The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series

Part 2 of 8:

Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science

Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change
Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science
Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier
Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg
Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington
Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot
Part 7 of 8: The False Doctrine
Part 8 of 8: Solutions

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: September 19, 2014

part2 CO2 cult graphic

Full resolution jpg

*All individuals and organizations receive 4 full days of pre-publication notice.

 

*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one. In Part 3 I'll explain why I'm a climate denier and not a climate skeptic.

 

*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).

 

This article is the second instalment of an ongoing series of articles to unpackage the entire man-made CO2 climate change cult.

 

 

Just as the IPCC (also known as the god of climate science), is the powerbase for the man-made CO2 climate change cult, international NGOs/non-profits aren't far behind. Greenpeace International and Oxfam are some of the major players who help condition the global general public to the man-made CO2 climate change theory. And while the term "conditioning" may sound exaggerated, I assure you that it's not.

 

Generally speaking, conditioning happens all the time. Parents teaching their children specific values and traditions are conditioning them. Teachers teaching students subject matter through a particular paradigm are conditioning them. Politicians addressing their respective public are conditioning them via their words, inflections, content shaping and more often then not, through emotional manipulation.

 

Aside from manipulation though, conditioning is a neutral process. While intent is always involved in the conditioning process (be it consciously or subconsciously), it doesn't necessarily negate the neutrality of the process.

 

A climate change example is when a neighbour tells you about solar panels on their roof and suggests that you look into it to save money in your electricity bill. While the neighbour has an intention to tell you specific information about solar panels, they're not pushing you to choose one action vs. another. If the neighbour claims that by not having solar panels you're a slave to the electricity companies and not empowered (which is true to a degree), this ends the neutrality of the claim.

 

Ideologies always exist behind an individual's actions, but if it moves into the conscious realm of argumentation and debate, the neutrality of any claim ends. Any form of manipulation, be it emotional, mental, economic, financial, political and religious, ends the neutrality of the conditioning process as well. And this is why the CO2 cult fails the neutrality conditioning test. The manipulation is widespread and intense, be it through their claims or actions.

 

Greenpeace:

On their climate impacts webpage Greenpeace manipulates the global general public with the destruction of the earth via man-made CO2 climate change. But interestingly enough, they preface it with a curious statement:

Relatively likely and early effects of small to moderate warming...[1]

 

Most of the global general public (non-philosophers) won't see a problem with this statement and continue to read on. But for philosophers, this statement is highly questionable. What does relatively likely mean? Does objectively and unlikely effects paint a different picture? Or can "objectively" and "likely" even go together?

 

Greenpeace, like most environmental NGOs that buy into the man-made CO2 climate change theory, begin with the extreme weather boogeyman:

A high risk of more extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts and floods. Already, the global incidence of drought has doubled over the past 30 years. [1]

 

The second sentence represents historical manipulation, using data from the last few decades vs. not using data hundreds of years ago and even before the industrial revolution. This manipulation plays on a significant weakness of the historical record. Since there are very few accurate and trustworthy measurements of weather 250 years ago, there's nothing to refute the drought, flooding and extreme weather claim.

 

Greenpeace is taking advantage of the weak historical weather record and manipulating it to condition individuals to accept the man-made CO2 climate change theory. In an email request for comment I ask Greenpeace to comment on their historical manipulation. They say:

"I kindly refer you to our website where you can find all the answers to your questions."

 

Yah...umm...no.

 

Greenpeace continues on:

Natural systems, including glaciers, coral reefs, mangroves, arctic ecosystems, alpine ecosystems, boreal forests, tropical forests, prairie wetlands and native grasslands, will be severely threatened. [1]

 

This is an example of subtle manipulation. There are very few things in the world that is truly natural and untouched virgin land due to human habitation and cultivation. So whatever's left holds a higher value than what exists artificially (modern infrastructure). The cost of the destruction of modern infrastructure is substantial; but relative to natural virgin land it's negligible. Natural virgin land is priceless. No amount of money can replace it.

 

Greenpeace is using subtle manipulation to play on the high value that the global general public attaches to natural untouched land. If such places are "severely threatened," the emotional desire to do something about it usually breaks through to the conscious level, resulting in some sort of action. And this gets into a less-talked about subject, association by default.

 

If an individual or group of individuals take action merely to protect untouched virgin land, Greenpeace, along with many other environmental NGOs, will call it a victory in the battle against man-made CO2 climate change (despite whether or not the individuals actually subscribe to the theory). And even if they don't, they're more likely to do so because their actions are already categorized by environmental NGOs and mainstream environmental journalists as being part of the battle against man-made CO2 climate change.

