In primitive cultures, witch-doctors encouraged tribal chiefs to sacrifice people to mystical beliefs and deities. The Aztecs slaughtered thousands per year hoping to secure good weather from a mythical sun god. Power lusters throughout history have discovered mysticism to be an effective tool to sacrifice gullible people to their power lust.

The global warming scare is a case in point. More than 160 nations met last December in Kyoto, Japan and produced the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty designed to force “developed nations” to drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions, and to transfer wealth and technology to “undeveloped nations” — a socialistic-dictatorial policy that allegedly will prevent cataclysmic weather caused by alleged manmade global warming.

This treaty, if ratified, means drastic cuts to our fossil fuel consumption and hence to our prosperity. It also means handing the United Nations power to control the industrial activities and economies of sovereign countries. Egged on by environmentalists, our political leaders said, in effect, that we must sacrifice our national sovereignty, economic freedom and prosperity to “save the planet.” Now, politicians, environmentalists and (shamefully) even some business leaders are busy working out the details of this sacrifice.

But, as documented by renowned climate scientist Fred Singer, the Kyoto Protocol is based entirely on falsehood — it is a total fraud.

Singer, who earned his doctorate at Princeton University, is president of The Science and Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990. Singer is also Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous positions are many but include, for example, chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-89), deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71), and founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Science, University of Miami (1964-67).

T o convince countries to support the Protocol a counterfeit “scientific consensus” was concocted by UN bureaucrats. First came a 1995 UN scientific report which explicitly claimed no discernible manmade global warming. Then, a policymakers’ summary was prepared from the report and stressed the opposite conclusion — one based solely on computer models which don’t match historical data and which incorporate assumptions that grossly exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide. To eliminate the contradiction, the politically undesirable statements in the science report were quietly removed, yet the authors’ names were retained.

Following this blatant act of politicizing science, more than 140 climate scientists (including several TV meteorologists) rebelled and signed the Leipzig Declaration, which states that “there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide … actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever — in direct contradiction to computer models.”

As Dr. Singer point out, the oft-cited 0.5 degree (C) warming since 1850 mostly occurred prior to 1940, long before carbon dioxide emissions increased significantly, and most likely is the result of a natural recovery from a mini ice-age (1450-1850). Furthermore, contrary to widespread belief, meteorological data indicate that exceptionally violent and destructive hurricanes have become less frequent in the past 50 years. But, truth is subjective according to modern philosophy. What’s true for environmentalists — floods of “biblical proportions,” apocalyptic storms, massive droughts, famine and pestilence — is no less true than anyone else’s claims. Subjectivism — the notion that “it’s true because I (or the majority) believe it or feel it” — is the brand of mysticism currently ruling modern culture, including politics.

According to U.S. Vice-President and environmentalist Al Gore, “The more deeply I search for the roots of the global environmental crisis, the more I am convinced that it is an outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is … spiritual.” [Earth in the Balance, 1992, p. 12)

As with any form of mysticism, subjectivism undermines people’s ability to think clearly, logically, objectively. It thereby sedates people into passively accepting the arbitrary, alarmist claims of pressure groups desperately seeking political power. According to one of Gore’s advisors, Stanford “climate scientist” and environmentalist Stephen Schneider, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” [Quoted in Jonathan Schell, “Our Fragile Earth,” Discover, October 1989, p. 47.]

Such environmentalists are today’s witch-doctors cashing in on widespread subjectivism to egg politicians into destroying our freedom — all in the name of science.

Troubled by this blatant assault on objectivity in science, more than 17,000 basic and applied scientists have, to date, signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocol, spearheaded by Frederick Seitz, a former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. A scientific article accompanying this petition — in addition to debunking the theory that rising carbon dioxide levels are causing global warming and catastrophic weather — demonstrates that the extra man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere actually creates a greener planet, the alleged goal of environmentalists.

According to the article: “Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.”

So what explains the environmentalists zeal to push a socialistic Kyoto Protocol in the name of creating a greener planet? Decades ago, when it became apparent to people that Marxism — a philosophy based on the mystical doctrine of dialectic materialism — yielded poverty and murderous dictatorships, not prosperity as promised, many leftists switched to environmentalism. They retained their “love” of statism — of sacrificing the individual to the state — and their hatred for capitalism, and promised a “greener planet” instead. In essence, the reds merely painted themselves green.

After all, environmentalism is far more effective at destroying individual rights and thus capitalism because preservation of nature necessitates annulling property rights and blocking productive/industrial activities — activities such as housing, petroleum production, mining, manufacturing, etc., which improve man’s environment. This hands today’s tribal chiefs (qua politicians) the omnipotent power to sacrifice people to the god of today’s witch-doctors (qua environmentalists) — pristine nature.

Thankfully, objectivity still exists in society, particularly among scientists, and the truth is now catching up with environmentalism as it did with Marxism. The sooner the better — for the sake of reason, freedom and prosperity.

Glenn Woiceshyn is a freelance writer, residing in Calgary. If you like this article, please visit his web site which is packed with many more excellent articles.

The following two tabs change content below.

Glenn Woiceshyn

Glenn Woiceshyn is a freelance writer, residing in Calgary. Visit his education resources website at Powerful Minds.

Radicals for Capitalism

Subscribe to the Capitalism Network's free email newsletter.

You have Successfully Subscribed!