The Green New Deal is not “new,” it is not “green” other than in name, and it is not a “deal.” In other words, it is a technocrat’s delight because it revisits and resuscitates their goal of total government control without appearing to do so. Proponents of the original idea that humans were causing global warming are losing the war one battle at a time. They did what they always do. Ignore the evidence and move the goalposts. That is what they are doing with the Green New Deal. It is the same use of false or deliberately created science to convince people that they can save themselves from the sky falling. Chicken Little reappears as Big Turkey.
The last major example occurred in 2004. From 1998 onward, CO2 levels continued to increase, but temperatures stopped increasing. This result completely contradicted their major assumption and brought them face-to-face with Thomas Huxley’s, (1825–1895) observation that, the great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
The emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit disclosed that instead of revisiting the science, they just changed the name from global warming to climate change. This clever but deceitful move allowed them to avoid any evidence that contradicted their hypothesis by removing the hypothesis. It also allowed them to identify any weather event as support for their claims of human interference.
From its emergence onto the world stage in 1988, the claim of human-caused global warming was a front for the need for not only local government control, but an over-arching one-world government. Elaine Dewar summarized the goal of Maurice Strong, the architect of Agenda 21 and its subsidiary the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as follows: Strong was using the United Nations as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
A major piece in the platform was the creation of a global threat. A global threat would transcend national boundaries, so they could argue that no one nation could possibly cope. They created the threat through the artificial construct of global warming.
It began at the 1988 U.S. Joint Congressional hearing when James Hansen falsely testified that he was 99 percent certain that humans were the cause. That was not true then, and it is not true now, but it continues as a justification for the Green New Deal. The person who organized that hearing was former Senator Timothy Wirth, who then resigned after one term and took an appointment as president of the United Nations Foundation. This organization was created from a $1 billion gift in 1998 from media mogul Ted Turner. Turner is listed as a member of the Club of Rome along with George Soros and Wirth.
I will not dissect the entire Green New Deal here because it is so wrong it requires a book, but it is sufficient to show the scientific inaccuracies underlying just one portion. The plan is to eliminate North American cattle because they produce methane, a greenhouse gas. Methane is 0.36 percent of all the greenhouse gases and only 0.000179 percent of total atmospheric gases. There are approximately 85 million cows in North America, but if Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is serious, why not eliminate the 200 million cows roaming the streets of India? Why not stop the re-introduction of bison in North America? There were an estimated 65 million bison producing methane 150 years ago, yet no global warming. If you want to use science, then deal with variables on both sides of the formula, not just the ones that fit your political agenda.
The insanity of the Green New Deal is in the persistent attempts to do what consistently fails. Every country that has tried a “green agenda” has failed miserably and abandoned it or is in the process of abandoning it.
The insanity includes crippling at best or destroying at worst your economy, because other countries are forging ahead with development using fossil fuels. It is reasonable to assume that AOC and her supporters are concerned about the poor and politically handcuffed citizens. Look at any country that tried a green agenda and you see that the rich got richer and the poor became poorer. The green agenda is like the Communist Manifesto that appears good on paper, but actually creates the opposite results. In Britain, for example, the government subsidies of alternative green energy resulted in a transfer of wealth from poor to rich. It also resulted, as one report showed, that consumers grossly overpaid for electricity.
Here is what to do when the title is a lie. Confirm it also lies within the text. Confirm the lies in a historical and political context. Expose the lies and the people responsible. Explain why we can safely ignore the hysteria and actions it recommends. Attack those people and politicians that demand you pay for the lies. Then, adopt the policy of not believing anything in the new, fake news world.
-------------------------
Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, and author of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.