 

Though an individual can perform an action for a specific reason, many observers can interpret it as helping a particular cause (be it political, environmental, economic or religious). And since the infrastructure already exists for almost any cause, an individual can choose how they want to categorize their cause to the global general public.

 

A hypothetical example may help to explain this further. An individual decides to put up solar panels on their roof. In this scenario the individual is putting up solar panels to trim their utility bill costs. They don't subscribe to the man-made CO2 climate change theory. Without telling anyone about the specific reasons for the panels, neighbours who are already CO2 cult believers congratulate the individual and spread the message throughout the community and through blogs. The response causes the individual to feel elated with pride and a sense of helping the world.

 

In this hypothetical scenario the community contacts a few mainstream media (MM) journalists to do a story on the solar panel individual. In the story the individual tells journalists about "doing the right thing for the Earth," and "supporting the community." The individual doesn't tell journalists or MM outlets that they don't subscribe to the man-made climate change theory because there's no need to upset a good thing. The action of putting up solar panels has a positive effect in making people happy and bringing the community closer together. There's no reason that the community needs to be aware of the specific reasons and ideologies of the individual. Hence, the individual lets community members and MM journalists (who are already CO2 cult believers), interpret their actions as supporting the CO2 cult.

 

Another example of collapsing action in the war against CO2 is when individuals accept the man-made CO2 climate change theory by default. The default can exist via family members, neighbours, schools, teachers, social groups, MM outlets, political parties and religious/non-religious organizations. If a school or teacher advocates the man-made CO2 climate change theory to vulnerable and impressionable students, the students will most likely accept it because they trust the individual teacher or the education system.

 

The same is true for a MM outlet. If a MM outlet (which an individual trusts), subscribes to the man-made CO2 climate change theory, the individual is more likely to support their ideologies or lean in that direction.

 

The same is true for family members. Depending on the level of trust between family members, an individual is much more likely to accept the man-made CO2 climate change theory by default if trusted family members are CO2 cult believers.

 

The same is true at the academic level. Generally speaking, professors are more likely to accept the man-made CO2 climate change theory if their fellow professors subscribe to it. The fact that significant amounts of funding is flowing to these areas is also another significant incentive.

 

Like most environmental NGOs, Greenpeace plays the developing nation card:

The greatest impacts will be on the poorer countries least able to protect themselves from rising sea levels, spread of disease and declines in agricultural production in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

At all scales of climate change, developing countries will suffer the most. [1]

 

This is a loaded statement that deserves its own article, book, thesis and dissertation. But I'll attempt to explain the issue in a few paragraphs. Before I unpackage the statement I need to preface a few things. Developing nations (which are artificial constructs), are the result of the current government (individuals) in power. Most developing nations operate in a chronic corrupt system that benefits the few at the expense of their respective public. None of this is "accidental," despite environmental NGOs and non-profits describing it as an "unfortunate situation."

 

While the situation is definitely unfortunate, it's unfortunate only through intentional corruption, but more so, corruption that's allowed to continue to exist. The idea that developed Western-European governments (including the UN), are "incapable of ending the corruption and poverty," is 100% ludicrous.

 

You don't have to be a regular conspiracy theorist to see that Western-European governments intentionally allow such circumstances to continue because it's beneficial to them. The rape of resources (oil, coal, natural gas, diamonds and gold), is the most notable actions of Western-European governments/corporations. None of this can occur in a developed nation with a democratic and ethical government.

 

Humanitarian non-profits (that work closely with environmental NGOs), also play a part in keeping developing nations in a "developing state." While no malicious intention exists, intentions (be it subconscious or conscious), exist nonetheless.

 

The most notable fact is that if developing nations become developed, then non-profit organizations can't exist.

 

I don't know of any humanitarian non-profit organization that states that their intention is to go out of business due to the success of their efforts. I'm unable to find even one reputable humanitarian non-profit organization that has a mission statement like this (if one exists I apologize for being unable to find it and not mentioning it).

 

The fact that none exist means that humanitarian non-profits have an intention to keep developing nations in the current state that they're in. On the surface, photo ops and small success stories of "going green" or building a school creates the surface appearance of growth. But in reality, no significant growth is occurring. The same corrupt cycles are being allowed to continue.

