Science vs. Genocide: What the `Climate-gate' Emails Don't Say

Science vs. Genocide: What the `Climate-gate' Emails Don't Say
Printer-friendly version Send to friend
SCIENCE VS. GENOCIDE: WHAT THE 'CLIMATE-GATE' EMAILS DON'T SAY
by Laurence Hecht
Editor in Chief, 21st Century Science & Technology
December 2, 2009 (LPAC)— The little secret of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit emails is that there is no "global warming." A point of even greater significance lies outside them.
The 90 megabytes of email and data files provides evidence that leading figures at East Anglia were covering up or massaging data that disputed global warming, particularly land surface temperature records, and the evidence of a period of warming temperature well before the industrial era, known as the medieval warm period. What had them upset was that the slight upward spike in surface temperatures over approximately two decades preceding 1998 has disappeared from the land surface records, and for the past approximately 8 years there has been a cooling trend that has largely eliminated the previously alleged 0.6 degree centigrade increase in the "global averaged temperature" over the previous century.
Highly influential figures in Britain have denounced the affair, some in scathing terms. Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, Chancellor of the Exchequer for six years under the Thatcher government, called for an inquest, and announced the formation of a new climate advisory group. Lord Christopher Monckton, Britain's leading spokesman against the global warming fraud, called leading figures at East Anglia "criminals" and "arrogant fraudsters," and suggested they will soon be prosecuted for procurement of data destruction.
Yet, the far more serious crime is that "global warming" is a fraud whose real intent is to promote a genocide worse than Hitler’s. Since its first promotion in 1975, the claim has been that carbon dioxide emissions from industry will warm the planet, melt the ice caps and fry or drown us all—therefore human beings would have to do without. There never was scientific proof, and the argument went against all competent understanding of climate science that it is the Sun and the variations of the Earth-Sun orbital relationship which is the principal determinant of climate variability. The explicit intent in promoting this and other anti-science hoaxes has been to halt the development of scientific and technological progress in order to drastically reduce world population, perhaps to the level below 2 billion persons that the World Wildlife Fund's Prince Philip has proposed as desirable.
In fact, by the laws of human physical economy, no such planned reduction in global living standards is possible without unleashing a downward spiral of famine, pandemic disease, and social chaos of such a nature that its final outcome cannot be predicted by any human agency. Thus, the hoax of "global warming" is no mere question for academic debate, but rather a matter of the survival of the human species.
To prepare the citizen to combat this almost unthinkable evil, it is necessary that we go beyond mere refutation of the climate hoax, and understand more clearly the nature of the enemy. We concentrate here rather upon the essential points that are not widely understood. Most important is that the environmental movement is an arm of a global financial empire dedicated to reducing world population, eliminating scientific progress, and increasing the control of a financial oligarchy. It is not acting in the interest of any single nation, but rather against the sovereignty of all nations. The forces associated with the still undead British Empire, or Anglo-Dutch financial empire, continue to play the principal role. The partnership of Britain's Prince Philip with former Nazi Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and sundry oligarchical forces of Europe in such promotions as the World Wildlife Fund, is exemplary. Credulous people, such as those bred to be servants or slaves of a ruling oligarchy, are told they must not entertain such ideas as may appear to be "conspiracy" theories. Yet who does not know that all historical movements, for good or ill, are the results of conspiracy?
The Environmentalist Record
To get an understanding of what is at play, begin with this simple historical fact: By the early 1960s, human society was poised for a breakout in the rate of physical economic progress. No technical obstacle stood in the way of combining already known agricultural and industrial technologies with the proven capability for generating high energy-flux density nuclear electricity and process heat, such that the entire world's population could be brought up to a modern standard of living within a generation or slightly longer. Further, the United States was poised to follow up its program for manned lunar exploration with a plan for manned exploration of Mars. Plans for the development of nuclear and thermonuclear powered rockets capable of achieving constant 1g acceleration to power human travelers to Mars, a Moon industrial base, and Earth orbital way stations were all in the works.
Suddenly all that changed. We can look briefly at what happened in the United States, recognizing that a similar pattern played out in all the industrialized nations of the West. By the late 1960s, students from the leading U.S. universities had been transformed from supporters of technological progress into enraged opponents of science, and anything to do with its application including blue collar workers and farmers. By 1969 an organized anti-science movement had emerged under the banner of "ecology," which found public expression in the March 1970 Earth Day celebrations. (Margaret Mead, the organizer of the first conference to promote the global warming fraud at Research Triangle, N.C. in 1975, gave her endorsement to the 1978 Earth Day with the statement "Earth Day is the first holy day which transcends all national borders." Ms. Mead never failed to appear in public without a forked witch's staff.)
Mass layoffs in the aerospace industry had already begun, as a result of measures taken under Presidents Johnson and Nixon to wind down the space program, a decision reached even before the first manned landing on the Moon.
