year mean minimizes the effect of solar variability — the brightness of the sun varies by a measurable amount over the sunspot cycle, which is typically of 10‐12 year duration.

As I’ve emphasized above, Jim is assuming there is a strong and persistent warming trend, which he of course attributes to human-caused CO2 emissions. And then that assumption becomes the justification for the 5 and 11-year running averages. Those running averages then give us phantom ‘temperatures’ that don’t match actual observations. In particular, if a downard decline is beginning, the running averages will tend to ‘hide the decline’, as we see in these alarmist graphs from the article with their exaggerated ‘hockey stick’.

It seems we are looking at a classic case of scientists becoming over-attached to their model. In the beginning there was a theory of human-caused global warming, arising from the accidental convergence of three independent trends, combined with the knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That theory has now become an assumption among its proponents, and actual observations are being dismissed as “confusion” because they don’t agree with the model. One is reminded again of the Bishop who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, so as not to be confused about the ‘fact’ that the Earth is the center of the universe.

The climate models have definitely strayed into the land of imaginary epicycles. The assumption of CO2 causation, plus the preoccupation with an abstract global average, creates a warming illusion that has no connection with reality in either hemisphere. This mathematical abstraction, the global average, is characteristic of nowhere. It creates the illusion of a warming crisis, when in fact no evidence for such a crisis exists. In the context of IPCC warnings about glacers melting, runaway warming, etc., the global-average hockey stick serves as deceptive and effective propaganda, but not as science.

As with the Ptolemaic model, there is a much simpler explantation for our recent era of warming, at least in the Northern Hemisphere: long-term temperature patterns are continuing, from natural causes, and natural regulatory mechanisms have compensated for the greenhouse effect of human-caused CO2 emissions. There is no strong reason to believe that CO2 has been affecting the Southern Hemisphere either, given the natural record of rapid and extreme oscillations — which often go opposite to northern trends.

This simpler explanation is based on actual observations, and requires no abstract mathematical epicycles or averages — but it removes CO2 from the center of the climate debate. And just as politically powerful factions in Galileo’s day wanted the Earth to remain the center of the universe, powerful factions today want CO2 to remain at the center of climate debate, and global warming to be seen as a threat.

What is the real agenda of the politically powerful factions who are promoting global-warming alarmism?

One thing we always need to keep in mind is that the people at the top of the power pyramid in our society have access to the very best scientific information. They control dozens, probably hundreds, of high-level think tanks, able to hire the best minds, and carrying out all kinds of research we don’t hear about. They have access to all the secret military and CIA research, and a great deal of influence over what research is carried out in think tanks, the military, and in universities.

Just because they might be promoting faulty science for its propaganda value, that doesn’t mean they believe it themselves. They undoubtedly know that global cooling is the most likely climate prognosis, and the actions they are promoting are completely in line with such an understanding.

Cap-and-trade, for example, won’t reduce carbon emissions. Rather it is a mechanism that allows emissions to continue, while pretending they are declining — by means of a phony market model. You know what a phony market model looks like. It looks like Reagan and Thatcher telling us that lower taxes will lead to higher government revenues due to increased business activity. It looks like globalization, telling us that opening up free markets will “raise all boats” and make us all prosperous. It looks like Wall Street, telling us that mortgage derivatives are a good deal, and we should buy them. And it looks like Wall Street telling us the bailouts will restore the economy, and that the recession is over. In short, it’s a con. It’s a fake theory about what the consequences of a policy will be, when the real consequences are known from the beginning.

Cap-and-trade has nothing to do with climate. It is part of a scheme to micromanage the allocation of global resources, and to maximize profits from the use of those resources. Think about it. Our ‘powerful factions’ decide who gets the initial free cap-and-trade credits. They run the exchange market itself, and can manipulate the market, create derivative products, sell futures, etc. They can cause deflation or inflation of carbon credits, just as they can cause deflation or inflation of currencies. They decide which corporations get advance insider tips, so they can maximize their emissions while minimizing their offset costs. They decide who gets loans to buy offsets, and at what interest rate. They decide what fraction of petroleum will go to the global North and the global South. They have ‘their man’ in the regulation agencies that certify the validity of offset projects, such as replacing rainforests with tree plantations, thus decreasing carbon sequestration. And they make money every which way as they carry out this micromanagement.

In the face of global cooling, this profiteering and micromanagenent of energy resources becomes particularly significant. Just when more energy is needed to heat our homes, we’ll find that the price has gone way up. Oil companies are actually strong supporters of the global-warming bandwagon, which is very ironic, given that they are funding some of the useful contrary research that is going on. Perhaps the oil barrons are counting on the fact that we are suspicious of them, and asssume we will discount the research they are funding, as most people are in fact doing. And the recent onset of global cooling explains all the urgency to implement the carbon-management regime: they need to get it in place before everyone realizes that warming alarmism is a scam.

And then there’s the carbon taxes. Just as with income taxes, you and I will pay our full share for our daily commute and for heating our homes, while the big corporate CO2 emitters will have all kinds of loopholes, and offshore havens, set up for them. Just as Federal Reserve theory hasn’t left us with a prosperous Main Street, despite its promises, so theories of carbon trading and taxation won’t give us a happy transition to a sustainable world.

Instead of building the energy-efficient transport systems we need, for example, they’ll sell us biofuels and electric cars, while most of society’s overall energy will continue to come from fossil fuels, and the economy continues to deteriorate. The North will continue to operate unsustainably, and the South will pay the price in the form of mass die-offs, which are already ticking along at the rate of six million children a year from malnutrition and disease.

While collapse, suffering, and die-offs of ‘marginal’ populations will be unpleasant for us, it will give our ‘powerful factions’ a blank canvas on which to construct their new world order, whatever that might be. And we’ll be desperate to go along with any scheme that looks like it might put food back on our tables and warm up our houses.

This document continues to evolve, based on continuing research. The latest version is always maintained at this URL:
The author can be reached here: