The Climate Con

By Dave Ball

Beware Global Warming!  Not because it will consume our planet in fire but rather because it is a Trojan horse concealing a much more real threat, one that will consume our economy, our democracy and our way of life.

Ever since Michael Mann’s fantasy “hockey stick” temperature graph was thoroughly discredited and since Climategate outed institutional scale phony climate data a decade ago, the existence of actual global warming has been rendered null.  The same is true for the impact of CO2 on climate.  No experiment can confirm its impact, models can’t predict its influence and collateral data (sea level, animal populations etc.) do not confirm a correlation.

The conclusion must be that man-made climate change and the need to eliminate carbon emissions to avoid climate change simply do not exist. None of the narrative is based on objective science.  It is a massive hoax and maybe the biggest con job in history.  All the classic elements of a con job are present; the victim (mostly liberals and other virtue signalers), the play (appeal to environmental issues), the rope (emotional foundation and persuasion – the world is coming to an end), the convincer (the way it will work to your benefit – eliminate carbon and all is well) and so on.  The dangled payoff is saving the world.  As in all con jobs, the con artist gets what he wants and the mark gets nothing.

Like all cons, this one looks good to the rubes.  Who doesn’t want to save the world and breathe clean air?  The basic problem, even if the basic mechanism of eliminating CO2 to stop increasing temperatures were real, is that it would not achieve what its adherents think it would.  Let’s look at some facts.

What if we could reduce CO2 emissions?  The U.S. produces only 15 percent of the carbon emissions in the world.  The rest we have no control over.  That leaves 85 percent of emissions in place after spending trillions of dollars.

Most, if not all, of the big proposals for reduction of Carbon emissions by reducing CO2 are simply impossible, impractical or ineffective.  Eliminating coal fired electrical generating plants in the US is just one example.  The cost of shutting down the US coal industry with the attendant loss of jobs and downstream business would be astronomical. What impact would it have globally? Seventy three percent of India’s electricity is generated from coal fired power plants.  India has no plans to reduce its production and consumption of coal.  Coal India Ltd. will produce 660 million tons of coal next year, increasing to one billion tons by 2022 – 2023.

In other words, if the U.S. destroyed its economy and eliminated all coal fired electricity production, whatever CO2 reduction that might net would be offset by the increase in coal consumption by India alone.  The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the largest civil engineering project in the world, will include 700 new coal fired power stations.  When they are all in operation, these plants could consume an incredible 1.8 billion tons of coal a year.  So why are the US and the UK risking catastrophe in their economies when whatever they eliminate will be more than replaced elsewhere?

This, then, brings us to the final piece of the global warming con – what role do the Green New Deal and related decarbonization programs play?

The components of the GND are staggering in magnitude, cost and audacity.  They include such “modest” proposals as shutting down the entire coal, oil and natural gas industry, requiring all housing and buildings to be rebuilt and reinsulated, eliminating all gasoline cars and trucks, forcing populations to relocate to urban areas, controlling population by selective abortion and it just goes on.

The reality of many variants of the Green New Deal and all the other absolutely preposterous proposals is that they are not even intended to address environmental issues.  Note how often you see the word “justice” associated with certain proposals.  Social justice, environmental justice, economic justice and racial justice to name a few.  These are code words that lead one back to One World Government socialist theology and redistributive economics.  The idea, in a nutshell, is to transfer enormous sums of money and other resources from first world countries in the West to third world and developing nations.  Rest assured that a significant portion will find its way into the pockets of the charlatans promoting this con through choking the energy needs of the industrialized nations and transferring that wealth to developing nations.  This is done by socialist redistribution in the name of the nebulous concept of sustainable development.

It was, and is, necessary to create the “existential crisis” of global warming in order to scare the multitudes into following the socialist elites blindly down the path of economic destruction to global governance.

Only in the recent round of hysteria have the concepts of Marxist redistribution been introduced and the whole concept of environmental concern been taken over by a political agenda.