By January 1971, DDT was under courtroom attack from the Environmental Defense Fund, and a year later Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Ruckelshaus who had first opposed a DDT ban, banned it, stating afterwards that the decision was made for political reasons. Months of scientific testimony had not proven any valid scientific argument against the widely used insecticide which had saved millions of lives. The ban has cost the lives of tens of millions of residents in tropical countries, mostly children. Because of the chemical's unique excito-repellent effect, indoor spraying of DDT remains the most effective means to prevent malaria-carrying mosquitoes from infecting humans.
Next came the attack on the chemical industry. Then the leveraging of an accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, arguably a case of sabotage, into a movement that successfully prevented the breaking of ground on a single new nuclear power plant installation to this day in the United States. And there was more: CFCs, asbestos, PCBs, food preservatives—almost every invention of modern chemistry was declared to be dangerous to your health. If the atomic nucleus could have been banned from the human body it would have been. It is not out of the question that some court may yet try.
What Is Needed?
Today, about 5 billion of the 6.7 billion world population survive below an acceptable human living standard. The conditions for over one third the human race are perpetual misery, disease, and hunger. It is not yet too late to remedy that situation. The solution requires a mobilization of precisely those scientific resources the anti-science movement has targeted. The problem we face today, as compared to 40 years ago, is that a larger population must be supported with a depleted base of resources, both human scientific and material.
For example, it would take the construction of 6,000 new nuclear power plants by 2050 just to meet the electricity generation requirements of a properly fed, clothed, and housed world population. The power equivalent of another 6,000 one-gigawatt plants will be needed to supply process heat to industry and mining. Railroads, roads, water and sewage systems, hospitals, schools, factories, etc. are needed now throughout the world. The depletion of the most easily available mineral resources means that new sources must be discovered and developed. How will such needs be met?
The greatest limitation to achieving such aims is not any deficit in finite resources, but the lack of sufficient human creativity to solve the many challenges. The only remedy for such a situation is a rapid mobilization to increase our creative scientific capabilities. This is not a matter of merely opening up some schools. We have lost almost two generations to science, thanks to the environmentalist onslaught. When we look at the crucial areas of nuclear science and space, for example, we find that much of the genius, knowledge, and capabilities of an older generation has been lost without replacement. The biological sciences are increasingly mired in reductionist dogma, where they are not dominated outright by the green movement, and the Earth sciences increasingly taken over by the climate mafia.
The Science of Culturing Science
The proven method for achieving a rapid rate of scientific progress is the mobilization of the creative powers of youth around the tasks that challenge the imagination and invite breakthroughs in thinking. Today that challenge remains, as for a prior generation, the manned exploration of the solar system.
The leading practical problems of space exploration are: the achievement of a thermonuclear powered rocket to provide a constant 1g acceleration to manned vehicles, and mastery of the Vernadskyan domain governing the relationship of life to the cosmos. The pursuit of those aims will prove the fastest route to solving the problems facing human development on Earth.
For example, the nuclear fission reaction can produce 1 to 10 million times the energy flux density of chemical reactions, such as from burning of fossil fuels or hydrogen. Thermonuclear fusion can exceed that of fission by an order of magnitude or more, and also provide other advantages. The most likely candidate for powering manned vehicles for planetary exploration is the neutronless helium-3/deuterium fusion reaction, utilizing the abundant helium-3 resource found on the lunar surface. Mastering the means to directly convert the kinetic energy contained in the high-velocity proton produced by the reaction into electrical power, will prove a boon to power generation on Earth or any fixed station. Bypassing the need to first boil water in order to turn a turbine blade to rotate a generator will place power generation from thermonuclear sources on an entirely new footing. As Dr. Richard Post reported in respect to 1980s experiments on the axisymmetric tandem mirror device at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, efficiencies up to 80 percent were possible in direct conversion of the energy of alpha particles and ions shot out the ends of this linear type of fusion device, using the standard deuterium/deuterium reaction. (Research on that reactor along with all other approaches to fusion except the tokamak device were scuttled in the 1980s, under budgetary pressure shaped by the environmentalists’ Luddite onslaught.)
The million degree temperatures produced by a fusion reactor can provide the heat to process raw rock, even garbage, into its constituent elements, magnetically separating the ionized gases of each element by a device known as the plasma torch. Laser and plasma isotope separation, techniques demonstrated in the 1970s, permit a new level of control over the Periodic Table for the use of man.
Space exploration also challenges our understanding of life and its relationship to the cosmos. The great challenge, to keep man alive in the space environment, as he travels at high velocity in an inertial gravitational field, and lands on a completely new environment of changed gravitational and magnetic field strengths, will prompt new discovery. What is the relationship of cosmic radiation to life? Can life survive without a magnetic field; without the low-level radiation that is a constant companion on Earth? What is the significance of the electromagnetic spectrum in intercellular communication and development of an organism?
The details of the East Anglia emails are not the significant point. Defeating the genocidal intentions of the promoters of global warming is.