 

Greenpeace ends their climate impact webpage summary by stating that:

Never before has humanity been forced to grapple with such an immense environmental crisis. If we do not take urgent and immediate action to stop global warming, the damage could become irreversible. [1]

 

It's interesting that Greenpeace prioritizes man-made CO2 climate change over nuclear radiation or GMO farming.

 

The last sentence is reminiscent of the 2004 Hollywood film, "The Day After Tomorrow." It's the idea that:

If you don't listen to me right now, we're all doomed.

 

Yah...umm...no.

 

40 years after the debut of the man-made CO2 climate change theory the global general public is still here. And this is the crux of the matter. If "something big" happens on a mass environmental scale, it'll be the perfect catalyst for CO2 cult believers to use to suck in the global general public.

 

While the term "environmental false flag," is definitely not a mainstream notion, out of some level of respect for the environmental movement I'll leave it alone (for now).

 

Oxfam:

Oxfam, a humanitarian and environmental NGO, tries to shame the agricultural industry into action in their May 2014 briefing paper:

The agricultural industry faces a daunting double responsibility - to do its part to ensure "zero hunger" while undergoing a fundamental revolution in its production methods. [2]

 

Zero hunger? That's definitely not part of reality.

 

Though I loathe supporting Big Ag, they're not responsible for providing individuals with food. While governments and NGOs, farms and retail grocery stores play a role in the process, the ultimate responsibility to feed oneself goes to the individual/parents.

 

Oxfam's blame game goes from Big Ag to man-made CO2 climate change:

Climate change is magnifying global poverty and hunger. Consumers and farmers around the world are already feeling the impacts of climate change in their stomachs and their pockets, as acute and chronic climate disasters cause crop losses, food shortages, and price shocks. Production losses and price shocks have pushed millions of people deeper into poverty, and led to widespread hunger and social unrest. [3]

 

Magnifying...I like that word. It brings a sense of urgency to the impeding dilemma.

 

The term "chronic climate disasters" is a new one for me. That's pretty good word manipulation. It reminds me of individuals with chronic bad health which the western medical industry is seemingly "powerless to prevent."

 

To imply that man-made CO2 climate change will forever cause agricultural problems is a manipulation tactic to condition the global general public to accept the CO2 cult doctrine.

 

Oxfam's blame game continues:

In Guatemala, rainfall shortages during peak growing seasons have caused serious harvest declines, including an 80 percent drop in maize crops in 2013. Soaring temperatures destroyed up to 40 percent of Guatemala's coffee harvests in 2013-2014, putting thousands of agricultural laborers out of work. [4]

 

So if it doesn't rain or it's too hot, or agricultural labourers are out of work it's due to man-made CO2 climate change? I don't think so.

Oxfam projects that world market prices of key staple crops could approximately double by 2030, with around half of the increase driven by climate change impacts, while the IPCC suggests that prices could rise by up to 84 percent by 2050 due to climate change. [4]

 

Half? 84%? Of course this has nothing to do with corporate greed.

The World Bank estimates that since June 2010, rising food prices have resulted in an additional 44 million people living in extreme poverty in low and middle-income countries. [4]

 

Man-made CO2 climate change is responsible for 44 million people living in poverty? Of course. How could I have been so stupid to think otherwise?

 

In an email request for comment I ask Oxfam if they believe that any of their claims in the May 2014 report are manipulative and unfalsifiable. They don't respond.

The fact is that environmental NGOs and humanitarian non-profits working in developing nations aren't causing any significant collective growth in such nations. The reason why most Western-European governments support their actions in developing nations is because it's "inline" with the current "unofficial" policy to continue the existence of developing nations.

 

When environmental NGOs come into developing nations to "fix the problems," they attempt to fix it with their Western-European environmental ideologies. Instead of advocating for a real industrial infrastructure with oil, coal and natural gas (which is capable of supporting an economy), Western-European environmentalists advocate solar, wind and biomass technology.

 

The problem is that no developing nation can go from "developing" to "developed" via current solar, wind and biomass innovations. There are no historical examples that show that such a path can be successful. Not one. In an email request for comment I ask Greenpeace and Oxfam to comment on this statement. Oxfam doesn't respond. Greenpeace says:

"I kindly refer you to our website where you can find all the answers to your questions."

 

These organizations don't actually care about developing nations becoming developed. They only care about their Western-European environmental ideologies. And it's high time that individuals in the humanitarian non-profit movement and environmental NGOs call out the "fakeness" of their actions and the lack of growth that occurs despite their long history of "success stories."

