Recently I e-mailed a gentleman who is highly regarded, nationally and internationally, as one of the top strategic, military and economic long-range thinkers of our times. He is the author of several bestselling books about the way globalization is impacting the lives of the Earth's population.
In addition to having read his books and magazine articles, I occasionally visit his blog to read what he is thinking about currently. I noticed that he was casually referencing "global warming" in a post, so I e-mailed to let him know that there is no scientific proof or basis for the endless global warming claims. I cited all the usual data that disputes it and I provided the URLs of several websites that could provide him with even more.
His response was quite revealing. "It doesn't matter one way or the other. All the same fixes are required for sheer pollution reasons on a global scale given population increase and consumption increase. You're arguing the past." He would later post that, so far as the data debunking global warming, he was "beyond caring."
As I interpret this, no matter how utterly false the justifications are for the global warming hoax given by Al Gore, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others, leading to efforts to replace, slow or deter the use of energy sources such as coal, natural gas and oil, this particular influential intellectual was beyond caring because the world's population was responsible for pollution and consuming too much of everything.
The "solutions" offered to stop a non-existent global warming include a Gore suggestion that "pollution" be taxed; that there must be a mandated reduction of all carbon dioxide emissions; the instituting of a bogus cap-and-trade credit system for all utilities, manufacturing, transportation, and other activities; biofuels, greater use of energy alternatives such as wind and solar; and ultimately, limits on how much energy people are permitted to use who drive cars, own homes, or run businesses of all kinds.
In California, for example, proposals and legislation has been put forth to eliminate the inclusion of fireplaces in the construction of new homes and that heat or cooling should be controlled by a central command that will monitor individual energy use and, without concern for the welfare of the individual user, determine the temperature of their living space. This is Big Brother writ large.
The federal government long ago imposed standards on how much mileage a car or truck must have for each gallon of gas consumed and has since mandated that each gallon must include the engine-destroying, energy-poor addition of ethanol. The ethanol mandate has created higher prices for food as corn and wheat supplies diminish.
This is the same government that has already banned the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the coming years. In time, it proposes to eliminate the use of all light bulbs except fluorescent ones that both consume less energy and give less light.
It is the same government contemplating declaring the thriving polar bear population "endangered" for the sole purpose of putting areas off limits that are believed to be rich in new oil reserves, not unlike the prohibition on extracting oil from ANWR.
It is the same government that has declared 85% of the nation's continental shelf off-limits to any exploration, discovery, and extraction of our own oil and natural gas reserves.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
When the movers and shakers, the rich and powerful of our time get together in their meetings in Davos or wherever, have they secretly concluded that "pollution" and "consumption" by the Earth's six billion people can only be reduced by reducing the world's population? Do they see great profits in forcing us to only drive electric cars and the mandatory adoption of similar "green" technologies?
Serendipitously, the International Herald Tribune published an article by Andrew Ross Sorkin on March 20 titled, "At island retreat, Branson and friends seek to save a world 'on fire'." It was an astonishing revelation as it described a retreat hosted by Richard Branson, "the British magnate" among whose guests was Larry Page of Google, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who is now a senior advisor to J.P. Morgan Chase.
Richard Stromback, the chief executive of Ecology Coatings, "joked that a gathering like this might seem nefarious to some people." The reporter noted that, "Many executives and financiers, including some in attendance at the retreat, have a lot of money riding on global warming."
Look nefarious? Yes, it does. Some of the ultra-rich have a stake in the global warming hoax as a means to further enrich themselves.
If that means cloaking their opinion that the world's population needs to be reduced by appearing concerned for the fate of the planet, than there is no better way of doing that than advancing the goals of the environmental movement.
This is why "strategic thinkers" looked away when the use of DDT was banned worldwide and millions, particularly in Africa, continue to needlessly die from malaria.
This is why "strategic thinkers" looked away when one of the world's most extraordinary and affordable refrigerants and fire suppression chemicals, Freon, was banned from use worldwide with a bogus claim that "ozone holes" were destroying the atmosphere.
Note, too, that these bans, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are instrumentalities of the United Nations. These fraudulent environmental issues benefit the ultra-rich whose financial interests transcend national borders.
China has apparently concluded that, if the tradeoff is air and water pollution, that is acceptable until they reach a point where costly technology can be installed to reduce the pollution. This is already an option that a wealthy nation like the United States has adopted.
Another case in point has been the utter failure of the signatories to the original Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions and subsequent negotiations to achieve an impossible reduction of carbon dioxide, a gas that constitutes a mere 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere.
I am still trying to understand why our government and others around the world are subsidizing "alternative energies" to the tune of billions for wind and solar power when neither is a reliable source of energy and, together, they produce such miniscule amounts of electricity as to be essentially worthless.
But my strategic thinker guru says, "You're arguing the past." No. I am arguing the future.
I am arguing about issues such as private property and the right to use it for personal gain and profit, the bedrock foundation of our economy, guaranteed in our Constitution. It is becoming a scare commodity as the U.S. government continues to declare vast areas as U.N. heritage sites, wildlife refuges, national parks, and other excuses to deny their use as sources of timber, coal, natural gas or oil.
I am arguing about the Green Revolution of genetically modified crops that can feed the vast population of the Earth without using more forested land. Despite this, supplies of corn and soy are being depleted for the purpose of burning these food sources as fuel. The nation's supply of wheat has been depleted as acreage is diverted to grow these crops and the cheaper dollar underwrites increased exports.
What better way to reduce the world's population than a manmade famine?
Meanwhile, the great engine of the world's economy and the beacon of liberty to the world is being undermined by a fifth column of environmentalists and those who expect to benefit from their agenda.