Global Warming: A Brief Summary of What It May Be All About (Part 2)

***This is part two of a two part story***


Phase 3: The Motives
So, if the advocates of human-caused global warming appear to be clearly wrong on major fundamental points, what are their actual motives? First of all, in spite of the most recent evidence, climate science is still not settled. Both sides, the advocates of human-caused climate change (“human-causers”) and those who believe climate change is primarily cyclical and natural (“natural-causers”) can find evidence to support their respective views. And motives can vary from group to group. Among the public at-large who accepted the “human-causers’” theories, most individuals, parents, teachers and students” are innocent victims who believed what they were told and taught. Among the news media and the nation’s newsrooms, it seemed like a good story. For dedicated progressives and socialists who qualify as “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside), the “human-causers” provided a new purpose in life after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the embarrassments of Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. For many academics and residents of faculty lounges, it fit with their world view and they enjoyed the research funding. Hollywood personalities and rock stars received awards for their empathy and compassion while enjoying their limos and lifestyles. For Al Gore and friends, follow the money - - they made millions, traveled the world in luxury, and nearly cornered a multi-billion dollar carbon trading and credit market.

Phase 4: Looking Ahead
Altogether, for most groups, the reasons for the initial acceptance of the “human-causation” theory are understandable. However, for many, accommodating new information will be difficult. In general, people tend to be reluctant to accept new facts as truth when the new facts differ from what they currently believe. “Cognitive dissonance” is a term psychologists use to describe the discomfort, fear or embarrassment frequently experienced by people when they learn that something they fervently believe to be true is false. The realization can be alarming and destabilizing. The effect of “cognitive dissonance” was first described in the book, “When Prophecy Fails” which included a religious group that was expecting the imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that date passed, and they and world were not destroyed, they continued on as before. Their emotional commitment to their cause was too great. Rather than disband, the group adjusted and convinced themselves that they had been spared in order to spread their teachings to others.

The potential effect of “cognitive dissonance” means that regardless of new scientific information and historical facts and records that disprove much of the theory of human-caused global warming, it’s still likely the global warming and climate change debate with its evidence of past errors, data manipulation, faulty models and graphs, and cover-ups will continue for at least another generation.

Phase 5: What’s Next
Without a doubt, the biggest and most important question of all is what started the whole thing in the first place? Again, the reasoning or motives for most of those who accepted the theory of human- caused global warming may be understandable, but what about those at the very top who started it all? What about those who have relentlessly promoted the idea? What was their aim and purpose? What were their motives? What did they want? It’s hard to know for sure, but their proposed solutions may provide a pretty good idea.

From the beginning, in virtually every case at every level, their proposed solutions invariably included enormous transfers of wealth, primarily from the United States, but other “Western” societies as well; new worldwide bureaucracies; massive global economic dislocation; class warfare; calls for higher taxes, lower living standards, self-sacrifice, rationing and shortages; dramatically higher energy costs; reduced human freedom and worldwide income redistribution.

Is there a chance it actually never was about climate?

Is it possible it was always about politics?