Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

President Trump did the right thing by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. It was a bad deal for the United States. Despite this, polls claim a majority of Americans opposed his action. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Scott Pruitt is trying to take what appears to be a more balanced political and legal approach by allowing a debate presenting both sides of the science. It will have little to no effect because most of the public doesn’t understand the science. The big problem is it begs the question; Why is it necessary to provide a forum for balance? Why does the global warming story not go away after exposure to the corrupted science of the major players behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through leaked emails, exposure of bureaucrats deliberately adjusting the historic record, and worst of all, the failed forecasts?

The answer is simple and therefore profound and makes an answer essential. I know from experience that after you explain to an audience what and how the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception was achieved the next question is inevitable. What was the motive? Unless you answer that question, people become a little more skeptical but remain, at best, undecided. They can’t and don’t want to believe that scientists would be involved in anything nefarious or even misleading. They can’t believe that so many of them were misled, which is why the 97% consensus claim was so effective.

Attacks on people who try to explain the motive indicate how threatening it is to the perpetrators of the deception. It intensified as the challenges grew. For example, the charge of “global warming skeptic” is far less vindictive and isolating than “climate change denier” with all the holocaust connotations. Similar nastiness is inferred in calling people who identified the motive conspiracy theorists. Definitions of conspiracy indicate why that term causes problems.

An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act

An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

There is nothing illegal about the objective of proving AGW, so it was not a conspiracy. However, there was illegality in what some of those involved did, as the emails exposed. For example, a definition of conspiracy as a noun says

“A conspiracy to manipulate the results: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge;”

They even introduced a semblance of a conspiracy by calling themselves “The Team.”

Hoax was another term incorrectly applied to what happened, partly because nobody wants to talk about the motive. It is not a hoax because although it may have a malicious effect, it is primarily a humorous pricking of pomposity. There is nothing humorous about the AGW story.

An appropriate appellation for the AGW deception is a cabal.

A small group of intriguers, especially one formed for political purposes.

In the case of AGW, the cabal was the Club of Rome (COR). There is nothing wrong with a political view or agenda, but the difference with the COR agenda was the misuse of science to promote it. Misused science is not science or even pseudoscience. Science and its practice must be apolitical and fact based. As a result, scientists prefer to avoid politics. Similarly, most politicians avoid science precisely because it is about facts.

An intriguing and telling part of the AGW war was that it quickly became political and a person was labelled based on their view. If you questioned the AGW claim, you were right wing, if you accepted it you were left wing, regardless of your actual political views. Ironically, the way to take the politics out of the scientific and debate is to identify the political motive. Here is a summary of what that is:

COR expanded the Malthusian idea that overpopulation would exhaust food supply to all resources.

They claimed each person used resources and the number of people was increasing so the demand would increase.

Those who achieved development used resources at a greater rate and more nations were developing. They had to be stopped, and development curtailed overall.

Development was achieved by use of fossil fuels and must be eliminated.

A parallel population reduction program was essential, hence the Cairo conference in 1994.

Beyond potential resource exhaustion (Limits to Growth), they needed a vehicle to manipulate people toward their agenda: a fear factor with a global threat.

Through Maurice Strong, COR member, they set up the IPCC to prove that the use of fuels produced CO2 that was causing runaway global warming.

The global impact transcended nations that only a global government could resolve. Elaine Dewar summarized by Strong’s actions at the UN: “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

Their motive is acceptable as a form of socialism with which you can agree or disagree. The problem is they made it virtually impossible for people to make that choice by misusing the science and silencing those who challenged that misuse. A measure of that dilemma is a socialist scientist who doesn’t accept AGW.

It is quite straightforward. Scott Pruitt should abandon his attempts to present the other side and explain why only one side was presented. To do this, he must explain the motive and only then can people properly decide what the truth is about AGW.

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...