 

Real humanitarian non-profits and environmental NGOs need to reform their ideologies and movements to begin causing real growth in developing nations. It's only then will Western-European governments/private interest groups take notice of their efforts and attack them on every level.

 

But it doesn't matter if such unethical private interest groups crush and destroy organizations that are causing real growth in developing nations. In the end, the recipients can live peacefully knowing that they're exercising their true potential to cause growth. It may not succeed, but they're pushing as hard as they can.

 

Greenpeace, Oxfam, the WWF and the David Suzuki Foundation Utilizing Word Manipulation:

*I'm using a bold font to emphasize key words.

The melting of land ice is already raising sea levels. In some fairly likely scenarios, oceans would rise by meters worldwide with devastating results. A sea level rise of just one metre would displace tens of millions of people in Bangladesh alone. All of this melting ice could dilute the world's oceans - changing the salinity enough to hurt fish stocks and disrupt ocean circulation patterns globally.

Then there is the chance that melting ice will cause a feedback effect due to the fact that snow and ice reflect more sunlight than bare ground or water so less ice means more warming (which melts more ice, etc.). [5]

Climate change will likely cause dry areas to become drier. In general, there is likely to be an increase in the risk of drought in the mid-latitudes interiors of continents. The increase in droughts will hurt rich and poor nations alike, but regions that are already experiencing food and water shortages will be the harder hit. A recent study published by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado indicates that the area of the Earth experiencing 'very dry' conditions has more than doubled since the 1970s. [6]

 

Greenpeace is most likely referring to the December 2004 study, A Global Dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870-2002: Relationship with Soil Moisture and Effects of Surface Warming. While the results are "interpreted" as evidence for the man-made CO2 climate change theory, the data can be used to advocate one position or another.

The PDSI trends of 1900-49 show that the Guinea Coast, southern Africa, parts of Canada, and southern and central Europe became drier, while it became wetter in most of Asia, Alaska, and parts of South America during the period. From 1950 to 2002, precipitation increases over Argentina, the southern United States, and most of western Australia resulted in wetter conditions (i.e., higher PDSI) in these regions. However, most of Eurasia, Africa, Canada, Alaska, and eastern Australia became drier from 1950 to 2002, partly because of large surface warming since 1950 over these regions. [7]

 

So some places are getting drier and some are getting wetter. The fact that different geographic areas are experiencing different climate conditions does not represent evidence for the man-made CO2 climate change theory.

 

This study also doesn't take into account the surface temperatures from the beginning of the industrial revolution (1760s) to the early 1900s. Nor does it take into account the surface temperatures prior to the industrial revolution.

 

But how do the researchers account for the wetness of Asia, Alaska and parts of South America from 1900-1949? How do they account for the wetness in Argentina, the southern US and Western Australia from 1950 to 2012? In an email request for comment I ask professor Aiguo Dai, the lead researcher, about these discrepancies. He says:

"In that study, we did not do an attribution analysis to identify the causes. I think some the changes are due to internal climate variations, such as decadal changes in ENSO [El Nino Southern Oscillation] activity."

The notion that drier surface conditions are a significant problem is nonsensical. In a video on the David Suzuki Foundation website, David Suzuki says that a warmer atmosphere causes greater evaporation, holding more water in the atmosphere and then releasing it in "torrential downpours [that] overwhelm our communities." [8]

 

Umm...isn't that the natural water cycle? Evaporation occurs; the atmosphere soaks it up; and then drops it off onto the land. Does the Earth care where it drops off its torrential downpour? It depends on your environmental ideologies about the consciousness and intentionality of the Earth.

 

Greenpeace continues their word manipulation in regards to hurricanes:

Hurricanes need seawater temperatures above 27 Celsius (81 F) in order to form. Water this warm allows massive evaporation that can then condense and form the storm's "vortex". As the seawater temperature goes even higher the likelihood of storms increases exponentially. Although there are other complex factors involved in hurricane formation, the link between warmer seawater and hurricanes is well established. It is also certain that climate change is raising ocean temperatures. Therefore, climate change is making the conditions under which hurricanes, cyclones and tropical storms form more common. [6]

 

Looking at NASA's information sheet about hurricanes I find a curious statement:

What Makes Hurricanes Form?

Scientists don't know exactly why or how a hurricane forms. But they do know that two main ingredients are needed [warm water and wind]. [9]

 

And this isn't an old outdated 1980s statement. It's from an August 2014 NASA factoid. Though out of respect for NASA, I appreciate their ability to state that they don't know something. Environmentalists, CO2 cult believers and even regular conspiracy theorists loathe admitting the fact that they don't know something.

 

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) also utilizes word manipulation in their Climate change in the Amazon webpage:

As habitat destruction trends interact with climate change, the concern is that the Amazon will be caught up in a set of "negative feedback loops" that could dramatically speed up the pace of forest lost and degradation and bring the Amazon Biome to a point of no return. This threshold, also referred to as a tipping point, may occur when Amazonian forests die and are progressively replaced by fireprone brush and savanna (ecological tipping point), and rainfall is inhibited on a regional scale (climatic tipping point).

While there is still debate among scientists about this concept, some climate-simulation vegetation models predict that such a die-back could occur by the end of this century.

For some scientists...however, this timeframe may be optimistic as these models do not include land-use change or the synergistic effects of deforestation and regional climate change. If these factors were taken into account, we could face a dire scenario in which current trends in livestock, agriculture, logging expansion, fire and drought could destroy or severely damage 55% of the Amazon rainforest by the year 2030.

Climate change and deforestation could convert the majority of the Amazon rainforest into savanna, with massive impacts on the world's biodiversity and climate.

Models suggest that by the year 2050, temperatures in the Amazon will increase by 2-3 C. At the same time, a decrease in rainfall during dry months will lead to widespread drying. There are serious consequences to these changes. Projected increases of temperatures and decreased rainfall during already dry months could result in longer and perhaps more severe droughts, along with substantial changes in seasonality.

Over time, global climate change and more deforestation will likely lead to increased temperatures and changing rain patterns in the Amazon, which will undoubtedly affect the region's forests, water availability, biodiversity, agriculture, and human health. [10]

 

The David Suzuki Foundation, like most environmental organizations, is reading from the same script:

Climate change is expected to have a major impact on the world economy. For Canada - a country that depends so much on natural resources - the economic impacts could be severe. [11]

Global warming may also increase the risk of respiratory diseases because grasses and allergenic pollens grow more profusely in a warmer environment.

Rising average temperatures do not simply mean balmier winters. Some regions will experience more extreme heat while others may cool slightly. Flooding, drought and intense summer heat could result. Violent storms and other extreme weather events could also result from the increased energy stored in our warming atmosphere. [12]

 

Even climate scientists utilize word manipulation:

Dr. Jason Box: I may escape a lot of this," he said, "but my daughter might not. She's 3 years old.

If you stand to lose everything, then even a low probability event is high-risk. That's why people fund armies - just in case they get invaded. We need to invest in decarbonizing our energy system.

We've got to keep this f*cking carbon in the ground. [13]

 

Despite the strong arguments that Greenpeace, Oxfam, the WWF and the David Suzuki Foundation makes, the concept of: there's a chance, likely, likelihood, may, could, may occur, models predict, models suggest, could occur, perhaps, and fairly likely scenarios doesn't create the appearance of a "settled debate." While such words are natural in all scientific disciplines, if the CO2 cult claims "absolute certainty" and "unequivocal evidence," there's no room for these terms.

 

The fact that these terms are the basis for the CO2 cult is the reason why climate skeptics and deniers exist.

 

This is why many governments don't believe in the CO2 cult but are strong armed into it by agenda driven environmental organizations.

 

This is why the global general public is environmentally, politically and socially correct on the surface but really...they don't believe in the CO2 cult.

 

The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series will continue next week on September 26, 2014 with Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier.

 

 

References:

[1] Climate impacts. Greenpeace International.

[2] Standing on the Sidelines. Oxfam. May 20, 2014. p. 3.

[3] Ibid. p. 6.

[4] Ibid. p. 7.

[5] Global Melting. Greenpeace International. June 8, 2009.

[6] Extreme weather. Greenpeace International. March 16, 2006.

[7] Dai, Aiguo, et al. A Global Dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870-2002: Relationship with Soil Moisture and Effects of Surface Warming. Journal of Hydrometeorology. Vol. 5, Iss. 6, December 2004. p. 1129.

[8] Climate Change & Extreme Weather Explained. David Suzuki Foundation.

[9] What Are Hurricanes? National Aeronautics Space Administration. August 1, 2014.

[10] Climate change in the Amazon. World Wildlife Fund.

[11] Economic impacts. David Suzuki Foundation.

[12] Health impacts. David Suzuki Foundation.

[13] Merchant, Brian. If We Release a Small Fraction of Arctic Carbon, 'We're f*cked': Climatologist. Motherboard. August 1, 2014.