What If AGW Proves to Be a Fiction

What if AGW proves to be a fiction?

I would like to point out the some of those who are pushing AGW have raised this question themselves, and theyhave said that even if AGWproves to be groundless, the campaign will be a great benefit anyhow. But the reason they have givenis not advancement in technology, betterenergy sources, less dependence on politically unstable countries, etc. It seems that some of theleading proponents of AGW are thinking about achieving socio/econo/political objectives.

For instance Maurice Strong appears to be one of the main drivers behind this kind of environmentalism. He was the chief architect of the first International Conference on the Environment in Rio in 1992. He was one of the main architects of the Kyoto Protocol. His real goal as a rabid socialist appears to be the overthrow of what he calls the consumerism of the West, a drastic reduction in population accompanied by reduced standards of living - things that probably necessitate, he says, the collapse of civilization as we know it(to use something very close to his words). To cite another example the former Minister of the Environment in the Canadian government said that even if AGW turned out to be a false alarm, it would all be worthwhile because ofsocial equity outcomes - again, a clear give-away of the socialist objectives of the movement.

The real hard green environmentalists and these people with socialist objectives don't want America's or the AP 6's technological solutions.They are not the least impressed with the latest statistics that show that the US has been far more successful in minimizing growth in greenhouse emissions than the EU Kyoto group - I think the growth in the US emissions in the last few years comesin as abouthalf of the EU emissions growth. If, or rather when the technological fixes and advancements come to the fore, these AGW crusaders will be as bitterly disappointed as the dyed-in-the-wool socialists were disappointed when there was dancing on the Berlin Wall instead of dancing on the grave of Western capitalism - and more importantly, Western freedom. The Australian's editorial was partly right when it opined that some of these climate advocates won't be satisfied until we are all taking cold showers in the dark.

But I will go further and say that they are not going to be satisfied until they bring about a radical change in the way we live according to their dream of micro-managing our lives in a grand centrally plannedeco-utopia with all the mass coercion that will necessarily go with their bureaucratic heaven. This movement at its core is not just anti free market, but it is profoundly anti-human. Humans are depicted as the great enemy of mother nature (Gaia), the cancer of the earth, and the big rub is that human freedom cannot be trusted but must be radically curtailed. Humans supposedlydon't know what is good for them, and at the end of the day,we will have to be told and directed in the matter of what is good forus and the environment. It was the great Russian economist, Illanarionov, former adviser to Putin, who declared in no uncertain terms that this AGW movementis a new form ofanti-human totalitarianism.

In his recent paper, The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change, Bob Carter cited this warning from Vaclav Klaus,the President of the Czeck Republic,recently given in live testimony to the US Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce:

“As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism (has been) replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism …

The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making … Man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world.”