If one is to examine the GND closely, it speaks of five goals and three of them are solely focused on some type of social or economic “justice” rather than an environmental outcome.  The two environmental goals use language quoted from UN literature.  Much of the current virulently Marxist bent of the GND is related directly to the 1992 UN Earth Summit from which came the infamous Agenda 21 that pledged “to change the way people live, eat, learn and communicate, all in the name of saving the earth from mankind’s mistakes, particularly global warming.”  So, tying all of what we have said together let’s see what we have.

  • There is no demonstrable or provable pattern of net temperature change over a millennium so it cannot be said that we’re confronted by catastrophic global warming or cooling.
  • While CO2 may have some impact on global temperature, its exact influence is not known and cannot be accurately modeled.  In any case, CO2 is not the sole or dominant driver of global temperature so that controlling CO2, if it could be done, would have little predictable impact on temperature.
  • No accurate predictive model of global temperature exists because the system is too complex and too many variables are either unknown or their influences and relationships are not understood.
  • If spending untold trillions of dollars on reducing CO2 in this country actually did reduce CO2 output, that reduction would be offset many times over by increases from developing nations such as China and India that have every intention of dramatically increasing their CO2 output.
  • Reliable engineering calculations show very convincingly that the chance of replacing carbon energy sources with renewable energy is exactly zero.
  • The current global warming narrative has been hijacked by Marxist One World Order extremists to press their revolution to destroy industrialized nations and to redistribute wealth to developing nations and create a world government.

Within the above context, we can see much more clearly that powerful Marxist forces forces are using the construct of a manufactured climate crisis, populist environmental language, and public fear to prosecute their political agenda which is to destroy the Western world and create a One World Order, nirvana to a Marxist, where a group of elites run the world.  That’s the con.

Dave Ball is the author of conservative political commentary, a guest on political talk shows, an elected official and a county party official.


4 thoughts on “The Climate Con”

  1. The political forces behind this fake eco-crisis are definitely not all Marxists. Biden, Gore and the Clintons are crony capitalists. And that’s no improvement.

    They’ll still back bigger government, as it provides a bigger trough for the waiting snouts to fit in.

    The redistribution of wealth that they seek is largely one way. Their way. And the circumvention of one vote for one value democracy beloved of Marxists can benefit crony capitalism just fine too.

    Biden will appear to side with the neo-Marxists to get what those pulling his strings want. He is a puppet President, of that I have no doubt.

    Ruling elites don’t have to be totalitarianists to behave like them when it suits. And one behaviour we can be sure of is the complete obfuscation of the truth.

    If voters knew just how much their share of the climate change spending is and just how little difference it actually makes for the environment, there would be a political revolt.

  2. The present CO2 content of the atmosphere is about 400 ppm…….how can such a piddling amount of CO2 and its slow increase from volcanoes and man’s activities, cause detectable global warming, when it is obvious that the major factor of global warming and the Ice Ages is the SUN and its variability of radiation , plus perturbations of the Earth’s orbit around the SUN????

    1. When peer reviewed science is replaced by conspiracy inspired piddling and obvious factors from those incapable of understanding the immutable laws of physics then politicians funded by the fossil fuel industry can keep peddling their not so obvious self-interest.
      Interesting to know if any of them insure their house as the contractor building the Adani thermal coal mine has searched the world and can’t find a single insurer so now looking to put the taxpayer on the hook via those same politicians.
      Renewable energy being lower density creates more opportunities and employment, just not for the current world order. So this comment and all the others in this pond are just idle conversation as just behind the insurers, the banking fraternity has already decided that the likelihood of long lead time and lifetime fossil fuel projects becoming stranded problematic assets, particularly as innovation closes the economic gap, is too high to risk their funds. The only alternative to protect those funds is renewables.

  3. There had been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 and the warming gravy train looked like being derailed at the Paris climate conference in 2015 until Tom Karl, senior Climatologist at NOAA, stepped in and raised annual global average temperatures every year from 1998 through to 2015. It was no surprise when whistle blower John Bates went to his NOAA management team with his objections to Karl’s work, he told a British newspaper, they “were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’” of the Pause buster paper. It was not the first time Karl’s data had been questioned. In 1998 he published a ridiculously high temperature of 62.45 F for 1997, at least two degrees Fahrenheit warmer than all other temperature monitoring authorities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *