Caitlin Johnstone wrote in her article: What If There Were No Official Narratives?
“The world is better off being controlled by the collective will of the people rather than the will of a few sociopathic oligarchs”
She is absolutely right:
There should not be an official narrative everyone is mandated to believe in, even when this narrative contradicts all normal logic and factual evidence, for instance, the fundamental laws of physics and gravity.
But she also believes that in such a world the global-warming-caused-by-human- activities would most likely be more successful in the public realm than the narrative of the skeptics.
I disagree and I wrote to her:
My guess would be that the anthropogenic-climate-change-narrative you mentioned would not win out.
This one is just the official European narrative and, contrarily to what most people in the world believe, this narrative did not start with green or left activism but with the ultra-reactionary Margaret Thatcher throwing money at the Royal Society of Science after hearing the theories of some Swedish meteorologist demanding of the Society to find (or create) evidence to support his views. Thatcher didn’t like British energy being dependent on striking coal miners or Arab countries but wanted to promote nuclear power instead.
My guess is, that since the up-coming ‘climate catastrophe’ is considered to be a left-wing progressive issue you like many other good people did never even bother to check out the other side of the argument, for you consider the other side to be exclusively the evil oil corporations.
I consider myself very much left-wing as well since I’m against the rich getting richer and more powerful, I’m against mega-corporations and I’m for a more just distribution of wealth and most of all I’m for a decentralization of power.
I also believe that alternative energy production by solar- or wind-power and using methane gas made from animal or human waste is a very good thing (not burning food as fuel and starving more people). The increased use of alternative energy resources locally would contribute to that very decentralization of power I would love to see in the future.
On the other hand, I believe that everything the IPCC is doing will bring even more power to the big-banking corporations and to their oligarchic main-shareholders who b.t.w. are also the major shareholders of big oil corporations and to centralized political power structures.
Forcing developing countries to sell their chances for a development away in form of carbon credits (and only a tiny corrupt elite there would profit from those sales) and at the same time allowing Goldman-Sachs and Deutsche Bank to literally speculate in and profiting from hot-air -(permissions) while giving a new boost to the otherwise failing western financial markets is not my vision of progress.
Yes, we might indeed be committing ecocide, but that might have much more to do with Monsanto’s (now Bayer’s) nefarious actions than with the benign trace-gas CO2, a gas that’s absolutely necessary for plant survival.
Fact is that CO2 levels have been several times higher during the age of the dinosaurs, and still, earth did not turn into Venus.
Fact is that according to ice-core measurements warming in the past was followed by rising levels of CO2 and not the other way around.
Fact is that the IPCC hockey stick has been seriously discredited, tree rings do not accurately measure temperature. And there is a lot of evidence that there was indeed a rather warmer time-period around 1000 A.D. followed by colder periods, called little ice-age, and 8000 years ago at the beginning of the Holocene, our current interglacial age, global average temperatures were quite a bit higher than they are today.
Fact is that this inaccuracy of the hockey stick is actually being admitted even by the IPCC, while the new substitute basis for the computer models predicting future warming is a kind of black box (in other words it’s a secret not being revealed to the public, and can therefore not be challenged by other scientists and researchers.)
Fact is that even many of the scientists who have worked for the IPCC complain that their actual scientific reports were totally corrupted by the IPCC bureaucrats who wrote the introduction to the IPCC reports, that had nothing to do with the scientists actual findings, however, these introductions were the only parts reported on by the main-stream media.
Fact is that some of the founders of the IPCC were fanatic sectarians and misanthropes connected to Club of Rome who considered- in a Neo-Malthusian and racial supremacist fashion- all human beings per se -but particularly poor human beings of color- as the root of all evils in the world and in need of being reduced.
Yes I know, that you and most left-wing people steadfastly believe that all scientists who doubt the human-caused global warming narrative are nothing else but stooges for big oil and paid by them.
But my belief is that all those scientists who support the global warming narrative are nothing else but stooges for the big banks and for speculators and psychopathic war-mongers like George Soros who is a main supporter of Friends of Earth (in Germany it’s called B.U.N.D.)
And I even do understand why it is nearly impossible for you to actually consider the other side of the issue. You like so many others cling to this global-warming faith in the very same way as I cling to my Catholic faith. When anybody maligns the Church I normally stop reading and do no longer consider his or her argument. And even though I do know that church officials have done quite a lot of wrong in the past, I still give the Church always the benefit of the doubt believing that the bad apples are nothing else but infiltrators deliberately doing harm to the Church.
After I lost all trust and faith in mainstream media and politics it is my religion I still cling to. As a non-religious person maybe you do need some other belief-system you trust in unconditionally.